Thursday, 26 April 2018

The expoential rate of global warming


Global warming is getting much worse QUICKLY



EPA: Burning wood is as sustainable as wind and solar

President Trump's EPA Says Burning Wood is Carbon Neutral, Like Wind and Solar Energy

24 April, 2018

The awkwardly named Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared that burning wood is carbon neutral. In the eyes of the Trump regime, burning wood for energy is now just as environmentally friendly as wind and solar power, despite the fact that burning biomass releases greenhouse gases.

Today’s announcement grants America’s foresters much-needed certainty and clarity with respect to the carbon neutrality of forest biomass,” said EPA Administrator, and scandal-plagued swamp creature, Scott Pruitt in a statement released yesterday.

Rather than calling it a new policy, the EPA is trying to position it as a “clarification” while pretending that it’s been the agency’s policy the entire time. But the Obama administration was opposed to calling the practice carbon neutral.

Managed forests improve air and water quality, while creating valuable jobs and thousands of products that improve our daily lives,” Pruitt continued. “This is environmental stewardship in action.”

This might come as a shock, but many scientists think that burning biomass will make climate change worse within our lifetimes.

So how can Pruitt and the Trump regime declare this move to be environmentally sound? There’s a way to argue that burning biomass is carbon neutral if you look at the calculations on a long term scale while ignoring the immediate dangers. And even the European Union has embraced this way of thinking by making sawdust into wood pellets for burning to replace coal power plants.


Photo: File photo of wood pellets burned for energy in Germany (Getty)
The only scientific argument for claiming that burning wood is carbon neutral depends almost exclusively on looking at it from a 100-year scale. To put it simply, the argument is that after you burn trees for energy, new trees can simply be regrown in their place. But when you look at it on a five, ten, or 20-year scale, the picture is much bleaker.

If we melt Arctic ice in the next 20 years, that’s not going to come back,” William Schlesinger, a biogeochemist who sits on the EPA’s Science Advisory Board told Science magazine last year.

If you do the math in isolation on a short-term scale, sure, trees are renewable. But as Schlesinger points out, we don’t have the luxury of doing our calculations for 100 years into the future. If we turn our planet into Waterworld, we can’t get those polar ice caps back.

But private industry and lobbyists are very happy with the EPA’s announcement.

Recognizing that forest biomass in the US provides a carbon neutral source of renewable energy will encourage landowners to replant trees to keep our forests healthy and intact and provide good paying jobs well into the future,” said CEO of National Alliance of Forest Owners Dave Tenny, said in the EPA’s own statement.

Again, replanting trees might be fine if you ignore the immediate impacts. But we don’t have that kind of time. Even managers for public utilities in the South are praising the move by the Trump regime.

This puts a Georgia resource on par with wind and solar and that’s good news for our state,” Tim Echols, Vice Chair of the Georgia Public Service Commission, told a talk radio station in Atlanta.

As we enter into a time in the US, I think in the next decade, when there will be a price on carbon, this will help the forest industry be competitive.”

The EPA’s decision may make the forest industry more “competitive.” But at what cost? The cost of our children and grandchildren, no doubt. But at least the forest industry can make a few more bucks.



A PREDICAMENT: The insanity of burning slow-growth forest to cut back on coal

"Comrades, pull the curtains (of the snow-bound train) and let's pretend we're moving"

Leonid Brezhnev in Soviet-era joke

This is what you get when you try to solve a predicament and save civilisation.

UK Is Cutting Down Huge 

Swaths Of American Forest To Fight Climate Change


It is not often (in fact NEVER) that I can look to InfoWars for any sense about climate change, but this is a big exception!


Apart from the obvious bias about this being about the "Left" there is little I can take exception to in this presentation.

The powers-that-be in Britain are burning biomass from slow-growth forest being cut down in Virginia to replace coal so they can say they are doing something despite the fact that burning biomass creates 8 % more carbon.

This is truly taking a situation and making it worse so they can claim they are doing something to "fight" climate change.

This falls into a similar category as geoengineering and far worse that perpetuating the myth that "sustainable energy" based on fossil fuels is going to "save the planet"

It is an illustration of the predicament of burning the planet in an attempt to maintain human industrial civilisation as well as the truism that everyone wishes to flatly deny that "human civilisation is a heat engine"

With this going on it is not hard to see why CO2 levels in the atmosphere have reached over 411 ppm and are rising.


In the meantime Britain has a real energy problem.

This last winter they have had a severe shortage of natural gas and have had to bring in more than one shipload-full from Russia (something they refuse to acknolwedge).

And then they crow about how they have done without dirty coal for THREE DAYS!!!

At the edge of extinction only insanity remains.


Cold Snap Triggering Gas Crisis in U.K. Shows Rising Supply Risk






From the Guardian


UK runs without coal power for three days in a row

Demand lower following recent warm weather, making it easier for gas, renewables and nuclear to cover UK’s needs 


The UK has been powered without coal for three days in a row, setting a new record and underlining the polluting fuel’s rapid decline.


Coal has historically been at the cornerstone of the UK’s electricity mix, but last year saw the first 24-hour period that the the country ran without the fuel since the 19th century.

New records were broken last week when zero power came from coal for nearly 55 consecutive hours.

That milestone in turn was smashed on Monday afternoon and the UK passed the 72-hour mark at 10am on Tuesday. The coal-free run came to an end after 76 hours.

Without the fossil fuel, nearly a third of Britain’s electricity was supplied by gas, followed by windfarms and nuclear on around a quarter each.


The rest came from biomass burned at Drax power station in North Yorkshire, imports from France and the Netherlands, and solar power. Drax said it expected to go without coal on Tuesday.

It seems that the Ecologist (founded by my eco-hero, Teddy Goldsmith agrees..

Hardwood forests cut down to feed Drax Power plant, Channel 4 Dispatches claims


Brendan Montague

16th April 2018

Drax Power station
Drax Power - is it really producing renewable energy?
Wikipedia
Creative Commons
A Dispatches investigation has uncovered evidence of hardwood forests being chopped down to provide 'green energy' for the UK. Experts say unique habitats rich in wildlife are under threat as Britain’s power stations switch from burning coal to wood, writes BRENDAN MONTAGUE


Huge areas of hardwood forest in the state of Virginia are being chainsawed to create 'biomass' energy in Britain as the government attempts to reach targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in efforts to tackle climate change, an investigation by Channel 4 Dispatches has found.


A key part of government efforts to hit its green energy targets is to switch from generating electricity from burning coal to burning wood - or so-called biomass. It’s a policy that is costing taxpayers more than £700 million per year through a levy on their electricity bills.

The biomass industry and government argue that because wood is a renewable source of energy and trees can be replanted to reabsorb carbon dioxide this policy is good for the environment.

Simple experiment

Antony Barnett, reporter at Dispatches, travelled to the southern states of the USA to investigate the source of wood that is now being turned into millions of tonnes of wood pellets to be burnt in Britain’s largest power station, Drax, in North Yorkshire.

Footage reveals huge areas of hardwood forest in the state of Virginia  being chopped down and removed to a factory owned by US firm Enviva that grinds up logs into pellets. A large proportion of these pellets are then shipped across the Atlantic to be burnt at Drax in the UK - one of Enviva’s main customers.

Britain has pledged to cut carbon emissions by 57 percent by 2030 and getting Drax to switch from burning coal to wood is meant to play an important part in that. Drax now produces up to 17 percent of Britain’s 'renewable' electricity, enough to power four million homes.

The power station giant claims that burning pellets instead of coal reduces carbon emissions by more than 80 percent.

However, Dispatches conducted a simple experiment at a laboratory at the University of Nottingham to compare the carbon dioxide emitted when burning wood pellets, similar to those used by Drax, instead of coal.

Dozens of scientists

It found that to burn an amount of wood pellets that would generate the same amount of electricity as coal it would actually produce roughly eight percent more carbon.

Biomass is viewed as ‘carbon neutral’ under European rules. This means Drax is not obliged to officially report the carbon emissions coming out of its chimney stack. Dispatches calculated that if Drax were to report on the full extent of its emissions it would show that last year they amounted to 11.7 million tonnes of CO2.

Drax claims that the replanting of trees means all the C02 will be reabsorbed. But scientists argue that it will take decades for forests to regrow and subsidising biomass from wood pellets is fuelling an industry that’s making climate change worse in the short term.

Professor Bill Moomaw helped lead a team that won a Nobel Peace Prize for its work on climate change at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He is one of dozens of scientists who have written to the British government, warning against this policy.

Professor Moomaw said in an interview with Dispatches: “If we take the forests and burn them the carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere instantly, in a few minutes. It takes decades to a century to replace that.

Carbon absorbed

Britain may be on track to eliminating the use of coal but they are not on track to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. We’re not going to meet our one and a half or two-degree targets that all governments, including the British government, agreed to in Paris.

"Burning more wood makes it absolutely impossible to meet that target. We now know that if we overshoot that the consequences last for 100s to a thousand or more years.  So there’s no off switch, there’s no reverse gear.”

Andy Koss, chief executive of Drax Power, defended the policy of burning wood pellets in an interview with the programme: “I am very comfortable that all the material what we source meets regulatory standards in the UK and meets our very strict sustainability criteria.”

Koss said the site Dispatches had seen being logged was atypical and that the “vast majority” of its wood comes from residue and waste material. He said: “We’ve obviously looked at this as well.  The site was a working forest, it was left unmanaged.  

"The owner of that forest wanted to clear this using standard harvesting techniques to turn it back into a working forest. That forest is being regrown. We know the owner of that particular tract - that will grow and there will be more carbon absorbed.”

Sustainability provisions

On the question of Drax’s claim that by burning wood instead of coal it reduces carbon emissions by more than 80 percent, Koss admitted it didn’t include emissions from its chimneys: “We don’t count that. The government doesn’t count that.

"It doesn’t include stack emissions because if we are sourcing sustainable biomass from working forests, where this is more growth than is being harvested, we see the carbon as being reabsorbed.”

Envier said in a statement to Dispatches that it "works to industry leading, strict sustainability and wood sourcing policies and certifications."

It added: We will not work with any supplier that does not adhere to our commitment to protecting, nurturing and growing forests. Enviva does not accept wood from old growth or independently designated conservation areas. The small family owned site allegedly being shown in the footage is made up of younger trees = not the alleged 80 to 100 years - and is not a sensitive wetland forest.”

A spokesman for the Government’s Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy told Channel 4: “Between 1990 and 2016, the UK reduced its emissions by over 40 percent. We have the most stringent biomass sustainability provisions in Europe.

"Environmentally friendly, low carbon bioenergy can help the UK to transition to a more diverse energy mix, increase our energy security, keep costs down for consumers and help us to meet our 2050 carbon targets.”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from Channel 4 Dispatches. Dispatches: The True Cost of Green Energy will be shown at 8pm on Monday 16 April on Channel 4.


PS. This is the audio of the Dispatches documentary which is not available in this country.



More from the Ecologist

No Drax! There's nothing 'sustainable' about big biomass



The Drax power station in Yorkshire is the UK's biggest CO2 emitter, burns more wood each year than the entire UK timber harvest, and is a major importer of coal from strife-stricken regions of Colombia, writes Frances Howe. This Thursday campaigners will target the company's AGM to highlight its impacts on forests, biodiversity, climate and communities, in the face of Drax's PR offensive to make biomass appear 'sustainable'.

Even the author of this article in the Guardian seems to agree.

Burning wood for power is ‘misguided’ say climate experts

Using biomass instead of fossil fuels may not be the answer to averting global warming

Analysts see next season’s wheat cop in Russia falling by at least 9%

I am always looking for signs of crop failures as a result of abrupt climate change.

The headline below seems to indicate that this is propaganda.



RT

This season's grain production in Russia has beaten last year's bumper crop and the record harvest set by the USSR in 1978, according to new data revealed by the statistics agency Rosstat.

Russia has harvested around 135.393 million tons of grain, including 85.9 million tons of wheat, during the current growing season. This is a million tons more than the previous record. Russia’s agriculture ministry revised its projections for exports, with 50 million tons of grain now expected to be shipped abroad.

However, you have to be careful for one’s own biases. Even though the crop looks to be poorer than the last (the biggest on record) the graph indicates that despite this the 2018-19 crop is still likely to be the second largest crop in the past few years.
Russia's Wheat Crop Under Threat From Miserable Start to Spring

  • Cold delayed winter-crop growth resumption, spring plantings
  • Analysts see next season’s output falling by at least 9%

25 April, 2018

Russia’s poor start to spring means farmers may struggle to collect a wheat crop that’s near to last year’s record.

Cold weather in central areas and the Volga valley delayed the resumption of winter wheat growth by about two to three weeks compared with last year, according to the Institute for Agricultural Market Studies, or IKAR. Lingering snow has also given farmers in the world’s top exporter less time to sow spring crops, potentially leading to smaller-than-expected plantings.

Smaller Wheat Crop

Russian output is expected to be at least 9 percent smaller than a year earlier
Source: USDA for seasons through 2017-18; 2018-19 figure is average of estimates from IKAR, ProZerno and SovEcon

That prompted IKAR to cut its harvest estimate to between 72 million and 78 million metric tons, down at least 9 percent from a year earlier. Consultant ProZerno sees bigger declines. The risk to Russian output comes as dryness is threatening crops in the U.S. Plains and as the International Grains Council expects global production to fall next season for the first time in at least three years.
The growing conditions are less favorable than last year,” meaning Russian yields will probably decline, said Oleg Sukhanov, chief of grains research at IKAR. “Acreage will most likely be a bit less as well.”
The crop is still expected to be one of the biggest on record, and there’s time for weather to affect output before farmers start harvesting in a couple of months. For example, since May 2017, the U.S. Department of Agriculture steadily raised its forecast for Russia’s production this season from 67 million tons to 85 million tons.
Conditions are better in Russia’s south, the country’s main wheat-growing and exporting region, and there’s a chance the harvest there will be bigger than last year’s, Sukhanov said. Consultant ProZerno in Moscow raised its estimate for the total wheat crop by 2.7 percent earlier this month, citing an improved outlook for the south. Rains in central parts were “really good” for winter wheat in the past week, said Andrey Sizov Jr., SovEcon’s managing director.
Here’s a breakdown of estimates:
  • IKAR sees 2018-19 output at 72 million to 78 million tons.
    • It previously forecast production at as much as 82 million tons.
  • ProZerno expects the harvest to total 71.9 million tons.
  • SovEcon predicts output to be 77.4 million tons.

The price of both crops is now going up again. This is the first year since I have been following the prices that there has been such a persistent uptrend in prices. (especially corn)

Russia Using Electronic Warfare Over the Skies of Syria

American General Says 'Adversaries' Are Jamming AC-130 Gunships in Syria
Russia, which already appears to be waging a hybrid conflict against the United States in the country, is very likely behind these attacks.



25 April, 2018


The head of the U.S. Special Operations Command says unspecified opponents in Syria, almost certainly Russian or Russian-support forces, have reportedly launched electronic warfare attacks against U.S. Air Force AC-130 gunships operating in the country, as well as other communications links. This is the latest in a string of reports that highlight the growing threat of jamming and other non-kinetic attacks to American military activities in the region and in general.


U.S. Army General Raymond Thomas revealed the new details in a keynote speech at the U.S. Geospatial Intelligence Foundation’s 2018 GEOINT Symposium. The officer, who is in charge of all of America’s special operations activities, used the anecdote to describe some of the challenges his operator face in sending and receiving intelligence and other critical information across the battlefield.


Right now in Syria, we’re in the most aggressive EW [electronic warfare] environment on the planet from our adversaries,” Thomas said. “They’re testing us every day, knocking our communications down, disabling our AC-130s, etcetera.”


Other reports have suggested the general actually referred to the U.S. Air Force’s EC-130H Compass Call electronic warfare aircraft, but this does not appear to be the case when listening to recordings of the talk. In addition, Thomas says “our” aircraft and the EC-130s are not part of the Air Force’s Special Operations Command, which is assigned to SOCOM. Of course, he could also just be using "our" to describe American forces in Syria in general.

You can watch General Thomas' full speech below. He makes his comments about Syria at around 9:20 in the runtime.





For AC-130 crews, an enemy jamming their communications systems or data links could be especially perilous for both American special operators and supporting conventional forces and innocent bystanders. The gunships rely heavily on those systems to help locate and positively identify targets and then coordinate their attacks with other manned and unmanned aircraft and joint tactical air controllers on the ground.


Without those added tools, it can be extremely difficult for the crew to differentiate between friendly and hostile forces, and civilians, in the heat of a firefight. This is especially so at night, when AC-130s almost exclusively operate, and when American personnel are calling for support in so-called “danger close” situations where they might be situated very near to the intended target.


This could force a gunship to abort a potentially critical attack run or otherwise delay desperately needed fire support. If the crew were to press ahead with the mission, they could be doing so with increased risks. We have seen various examples of how badly this could play out in the past few years.


During a now infamous terrorist ambush of American and Nigerien troops in Niger in October 2017, French Mirage multi-role combat aircraft that arrived overhead did not attack the enemy fighters for fear of hitting friendly forces who were “overlapping” with the militants. The degraded capability, or outright inability, of U.S. personnel to communicate with the pilots was reportedly a factor.


In October 2015, an AC-130U Spooky gunship inadvertently destroyed a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan that the humanitarian group Médecins Sans Frontières, also known as doctors without borders, was operating at the time. A subsequent investigation showed that a key data link on the aircraft was not working at the time and that U.S. special operators on the ground blocks away from the intended target had decided to try and “talk in” the strike using only verbal descriptions of a building they could not physically see.


A friendly fire incident in Afghanistan in 2014, in which a B-1 bomber accidentally killed five Americans, offers yet another example of how things can go wrong. A final review of that incident found that the inability of the aircraft’s targeting system to detect infrared strobes that special operators use to identify themselves to friendly aircraft and miscommunication were both contributing factors.


Jamming GPS receivers could also more directly impair a gunships ability to accurately attack targets. The AC-130W Stinger II, one of the types we know has been flying over Syria and Iraq, relies heavily on precision-guided munitions, including GPS-guided types such as the GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb (SDB).


Many of the same factors could apply to any EC-130H or even regular C-130 operations in Syria. In addition to being able to jam targets themselves, the Compass Calls can locate enemy emitters and quickly relay that information on to other units who can then take additional action to either gather information or strike those targets.


And while the United States has set up a number of forward operating bases, complete with airstrips in many cases, to help resupply forces in Syria, the jamming could impede airlift missions or airdrops of supplies, the latter of which could be vital in an emergency. Not only do C-130s use GPS-enabled navigation systems to guide them to their drop zones, the U.S. Air Force also now employs GPS-assisted airdrop systems to better guide those deliveries closer to their intended recipients. This reduces the chances the packages will end up in a difficult or impossible to reach location, get damaged after impacting especially rugged terrain, or fall into enemy hands.


Depending on the how widespread and effective the electronic attacks are, they might have an impact on other types of U.S. manned and unmanned aircraft operating over Syria, too. A wide array of fixed-wing combat and combat support aircraft, as well as helicopters, are presently supporting the American-led fight against ISIS in the eastern part of the country.

And though General Thomas did not name any adversaries specifically, Russia has and continues to demonstrate its expanding electronic warfare capabilities, especially in Europe, and has publicly stated that it has deployed them in Syria. Syrian government forces or militias aligned with the country’s dictator Bashar Al Assad could have some capabilities of their own, as well, but would have almost certainly sourced them from the Kremlin.


Russian mercenaries could even be the ones operating the Syrian equipment, allowing officials Moscow to distance themselves from attacks on American troops. We at The War Zone have already noted previous U.S. military reports about GPS jamming in Syria and other information about installing jam-resistant equipment on secretive spy planes supporting special operations forces in the region.


It’s also worth noting that the full extent of Russian electronic warfare capabilities in Syria, or those of any other actor, remains unclear. Previous reports have suggested that unmanned aircraft, such as the MQ-9 Reaper, have not suffered as a result of at least some of the jamming, suggesting the attacks could be highly localized or otherwise not powerful enough to disable microwave satellite communications data links. Thomas’ remarks, however, would seem to suggest the situation is far more dangerous than we previously understood.


Regardless, the Kremlin has every reason to do as much as it can, as I have written before with regards to the apparent jamming of American drones:


And it’s hard to imagine that Russia would not take advantage of this capability in its larger effort to impede American activities in Eastern Syria, which is staunchly opposes. Jamming the short-range drones limits the ability American troops to gain a better understanding of the situation around them, which can in turn only hamper their mission planning process and increase risks for them during more extended operations.


Jamming would also be a way to help keep U.S. unmanned aircraft out of Western Syria, where Assad's regime is more firmly in control and where his forces continue to commit crimes against humanity with impunity. Still, manned aircraft from the American-led coalition fighting ISIS long ago stopped flying in that part of the country and the dubious de-confliction line Russia and the United States have agreed to in order to separate their operations should preclude any drones from missions there, as well.


Jamming the linkages between a drone and its controllers on the ground is also a relatively low-risk proposition for Russia. If it succeeds in destroying the aircraft it is unlikely that an American service member will die in the process, reducing the likelihood of any immediate escalation. The largely opaque relationship actual Russian troops in the country have with private military contractors, militias aligned with Assad, Iranian personnel, and Syrian government forces give the Kremlin significant avenues to deny any responsibility whatsoever.”


The same logic applies to more widespread electronic warfare attacks against other aircraft and communications nodes on the ground. It makes even more sense after the U.S.-led missile strikes on Assad’s chemical weapons infrastructure on April 14, 2018. Though, as we noted, there have been reports that this has been going on for years now, the Kremlin is only likely to step up these activities as a low-cost, but still direct retaliatory response to the missile barrage. It is a much more deniable and discreet way of harassing the United States than other threats the Russians have made, such as reported plans to supply the Syrian regime with long-range S-300 surface-to-air missiles.


More to the point, the electronic warfare attacks, which can hamper operations or reduce confidence in certain communications and navigation systems, are well in line with Russia’s new hybrid warfare concepts, which also involve the use of proxy forces and information operations to muddy the waters surrounding various conflicts and obscure its involvement. General Thomas’ speech is only the most recent indication that there is truly a low-grade fight occurring between Russian and U.S. forces in Syria, as well as their respective partners, despite official narratives to the contrary.



There is every indication that the Kremlin will continue to conduct these types of activities for the foreseeable future as is seeks to push American forces out of Syria for good




Judge Nap: How did Trump get authorization to bomb Syria?

OPCW Finds No Chemical Weapons at Syrian Facilities Bombed by US - Russian MoD


Russia Official: ‘OPCW Found No Chemical Weapons’ at Syrian Facilities Barzeh, Han Shinshar


25 April, 2018

Last week, the fact-finding mission of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) visited a site in the Damascus suburb of Douma to collect samples in connection with the alleged April 7 chemical attack.


Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the Russian General Staff Col. Gen. Sergey Rudskoy has announced that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had confirmed that there were no chemical weapons found at the Barzeh research center in Damascus despite the US officials' claims.
The official further noted that thousands of people could have died if there was any chemical weapon on the sites that were attacked by the US-led coalition.
"Immediately after the attacks, many people who worked at these destroyed facilities and just bystanders without any protective equipment visited them. None of them got poisoned with toxic agents," Rudskoy said.
He said the logic of strikes on alleged facilities with toxic agents in Syria was unclear, because if toxic agents had theoretically been stored there, tens of thousands of people would have died after the cruise missile strikes.
On US Airstrikes in Syria

Intelligence data shows that Osa, Kvadrat, Buk, Strela-10, Pantsir and S-125 air defense systems destroyed 46 cruise missiles during the recent US-led strikes on Syria, Rudskoy said, adding that only 13 of 76 reported Western airstrikes hit targets near the Barzah research center in Syria.
"Obtained intelligence data, objective control from air defense systems, work on the ground and the questioning of witnesses show that Pantsir, Osa, Strela-10, Buk, Kvadrat and S-125… destroyed 46 cruise missiles [in Syria]," Rudskoy said.
According to Rudskoy, most of the precision weapons were destroyed by the Soviet-era air defense systems developed 40 years ago, with S-125, Osa and Kvadrat among them.

According to the military official, Russian specialists are examining missiles of the US-led coalition, including Tomahawk, which were captured in Syria to improve Russian weapons.
"Two [missiles] including Tomahawk cruise missile and a high-precision aviation missile were delivered to Moscow… They are now being examined by our experts. The results of this work will be used to improve Russian weapons," he told a briefing.
At the same time, air defense expert of the Russian Defense Ministry Sergei Beznogih said that the Russian General Staff showed remains of cruise missiles downed by Syrian air defense systems to journalists.
"Elements of the sea-based US-made Tomahawk [missiles] and air-based UK-made and French-made SCALP and Storm Shadow [missiles] were displayed," Beznogih said.
Meanwhile, Col. Gen. Sergey Rudskoy noted that only seven western missiles struck the Syrian Han Shinshar facility, which allegedly housed chemical weapons, not 22 as the Pentagon claims.

The senior official stressed that chemical weapons were never developed or stored in Han Shinshar, located in the province of Homs, adding that the storage was struck twice, not seven times, as the US side claims.
"According to the statements of the Pentagon’s representatives, 22 missiles hit the above-ground facilities. We registered no more than seven hits, which is shown in the space image," he told a briefing.
Speaking further, Rudskoy noted that expensive "smart" US missiles only hit outbuildings in Syria which had nothing to do with the army.
"The expensive and so-called ‘smart’ missiles inflicted the greatest damage on outbuildings which had nothing to do with military activity," he told a briefing.
At the same time, according to the senior military official, Russia will supply new air defense systems to Syria in the near future.
"Russian specialists will continue training Syrian military personnel, and will assist in mastering new air defense systems, which will be supplied in the near future," Rudskoy said.
Earlier, reports have emerged about an alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, published by an online Syrian opposition news portals on April 7, claiming that a chemical attack took place in Syria in the city of Douma near Damascus.

Reacting to the reports, the United States and the European Union said the Syrian government of President Bashar Assad was behind the attack.
Moscow has called the news reports about the attack "hoaxes" and warned against military attacks against Syrian areas where Russian troops are deployed.

The Russian Reconciliation Center for Syria representatives inspected the location of the alleged attack and questioned local doctors, who said that they had not received individuals with symptoms of any chemical poisoning.
However, despite the lack of evidence, the US, alongside France and the UK, launched a massive missile attack against Syria on April 14 in response to the alleged chemical attack in the city of Douma.