Otapanje leda na polovima

[Gaff]

S jedne strane:

The melting spread quickly. Melt maps derived from the three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet's surface had melted. By July 12, 97 percent had melted.

Dok sa druge strane:

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
   

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/24jul_greenland/

[HAL]

Чисто да се неко не залети и одмах ово припише једној од највећих научних превара прошлог века

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Full Movie)

[zakk]

Hoćeš da kažeš da zapravo nema promena u klimi ili nema dokaza da ih je čovek izazvao?

[Gaff]

Vesti iz 2032


http://boingboing.net/2012/07/25/tom-the-dancing-bug-what-wil.html

[Biki]

Giant melting da Vinci artwork recreated on Arctic sea ice

[HAL]

Hoćeš da kažeš da zapravo nema promena u klimi ili nema dokaza da ih je čovek izazvao?

Има промена у клими, али нису изазване човековим деловањем. Као што тренутна клима није одувек била оваква, већ је пролазила кроз бројне фазе, тако ми сада присуствујемо једној, надам се не уводном периоду у нешто погубно за цивилизацију. Људи погрешно поистовећују сопствену недаћ са планетом, па мисле ако њима није лепо да ни са Земљом није све у реду. Погледај документарац, не знам колико те интересује тема, али сматрам да је корисно за разбијање једноумља које се тендециозно форсира.
Још увек нисам формирао мишљење које бих изложио о разлозима за фабриковање овако нечег битног, тако да бих ту стао. За сада посматрам импликације, интересујем се, и дозвољавам времену да учини своје.

Корисно да се баци поглед, процурели документи, мејлови и други фајлови који указују на штимовање и лажирање резултата у сврхе одржања теорије глобалног загревања. Линк

George Carlin on The Environment (HQ)

[Biki]

nadam se da se necete ljutiti ali moram da okacim 30 Seconds to Mars

30 Seconds To Mars - A Beautiful Lie

i da dodam za one koji  nisu znali da u bendu svira Tomo Milicevic 

[mac]

Biki, gde se ti trenutno nalaziš? Ovaj video se ne vidi iz Srbije.

[Biki]

probaj njihov blog ili FB stranicu, ne znam zasto ne radi tamo, tako se neki spotovi iz Evrope ne mogu da vide ovde .

[Meho Krljic]

Novo istraživanje, tek publikovano tvrdi da zagrevanja ima i da krive čovjeka za isto:
 
http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

[Nightflier]

S obzirom na to da leto '89. pamtim po emitovanju prve sezone Star Trek: The Next Generation u SFRJ i po panici koju su izazvale temperature od 31 stepeni Celzijusovih, rekao bih da je gloabalno zagrevanje uzelo maha u vražju mater.

[дејан]

овај чланак би требало да буде овде и наставља се на оно што је мехо постовао...све у реду, немам примедби до претпоследњег пасуса,
е после тога ме не може убедити да је бело-бело и црно-црно макар погин'о на зебри.

What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

[Gaff]

Huge carbon-sucking funnels found in Southern Ocean

http://www.news.com.au/world/carbon-sicking-funnels-in-ocean-revealed/story-fndir2ev-1226438188751

[scallop]

Zgodno. Sad možemo da ga duvamo.

[Meho Krljic]

Evo još jedne novopublikovane studije (NASA) koja potvrđuje zagrevanje u poslednjih trideset godina i tvrdi da se bez ljudskog faktora ovako nešto ne bi moglo događati:
 
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1205276109.abstract
 
Njujork tajms daje digestiranu verziju:
 
Study Finds More of Earth Is Hotter and Says Global Warming Is at Work

[Lord Kufer]

Do pojave ljudskih bića, klima na planeti Zemlji bila je stabilna i nisu se dešavala vruća i ledena doba...

[Meho Krljic]

To što kažeš naravno nije tačno, ali može se reći da imamo sve više indicija da zaista industrijska emisija gasova staklene bašte povećava temperaturu na planeti ubrzanim tempom. Mi i inače sada izlazimo iz mini ledenog doba, tvrde klimatolozi, ali studije poput ove argumetnuju da se zagrevamo brže nego što bi bilo prirodno jer sprečavamo emisiju toplote u vasionu.

[Lord Kufer]

ja verujem da tu ima dosta budženja kako bi se uvele nove takse...

[Meho Krljic]

To je jedan deo sumnjivog dela. Drugi deo, potencijalno mnogo dalekosežniji je da se ovime pokušava lobirati da zemlje koje danas doživljavaju ubrzani ekonomski rast - prevashodno Kina, ali i druge zemlje - pređu na "zelene tehnologije", ograniče svoju emisiju CO2 i drugih gasova staklene bašte itd. Što bi, razume, se usporilo njihov privredni rast, poskupelo proizvodnju itd. Mislim, tu je glavna kontroverza. Tu se lome koplja. Kinezi (ili Rusi ili već.. Brazilci) mogu da prihvate da je njihovo zagađenje danas uzrok zagrevanja planete ali će sa pravom da kažu zapadnim državama "A kad ste VI imali privredni rast na ime prljavih tehnologija, vas niko nije ubeđivao da ih napustite. Nećemo sad ni mi." I opet, ko je tu u pravu - Amerikanac može da kaže "Da, ali sad su jaja došla do guzice", ali došla su do guzice i američkim emisijama CO2 u prošlih 100 godina tako da, teško da mogu da nekom drže moralne pridike. Naravno, ako jaja jesu došla do guzice, kako tvrde ove silne studije - načelno zapadnog porekla, bilo bi dobro da Kina, Brazil itd. iskuliraju ali kako to od njih tražiti i očekivati?

[scallop]

Muka je što ne mogu svi da žive od zelenašenja. Neko mora i da proizvodi.

[Lord Kufer]

Ako se ispostavi da će tehnologija ugljeničnih nano-cevčica da zameni bakarne provodnike (a Kinezi su pokupovali sve rudnike bakra), onda će i fini ugljenik sakupljen u filterima postati značajan resurs  A imaće ga oni koji su poslušali "stručnjake" iz NASE, a oni koji su odbili, imaće i dalje skupe bakarne žice. A ugljenik će, ovamo, preko poreza na zagađivanje, narod besplatno darivati korporacijama...

[Meho Krljic]

Muka je što ne mogu svi da žive od zelenašenja. Neko mora i da proizvodi.

Sasvim tačno, uostalom veliki deo američke potrošačke robe proizvodi se po Kinama itd. nezgodno je to kolo u koje su se zajednički uhvatili. A ispaštamo svi! Sem ako studije lažu, onda je okej. 

[дејан]

But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

да цитирам себе како цитирам 'екс скептика'
села хистерија око људског уништавања климе се фасцинантно поклапа са индустријским развојем земаља које прете белом англосаксонском човеку као вођи 'новог напредног света'.
док су листе показивале недодирљивост европских земаља и САДа на врху индустријске (и остале производње) климатске промене (и тад јасно видљиве) су најживље биле у СФ романима и причама (и понеком филму). но онда је кина помолила своју ружну главу, а бразил најавио да ће помало и сам експлоатисати своја природна богатства, и ред је био да се мрачна предвиђања преселе са папира у медије, а они ретко пропуштају, да поред узгредног спомињања глобалног отопљавања, ламентирају над неконтролисаним развојем индустрије дојучерашњих колонија.
наравно, не једном сам на ЦННу слушао претње о даљем ремећењу климатских услова, ако афричке земље почну са експлоатацијом својих немалих ресурса....


а да се не дотичемо (пошто се климатски експерти не дотичу) 2100!!!!!! признатих нуклеарних експлозија од 1945. на овамо којима смо вежбали растегљивост система у коме живимо.


едитовао неписмености

[Meho Krljic]

Nije vezano za otapanje, ali ne znam da li imamo topik o vodi:
 
 Demand for water outstrips supply 

 
 

Almost one-quarter of the world’s population lives in regions where groundwater is being used up faster than it can be replenished, concludes a comprehensive global analysis of groundwater depletion, published this week in Nature¹.
Across the world, human civilizations depend largely on tapping vast reservoirs of water that have been stored for up to thousands of years in sand, clay and rock deep underground. These massive aquifers — which in some cases stretch across multiple states and country borders — provide water for drinking and crop irrigation, as well as to support ecosystems such as forests and fisheries.
Yet in most of the world’s major agricultural regions, including the Central Valley in California, the Nile delta region of Egypt, and the Upper Ganges in India and Pakistan, demand exceeds these reservoirs' capacity for renewal.
 
 
“This overuse can lead to decreased groundwater availability for both drinking water and growing food,” says Tom Gleeson, a hydrogeologist at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, and lead author of the study. Eventually, he adds, it “can lead to dried up streams and ecological impacts”.
Gleeson and his colleagues combined a global hydrological model and a data set of groundwater use to estimate how much groundwater is being extracted by countries around the world. They also estimated each aquifer's rate of ‘recharge’ — the speed at which groundwater is being replenished. Using this approach, the researchers were able to determine the groundwater ‘footprint’ for nearly 800 aquifers worldwide (see map above).
In calculating how much stress each source of groundwater is under, Gleeson and colleagues also looked in detail at the water flows needed to sustain the health of ecosystems such as grasses, trees and streams.
“To my knowledge, this is the first water-stress index that actually accounts for preserving the health of the environment,” says Jay Famiglietti, a hydrologist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the study. “That’s a critical step.”
 Overexploitation The authors found that20% of the world’s aquifers are being overexploited, some massively so. For example, the groundwater footprint for the Upper Ganges aquifer is more than 50 times the size of its aquifer, “so the rate of extraction is quite unsustainable there”, says Gleeson.
Yet Famiglietti notes that the study, which focuses on quantifying the rate of groundwater tapping versus recharging, underscores the lack of data we have on the amount of water currently in the world's aquifers. “The only way to answer the sustainability question is to answer how much water we actually have,” he says.
He predicts that a comprehensive picture would reveal that many more of the world’s aquifers are being tapped unsustainably. As certain regions face more frequent droughts and population growth, full characterization of aquifers worldwide, although expensive, will be necessary, adds Famiglietti.
But Gleeson adds that there is at least one significant source of hope. As much as 99% of the fresh, unfrozen water on the planet is groundwater. “It’s this huge reservoir that we have the potential to manage sustainably,” he says. “If we choose to.”
 

[Meho Krljic]

Ameri vele kako su oni postali superodgovorni glede karbon futprinta:
 
 AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low   

  By By KEVIN BEGOS, Associated Press – 2 days ago   
PITTSBURGH (AP) — In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.
Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.
Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming.
"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado.
In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that energy related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. Energy emissions make up about 98 percent of the total. The Associated Press contacted environmental experts, scientists and utility companies and learned that virtually everyone believes the shift could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy.
While conservation efforts, the lagging economy and greater use of renewable energy are factors in the CO2 decline, the drop-off is due mainly to low-priced natural gas, the agency said.
A frenzy of shale gas drilling in the Northeast's Marcellus Shale and in Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana has caused the wholesale price of natural gas to plummet from $7 or $8 per unit to about $3 over the past four years, making it cheaper to burn than coal for a given amount of energy produced. As a result, utilities are relying more than ever on gas-fired generating plants.
Both government and industry experts said the biggest surprise is how quickly the electric industry turned away from coal. In 2005, coal was used to produce about half of all the electricity generated in the U.S. The Energy Information Agency said that fell to 34 percent in March, the lowest level since it began keeping records nearly 40 years ago.
The question is whether the shift is just one bright spot in a big, gloomy picture, or a potentially larger trend.
Coal and energy use are still growing rapidly in other countries, particularly China, and CO2 levels globally are rising, not falling. Moreover, changes in the marketplace — a boom in the economy, a fall in coal prices, a rise in natural gas — could stall or even reverse the shift. For example, U.S. emissions fell in 2008 and 2009, then rose in 2010 before falling again last year.
Also, while natural gas burns cleaner than coal, it still emits some CO2. And drilling has its own environmental consequences, which are not yet fully understood.
"Natural gas is not a long-term solution to the CO2 problem," Pielke warned.
The International Energy Agency said the U.S. has cut carbon dioxide emissions more than any other country over the last six years. Total U.S. carbon emissions from energy consumption peaked at about 6 billion metric tons in 2007. Projections for this year are around 5.2 billion, and the 1990 figure was about 5 billion.
China's emissions were estimated to be about 9 billion tons in 2011, accounting for about 29 percent of the global total. The U.S. accounted for approximately 16 percent.
Mann called it "ironic" that the shift from coal to gas has helped bring the U.S. closer to meeting some of the greenhouse gas targets in the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming, which the United States never ratified. On the other hand, leaks of methane from natural gas wells could be pushing the U.S. over the Kyoto target for that gas.
Even with such questions, public health experts welcome the shift, since it is reducing air pollution.
"The trend is good. We like it. We are pleased that we're shifting away from one of the dirtiest sources to one that's much cleaner," said Janice Nolen, an American Lung Association spokeswoman. "It's been a real surprise to see this kind of shift. We certainly didn't predict it."
Power plants that burn coal produce more than 90 times as much sulfur dioxide, five times as much nitrogen oxide and twice as much carbon dioxide as those that run on natural gas, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. Sulfur dioxide causes acid rain and nitrogen oxides lead to smog.
Bentek, an energy consulting firm in Colorado, said that sulfur dioxide emissions at larger power plants in 28 Eastern, Midwestern and Southern states fell 34 percent during the past two years, and nitrous oxide fell 16 percent. Natural gas has helped the power industry meet federal air pollution standards earlier than anticipated, Bentek said.
Last year the Environmental Protection Agency issued its first rules to limit CO2 emissions from power plants, but the standards don't take effect until 2014 and 2015. Experts had predicted that the rules might reduce emissions over the long term, but they didn't expect so many utilities to shift to gas so early. And they think price was the reason.
"A lot of our units are running much more gas than they ever have in the past," said Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for Ohio-based American Electric Power Co. "It really is a reflection of what's happened with shale gas."
"In the near term, all that you're going to build is a natural gas plant," she said. Still, she warned: "Natural gas has been very volatile historically. Whether shale gas has really changed that — the jury is still out. I don't think we know yet."
Jason Hayes, a spokesman for the American Coal Council, based in Washington, predicted cheap gas won't last.
"Coal is going to be here for a long time. Our export markets are growing. Demand is going up around the world. Even if we decide not to use it, everybody else wants it," he said. Hayes also said the industry expects new coal-fired power plants will be built as pollution-control technology advances: "The industry will meet the challenge" of the EPA regulations.
The boom in gas production has come about largely because of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Large volumes of water, plus sand and chemicals, are injected to break shale rock apart and free the gas.
Environmentalists say that the fluids can pollute underground drinking water supplies and that methane leaks from drilling cause serious air pollution and also contribute to global warming. The industry and many government officials say the practice is safe when done properly. But there have been cases in which faulty wells did pollute water, and there is little reliable data about the scale of methane leakage.
"The Sierra Club has serious doubts about the net benefits of natural gas," said Deborah Nardone, director of the group's Beyond Natural Gas campaign.
"Without sufficient oversight and protections, we have no way of knowing how much dangerous pollution is being released into Americans' air and water by the gas industry. For those reason, our ultimate goal is to replace coal with clean energy and energy efficiency and as little natural gas as possible."
Wind supplied less than 3 percent of the nation's electricity in 2011 according to EIA data, and solar power was far less. Estimates for this year suggest that coal will account for about 37 percent of the nation's electricity, natural gas 30 percent, and nuclear about 19 percent.
Some worry that cheap gas could hurt renewable energy efforts.
"Installation of new renewable energy facilities has now all but dried up, unable to compete on a grid now flooded with a low-cost, high-energy fuel," two experts from Colorado's Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute said in an essay posted this week on Environment360, a Yale University website.
How much further the shift from coal to natural gas can go is unclear. Bentek says that power companies plan to retire 175 coal-fired plants over the next five years. That could bring coal's CO2 emissions down to 1980 levels. However, the EIA predicts prices of natural gas will start to rise a bit next year, and then more about eight years from now.
Despite unanswered questions about the environmental effects of drilling, the gas boom "is actually one of a number of reasons for cautious optimism," Mann said. "There's a lot of doom and gloom out there. It is important to point out that there is still time" to address global warning. Associated Press writers Seth Borenstein in Washington and Jonathan Fahey in New York contributed to this story.
 On the Net:

• U.S. Energy Information Agency: http://bit.ly/MRLOFR
• Environment360: http://bit.ly/Qu8ebk

[scallop]

Lažu kučke. Oni su svoj doprinos večim delom autsorsovali, pa sad frkću na druge.

[Lord Kufer]

Govna boje smrada 

[Meho Krljic]

Lažu kučke. Oni su svoj doprinos večim delom autsorsovali, pa sad frkću na druge.

Pa, to, preselili veliki deo industrije na istok i sad su kao oni gud gajs a Kinezi su zlice.

[Meho Krljic]

Mićo, reaguj: Najdraža kineska reka pocrvenela:
 
 Yangtze River Turns Red: Photos Of China's Once Golden, Now Scarlet Pathway [PICTURES]  

The Yangtze River, the third longest river in the world traditionally known as the "golden watercourse," mysteriously blushed for the first time on Sept. 6. Residents in the surrounding area near the city of Chongqing, where the Yangtze connects to the Jialin River, literally stopped in their tracks when they noticed their once golden river had turned a shocking shade of red.
For photos of the once golden Yangtze River, check out the pictures in the photo gallery above. For photos of what the newly-red Yangtze looks like, take a look at these photos here.
Nobody is quite sure what caused the color change, but residents carefully crept down to the riverbanks on Thursday and Friday to save some of the red river water in bottles, likely for posterity's sake. When they lifted their bottles from their water, Chinese citizens were surprised to find the water was completely opaque and had a similar orange-red appearance as tomato juice.
Even though the water doesn't look too safe, the new beet-red color of the river didn't stop people from going about their business. According to the Daily Mail, workers who rely on the Yangtze as their main source of income, including fishermen, continued about their daily work as if nothing were unusual. Officials are investigating the river's transformation, as nobody is quite sure what caused it.
The Yangtze River, Wikipedia explains, is key to the vitality of both China's economy and culture:
"The prosperous Yangtze River Delta generates as much as 20% of the PRC's GDP. The Yangtze River flows through a wide array of ecosystems and is itself habitat to several endemic and endangered species including the Chinese alligator and the Yangtze sturgeon. For thousands of years, people have used the river for water, irrigation, sanitation, transportation, industry, boundary-marking and war. The Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River is the largest hydro-electric power station in the world."
Yangtze River Turns Red: How Did It Happen?
As officials investigate the Yangtze, early predictions from scientists say the red reaction was likely a result of pollution.
Emily Stanley, a limnologist (study of freshwater science) at the University of Wisconsin, said it's possible microorganisms could have caused the change in the river.
"When water turns red, the thing a lot of people think of first is red tide," Stanley told LiveScience. "But the algae that causes red tide is a marine group and not a freshwater group, so it's highly, highly unlikely that this is a red-tide-related phenomenon."
It wouldn't be surprising to believe pollution is the cause. According to Wikipedia, the Yangtze River "has suffered from industrial pollution, agricultural run-off, siltation, and loss of wetland and lakes," which have made flooding considerably worse, especially given the heavy rainfall in that region of China. Even though some sections of the Yangtze are currently protected as nature reserves, the Daily Mail noted that last December, the Jian River, which connects to the Yangtze, had turned red "after becoming polluted by a powerful dye." Reports say the dye was dumped into a storm drain in the city of Luoyang by two illegal dye workshops. The factories were eventually raided by officials and their machinery was disassembled.
The Yangtze's redness was most pronounced near Chongqing, but Chinese residents have also reported the red water at several other points. Officials still investigating the cause.

[ALEKSIJE D.]

Što vama smeta otapanje polova? To je baš super. Svi ima da živimo na moru. Amerikanci omogućavaju svakome da živi svoj san, tako da će silna srbadija koja vazda čezne za toplim morima, moći uživati u večitom letu i plažama koje se šire ispod prvog sprata solitera na Novom Beogradu...
A tek što će kultura da nam procveta, splavovi ima da budu prvoklasna investicija ( i tako su nešto zanemareni u kulturnoj ponudi ).

[scallop]

To smo već napisali. Doći će i Holanđani sa puškama.

[Barbarin]

Gledao sam skoro neki "dokumentarac". šta bi se desilo kad bi se stvarno otopili polovi i Srbija ne bi bila pod nikakvom vodom, skoro pa ne promenjeno.

[ALEKSIJE D.]

Dok sve kineze ne potera na masovno močanje, pa da vidiš kako ima da oplivamo...

[scallop]

Niko ovde ne razmišlja trezveno o tom topljenju. A imamo podatke o prošlom topljenju. Eno, kopaju po dnu Baltika (bio je na suvom) i nalaze artefakte od pre desetak hiljada godina. Šta mislite gde su otišli oni koji su hiljadama godina uživali u blagodetima okeana? Arheolozi su pronašli ogromne naslage otvorenih i pojedenih školjaka na obalama. E, pokušali su da odu tamo gde su već bili drugi ljudi koji nisu jeli samo školjke i ribe. I, kako su dočekani? Naravno da su se mlatili oko svakog mesta gde se dalo preživeti. Tako će neko doći i u Srbiju. Možda već dolaze.


http://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/index.php/topic,7722.msg188523.html#msg188523

[ALEKSIJE D.]

I time je objašnjeno svo ovo silno ratovanje po našim prostorima. Ljudi traže suvo.

[mac]

What would the world be like if the land masses were spread out the same way as now - only rotated by an angle of 90 degrees?

http://what-if.xkcd.com/10/

[Truba]

ako za spol kažete pol zašto za pol ne kažete spol 

[scallop]

What would the world be like if the land masses were spread out the same way as now - only rotated by an angle of 90 degrees?

http://what-if.xkcd.com/10/

Ja, mac, veću glupost od ovoga nisam video.

[Ghoul]

to je zato što si preskočio trubino trubljenje. 

[scallop]

Ja Black swana odavno ne uzimam ozbiljno.

[mac]

Ja, mac, veću glupost od ovoga nisam video.

Napisano je da bude pokušaj naučno potkovane gluposti. Ovo je deseti "what if" članak u nizu. Pogledaj prethodnih devet (ima dugme Prev). Ovaj sam stavio ovde zato što je 1. šaljiv, 2. ima veze sa geologijom, a time na dugom štapu i sa ledom na polovima.

[scallop]

Pokušao sam to da čitam, a onda sam te ispsovao. Očekivao sam nešto ozbiljnije.

[mac]

Meni je potrebna dnevna doza inteligentne gluposti, da razblaži svu ostalu glupost. Ponadao sam se da će biti od koristi i nekom drugom, ako ne baš svima.

[Truba]

ne znam šta nije jasno

led se brže otapa na spolovima nego na polovima 

[Alexdelarge]

a na spolovilima?

[Truba]

a zna se i zalijepiti 

[Gaff]

Dobro je, bar vetra ima dovoljno...


Study: There is enough wind on this planet to meet our entire energy needs

(via io9)


http://io9.com/5941871/study-there-is-enough-wind-on-this-planet-to-meet-our-entire-energy-needs

[Barbarin]

Ima ga, isto kao i Sunca, al se jako, jako, jako slabo koriste.

[mac]

Možda zato što bi smetalo avionima, pticama, vazdušnim strujama, đubrenju Amazonije sa jednog delića afričke pustinje...

[scallop]

Gde ga nađe! Pa, neka ne dižu vetrenjače u depresiji Bodele, mada elise ne zadržavaju prašinu.