ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

NAUKA I KVAZINAUKA (izvorište inspiracije za mnoga SF dela) => PRIRODNE NAUKE => Topic started by: Gaff on 26-07-2012, 10:56:11

Title: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Gaff on 26-07-2012, 10:56:11
S jedne strane:
Quote
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:
Quote
"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/ (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/24jul_greenland/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: HAL on 26-07-2012, 11:27:16
Чисто да се неко не залети и одмах ово припише једној од највећих научних превара прошлог века

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Full Movie) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE#)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: zakk on 26-07-2012, 12:25:21
Hoćeš da kažeš da zapravo nema promena u klimi ili nema dokaza da ih je čovek izazvao?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Gaff on 26-07-2012, 16:52:49
Vesti iz 2032


http://boingboing.net/2012/07/25/tom-the-dancing-bug-what-wil.html (http://boingboing.net/2012/07/25/tom-the-dancing-bug-what-wil.html)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Biki on 26-07-2012, 17:01:03
Giant melting da Vinci artwork recreated on Arctic sea ice (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIXPh9v8Z08#ws)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: HAL on 26-07-2012, 18:05:24
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 (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009)

George Carlin on The Environment (HQ) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4#ws)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Biki on 30-07-2012, 15:19:03
nadam se da se necete ljutiti ali moram da okacim 30 Seconds to Mars

30 Seconds To Mars - A Beautiful Lie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Kvd-uquuhI#ws)

i da dodam za one koji  nisu znali da u bendu svira Tomo Milicevic  :|
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 30-07-2012, 15:40:44
Biki, gde se ti trenutno nalaziš? Ovaj video se ne vidi iz Srbije.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Biki on 30-07-2012, 17:02:07
probaj njihov blog ili FB stranicu, ne znam zasto ne radi tamo, tako se neki spotovi iz Evrope ne mogu da vide ovde .
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 31-07-2012, 10:19:54
Novo istraživanje, tek publikovano tvrdi da zagrevanja ima i da krive čovjeka za isto:
 
http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/ (http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Nightflier on 31-07-2012, 11:54:55
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.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: дејан on 01-08-2012, 00:47:14
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.

Quote
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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=1&ref=opinion)

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Gaff on 01-08-2012, 17:41:08
Huge carbon-sucking funnels found in Southern Ocean

http://www.news.com.au/world/carbon-sicking-funnels-in-ocean-revealed/story-fndir2ev-1226438188751 (http://www.news.com.au/world/carbon-sicking-funnels-in-ocean-revealed/story-fndir2ev-1226438188751)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 01-08-2012, 19:30:18
Zgodno. Sad možemo da ga duvamo.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 09-08-2012, 09:40:27
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 (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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/science/earth/extreme-heat-is-covering-more-of-the-earth-a-study-says.html?_r=1)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Lord Kufer on 09-08-2012, 09:55:26
Do pojave ljudskih bića, klima na planeti Zemlji bila je stabilna i nisu se dešavala vruća i ledena doba...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 09-08-2012, 10:05:36
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.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Lord Kufer on 09-08-2012, 10:10:51
ja verujem da tu ima dosta budženja kako bi se uvele nove takse...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 09-08-2012, 10:26:02
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?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 09-08-2012, 10:28:18
Muka je što ne mogu svi da žive od zelenašenja. Neko mora i da proizvodi. :evil:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Lord Kufer on 09-08-2012, 10:31:21
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  8-) 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...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 09-08-2012, 10:32:37
Muka je što ne mogu svi da žive od zelenašenja. Neko mora i da proizvodi. :evil:
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.  :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: дејан on 09-08-2012, 11:04:39
Quote
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
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 11-08-2012, 08:29:26
Nije vezano za otapanje, ali ne znam da li imamo topik o vodi:
 
 Demand for water outstrips supply (http://www.nature.com/news/demand-for-water-outstrips-supply-1.11143) 
(http://i46.tinypic.com/250tkc8.jpg)
 
 
Quote

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 (http://www.nature.com/news/demand-for-water-outstrips-supply-1.11143#b1).
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.”
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 20-08-2012, 10:36:11
Ameri vele kako su oni postali superodgovorni glede karbon futprinta:
 
 AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jiAA4g1Rux_vlMhI1dxbazNbGneg?docId=da1399edab7b42ef9f0269ea5a3ca224)   
Quote
  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 (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://bit.ly/MRLOFR&usg=AFQjCNGkFbGAlrDBnOHYrbOxoMHa8zM1Tg)
  • Environment360: http://bit.ly/Qu8ebk (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://bit.ly/Qu8ebk&usg=AFQjCNG5zEQ7GWfczJ9Wiyx-5Zf_YQwVBA)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 20-08-2012, 10:58:19
Lažu kučke. Oni su svoj doprinos večim delom autsorsovali, pa sad frkću na druge.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Lord Kufer on 20-08-2012, 11:02:14
Govna boje smrada  xuss
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 20-08-2012, 11:39:56
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.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 10-09-2012, 10:15:41
Mićo, reaguj: Najdraža kineska reka pocrvenela:
 
 Yangtze River Turns Red: Photos Of China's Once Golden, Now Scarlet Pathway [PICTURES]  (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/382134/20120908/yangtze-river-turns-red-pictures-photos-chongqing.htm) 
Quote

The Yangtze River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_River), the third longest river in the world traditionally known as the "golden watercourse," mysteriously blushed for the first time on Sept. 6 (http://news.yahoo.com/yangtze-river-runs-mysteriously-red-223032927.html). 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 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199800/The-river-DID-run-red-Residents-Chinese-city-left-baffled-Yangtze-turns-scarlet.html?ito=feeds-newsxml).
Nobody is quite sure what caused the color change, but residents carefully (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/09/yangtze-river-turns-red-and-turns-up-a-mystery/) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_River), 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_GDP_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China). The Yangtze River flows through a wide array of ecosystems and is itself habitat to several endemic and endangered species including the Chinese alligator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_alligator) and the Yangtze sturgeon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_hydroelectric_power_stations)."
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 (http://www.livescience.com/23038-yangtze-river-red.html). "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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199800/The-river-DID-run-red-Residents-Chinese-city-left-baffled-Yangtze-turns-scarlet.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) 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.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ALEKSIJE D. on 10-09-2012, 10:55:41
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 ).
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 10-09-2012, 11:27:09
To smo već napisali. Doći će i Holanđani sa puškama.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Barbarin on 10-09-2012, 11:29:22
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.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ALEKSIJE D. on 10-09-2012, 11:32:15
Dok sve kineze ne potera na masovno močanje, pa da vidiš kako ima da oplivamo...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 10-09-2012, 11:42:07
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 (http://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/index.php/topic,7722.msg188523.html#msg188523)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ALEKSIJE D. on 10-09-2012, 12:12:01
I time je objašnjeno svo ovo silno ratovanje po našim prostorima. Ljudi traže suvo.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 10-09-2012, 12:23:15
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/ (http://what-if.xkcd.com/10/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Black swan on 10-09-2012, 14:05:13
ako za spol kažete pol zašto za pol ne kažete spol  :idea:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 10-09-2012, 14:13:35
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/ (http://what-if.xkcd.com/10/)


Ja, mac, veću glupost od ovoga nisam video.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ghoul on 10-09-2012, 14:25:17
to je zato što si preskočio trubino trubljenje.  xrofl
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 10-09-2012, 14:49:40
Ja Black swana odavno ne uzimam ozbiljno.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 10-09-2012, 14:59:33
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.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 10-09-2012, 15:11:04
Pokušao sam to da čitam, a onda sam te ispsovao. Očekivao sam nešto ozbiljnije.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 10-09-2012, 15:24:33
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.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Black swan on 10-09-2012, 15:36:49
ne znam šta nije jasno

led se brže otapa na spolovima nego na polovima  :evil:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Alexdelarge on 10-09-2012, 18:38:37
a na spolovilima?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Black swan on 10-09-2012, 21:18:23
a zna se i zalijepiti  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Gaff on 11-09-2012, 19:03:58
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 (http://io9.com/5941871/study-there-is-enough-wind-on-this-planet-to-meet-our-entire-energy-needs)

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Barbarin on 11-09-2012, 19:09:01
Ima ga, isto kao i Sunca, al se jako, jako, jako slabo koriste. :cry:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 11-09-2012, 20:20:19
Možda zato što bi smetalo avionima, pticama, vazdušnim strujama, đubrenju Amazonije sa jednog delića afričke pustinje (http://www.scidev.net/en/news/amazon-rainforest-relies-on-african-dust.html)...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 11-09-2012, 20:26:26
Gde ga nađe! Pa, neka ne dižu vetrenjače u depresiji Bodele, mada elise ne zadržavaju prašinu.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Barbarin on 11-09-2012, 23:29:43
I mi se đubrimo iz Afrike.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ALEKSIJE D. on 12-09-2012, 09:21:55
Gledao sam neku emisiju, klasičan oblik edukacije, gde se za ozonksi omotač krive-krave! Mnogo, brate, balegaju i stvaraju metan.
Čini mi kako je Milanković nešto u "Kanonima osunčavanja" objasnio gde dolazi do zamene polova na svakoh par desetina hiljada godina.
To bi trebao neko ko se bavi egzaktnim naukama objasni, a ne palamudi ko mi.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Gaff on 12-09-2012, 12:20:26
Could a Penny Battery Power a House?

(via Wired)

Eto! Skupo, smrdi, zauzima mnogo mesta, al' radi...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/09/could-a-penny-battery-power-a-house/ (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/09/could-a-penny-battery-power-a-house/)



A može i ovako:


Making of a cow-dung battery (a Bio battery) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gymIVPUJV88#)



Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Gaff on 13-09-2012, 09:22:34
Cleaning up oil spills with magnets at MIT

Cleaning up oil spills with magnets at MIT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaP7XOjsCHQ#ws)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 13-09-2012, 09:37:57
Neka to probaju u Golfu. Nije ni za krivi, osim oko Floride.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 16-09-2012, 09:56:46
Vetar je više nego dovoljan izvor energije dovoljan za čitavu planetu puta 200, ako uzmemo trenutnu konzumaciju energije kao meru. Sem što bi vetrenjače trebalo staviti visoko iznad zemlje, 200 metara do 20 kilometara visoko...
 
Forget Aeolians, We Need Airborne Wind Farms To Harness Maximum Wind Energy (http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/labcoat-life/forget_aeolians_we_need_airborne)
 
Quote
The wind holds much promise for our energy worries, considering that it's a renewable resource. But not only has it yet to fulfil its portion of the renewable energy hype, optimistic projections of wind-generated energy are just that... optimistic. The US Department of Energy, for instance, estimates that by 2030, only a 20%  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/10/is-there-enough-wind-energy-to-meet-the-worlds-needs/)share (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/10/is-there-enough-wind-energy-to-meet-the-worlds-needs/) of the country's electricity production will be generated from wind energy (pdf (http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/20_percent_wind_2.pdf)report (http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/20_percent_wind_2.pdf)).
 
This uninspiring estimate though, does no justice to the amount of power scientists now believe can be harnessed from the wind. A new paper, published this weekend in Nature Climate Change, used a model which considered the theoretical (http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/little-limit-to-the-amount-of-wind-energy)limits (http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/little-limit-to-the-amount-of-wind-energy) of energy extraction from the wind to postulate some astonishing results. Low-altitude winds near Earth's surface hold at least 400 TW of power. But go higher up to altitudes between 200 m and 20 km and the winds confine a massive 1,800 TW, at least. Such an extraordinary amount of power can sustain an equivalent of 200 Earth habitations (Earth's global energy demand is 18 TW)!
 
Attempting to harness wind power at dizzying heights appears to be an attractive proposition. High-altitude winds are faster and as such, comprise more power. Power is proportional to the cube of velocity. This means that if wind velocity doubles, wind power grows by eight times. In addition, high-altitude winds are also steadier and more predictable.
 
A report (http://www.gl-garradhassan.com/en/highaltitudewind.php/) published last year by GL Garrad Hassan, an independent renewable energy consultancy, shows that a number of companies are indeed focusing on harnessing high-altitude wind energy. Prototypes are varied and range from kites and kytoons (which are basically kites which are lifted and held in position by balloons) to aerostats and gliders with turbines attached.
 
(http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/95579511/65KiteEnergy_kac_2_1.jpg)
To harness wind energy, the wind's kinetic energy (or energy of motion) must be turned to mechanical energy (the spinning turbines) which should in turn be converted into electrical energy (by the turbines). The kite mechanism follows this pathway in an uncomplicated manner. The kite, tethered to the ground, rises to the heavens to meet high-altitude winds. Once floating at high speeds, the turbines fixed to the kite convert the kinetic energy of high-altitude winds into mechanical and then electrical energy. This is transmitted via the attaching conducting material back to the ground and immediately off to power homes, etcetera.
 
While it is attractive from a theoretical and technological viewpoint to set up wind farms at kilometres of altitude, it may not actually be feasible. For one, as George Dvorsky at i (http://io9.com/5941871/study-there-is-enough-wind-on-this-planet-to-meet-our-entire-energy-needs)o9  (http://io9.com/5941871/study-there-is-enough-wind-on-this-planet-to-meet-our-entire-energy-needs)points (http://io9.com/5941871/study-there-is-enough-wind-on-this-planet-to-meet-our-entire-energy-needs)out (http://io9.com/5941871/study-there-is-enough-wind-on-this-planet-to-meet-our-entire-energy-needs), the paper only looked at the theoretical limits of energy-harnessing from the wind without considering any other practical factors:
"The focus of their research was to determine the geophysical limits of energy extraction from the Earth's wind, disregarding such things as economic, social or environmental factors."
 
The paper itself also comes with a clear note of caution which emphasizes the theoretical focus of the study:
"It is likely that wind power growth will be limited by economic or environmental factors, not global geophysical limits."
 
Irrespective of this, the paper should provide a major boost to backers of wind-generated energy. Because science has confirmed that the sky's the limit.
 
--
 
Reference:
Marvel, K., Kravitz, B. & Caldeira, K. (2012) Geophysical limits to global wind power. Nature Climate Change. DOI: 10.1038/ (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1683.html)nclimate (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1683.html)1683 (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1683.html).
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Black swan on 16-09-2012, 17:29:55
oće li i ova zima biti sa metar snijega kao prethodna????  :( :cry:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-09-2012, 10:23:50
Rekordi su gadna stvar:
 
Press Release: Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for the year and the satellite record  (http://nsidc.org/news/press/2012_seaiceminimum.html)
 
[noae]
Quote

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. NSIDC scientists provide Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) content, with partial support from NASA.
BOULDER, Colorado—Arctic sea ice cover likely melted to its minimum extent for the year on September 16, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). Sea ice extent fell to 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles), now the lowest summer minimum extent in the satellite record.
“We are now in uncharted territory,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. “While we’ve long known that as the planet warms up, changes would be seen first and be most pronounced in the Arctic, few of us were prepared for how rapidly the changes would actually occur.”Arctic sea ice cover grows each winter as the sun sets for several months, and shrinks each summer as the sun rises higher in the northern sky. Each year, the Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum extent in September. This year’s minimum follows a record-breaking summer of low sea ice extents in the Arctic. Sea ice extent fell to 4.10 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles) on August 26, breaking the lowest extent on record set on September 18, 2007 of 4.17 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles). On September 4, it fell below 4.00 million square kilometers (1.54 million square miles), another first in the 33-year satellite record.
“The strong late season decline is indicative of how thin the ice cover is,” said NSIDC scientist Walt Meier. “Ice has to be quite thin to continue melting away as the sun goes down and fall approaches.”
NSIDC scientists have observed fundamental changes in the Arctic’s sea ice cover. The Arctic used to be dominated by multiyear ice, or ice that survived through several years. Lately, the Arctic is increasingly characterized by seasonal ice cover and large areas are now prone to completely melt away in summer.
“The later minimum date is somewhat surprising because we expected that the late melt in the Chukchi and East Siberian seas would result in cool surface waters that would quickly refreeze once the atmosphere cooled,” Meier said. “However, ice loss continued north of the Laptev Sea, opening up a gap in the ice cover that reduced extent.”
Arctic sea ice has long been recognized as a sensitive climate indicator. The region’s sea ice extent--defined by NSIDC as the total area covered by at least 15 percent of ice—varies from year to year because of changeable weather conditions. However, ice extent has shown a dramatic overall decline over the past thirty years. This year’s minimum will be nearly 50 percent lower than the 1979 to 2000 average.
NSIDC lead scientist Ted Scambos said that thinning ice, along with early loss of snow, are rapidly warming the Arctic. “But a wider impact may come from the increased heat and moisture the warmer Arctic is adding to the climate system,” he said. “This will gradually affect climate in the areas where we live,” he added. “We have a less polar pole—and so there will be more variations and extremes.”
NSIDC scientist Julienne Stroeve said, “Recent climate models suggest that ice-free conditions may happen before 2050, though the observed rate of decline remains faster than many of the models are able to capture.”
Serreze said, “While lots of people talk about opening of the Northwest Passage through the Canadian Arctic islands and the Northern Sea Route along the Russian coast, twenty years from now from now in August you might be able to take a ship right across the Arctic Ocean.”
For more details on the minimum ice extent, see the Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) Web site. The site provides regular updates by NSIDC scientists on the condition of the Arctic sea ice.
Please note that this number is preliminary--changing weather conditions could still push the ice extent lower. During the first week of October, NSIDC will issue a full analysis of the possible causes behind this year's ice conditions, including a discussion of how the summer's low ice extent may affect the winter ice growth season ahead, and graphics comparing this year to the long-term record.
 Information and graphicsFor the scientific report and data images, please see NSIDC's Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/).
A news release by NASA is available at http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-seaicemin.html (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-seaicemin.html)
NASA's image of the September 16 minimum may be downloaded here: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003900/a003998/Minimum_SeaIce_Area_2012_09_16.1080.tif (http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003900/a003998/Minimum_SeaIce_Area_2012_09_16.1080.tif)
 Contact: Natasha Vizcarra
  National Snow and Ice Data Center
  University of Colorado Boulder
  (303) 492-1497
natasha.vizcarra@nsidc.org
[/noae]
 
A za seksepilnije napisan, ali jednako zastrašujući tekst, imamo Roling Stoun:Global Warming's Terrifying New Math (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719)Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe - and that make clear who the real enemy is (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719)

[noae]
Quote
  By Bill McKibben (http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/bill-mckibben) July 19, 2012 9:35 AM ET If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.
Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the "largest temperature departure from average of any season on record." The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet's history.
Not that our leaders seemed to notice. Last month the world's nations, meeting in Rio for the 20th-anniversary reprise of a massive 1992 environmental summit, accomplished nothing. Unlike George H.W. Bush, who flew in for the first conclave, Barack Obama didn't even attend. It was "a ghost of the glad, confident meeting 20 years ago," the British journalist George Monbiot wrote; no one paid it much attention, footsteps echoing through the halls "once thronged by multitudes." Since I wrote one of the first books for a general audience about global warming way back in 1989, and since I've spent the intervening decades working ineffectively to slow that warming, I can say with some confidence that we're losing the fight, badly and quickly – losing it because, most of all, we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in.
When we think about global warming at all, the arguments tend to be ideological, theological and economic. But to grasp the seriousness of our predicament, you just need to do a little math. For the past year, an easy and powerful bit of arithmetical analysis first published by financial analysts in the U.K. has been making the rounds of environmental conferences and journals, but it hasn't yet broken through to the larger public. This analysis upends most of the conventional political thinking about climate change. And it allows us to understand our precarious – our almost-but-not-quite-finally hopeless – position with three simple numbers.
The First Number: 2° Celsius
If the movie had ended in Hollywood fashion, the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 would have marked the culmination of the global fight to slow a changing climate. The world's nations had gathered in the December gloom of the Danish capital for what a leading climate economist, Sir Nicholas Stern of Britain, called the "most important gathering since the Second World War, given what is at stake." As Danish energy minister Connie Hedegaard, who presided over the conference, declared at the time: "This is our chance. If we miss it, it could take years before we get a new and better one. If ever."
In the event, of course, we missed it. Copenhagen failed spectacularly. Neither China nor the United States, which between them are responsible for 40 percent of global carbon emissions, was prepared to offer dramatic concessions, and so the conference drifted aimlessly for two weeks until world leaders jetted in for the final day. Amid considerable chaos, President Obama took the lead in drafting a face-saving "Copenhagen Accord" that fooled very few. Its purely voluntary agreements committed no one to anything, and even if countries signaled their intentions to cut carbon emissions, there was no enforcement mechanism. "Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight," an angry Greenpeace official declared, "with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport." Headline writers were equally brutal: COPENHAGEN: THE MUNICH OF OUR TIMES? asked one.
The accord did contain one important number, however. In Paragraph 1, it formally recognized "the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees Celsius." And in the very next paragraph, it declared that "we agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required... so as to hold the increase in global temperature below two degrees Celsius." By insisting on two degrees – about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit – the accord ratified positions taken earlier in 2009 by the G8, and the so-called Major Economies Forum. It was as conventional as conventional wisdom gets. The number first gained prominence, in fact, at a 1995 climate conference chaired by Angela Merkel, then the German minister of the environment and now the center-right chancellor of the nation.
Some context: So far, we've raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. (A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.) Given those impacts, in fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target. "Any number much above one degree involves a gamble," writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, "and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up." Thomas Lovejoy, once the World Bank's chief biodiversity adviser, puts it like this: "If we're seeing what we're seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much." NASA scientist James Hansen, the planet's most prominent climatologist, is even blunter: "The target that has been talked about in international negotiations for two degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long-term disaster." At the Copenhagen summit, a spokesman for small island nations warned that many would not survive a two-degree rise: "Some countries will flat-out disappear." When delegates from developing nations were warned that two degrees would represent a "suicide pact" for drought-stricken Africa, many of them started chanting, "One degree, one Africa."
Despite such well-founded misgivings, political realism bested scientific data, and the world settled on the two-degree target – indeed, it's fair to say that it's the only thing about climate change the world has settled on. All told, 167 countries responsible for more than 87 percent of the world's carbon emissions have signed on to the Copenhagen Accord, endorsing the two-degree target. Only a few dozen countries have rejected it, including Kuwait, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Even the United Arab Emirates, which makes most of its money exporting oil and gas, signed on. The official position of planet Earth at the moment is that we can't raise the temperature more than two degrees Celsius – it's become the bottomest of bottom lines. Two degrees.


 
The Second Number: 565 Gigatons
 
[/size]Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. ("Reasonable," in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.)
 
This idea of a global "carbon budget" emerged about a decade ago, as scientists began to calculate how much oil, coal and gas could still safely be burned. Since we've increased the Earth's temperature by 0.8 degrees so far, we're currently less than halfway to the target. But, in fact, computer models calculate that even if we stopped increasing CO2 now, the temperature would likely still rise another 0.8 degrees, as previously released carbon continues to overheat the atmosphere. That means we're already three-quarters of the way to the two-degree target.
 
How good are these numbers? No one is insisting that they're exact, but few dispute that they're generally right. The 565-gigaton figure was derived from one of the most sophisticated computer-simulation models that have been built by climate scientists around the world over the past few decades. And the number is being further confirmed by the latest climate-simulation models currently being finalized in advance of the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Looking at them as they come in, they hardly differ at all," says Tom Wigley, an Australian climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "There's maybe 40 models in the data set now, compared with 20 before. But so far the numbers are pretty much the same. We're just fine-tuning things. I don't think much has changed over the last decade." William Collins, a senior climate scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, agrees. "I think the results of this round of simulations will be quite similar," he says. "We're not getting any free lunch from additional understanding of the climate system."
 
We're not getting any free lunch from the world's economies, either. With only a single year's lull in 2009 at the height of the financial crisis, we've continued to pour record amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, year after year. In late May, the International Energy Agency published its latest figures – CO2 emissions last year rose to 31.6 gigatons, up 3.2 percent from the year before. America had a warm winter and converted more coal-fired power plants to natural gas, so its emissions fell slightly; China kept booming, so its carbon output (which recently surpassed the U.S.) rose 9.3 percent; the Japanese shut down their fleet of nukes post-Fukushima, so their emissions edged up 2.4 percent. "There have been efforts to use more renewable energy and improve energy efficiency," said Corinne Le Quéré, who runs England's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. "But what this shows is that so far the effects have been marginal." In fact, study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at that rate, we'll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years, around the time today's preschoolers will be graduating from high school. "The new data provide further evidence that the door to a two-degree trajectory is about to close," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In fact, he continued, "When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees." That's almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which would create a planet straight out of science fiction.
 
So, new data in hand, everyone at the Rio conference renewed their ritual calls for serious international action to move us back to a two-degree trajectory. The charade will continue in November, when the next Conference of the Parties (COP) of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change convenes in Qatar. This will be COP 18 – COP 1 was held in Berlin in 1995, and since then the process has accomplished essentially nothing. Even scientists, who are notoriously reluctant to speak out, are slowly overcoming their natural preference to simply provide data. "The message has been consistent for close to 30 years now," Collins says with a wry laugh, "and we have the instrumentation and the computer power required to present the evidence in detail. If we choose to continue on our present course of action, it should be done with a full evaluation of the evidence the scientific community has presented." He pauses, suddenly conscious of being on the record. "I should say, a fuller evaluation of the evidence."
 
So far, though, such calls have had little effect. We're in the same position we've been in for a quarter-century: scientific warning followed by political inaction. Among scientists speaking off the record, disgusted candor is the rule. One senior scientist told me, "You know those new cigarette packs, where governments make them put a picture of someone with a hole in their throats? Gas pumps should have something like that."
 
The Third Number: 2,795 Gigatons
 
[/size]This number is the scariest of all – one that, for the first time, meshes the political and scientific dimensions of our dilemma. It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios. The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher.
 
The Carbon Tracker Initiative – led by James Leaton, an environmentalist who served as an adviser at the accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers – combed through proprietary databases to figure out how much oil, gas and coal the world's major energy companies hold in reserve. The numbers aren't perfect – they don't fully reflect the recent surge in unconventional energy sources like shale gas, and they don't accurately reflect coal reserves, which are subject to less stringent reporting requirements than oil and gas. But for the biggest companies, the figures are quite exact: If you burned everything in the inventories of Russia's Lukoil and America's ExxonMobil, for instance, which lead the list of oil and gas companies, each would release more than 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
 
Which is exactly why this new number, 2,795 gigatons, is such a big deal. Think of two degrees Celsius as the legal drinking limit – equivalent to the 0.08 blood-alcohol level below which you might get away with driving home. The 565 gigatons is how many drinks you could have and still stay below that limit – the six beers, say, you might consume in an evening. And the 2,795 gigatons? That's the three 12-packs the fossil-fuel industry has on the table, already opened and ready to pour.
 
We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We'd have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate. Before we knew those numbers, our fate had been likely. Now, barring some massive intervention, it seems certain.
 
Yes, this coal and gas and oil is still technically in the soil. But it's already economically aboveground – it's figured into share prices, companies are borrowing money against it, nations are basing their budgets on the presumed returns from their patrimony. It explains why the big fossil-fuel companies have fought so hard to prevent the regulation of carbon dioxide – those reserves are their primary asset, the holding that gives their companies their value. It's why they've worked so hard these past years to figure out how to unlock the oil in Canada's tar sands, or how to drill miles beneath the sea, or how to frack the Appalachians.


 
If you told Exxon or Lukoil that, in order to avoid wrecking the climate, they couldn't pump out their reserves, the value of their companies would plummet. John Fullerton, a former managing director at JP Morgan who now runs the Capital Institute, calculates that at today's market value, those 2,795 gigatons of carbon emissions are worth about $27 trillion. Which is to say, if you paid attention to the scientists and kept 80 percent of it underground, you'd be writing off $20 trillion in assets. The numbers aren't exact, of course, but that carbon bubble makes the housing bubble look small by comparison. It won't necessarily burst – we might well burn all that carbon, in which case investors will do fine. But if we do, the planet will crater. You can have a healthy fossil-fuel balance sheet, or a relatively healthy planet – but now that we know the numbers, it looks like you can't have both. Do the math: 2,795 is five times 565. That's how the story ends.
 
[/size]So far, as I said at the start, environmental efforts to tackle global warming have failed. The planet's emissions of carbon dioxide continue to soar, especially as developing countries emulate (and supplant) the industries of the West. Even in rich countries, small reductions in emissions offer no sign of the real break with the status quo we'd need to upend the iron logic of these three numbers. Germany is one of the only big countries that has actually tried hard to change its energy mix; on one sunny Saturday in late May, that northern-latitude nation generated nearly half its power from solar panels within its borders. That's a small miracle – and it demonstrates that we have the technology to solve our problems. But we lack the will. So far, Germany's the exception; the rule is ever more carbon.
 
This record of failure means we know a lot about what strategies don't work. Green groups, for instance, have spent a lot of time trying to change individual lifestyles: the iconic twisty light bulb has been installed by the millions, but so have a new generation of energy-sucking flatscreen TVs. Most of us are fundamentally ambivalent about going green: We like cheap flights to warm places, and we're certainly not going to give them up if everyone else is still taking them. Since all of us are in some way the beneficiaries of cheap fossil fuel, tackling climate change has been like trying to build a movement against yourself – it's as if the gay-rights movement had to be constructed entirely from evangelical preachers, or the abolition movement from slaveholders.
 
People perceive – correctly – that their individual actions will not make a decisive difference in the atmospheric concentration of CO2; by 2010, a poll found that "while recycling is widespread in America and 73 percent of those polled are paying bills online in order to save paper," only four percent had reduced their utility use and only three percent had purchased hybrid cars. Given a hundred years, you could conceivably change lifestyles enough to matter – but time is precisely what we lack.
 
A more efficient method, of course, would be to work through the political system, and environmentalists have tried that, too, with the same limited success. They've patiently lobbied leaders, trying to convince them of our peril and assuming that politicians would heed the warnings. Sometimes it has seemed to work. Barack Obama, for instance, campaigned more aggressively about climate change than any president before him – the night he won the nomination, he told supporters that his election would mark the moment "the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal." And he has achieved one significant change: a steady increase in the fuel efficiency mandated for automobiles. It's the kind of measure, adopted a quarter-century ago, that would have helped enormously. But in light of the numbers I've just described, it's obviously a very small start indeed.
 
At this point, effective action would require actually keeping most of the carbon the fossil-fuel industry wants to burn safely in the soil, not just changing slightly the speed at which it's burned. And there the president, apparently haunted by the still-echoing cry of "Drill, baby, drill," has gone out of his way to frack and mine. His secretary of interior, for instance, opened up a huge swath of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming for coal extraction: The total basin contains some 67.5 gigatons worth of carbon (or more than 10 percent of the available atmospheric space). He's doing the same thing with Arctic and offshore drilling; in fact, as he explained on the stump in March, "You have my word that we will keep drilling everywhere we can... That's a commitment that I make." The next day, in a yard full of oil pipe in Cushing, Oklahoma, the president promised to work on wind and solar energy but, at the same time, to speed up fossil-fuel development: "Producing more oil and gas here at home has been, and will continue to be, a critical part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy." That is, he's committed to finding even more stock to add to the 2,795-gigaton inventory of unburned carbon.
 
Sometimes the irony is almost Borat-scale obvious: In early June, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled on a Norwegian research trawler to see firsthand the growing damage from climate change. "Many of the predictions about warming in the Arctic are being surpassed by the actual data," she said, describing the sight as "sobering." But the discussions she traveled to Scandinavia to have with other foreign ministers were mostly about how to make sure Western nations get their share of the estimated $9 trillion in oil (that's more than 90 billion barrels, or 37 gigatons of carbon) that will become accessible as the Arctic ice melts. Last month, the Obama administration indicated that it would give Shell permission to start drilling in sections of the Arctic.
 
Almost every government with deposits of hydrocarbons straddles the same divide. Canada, for instance, is a liberal democracy renowned for its internationalism – no wonder, then, that it signed on to the Kyoto treaty, promising to cut its carbon emissions substantially by 2012. But the rising price of oil suddenly made the tar sands of Alberta economically attractive – and since, as NASA climatologist James Hansen pointed out in May, they contain as much as 240 gigatons of carbon (or almost half of the available space if we take the 565 limit seriously), that meant Canada's commitment to Kyoto was nonsense. In December, the Canadian government withdrew from the treaty before it faced fines for failing to meet its commitments.
 
The same kind of hypocrisy applies across the ideological board: In his speech to the Copenhagen conference, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez quoted Rosa Luxemburg, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and "Christ the Redeemer," insisting that "climate change is undoubtedly the most devastating environmental problem of this century." But the next spring, in the Simon Bolivar Hall of the state-run oil company, he signed an agreement with a consortium of international players to develop the vast Orinoco tar sands as "the most significant engine for a comprehensive development of the entire territory and Venezuelan population." The Orinoco deposits are larger than Alberta's – taken together, they'd fill up the whole available atmospheric space.
 
[/size]So: the paths we have tried to tackle global warming have so far produced only gradual, halting shifts. A rapid, transformative change would require building a movement, and movements require enemies. As John F. Kennedy put it, "The civil rights movement should thank God for Bull Connor. He's helped it as much as Abraham Lincoln." And enemies are what climate change has lacked.
 
But what all these climate numbers make painfully, usefully clear is that the planet does indeed have an enemy – one far more committed to action than governments or individuals. Given this hard math, we need to view the fossil-fuel industry in a new light. It has become a rogue industry, reckless like no other force on Earth. It is Public Enemy Number One to the survival of our planetary civilization. "Lots of companies do rotten things in the course of their business – pay terrible wages, make people work in sweatshops – and we pressure them to change those practices," says veteran anti-corporate leader Naomi Klein, who is at work on a book about the climate crisis. "But these numbers make clear that with the fossil-fuel industry, wrecking the planet is their business model. It's what they do."
 
According to the Carbon Tracker report, if Exxon burns its current reserves, it would use up more than seven percent of the available atmospheric space between us and the risk of two degrees. BP is just behind, followed by the Russian firm Gazprom, then Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Shell, each of which would fill between three and four percent. Taken together, just these six firms, of the 200 listed in the Carbon Tracker report, would use up more than a quarter of the remaining two-degree budget. Severstal, the Russian mining giant, leads the list of coal companies, followed by firms like BHP Billiton and Peabody. The numbers are simply staggering – this industry, and this industry alone, holds the power to change the physics and chemistry of our planet, and they're planning to use it.
 
They're clearly cognizant of global warming – they employ some of the world's best scientists, after all, and they're bidding on all those oil leases made possible by the staggering melt of Arctic ice. And yet they relentlessly search for more hydrocarbons – in early March, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson told Wall Street analysts that the company plans to spend $37 billion a year through 2016 (about $100 million a day) searching for yet more oil and gas.


 
There's not a more reckless man on the planet than Tillerson. Late last month, on the same day the Colorado fires reached their height, he told a New York audience that global warming is real, but dismissed it as an "engineering problem" that has "engineering solutions." Such as? "Changes to weather patterns that move crop-production areas around – we'll adapt to that." This in a week when Kentucky farmers were reporting that corn kernels were "aborting" in record heat, threatening a spike in global food prices. "The fear factor that people want to throw out there to say, 'We just have to stop this,' I do not accept," Tillerson said. Of course not – if he did accept it, he'd have to keep his reserves in the ground. Which would cost him money. It's not an engineering problem, in other words – it's a greed problem.
 
You could argue that this is simply in the nature of these companies – that having found a profitable vein, they're compelled to keep mining it, more like efficient automatons than people with free will. But as the Supreme Court has made clear, they are people of a sort. In fact, thanks to the size of its bankroll, the fossil-fuel industry has far more free will than the rest of us. These companies don't simply exist in a world whose hungers they fulfill – they help create the boundaries of that world.
 
Left to our own devices, citizens might decide to regulate carbon and stop short of the brink; according to a recent poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans would back an international agreement that cut carbon emissions 90 percent by 2050. But we aren't left to our own devices. The Koch brothers, for instance, have a combined wealth of $50 billion, meaning they trail only Bill Gates on the list of richest Americans. They've made most of their money in hydrocarbons, they know any system to regulate carbon would cut those profits, and they reportedly plan to lavish as much as $200 million on this year's elections. In 2009, for the first time, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce surpassed both the Republican and Democratic National Committees on political spending; the following year, more than 90 percent of the Chamber's cash went to GOP candidates, many of whom deny the existence of global warming. Not long ago, the Chamber even filed a brief with the EPA urging the agency not to regulate carbon – should the world's scientists turn out to be right and the planet heats up, the Chamber advised, "populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological and technological adaptations." As radical goes, demanding that we change our physiology seems right up there.
 
Environmentalists, understandably, have been loath to make the fossil-fuel industry their enemy, respecting its political power and hoping instead to convince these giants that they should turn away from coal, oil and gas and transform themselves more broadly into "energy companies." Sometimes that strategy appeared to be working – emphasis on appeared. Around the turn of the century, for instance, BP made a brief attempt to restyle itself as "Beyond Petroleum," adapting a logo that looked like the sun and sticking solar panels on some of its gas stations. But its investments in alternative energy were never more than a tiny fraction of its budget for hydrocarbon exploration, and after a few years, many of those were wound down as new CEOs insisted on returning to the company's "core business." In December, BP finally closed its solar division. Shell shut down its solar and wind efforts in 2009. The five biggest oil companies have made more than $1 trillion in profits since the millennium – there's simply too much money to be made on oil and gas and coal to go chasing after zephyrs and sunbeams.
 
Much of that profit stems from a single historical accident: Alone among businesses, the fossil-fuel industry is allowed to dump its main waste, carbon dioxide, for free. Nobody else gets that break – if you own a restaurant, you have to pay someone to cart away your trash, since piling it in the street would breed rats. But the fossil-fuel industry is different, and for sound historical reasons: Until a quarter-century ago, almost no one knew that CO2 was dangerous. But now that we understand that carbon is heating the planet and acidifying the oceans, its price becomes the central issue.
 
If you put a price on carbon, through a direct tax or other methods, it would enlist markets in the fight against global warming. Once Exxon has to pay for the damage its carbon is doing to the atmosphere, the price of its products would rise. Consumers would get a strong signal to use less fossil fuel – every time they stopped at the pump, they'd be reminded that you don't need a semimilitary vehicle to go to the grocery store. The economic playing field would now be a level one for nonpolluting energy sources. And you could do it all without bankrupting citizens – a so-called "fee-and-dividend" scheme would put a hefty tax on coal and gas and oil, then simply divide up the proceeds, sending everyone in the country a check each month for their share of the added costs of carbon. By switching to cleaner energy sources, most people would actually come out ahead.
 
There's only one problem: Putting a price on carbon would reduce the profitability of the fossil-fuel industry. After all, the answer to the question "How high should the price of carbon be?" is "High enough to keep those carbon reserves that would take us past two degrees safely in the ground." The higher the price on carbon, the more of those reserves would be worthless. The fight, in the end, is about whether the industry will succeed in its fight to keep its special pollution break alive past the point of climate catastrophe, or whether, in the economists' parlance, we'll make them internalize those externalities.
 
[/size]It's not clear, of course, that the power of the fossil-fuel industry can be broken. The U.K. analysts who wrote the Carbon Tracker report and drew attention to these numbers had a relatively modest goal – they simply wanted to remind investors that climate change poses a very real risk to the stock prices of energy companies. Say something so big finally happens (a giant hurricane swamps Manhattan, a megadrought wipes out Midwest agriculture) that even the political power of the industry is inadequate to restrain legislators, who manage to regulate carbon. Suddenly those Chevron reserves would be a lot less valuable, and the stock would tank. Given that risk, the Carbon Tracker report warned investors to lessen their exposure, hedge it with some big plays in alternative energy.
 
"The regular process of economic evolution is that businesses are left with stranded assets all the time," says Nick Robins, who runs HSBC's Climate Change Centre. "Think of film cameras, or typewriters. The question is not whether this will happen. It will. Pension systems have been hit by the dot-com and credit crunch. They'll be hit by this." Still, it hasn't been easy to convince investors, who have shared in the oil industry's record profits. "The reason you get bubbles," sighs Leaton, "is that everyone thinks they're the best analyst – that they'll go to the edge of the cliff and then jump back when everyone else goes over."
 
So pure self-interest probably won't spark a transformative challenge to fossil fuel. But moral outrage just might – and that's the real meaning of this new math. It could, plausibly, give rise to a real movement.
 
Once, in recent corporate history, anger forced an industry to make basic changes. That was the campaign in the 1980s demanding divestment from companies doing business in South Africa. It rose first on college campuses and then spread to municipal and state governments; 155 campuses eventually divested, and by the end of the decade, more than 80 cities, 25 states and 19 counties had taken some form of binding economic action against companies connected to the apartheid regime. "The end of apartheid stands as one of the crowning accomplishments of the past century," as Archbishop Desmond Tutu put it, "but we would not have succeeded without the help of international pressure," especially from "the divestment movement of the 1980s."


  The fossil-fuel industry is obviously a tougher opponent, and even if you could force the hand of particular companies, you'd still have to figure out a strategy for dealing with all the sovereign nations that, in effect, act as fossil-fuel companies. But the link for college students is even more obvious in this case. If their college's endowment portfolio has fossil-fuel stock, then their educations are being subsidized by investments that guarantee they won't have much of a planet on which to make use of their degree. (The same logic applies to the world's largest investors, pension funds, which are also theoretically interested in the future – that's when their members will "enjoy their retirement.") "Given the severity of the climate crisis, a comparable demand that our institutions dump stock from companies that are destroying the planet would not only be appropriate but effective," says Bob Massie, a former anti-apartheid activist who helped found the Investor Network on Climate Risk. "The message is simple: We have had enough. We must sever the ties with those who profit from climate change – now."
Movements rarely have predictable outcomes. But any campaign that weakens the fossil-fuel industry's political standing clearly increases the chances of retiring its special breaks. Consider President Obama's signal achievement in the climate fight, the large increase he won in mileage requirements for cars. Scientists, environmentalists and engineers had advocated such policies for decades, but until Detroit came under severe financial pressure, it was politically powerful enough to fend them off. If people come to understand the cold, mathematical truth – that the fossil-fuel industry is systematically undermining the planet's physical systems – it might weaken it enough to matter politically. Exxon and their ilk might drop their opposition to a fee-and-dividend solution; they might even decide to become true energy companies, this time for real.
Even if such a campaign is possible, however, we may have waited too long to start it. To make a real difference – to keep us under a temperature increase of two degrees – you'd need to change carbon pricing in Washington, and then use that victory to leverage similar shifts around the world. At this point, what happens in the U.S. is most important for how it will influence China and India, where emissions are growing fastest. (In early June, researchers concluded that China has probably under-reported its emissions by up to 20 percent.) The three numbers I've described are daunting – they may define an essentially impossible future. But at least they provide intellectual clarity about the greatest challenge humans have ever faced. We know how much we can burn, and we know who's planning to burn more. Climate change operates on a geological scale and time frame, but it's not an impersonal force of nature; the more carefully you do the math, the more thoroughly you realize that this is, at bottom, a moral issue; we have met the enemy and they is Shell.
Meanwhile the tide of numbers continues. The week after the Rio conference limped to its conclusion, Arctic sea ice hit the lowest level ever recorded for that date. Last month, on a single weekend, Tropical Storm Debby dumped more than 20 inches of rain on Florida – the earliest the season's fourth-named cyclone has ever arrived. At the same time, the largest fire in New Mexico history burned on, and the most destructive fire in Colorado's annals claimed 346 homes in Colorado Springs – breaking a record set the week before in Fort Collins. This month, scientists issued a new study concluding that global warming has dramatically increased the likelihood of severe heat and drought – days after a heat wave across the Plains and Midwest broke records that had stood since the Dust Bowl, threatening this year's harvest. You want a big number? In the course of this month, a quadrillion kernels of corn need to pollinate across the grain belt, something they can't do if temperatures remain off the charts. Just like us, our crops are adapted to the Holocene, the 11,000-year period of climatic stability we're now leaving... in the dust.
This story is from the August 2nd, 2012 issue of Rolling Stone.
Related
Bill McKibben: The Arctic Ice Crisis (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-arctic-ice-crisis-20120816)Al Gore: Science and Truth Vs. the Merchants of Poison (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622)
Climate Change and the End of Australia (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-change-and-the-end-of-australia-20111003)

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719#ixzz27HNZEO47[/quote (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719#ixzz27HNZEO47[/quote)[/color]]
[/noae]
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-09-2012, 10:59:36
E, ovu glupost neću da čitam. Svi političari postaju protivnici politika koje su sprovodili, čim više za njih nisu odgovorni.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-09-2012, 13:29:53
Pa, dobro, ovde su u prvom redu naučnici, političari se švercuju!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-09-2012, 13:33:53
Naučnici nikada nisu u prvom redu. Da jesu, ne bi ovako bilo.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-09-2012, 13:37:07
Da preformulišem: nećeš da pročitaš dva teksta koje su napisali naučnici (ili su njihovi radovi poslužili kao materijal za tekstove) zato što se sa njima slažu neki političari.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: lilit on 23-09-2012, 13:43:04
mehane,
ti si ovo stvarno pročitao?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-09-2012, 13:47:33
Skimovao, deluje interesantno, čitaću kad obavim kućne obaveze (usisavanje itd.)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-09-2012, 13:59:33
Jok, igraćeš igrice. Čitaš samo uvodne rečenice i naše reakcije. Jebote, naučni članak iz Rollins Stones-a!!!!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-09-2012, 14:06:53
Nebre, pročitao sam ceo prvi članak i skimovao drugi. A zaista usisavam sada. Plus, autor članka iz Roling Stouna nije tek makar tko:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_McKibben (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_McKibben)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-09-2012, 15:22:40
Evo, iščitala sam ceo članak u Roling Stounu. Vrlo lepo napisano i sistematično izloženo. Preporuka svima!!!!!11
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: lilit on 23-09-2012, 15:47:04
a da ti to nama lepo dajdžestuješ? u 4 rečenice???!!!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-09-2012, 16:41:39
Da probamo:
Generalni konsenzus (ne BAŠ konsenzus jer neki i dalje odbijaju da prihvate podatke) je da se ne sme dopustiti da prosečna temperatura na Zemlji poraste za više od dva stepena - izuzetno liberalna granica jer i sa postojećim porastom od 0,8 stepeni vidimo užasne promene, ali ova je granica rezultat kompromisa između nauke, politike i industrije. Ova granica će biti dostignuta kada se u atmosferu oslobodi još oko 565 gigatona ugljen-dioksida (tzv. ugljenični budžet). Trenutno poznate rezerve fosilnih goriva na koje neko (države i firme) polaže pravo imaju potencijal da oslobode oko 2500 gigatona, dakle pet puta više od "dopuštenog"ugljeničnog budžeta. Dakle, promeniti i preokrenuti trend koji nas vodi u toplotnu kataklizmu znači naterati industriju vrednu trilione dolara (jer na osnovu ovih rezervi firme i države formiraju svoju vrednost na berzi, dobijaju kredite i investicije) da se odrekne četiri petine svoje vrednosti, što lobiranjem na obične korisnike/ građane do sada nije uspelo i samo je za nijansu bilo manje neuspešno lobirajući političare. (Peta bonus rečenica) Moguće rešenje se vidi u nečemu sličnom što je rađeno osamdesetih sa Aparthejdom, kada su univerziteti i druge institucije prekidale da sarađuju sa firmama koje su poslovale sa režimom u JAR, jer se u njima vidi neka vrsta inteligencije sklone aktivizmu, sa dovoljno širokom mrežom da zapravo ima nekog uticaja itd.
 
Od mene toliko!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-09-2012, 21:13:13
Baš si se napeo. Lilit i ja smo sad pametniji za nekoliko gigatona. :wink:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-09-2012, 21:42:21
Sve za Sagitu, Sagitu nizašta.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: lilit on 23-09-2012, 21:46:02
fala mehane, srce si ko i uvek.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 24-09-2012, 21:06:09
Prilično temeljit članak o otapanju leda. Ima obilje podataka, grafika, i vrlo je ozbiljan i profesionalan. Scallopu će se svideti. Jedini problem je što je tekst dug 15 stranica.

http://io9.com/5945658/what-the-hell-is-happening-to-the-arctic-sea-ice (http://io9.com/5945658/what-the-hell-is-happening-to-the-arctic-sea-ice)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 24-09-2012, 21:17:45
Jel' paralelno daju podatke koliko je zbog otapanja do sada podignut nivo okeana i mora? Ne može led da se spusti, a da se ne digne.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 24-09-2012, 21:24:16
I to je objašnjeno. Led koji pluta na vodi neće podići nivo vode kad se otopi. Led koji je na tlu (Grenland i Antarktik) bi podigao nivo vode, ali taj led nije problem, jer se jako teško topi.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 24-09-2012, 22:02:09
To za plutanje se podrazumeva. Verujemo Arhimedu. Kako ide sa ledom koji se jako teško topi? Mac, ja se malo šalim, ali sam u biti vrlo ozbiljan. Znam kako ide sa otapanjem, ali kao i sve drugo, pomalo preuveličavamo. A, narod jeste naučio da čita, ali sa razumevanjem ide malo teže. Recimo, dokumentovano je otopljavanje u poslednjig tridesetak godina, ali bih voleo i podatak da li je u istorijsko vreme, ovo pa skoro naše, bilo isto toliko dugih ili dužih perioda zahlađenja. Može se dogoditi da ih je bilo, zar ne? I zbog prirodnijih uzroka nego što je doprinos čoveka. Jebiga, kad uporedim milijardu bizona koje smo potamanili i zamenili ih kravama, može li se dogoditi da su u masi jednako prdeli CO2?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 24-09-2012, 22:07:18
U 15 strana teksta nisu spominjani bizoni, ali metan i permafrost jesu. Spominju se i projektovani podaci pre početka merenja. Za deceniju probićemo i rekorde iz praistorije.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 24-09-2012, 22:21:45
Onda, dobro. Ja sam za vedriju raspravu. Super ozbiljne stvari ostavio bih super ozbiljnim ljudima.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 24-09-2012, 23:20:09
Ne valja ozbiljno, ne valja neozbiljno (http://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/index.php/topic,11456.msg456396.html#msg456396). Kamo sad?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 25-09-2012, 07:29:02
I super neozbiljne stvari bih ostavio super neozbiljnim ljudima.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-11-2012, 11:08:00
Još malo mračnih predviđanja:
 
Climate change evident across Europe, says report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20408350)
 
Quote

By Mark Kinver Environment reporter, BBC News
  The effects of climate change are already evident in Europe and the situation is set to get worse, the European Environment Agency has warned.
In a report, the agency says the past decade in Europe has been the warmest on record.
It adds that the cost of damage caused by extreme weather events is rising, and the continent is set to become more vulnerable in the future.
The findings have been published ahead of next week's UN climate conference.
They join a UN Environment Programme report also released on Wednesday (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20414596) showing dangerous growth in the "emissions gap" - the difference between current carbon emission levels and those needed to avert climate change.
"Every indicator we have in terms of giving us an early warning of climate change and increasing vulnerability is giving us a very strong signal," observed EEA executive director Jacqueline McGlade.
"It is across the board, it is not just global temperatures," she told BBC News.
"It is in human health aspects, in forests, sea levels, agriculture, biodiversity - the signals are coming in from right across the environment."
2C or not 2C
The report - Climate Change, Impacts and Vulnerabilities in Europe 2012 (http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-impacts-and-vulnerability-2012) - involving more than 50 authors from a range of organisations, listed a number of "key messages", including:
 
  • Observed climate change has "already led to a wide range of impacts on environmental systems and society; further climate change impacts are projected for the future";
  • Climate change can increase existing vulnerabilities and deepen socio-economic imbalances in Europe;
  • The combined impacts of projected climate change and socio-economic development is set to see the damage costs of extreme weather events continue to increase.
As it currently stands, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change has set a target of limiting the rise in global mean temperature to 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels.
But the report's authors warn that even if this target to mitigate warming is met, "substantial impacts on society, human health and ecosystems are projected to occur".
To limit the impacts, experts say effective adaptation strategies need to be developed in order to minimise the risk to nations' infrastructure, homes and businesses.
The European Commission is expected to publish its European Adaptation Strategy in 2013, outlining measures it think will help the 27-nation bloc deal with future climate shifts.
 
Examples of adaptation measures include using water resources more efficiently, adapting building codes to be able to withstand extreme weather events and building flood defences.
Prof McGlade said such measures would be essential in order to climate-proof the EU.
 
"I think what the European Commission and other parts of the world are finding is that whilst it is important to understand what is happening at the global level, it is what is happening at the regional and local levels that will really determine how economies will weather the storm," she said.
The report said the cost of damage caused by extreme weather events had increased from 9bn euros (£7bn) in the 1980s to 13bn euros in the 2000s.
One of the report's authors, Andre Jol, head of the EEA's vulnerability and adaptation group, added: "We know that the main increase in damage costs from natural disasters has not been from climate change, as such, but more as a result of an increase in wealth, people and infrastructure in risk areas.
"But one of the key messages from the report is that in the future, with projected increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme events, we know that climate change will contribute to the increase in the cost of damage from extreme events."
'Lack of action'
On Monday, the World Bank published a report (http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/climate-change-report-warns-dramatically-warmer-world-century) that warned that the world was "on track to a 4C [increase by the end of the century] marked by extreme heatwaves and life-threatening sea-level rise".
It added that the world's poorest regions would be hardest hit by the warming, which was "likely to undermine efforts and goals".
"A 4C warmer world can, and must be, avoided - we need to hold warming below 2C," said World Bank group president Jim Yong Kim.
"Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today."
However, the UN Environment Programme (Unep) warned that it was still possible to achieve the 2C target but time was running out.
Data in the Emissions Gap Report (http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgap2012) showed that annual greenhouse gas emissions were now "14% above where they need to be in 2020".
Unep executive director Achim Steiner said: "While governments work to negotiate a new international climate agreement to come into effect in 2020, they urgently need to put their foot firmly on the action pedal by fulfilling financial, technology transfer and other commitments under the UN climate convention treaties."
The reports have been published ahead of the annual two-week UN climate conference, which starts on Monday in Doha, Qatar.
 

A evo i izveštaja koji se pominje u celini (mada ima i link u tekstu):
 
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-impacts-and-vulnerability-2012 (http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-impacts-and-vulnerability-2012)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Barbarin on 23-11-2012, 11:14:18
Kad je zadnji put u novembru bilo ovako toplo?

Vode je palo ove godine, čini mi se, jako malo.

Postaćemo pustinja  :cry:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Black swan on 23-11-2012, 11:52:07
najfascinantnije mi je to što lišće ne pada u listopadu nego ga još ima na drveću i za vrijeme ovoga mjeseca...
a na nekim još nije ni krenulo žutiti
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-11-2012, 11:57:26
Pa, da.
 
A pošto dosta ljudi i dalje tvrdi da su klimacke promene farsa, da nisu efekat industrije, te da mnogi naučnici sumnjaju u sve to, evo jednog zanimljivog teksta od pre par meseci. Autor je profesor sa Berklija, što ne znači da u teoriji ne može da bude šil. Ali evo:
 
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&)
 
Quote
By RICHARD A. MULLER Published: July 28, 2012          Berkeley, Calif.
 
 
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (http://berkeleyearth.org/) project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.
Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.
The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.
Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.
It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.
Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.
The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org (http://berkeleyearth.org/). That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.
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.
Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.
   
 
Richard A. Muller (http://muller.lbl.gov/), a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, is the author, most recently, of “Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines.” 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 23-11-2012, 12:46:03
Ja mislim da bih mogao da se nađem u istoj korpi sa dotičnim.


Iako kao svaki Srbin imam veliko podozrenje prema izveštajima dotične institucije,
ovaj dokument je verovatno najaktuelniji summary znanja o CC.


Verovali ili ne u CC, nije loše da se pročita...


http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf (http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf)


Bojim se da se ne nađemo u situaciji u kojoj je bio onaj što je stalno vikao: "Vuk... vuk..."
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 23-11-2012, 12:56:45
Ima razlike između priče i naše situacije. U priči kad dečak na početku viče celo selo mu dođe. Kod nas naučnici viču, a političari nikad ništa.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-11-2012, 14:35:01
Mićo, sve dok ne pomene Kinu meni je uverljivo. Kad pomene Kinu, ja se setim ko je za sve kriv.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Black swan on 23-11-2012, 14:36:00
nevjerovatno
otkud onaj autobus žute boje linija dom armije podhrastovi na naslovnici tog izvještaja
oćete reći da je gradski prevoz sarajeva veliki zagađivač  :evil:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 23-11-2012, 20:38:57
U Sarajevu pocnu sva svetska sranja... :)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 25-11-2012, 10:44:26
Evo, nije samo Kina kriva:
 
Coal resurgence calls undermine clean energy commitments (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20002801)
 
Quote

Coal, the dirtiest and most polluting of all the major fossil fuels, is making a comeback.
Despite stringent carbon emissions targets in Europe designed to slow global warming and massive investment in renewable energy in China, demand for this most ancient source of energy is greater than ever.
In fact, coal was the fastest growing form of energy in the world outside renewables last year, with production up 6% on 2010, twice the rate of increase of gas and more than four times that of oil. Consumption data paints a similar picture, while figures for this year are set to tell the same story.
There are a number of drivers behind coal's renaissance, many of which may be short lived. Others will push demand ever higher for decades to come.
Cheap alternative
Coal consumption in Europe, where governments have been at the forefront of the push to curb carbon dioxide emissions, has risen sharply in recent years.
 
Why? Because it's cheap, and getting cheaper all the time. Due to the economic downturn, there has been what Paul McConnell, senior analyst at energy research group Wood Mackenzie, calls a "collapse in industrial demand for energy". This has led to an oversupply of coal, pushing the price down.
It has also led to a massive surfeit of CO2 emissions permits, pushing the price of carbon, and therefore the cost of coal production, sharply lower.
Equally important, there has been a huge influx of cheap coal from the US, where the discovery of shale gas has provided an even cheaper alternative energy source. The coal has to go somewhere, so it's exported to Europe.
Finally, higher non-shale, natural gas prices are making coal an attractive alternative.
As Laszlo Varro, head of gas, coal and power markets at the International Energy Agency (IEA), says: "All parameters favour coal."
So much so that "coal is [now] being burned as the baseload fuel across most of Europe," says Gareth Carpenter, associate editor at global energy information provider Platts.
Germany's decision to scrap all nuclear power and build more coal-fired power stations can only boost production further.
Just how long coal's resurgence lasts depends to some extent on the global economic recovery and the ability of governments to implement a system that finally delivers a meaningful carbon price.
 
But, in the meantime, legislation passed more than a decade ago will severely curb coal production over the coming years, according to Mr Varro.
The full impact of the EU's Large Combustion Plant Directive, which is designed to reduce local air pollutants, but not in fact carbon dioxide, is about to be felt, meaning a number of inefficient coal plants will be decommissioned.
As a result, in five years, coal production capacity "will be considerably lower than today", says Mr Varro. The directive will do nothing, of course, to restrict cheap US imports.
Demand explosion
But whatever happens to coal production and consumption in Europe, spiralling demand for energy in Asia, in particular China, will ensure that coal production continues to rise significantly over the coming decades.
 
Population growth and the exploding middle classes will see to that - in China alone, demand for energy will triple by 2030, according to Wood Mackenzie.
China in particular is spending massive amounts of money on a renewable energy drive the likes of which the world has never seen - plans are in place to build almost 10 times the wind capacity of Germany, for example.
But even this will not be able to keep up with demand, meaning fossil fuels will continue to make up the majority of the overall energy mix for the foreseeable future.
And when it comes to fossil fuels, coal is the easy winner - it is generally easier and cheaper to mine, and easier to transport using existing infrastructure such as roads and rail, than oil or gas.
 
Its price is also relatively stable because, as Mr Carpenter points out: "Coal mines on the whole are located in relatively stable countries free from major geopolitical tensions."
For all these reasons, Wood Mackenzie forecasts coal production in Indonesia, currently the world's fourth-biggest coal producer, to rise by 60% by 2020, while China will import more than a billion tonnes by 2030, almost five times currents levels.
By this date, it expects global demand for imported coal to more than double, helping to push the fossil fuel's proportion of the overall energy mix even higher than it is today.
Carbon capture
Cheap energy is, of course, a vital ingredient in the continued economic growth of developing countries, but the implications of rising coal production for CO2 emissions and global warming are profound.
While China is currently running half a dozen carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects - which aim to capture CO2 emissions from coal plants and bury it underground - the technology is nowhere near commercial viability.
 
As Mr Carpenter says, despite all the hype "it looks extremely unlikely that CCS technology is going to be deployed widely in the next 10 years or so".
The inevitable end result is rising CO2 emissions. According to the IEA, emissions from fossil fuels hit a record level last year, while total energy-related emissions and are due to rise by more than 20% by 2035.
"Why we aren't developing CCS for all we're worth is a mystery to me," says Prof Myles Allen at the school of geography and the environment at the University of Oxford.
"It is viewed as just one of a basket of solutions, but it's not - it's pivotal. Without it, nothing else follows."
And CCS lends itself perfectly to coal, precisely because it is such a cheap energy source.
Renewed urgency in developing CCS globally, alongside greater strides in increasing renewable energy capacity, is desperately needed, but Europe's increasing reliance on coal without capturing emissions is undermining its status as a leader in clean energy, and therefore global efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.
 
 
 
 
 
 Coal hard facts
  • Coal is responsible for about 40% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions from fuels
  • Coal generates almost a half of the total amount of electricity produced in the US
  • Coal emits almost a third more carbon dioxide per unit of energy than oil, and 70% more than natural gas
  • Coal provides about a quarter of the world's energy needs and it generates almost 40% of the world's electricity
  • Almost 70% of total global steel production is also dependent on burning coal.
(http://i47.tinypic.com/11b3fo5.gif)
 
(http://i48.tinypic.com/35jw09u.gif)
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 02-12-2012, 10:22:42
Grim picture of polar ice-sheet loss (http://www.nature.com/news/grim-picture-of-polar-ice-sheet-loss-1.11921)
 
Quote

Antarctica and Greenland are rapidly losing their ice sheets because of climate change, says a comprehensive review.
 
Olive Heffernan (http://www.nature.com/news/grim-picture-of-polar-ice-sheet-loss-1.11921#auth-1)
 29 November 2012   A global team of researchers has come up with the 'most accurate estimate' yet for melting of the polar ice sheets, ending decades of uncertainty about whether the sheets will melt further or actually gain mass in the face of climate change. The ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting at an ever-quickening pace. Since 1992, they have contributed 11 millimetres — or one-fifth — of the total global sea-level rise, say researchers. The two polar regions are now losing mass three times faster than they were 20 years ago, with Greenland alone now shedding ice at about five times the rate observed in the early 1990s.
This latest estimate1 (http://www.nature.com/news/grim-picture-of-polar-ice-sheet-loss-1.11921#b1), published this week in Science, draws on up to 32 years of ice-sheet simulations and 20 years of satellite data.
 
 
With climate change, some scientists had expected that warmer air would increase snowfall over Antarctica, and that this would largely offset the increased ice loss from Greenland (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080416/full/452798a.html) caused by warmer seas. In recent years, however, a number of studies have shown2–4 (http://www.nature.com/news/grim-picture-of-polar-ice-sheet-loss-1.11921#b2) that both ice sheets are losing mass at an alarming rate (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060227/full/news060227-10.html), as ice streams speed up their seaward journeys and more and bigger icebergs are discharged into the ocean.
Estimates have not always been consistent with each other, however5 (http://www.nature.com/news/grim-picture-of-polar-ice-sheet-loss-1.11921#b5), leaving scientists concerned about their reliability. In its 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declined to set an upper limit on the extent to which ice loss from Antarctica could contribute to sea-level rise, saying the science was too uncertain6 (http://www.nature.com/news/grim-picture-of-polar-ice-sheet-loss-1.11921#b6).
The latest study “moves Antarctica from a position of relative uncertainty in terms of its ice loss to one where we are now certain that it is losing ice”, says Andrew Shepherd, first author of the study and professor of Earth observation at the University of Leeds, UK.
Scientists use four techniques to gauge whether the ice caps are gaining or losing mass. Two techniques involve using either lasers or radars on satellites to measure changes in the surface elevation of the ice; another uses a method known as input-output modelling to represent regional changes in snowfall and ice melt; and the fourth measures changes in ice-sheet mass from space using the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission satellites.
 Compensatory snowfall The international team of 47 experts led by Shepherd analysed data collected by these methods from almost 30 previous ice-sheet studies, including 20 years of data from 10 different satellite missions and 32 years of model data on surface mass balance — the difference in the weight of the ice sheet gained through snowfall and lost through melting of the ice sheets.
The result is an estimate “two to three times more accurate than that in the last IPCC report”, says Shepherd.
Riccardo Riva, a geoscientist at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, independent of the study, says: “It provides a solid answer to the whole scientific community and the general public that over the last 20 years, the polar ice sheets did contribute to global mean sea-level rise by a significant amount.”
Yet large uncertainties remain, especially for Antarctica. The good news, says Riva, is that Antarctica is not losing ice as rapidly as suggested by many recent studies. What’s more, snowfall in east Antarctica still seems to be compensating for some — but not all — of the melting elsewhere in Antarctica.
It is unclear how these trends, such as ice loss from Greenland, will evolve, says Ian Joughin, one of the paper's co-authors and a satellite expert at the University of Washington in Seattle. “It really remains unclear whether such losses will decline, whether they’ll level off or they’ll accelerate further,” he says.
  Journal name: Nature DOI: doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11921
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 29-01-2013, 09:12:59
Norveška studija tvrdi da globalno zagrevanje nije tako strašno. Američki komentator ističe da je ovo studija koja još nije doživela pir rivju pa je treba uzeti s malo soli.
 
http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918?WT.ac=forside_nyhet (http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918?WT.ac=forside_nyhet)
 
Quote

 Global warming less extreme than feared? Policymakers are attempting to contain global warming at less than 2°C. New estimates from a Norwegian project on climate calculations indicate this target may be more attainable than many experts have feared.
  Internationally renowned climate researcher Caroline Leck of Stockholm University has evaluated the Norwegian project and is enthusiastic.
“These results are truly sensational,” says Dr Leck. “If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate.”
 Temperature rise is levelling off After Earth’s mean surface temperature climbed sharply through the 1990s, the increase has levelled off nearly completely at its 2000 level. Ocean warming also appears to have stabilised somewhat, despite the fact that CO2 emissions and other anthropogenic factors thought to contribute to global warming are still on the rise.
It is the focus on this post-2000 trend that sets the Norwegian researchers’ calculations on global warming apart.
 Sensitive to greenhouse gases Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much the global mean temperature is expected to rise if we continue increasing our emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activity. A simple way to measure climate sensitivity is to calculate how much the mean air temperature will rise if we were to double the level of overall CO2 emissions compared to the world’s pre-industrialised level around the year 1750.
If we continue to emit greenhouse gases at our current rate, we risk doubling that atmospheric CO2 level in roughly 2050.
 
 Mutual influences A number of factors affect the formation of climate development. The complexity of the climate system is further compounded by a phenomenon known as feedback mechanisms, i.e. how factors such as clouds, evaporation, snow and ice mutually affect one another.
Uncertainties about the overall results of feedback mechanisms make it very difficult to predict just how much of the rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature is due to manmade emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the climate sensitivity to doubled atmospheric CO2 levels is probably between 2°C and 4.5°C, with the most probable being 3°C of warming.
In the Norwegian project, however, researchers have arrived at an estimate of 1.9°C as the most likely level of warming.
 Manmade climate forcing “In our project we have worked on finding out the overall effect of all known feedback mechanisms,” says project manager Terje Berntsen, who is a professor at the University of Oslo’s Department of Geosciences and a senior research fellow at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO). The project has received funding from the Research Council of Norway’s Large-scale Programme on Climate Change and its Impacts in Norway (NORKLIMA).
“We used a method that enables us to view the entire earth as one giant ‘laboratory’ where humankind has been conducting a collective experiment through our emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, deforestation, and other activities that affect climate.”
For their analysis, Professor Berntsen and his colleagues entered all the factors contributing to human-induced climate forcings since 1750 into their model. In addition, they entered fluctuations in climate caused by natural factors such as volcanic eruptions and solar activity. They also entered measurements of temperatures taken in the air, on ground, and in the oceans.
The researchers used a single climate model that repeated calculations millions of times in order to form a basis for statistical analysis. Highly advanced calculations based on Bayesian statistics were carried out by statisticians at the Norwegian Computing Center.
 2000 figures make the difference When the researchers at CICERO and the Norwegian Computing Center applied their model and statistics to analyse temperature readings from the air and ocean for the period ending in 2000, they found that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will most likely be 3.7°C, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC prognosis.
But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a “mere” 1.9°C.
Professor Berntsen says this temperature increase will first be upon us only after we reach the doubled level of CO2 concentration (compared to 1750) and maintain that level for an extended time, because the oceans delay the effect by several decades.
 
 
Natural changes also a major factor
The figure of 1.9°C as a prediction of global warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is an average. When researchers instead calculate a probability interval of what will occur, including observations and data up to 2010, they determine with 90% probability that global warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration would lie between 1.2°C and 2.9°C.
This maximum of 2.9°C global warming is substantially lower than many previous calculations have estimated. Thus, when the researchers factor in the observations of temperature trends from 2000 to 2010, they significantly reduce the probability of our experiencing the most dramatic climate change forecast up to now.
Professor Berntsen explains the changed predictions:
“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.
“We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now.”
 Climate issues must be dealt with Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project’s findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.
Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years.
 Sulphate particulates The project’s researchers may have shed new light on another factor: the effects of sulphur-containing atmospheric particulates.

Burning coal is the main way that humans continue to add to the vast amounts of tiny sulphate particulates in the atmosphere. These particulates can act as condensation nuclei for cloud formation, cooling the climate indirectly by causing more cloud cover, scientists believe. According to this reasoning, if Europe, the US and potentially China reduce their particulate emissions in the coming years as planned, it should actually contribute to more global warming.
But the findings of the Norwegian project indicate that particulate emissions probably have less of an impact on climate through indirect cooling effects than previously thought.
So the good news is that even if we do manage to cut emissions of sulphate particulates in the coming years, global warming will probably be less extreme than feared.
 
About the project
Geophysicists at the research institute CICERO collaborated with statisticians at the Norwegian Computing Center on a novel approach to global climate calculations in the project “Constraining total feedback in the climate system by observations and models”. The project received funding from the Research Council of Norway’s NORKLIMA programme.
The researchers succeeded in reducing uncertainty around the climatic effects of feedback mechanisms, and their findings indicate a lowered estimate of probable global temperature increase as a result of human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.
The project researchers were able to carry out their calculations thanks to the free use of the high-performance computing facility in Oslo under the Norwegian Metacenter for Computational Science (Notur). The research project is a prime example of how collaboration across subject fields can generate surprising new findings.

  Written by:  Bård Amundsen/Else Lie. Translation: Darren McKellep/Carol B. Eckmann (el@rcn.no)  Published:  24.01.2013  Last updated:  25.01.2013

 
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/weaker-global-warming-seen-in-study-promoted-by-norways-research-council/ (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/weaker-global-warming-seen-in-study-promoted-by-norways-research-council/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 29-01-2013, 10:33:24
Pa da, Norvežanima zagrevanje dođe kao kec na deset.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 04-03-2013, 20:13:56
Otvorena je peticija za sve žitelje planete Zemlje. Upućena je generalnom sekretaru Ujedinjenih Nacija. Trajanje peticije je godinu i mesec dana. Cilj peticije: milijarda potpisa. Upišite se dok još možete da zapamtite svoj redni broj :)

http://yourclimatechange.org/ (http://yourclimatechange.org/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 29-03-2013, 09:01:45
Naravno, ima još pametnjakovića koji će na pominjanje globalnog zagrevanja ukazivati kako je ovo proljeće u stvari vlažno i hladno. Nauka (ili barem neki naučnici koji rade u Nacionalnom Centru za podatke o snijegu i ledu u Koloradu, SAD i drugim SAD institucijama) veli da to ima rezona:
 
Scientists Link Cold Spring to Dramatic Sea Ice Loss (http://www.wunderground.com/news/sea-ice-loss-20130326)
 
Quote

Climate scientists have linked the massive snowstorms and bitter spring weather now being experienced across Britain and large parts of Europe and North America to the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice.
Both the extent and the volume of the sea ice that forms and melts each year in the Arctic Ocean fell to an historic low last autumn, and satellite records published on Monday by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, show the ice extent is close to the minimum recorded for this time of year.
"The sea ice is going rapidly. It's 80 percent less than it was just 30 years ago. There has been a dramatic loss. This is a symptom of global warming and it contributes to enhanced warming of the Arctic," said Jennifer Francis, research professor with the Rutgers Institute of Coastal and Marine Science.
(MORE: Why Arctic Sea Ice Melts So Quickly (http://www.wunderground.com/news/sea-ice-melts-quickly-20130125)) According to Francis and a growing body of other researchers, the Arctic ice loss adds heat to the ocean and atmosphere which shifts the position of the jet stream – the high-altitude river of air that steers storm systems and governs most weather in northern hemisphere.
"This is what is affecting the jet stream and leading to the extreme weather we are seeing in mid-latitudes," she said. "It allows the cold air from the Arctic to plunge much further south. The pattern can be slow to change because the [southern] wave of the jet stream is getting bigger. It's now at a near record position, so whatever weather you have now is going to stick around," she said.
Francis linked the Arctic temperature rises to extreme weather in mid latitudes last year and warned in September that 2012's record sea ice melt could lead to a cold winter in the UK and northern Europe.
She was backed by Vladimir Petoukhov, professor of Earth system analysis at Potsdam Institute in Germany, whose research suggests the loss of ice this year could be changing the direction of the jet stream.
"The ice was at a record low last year and is now exceptionally low in some parts of the Arctic like the Labrador and Greenland seas. This could be one reason why anticyclones are developing," he said.
(PHOTOS: Record Lows for Spring Break? (http://www.wunderground.com/news/cold-spring-start-slow-to-warm-up-20130325))
The heavy snowfall and freezing temperatures which have marked March 2013 across the northern hemisphere are in stark contrast to March 2012 when many countries experienced their warmest ever springs. The hypothesis that wind patterns are being changed because melting Arctic sea ice has exposed huge swaths of normally frozen ocean to the atmosphere would explain both the extremes of heat and cold, say the scientists.
A recent paper by the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also found that enhanced warming of the Arctic influenced weather across the northern hemisphere.
 
"With more solar energy going into the Arctic Ocean because of lost ice, there is reason to expect more extreme weather events, such as heavy snowfall, heat waves, and flooding in North America and Europe," said the researchers.
The Met Office's chief scientist has previously said the melting Arctic ice is in part responsible for the UK's recent colder winters.
The possible links between Arctic sea ice loss and extreme weather were made as the UK's government's outgoing chief scientific adviser Sir John Beddington warned that the world could expect more extremes of weather.
"The [current] variation we are seeing in temperature or rainfall is double the rate of the average. That suggests that we are going to have more droughts, we are going to have more floods, we are going to have more sea surges and we are going to have more storms." He said that said there was a "need for urgency" in tackling climate change.
"These are the sort of changes that are going to affect us in quite a short timescale," he warned. Last year saw record heat, rainfall, drought and floods in the northern hemisphere.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mouchette on 29-03-2013, 18:33:18
The Earth could be closer than previously thought to the inner edge of the Sun's habitable zone, according to a new study by planetary scientists in the US and France. The research also suggests that if our planet moved out of the habitable zone, it could lead to a "moist greenhouse" climate that could kick-start further drastic changes to the atmosphere...

Earth is closer to the edge of Sun's habitable zone (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/mar/25/earth-is-closer-to-the-edge-of-suns-habitable-zone)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 15-04-2013, 08:26:36
Arctic nearly free of summer sea ice during first half of 21st century (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130412_arcticseaice.html)
 
Quote

For scientists studying summer sea ice in the Arctic, it’s not a question of “if” there will be nearly ice-free summers, but “when.” And two scientists say that “when” is sooner than many thought — before 2050 and possibly within the next decade or two.

James Overland of NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/) and Muyin Wang of the NOAA Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/exit.html?http%3A%2F%2Fjisao.washington.edu%2F) at the University of Washington, looked at three methods of predicting when the Arctic will be nearly ice free in the summer. The work was published recently online (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/exit.html?http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1002%2Fgrl.50316%2Fabstract) in the American Geophysical Union publication Geophysical Research Letters.

“Rapid Arctic sea ice loss is probably the most visible indicator of global climate change; it leads to shifts in ecosystems and economic access, and potentially impacts weather throughout the northern hemisphere,” said Overland. “Increased physical understanding of rapid Arctic climate shifts and improved models are needed that give a more detailed picture and timing of what to expect so we can better prepare and adapt to such changes. Early loss of Arctic sea ice gives immediacy to the issue of climate change.”
“There is no one perfect way to predict summer sea ice loss in the Arctic,” said Wang. “So we looked at three approaches that result in widely different dates, but all three suggest nearly sea ice-free summers in the Arctic before the middle of this century.”
 
Overland and Wang emphasized that the term “nearly” ice free is important as some sea ice is expected to remain north of the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland.
 
  • The “trendsetters” approach uses observed sea ice trends. These data show that the total amount of sea ice decreased rapidly over the previous decade. Using those trends, this approach extrapolates to a nearly sea ice-free Arctic by 2020.

  • The “stochasters” approach is based on assuming future multiple, but random in time, large sea ice loss events such as those that occurred in 2007 and 2012. This method estimates it would take several more events to reach a nearly sea ice-free state in the summer. Using the likelihood of such events, this approach suggests a nearly sea ice-free Arctic by about 2030 but with large uncertainty in timing.
  • The “modelers” approach is based on using the large collection of global climate model results to predict atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice conditions over time. These models show the earliest possible loss of sea ice to be around 2040 as greenhouse gas concentrations increase and the Arctic warms. But the median timing of sea ice loss in these models is closer to 2060. There are several reasons to consider that this median timing of sea ice loss in these models may be too slow.
“Some people may interpret this to mean that models are not useful. Quite the opposite,” said Overland. “Models are based on chemical and physical climate processes and we need better models for the Arctic as the importance of that region continues to grow.”
Taken together, the range among the multiple approaches still suggests that it is very likely that the timing for future sea ice loss will be within the first half of the 21st century, with a possibility of major loss within a decade or two.
NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 19-05-2013, 07:25:57
Evo, za skeptike koji i dalje ne veruju da 1) su globalno zagrevanje/ klimatske promene stvaran trend i 2) je u pitanju antropogen fenomen, napravljen je sledeći projekat:
 
The Consensus Project (http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php)
 
Ovo je jedna sređena metastudija koja uzima rezultate više studija, poredi ih, i pokušava da ponudi najobjektivniju zamislivu sliku.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 19-05-2013, 09:30:58
Studije globalnog zagrevanja su svakako neophodne, jer smo valjda sazreli da se i time petljamo. Međutim, zaključci se i dalje donose na osnovu suviše kratkih vremenskih perioda. Univerzum se i dalje pita šta je to 30-50 godina u odnosu na milijarde godina. Mnogim naučnicima se žuri da budu u pravu, ali njihov procenat je mizeran u odnosu na mogućnosti. Ne bi znali da daju ni pouzdan odgovor na pitanje zašto je presušila Sarsavati, zbog globalnog zagrevanja ili prostog pomeranja Himalaja. Ako ne znaju oni koji znaju, kako da razumemo mi koji ne znamo?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 19-05-2013, 09:58:07
Dobar je ovaj sajt. Sviđa mi se.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 19-05-2013, 10:37:55
Svakako da je dobar. Ali, čovek mora razmišljati i sopstvenom tintarom. Nije napravljena da se sve jednostarno usvaja, nego i da se sumnja. Sumnja je najkreativnije oruđe čoveka. Da je nema samo bismo verovali.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: дејан on 20-05-2013, 10:26:17
од кад је глобал вроминг постао клајмет чејнџ никоме ништа не верујем
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 08-09-2013, 08:51:09
'Half' of Extreme Weather Impacted by Climate Change  (http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2013/09/half-extreme-weather-impacted-climate-change)
 
Quote
2012 was a rough year around the globe, and not for any of the Planet X/Mayan calendar doomsday reasons people feared (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6045/928.summary). Instead, it was a year of extreme weather: drought and heat waves in the United States; record rainfall in the United Kingdom; unusually heavy rains in Kenya, Somalia, Japan, and Australia; drought in Spain; floods in China. And of course there was Superstorm Sandy.
One of the first questions asked in the wake of such an extreme weather event is: “Is this due to climate change?” In recent years, a brand of research called “climate attribution science” has sprouted from this question, examining the impact of extreme events to determine how much—often in fractional terms—is related to human-induced climate change, and how much to natural variability (whether in climate patterns such as the El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation, sea-surface temperatures, changes in incoming solar radiation, or a host of other possible factors).
In a report published online today in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (http://www.ametsoc.org/2012extremeeventsclimate.pdf) (PDF), scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tackled this question head-on. The report—the second such annual report—analyzes the findings from about 20 scientific studies of a dozen or so extreme weather events that occurred around the world last year, seeking to parse the relative influence of anthropogenic climate change. The overall message of the report: It varies.
“About half of the events … reveal compelling evidence that human-caused change was a [contributing] factor,” said NOAA National Climatic Data Center Director Thomas Karl today at a press conference accompanying the release of the report. In addition, noted climate scientist Peter Stott of the U.K. Met Office, these studies show that in many cases, human influence on climate has increased the risks associated with extreme events.
Below, some highlights from the report:
December 2011: Two days of extreme rainfall deluge New Zealand’s Southern Island, producing landslides in what scientists call a 1-in-500-year-event. Conclusion: Total moisture available for this extreme event was 1% to 5% higher as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
September 2012: Arctic sea ice reaches a record new low (https://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6102/1591.summary) of 3.4 million square kilometers. A study examined three different factors: warmer-than-usual surface atmosphere conditions (related to global warming); sea-ice thinning prior to the melting season (also related to global warming); and an August storm that passed over the Arctic, stirring up the ocean, fracturing the sea ice and sending it southward to warmer climes. Conclusion: Global warming was primarily responsible, due equally to the thinning sea ice and warm atmospheric conditions.
Summer 2012: Heavy rainfall in eastern Australia. Conclusion: A La Niña episode—long associated with wetter-than-normal conditions in Australia—in 2012 likely accounts for most, but not all, of the heavy rainfall. Sea-surface temperatures north of Australia—driven by global warming—could also play a role, increasing the chances of above-average rainfall by as much as 5% in the future.
Superstorm Sandy: Although not among the most powerful windstorms to hit the U.S. East Coast, the storm’s real impact came from the massive storm surge and inundation: It broke 16 historical records for storm-tide levels along the coast (http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/11/sandy-vs.-science-long-island-prominent-research-lab-weathers-storm). Conclusion: The storm coincided with peak high tide in New York Harbor—but future sea-level rise will exacerbate this inundation, making a Sandy-level event more likely in the future, even if the storm itself is less severe.   
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 17-09-2013, 09:38:57
Hm, kao neke dobre vesti:

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change  (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html)
Quote

Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) "fifth assessment report," part of which will be published on Sept. 27.

There have already been leaks from this 31-page document, which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior climate scientist, I have had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document. The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.
 Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.
 Specifically, the draft report says that "equilibrium climate sensitivity" (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is "extremely likely" to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), "likely" to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and "very likely" to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was "likely" to be above 2 degrees Celsius and "very likely" to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit. Since "extremely" and "very" have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.
 Still, the downward movement since 2007 is clear, especially at the bottom of the "likely" range. The most probable value (3 degrees Celsius last time) is for some reason not stated this time.
 A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: "transient climate response" (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is "likely" to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and "extremely unlikely" to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 ("very likely" warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies).
 Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.
 Warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops and the greening of the Earth—because plants grow faster and need less water when carbon dioxide concentrations are higher.
 Up to two degrees of warming, these benefits will generally outweigh the harmful effects, such as more extreme weather or rising sea levels, which even the IPCC concedes will be only about 1 to 3 feet during this period.
 Yet these latest IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity may still be too high. They don't adequately reflect the latest rash of published papers estimating "equilibrium climate sensitivity" and "transient climate response" on the basis of observations, most of which are pointing to an even milder warming. This was already apparent last year with two papers—by scientists at the University of Illinois and Oslo University in Norway—finding a lower ECS than assumed by the models. Since then, three new papers conclude that ECS is well below the range assumed in the models. The most significant of these, published in Nature Geoscience by a team including 14 lead authors of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report, concluded that "the most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 degrees Celsius."
 Two recent papers (one in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society, the other in the journal Earth System Dynamics) estimate that TCR is probably around 1.65 degrees Celsius. That's uncannily close to the estimate of 1.67 degrees reached in 1938 by Guy Callendar, a British engineer and pioneer student of the greenhouse effect. A Canadian mathematician and blogger named Steve McIntyre has pointed out that Callendar's model does a better job of forecasting the temperature of the world between 1938 and now than do modern models that "hindcast" the same data.
 The significance of this is that Callendar assumed that carbon dioxide acts alone, whereas the modern models all assume that its effect is amplified by water vapor. There is not much doubt about the amount of warming that carbon dioxide can cause. There is much more doubt about whether net amplification by water vapor happens in practice or is offset by precipitation and a cooling effect of clouds.
 Since the last IPCC report in 2007, much has changed. It is now more than 15 years since global average temperature rose significantly. Indeed, the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has conceded that the "pause" already may have lasted for 17 years, depending on which data set you look at. A recent study in Nature Climate Change by Francis Zwiers and colleagues of the University of Victoria, British Columbia, found that models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20 years.
 Explaining this failure is now a cottage industry in climate science. At first, it was hoped that an underestimate of sulfate pollution from industry (which can cool the air by reflecting heat back into space) might explain the pause, but the science has gone the other way—reducing its estimate of sulfate cooling. Now a favorite explanation is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. Yet the data to support this thesis come from ocean buoys and deal in hundredths of a degree of temperature change, with a measurement error far larger than that. Moreover, ocean heat uptake has been slowing over the past eight years.
 The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback. This will be a topic of heated debate at the political session to rewrite the report in Stockholm, starting on Sept. 23, at which issues other than the actual science of climate change will be at stake.
 —Mr. Ridley is the author of "The Rational Optimist" and a member of the British House of Lords. A version of this article appeared September 14, 2013, on page C3 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: A Reprieve From             Climate Doom.

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 18-09-2013, 09:36:49
Međutim, stiže brz demantij:

Have Matt Ridley, Wall Street Journal Finally Embraced Strong Climate Action And 2°C Warming Target? (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/15/2621431/matt-ridley-wall-street-journal-climate/)
Quote
Could it be that Matt Ridley and his fellow confusionists at the Wall Street Journal have finally embraced serious climate action? Have they actually endorsed the warming target of 2°C (3.6°F), long embraced by scientists and global leaders who want to avert the worst impacts of climate change?
Or have they published another epic blunder-fest of disinformation? Have they actually gone so far as to (mis)cite the work of a scientist who explained a year ago that Mr. Ridley is misusing his research and is “just plain wrong about future global warming!”? You be the judge.


(http://i40.tinypic.com/9014ph.jpg)
Projected warming on our current emissions path from Michael Schlesinger et al 2012 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=20038). This devastating warming occurs even with (an unlikely) low climate sensitivity of between 1.5°C and 2.0°C — and assuming there are no major unmodeled feedbacks (like the thawing permafrost). A WSJ op-ed that cites this work erroneously claims it shows total warming will stay below 2°C (3.6°F) this century!
Every major projection of future warming makes clear that if we keep listening to the falsehoods of the anti-science crowd at the Wall Street Journal and keep taking no serious action to reduce carbon pollution we face catastrophic 9°F to 11°F [5°C to 6°C] warming over most of the U.S. (see literature review here (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/14/1009121/science-of-global-warming-impacts-guide/)).
Last year, Matt Ridley wrote one of the most error-riddled pieces (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/20/1365671/error-riddled-matt-ridley-piece-lowballs-global-warming-discredits-wall-street-journal-world-faces-10f-warming/) ever to appear in the Wall Street Journal. For those who didn’t know Ridley, the WSJ noted his “family leases land for coal mining in northern England, on a project that will cease in five years” (a point that is strangely absent from the current piece).
Media Matters gathered quotes (http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2012/12/20/wsjs-climate-dynamite-is-a-dud/191923) from leading climate scientists debunking the piece at the time. Here’s one:
 >[A]s John Abraham (http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/faculty/jpabraham.htm), an IPCC reviewer and the director of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team (http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/), put it to Media Matters: the column “has such elementary errors in it that [it] casts doubt on the author’s understanding of any aspects of climate change.”
One of the many egregious blunders Ridley made was to confuse the feedback effect of water vapor with that of clouds. Another was to confuse equilibrium climate sensitivity with future warming. Since he makes a nearly identical blunder in his new piece, it bears repeating that the amount of warming we are going to subject our children and countless future generations to depends primarily on three factors:
  Last year, Ridley cited a University of Illinois study coauthored by Michael Schlesinger that found a relatively low ECS to justify his claims, but Dr. Schlesinger wrote a letter to the WSJ explaining:
 
In his article, Mr. Ridley is just plain wrong about future global warming. In our paper “A Fair Plan to Safeguard Earth’s Climate”
(http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=20038 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=20038)), we show that by the middle of this century the warming will exceed the 2°C (3.6°F) maximum allowed by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. Schlesinger sent an email around to some journalists and scientists that included a figure from his work, which I posted at the top.
You would think that after being informed just how wrong they were, Ridley and team WSJ would at least stop citing his work to defend claims that we are headed towards low levels of warming this century absent strong climate action. You would be wrong. But at least now Ridley is attempting to confuse the public in a slightly different way:
 
A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: “transient climate response” (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is “likely” to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and “extremely unlikely” to be greater than 3 degrees….
Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm….
Yet these latest IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity may still be too high…. This was already apparent last year with two papers—by scientists at the University of Illinois and Oslo University in Norway—finding a lower ECS than assumed by the models.
Yes, Ridley and the WSJ cite the University of Illinois paper to supposedly prove that warming this century will be under 2°C —  when the author has already explained to them that his research shows the exact opposite!
And Ridley is as bewildered about the transient climate response as he was about the climate sensitivity. He seems to think that CO2 levels won’t hit a doubling (550 ppm) for 70 years. But that would be true only with a very aggressive effort to reduce carbon pollution starting now. We are on track to blow well past 550 in 2083 — and that’s not even counting the extra carbon in the air we are expected to see because of thawing permafrost and ocean acidification.
The bombshell is that Ridley and the WSJ appear to be embracing the 2°C target (though they are mistaken that this is the level below which there is no net harm). Ridley’s whole (confused) point is that we can all breathe a sigh of relief because ECR and TCR are (supposedly) on the low side and thus we will not exceed the 2°C target this century.
So either Ridley and the Wall Street Journal have chosen to willfully ignore the facts presented to them by Schlesinger and others OR they have embraced Schlesinger’s plans to keep global warming below the allowable maximum of 2°C. As Schlesinger explains, his plans “phase out the emission of greenhouse gases this century such that the cumulative greenhouse-gas emissions by the Developing and Developed Countries are equal.”
Who knew Ridley and team WSJ were so progressive that they endorsed an equitable strategy for phasing out all the missions of greenhouse gases the century? 
Since Ridley seems so enamored of Schlesinger to keep citing him, it seems only fair to note that Schlesinger himself says (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/a-climate-scientist-proposes-a-fair-plan-for-limiting-warming/?ref=science) it would be unwise to plan on a low sensitivity given the very real risks that it is not so low. I queried Schlesinger last year about whether his analysis included the feedback from the permafrost. He wrote me back:
 
What will most likely happen is … permanent outgassing of carbon dioxide from permafrost and methane from clathrates/hydrates.  As you know, methane is a greenhouse gas that is 23 times more potent, molecule for molecule, than carbon dioxide.
If we hedge not against this outgassing, it’s game over.
… In the scheme of things, we human beings are not a very intelligent species. All species have a finite lifetime. Most species do not self exterminate.
While this is a bit hyperbolic, it may not be far from the truth. Either Ridley and the WSJ agree with Schlesinger and his aggressive plan to mitigate carbon pollution or it would seem that they are perfect exemplars of his vision of homo “sapiens.”
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 19-09-2013, 19:06:00
Da se spustim iz svemira na Zemlju. Juče nam je neki Kinez na UNESCO-voj radionici objašnjavao da im se na jednom jezeru nivo rapidno smanjuje iako su doticaji manje više isti. A onda je pokazao da u poslednjih tridesetak godina u toj oblasti prosečna godišnja temperatura raste 2,9 stepeni po dekadi. Prosto neverovatno...


Inače jedan drugi je pričao o Tibetskom platou, koga zove Treći pol... Kaže da se glečeri i tamo rapidno povlače, kao i ovi naši alpski...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 29-09-2013, 07:00:33
UN panel veli da, uz trenutni tempo  prženja fosilnih goriva, stižemo do gornjeg limita emisije ugljendioksida do 2040. godine.
 U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&)
Quote
STOCKHOLM — The world’s top climate scientists on Friday formally embraced an upper limit on greenhouse gases for the first time, establishing a target level at which humanity must stop spewing them into the atmosphere or face irreversible climatic changes. They warned that the target is likely to be exceeded in a matter of decades unless steps are taken soon to reduce emissions.       
 
 Unveiling the latest United Nations assessment of climate science, the experts cited a litany of changes that were already under way, warned that they were likely to accelerate and expressed virtual certainty that human activity is the main cause. “Climate change is the greatest challenge of our time,” said Thomas F. Stocker, co-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations-sponsored group of scientists that produced the report (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf). “In short, it threatens our planet, our only home.”       
 The panel, in issuing its most definitive assessment yet of the risks of human-caused warming, hoped to give impetus to international negotiations toward a new climate treaty, which have languished in recent years in a swamp of technical and political disputes. The group made clear that time was not on the planet’s side if emissions continued unchecked.       
 “Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes,” the report said. “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”       
 The new report is a 36-page summary for world leaders of a 900-page report that is to be released next week on the physical science of climate change. That will be followed by additional reports in 2014 on the most likely impacts and on possible steps to limit the damage. A draft of the summary leaked (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/science/earth/extremely-likely-that-human-activity-is-driving-climate-change-panel-finds.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) last month, and the final version did not change greatly, though it was edited for clarity.       
 Going well beyond its four previous analyses of the emissions problem, the panel endorsed a “carbon budget” for humanity — a limit on the amount of the primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, that can be produced by industrial activities and the clearing of forests. No more than one trillion metric tons of carbon could be burned and the resulting gases released into the atmosphere, the panel found, if planetary warming is to be kept below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the level of preindustrial times. That temperature is a target above which scientists believe the most dangerous effects of climate change would begin to occur.       
 Just over a half-trillion tons have already been burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and at the rate energy consumption is growing, the trillionth ton will be burned sometime around 2040, according to calculations by Myles R. Allen, a scientist at the University of Oxford and one of the authors of the new report. More than three trillion tons of carbon are still left in the ground as fossil fuels.       
 Once the trillion-ton budget is exhausted, companies that wanted to keep burning fossil fuels would have to come up with ways to capture carbon dioxide and store it underground. In the United States, the Obama administration is moving forward (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/us/politics/obama-administration-carbon-limits.html) with rules that would essentially require such technology, which is likely to be costly, for any future coal-burning power plants; the president’s Republican opponents have accused him (http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/06/25/republicans-obama-climate-plan-anti-american-war-on-american-energy/) of waging a “war on coal.”       
 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a worldwide committee of hundreds of scientists that issues major reports every five or six years, advising governments on the latest knowledge on climate change. 
 The group has now issued five major reports since 1990, each of them finding greater certainty that the world is warming and greater likelihood that human activity is the chief cause. The new report finds a 95 to 100 percent chance that most of the warming of recent decades is human-caused, up from the 90 to 100 percent chance cited in the last report, in 2007.       
 But the new document also acknowledges that climate science still contains uncertainties, including the likely magnitude of the warming for a given level of emissions, the rate at which the ocean will rise, and the likelihood that plants and animals will be driven to extinction. The scientists emphasized, however, that those uncertainties cut in both directions and the only way to limit the risk is to limit emissions.       
 Climate-skeptic organizations assailed the new report as alarmist even before it was published.       
 The Heartland Institute, a Chicago organization, issued a document last week saying that any additional global warming would likely be limited to a few tenths of a degree and that this “would not represent a climate crisis.”       
 One issue much cited by the climate doubters is the slowdown in global warming that has occurred over the past 15 years. The report acknowledged that it was not fully understood, but said such pauses had occurred in the past and the natural variability of climate was a likely explanation.       
 “People think that global warming means every year is going to be warmer than the year before,” said Gerald A. Meehl, an American scientist who helped write the report. “It’s more like a stair-step kind of thing.”
 Climate scientists not involved in writing the new report said the authors had made a series of cautious choices in their assessment of the scientific evidence. Regarding sea level rise, for instance, they gave the first firm estimates ever contained in an intergovernmental panel report, declaring that if emissions continued at a rapid pace, the rise by the end of the 21st century could be as much as three feet. They threw out a string of published papers suggesting a worst-case rise closer to five feet.       
 Similarly, the authors went out of their way to include recent papers suggesting that the earth might be less sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions than previously thought, even though serious questions have been raised about the validity of those estimates.       
 The new report lowered the bottom end of the range of potential warming that could be expected to occur over the long term if the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere were to double, reversing a decision that the panel made in the last report and restoring a scientific consensus that had prevailed from 1979 to 2007. Six years ago, that range was reported as 3.6 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit; the new range is 2.7 to 8.1 degrees.
 In Washington, President Obama’s science adviser, John P. Holdren, cited increased scientific confidence “that the kinds of harm already being experienced from climate change will continue to worsen unless and until comprehensive and vigorous action to reduce emissions is undertaken worldwide.”       
 Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, spoke to delegates at the meeting on Friday by video link, declaring his intention to call a meeting of heads of state in 2014 to push such a treaty forward. The last such meeting, in Copenhagen in 2009, ended in disarray.       
 

Evo ga ovde i sam izveštaj:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf)
 
I pres riliz, kome je ono predugačko:
 
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI-AR5_SPMPressRelease.pdf (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI-AR5_SPMPressRelease.pdf)
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 01-10-2013, 21:43:07
Meteorologist vows never to fly again after seeing latest climate report (http://news.yahoo.com/meteorologist-vows-never-to-fly-again-after-seeing-latest-climate-report-134014509.html)
Quote

When meteorologist Eric Holthaus read the recent climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he saw that things were worse (http://www.salon.com/2013/09/30/one_meteorologist_explains_why_he_wont_fly_again/) than even he had anticipated.

Writing a reaction piece in Quartz (http://qz.com/129122/the-worlds-best-scientists-agree-on-our-current-path-global-warming-is-irreversible-and-getting-worse/), Holthaus wrote that for the first time, the IPCC's report "mentioned projections of climate change beyond 2100 and painted a picture of a bleak world, possibly unrecognizable to those living today, should fossil fuel use continue on its current trajectory."

Then, while getting ready to board a flight in San Francisco on Sept. 27, Holthaus began tweeting about his more emotional reaction to the report.





 It's not an empty sacrifice for Holthaus, an avid traveler.
In another post for Quartz (http://qz.com/129477/why-im-never-flying-again/), Holthaus writes that while he's long done things to help the environment (he recycles, doesn't eat meat, brings his own bags to the store, etc.), his flying habits (75,000 miles flown last year) were no longer something he could ignore.

Holthaus used a carbon footprint calculator (http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/carboncalculator) from UC Berkeley and found that his flying accounted for nearly half of his household's emissions. He found that if he stopped flying, his carbon footprint would go from being about double the American average to around 30 percent less than average.
 
Via Quartz:
I’ll still have to travel a lot
(by car and train (http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/plane-train-automobile-travel.htm)), and I’ll use videoconferencing for meetings I can’t miss. But by removing my single biggest impact on the climate in one swoop, I can rest a bit easier knowing I’ve begun to heed the IPCC’s call to action. Individual gestures, repeated by millions of people, could make a huge difference.   

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 01-10-2013, 21:57:53
A da g. Eric Holthaus prestane uopšte da putuje ili da opiči pešaka?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 01-10-2013, 22:06:18
Ili da prestane da koristi Internet!!!!!!!!!!! Koliko li ti silni serveri koji nose Twitter troše struje!!!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 01-10-2013, 22:43:33
Deglobalizacija bi bila još bolja. Koliko bi ukidanje transporta đubreta po belom svetu smanjilo emisiju CO2!!! Otapanje na polovima bi prestalo, čak bi se i globalisti zaledili.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 01-10-2013, 23:26:27
Tako je. Nije bitno šta pojedinci rade, nego šta korporacije i države rade. Ovom naučniku bi bolje bilo da ne troši na putovanje vreme koje se može i pametnije iskoristiti, nego da ide avionom, a da na konferencijama i sastancima bude budan i odmoran.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: PTY on 02-10-2013, 09:19:25
 
Taj klajmat-čenđ fenomen je najversatilnije civilizacijsko dostignuće posle točka, fituje kao rukavica i proponentima i oponentima, a dušu je dao i za ekonomsku i političku manipulaciju, da sumanute teorije zavere sad i ne pominjemo. Ja sam, naravno, pod uticajem 3W perspective, tako da mi kritički prilazi dođu uvek nekako prihvatljiviji negoli oni holivudski režirani, mada ne odbacujem ništa kao mogućnost, a pogotovo ne one pristupe koji mi, kao osvedočenom laiku, izgledaju kao skroz pametno i zdravo očuvanje okoliša. Ali dalje od toga, sve te šou-melodrame skoro čežnjivog prizivanja apokalipse… to me mimoiđe.

Srećom pa su sirovi podaci danas pristupačni svakom laiku, ovo je ipak internet doba: najčešće analize dugoročnih klimatskih promena uglavnom se oslanjaju na sirove podatke koje sakupljaju centri poput CRU – Climate Research Unit, GISS - Goddard Institute for Space Studies, CDIAC - Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre, NCDC - National Climatic Data Centre, GHCN – Global Historical Climatology Network itd. a podaci koje ti centri prikupljaju jesu relativno slobodna informacija, tako da bar tu verovatno nema otvorene i značajne manipulacije, ona se može naći tek u tumačenjima tih podataka i u metodologijama koje neki tako vole da predstavljaju kao sakrosantne, dok su one, u suštini, većinom ‘lucky guess / dospi brašna, dodaj vode’ recepture. Bliže je istini poverovati da niti jedan metod kojim se procenjuju tako globalne i suštinske promene može da zdravo prepozna trend, a kamoli njegove uzroke, kad se hrani tako “mladom” bazom podataka. A da stvar bude još gora, mnoge od gore navedenih baza podataka nude zabeležena merenja koja skroz odudaraju od teorije kao takve, mnoge od tih merenja pokazuju konkretan trend zahlađenja a ne zagrevanja, tako da je konfuzija time još veća. Ali naravno, mnoge studije dobro znaju kako da iskoriste samo one podatke koji im idu u prilog, ili bolje rečeno, koji idu u prilog interesima koji te studije finansiraju...  :evil:  ali bolje da tu stanem, da se i sama ne svrstam u onaj gore pomenuti "zavera" domen.  :mrgreen:
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 02-10-2013, 09:35:59
Mogla si ti još. U klimatologiji, kao čedu meterologije, još se ne zna odakle vetar duva, a kamoli gde se prašina diže.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: BladeRunner on 02-10-2013, 09:50:25
Ima solidan dokumentarac "Age of Stupid" u kome prikazuju porodicu koja se trudi da živi ekološki. Imaju neku malu sveščicu čiji su listovi vjerovatno napravljeni od recikliranog kartona, i tu zapisuju kolika im je emisija C02, pri čemu je let avionom ključna stavka. A onda slijedi prilog o indijskom mogulu, klasičnom korporativnom retardu koji u toku emisije stigne da da i par otkaza pred kamerama, koji pokreće avionsku kompaniju sa nekoliko stotina letjelica. I tu se vidi koliko taj pokret za smanjenje emisije može malo da postigne, jer jedan let aviona poništava životnu misiju nekoliko ljudi, pa su njihovi napori manji od kapi u moru. Taj pokret bi morao da se omasovi do nivoa nekoliko miliona, ako ne i više, da bi bilo nekih rezultata, što je u današnjoj ekonomiji gotovo nemoguće.

A ovo što Libeat kaže - ja sam od onih, naivnih, koji bi se zalagali taman za ukidanje avionskog saobraćaja i kontrolisano vraćanje civilizacije u doba parnih mašina ako je potrebno, jer mi djeluje da ako se to ne uradi, alternativa će biti nekontrolisano vraćanje čovječanstva u kameno. Ili to iz mene govori mjesec čitanja post-apokaliptične literature?  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 02-10-2013, 10:03:42
Ma, to je ko što se struja štedi tako što se u EU zakonom uvode štedljive sijalice, kao da je disipacija energije u domaćinstvima (i to kroz sijalice sa usijanim vlaknom) glavni uzrok energetskih nedaća sveta... da ne pominjem zakonsku zabranu toaleta sa velikim kazančetom u SAD itd... Zaista je dirljivo da građani žele da pomognu da se spase planeta al dok se korporacijama ne stavi uzda od toga je svakako slaba vajda.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 02-10-2013, 10:06:52
Moji u Oklahomi se ubiše reciklirajući, pa kad napune garažu, odvezu sve do Centra za reciklažu. Bilans: čista savest, nula pazar.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 02-10-2013, 10:09:10
Ma, reciklaža je okej. Ipak đubre ne treba da ide nekontrolisano u zemlju, a još bolje ako može da se iskoristi ponovo, ali ove mere štednje koje građanima objektivno život čine (za nijansu) manje udobnim dok na drugoj strani korporacije ne štede sve dok misle da zarađuju - to je tužni paradoks zapada.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: PTY on 02-10-2013, 10:27:27
Ima solidan dokumentarac "Age of Stupid" u kome prikazuju porodicu koja se trudi da živi ekološki. Imaju neku malu sveščicu čiji su listovi vjerovatno napravljeni od recikliranog kartona, i tu zapisuju kolika im je emisija C02, pri čemu je let avionom ključna stavka. A onda slijedi prilog o indijskom mogulu, klasičnom korporativnom retardu koji u toku emisije stigne da da i par otkaza pred kamerama, koji pokreće avionsku kompaniju sa nekoliko stotina letjelica. I tu se vidi koliko taj pokret za smanjenje emisije može malo da postigne, jer jedan let aviona poništava životnu misiju nekoliko ljudi, pa su njihovi napori manji od kapi u moru. Taj pokret bi morao da se omasovi do nivoa nekoliko miliona, ako ne i više, da bi bilo nekih rezultata, što je u današnjoj ekonomiji gotovo nemoguće.

A ovo što Libeat kaže - ja sam od onih, naivnih, koji bi se zalagali taman za ukidanje avionskog saobraćaja i kontrolisano vraćanje civilizacije u doba parnih mašina ako je potrebno, jer mi djeluje da ako se to ne uradi, alternativa će biti nekontrolisano vraćanje čovječanstva u kameno. Ili to iz mene govori mjesec čitanja post-apokaliptične literature?  :mrgreen:

 
Pa kažem, ja jesam pod uticajem vrlo kritički raspoložene 3W perspective, jer da se ne lažemo, to što ljudi u razvijenom svetu vide (i verovatno doživljavaju) kao malu redukciju sopstvenog luksuza svakodnevice, u manje razvijenim zemljama može da znači ništa manje od razlike između života i smrti. To kažem bukvalno, bez preterivanja. Otud se i teoriji ne može uniformno pristupati, čak i ako je tačna. No naravno, svako suočavanje gledišta je dobrodošlo, ma kako strane međusobno bile udaljene, to po percepciji i po interesu:  ako ništa drugo, suočavanje će pomoći obema stranama da se bolje artikulišu i bolje prezentuju sopstvene ranjivosti. Na nekom individualnom, ličnom nivou, i ja sam sklona da poverujem kako uloga pojedinca svakako nije zanemarljiva, ali hipokrita u meni to misli samo dok može da se provuče sa sitnim ustupcima koji mu ne ugrožavaju ni minimum udobnosti a kamoli golu egzistenciju.   :(
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 02-10-2013, 10:56:18
MOJA teorija zavere je ta da sve to kenjaju da naplase svoj silan narod da im VERUJE u sve sto kazu, aaali bas SVE!
Sto ljudima vise pomracis um to je veca sijalichka kojom im malko zasvetlis da te vise vole i slepo veruju.Oduvek bilo i bice.  U svim mogucim drustvima i vrstama vlasti, uvek je isto....so simple....
Ej, cak i svi Ameri znaju da im dollar nista ne vredi, nema zlata da ga pokrije, duzni su u tim istim imaginarnim parama, i koga zabole...? Svi cute i miruju, u svojim glavama svi daju tu vrednost dollaru, ko sto su ga davali i zlatu ranije, ko sto mi dajemo i evru i dinaru nasim...

Neko ko je pokusao da im to obezvredni, igrali su fudbal sa njegovom glavom.
Verovatno je poenta da SVAKI amer na svetu ukapira da je dobro nositi oruzje ali pucati samo na bezobrazni nevernicki arapski svet koji jos bezobraznije ne da naftu koja nam je potrebna da sacuvamo planetu!
Jer bez nase divne ekonomije i tehnologije za koju nam je potrebna nafta da se spasimo, svi smo na'ebali....

Dakle da bi celom SVETU bilo dobro, mora se slusati amerski prcednik, dollar, itd...simple!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: дејан on 02-10-2013, 11:36:09

Verovatno je poenta da SVAKI amer na svetu ukapira da je dobro nositi oruzje ali pucati samo na bezobrazni nevernicki arapski svet koji jos bezobraznije ne da naftu koja nam je potrebna da sacuvamo planetu!
Jer bez nase divne ekonomije i tehnologije za koju nam je potrebna nafta da se spasimo, svi smo na'ebali....

Dakle da bi celom SVETU bilo dobro, mora se slusati amerski prcednik, dollar, itd...simple!

или како је обама скоро рекао у свом говору у УН:

Quote
So let me take this opportunity to outline what has been U.S. policy towards the Middle East and North Africa, and what will be my policy during the remainder of my presidency.The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region...
...We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world.  Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends on the region’s energy supply, and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.
тим америка (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/) из реди ту рол!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 16-10-2013, 10:06:26
Kako smo već pričali, sugestije sirotinji da smanji svoj nivo emisije CO2 su dosta... cinične:

Small scale, small contribution (http://thebulletin.org/climate-food-and-biomass-energy/small-scale-small-contribution)
Quote
In his Round Two essay, N.H. Ravindranath argued in favor of small-scale bioenergy technologies such as efficient cookstoves and electrifying villages with biogas. These technologies, he wrote, can mitigate climate change, support rural development, reduce soot, and so forth. To be sure, the technologies that Ravindranath discussed will be welcomed around the world if they prove effective and appropriate—and if patent protections do not prove an obstacle to their adoption. But the resulting reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be small.
Why? Because poor people, whose carbon emissions these technologies would reduce, produce very little carbon in the first place. As I mentioned in Round One, the planet's poorest 1 billion people are responsible for only 3 percent of global carbon emissions. The 1.26 billion people whose countries belong to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development account for 42 percent of emissions. The rich, if they reduced their emissions by just 8 percent, could achieve more climate mitigation than the poor could achieve by reducing their emissions to zero. The rich could manage this 8 percent reduction by altering their lifestyles in barely noticeable ways. For the poor, a reduction of 100 percent would imply permanent misery.
Ravindranath discussed a study carried out in India that examined the climate mitigation benefits of substituting biomass energy for diesel fuel. "Over 100 years," he reported, "[this approach] would prevent 92.5 metric tons of carbon per hectare from entering the atmosphere." One hundred years! The average American is responsible for 17.6 tons of carbon emissions (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC) in a single year. If one imagines an American household of four that somehow existed for 100 years, this household would need to reduce its emissions by only 1.31 percent to achieve 92.5 metric tons of reduced carbon emissions. A reduction so small could easily be achieved with more efficient kitchens or cars, better insulation, or a bit more bike-riding. Surely this approach represents a better bargain for all concerned than does devoting a hectare of Indian land to producing feedstock for biomass energy, when that land might be put to use feeding Indian families.
I would also point out that biomass energy is a component of any serious strategy for organic agriculture, a practice I strongly recommended in Round One. Peasants around the world have been practicing sustainable agriculture for centuries—without consuming fossil fuels and therefore without harming the climate. It was only the development of "modern" agriculture—highly mechanized, and dependent on intensive fertilizer and pesticide use—that transformed agriculture into a sector that today is responsible for 14 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
It is not the poor whose emissions need to be cut. Suggesting otherwise implicitly blames them for a problem they did not create, a problem from which they are already suffering disproportionately. Indeed, the heroes of climate mitigation ought to be—instead of engineers who develop new technologies—the traditional, organic agriculturalists who use biomass energy in the same responsible ways that their forebears have used it for centuries.
 


Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 16-10-2013, 10:20:26
Ako je sve jasno, čemu dalje trućanje? Samo struganje šargarepa na dimenzije bejbi kerot proizvede više CO2 nego čitava proizvodnja šargarepa.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 16-10-2013, 10:32:15
Ma, nije sve jasno. Bar ne svima. Debatuje se!!!!!!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 16-10-2013, 11:04:50
Svaki učesnik u tim debatama izduva 150 litara CO2 svakog sata. To je više nego što isprde sve krave sveta. Ko veruje da će oni koji su zasrali da za sobom počiste grdno se vara. Zna se ko je počistio Augijeve štale.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 22-10-2013, 12:40:39
Interesantan projekat u kaliforniji, sa mašinama koje rade na biomasu a otpad umesto da ispuste u vidu CO2 u atmosferu, izlazi u formi, hm, "uglja" koji je dobar za đubrenje biljaka. Zvuči suviše dobro da bi bilo istinito ali evo:

Carbon-negative energy, a reality at last -- and cheap, too (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57608281-76/carbon-negative-energy-a-reality-at-last-and-cheap-too/)


Quote
In Berkeley, Calif., All Power Labs is turning out machines that convert cheap and abundant biomass into clean energy and rich, efficient charcoal fertilizer.


 BERKELEY, Calif. -- In 2007, officials from this famously liberal city shut off the electricity (http://laughingsquid.com/berkeley-shuts-down-amazing-art-space-the-shipyard/) to an artists space known as the Shipyard. That action, which forced the artists there to seek a new way to power their flamethrowers, is the origin story of a company that now produces what it says is the world's only carbon-negative power source.
 Located in one of the grittiest areas of town, where train tracks, garbage, and broken down  cars (http://reviews.cnet.com/car-tech/) are far more prevalent than the hippies Berkeley is famous for, All Power Labs (http://www.gekgasifier.com/) has set up shop inside the Shipyard. Run by CEO Jim Mason (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9885641-54.html) -- who owns the space -- the 5-year-old startup now produces technology used to transform dense biomass like corn husks or wood chips into clean, sustainable, and cheap energy.



 All Power Labs makes machines that use an ancient process called gasification to turn out not only carbon-neutral energy, but also a carbon-rich charcoal by-product that just happens to be a fertilizer so efficient that Tom Price, the company's director of strategic initiatives, calls it "plant crack."
 Gasification, in which dense biomass smoldering -- but not combusting -- in a low-oxygen environment is converted to hydrogen gas, is nothing new. Price said that ancient cultures used it to enrich their soils, and during World War II, a million vehicles utilized the technology. But after the war, it more or less vanished from the planet, for reasons unknown. Until Mason needed a way to power his flamethrowers, that is.
 All Power Labs has taken gasification and combined it with two of the Bay Area's most valuable commodities -- a rich maker culture and cutting-edge programming skills -- to produce what are called PowerPallets. Feed a bunch of walnut shells or wood chips into these $27,000 machines and you get fully clean energy at less than 10 cents a kilowatt hour, a fraction of what other green power sources can cost.



 Global climate change is a result of too much carbon being put into the sky, most scientists agree, and most energy sources, even others based on biomass, contribute to the problem. That's because, Price said, burning the biomass releases the carbon back into the atmosphere. By comparison, because there's no combustion in All Power Labs' gasification process, the carbon isn't released into the air.
 Rather, it is pulled from the biomass and converted into charcoal. Thanks to gasification and the fact that that charcoal can be put back into the ground, the process of releasing carbon is reversed, Price argued.



 That's why All Power Labs has already sold more than 500 of its machines -- many to some of the world's poorest nations. During a recent visit to the company's headquarters, it had orders pending from Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Thailand, Nicaragua, Mexico, and Chile, among others. That's because, Price said, while many energy sources in the developing world can cost 50 or 60 cents per kilowatt hour, a PowerPallet can do it for a dime.
 Since its founding five years ago, the company has been doubling its revenues every year and now does $5 million in sales. One reason for that growth is that dense biomass is everywhere. Think about America's heartland, where corn grows as far as the eye can see. Or California's Central Valley, where walnuts are a major crop. All those cobs and shells can now be used as the basis for cheap energy. Similarly, startups are generating electricity with the machines in Liberia, and Italian farmers are buying them because that country offers lucrative incentives to produce renewable power. To an Italian farmer, Price said, a PowerPallet is "an ATM machine."
 In some countries, it can cost $5,000 a month to power a cell phone tower, Price said. But a PowerPallet could do the job for a fraction of the cost, meaning the machine could pay for itself in months. And that alone is a huge opportunity for the company given that a third of the 650,000 cell towers in Southeast Asia and Africa are off the grid, Price said.
 Patented but simple
 All Power Labs has gotten several patents for its technology, mainly having to do with its innovations in system control, integration, and configuration. But the PowerPallets are still relatively simple, at least as far as their users are concerned. For one, thing Price explained, much of the machine is made with plumbing fixtures that are the same everywhere in the world. That means they're easy to repair.
 At the same time, while researchers at the 50 or so institutions that have bought the machines are excited by opening up the computer control system and poking around inside, a guy running a corn mill in Uganda with a PowerPallet "will never need to open that door and never will," Price said.



 For now, All Power Labs is making only 10 kW and 20 kW versions, though the US Department of Energy and the University of Minnesota recently gave the company a grant to build a 100 kW version. And while the system can't convert every form of biomass, Price said that one of the company's biggest aims is to make it possible to use any organic material. He estimated that goal is about five years away.
 All of this explains why the company now employs more than 30 people. And the fact that last year, the City of Berkeley honored All Power Labs with a proclamation on its fifth birthday. The city didn't quite appreciate the irony of granting that honor given the company's origins, Price said.
 Now, All Power Labs is turning out a machine a day and slowly but surely building a business that it hopes will one day contribute to the reversal of global warming. That may well be overly ambitious, but at the very least, the company has carved out an impressive niche for itself in the power business, an industry dominated by some of the biggest, richest, and most powerful outfits in the world. But Price isn't worried that All Power Labs will incur those rivals' wrath. "They don't even know we're here," Price said. "By the time they figure it out, we'll be everywhere."
 Correction (Sunday, 10:35 a.m. PT): This story originally misstated the cost of generating power using All Power Labs' machines.

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: PTY on 04-12-2013, 12:28:02
U nastavku prethodnog posta:




A carbon negative biofuel?

Californian start-up Cool Planet Energy Systems says it is producing a biofuel that removes more CO2 from the atmosphere than it emits. Is it really possible to have a carbon-negative fuel?

Every now and then you come across an idea that is just too good to be true. And at first glance that seems to be the case with the carbon negative fuel from Cool Planet Energy Systems. But the start-up does have some serious financial backers, BP, General Electric, Google Ventures and ConocoPhillips among them. If they think it is worth investing in Cool Planet, its claims must be credible at least. So what is behind the idea?

Hydrocarbon fuel

Cool Planet says it has managed to produce a hydrocarbon fuel from bio-waste. It’s not just another biofuel like bioethanol, but a proper hydrocarbon fuel, virtually indistinguishable from gasoline produced from oil. It can go straight into the existing infrastructure and car engines don’t need any modification. Better still, Cool Planet says it can produce an advanced super fuel with higher octane ratings, getting better mileage for the engines of the future. But more importantly, it’s made from bio-waste, not from food crops, so there are no negative effects on food prices or problems with indirect land use change impact.

Biochar

The fuel is produced in a thermal/mechanical processor called a biomass fractionator. In a matter of minutes, the fractionator converts biomass like crop residues, algae, soft wood chips and rapid growth crops like switch grass into multiple gas streams and into biochar. The gas can be upgraded to gasoline In a one-step catalytic conversion process. The biochar is a fertilizer and soil conditioner and basically stores its carbon content in the soil. It is this element of biochar that makes Cool Planet’s biofuel carbon negative. Half of the carbon contained in the biomass that goes into the fractionator ends up in the fuel, but the other half ends up in the biochar. With biochar more barren land can be made arable to grow energy crops that absorb CO2 from the air.

Cheap

The economics behind the idea are impressive too. Cool planet says it can produce its biofuel at a cost of $1.50 per gallon, which amounts to €0,31 per litre. This is without any subsidies. Another major advantage is that the biomass fractionator is relatively small and can easily be transported to where the biomass is. Such a ‘micro-refinery’ would avoid the need to ship the input for gasoline production halfway around the world, as is the case with crude oil. A container sized fractionator module can produce up to a million gallons of biofuel per year. The concept is easily scalable and capital expenditure is low.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard

Cool Planet has already tested the fuel internally and completed a field trial in a test blend to meet California’s 2020 Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which calls for a reduction of at least 10% in carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 2020. With the help of Cool Planet’s biofuel this was achieved eight years ahead of schedule. Cool Planet hopes to be able to deliver hundreds of them over the next few years. Cool Planet’s selling point is this: the more you drive, the carbon negative fuel you use, the more CO2 is being removed from the air. That would be a very economical and attractive way to tackle global warming indeed.


http://www.energyacademy.org/article/126/a-carbon-negative-biofuel (http://www.energyacademy.org/article/126/a-carbon-negative-biofuel)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 04-12-2013, 13:15:23
Ja nadu polažem u parne automobile na torijumski pogon. Ako nas to ne spasi ništa neće.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 04-12-2013, 13:30:17
Ja nadu polažem u svet bez automobila. To bi nas spasilo.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 26-12-2013, 10:05:28
Škocki naučnici su pregledali tisućljetne podatke vezane za klimu i zaključili da Sunce nije ključni činilac klimatskih promena (aka globalnog zagrevanja) već da su to, verovatno, jelte, vulkani plus u poslednjih stotinak godina antropogeni faktori:

Sun not a key driver of climate change (http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2013/sun-221213)

Quote
Climate change has not been strongly influenced by variations in heat from the sun, a new scientific study shows.
The findings overturn a widely held scientific view that lengthy periods of warm and cold weather in the past might have been caused by periodic fluctuations in solar activity.Volcano impactResearch examining the causes of climate change in the northern hemisphere over the past 1000 years has shown that until the year 1800, the key driver of periodic changes in climate was volcanic eruptions.
These tend to prevent sunlight reaching the Earth, causing cool, drier weather. Since 1900, greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of climate change.
The findings show that periods of low sun activity should not be expected to have a large impact on temperatures on Earth, and are expected to improve scientists’ understanding and help climate forecasting.Historical dataScientists at the University of Edinburgh carried out the study using records of past temperatures constructed with data from tree rings and other historical sources.
They compared this data record with computer-based models of past climate, featuring both significant and minor changes in the sun.
They found that their model of weak changes in the sun gave the best correlation with temperature records, indicating that solar activity has had a minimal impact on temperature in the past millennium.
The study, published in Nature GeoScience, was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council.



Until now, the influence of the sun on past climate has been poorly understood. We hope that our new discoveries will help improve our understanding of how temperatures have changed over the past few centuries, and improve predictions for how they might develop in future. Links between the sun and anomalously cold winters in the UK are still being explored.
Dr Andrew Schurer
School of GeoSciences
 


Evo link za sam rad, pa kome se plaća nek plaća:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2040.html (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2040.html)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 26-12-2013, 10:16:48
I dalje se iskreno nadam da je reč o klimatskom kolebanju, a ne klimatskim promenama.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 26-12-2013, 10:34:31
Pa šta je tu novo što se već nije znalo? Ako te već zanimaju klimatske promene, pročitaj malo stručnu literaturu o tome, a nemoj stalno prenositi novinske vesti. Sledećeg septembra ćemo u SANU organizovati jedan simpozijum na tu temu - sa posebnim naglaskom na paleoklimatske podatke i regionalne klimatske modele. Doći će narod iz celog sveta, pa dođi i ti da čuješ iz prve ruke...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 26-12-2013, 10:46:44
Pa, Mićo, ja kapiram da  nije "novo" u smislu da su u pitanju graundbrejking otkrića, nego da je ovo više deo ongoing dijaloga sa onima koji insistiraju da su antropogene promene puka izmišljotina i deo zavere protiv poštenih biznismena itd. A pošto se ovaj topik time bavi sa nekog laičkog aspekta onda, eto...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: PTY on 02-01-2014, 13:14:48
re. ongoing dijaloga…  :evil:






http://themetapicture.com/scientists-tell-the-truth/ (http://themetapicture.com/scientists-tell-the-truth/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 02-01-2014, 13:28:07
Oduševljen sam sa ovim komentarima "eksperimentalnih" uslova. Bar pola sam imao prilike da doživim ili da mi o nekim od njih pričaju.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: PTY on 13-01-2014, 12:04:02
Climate Change:



California's Carbon Market a Success in its First Year, Report Finds


Despite earlier gloomy prognostications that California's greenhouse gas cap and trade system would violate the law and tank the state's economy, the program's first year has been a remarkable success. That's according to a report on the program released this week by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).

According to the report, entitled California Carbon Market Watch: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Golden State's Cap-and-Trade Program, Year One,, the first year of the cap and trade program's emissions credit auction coincided with a strengthening state economy and a growing renewable energy sector, while setting a stable price for the privilege of emitting greenhouse gas pollution.

According to the report, those achievements -- along with last week's link to Quebec's similar cap and trade market, and moves to do likewise with Australia and China -- show that it's possible to strictly regulate greenhouse gas emissions without plunging the world's economic activity into chaos.

"The first year results are highly encouraging and proof positive that we can successfully harness the power of the marketplace to solve climate change without sacrificing economic growth," EDF President Fred Krupp said in a press release. "In a year marked by gridlock and polarization, the Golden State is a shining example of climate leadership."

The cap and trade program's auction, administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), is the linchpin of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32), passed by the Legislature in 2006. The program, under which major polluters must obtain emissions permits ("allowances") for every ton of CO2 (or its greenhouse gas equivalent) they dump into the atmosphere, has created the second largest carbon emissions market in the world, surpassed in extent only by the European Union's program.

By 2015 the emissions credit trading system will cover 85 percent of all carbon pollution emitted by the state. That means that most of the greenhouse gases emitted in California will have a price attached to them. Not only will lowering emissions reduce the number of allowances a company must buy, but firms can sell their unused allowances to companies whose reductions haven't been as successful, offering a twinned financial incentive for polluters to cut down on their emissions.

The EDF report that the results of the five emissions credit auctions CARB has held so far show that the allowances sold so far have gone for a fairly low price, around $11 per ton of emissions. EDF suggests that this means compliance with the cap and trade program may not be as big a financial burden for companies as some business interests feared.

As the program was phased in over the last year, the polluters covered in the first round were issued a significant number of free allowances, an attempt to soften the blow of entry to the world of carbon trading. So far, the cap and trade program hasn't covered distributors of transportation fuels and natural gas: when those industries become subject to the law on January 1, 2015, doubling the scope of the program, they won't be offered free allowances.

The intent of the program, and of the Global Warming Solutions Act that established it, is to push California's greenhouse gas emissions back down to 1990 levels by 2020.

So far, the cap and trade auction proceeds have netted the state $1.37 billion for the state's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, where it can be sent on projects to promote renewables and energy efficiency, clean vehicles, conservation, and waste reduction. A quarter of the projects thus funded must benefit the state's low-income communities, with 10 percent of the total required to be spent directly in those communities.

2014 will be an important year for the program. In addition to ramping up to include the transport fuel and natural gas sectors in the program in 2015, this is the year when participants must start to surrender their allowances in order to emit greenhouse gases. In other words, 2014 is when California's cap and trade program really gets going. And though it seems to ReWire that a higher price per ton of emissions would offer a better incentive to reduce those emissions, if one takes EDF at its word, it seems like things are looking up for carbon trading in the Golden State.


http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/climate-change/californias-carbon-market-a-success-in-its-first-year.html (http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/climate-change/californias-carbon-market-a-success-in-its-first-year.html)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: PTY on 20-01-2014, 09:13:04
Eeee, ovo je vec je vrlo, vrlo zanimljivo: zasto protivnici teorije globalnog zagrevanja ne nude naucne radove u potporu svog stava? Phil Plait ceprka po toj zanimljivosti:
Quote





To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of climate change denial is how deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals, but instead rely on talk shows, grossly error-laden op-eds, and hugely out-of-date claims (that were never right to start with).


In 2012, National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell investigated peer-reviewed literature published about climate change and found that out of 13,950 articles, 13,926 supported the reality of global warming. Despite a lot of sound and fury from the denial machine, deniers have not really been able to come up with a coherent argument against a consensus. The same is true for a somewhat different study that showed a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists supporting both the reality of global warming and the fact that human emissions are behind it.


Powell recently finished another such investigation, this time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. Out of 2,258 articles (with 9,136 authors), how many do you think explicitly rejected human-driven global warming? Go on, guess!


One. Yes, one. Here’s what that looks like as a pie chart:


(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climatedenial_published.gif.CROP.original-original.gif)



Huh. Here’s the thing: If you listen to Fox News, or right-wing radio, or read the denier blogs, you’d have to think climate scientists were complete idiots to miss how fake global warming is. Yet despite this incredibly obvious hoax, no one ever publishes evidence exposing it. Mind you, scientists are a contrary lot. If there were solid evidence that global warming didn’t exist, or that CO2 emissions weren’t the culprit, there would be papers in the journals about it. Lots of them.


I base this on my own experience with contrary data in astronomy. In 1998, two teams of researchers found evidence that the expansion of the Universe was not slowing down, as expected, but actually speeding up. This idea is as crazy as holding a ball in your hand, letting go, and having it fall up, accelerating wildly into the sky. Yet those papers got published. They inspired lively discussion (to say the least) and motivated further observations. Careful, meticulous work was done to eliminate errors and confounding factors, until it became very clear that we were seeing an overturning of the previous paradigm. It took years, but now astronomers accept that the Universal expansion is accelerating and that dark energy is the culprit.


Mind you, dark energy is far, far weirder than anything climate change deniers have come up with, yet it became mainstream science in a decade or so. Deniers have been bloviating for longer than that, yet their claims are rejected overwhelmingly by climate scientists. Why? Because they’re wrong.



Of course, if you listen to some politicians, you’d never know. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), for example, still claims it’s all a hoax. Of course, he still thinks Climategate was a thing, when it’s been shown repeatedly to have been totally manufactured. He also thinks global warming must be wrong because it got cold outside. With all due respect to the senator, he’d fail middle school science. Good thing he’s on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. His denial of reality is joined by three-fourths of the Republicans on the House Science Committee, who still have their heads firmly buried in the sand.


Happily, though, there is opposition. Democrats in the Senate are pushing for Congress to take this situation more seriously, forming a “Climate Action Task Force” whose goal is to “wake up Congress.” They want to help organize civil groups to pressure senators into taking action about climate change.


Let me make a none-too-subtle political point here. Climate change deniers in politics and in the media are overwhelmingly Republican (or “free market libertarians,” who have aligned themselves to virtual indistinguishability from the GOP, or more likely vice versa). When I write on the politics of this issue I get accused of being biased, which is ironic indeed. I didn’t start this fight, nor did I draw the partisan lines. I’m just shining a light on them. I know some pro-science Republicans, but the ones in elected office are few and far between.



The basic science of global warming is independent of party line. It doesn’t care if you’re left, right, black, white, straight, gay, pro-gun, pro-abortion rights, pro-GMO, or pro-vaccine. It’s real, and it affects all of us. Mission No. 1 is to get people to understand this, and then to get them to elect politicians who do as well.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html)



 
 

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 20-01-2014, 10:15:25
Dobro je pročeprkao.  :lol:

Srećom, tu su ljudi da nas umire i objasne da je antropogeno globalno zagrevanje samo sujeverni mit (http://www.geopolitika.rs/index.php/sr/nauka/68-2010-04-23-10-37-59).


Edit: A da ne ispadne da skeptici baš ništa ne objavljuju:


         Alleging 'Malpractice' With Climate Skeptic Papers, Publisher Kills Journal (http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/01/alleging-malpractice-climate-skeptic-papers-publisher-kills-journal)



Quote
  A European publisher today terminated a journal (http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/17/climate-skeptic-journal-shuttered-following-malpractice-in-nepotistic-reviewer-selections/) edited by climate change skeptics. The journal, Pattern Recognition in Physics, was started less than a year ago. The editors-in-chief were Nils-Axel Mörner, a retired geophysicist from Stockholm University, and Sid-Ali Ouadfeul (http://www.intechopen.com/profiles/103826/Sid-Ali-Ouadfeul), a geophysicist at the Algerian Petroleum Institute.
Copernicus Publications (http://publications.copernicus.org/), based in Göttingen, Germany, publishes 25 peer-reviewed open-access journals. It specializes in “strict, but fair and transparent peer-review.” The publisher considers proposals for new journals, and, according to a note on its website (http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/):
 
The journal idea was brought to Copernicus' attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics. However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics.
 
Problems cropped up soon afterward. In July, Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado, Denver, noted “serious concerns” with Pattern Recognition in Physics. As he wrote on his blog (http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/07/16/recognizing-a-pattern-of-problems-in-pattern-recognition-in-physics/) about open-access publishing, Beall found self-plagiarism by Ouadfeul in the first paper published by the journal, which Ouadfeul co-authored. “Is this the kind of ‘pattern recognition’ the journal is talking about?” Beall quipped. The first five articles in the journal consisted of a pair by Ouadfeul, another two by climate skeptics, and the fifth article had “a significant amount of self-plagiarism.”
Managing Director Martin Rasmussen, who could not be reached for comment, noted on the Pattern Recognition in Physics website that he was concerned by a special issue in December in which the editors concluded that they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.” Rasmussen went on to write: “In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing.”
In a reply, which Mörner provided to ScienceInsider, he disputes that charge. “All papers were excellently reviewe[d] with very constructive comments,” he wrote to Rasmussen. The termination, he wrote, “is taken on completely wrong and unfair grounds.”
   
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 20-01-2014, 10:33:59
Antropogeno globalno zagađenje sigurno nije mit. Odnos radova za i protiv govori za globalno zagrevanje, ali loše je stajao i Ajnštajn prema Njutnu kad je objavio svoju teoriju. Glavni problem je što se "globalno zagrevanje" dokazuje u suviše kratkom vremenskom periodu. Milankovićeva teorija ledenih doba ne vidi problem, ali on nije znao koliko smo u stanju da zagadimo Zemlju. Da sve ne bi bilo opskurno suvo, priložiću i mišljenje još jednog Srbina. Naš Kornelijus, koji se prošle godine zimio šest meseci u Parizu, tvrdi da bi sve bilo još gore da nije globalnog zagrevanja.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 20-01-2014, 10:45:10
Ne mogu da odolim a da ne linkujem jedan urnebesan rad koji čak i barata prilično opšteprihvaćenim ciframa ali u sve meša istočnjačku spiritualnost i... evo pogledajte:

http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/sr/globalno-zagrevanje-klimatske-promene (http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/sr/globalno-zagrevanje-klimatske-promene)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: PTY on 20-01-2014, 11:38:09
Ne mogu da odolim a da ne linkujem jedan urnebesan rad koji čak i barata prilično opšteprihvaćenim ciframa ali u sve meša istočnjačku spiritualnost i... evo pogledajte:

http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/sr/globalno-zagrevanje-klimatske-promene (http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/sr/globalno-zagrevanje-klimatske-promene)


ohhh, pa ovo je jedan od boljih stress relieversa na koji sam nabasala u zadnjih par meseci...  :D
(greota sto na sajtu ne nalazim imena & fotke saradnika, tek da se uverim da oni svi zaista postoje, a ne samo im urednica.  :lol:)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: PTY on 20-01-2014, 11:54:34
nego, kad smo vec kod ljudske naivnosti i nepouzdanja interent infoa, pre nedelju ili dve bio je na fb-u popularan urnebes oko nekih (okej, prilicno radikalnih, kao sto je ova u dnu posta) fotki Belgian blue govecadi, i to u cilju tvrdnje kako se radi o GMO eksperimentima koji su se oteli kontroli... naprosto je neverovatno koliko je bilo tesko ubediti one najvatrenije ucesnike da su u krivu. naravno, oni pametniji su odmah odustali a oni uporniji su pre odlaska ostavili par linkova...

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTY3jpEyn5RgF7_DZbjgGz0Sqifug6JjNPWT6SA60Byo8jzNxlf2A)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 22-01-2014, 10:25:13
I, ne znam da li je to zbog ladne zime ili šta (mada tekst ima određene teze), ali procenat američkog građanstva koje odbija da veruje u globalno zagrijevanje je na šestogodišnjem maksimumu. Ne kopiram ceo tekst jer ima grafikone i svašta, pa izvolite kliknuti:



 Global-Warming Denial Hits a 6-Year High (http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/global-warming-pause-climate-denial-public-opinion)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 22-01-2014, 11:00:00
Mada si naklonjeniji elokventnijim i sofisticiranijim raspravama po pitanju GW, pokušaću da pomognem bar oko dijagrama. Jes' da poslednjih godina olabavljuje uverenje da smo na naučno potkrepljenom putu (to je prvi dijagram), postavljeno je pitanje i koliko smo tvrdi u tom uverenju. Ispostavlja se da je cca. dve trećine nepokolebljivo, bilo za ili protiv, a da se giba trećina koja promeni mišljenje svaki put kad mora da dodatno založi kamin (ili šporet) ili uključi erkondišn. To znači da oni koji planiraju da li će ga biti ili neće biti ne moraju mnogo da brinu. Odnosno, linkovano ne treba da utiče na dalju raspravu ovde. :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 22-01-2014, 11:25:01
Da, pa tako nekako. Ta prokleta trećina nam svima radi o glavi  :lol: :lol: :lol: Kako već rekoh na onom drugom topiku pre par dana, sve bi bilo lakše da su naučni podaci kojima se operiše nedvosmisleni, laki za tumačenje, bazirani na lako proverljivim podacima. Ali naravno da nisu i onda se ovde zaista u slučaju mnogo ljudi radi o pitanju vere a što je opet vezano za druga uverenja u životu, pripadnost određenoj kulturnoj grupaciji itd.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: PTY on 23-01-2014, 11:30:01
Cenjeni Mehoslav je covek pun kontradikcija, kao i svi pasivno agresivni progresivci, pa otud i moze sa toliko lakoce ocekivati od javnog mnenja da utice na demokratski izabranu vlast, dok se ujedno i nada da ce demokratski izabrana vlast tu i tamo progurati i zakone koji nisu po volji vecine, ali su joj, jelte, korisni. Mnijem da prekovise ocekuje i od jednih i od drugih, ali ako, tako to i treba kod ljudi koji boldli idu gde niko jos krocio nije.   :mrgreen:

sala sad ustranu, skoro 2 trecine zemalja na svetu vide u klajmat kontroverzi poslednju priliku da isprave neke konkretne istorijske nepravde, ili bar one koje tako izgledaju u njihovoj perspektivi. otud je recena kontroverza dobra moneta za potkusurivanje i kod progresivaca i kod konzervativaca jednako, pa je niko ne zeli ispucati pre vremena i na tamo neki olak blef: potrajace ovaj stendof jos neko vreme, dzaba mu tu trecina koja svinguje. a to sto cemo se svi u medjuvremenu mozda i podaviti ko misevi u rastucim nivoima okena, pa boze moj, nisu se ni dinosaur bolje proveli a znatno su manje krivi bili, pa treba disati makar i smog punim plucima i uzivati u zivotu dok ga ima.  :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-01-2014, 11:49:05
To je samo naizgled kontradikcija  :lol: :lol: :lol: "Demokratske" odluke i orijentacije i uopšte, filozofije su više nego prosto sprovođenje izražene volje većine po pitanju koje je se samo postavilo, već, jelte, produkt jednog rada koji podrazumeva obrazovanje, veru u to isto obrazovanje, otvorenost za koncepte koji su nam strani ili čak neprijateljski, svest koje pitanje treba da se postavi i na koji način tako da odgovor bude zbilja izraz promišljene volje što većeg broja ljudi itd. Ako tako postavimo stvari, onda je u redu da se očekuje da demokratska javnost drži vlast in check i obezbeđuje da radi u interesu ne samo većine građana već svih građana, uključujući buduće, a da ta ista demokratska vlast stalno bude korak ispred onoga što trenutna većina misli da joj je najprviji prioritet.

A stendof će verovatno potrajati sve dok ne vidimo neke neporecive potvrde da se vreme menja pod uticajem onog što čovek radi. A to verovatno opet podrazumeva kataklizmične scene koje prevazilaze ono što se ove zime dešavalo na istočnoj obali USA ili pre dva leta na celoj severnoj polulopti. Nažalost.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-01-2014, 12:15:00
Treba voditi računa da je i nauka prilično klimava i značajnim delom proizvoljna. Pokazaću to baš na primeru globalnog otopljavanja. Ledene površine na polovima u poslednjih 30 godina se skoro eksponencijalno smanjuju i vreme/površina sugeriše da će se to nastaviti. I eto katastrofe. Najhrabriji predviđaju i potonuće Golfske struje što bi već bila prava katastrofa. Otprilike, zbog priliva slatke vode (lednici nisu slani) okolne okeanske mase neće moći da nose tu struju. Međutim, poznato je da na vremenske dijagrame utiču svi aktuelni parametri klime, pa bi u tom slučaju došlo do naglog zahlađenja, koje bi ledenu masu vratilo tamo gde joj je mesto, na kopnu, a Golfska struja bi isplivala. Taj drugi korak u promenama se ne razmatra ili ja nisam pročitao. Majka priroda je gibljiva koliko i javno mnjenje u SAD. To, naravno, ne znači da promene treba zanemariti, nego da se prema njima treba odnositi sa još više pažnje. Nevolja je što ta pažnja zavisi od ulaganja u istraživanja, a ta ulaganja treba da obezbede oni koji će od njih imati najviše štete.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-01-2014, 12:18:13
Treba voditi računa da je i nauka prilično klimava i značajnim delom proizvoljna. (...)To, naravno, ne znači da promene treba zanemariti, nego da se prema njima treba odnositi sa još više pažnje. Nevolja je što ta pažnja zavisi od ulaganja u istraživanja, a ta ulaganja treba da obezbede oni koji će od njih imati najviše štete.

QFT!!!!!!!!!!

Upravo je tako: ne pričamo o jasnom problemu koji je moguće sažvakati u jednu rečenicu tako da svakom građaninu, od akademika do mene bude kristalno čisto šta se dešava, koje su posledice i šta nam je činiti, a već sama ideja da treba da se investira u dalje istraživanje je, držim mnogima sumnjiva jer dosadašnje istraživanje daje komplikovane i za tumačenje teške rezultate i najviše o čemu možemo da pričamo je trend...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-01-2014, 12:21:08
Meho, daj razmisli. Ako ti dalja istraživanja zavise od sledeće tranše granta koji si jedva izboksovao, šta bi uradio?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-01-2014, 12:46:12
Rekao bih da su rezultati obećavajući ali nikako konkluzivni i da nam treba još para, naravno  :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-01-2014, 12:51:43
Sad je red da pomisliš ko procenjuje rezultate istraživanja. Ti su još bolje plaćeni. Inkvizicija, brale. Čas posla si veštica.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-01-2014, 12:54:57
Da ne pominjemo da ti koji procenjuju rezultate neretko nemaju kognitivni aparat (ili naprosto - znanje) da ih zaista procene. Ta neugodna veza nauke sa politikom (državnom ili korporativnom, svejedno) je već pominjana ovde u ovom i na drugim topicima, ali opet, nauka mora da bude svesna i toga i da iznalazi načine i rešenja da svoju poruku prenese a željeni rezultat nekako izbori. To su ipak najsistematičniji umovi koje imamo.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-01-2014, 12:59:34
Da ne pominjemo da ti koji procenjuju rezultate neretko nemaju kognitivni aparat (ili naprosto - znanje) da ih zaista procene.


Sad si ozbiljno fulao. To ne ide tako ni u Laguni.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-01-2014, 13:05:28
Zaista??? Ne uči li nas recentna afera oko srpskog aflatoksina u srpskom mleku da onaj-koji-donosi-odluku na osnovu naučnog istraživanja na kraju dana odluku donosi na političkoj a ne naučnoj osnovi bez demonstracije da razume posledice koje odluka donosi izvan političke sfere?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-01-2014, 13:11:13
I nivo aflatoksina u EU je politička odluka koja promoviše proizvodnju uz pripomoć GMO.


ed. Izbrisao sam reč "samo".
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-01-2014, 13:13:59
QED! Donosilac odluka se vodi političkim prioritetom i pitanje je ima li znanja da se razabere u naučnim podacima.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-01-2014, 13:39:12
Donosilac političkih odluka se ne bavi sadržinom naučnih radova. On procenjuje stručne recenzije. I konsultuje recenzente ukoliko ima drugo političko viđenje. Recenzent mora samo da bude dosledan u odbrani svog stava. Nikada mi u radnom veku veliki šefovi nisu potpisali da imaju mišljenje suprotno mome. Druga stvar je ako recenzent nema jaja da uz svoje mišljenje ostane do kraja.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-01-2014, 13:53:38
Da, pa dobro, naravno. Ali kad vidimo gde leži novac i moć, vidimo i da stručnjak često mora da ide za njima, protivno onome u šta bi inače verovao.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-01-2014, 14:23:06
Sad mi više nije jasno da li imaš stav ili ne. Ali, da se vratim globalnom otopljavanju. Nema ništa od globalnog otopljavanja, dok to ne kaže subaša. A u ovom trenutku subaša je rad da pokuša da odgovornost prebaci na Kinu, na treće zemlje i bilo koga drugog. Zašto? Zato što bi subaša najpre morao da odustane od daljeg arčenja fosilnih goriva na mašine sa unutrašnjim sagoravanjem i enormnu proizvodnju ambalažnog đubreta i da ih prepusti samo farmaceutskoj industriji, ako i to. Fora sa Priusom i Teslom je tanka, a reciklažna ambalaža je skuplja. Zamisli samo kad bi prihvatili izgradnju brzih pruga kao u Kini ili Japanu! Ko bi se vozao po njihovoj kontinentalnoj ploči sa pet vremenskih zona? Negiranje i odlaganje je trenutno, ali ne i dugoročno rešenje. Neće se skoro Libeat udaviti u podizanju nivoa okeana, ali se trend mora zaustaviti. Usporavanje nije dovoljno.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-01-2014, 14:37:40
Pa, moj stav je takoreći sve što si napisao u ovom postu, možda ga nisam eksplicitno iznosio jer sam mislio da se podrazumeva.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-01-2014, 14:40:24
Onda smo završili. Za danas.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-01-2014, 14:49:37
Dobro. Za danas. Ali:

(http://i39.tinypic.com/11loked.jpg)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: PTY on 25-01-2014, 07:09:14
To je samo naizgled kontradikcija  :lol: :lol: :lol: 


Moguće, moguće…  :cry: :cry: :cry:  znam ja da je sve ovo u tvojoj glavi uredno složeno i fino podešeno, ko mamini ručkovi sa blagdanima, ali mene to lako mimoiđe, iako se baš trudim da (te) razumem...



Quote
"Demokratske" odluke i orijentacije i uopšte, filozofije su više nego prosto sprovođenje izražene volje većine po pitanju koje je se samo postavilo, već, jelte, produkt jednog rada koji podrazumeva obrazovanje, veru u to isto obrazovanje, otvorenost za koncepte koji su nam strani ili čak neprijateljski, svest koje pitanje treba da se postavi i na koji način tako da odgovor bude zbilja izraz promišljene volje što većeg broja ljudi itd. Ako tako postavimo stvari, onda je u redu da se očekuje da demokratska javnost drži vlast in check i obezbeđuje da radi u interesu ne samo većine građana već svih građana, uključujući buduće, a da ta ista demokratska vlast stalno bude korak ispred onoga što trenutna većina misli da joj je najprviji prioritet.




Dakle, to u teoriji lepo zvuči ali mi u praksi izgleda samo kao umnožavanje problema: da, istina je da glasačka većina jeste neobrazovana, isključiva, a neretko i sasvim nezainteresovana, ali kako (i zašto) to tebi automatski podrazumeva da će demokratski izabrana vlast biti sušta suprotnost svemu tome? Postoji isto tako velika mogućnost (u praksi već nebrojeno puta dokazana) da će predstavnici demokratski izabrane vlasti biti ne samo isto takvi, nego još i korumpirani pride, dakle, da će u navedenu jednačinu uvesti još jednu nepoznanicu koja možda i najviše utiče da donošenje bitnih odluka. Dakle, po meni, to je izbor koji malo toga dobrog garantuje, osim ako ti ne računaš opciju "iz tiganja u vatru" kao dobru.


S druge strane, ja iskreno verujem u opciju da demokratska javnost mora da pažljivo nadzire ljude koje je sama izabrala, ali ne vidim kako je to moguće (i efikasno) ako im je unapred dala odrešene ruke da neke odluke donose po sopstvenom nahođenju. Ako pođemo od pretpostavke da si predstavnike vlasti birao ne po lepoti i zgodnoći, nego po političkoj platformi sa koje su se prezentovali na izborima, onda ih možeš nadzirati i kritikovati kad od te platforme odstupe, zar ne? Nisu li izbori neka vrst ugovora između glasačke javnosti i njenih izabranika, ugovori koji podrazumevaju "ja tebe danas izaberem a ti sutra vodiš zemlju duž linija koje mi sad predizborno obećavaš"? Ja mislim da to tako jeste, ja mislim da nadziranje izabranih predstavnika vlasti podrazumeva procenu da li su i koliko su odstupili od svojih predizbornih obećanja i ugovora sa glasačkom većinom koga su tad zapečatili. Otud i smatram da je ovo što govoriš ipak kontradiktorno, jer ja ne vidim kako to može funkcioniosati u praksi da prozivamo političara koji će uvek imati opravdanje da je od nas imao mandat za donošenje odluka sa kojima se možda i ne slažemo, ali koje ipak jesu donešene za naše dobro, a to je upravo i bio jedna od podrazumevajućih klauzula u predizbornom dogovoru. I mada to što ti pominješ meni zaista zvuči idealno, isot tako znam da van te papirnate idealnosti ta opcija ima daleko više prostora za zloupotrebu, nego što ima nekog eventualnog benefita u kom bi čovek nesumnjivo obrazovaniji od mene adekvatno odlučio šta sam to ja zapravo htela od njega kad sam za njega glasala.


Dobro sad, da ne bude kako ovo drvim samo zato što nemam pametnijeg posla, hoću samo da kažem kako je politika ipak samo veština mogućeg i praktičnog, pa u nju ne bi trebalo unositi odviše idealizma i duhovnog optimizma. Znam da sve to lepo zvuči i pomaže nam da sebi dočaramo idealni svet u kojem bi svakako bilo lepo živeti, ali ipak, nije nužno da svet bude utopija da bi bio dobar za življenje u njemu.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 25-01-2014, 08:42:11
Ma, ja naravno pričam u nekim idealnim formama. U praksi, već sam to više puta rekao, mislim da se bliže tom idealu može prići što se više moć odlučivanja o najvažnijim stvarima spušta na nivo manjih zajednica (opština itd.), što podrazumeva i određene (radikalne) promene u tome kako bi izgledali životi članova zajednica - možda više obaveza za većinu, možda manje udobnosti za manjinu ali i možda kvalitetniji život za sve u proseku.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 25-01-2014, 10:00:17
Meho, zaista pričaš o idealnim (čitaj: za ovu zemlju dugo vremena nemogućim formama). Da bi se moć odlučivanja spustila na nivo manjih zajednica, potrebno je da na višem nivou budu rešeni osnovni problemi, pa da onda manje zajednice odlučuju o detalju. Kad na opštem, državnom nivou nisu rešena glavna pitanja, moraju se centralizovano, po prioritetima, rešavati problemi.
Da ne govorim o konkretnom slučaju koji imaš kod nas da na nivou manjih sredina naprosto nemaš dovoljno znanja da rešavaju odluke o najvažnijim stvarima.
Znaš li činjenicu da u preko 30% opštine u Srbiji nemaš nijednog licenciranog inženjera hidrotehnike. Kako ćeš onda nivo snabdevanja vodom i odvođenja otpanih voda spustiti na nivo lokalne zajednice? Lako je to učiniti u Švedskoj, Norveškoj i Nemačkoj, gde imaš 40.000 evra po glavi stanovnika i dovoljno znanja. Kako ćeš to uraditi u Srbiji gde imaš 4000 evra po glavi stanovnika godišnje, a potrebno je da tim stanovnicima obezbediš isti ili bar sličan nivo usluge. To što ti pričaš je divno u teoriji, ali je, nažalost, potpuna besmislica u praksi...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 25-01-2014, 10:11:36
Pa ja zaista i pričam o teoriji, nikako o tome da bih, kad biste me samo izabrali za diktatora, već sutra poveo Srbiju u edenski vrt. Ali, eto, vidiš, učeni ljudi poput tebe umeju da ukažu na ono što nedostaje, dakle znamo na koju stranu bismo morali da se razvijamo.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 19-02-2014, 10:09:06
Evo, Džon Keri je nazvao klimatske promene "oružjem masovnog uništenja" (http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/16/us-kerry-climate-idINBREA1F0BP20140216). Još samo da vidimo koga treba bombardovati.  :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: дејан on 19-02-2014, 12:07:47
па, то је бар јасно!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 20-02-2014, 10:20:31
 Darker Arctic boosting global warming (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/darker-arctic-boosting-global-warming-1.2540627)Less ice, more open water made Arctic  grow 8% darker between 1979 and 2011 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/darker-arctic-boosting-global-warming-1.2540627)





Quote

The Arctic isn't nearly as bright and white as it used to be because of more ice melting in the ocean, and that's turning out to be a global problem, a new study says.
With more dark, open water in the summer, less of the sun's heat is reflected back into space. So the entire Earth is absorbing more heat than expected, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 
  • Melting Arctic ice called economic time bomb (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/melting-arctic-ice-called-economic-time-bomb-1.1372524)
That extra absorbed energy is so big that it measures about one-quarter of the entire heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide, said the study's lead author, Ian Eisenman, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California.
The Arctic grew 8 per cent darker between 1979 and 2011, Eisenman found, measuring how much sunlight is reflected back into space.
"Basically, it means more warming," Eisenman said in an interview.
The North Pole region is an ocean that mostly is crusted at the top with ice that shrinks in the summer and grows back in the fall. At its peak melt in September, the ice has shrunk on average by nearly 90,600 square kilometres — an area bigger than New Brunswick and P.E.I. combined — per year since 1979.
Snow-covered ice reflects several times more heat than dark, open ocean, which replaces the ice when it melts, Eisenman said.
As more summer sunlight dumps into the ocean, the water gets warmer, and it takes longer for ice to form again in the fall, Jason Box of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland said in an email. He was not part of the study.
While earlier studies used computer models, Eisenman said his is the first to use satellite measurements to gauge sunlight reflection and to take into account cloud cover. The results show the darkening is as much as two to three times bigger than previous estimates, he said.
Box and University of Colorado ice scientist Waleed Abdalati, who was not part of the research, called the work important in understanding how much heat is getting trapped on Earth.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 02-04-2014, 09:14:11
Najnoviji UN izveštaj o promeni klime nije ni malo obećavajuć.  :( :(



Evo njega. (http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf)



A evo i TL;DR varijante:



Climate impacts 'overwhelming' - UN (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26810559)



Quote
he impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN has warned.
Scientists and officials meeting in Japan say the document is the most comprehensive assessment to date (http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf) of the impacts of climate change on the world.
Some impacts of climate change include a higher risk of flooding and changes to crop yields and water availability.
Humans may be able to adapt to some of these changes, but only within limits.
   An example of an adaptation strategy would be the construction of sea walls and levees to protect against flooding. Another might be introducing more efficient irrigation for farmers in areas where water is scarce.
Natural systems are currently bearing the brunt of climatic changes, but a growing impact on humans is feared.
Members of the UN's climate panel say it provides overwhelming evidence of the scale of these effects.


Our health, homes, food and safety are all likely to be threatened by rising temperatures, the summary says. 
The report was agreed after almost a week of intense discussions here in Yokohama, which included concerns among some authors about the tone of the evolving document (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26655779).
This is the second of a series (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26814742) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) due out this year that outlines the causes, effects and solutions to global warming.



This latest Summary for Policymakers document highlights the fact that the amount of scientific evidence on the impacts of warming has almost doubled since the last report in 2007.
Be it the melting of glaciers or warming of permafrost, the summary highlights the fact that on all continents and across the oceans, changes in the climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems in recent decades.
In the words of the report, "increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts".
"Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change,'' IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told journalists at a news conference in Yokohama.
Dr Saleemul Huq, a convening lead author on one of the chapters, commented: "Before this we thought we knew this was happening, but now we have overwhelming evidence that it is happening and it is real."
Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, said that, previously, people could have damaged the Earth's climate out of "ignorance".
"Now, ignorance is no longer a good excuse," he said.
Mr Jarraud said the report was based on more than 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies. He said this document was "the most solid evidence you can get in any scientific discipline".
US Secretary of State John Kerry commented: "Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy. Denial of the science is malpractice."
 
He added: "No single country causes climate change, and no one country can stop it. But we need to match the urgency of our response with the scale of the science."
Ed Davey, the UK Energy and Climate Secretary said: "The science has clearly spoken. Left unchecked, climate change will impact on many aspects of our society, with far reaching consequences to human health, global food security and economic development.
"The recent flooding in the UK is a testament to the devastation that climate change could bring to our daily lives."
The report details significant short-term impacts on natural systems in the next 20 to 30 years. It details five reasons for concern that would likely increase as a result of the warming the world is already committed to.



These include threats to unique systems such as Arctic sea ice and coral reefs, where risks are said to increase to "very high" with a 2C rise in temperatures.
The summary document outlines impacts on the seas and on freshwater systems as well. The oceans will become more acidic, threatening coral and the many species that they harbour.
On land, animals, plants and other species will begin to move towards higher ground or towards the poles as the mercury rises.
Humans, though, are also increasingly affected as the century goes on.
Food security is highlighted as an area of significant concern. Crop yields for maize, rice and wheat are all hit in the period up to 2050, with around a tenth of projections showing losses over 25%.
After 2050, the risk of more severe yield impacts increases, as boom-and-bust cycles affect many regions. All the while, the demand for food from a population estimated to be around nine billion will rise.
Many fish species, a critical food source for many, will also move because of warmer waters.


In some parts of the tropics and in Antarctica, potential catches could decline by more than 50%.
"This is a sobering assessment," said Prof Neil Adger from the University of Exeter, another IPCC author.
"Going into the future, the risks only increase, and these are about people, the impacts on crops, on the availability of water and particularly, the extreme events on people's lives and livelihoods."
People will be affected by flooding and heat related mortality. The report warns of new risks including the threat to those who work outside, such as farmers and construction workers. There are concerns raised over migration linked to climate change, as well as conflict and national security.
Report co-author Maggie Opondo of the University of Nairobi said that in places such as Africa, climate change and extreme events mean "people are going to become more vulnerable to sinking deeper into poverty".
While the poorer countries are likely to suffer more in the short term, the rich won't escape.
"The rich are going to have to think about climate change. We're seeing that in the UK, with the floods we had a few months ago, and the storms we had in the US and the drought in California," said Dr Huq.


"These are multibillion dollar events that the rich are going to have to pay for, and there's a limit to what they can pay."
But it is not all bad news, as the co-chair of the working group that drew up the report points out.
"I think the really big breakthrough in this report is the new idea of thinking about managing climate change as a problem in managing risks," said Dr Chris Field.


Climate change is really important but we have a lot of the tools for dealing effectively with it - we just need to be smart about it."   There is far greater emphasis to adapting to the impacts of climate in this new summary. The problem, as ever, is who foots the bill?
"It is not up to IPCC to define that," said Dr Jose Marengo, a Brazilian government official who attended the talks.
"It provides the scientific basis to say this is the bill, somebody has to pay, and with the scientific grounds it is relatively easier now to go to the climate negotiations in the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and start making deals about who will pay for adaptation."
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 13-04-2014, 09:06:30
Harvardski pofesori napisali otvoreno pismo upravi univerziteta i kolegama da se krene u odbacivanje fosilnih goriva, po uzoru na pozive na bojkot kojim je došlo do promene u praksama spram JAR pre dve i po decenije. Lepa inicijativa, videćemo i koliko uspešna:
 
http://www.harvardfacultydivest.com/ (http://www.harvardfacultydivest.com/)
 
Quote

Faculty of Harvard University to the President and Fellows
 
April 10, 2014
 
Our University invests in the fossil fuel industry: this is for us the central issue.  We now know that fossil fuels cause climate change of unprecedented destructive potential.  We also know that many in this industry spend large sums of money to mislead the public, deny climate science, control legislation and regulation, and suppress alternative energy sources.
 
We are therefore disappointed in the statements on divestment made by President Faust on October 3, 2013 (http://www.harvard.edu/president/fossil-fuels) and April 7, 2014 (http://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2014/confronting-climate-change).  They appear to misconstrue the purposes and effectiveness of divestment.  We believe that the Corporation is making a decision that in the long run will not serve the University well.
 
Our sense of urgency in signing this Letter cannot be overstated.  Humanity’s reliance on burning fossil fuels is leading to a marked warming of the Earth’s surface, a melting of ice the world over, a rise in sea levels, acidification of the oceans, and an extreme, wildly fluctuating, and unstable global climate.  These physical and chemical changes, some of which are expected to last hundreds, if not thousands, of years are already threatening the survival of countless species on all continents.  And because of their effects on food production, water availability, air pollution, and the emergence and spread of human infectious diseases, they pose unparalleled risks to human health and life.
 
The World Health Organization estimated in 2005 that climate change caused some 150,000 deaths worldwide each year.  The heads of the American College of Physicians and the Royal College of Physicians of London in 2009 joined leaders of medical colleges from 12 other countries in calling climate change “the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.”
 
Divestment is an act of ethical responsibility, a protest against current practices that cannot be altered as quickly or effectively by other means.  The University either invests in fossil fuel corporations, or it divests.  If the Corporation regards divestment as “political,” then its continued investment is a similarly political act, one that finances present corporate activities and calculates profit from them.
 
The only way to remain “neutral” in such circumstances is to bracket ethical principles even while being deeply concerned about consequences.  Slavery was once an investment issue, as were apartheid and the harm caused by smoking.
 
In the past, the University did divest from certain industries on ethical grounds.  Harvard’s leadership—initiated by faculty, students, and alumni—is credited with making campaigns against apartheid and smoking far more effective.
 
* * *
 
Financially, no evidence exists that planned divestment would damage Harvard.  As awareness grows that burning known fossil fuel reserves will accelerate climate change to a catastrophic degree, and as fossil fuel consumption moderates, planned divestment will, in fact, strengthen the portfolio of the University.  A number of studies, including one by S&P Capital IQ, demonstrate that over the last ten years, for example, an endowment reflecting the S&P 500 without targeted fossil fuel companies would have outpaced one with them.  Moreover, study of fossil fuel divestment suggests it need not lower the overall value of investors’ holdings, and that “those that commit to divestment should consider re-directing investment to renewable energy alternatives” (Atif Ansar, Ben Caldecott, James Tilbury, “Stranded assets and the fossil fuel divestment campaign:  what does divestment mean for the valuation of fossil fuel assets?”  Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, 2013, pp. 71-72).
 
Recent pronouncements from authoritative quarters support our call for action. Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) states that the “continued and dangerous rise in greenhouse gases . . . is in large part the direct result of past investments in . . . fossil fuels.”  She warns that “institutional investors who ignore climate risk face being increasingly seen as blatantly in breach of their fiduciary duty.” (January 15, 2014)
 
World Bank President Jim Yong Kim, Harvard Medical School graduate, and former Professor and Chairman of HMS’s Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, even includes divestment as a legitimate tactic:  “The good news is that there is action we all can take . . . we can divest and tax that which we don’t want, the carbon that threatens development gains over the last 20 years.”  He goes on to urge:  “Be the first mover.  Use smart due diligence.  Rethink what fiduciary responsibility means in this changing world.” (January 24, 2014)
 
* * *
 
If any doubt remains about long-term plans of fossil fuel corporations, consider the signature statement of the American Petroleum Institute: “a secure energy future for generations to come.”  API corporations are determined to produce more of the same “for generations”:  more fossil fuel extraction, more sales, more denial or evasion of science.  Coal companies, similarly, proclaim plans to continue mining for hundreds of years.
 
* * *
 
The aim of divestment is not to drive these corporations out of business.  It was never the intention of Harvard’s South African or tobacco related divestments to eliminate industries.
 
Instead, divestment aims to expose corporate attitudes and change corporate behavior.  And indeed, the most comprehensive study of divestment to date, published by the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford and cited above, indicates that past divestment strategies forced changes in corporate behavior, government regulation, legal statues, and even share prices, that would not otherwise have been accomplished.
 
* * *
 
It seems self-contradictory to argue that Harvard owns a very small percentage of shares in a group of stocks (shares that, moreover, represent a small percentage of its own holdings) yet can nevertheless exert greater influence on corporate behavior by retaining rather than selling that stock as protest.  If Harvard were a major shareholder, that argument might make sense, but Harvard is not.
 
The President and Fellows are working assiduously to reduce the University’s greenhouse emissions, while maintaining investments that promote their increase locally and worldwide.  The President and Fellows are right to be concerned about the “troubling inconsistency” of these investments.
 
* * *
 
As the statements of October 3, 2013 and April 7, 2014 indicate, the Harvard Corporation wishes to influence corporate behaviors in the fossil fuel and energy sectors.  We therefore ask:
 
How, exactly, will the University “encourage” fossil fuel corporations in “addressing pressing environmental imperatives”?  Will Harvard initiate or support shareholder resolutions?  Will it divest from coal companies?  Will it ask questions at shareholder meetings?  Will it set standards analogous to the Sullivan Principles?  Will it conduct private meetings?
 
In short, how long will Business As Usual continue?
 
The questions in this section are not rhetorical.  They require answers.
 
* * *
 
We know that fossil fuel use must decrease.  To achieve this goal, not only must research and education be pursued with vigor, pressure must also be exerted.  If there is no pressure, then grievous harm due to climate change will accelerate and entrench itself for a span of time that will make the history of Harvard look short.
 
We the undersigned are faculty and officers of the University, many with knowledge and research in climate science, energy, business management, ethics, and the effects of climate change on health, prosperity, and biodiversity.  Many are alumni and donors.  We appeal to our colleagues, fellow alumni, and donors to join us in signing this statement, as an act of conscience and fiscal responsibility, and in asking the Corporation to divest, as soon as possible, its holdings in fossil fuel corporations.
 
Signed:
 
James G. Anderson
 Philip S. Weld Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry
 School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
 
______
 
David Armitage
 Lloyd C. Blankfein Professor of History
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Carmen Arnold-Biucchi
 
Damarete Curator of Ancient Coins, Division of Asian and Mediterranean Art
 Harvard Art Museum
 Lecturer on the Classics
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 President of the INC
 
______
 
Alberto Ascherio
 
Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition
 Harvard School of Public Health
 
______
 
Elizabeth Bartholet
 Morris Wasserstein Professor of Law
 Harvard Law School
 
______
 
Jason Beckfield
 Professor of Sociology
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Eugene Beresin
 Professor of Psychiatry
 Harvard Medical School
 
______
 
Robin Bernstein
 Professor of African and African American Studies and of Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Andrew Berry
 Lecturer, Organismic and Evolutionary Biology
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
J. Wesley Boyd
 Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
 Harvard Medical School
 
______
 
Matthew Boyle
 Professor of Philosophy
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Lawrence Buell
 Powell M. Cabot Research Professor of American Literature, Emeritus
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Peter Burgard
 Professor of German
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Melody Chan
 Lecturer, Department of Mathematics
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Joyce E. Chaplin
 James Duncan Phillips Professor of Early American History
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Eric Chivian
 Founder and Director Emeritus
 Center for Health and the Global Environment
 Harvard Medical School
 Shared 1985 Nobel Peace Prize for Co-founding International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
 
______
 
Stacey Combes
 Associate Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Tom Conley
 Abbot Lawrence Lowell Professor of Visual and Environmental Studies and of Romance Languages and Literatures
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 Kirkland House Co-Master
 
______
 
Harvey Cox
 Hollis Research Professor of Divinity, Emeritus
 Harvard Divinity School
 
______
 
Thomas B.F. Cummins
 Dumbarton Oaks Professor of the History of Pre-Columbian and Colonial Art
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Goodarz Danaei
 Assistant Professor of Global Health
 Harvard School of Public Health
 
______
 
Sergio Delgado
 Assistant Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Christine Desan
 Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law
 Harvard Law School
 
______
 
Daniel Donoghue
 John P. Marquand Professor of English
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Sarah Dryden-Peterson
 Assistant Professor
 Harvard Graduate School of Education
 
______
 
David Elmer
 Associate Professor of the Classics
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 Director of Undergraduate Studies
 
______
 
James Engell
 Gurney Professor of English and Professor of Comparative Literature
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Brian D. Farrell
 Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Luis Fernández-Cifuentes
 Robert S. and Ilse Friend Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 Harvard College Professor
 
______
 
David Foster
 Director of the Harvard Forest
 Senior Lecturer on Biology
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Marshall Ganz
 Senior Lecturer in Public Policy
 Harvard Kennedy School
 
______
 
Hunter Gehlbach
 Associate Professor of Education
 Harvard University Graduate School of Education
 
______
 
Daniel A. Goodenough
 Takeda Professor of Cell Biology, Emeritus
 Harvard Medical School
 
______
 
Virginie Greene
 Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
James Hanken
 Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology
 Director, Museum of Comparative Zoology
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Jon Hanson
 Alfred Smart Professor of Law
 Harvard Law School
 
______
 
Stephen Harrison
 Giovanni Armenise-Harvard Professor in Basic Biomedical Science
 Harvard Medical School
 
______
 
Judith Herman
 Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
 Harvard Medical School
 
______
 
Patrice Higonnet
 Goelet Professor of French History
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Heather Hill
 Professor of Education
 Harvard Graduate School of Education
 
______
 
John Huth
 
Donner Professor of Science
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Eric Jacobson
 Lecturer, Department of Global Health & Social Medicine
 Harvard Medical School
 
______
 
Alice Jardine
 Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures and of Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Christopher Jencks
 Malcolm Wiener Professor of Social Policy
 Harvard Kennedy School
 
______
 
Andrew Jewett
 Associate Professor of History and of Social Studies
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Tamara Kay
 
Associate Professor of Sociology
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 Co-Director of Harvard’s Transnational Studies Initiative
 
______
 
David Keith
 
Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics
 School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
 Professor of Public Policy
 Harvard Kennedy School
 
______
 
Duncan Kennedy
 Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence
 Harvard Law School
 
______
 
Niall G. Kirkwood
 
Professor of Landscape Architecture and Technology
 Graduate School of Design
 
______
 
Elena Kramer
 Bussey Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Nancy Krieger
 Professor of Social Epidemiology
 Harvard School of Public Health
 
______
 
Robert Levin
 Dwight P. Robinson, Jr. Professor of the Humanities
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Richard Levins
 John Rock Professor of Population Sciences
 Harvard School of Public Health
 
______
 
Caroline Light
 Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies
 Harvard Program in Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Jane Mansbridge
 Charles F. Adams Professor of Political Leadership and Democratic Values
 Harvard Kennedy School
 
______
 
Stephen Alan Marglin
 Walter S. Barker Professor of Economics
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Barry Mazur
 Gerhard Gade University Professor of Mathematics
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Timothy McCarthy
 
Lecturer on History and Literature and on Public Policy
 Program Director, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
 Harvard Kennedy School
 
______
 
Dan McKanan
 Ralph Waldo Emerson Unitarian Universalist Association Senior Lecturer
 Harvard Divinity School
 
______
 
Everett Mendelsohn
 Professor of the History of Science, Emeritus
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
May Moreshet
 Clinical Veterinarian, The Harvard Center for Comparative Medicine
 Harvard Medical School
 
______
 
Samuel Myers
 Instructor of Medicine
 Harvard Medical School
 Research Scientist
 Harvard School of Public Health
 
______
 
Afsaneh Najmabadi
 Francis Lee Higginson Professor of History and of Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Rachel Nardin
 Assistant Professor of Neurology
 Harvard Medical School
 
______
 
Laura Nasrallah
 Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity
 Harvard Divinity School
 
______
 
Naomi Oreskes
 Professor of the History of Science
 Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Richard Parker
 
Lecturer
 Harvard Kennedy School
 
______
 
Elizabeth Parsons
 Clinical Instructor in Psychology, Department of Psychiatry
 Harvard Medical School
 
______
 
Leah Price
 
Francis Lee Higginson Professor of English
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
James Recht
 Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry
 Harvard Medical School
 
______
 
Eric Rentschler
 Arthur Kingsley Porter Professor of Germanic Languages and Literatures
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Sophia Roosth
 Assistant Professor and Joy Foundation Fellow
 Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study
 
______
 
Nancy L. Rosenblum
 Senator Joseph Clark Professor of Ethics in Politics and Government
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Stephanie Sandler
 Ernest E. Monrad Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Mark Schiefsky
 Professor of the Classics
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
William Schmitt
 
Assistant Professor of Medicine
 Harvard Medical School
 
______
 
Jeremiah Schuur
 Assistant Professor of Medicine
 Harvard Medical School
 
______
 
James Simpson
 Donald P. and Katherine B. Loker Professor of English
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Doris Sommer
 Ira and Jewell Williams Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures and of African and African American Studies
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
John Stauffer
 Professor of English and of African and African American Studies
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Gisela Striker
 Walter C. Klein Professor of Philosophy and of the Classics, Emerita
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Joji Suzuki
 
Instructor in Psychiatry
 Brigham and Women’s Hospital
 Harvard Medical School
 
______
 
Richard F. Thomas
 George Martin Lane Professor of Classics
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 Harvard College Professor
 
______
 
Sally Thompson
 Clinical Instructor of Psychiatry
 Harvard Medical School
 
______
 
John Wakeley
 Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Thomas Walz
 
Professor of Cell Biology
 Harvard Medical School
 
______
 
Natasha Warikoo
 Assistant Professor
 Harvard University Graduate School of Education
 
______
 
Mary C. Waters
 M.E. Zukerman Professor of Sociology
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Nicholas Watson
 Professor and Interim Chair, Department of English
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Kenneth Winston
 Lecturer in Ethics
 Faculty Chair, Singapore Program, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation
 Harvard Kennedy School
 
______
 
John Womack, Jr.
 
Robert Woods Bliss Professor of Latin American History and Economics, Emeritus
 Faculty of Arts and Sciences
 
______
 
Shoshana Zuboff
 Charles Edward Wilson Professor, Emerita
 Harvard Business School
 
 
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 13-04-2014, 13:53:48
И Шошана потписала. xfrog
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 14-04-2014, 09:27:52
Nova studija koja veli da se globalno otpoljavanje sa 99-procentnom sigurnošću može opisati kao ne-prirodna fenomen


Is global warming just a giant natural fluctuation? (http://www.mcgill.ca/research/channels/news/global-warming-just-giant-natural-fluctuation-235236)



Quote
Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99% certainty


An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth’s climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.
The study, published online April 6 in the journal Climate Dynamics, represents a new approach to the question of whether global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by man-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Rather than using complex computer models to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions, Lovejoy examines historical data to assess the competing hypothesis: that warming over the past century is due to natural long-term variations in temperature.
“This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers,” Lovejoy says. “Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”
Lovejoy’s study applies statistical methodology to determine the probability that global warming since 1880 is due to natural variability. His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out “with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%.”
To assess the natural variability before much human interference, the new study uses “multi-proxy climate reconstructions” developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics. The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales.
For the industrial era, Lovejoy’s analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man-made climate influences – a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says. “This allows the new approach to implicitly include the cooling effects of particulate pollution that are still poorly quantified in computer models,” he adds.
While his new study makes no use of the huge computer models commonly used by scientists to estimate the magnitude of future climate change, Lovejoy’s findings effectively complement those of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he says. His study predicts, with 95% confidence, that a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius. That range is more precise than – but in line with -- the IPCC’s prediction that temperatures would rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 concentrations double.
“We’ve had a fluctuation in average temperature that’s just huge since 1880 – on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius,” Lovejoy says. “This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand.
“While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can’t generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases – including this one – the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other.”
 

“Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming”, S. Lovejoy, Climate Change, published online April 6, 2014.
http://link.springer.com/search?query=10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2128-2 (http://link.springer.com/search?query=10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2128-2)
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf (http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/%7Egang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 09-05-2014, 09:13:38
Evo, neki se trude da pomognu:


Stanford to Purge $18 Billion Endowment of Coal Stock (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/education/stanford-to-purge-18-billion-endowment-of-coal-stock.html?_r=0)

Quote
Stanford University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/stanford_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org) announced Tuesday that it would divest its $18.7 billion endowment of stock in coal-mining companies, becoming the first major university to lend support to a nationwide campaign to purge endowments and pension funds of fossil fuel investments (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/may/divest-coal-trustees-050714.html).
The university said it acted in accordance with internal guidelines that allow its trustees to consider whether “corporate policies or practices create substantial social injury” when choosing investments. Coal’s status as a major source of carbon pollution linked to climate change (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) persuaded the trustees to remove companies “whose principal business is coal” from their investment portfolio, the university said.





Stanford’s associate vice president for communications, Lisa Lapin, said the decision covers about 100 companies worldwide that derive the majority of their revenue from coal extraction. Not all of those companies are in the university’s investment portfolio, whose structure is private, she said. Over all, the university’s coal holdings are a small fraction of its endowment.
“But a small percentage is still a substantial amount of money,” she added.
The trustees’ decision carries more symbolic than financial weight, but it is a major victory for a rapidly growing student-led divestment movement that is now active at roughly 300 universities.
At least 11 small universities have elected to remove fossil-fuel stocks from their endowments, but none approaches Stanford’s prestige or national influence.  Tuesday’s decision seems likely to increase the pressure on other major universities to follow suit.
Among other universities, Harvard has resisted student pressure for divestment, and one student was arrested on Thursday after pro-divestment activists blockaded the entrance to the school’s administrative offices.
Stanford’s trustees acted after Fossil Free Stanford, the campus branch of the movement, petitioned the board to re-evaluate the university’s holdings in energy companies, Ms. Lapin said.
Yari Greaney, 20, a Fossil Free Stanford organizer, said the group was “very proud of Stanford taking this leadership position.” Nationally, leaders of the divestment movement praised the school for its decision.
As a global institution, Stanford “knows the havoc that climate change creates around our planet,” Bill McKibben, the president and co-founder of the environmental group  350.org (http://350.org/), said in a statement. “Other forward-looking and internationally minded institutions will follow, I’m sure.”


Maura Cowley, the executive director of Energy Action Coalition, an assemblage of groups active on climate change issues, called the decision “a huge, huge victory.”
“Their decision, coming from such a major university and from such a huge endowment, shows that the coal industry and other fossil fuel industries are quickly becoming relics of the past,” she said in an interview.
The trustees began studying divestment after Fossil Free Stanford petitioned them to re-evaluate their holdings of energy companies. An advisory panel that included students, faculty, staff and alumni spent roughly five months studying the issue before recommending that coal stocks be sold, Deborah DeCotis, the chairwoman of the board’s special committee on investment responsibility, said in an interview.
Among other deciding factors, Ms. DeCotis said, the panel noted that coal produces the most carbon per British thermal unit of any widely used fossil fuel, that practical alternatives to burning coal are available, and that the university was not dependent on coal or coal-derived products.
Other fossil fuels did not meet some of those criteria, but “this is not the ending point. It’s a process,” she said. “We’re a research institute, and as the technology develops to make other forms of alternative energy sources available, we will continue to review and make decisions about things we should not be invested in. Don’t interpret this as a pass on other things.”
Ms. Lapin said the school is already asking its investment advisers to review endowment holdings and sell stocks of coal companies. The order covers mutual funds with coal stocks as well as investments in individual companies, she said.

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 12-05-2014, 22:42:29
Ima sve da se otopi pre nego što uvale te akcije.


Nego evo još nešto o topljenju, pa ako neko čita, neka čita:


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/earth/collapse-of-parts-of-west-antarctica-ice-sheet-has-begun-scientists-say.html?hp&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/earth/collapse-of-parts-of-west-antarctica-ice-sheet-has-begun-scientists-say.html?hp&_r=0)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 13-05-2014, 09:07:47
Da, evo još o tome:



An 'unstoppable,' cataclysmic glacier meltdown is already underway


http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/12/5710314/an-unstoppable-cataclysmic-glacier-meltdown-is-already-underway (http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/12/5710314/an-unstoppable-cataclysmic-glacier-meltdown-is-already-underway)


Quote
Two separate studies released this week are announcing a bleak future for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet — and an accompanying sea-level rise across the globe. Both groups of researchers conclude that global warming is accelerating the disintegration of large parts of the ice sheets, and that the melting that is already under way is likely unstoppable. This, the researchers say, will eventually cause global sea levels to rise by at least 10 feet.
The first study, published today in Science (http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/05/12/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-is-under-way/) by researchers at the University of Washington,used computer modeling and topography maps to conclude that the collapse of the Thwaites Glacier, an extremely large glacier flowing into Pine Island Bay, is already underway. This process, the researchers say, could be completed within the next few centuries and would cause the ocean to rise by nearly 2 feet. Furthermore, because that glacier is currently acting as a barrier for the rest of the ice sheet, its collapse could ultimately trigger a 10-13 foot rise in global sea levels.


In contrast, the NASA study (http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/may/nasa-uci-study-indicates-loss-of-west-antarctic-glaciers-appears-unstoppable/#.U3EIja1dWvg), which has been accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, is predicting a 4-foot rise in sea levels as the melting rate accelerates in the Amundsen Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen_Sea) sector. These predictions are the result of 40 years of observations in the area, which might explain the difference between the University of Washington results and the NASA results. In any case, both studies came to similar conclusions. "We conclude that the disappearance of ice is unstoppable," said NASA glaciologist Eric Rignot during a teleconference today, and "these changes are related in part to climate warming."
Sridhar Anandakrishnan, a professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University who participated in the NASA study, added during the teleconference that "the system has chain reactions in place that aren't going to stop." He suggested that the only the glacier retreat could stop is if the glaciers suddenly "had to climb uphill, but we have looked at that, and we are fairly confident that there is no such hill or mountain that could slow down this retreat."


he melting of the ice, researchers say, isn't taking place because of warm air, but because of warm water in the ocean's depths. Winds in the Antarctic are pulling the water to the surface and causing the ice to melt. This is why the researchers state that global warming is a contributing factor, but not the sole cause: natural, non-human induced changes in climate across the globe might also be at fault.
"The basic idea that we are in this kind of retreat and that it's unstoppable has been around since the 1970s," said cryosphere program NASA scientist Tom Wagner, "but we're finally at this point where we can put all those observations together and say 'Wow, we are really in this state.'" When asked if humans might be able to do something to stop the melt, however, the scientists sound bearish. "If the system, and especially if the thermal ocean forcing, stays the same," Rignot said, "the retreat will be unstoppable."
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 25-06-2014, 09:31:08
 Najtopliji Maj u zabeleženoj istoriji je za nama
Climate change: May breaks global temperature record (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-may-breaks-global-temperature-record-1.2684615)



Quote
Driven by exceptionally warm ocean waters, Earth smashed a record for heat in May and is likely to keep on breaking high temperature marks, experts say.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Monday said May's average temperature on Earth of 15.54 C beat the old record set four years ago. In April, the globe tied the 2010 record for that month. Records go back to 1880.


May was especially hot in parts of Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Spain, South Korea and Australia, while the United States was not close to a record, just about half a degree warmer than the 20th century average.

El Nino weather event brewing Georgia Tech climate scientist Kim Cobb and other experts say there's a good chance global heat records will keep falling, especially next year because an El Nino weather event is brewing on top of man-made global warming. An El Nino is a warming of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean that alters climate worldwide and usually spikes global temperatures.
Ocean temperatures in May also set a record for the month. But an El Nino isn't considered in effect till the warm water changes the air and that hasn't happened yet, NOAA said.


With the El Nino on top of higher temperatures from heat-trapping greenhouse gases, "we will see temperature records fall all over the world," wrote Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann in an email.
May was 0.74 C warmer than the 20th century world average. The last month that was cooler than normal was February 1985, marking 351 hotter than average months in a row.
This possibly could quiet people claiming global warming has stopped, but more importantly it "should remind everyone that global warming is a long-term trend," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said.
Setting or tying monthly global heat records has happened frequently in recent years. The last global monthly cold record was set in December 1916.
Spring, which is March through May, was the second warmest on record globally, behind only 2010.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 25-06-2014, 09:33:16
Mada, balansa radi, evo jednog naučnika koji smatra da rastuće prisustvo ugljendioksida u atmosferi nije uzrok globalnog otopljavanja, već da je upravo obrnuto, da globalno otopljavanje - neantropogeno - prouzrokuje rast koncentracije ugljendioksida:


Does CO2 really drive global warming? (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i05/html/05vp.html)

Quote
I don’t believe that it does.
To the contrary, if you apply the IFF test—if-and-only-if or necessary-and-sufficient—the outcome would appear to be exactly the reverse. Rather than the rising levels ofcarbon dioxide driving up the temperature, the logical conclusion is that it is the rising temperature that is driving upthe CO2 level. Of course, this raises a raft of questions, but they are all answerable. What is particularly critical is distinguishing between the observed phenomenon, or the “what”, from the governing mechanism, or the “why”. Confusion between these two would appear to be the source of much of the noise in the global warming debate.
In applying the IFF test, we can start with the clear correlation between the global CO2 profile and the corresponding temperature signature. There is now in the literature the report of a 400,000-year sequence clearly showing, as a phenomenon, that they go up—and down—together (1 (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i05/html/05vp.html#ref)). The correlation is clear and accepted. But the causation, the mechanism, is something else: Which is driving which?
Logically, there are four possible explanations, but only two need serious consideration, unless they both fail.
 
  • Case 1: CO2 drives the temperature, as is currently most frequently asserted; and
  • Case 2: Temperature drives the level of CO2.
Both appear at first to be possible, but both then generate crucial origin and supplementary questions. For Case 1, the origin question is: What is the independent source of CO2 that drives the CO2 level both up and down, and which in turn, somehow, is presumed to drive the temperature up and down? For Case 2, it is: What drives the temperature, and if this then drives the CO2, where does the CO2 come from? For Case 2, the questions are answerable; but for Case 1, they are not.
Consider Case 2. This directly introduces global warming behavior. Is global warming, as a separate and independent phenomenon, in progress? The answer, as I heard it in geology class 50 years ago, was “yes”, and I have seen nothing since then to contradict that position. To the contrary, as further support, there is now documentation (that was only fragmentary 50 years ago) of an 850,000-year global-temperature sequence, showing that the temperature is oscillating with a period of 100,000 years, and with an amplitude that has risen, in that time, from about 5 °F at the start to about 10 °F “today” (meaning the latest 100,000-year period) (2 (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i05/html/05vp.html#ref)). We are currently in a rise that started 25,000 years ago and, reasonably, can be expected to peak “very shortly”.
On the shorter timescales of 1000 years and 100 years, further temperature oscillations can be seen, but of much smaller amplitude, down to 1 and 0.5 °F in those two cases. Nevertheless, the overall trend is clearly up, even through the Little Ice Age (~1350–1900) following the Medieval Warm Period. So the global warming phenomenon is here, with a very long history, and we are in it. But what is the driver?
Arctic Ocean model
 
The postulated driver, or mechanism, developed some 30 years ago to account for the “million-year” temperature oscillations, is best known as the “Arctic Ocean” model (2 (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i05/html/05vp.html#ref)). According to this model, the temperature variations are driven by an oscillating ice cap in the northern polar regions. The crucial element in the conceptual formulation of this mechanism was the realization that such a massive ice cap could not have developed, and then continued to expand through that development, unless there was a major source of moisture close by to supply, maintain, and extend the cap. The only possible moisture source was then identified as the Arctic Ocean, which, therefore, had to be open—not frozen over—during the development of the ice ages. It then closed again, interrupting the moisture supply by freezing over.
So the model we now have is that if the Arctic Ocean is frozen over, as is the case today, the existing ice cap is not being replenished and must shrink, as it is doing today. As it does so, the Earth can absorb more of the Sun’s radiation and therefore will heat up—global warming—as it is doing today, so long as the Arctic Ocean is closed. When it is warm enough for the ocean to open, which oceanographic (and media) reports say is evidently happening right now, then the ice cap can begin to re-form.
As it expands, the ice increasingly reflects the incoming (shorter-wave) radiation from the sun, so that the atmosphere cools at first. But then, the expanding ice cap reduces the radiative (longer-wave) loss from the Earth, acting as an insulator, so that the Earth below cools more slowly and can keep the ocean open as the ice cap expands. This generates “out-of-sync” oscillations between atmosphere and Earth. The Arctic Ocean “trip” behavior at the temperature extremes, allowing essentially discontinuous change in direction of the temperature, is identified as a bifurcation system with potential for analysis as such. The suggested trip times for the change are interesting: They were originally estimated at about 500 years, then reduced to 50 years and, most recently, down to 5 years (2 (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i05/html/05vp.html#ref)). So, if the ocean is opening right now, we could possibly start to see the temperature reversal under way in about 10 years.
What we have here is a sufficient mechanistic explanation for the dominant temperature fluctuations and, particularly, for the current global warming rise—without the need for CO2 as a driver. Given that pattern, the observed CO2 variations then follow, as a driven outcome, mainly as the result of change in the dynamic equilibrium between the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and its solution in the sea. The numbers are instructive. In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data on the carbon balance showed ~90 gigatons (Gt) of carbon in annual quasi-equilibrium exchange between sea and atmosphere, and an additional 60-Gt exchange between vegetation and atmosphere, giving a total of ~150 Gt (3 (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i05/html/05vp.html#ref)). This interpretation of the sea as the major source is also in line with the famous Mauna Loa CO2 profile for the past 40 years, which shows the consistent season-dependent variation of 5–6 ppm, up and down, throughout the year—when the average global rise is only 1 ppm/year.
In the literature, this oscillation is attributed to seasonal growing behavior on the “mainland” (4 (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i05/html/05vp.html#ref)), which is mostly China, >2000 mi away, but no such profile with that amplitude is known to have been reported at any mainland location. Also, the amplitude would have to fall because of turbulent diffusive exchange during transport over the 2000 mi from the mainland to Hawaii, but again there is lack of evidence for such behavior. The fluctuation can, however, be explained simply from study of solution equilibria of CO2 in water as due to emission of CO2 from and return to the sea around Hawaii governed by a ±10 °F seasonal variation in the sea temperature.
Impact of industrialization
 
The next matter is the impact of fossil fuel combustion. Returning to the IPCC data and putting a rational variationas noise of ~5 Gt on those numbers, this float is on the order of the additional—almost trivial (<5%)—annual contribution of 5–6 Gt from combustion of fossil fuels. This means that fossil fuel combustion cannot be expected to have any significant influence on the system unless, to introduce the next point of focus, the radiative balance is at some extreme or bifurcation point that can be tripped by “small” concentration changes in the radiation-absorbing–emitting gases in the atmosphere. Can that include CO2?
This now starts to address the necessity or “only-if” elements of the problem. The question focuses on whether CO2 in the atmosphere can be a dominant, or “only-if” radiative-balance gas, and the answer to that is rather clearly “no”. The detailed support for that statement takes the argument into some largely esoteric areas of radiative behavior, including the analytical solution of the Schuster–Schwarzschild Integral Equation of Transfer that governs radiative exchange (5–7 (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i05/html/05vp.html#ref)), but the outcome is clear.
The central point is that the major absorbing gas in the atmosphere is water, not CO2, and although CO2 is the only other significant atmospheric absorbing gas, it is still only a minor contributorbecause ofits relatively low concentration. The radiative absorption “cross sections” for water and CO2 are so similar that their relative influence depends primarily on their relative concentrations. Indeed, although water actually absorbs more strongly, for many engineering calculations the concentrations of the two gases are added, and the mixture is treated as a single gas.
In the atmosphere, the molar concentration of CO2 is in the range of 350–400 ppm. Water, on the other hand, has a very large variation but, using the “60/60” (60% relative humidity [RH] at 60 °F) value as an average, then from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers standard psychrometric chart, the weight ratio of water to (dry) air is ~0.0065, or roughly 10,500 ppm. Compared with CO2, this puts water, on average, at 25–30 times the (molar) concentration of the CO2, but it can range from a 1:1 ratio to >100:1.
Even closer focus on water is given by solution ofthe Schuster–Schwarzschild equation applied to the U.S. Standard Atmosphere profilesfor the variation of temperature, pressure, and airdensity with elevation (8 (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i05/html/05vp.html#ref)). The results show that the average absorption coefficient obtained for the atmosphere closely corresponds to that for the 5.6–7.6-µm water radiation band, when water is in the concentration range 60–80% RH—on target for atmospheric conditions. The absorption coefficient is 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than the coefficient values for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm. This would seem to eliminate CO2 and thus provide closure to that argument.
This overall position can be summarized by saying that water accounts, on average, for >95% of the radiative absorption. And, because of the variation in the absorption due to water variation, anything future increases in CO2 might do, water will already have done. The common objection to this argument is that the wide fluctuations in water concentration make an averaging (for some reason) impermissible. Yet such averaging is applied without objection to global temperatures, when the actual temperature variation across the Earth from poles to equator is roughly –100 to +100 °F, and a change on the average of ±1 °F is considered major and significant. If this averaging procedure can be applied to the atmospheric temperature, it can be applied to the atmospheric water content; and if it is denied for water, it must, likewise, be denied for temperature—in that case we don’t have an identified problem!
What the evidence shows
 
So what we have on the best current evidence is that
 
  • global temperatures are currently rising;
  • the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;
  • the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
  • there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;
  • the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;
  • if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
  • the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
  • water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;
  • determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-µm water band in the 60–80% RH range; and
  • the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.
The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers.
References
 
  • Sigman, M.; Boyle, E. A. Nature 2000, 407, 859–869.
  • Calder, N. The Weather Machine; Viking Press: New York, 1974.
  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change; Houghton, J. T., Meira Filho, L. G., Callender, B. A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A., Maskell, K., Eds.; Cam bridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 1996.
  • Hileman, B. Chem. Eng. News 1992, 70 (17), 7–19.
  • Schuster, A. Astrophysics J. 1905, 21, 1–22.
  • Schwarzschild, K. Gesell. Wiss. Gottingen; Nachr. Math.–Phys. Klasse 1906, 41.
  • Schwarzschild, K. Berliner Ber. Math. Phys. Klasse 1914, 1183.
  • Essenhigh, R. H. On Radiative Transfer in Solids. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Thermophysics Specialist Conference, New Orleans, April 17–20, 1967; Paper 67-287; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA, 1967.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: дејан on 25-06-2014, 11:55:03
можда би могао да конкурише за расписану уцену награду


$10,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge (http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/1000-global-warming-skeptic-challenge.html)


плус


Some Clarification on the $10,000/$1000 Challenges (http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/some-clarification-on-100001000.html)


и сам блог је сасвим забаван


треба бацити поглед на Круг (http://www.booka.in/vesti/114-krug-promo-prodaja) дејва егерса, већина појава тамо гаји баш овакве страсти
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-08-2014, 10:55:51
Politika je juče imala temat o klimatskim promenama/ globalnom zagrevanju i u njemu je, meni neshvatljivo, vodeća teza bila ona poznata svima koji su do sada slušali bilo koji javniji nastup Nedeljka Todorovića, ovdašnjeg meteorologa i "istraživača klimatskih mena", a ta je da je cela priča o klimackim promenama politički/ korporativno motivisana šarena laža (kako smo već argumentovali na ovom topiku i drugde - činjenica je da je predvode oni koji imaju najviše da izgube u posledicama daljeg privrednog bujanja Kine i ruskog eksploatisanja fosilnih goriva) kao i da su fluktuacije u godišnjim temperaturama periodične i ne podržavaju ideju o porastu temperature a kamoli antropogenim promenama. Tekst u kome Todorović iznosi svoja mišljenja je ovde:

http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Tema-nedelje/Vreme-vremenskih-nepogoda/Klima-se-izgleda-klima.sr.html (http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Tema-nedelje/Vreme-vremenskih-nepogoda/Klima-se-izgleda-klima.sr.html)

A evo glavnog dela:

Quote
Температура на глобалном нивоу посустаје у порасту у последњих шеснаест година – каже београдски метеоролог Недељко Тодоровић, у коментару актуелних информација из света о климатским променама. Додаје да постоје осцилације, температура мало опада па незнатно расте, као и већина метеоролошких параметара, што је уочено у периоду редовних мерења. Примећени су периоди понављања, периодичности, осцилација параметара, па су тако у стручној литератури одавно присутни појмови НАО (Северноатланска осцилација), ПДО (Пацифичка декадна осцилација) и други. Већина осцилација су на приближно 60 година. Сада, када се уочавају празнине у тренду пораста температуре, покушавају то да образложе на многе начине. Кажу да је јака зима управо доказ о глобалном загревању, да су ветрови над океанима двоструко јачи, што представља нестварну тврдњу. Ни сада, када је уочено успоравање загревања, климатски „стручњаци” не одступају од своје теорије и прогноза. Али, најзанимљивије је да се све те приче замењују полако причом о антропогеном утицају на климу. Не би било чудно да за неку годину назовиексперти дају саопштење да је систематским радом на смањењу емисије гасова са ефектом стаклене баште успешно заустављено глобално загревање. Наш саговорник оцењује да је све то, нажалост, резултат претераног мешања политике у науку. – Анализа поновљивости указује да се топлије лето јавља сваке три до четири године, затим на сваких седам-осам година и тако даље. Лето 2012. било је рекордно топло, лето 2013. мање, мада изнад просека. Ово лето требало би да буде још мало свежије у односу на претходна два, што је већ очито, јер смо већ усред најтоплијег годишњег доба. Уз све, не значи да неће бити врућих дана. Говорим само о великој вероватноћи да тако буде јер природа не признаје наше прогнозе и процене, честа су изненађења. Поред тога, постоје периоди од 30 до 35 година са чешћом појавом врућих лета, па затим период од 30 до 35 година са чешћим хладнијим летима. Сваки метеоролошки параметар има своје циклусе. И тако деценијама и вековима. У средњем веку постојало је неколико малих „ледених доба”, пре и после тога – мало топлији периоди. Температура између њих има амплитуду око два степена, дакле плус-минус један степен. У последњих 12.000 година, од краја последњег леденог доба, клима се суштински није мењала. Догађају се сталне мање осцилације метеоролошких и климатских параметара, али и појава екстремних вредности као саставни део метеоролошких феномена – закључио је саговорник „Политике”.

Razlog za moje iznenađenje je taj da postoji jedan jednostavan i naširoko poznat grafikon koji pokazuje promenu srednje godišnje temperature na površini Zemlje u poslednjih stotrideset godina, po rezultatima četiri nezavisne institucije (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80167) i činjenica da Politika ovo glatko ignoriše me podstiče da se zapitam jesu li oni samo neozbiljni u svom uredničkom poslu ili sam ja naivna budala koja ne ume da razdvoji politiku od nauke. Dakle, ili nas četiri velike institucije organizovano lažu a Nedeljko Todorović je smela donkihotovska figura koja nam otvara oči ili nas oni ne lažu nego on stvari tumači na neki "poseban" način...

For d rekord, evo grafikona:

(http://i59.tinypic.com/15nstwh.png)

Ovo sve pišem kao predujam za naredna dva posta u kojima ću citirati nešto novo i nešto staro.  :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-08-2014, 11:07:16
Ako smo to svarili, evo sad nečeg gde politika svakako ima mnogo uticaja. Naime, Australija je, u naporu da doprinese borbi protiv neželjenih klimatskih promena uvela "carbon tax" odnosno propisan porez za svaku tonu emitovanog ugljendioksida. A zatim je taj carbon tax ukinula, iako je rezultat bilo smanjenje emisije ugljendioksida za 0,8 posto, najveće smanjenje za poslednje 24 godine. Gardijan izveštava:



http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/17/australia-kills-off-carbon-tax (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/17/australia-kills-off-carbon-tax)


Quote
Australia’s carbon price has been repealed (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/17/tony-abbott-hails-demise-of-useless-destructive-carbon-tax), leaving the nation with no legislated policy to achieve even the minimum 5% greenhouse emissions reduction target it has inscribed in international agreements.
After eight years of bitter political debate, during which climate policy dominated three election campaigns and contributed to the demise of two prime ministers, after last week’s Senate drama in which the repeal was again defeated and this week’s lengthy last gasp debate, the Senate has now finally voted to make good Tony Abbott’s “pledge in blood” to “axe the tax”.

The government was backed by seven of the new crossbench senators, including the three Palmer United party senators, Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm, Family First senator Bob Day, Motoring Enthusiast senator Ricky Muir, DLP senator John Madigan. Independent senator Nick Xenophon was unwell.

Only the Australian Labor party and the Greens voted against repealing the carbon pricing scheme they introduced, which came into effect two years ago.

Leader of the government in the Senate and former climate change minister Penny Wong said repealing the bills meant “this nation will have walked away from a credible and efficient response to climate change”.

Wong said the prime minister Tony Abbott had “staked his political career … on fearmongering and scaremongering and that is what this debate has been about for years”.

“I think future generations will look back on these bills and they will be appalled … at the short-sighted, opportunistic selfish politics of those opposite and Mr Abbott will go down as one of the most short-sighted, selfish and small people ever to occupy the office of prime minister.”

Government backbencher Ian Macdonald accused opposition parties of being hypocrites for refusing to accept the will of the voters and said that while he had “an open mind”, he would like to point out that Brisbane had recently had its coldest day in 113 years.

Greens leader Christine Milne said it was “a vote for failure” amid interjections from government backbenchers that she should “get over it” because the parliament was “respecting the will of the Australian people”.

The bills passed 39:32. There was none of the jubilation that accompanied their passage in the lower house, but the leader of the government in the Senate, Eric Abetz, shook hands with backbench senator Cory Bernardi, who led the revolt against Malcolm Turnbull when, as leader of the opposition, he backed Labor’s carbon pricing scheme.

The tax was $25.40 a tonne and was scheduled to move to the floating and lower international price in 12 months.

The repeal will cost the budget around $7bn over the next four years as around 350 businesses, mainly electricity generators and big manufacturers, no longer have to pay the tax.

The government argues the carbon pricing scheme has been ineffective, but national emissions have actually fallen by 0.8% in the first calendar year of its operation, the largest fall in 24 years of records. Since the tax began, emissions from the east coast electricity market have fallen 11%, but emissions from other sources – especially coal and gas mining have increased.

The government also says households will be better off by an average $550 – the amount treasury estimated prices would rise when the tax was introduced – but supermarkets and airlines are now saying consumers should not expect price reductions.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s special powers are to monitor and enforce only electricity and gas price reductions. Electricity bills will rise, but by an estimated 9% less than they otherwise would. Gas bills will rise by an estimated 7% less than they would have with the tax still in place.

The Abbott government says it will now achieve the target of a 5% reduction in Australian emissions compared with 2000 levels by 2020 with its Direct Action policy, which will offer $2.5bn in competitive grants over the next four years to companies and organisations voluntarily reducing emissions. The budget actually allocated only $1.14bn over the four-year forward estimates for the scheme. The government said this is because they will pay on delivery of the abatement. The policy is voluntary and puts no overall cap on emissions.

The government itself has not modelled Direct Action (Abbott said he would prefer to “have a crack”), but two other (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/14/funding-gap-abbott-climate-plan) modelling exercises (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/coalition-climate-change-modelling-shortfall) found even the 5% cut would cost far more than $2.5bn, and the independent climate change authority – which the government is seeking to abolish – has said Australia’s “fair share” of international emissions reductions has now increased to between 15% and 19% by 2020.

The government says it is sure Direct Action will meet the 5% target, but Abbott has said he will not allocate any more money (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/coalition-direct-action-no-funding-increase) even if it does not, and has not said how he would make deeper reductions in Australia’s emissions which are likely to be required after the United Nations meeting to try to forge a new post-2020 climate agreement in Paris next year.

Malcolm Turnbull  (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-02-08%2F0018;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-02-08%2F0000%22)warned of the long-term costs of the policy in a speech to parliament after he was deposed as leader because of his support for an emissions trading scheme, when he said Direct Action style schemes were “a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale”.

The carbon price repeal bills were voted down in the Senate last week after a last-minute change to a Palmer United party amendment was ruled to be unconstitutional by the clerk of the Senate. The government had been prepared to accept the amendment but then changed it again over the weekend after business groups raised major concerns.
Business groups welcomed the repeal as a “first step” towards achieving an effective emissions reduction policy.
The Business Council of Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group called on the government to “develop and implement a cost-effective emissions reduction fund” as “part of a toolkit of measures to reduce emissions”.

But the Climate Institute thinktank said that “by repealing laws that price and limit carbon pollution, Australia today became the world’s first country to dismantle a functioning and effective carbon market, taking a monumentally reckless backward leap even as other major countries are stepping up climate action”.

And the Australian Conservation Foundation said: “This backwards step makes Australia an international embarrassment.”

Describing it as a “tragic day”, Greens leader senator Christine Milne said after the vote that “the big polluters should pay for the destruction they are causing to the planet”. She accused the Coalition of “wanting to cost-shift the burden of climate change onto the community and away from the people who are causing it”.

Both Labor and the Greens say they remain committed to carbon pricing as the best way to reduce emissions.

Speaking after the vote, agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce said the tax had imposed high costs on families, and questioned whether it was needed, saying “look at the weather today, look at the way you are dressed, no one thinks it is too hot”.

“I believe there is climate change happening, I just don’t believe we are going to change it with a broad-based consumption tax.”

“I am glad the carbon tax has been axed … we have Direct Action and there are programs that hopefully can assist … but the idea that somehow we inflict on every household the fact that we would attack their power prices to the Australian taxation offices. They took it to the Australian people and the Australian people rejected it,” Joyce said.
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-08-2014, 11:17:54
 A evo sad nečeg dugačkog, starog pet godina i samo delimično vezanog za klimatske promene, ali veoma interesantnog a tiče se Godlman Sahsa, manipulacije finansijskim tržištima i političkim prioritetima i kako se sve to manifestuje u domenu borbe protiv neželjenih klimatskih promena. Napravite sebi piće i iskokajte kokice, jer ovo će da potraje, a zbog dužine sam odlučio i da ga ne kopiram ovde.



 The Great American Bubble Machine (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 04-08-2014, 11:20:28
Vidim, Meho, da si sna\no
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 04-08-2014, 11:51:28
Nek se jebe administrator koji me je sprečio da zbog jednog znaka dopišem jedan jako dobar post. Meho, sranje su te zavrzlame i veruj da je Majka Zemlja veći majstor od današnje nauke.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-08-2014, 12:01:24
Ma za majku Zemlju ja ne brinem, brinem za vaše potomstvo na njenoj površini.  :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 04-08-2014, 12:12:21
Potomstvo ima više da nadrlja od sumanute politike nego od klimatskih promena.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-08-2014, 12:15:10
Ali vidimo da je sve to povezano. Da je ceo koncept klimatskih promena visoko politizovan i u ogromnoj meri predstavlja borbu interesnih grupa. Pa treba imati i sve to na oku...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 04-08-2014, 12:36:53
A to do sada nismo znali... Al Gor je sasvim slučajno glavni aktivista...  :)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-08-2014, 12:40:51
Ma nemojte na sve da gledamo iz perspektive nas ciničnih, starih ljudi. Informacija treba da bude povremeno ponavljana i osvežavana za potrebe ljudi koji tek počinju da razmišljaju i informišu se o problemu. Mi znamo ko je Al Gor još od osamdesetih godina prošlog veka, ali za nekog rođenog u toj deceniji ili kasnije - on je samo smešni lik iz South parka itd.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 04-08-2014, 12:48:56
Meho, pogledaj te priložene krive. Ako je to 150. godina beleženja srednje temperature, da li je to deo krive, prava, sinusoida ili eksponencijalna kriva? Plus, sigurno nisu posmatrani svi faktori lokalnih i ukupnih uticaja na klimatske promene. Neko ko ima pristup medijima se nakenja tek tako, a mi razmišljamo. Važi i za ovog našeg. Šta mu važno šta će se desi za 50 godina?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 04-08-2014, 12:59:09
Svejedno, zar ćemo samo da sedimo i gledamo kako nam poplave i suše remete unutrašnji mir? Zar ne bi trebalo proaktivno da rešimo problem velikih nepogoda i desetkovanaja životinjskog sveta, umesto samo da dižemo veće nasipe?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-08-2014, 13:02:46
 
Meho, pogledaj te priložene krive. Ako je to 150. godina beleženja srednje temperature, da li je to deo krive, prava, sinusoida ili eksponencijalna kriva? Plus, sigurno nisu posmatrani svi faktori lokalnih i ukupnih uticaja na klimatske promene. Neko ko ima pristup medijima se nakenja tek tako, a mi razmišljamo. Važi i za ovog našeg. Šta mu važno šta će se desi za 50 godina?
Ne vredi da idemo sad u neke velike širine, moja ključna ideja ovde je bila da pokažem kako Todorovićeva priča o oscilacijama i šezdesetogodišnjim ciklusima nema mnogo dodirnih tačaka sa onim što tvrde velike institucije koje se bave klimom. Te da mi nije jasno da jedna ugledna novina kao što je Politika u tematu koji se bavi klimatskim promenama daje apsolutnu prednost njegovoj tvrdnji a ni ne pominje ove druge, dobro dokumentovane svuda gde čovek pogleda. Logičnije bi bilo da krenu sa ovim podacima pa onda njega da stave kao opoziciju koja bi obrazložila zašto to nije sve baš tako kako tvrde (kao recimo onaj koga citiram gore u topiku koji govori da emisija ugljendioksida nije uzrok već posledica otopljavanja). Ali to nisu uradili, pa mi sve to naopako.

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 28-08-2014, 10:45:29
The Climate Scientist Who Pioneered Geoengineering Fears It's About to Blow Up (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/ken-caldeira-climate-geoengineering)



Quote
For years, Dr. Ken Caldeira's interest in planet hacking (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/geoengineering-scientists-planet-climate-engineering-2014) made him a curious outlier in his field. A highly respected atmospheric scientist, he also describes himself as a "reluctant advocate" of researching solar geoengineering—that is, large-scale efforts to artificially manage the amount of sunlight entering the atmosphere, in order to cool off the globe.
 Caldeira says he's "less of a catastrophist than most," but he's worried that humans won't stop burning fossil fuels, and that the subsequent global warming will ultimately melt the ice caps and render vast swaths of the tropics unsuitable for growing crops. In the face of a climate emergency, he says, we may be able to temporarily limit the damage by, essentially, simulating a safer version of a massive volcanic eruption.
 "By the end of the century, through most of the tropics, every summer temperature will be hotter than the hottest temperature yet on record, in most places," Caldeira told me.
 The scientist, who toils for the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, was sporting jeans, a blazer, and a crop of unruly graying hair, and had traveled to the first major geoengineering conference in Berlin (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/to-hack-or-not-to-hack-the-planet), to participate as a featured speaker.
 "So the idea that huge swaths of the tropics might not be suitable for growing crops," he went on, "is plausible. And if you're unable to grow crops in huge swaths of the tropics, is that going to create political turmoil and migration? It could be a major disruption."
 That, he says, is the likeliest reason we would see geoengineering attempted, and why we have to be prepared if politicians and increasingly desperate nations look for a quick climate fix. In a pair of interviews at the controversy-filled meeting, Caldeira offered his views on how and why we might come to live on a geoengineered planet, how the field is rapidly growing (and why that's dangerous), and what the odds are that humans will try to hijack the Earth's thermostat.



 Over the last decade, Caldeira and his colleagues have harnessed intricate models to examine the effect that blocking a small percentage of the sunlight that enters the Earth's atmosphere would have on the global climate (http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/Matthews_Caldeira2.html).
 Typically, a feat of geoengineering that could achieve an outcome like that involves injecting a bunch of tiny particles into the stratosphere; emulating, essentially, the global cooling effect of a major volcanic eruption like the one that blanketed the Philippines in lava and ash in 1991.
 The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo blasted out 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TOMS_SO2_time_nov03.png), leaving a slew of tiny particles hovering in the sky. All those aerosols lingered in the atmosphere, where they bounced more sunlight back into space than usual, spurring global temperatures to fall by nearly an entire degree Fahrenheit in subsequent years.
 That event, the biggest of its kind in recent history, and thus best-suited for careful scientific study, eventually came to provide the template for solar geoengineering. Now, scientists consider spreading sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere (without any of mercury or other toxic stuff that volcanoes also tend to belch out), either with a fleet of planes, giant balloons, or even artillery to be perhaps the most plausible geoenginering proposal. Since the particulates only stay airborne temporarily, this would have to be done regularly, perhaps even annually.


 Caldeira published his first paper on climate hacking back in 2000. Originally, he says, he carried out the modeling experiments to prove that the concept was a nonstarter.
 "Our philosophical bias was to try to show that it wouldn't work, but every simulation we did showed it would work," the affable and talkative Caldeira, frequenting an easy but weary smile, told me at the conference last week. "So I kind of became a reluctant advocate of at least doing the research."
"I'm one of the few people to become expert on the things I don't really like."
 The initial experiments showed that a small amount of aerosols could indeed cool the planet enough to offset warming, while inflicting few obvious woes on the environment.
 "We did a series of other papers," Caldeira says, "because people said, 'Oh, turning down the sun will hurt the plants and the land biosphere.' So we did another simulation and it turned out the land biosphere grew better, because, as seen after Mt. Pinatubo, the diffuse radiation brought more light down to lower leaves for the plant canopies, so you're getting the C02 fertilization without the heat stress. So the plants grew better."
 With each new finding, it seemed, solar geoengineering appeared more feasible, and a less dangerous way to at least limit the rising temperatures caused by the growing concentration of carbon dioxide in the air.
 "For the current generation of climate models, and the way people measure climate damage... at modest levels of solar geoengineering, everyone is better off than without it."
 To reiterate: Caldeira's models show that if climate change continues, everyone, from the poor nations in the tropics, to the rich ones in the Northern Hemisphere, would reap benefits—more productive crops, less sweltering temperatures—from a simulated volcanic eruption.
 He'll be the first to point out that there are plenty of attendant social and political problems with the idea, and grave dangers of coming to rely on the technology. For instance, if we were to pull the plug after starting a geoengineering program, it could catapult the planet into even worse levels of warming. It does nothing to address global warming's ugly twin brother, ocean acidification (http://motherboard.vice.com/tag/ocean+acidification). And by presenting the world's public with an apparent techno-fix, it could deflate the movement to reduce carbon emissions.
 "For me, my main concern is that we would start doing solar geoengineering while we're still building things with smokestacks and tailpipes," he tells me. "And in that framing, I think the solar geoengineering is just facilitating continued greenhouse gas emissions."
 But the technology itself isn't the hurdle.


 "We know volcanoes cool the planet, we know it basically works," Caldeira says. "The studies show that not that much stuff can produce a dramatic cooling, that it just seems to be the most obvious thing with enough leverage."
 "And also the masses of material involved are thought to be reasonable," he adds.
 By that, he means it wouldn't be too daunting a logistical task; and, it'd be relatively cheap. He points me to a study published in Environmental Research Letters (http://www.iop.org/news/12/aug/page_56938.html) by researchers from Aurora Flight Strategies, that suggested that this kind of geoengineering could be accomplished for $5 billion a year, if a fleet of planes were used as the delivery mechanism. (Dr. Ryo Moriyama, of Japan's Institute of Applied Energy, told me that a study he conducted found the cost was likely double that.)
 "The cost of transforming energy systems is in the trillions of dollars of year," Caldeira says.
 "My impression has been that if there was a demand to start putting something up in the next couple of years, that it wouldn't be too much to build a fleet of airplanes and just start doing it," he goes on. "It might be that this idea of doing it with balloons or artillery shells or whatever could end up being cheaper, but I think that just even doing it with airplanes is not so expensive that if there was ever a perceived emergency, I think people would just start doing it with airplanes, and then if you can work out something that's cheaper later, maybe do it."


 So what might that perceived emergency look like? How does Caldeira imagine we might be forced to live in a world where the climate itself is consciously being artificially regulated?
 "For me, the most likely scenario for deployment is if it just gets too hot to reliably grow crops in the tropics, and tropical countries say, we're going to take matters into our own hands and make our climate so we can grow crops; and say look, you in the north, you wrecked up our climate, and we have a right to try to counteract what you've done."
 Scenarios like this are enough to push most climatologists and scientists away from the idea. Many view it as a sort of Pandora's box—the further researchers open it, the more likely it is that a bona fide scheme to meddle with the global thermostat will lurch out.
 Partly for this reason, Caldeira has been a controversial figure; he's been profiled in a New Yorker in a piece called 'The Climate Fixers' (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/14/the-climate-fixers), he was a subject in Jeff Goodell's general audience geoengineering book, How to Cool the Planet (http://jeff-goodell.com/), and, perhaps most famously, a source in the sequel to Freakonomics. There, controversy ensued after he was allegedly quoted out of context (http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1931993,00.html) to help build the case that scientists were worrying about CO2 emissions too much—and that geoengineering was the smart, economical fix for the planet's problems. This despite the fact Caldeira's peers have described geoengineering, scientifically, as "a bad idea." (http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf)
 Still, Caldeira says attitudes are shifting among his fellow climate scientists.
 "Our first geoengineering paper was in 2000, and people at that point wanted to distance themselves or not even talk about it," he said. "Then, maybe the late 2000s, people were more vocal about it, but more like saying, 'Oh, bad, bad, bad, we don't want to even think about that.' Now, in the last three or four years it's almost become a trendy research area, at least among some subcomponents of the climate crowd."
 In fact, Caldeira fully expects to see a small boom in geoengineering.
 "I think it's one of the few areas of climate science that's perceived as a growth area. You know that certain people are coming into it graduate students thinking of it as a career direction," he tells me. "To me, I think it's a little bit dangerous, in that if people are working on a bunch of things, and they spend 10 to 20 percent of their time on geoengineering, they don't have that much of a stake in certain outcomes. But as soon as there are people whose main job is to work on geoengineering, they have an incentive to keep it going... as soon as you start creating institutions to research stuff, what's the main finding? Needs more study, give us more money."
 Caldeira seems genuinely and deeply conflicted about the prospect that humans might, someday soon, attempt to tinker with the planet's climate system. When he goes on stage to deliver his talk, he seems anxious, a little overwhelmed. He oscillates between thoughts, jumping from what seem like prepared remarks to notions that just occurred to him then and there, on the fly. He says we should think of geoengineering more like building a dike; there are pros and cons, environmental hazards and benefits. But ultimately, it might buy dwellers on vulnerable ground some crucial time to get their house in order.
 Later, when we're talking at length, I ask him how likely it is he thinks humanity might embrace this climatic nuclear option.
 "I know people who think it's inevitable that society will eventually deploy one of these schemes just because the potential to offset a lot of climate change impacts very cheaply is there. If people really get hit by heat wave after heat wave and there are droughts and crop failures and people are feeling like 'Oh, the climate models are saying that this would alleviate the problem and it would be cheap,' pressure could build to deploy it. I think that there's at least a 10-20-30 percent chance that we're eventually going to do it."
 He shakes his head, and forms a melancholy smile.
 "I go back and forth. Most days I think we're never going to do it. Most days, I think we're just going to muddle on and we're not going to reduce emissions and we're not going to geoengineer and the Earth's just going to get hot and the ice caps are going to melt and we're just going to muddle through. That's my view most days."
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 28-08-2014, 22:20:36
E, ako nekog zanima od 3-5 septembra u SANU organizujemo konferenciju o upravljanju vodama i klimatskim promenama, na kojoj će biti i neke od
zaista top svetskih faca vezanih za promenu klime, kao što su, na primer


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Somerville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Somerville)


koji je bio jedan od glavnih likova za pripremu četvrtog IPPC izveštaja.


ili


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Berger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Berger)


koji je vodeći svetski lik za paleoklimu, itd. itd.


Ceo program imate ovde:


http://www.jcerni.org/en/maus-programme.html (http://www.jcerni.org/en/maus-programme.html)


Ulaz slobodan, a ako mi se javite na vreme, možda vam i neku klopu sredim...  :)






Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mme Chauchat on 28-08-2014, 22:52:53
Bravo, Mićo! Držimo palčeve da sve super prođe!
 xcheers
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 28-08-2014, 22:53:41
Uh... Hvala...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 29-08-2014, 08:56:23
Nadajmo se da ton konferencije neće biti ovako pesimističan. Na linku imaju i grafikoni.



Irreversible Damage Seen From Climate Change in UN Leak (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-26/irreversible-damage-seen-from-climate-change-in-un-leak.html)


Quote
Humans risk causing irreversible and widespread damage to the planet unless there’s faster action to limit the fossil fuel emissions blamed for climate change, according to a leaked draft United Nations report.
Global warming already is affecting “all continents and across the oceans,” and further pollution from heat-trapping gases will raise the likelihood of “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems,” according to the document obtained by Bloomberg.
“Without additional mitigation, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally,” the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in the draft.

The study is the most important document produced by the UN about global warming, summarizing hundreds of papers. It’s designed to present the best scientific and economic analysis to government leaders and policymakers worldwide. It feeds into the UN-led effort drawing in more than 190 nations for an agreement on limiting emissions.
The report “will provide policymakers with a scientific foundation to tackle the challenge of climate change,” IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Rajendra%20Pachauri&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) said in a statement from the panel’s office in Geneva. “It would help governments and other stakeholders work together at various levels, including a new international agreement to limit climate change” that countries intend to broker by the end of next year.
 Leaked Report  The draft, dated Aug. 25, was obtained by Bloomberg from a person with official access to it who asked not to be further identified because it hasn’t been published yet. It’s subject to line-by-line revision by representatives of governments around the world, and a final report is scheduled to be published on Nov. 2 in Copenhagen.



Jonathan Lynn (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Jonathan%20Lynn&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja), a spokesman for the IPCC, declined to comment on the contents of the report. The draft “is still a work in progress, which will certainly change -- indeed that is the point of the review -- and so it would be premature to discuss its contents at this stage,” Lynn said.
Economic losses for a warming level of 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels may reach 2 percent of global income, according to the panel, which acknowledged existing estimates are “incomplete,” and the calculation has “limitations.”
 Rising Temperatures  Temperatures have already warmed by 0.85 of a degree since 1880, it said. That’s quicker than the shift in the climate that brought the end of the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago.
The panel also acknowledged there are costs associated with keeping the temperature rise since industrialization below the 2-degree target. That’s the level endorsed by the nations negotiating on a climate deal. Doing so may lead to losses in global consumption of 1.7 percent in 2030, 3.4 percent in 2050 and 4.8 percent in 2100, according to the paper.



“Risks from mitigation can be substantial, but they do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation action,” the authors wrote.
The 127-page document includes a 32-page summary and is filled with language highlighting the dangers from rising temperatures. Those include damage to crop production, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and more pervasive heatwaves. The report mentions the word “risk” more than 350 times; “vulnerable” or “vulnerability” are written 61 times; and “irreversible” comes up 48 times.
 Ice Melting  Possible permanent changes include the melting of the ice sheet covering Greenland. That would boost sea levels by as much as 7 meters (23 feet) and threaten coastal cities from Miami to Bangkok along with island nations such as the Maldives, Kiribati and Tuvalu.
The scientists said they have “medium confidence” that warming of less than 4 degrees Celsius would be enough to trigger such a melt, which would take at least a millennium.
Other effects the report flags include reduced food security as production of crops such as wheat, rice and maize in the tropics is damaged, melting of Arctic sea ice, and acidification of the oceans.
The report also shows the scale of the challenge in limiting global warming. To stand a two-thirds chance of meeting the temperature goal, cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide since 1870 must be limited to about 2,900 gigatons, according to the study. Two thirds of that carbon already has been released into the atmosphere, they said.
 Temperature Range  The surface air temperature is projected to rise under all scenarios examined by the IPCC. It expects a gain of 0.3 degrees to 4.8 degrees for this century, depending on what policies governments pursue. That range would lead to a sea-level increase of 26 centimeters (10 inches) to 82 centimeters in addition to the 19 centimeters already recorded.
“Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases cease,” the researchers said. “The risk of abrupt and irreversible change increases as the magnitude of the warming increases.”



While the measures exist that may keep temperature gains below the 2-degree threshold, there are “substantial technological, economic, social, and institutional challenges,” according to the study.
 Cost of Delay  Delaying action will only increase the risks and costs, it said. Putting off work on the issue until 2030 may raise costs by 44 percent through 2050, it said.
Ruling out certain technological solutions would also add to the costs of fighting climate change, according to the paper.
Without equipment to capture emissions from factories and power plants and store them underground, known as carbon capture and storage, the cost of the most stringent CO2 reductions could more than double, according to the paper. Eliminating nuclear power would raise costs by 7 percent and limiting wind and solar farms would do so by 6 percent.
In a nod to skeptics who argue temperatures haven’t significantly warmed since 1998, the researchers said that climate models aren’t so good at explaining short-term fluctuations in the temperature and that “natural variability” may be part of what’s being observed.
 Warming Slowdown  The pace of temperature increases slowed to about 0.05 of a degree per decade from 1998 through 2012 from 0.12 degrees per decade for the longer period spanning from 1951 to 2012. The IPCC said 111 out of 114 climate models predicted a greater warming trend than was observed from 1998 to 2012. And for the period from 1984 to 1998, most models showed less warming than was finally recorded, they said.
Over longer periods, the climate models seem to be more accurate. From 1951 to 2012, “simulated surface warming trends are consistent with the observed trend,” the IPCC researchers said.
The UN panel since September has published three separate reports into the physical science of global warming, its impacts, and ways to fight it. The study leaked yesterday, called the “Synthesis Report” intends to pick out the most important findings and present them in a way that lawmakers can easily understand.
In all, more than 800 scientists from around the world have helped write the four reports, an exercise the UN last completed in 2007. It also uses inputs from earlier studies by the IPCC into renewable energy and extreme events and disasters.
To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Morales in London at amorales2@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net Tony Barrett
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 08-10-2014, 09:24:36
Nešto o čemu smo već pričali - naime da reverzija antropogenog zagrevanja zahteva konkretne žrtve:


Living on a carbon budget. Or, you can't always get what you want. (http://thebulletin.org/living-carbon-budget-or-you-cant-always-get-what-you-want7677)





Quote
Is it possible to have any fun at all without burning fossil fuels? On a Saturday afternoon in my rural neighborhood, the woods reverberate with the sounds of ATVs and dirt bikes—or, in winter, snowmobiles. Even here, in an area on the Oregon-Washington border renowned for human-powered sports such as windsurfing, mountain biking, and skiing, people often drive a considerable distance to begin their recreation.
These activities may be more thrilling than low-carbon alternatives such as playing cards, making music, or tossing a Frisbee. Trouble is, Earth’s carbon budget (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/two-decades-until-carbon-budget-is-eaten-through-18051)—the remaining amount of fossil fuels that scientists calculate can be burned without destroying the climate—will last only about 30 years at the rate we’re going. It will be extremely difficult to make the budget stretch until fossil fuels can be replaced with cleaner alternatives. So how do we divvy up carbon “spending” in a way that’s fair?
This is a question that should move from the fringes of the energy debate to its very heart. Economists and energy experts shy away from issues of equity and morality, but climate change and environmental justice are inseparable: It’s impossible to talk intelligently about climate without discussing how to distribute limited energy resources. It’s highly unlikely that the world can safely produce almost five times as much electricity by 2035 as it does now—which is what it would take to provide everyone with a circa-2010 American standard of living, according to a calculation by University of Colorado environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr. (http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/roger-pielke-jr/how-much-energy-does-the-world-need) The sooner policy makers accept this reality, the sooner they can get to work on a global solution that meets everyone’s needs. First, though, they need to understand the difference between needs and wants.
Energy “requirements.” In a recent online discussion about how to quantify carbon emissions, McGill University environmental economist Christopher Green (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/accounting-for-the-expanding-carbon-shadow-from-coal-burning-plants/) wrote: “The important question is how the world’s huge and growing energy requirements are going to be met.” This is a common framing of the climate problem, but note that Green uses the word “requirements” rather than energy “demands.” They are not exactly the same. A requirement is a necessity, an obligation. A demand, in economics, is more like a request: It’s negotiable, and you might not get everything you ask for. It’s a function of the number of people who wish to buy a particular good.
Most economists and energy policy makers, though, proceed from the assumption that energy requirements and energy demands are synonymous. That’s certainly how the oil and gas industry views the situation. For example, in a speech that Shell CEO Peter Voser (http://www.shell.com/global/aboutshell/media/speeches-and-webcasts/2011/voser-thehague-05092011.html) gave a couple of years before his December 2013 retirement, he said: “We must continue heavy investment to develop and deliver new energy supplies. This is not optional. We estimate the world will need to produce 40 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 from fields we haven’t even developed yet, due to the combination of increasing demand and falling production rates.”
Wow. Not optional. Because, you know, people need that oil.
Needs vs. wants. My friend Warren started his own boat-design business years ago, when he had a wife and young sons to support. I recently asked him how he found the courage to do it. He told me that he and his wife learned, early on, how to tell the difference between wants and needs.
Making this distinction will be critical in dealing with climate change, too. People need energy to provide for their families. But do they “need” to ride around on motorized vehicles in their leisure time? That’s the kind of uncomfortable question that policy makers prefer to avoid. But if need does not become a central part of the climate discussion, there is little hope of a serious solution. The experts might as well be out in the woods doing wheelies.
The key question is not how we will meet future energy demands—a framing that justifies a never-ending search for new energy sources and assumes that a growing and increasingly affluent global population should get whatever it asks for. Everyone must have his or her needs met—food, water, shelter, health. But all of us may have to forego wants. The more fundamental questions are how the world will distinguish between wants and needs, and whether energy will be shared and conserved in such a way that everyone has enough to meet basic needs. Policy makers should have learned everything they need to know about sharing in kindergarten; but since then they’ve clearly forgotten those lessons—or at least forgotten that they are as important for climate change as they are for slicing a cake.
Rights and responsibilities. In any discussion of climate justice, developing countries quickly point out two basic realities: First, they aren’t responsible for most of the emissions that have taken place since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And second, their citizens have a right to the same quality of life that Americans already enjoy. These are both completely valid points, but they lead inevitably to stalemate, allowing richer nations to argue that progress is impossible without a multilateral agreement to reduce emissions.
For example, despite the recent joint announcement (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/30/us-india-joint-statement) that both the United States and India are committed to working toward a successful outcome at the international climate negotiations in Paris next year, Indian prime minister Narendra Modi was conspicuously absent from the UN climate summit in New York in September. India’s environment minister Prakash Javadekar said that his nation’s priority was relieving poverty, not climate change, and that the country’s emissions would continue to rise for at least the next 30 years. Emissions cuts, Javadekar told the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/world/asia/25climate.html), are “for more developed countries. The moral principle of historic responsibility cannot be washed away.”
No, it can’t, but neither can the world afford any free passes in 2014. India recently overtook the European Union as the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and China already emits more greenhouse gases annually than any other nation, although the United States—in second place—outsources many of its emissions to China and India by importing goods manufactured there. And even as the United States exhorts these countries to choose clean energy over coal, carbon dioxide emissions from US coal-burning power plants (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/fracking-emissions-fall-texas-still-king-of-ghgs-18110) are inching upward, and recent reports suggest that switching from coal to natural gas (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/09/140924-natural-gas-impact-on-emissions/) won’t do much to reduce US emissions.
Climate justice or climate capitalism? The blame game accomplishes little and hinders discussion of how the world’s nations can work together to solve the climate crisis fairly. If the global carbon budget is allocated according to how much carbon each nation is currently emitting, a strategy that Michael R. Raupach and colleagues refer to as “inertia” in their recent Nature Climate Change paper (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2384.html), North America would have a 19 percent share. Under an “equity” scenario, in which carbon is allocated according to population, the North American share would be only 5 percent. A compromise “blended” approach—which would provide developing countries with access to energy and development opportunities, without imposing extremely high mitigation demands on developed countries—would allocate 12 percent of the world’s carbon budget to North America. Of course, such allocations are entirely dependent on a willingness to share, and North America possesses more fossil reserves than any other region.
As Naomi Klein writes in her new book, This Changes Everything (http://thischangeseverything.org/book/), “the really inconvenient truth is that [global warming] is not about carbon—it’s about capitalism.” Convincing millions of Americans to sacrifice their wants for the needs of others will be a huge political, economic, legal, and ethical challenge. As Klein acknowledges in the October 6 issue of The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/article/181621/climate-change-peoples-shock), “if climate justice carries the day, the economic costs to our elites will be real—not only because of the carbon left in the ground, but also because of the regulations, taxes, and social programs needed to make the required transformation.”
It won’t be easy, but climate justice is, to borrow a phrase from former Shell CEO Voser, not optional. Humans require a livable climate. In the years to come, the energy wants of the world’s wealthiest people must be weighed against the energy needs of their poorer fellow human beings. Some people may need ATVs to survive; most probably don’t.
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 08-10-2014, 13:41:08
Meho, batali čitanje knjiga i članaka i ugrađuj škrge...
Adaptacija. Ništa mitigacija.
Nema pomoći... Šta god da uradimo nećemo zaustaviti proces...
Uostalom, šta nas briga kad čitav led da se na Zemlji otopi nivo mora bi se povećao za nekih sedamdesetak metara.
Moja kuća je na nekih 80 tak + drugi sprat. Dakle, mirno spavajmo...
Danas sam sa jednim amerom koji je bio u timu koji je dobio nobelovu nagradu za rad na klimatskim promenama diskutovao na temu šta bi bilo da se u Evropi 20tih godina stvorio pokret koji bi ukazao na problem globalnog otopljavanja.
On tvrdi da je neko ozbiljno seo i razmislio, mogao je doći do zaključka da bi se ovo moglo desiti što se danas dešava...
Kako bi svet izgledao da smo tada odustali od carbon oriented energetskih izvora?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 08-10-2014, 13:55:49
Eto, Meho, Mića je glavni za vodu i misli da je bezbedan. Međutim, izgleda da će pre nego što poraste nivo mora da se sva voda natoči preko Srbije. Ko je rekao da Srbija nije monsunska zemlja?


Ili, kupite kristal sa kiseonikom, trebaće vam dok ronite u potrazi za nekom retkom knjigom koju čuvate u podrumu.


http://www.gizmag.com/crystalline-material-absorb-oxygen-denmark/34064/ (http://www.gizmag.com/crystalline-material-absorb-oxygen-denmark/34064/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 08-10-2014, 14:07:26
Ne... neee.. :)
Knjige se čuvaju na tavanu (dobro izolovanom...)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 08-10-2014, 14:16:36
Pa nije samo do kuće problem. Problem je u gubitku obradivog zemljišta, migracijama stanovništva, daljoj promeni klime zbog povećanja vodene a smanjenja kopnene mase itd.  :lol:

No, to na stranu, ovo što Mića pita dole u postu, pa to je praktično zaplet Benfordovog Timescapea (s ti što se tamo pokušavaju doseći šezdesete godine) i, naravno, i ja sam se slično pitao. Danas bismo živeli u mnogo drugačijem svetu, to je sigurno, ne samo u klimatskom smislu nego i u geopolitičkom....
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 08-10-2014, 14:24:00

Meho, valjda vidiš da se šalim... Ali nemoj jednostrano da gledaš posledice globalnog otopljavanja. Doći će do ubrzavanja hidrološkog ciklusa, vode će biti više. Čovek je danas okrenut zemlji. Zašto se ne okrenemo moru kao izvoru hrane? Svet će izgledati drugačije nego danas, to je sigurno, ali ja nisam sasvim siguran da li će promene dovesti do boljitka ili nazatka. Mi smo ti koji se bavimo SF-om. Mi smo ti koji bi trebalo da imamo slobodnije vidike. Mislim da je tačka kada se moglo razmišljati o adaptaciji davno prošla. Ostaje nam pametno prilagođavanje. Bar ja tako mislim.

Delimično si u pravu, ali posledice dvadesetih bi bile mnogo drugačije... Velika depresija da li bi se dogodila? Da li bi bilo II svetskog rata?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 08-10-2014, 14:35:20
Naravno da vidim da se šališ a i ja sam stavio smalija na kraj prvog reda da bude jasno da je sve u žovijalnom tonu.

Ali svakako, posledice će biti velike mada postepene. Eksploatacija postojećeg rudnog bogatstva će svakako biti pogođena s obzirom na podizanje nivoa vode; kako već rekoh, biće migracija, videćemo kako će izgledati situacija sa pijaćom vodom itd. Zgodna stvar u sveu je svakako što pričamo o procesu koji će trajati decenijama pa na kraju to možda bude toliko puzajuća katastrofa da i ne bude percipirano kao mnogo strašna katastrofa. Ali, kad već pominjemo SF, meni je uvek u glavi Ballardov Potopljeni svet kao divna meditacija o tome kako se promena klime i njoj srodna promena odnosa vode i kopna na zemlji odražava ne samo na društvenu sferu nego i na biologiju/ psihologiju...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 16-10-2014, 10:13:03
D plot tiknz:


Wind power is cheapest energy, EU analysis finds (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/13/wind-power-is-cheapest-energy-unpublished-eu-analysis-finds)


Quote
Onshore wind is cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear energy when the costs of ‘external’ factors like air quality, human toxicity and climate change are taken into account, according to an EU analysis.
The report (http://t.co/iXFSaVsFun) says that for every megawatt hour (MW/h) of electricity generated, onshore wind costs roughly €105 (£83) per MW/h, compared to gas and coal which can cost up to around €164 and €233 per MW/h, respectively.
Nuclear power, offshore wind and solar energy are all comparably inexpensive generators, at roughly €125 per MW/h.
“This report highlights the true cost of Europe’s dependence on fossil fuels,” said Justin Wilkes, the deputy CEO of the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA). “Renewables are regularly denigrated for being too expensive and a drain on the taxpayer. Not only does the commission’s report show the alarming cost of coal but it also presents onshore wind as both cheaper and more environmentally-friendly.”
The paper, which was written for the European commission by the Ecofys consultancy, suggests that the Conservative party plan of restricting new onshore windfarms (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/01/tories-plan-attack-windfarms) will mean blocking out the cheapest source of energy when environmental and health facts are taken into consideration. It has been suggested the Tory plan could be done through a cap on onshore wind turbines’ output, lower subsidies or tighter planning restrictions.
“Any plans to change policy for onshore wind must be looked at in the context of this report,” said Oliver Joy a spokesman for EWEA. “Investors need long-term visibility. ‘Stop-start’ policies as well as harsh retroactive changes can blindside investors, driving up the risk premium and cost of capital.”
The documents’ contents may also be unwelcome in some quarters of the commission, which early today published selective results from it (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1131_en.htm) that did not include external health and pollution costs.
These showed that renewable energy took €38.3bn of public subsidies in 2012, compared to €22.3bn for gas, coal and nuclear. The EU did however note that if free carbon allowances to polluters were included in the data, it “would reduce the gap between support for renewables and other power generation technologies.”
The Ecofys paper’s nuanced evaluation of historical subsidies for coal and nuclear was also not mentioned in the EU press release, which renewable energy associations linked to a fossil fuel lobbying effort ahead of the report’s publication.
“Despite decades of heavy subsidies, mature coal and nuclear energy technologies are still dependent on similar levels of public support as innovative solar energy is receiving today,” Frauke Thies, the policy director for the European Photovoltaic Industry Association told the Guardian.
“The difference is that costs of solar continue to decrease rapidly. If the unaccounted external costs to society are included, the report demonstrates that support to fossil fuels and nuclear even by far exceeds that to solar.”
The EU’s energy commissioner, Gunther Oettinger, said that the report was only “a first step” to filling gaps in knowledge about the nature of energy subsidies and more reports are likely in the months ahead.

The figures for the energy sources in the report are all approximate, as the bar chart listing them is counted in units of €25 MW/h.
Last year, a row broke out in Brussels (http://www.europeanenergyreview.eu/site/pagina.php?id=4194) after the German newspaper Suddeutche Zeitung reported that Oettinger had tried to delete figures cited in a commission report showing that in 2011, fossil fuels took €26bn in public subsidies, compared to €35bn for nuclear power and €30bn for renewables.
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 16-10-2014, 10:57:32
Treba da proizvodimo vetrenjače ili kako se to već zove na srpskom. A košava nam je najbolji resurs.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 16-10-2014, 11:04:05
Da li među vama ima ikoga ko bi poverovao u to?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 16-10-2014, 11:17:17
Ma, dobro, ovde se u prvoj rečenici kaže da se uračunavaju troškovi poput klimackih promena, kvaliteta vazduha itd. Svakako je ovo pomalo ideološki.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 16-10-2014, 11:32:25
Bilo bi zgodno kad bismo napravili džinovske lebdeće panele koji bi lebdeli iznad oblaka i istovremeno skupljali energiju i smanjili energiju koju primamo od Sunca. To će biti aktuelno tek onda kad se svet dobro poveže brzim prugama koje će omogućiti avionske brzine za autobusku cenu. Tada ti lebdeći paneli neće smetati civilnom avio sobraćaju (koga više biti neće).
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 16-10-2014, 11:37:26
Ja mislim da na prethodnim stranama baš ovog topika imaš malu računicu kako bi vetrenjače podignute na visinu od samo dvesta metara mogle da proizvode dovoljno energije da se podmire sve trenutne svetske potrebe. Zaista moramo da se oslobodimo tih prokletih aviona.  :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 16-10-2014, 11:54:34
Naravno. Računica je laka. Pošto će se zbog fosilnog goriva povećati nivo mora, troškovi za adaptaciju na te promene biće enormni, pa stoga je mnogo jeftinije koristiti vetrenjači koje su samo tri ili četiri puta skuplje od fosilnog goriva...
Ne zajebavajte me...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 16-10-2014, 11:58:10
Ali ostavljanje planete u upotrebljivom stanju našoj deci - neprocenjivo!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 16-10-2014, 12:00:32
Mac, ima i previše pustinja na svetu da bi se pravili tvoji paneli, ali ima premalo rešenja za konzerviranje energije i transport. Ispada da je Tesla prerano ostavio svet bez svojih ideja. Takođe, sva ostala rešenja trpe iste probleme, pa drva i ugalj u podrumu ili na stovarištu i dalje imaju prednost.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 16-10-2014, 13:00:48
Meho, ne znam kako da ti kažem, ali većina ljudi sa kojima sam pričao tvrdi da je stvar otišla tako daleko da je mitigacija prošlost.
Drugim rečima, kupi šlauf...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 02-11-2014, 09:49:19
Ne znam dal' ćemo mi ovo doživeti, al Dancima valja skinuti kapu za ambiciju:
 
 Denmark Plans to Be Coal-Free in 10 Years, Totally Clean-Powered in 35 (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/denmark-wants-to-be-coal-free-in-10-years-100-percent-clean-powered-in-35)
 
Quote

Denmark is a small, rich, very industrialized nation—it's home to corporate behemoths like Maersk and Lego—that also happens to an unparalleled pioneer in clean energy.
Earlier this year, the nation’s leadership announced that it planned to run its economy entirely on renewable power by 2050, and would phase out coal by 2030. Months later, the Danish government reported that wind was about to become far cheaper than fossil fuels (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/in-two-years-wind-power-will-be-half-the-cost-of-fossil-fuels-in-denmark). This week, it said it’d like to try to do even better, and kill coal in ten years, not fifteen.
“I have asked my office to investigate what could be done to stop burning coal in just ten years,” Rasmus Petersen, Denmark’s climate and energy minister, told a local newspaper (http://cphpost.dk/news/climate-minister-wants-to-ban-coal-by-2025-five-year-earlier-than-planned.11396.html). Denmark has been a leader in wind power for decades, after investing in the the technology in the wake of the 1976 global oil crisis.
If you live in the US, or places like Canada or Australia, this sort of progressive energy policy probably strikes you as mind-bogglingly audacious. Many leaders in those countries are still clinging to coal and touting the benefits of ‘bridge’ fossil fuels like natural gas. Only a handful of European nations—Germany, Norway, Spain, Italy—and many more developing countries (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-28/cost-competitive-clean-energy-installs-surge-in-emerging-nations.html) are comparably bullish on clean power.
To highlight this disparity, and to remind the world that an aggressive embrace of renewable energy is not only possible but plausible, Greenpeace released a media briefing (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/briefings/climate/2014/BRIEFING-Denmarks-commitment-to-100pct-renewable-energy.pdf) and staged a demonstration in Copenhagen, where the world’s leading climate scientists are gathered to finalize the latest IPCC report (http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/we-can-afford-to-act-on-climate-change-if-we-move-fast), which is basically the climate change bible for international policy makers.
It was, as far as Greenpeace actions go, pleasant and participatory—activists teamed with the owners of wind power cooperatives to project striking designs onto the iconic structures.
 
“The turbines looked fantastic and went on the evening news here,” Kat Skeie, Greenpeace Nordic’s communications officer, told me in an email.
The media briefing, meanwhile, highlighted the impressive clean energy goals that Denmark has already made legally binding domestically:
  • 100 percent renewable energy by 2050
  • 100 percent renewable energy in electricity and heating by 2035
  • A complete phase-out of coal by 2030
  • 40 percent reduction of domestic greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 by 2020
  • 50 percent of electricity demands met by wind by 2020
“Yes, Denmark is officially on track to 100 percent renewable energy in 2050,” Skeie told me. “And we are ahead on several sub-targets.” Coal is being replaced by a combination of wind, solar, and biomass, along with a smart grid that better accommodate more intermittent generation.
The latest IPCC synthesis is likely to contain prognostications that suggest economies reduce their fossil fuel use nearly to zero if we hope to avoid more than 2˚C of warming, a level of heating which would prove an existential threat to modern civilization.
Denmark’s clean energy roadmap is a useful reminder that it can be done—but it’s not the only such blueprint out there. In the past Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson has told me that massive economies like California can and will run entirely on clean energy (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/california-will-run-on-100-percent-clean-energy-by-2050-stanford-professor-says)—and his own peer-reviewed roadmaps demonstrate how.
"There's about a 95 percent chance that [California] will be powered by 100 percent clean energy," he said. Jacobson, who also touts a global roadmap to clean energy dominion, is considered extremely bullish. But nationwide commitments like Denmark’s remind us that it is entirely plausible to believe we can indeed decouple our economies from fossil fuels and still thrive.
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-11-2014, 10:22:45
Ujedinjene Nacije: klimatske promene se definitivno dešavaju i rezultat su skoro potpuno ljudskih akcija.

UN climate report offers stark warnings, hope  (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/12f035933641434390333180e4a9c6e6/un-climate-report-offers-stark-warnings-hope)



Quote

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — Climate change is happening, it's almost entirely man's fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero this century, the U.N.'s panel on climate science said Sunday.
The fourth and final volume of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's giant climate assessment offered no surprises, nor was it expected to since it combined the findings of three reports released in the past 13 months.
But it underlined the scope of the climate challenge in stark terms. Emissions, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, may need to drop to zero by the end of this century for the world to have a decent chance of keeping the temperature rise below a level that many consider dangerous.
The IPCC did not say exactly what such a world would look like but it would likely require a massive shift to renewable sources to power homes, cars and industries combined with new technologies to suck greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
The report warned that failure to reduce emissions could lock the world on a trajectory with "irreversible" impacts on people and the environment. Some impacts already being observed included rising sea levels, a warmer and more acidic ocean, melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice and more frequent and intense heat waves.
"Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at the report's launch in Copenhagen.
Amid its grim projections, the report said the tools are there to set the world on a low-emissions path and break the addiction to burning oil, coal and gas which pollute the atmosphere with heat-trapping CO2, the chief greenhouse gas.
"All we need is the will to change, which we trust will be motivated by knowledge and an understanding of the science of climate change," IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said.
The IPCC was set up in 1988 to assess global warming and its impacts. The report released Sunday caps its latest assessment, a mega-review of 30,000 climate change studies that establishes with 95-percent certainty that most of the warming seen since the 1950s is man-made. The IPCC's best estimate is that just about all of it is man-made, but it can't say that with the same degree of certainty.
Today only a small minority of scientists challenge the mainstream conclusion that climate change is linked to human activity.
Global Climate Change, a NASA website, says 97 percent of climate scientists agree that warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.
The American public isn't as convinced. A year-old survey by Pew Research showed 67 percent of Americans believed global warming is occurring and 44 percent said the earth is warming mostly because of human activity. More recently, a New York Times poll said 42 percent of Republicans say global warming won't have a serious impact, a view held by 12 percent of Democrats and 22 percent of independents.
Sleep-deprived delegates approved the final documents Saturday after a weeklong line-by-line review that underscored that the IPCC process is not just about science. The reports must be approved both by scientists and governments, which means political issues from U.N. climate negotiations, which are nearing a 2015 deadline for a global agreement, inevitably affect the outcome.
The rift between developed and developing countries in the U.N. talks opened up in Copenhagen over a passage on what levels of warming could be considered dangerous. After a protracted battle, the text was dropped from a key summary for policy-makers — to the disappointment of some scientists.
"If the governments are going to expect the IPCC to do their job," said Princeton professor Michael Oppenheimer, a lead author of the IPCC's second report, they shouldn't "get caught up in fights that have nothing to do with the IPCC."
The omission meant the word "dangerous" disappeared from the summary altogether. It appeared only twice in a longer underlying report compared to seven times in a draft produced before the Copenhagen session. The less loaded word "risk" was mentioned 65 times in the final 40-page summary.
"Rising rates and magnitudes of warming and other changes in the climate system, accompanied by ocean acidification, increase the risk of severe, pervasive, and in some cases irreversible detrimental impacts," the report said.
World governments in 2009 set a goal of keeping the temperature rise below 2 degrees C (3.6 F) compared to before the industrial revolution. Temperatures have gone up about 0.8 C (1.4 F) since the 19th century.
Emissions have risen so fast in recent years that the world has used up two-thirds of its carbon budget, the maximum amount of CO2 that can be emitted to have a likely chance of avoiding 2 degrees of warming, the IPCC report said.
"This report makes it clear that if you are serious about the 2-degree goal ... there is nowhere to hide," said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group. "You can't wait several decades to address this issue."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the report demands "ambitious, decisive and immediate action."
"Those who choose to ignore or dispute the science so clearly laid out in this report do so at great risk for all of us and for our kids and grandkids," Kerry said in a statement.
The IPCC said the cost of actions such as shifting to solar and wind power and other renewable sources and improving energy efficiency would reduce economic growth only by 0.06 percent annually.
Pachauri said that should be measured against the implications of doing nothing, putting "all species that live on this planet" at peril.
The report is meant as a scientific roadmap for the U.N. climate negotiations, which continue next month in Lima, Peru. That's the last major conference before a summit in Paris next year, where a global agreement on climate action is supposed to be adopted.
The biggest hurdle is deciding who should do what. Rich countries are calling on China and other major developing countries to set ambitious targets; developing countries saying the rich have a historical responsibility to lead the fight against warming and to help poorer nations cope with its impacts. The IPCC avoided taking sides, saying the risks of climate change "are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development."
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 04-11-2014, 10:36:49
Stara priča. Zelenaši bi da njihov svet živi od zelenašenja, a da teret čišćenja nastalih sranja nabaci onima koji proizvode za njih.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 14-11-2014, 09:55:03
A Tricky Transition From Fossil Fuel (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/science/earth/denmark-aims-for-100-percent-renewable-energy.html?_r=0): Denmark Aims for 100 Percent Renewable Energy (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/science/earth/denmark-aims-for-100-percent-renewable-energy.html?_r=0)



Quote
COPENHAGEN —  Denmark (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/denmark/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), a tiny country on the northern fringe of Europe, is pursuing the world’s most ambitious policy against climate change (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier). It aims to end the burning of fossil fuels in any form by 2050 — not just in electricity production, as some other countries hope to do, but in transportation as well.
Now a question is coming into focus: Can Denmark keep the lights on as it chases that lofty goal?
Lest anyone consider such a sweeping transition to be impossible in principle, the Danes beg to differ. They essentially invented the modern wind-power industry, and have pursued it more avidly than any country. They are above 40 percent renewable power on their electric grid, aiming toward 50 percent by 2020. The political consensus here to keep pushing is all but unanimous.
Their policy is similar to that of neighboring Germany (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/science/earth/sun-and-wind-alter-german-landscape-leaving-utilities-behind.html), which has spent tens of billions pursuing wind and solar power (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/solar-energy/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), and is likely to hit 30 percent renewable power on the electric grid this year. But Denmark, at the bleeding edge of global climate policy, is in certain ways the more interesting case. The 5.6 million Danes have pushed harder than the Germans, they have gotten further — and they are reaching the point where the problems with the energy transition can no longer be papered over.


The trouble, if it can be called that, is that renewable power sources like wind and solar cost nothing to run, once installed. That is potentially a huge benefit in the long run.
But as more of these types of power sources push their way onto the electric grid, they cause power prices to crash at what used to be the most profitable times of day.
That can render conventional power plants, operating on gas or coal or uranium, uneconomical to run. Yet those plants are needed to supply backup power for times when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.
With their prime assets throwing off less cash, electricity suppliers in Germany and Denmark are on edge. They have applied to shut down a slew of newly unprofitable power plants, but nervous governments are resisting, afraid of being caught short on some cold winter’s night with little wind.
The governments have offered short-term subsidies, knowing that if they force companies to operate these plants at a loss, it will be a matter of time before the companies start going bankrupt.
Throughout Europe, governments have come to the realization that electricity markets are going to have to be redesigned for the new age, but they are not pursuing this task with urgency. A bad redesign could itself throw customers into the dark, after all, as happened in California a decade ago.
Denmark is geographically lucky. It has strong electrical linkages to neighboring Sweden, with plentiful nuclear power capacity, and Norway, with power available on demand from dams. But Swedish politicians have vowed to shut down the country’s nuclear plants and go renewable, and Norway’s cheap hydroelectric (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/hydroelectric_power/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) power is in rising demand, with a supply line under consideration to energy-hungry Britain. So the Danish electricity industry sees trouble coming.Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/science/earth/denmark-aims-for-100-percent-renewable-energy.html?_r=0#story-continues-5) Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/science/earth/denmark-aims-for-100-percent-renewable-energy.html?_r=0#story-continues-5) “We are really worried about this situation,” Anders Stouge, the deputy director general of the Danish Energy Association, said in an interview. “If we don’t do something, we will in the future face higher and higher risks of blackouts.”
The government is somewhat dismissive of that notion but well aware that it needs to find a way out of this box. Environmental groups, for their part, have tended to sneer at the problems the utilities are having, contending that it is their own fault for not getting on the renewables bandwagon years ago.
But the political risks of the situation also ought to be obvious to the greens. The minute any European country — or an ambitious American state, like California — has a blackout attributable to the push for renewables, public support for the transition could weaken drastically.
So the trick now is to get the market redesign right. A modest version of reform would essentially attach a market value, and thus a price, to standby capacity. But Rasmus Helveg Petersen, the Danish climate minister, told me he was tempted by a more ambitious approach. That would involve real-time pricing of electricity for anyone using it — if the wind is blowing vigorously or the sun is shining brightly, prices would fall off a cliff, but in times of shortage they would rise just as sharply.
As Denmark, like other countries, installs more smart meters and smart appliances able to track those prices with no human intervention, one can imagine a system in which demand would adjust smoothly to the available supply. Most people would not care if their water heater were conspiring with other water heaters to decide when to switch on and off, as long as hot water reliably came out of the tap.
Yet, even if Denmark can figure out a proper design for the electric market, it has another big task to meet its 2050 goal: squeezing the fossil fuels out of transportation. Prematurely, perhaps, the country embraced a proposed system of electric cars (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/e/electric_vehicles/index.html?&inline=nyt-classifier) in which depleted batteries would be switched for fresh ones in minutes, but only a few hundred cars were sold before that overly ambitious plan flopped.
Mr. Petersen told me he still felt electrification of cars was the way to go, but the cars themselves were not really ready.
“We need longer range and lower prices before this becomes a good option,” he said. “Technology needs to save us here.”
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 15-11-2014, 19:49:29
Evo vam predavanja na koje sam vas zvao u septembru...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b7ZUxZ8twU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b7ZUxZ8twU)



Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 15-11-2014, 20:07:19
Zahvaljujemo!  :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-11-2014, 08:37:19
Harvardski naučnici kažu da bi globalna klima trebalo da se dotera ručno:
 Adjusting Earth’s thermostat, with caution (http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2014/11/adjusting-earth-s-thermostat-with-caution)
 
Quote
     Cambridge, Mass. – November 17, 2014 – A vast majority of scientists believe that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate and that human activity is almost certainly the dominant cause. But on the topics of response and mitigation, there is far less consensus.
One of the most controversial propositions for slowing the increase in temperatures here on Earth is to manipulate the atmosphere above. Specifically, some scientists believe it should be possible to offset the warming effect of greenhouses gases by reflecting more of the sun’s energy back into space.
The potential risks—and benefits—of solar radiation management (SRM) are substantial. So far, however, all of the serious testing has been confined to laboratory chambers and theoretical models. While those approaches are valuable, they do not capture the full range of interactions among chemicals, the impact of sunlight on these reactions, or multiscale variations in the atmosphere.
Now, a team of researchers from the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (http://seas.harvard.edu/) (SEAS) has outlined how a small-scale “stratospheric perturbation experiment” could work. By proposing, in detail, a way to take the science of geoengineering to the skies, they hope to stimulate serious discussion of the practice by policymakers and scientists.
Ultimately, they say, informed decisions on climate policy will need to rely on the best information available from controlled and cautious field experiments.
The paper is among several published today in a special issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A that examine the nuances, the possible consequences, and the current state of scientific understanding of climate engineering. David Keith (http://www.seas.harvard.edu/directory/dkeith), whose work features prominently in the issue, is Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at Harvard SEAS and a professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School. His coauthors on the topic of field experiments include James Anderson (http://www.seas.harvard.edu/directory/janders), Philip S. Weld Professor of Applied Chemistry at Harvard SEAS and in Harvard’s Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology; and other colleagues at Harvard SEAS.
“The idea of conducting experiments to alter atmospheric processes is justifiably controversial, and our experiment, SCoPEx, is just a proposal,” Keith emphasizes. “It will continue to evolve until it is funded, and we will only move ahead if the funding is substantially public, with a formal approval process and independent risk assessment.”
With so much at stake, Keith believes transparency is essential. But the science of climate engineering is also widely misunderstood.
“People often claim that you cannot test geoengineering except by doing it at full scale,” says Keith. “This is nonsense. It is possible to do a small-scale test, with quite low risks, that measures key aspects of the risk of geoengineering—in this case the risk of ozone loss.”
Such controlled experiments, targeting key questions in atmospheric chemistry, Keith says, would reduce the number of “unknown unknowns” and help to inform science-based policy.
The experiment Keith and Anderson’s team is proposing would involve only a tiny amount of material—a few hundred grams of sulfuric acid, an amount Keith says is roughly equivalent to what a typical commercial aircraft releases in a few minutes while flying in the stratosphere. It would provide important insight into how much SRM would reduce radiative heating, the concentration of water vapor in the stratosphere, and the processes that determine water vapor transport—which affects the concentration of ozone.
In addition to the experiment proposed in that publication, another paper coauthored by Keith and collaborators at the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) collects and reviews a number of other experimental methods, to demonstrate the diversity of possible approaches.
“There is a wide range of experiments that could be done that would significantly reduce our uncertainty about the risks and effectiveness of solar geoengineering,” Keith says. “Many could be done with very small local risks.”
A third paper explores how solar geoengineering might actually be implemented, if an international consensus were reached, and suggests that a gradual implementation that aims to limit the rate of climate change would be a plausible strategy.
“Many people assume that solar geoengineering would be used to suddenly restore the Earth’s climate to preindustrial temperatures,” says Keith, “but it’s very unlikely that it would make any policy sense to try to do so.”
Keith also points to another paper in the Royal Society’s special issue—one by Andy Parker at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/) at Harvard Kennedy School. Parker’s paper furthers the discussion of governance and good practices in geoengineering research in the absence of both national legislation and international agreement, a topic raised last year (http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2013/03/guiding-responsible-research-geoengineering) in Science by Keith and Edward Parson of UCLA.
“The scientific aspects of geoengineering research must, by necessity, advance in tandem with a thorough discussion of the social science and policy,” Keith warns. “Of course, these risks must also be weighed against the risk of doing nothing.”For further information, see:“Stratospheric controlled perturbation experiment (SCoPEx): A small-scale experiment to improve understanding of the risks of solar geoengineering (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/lookup/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0059)”
By John Dykema, project scientist at Harvard SEAS; David Keith (http://www.seas.harvard.edu/directory/dkeith), Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at Harvard SEAS and professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School; James Anderson (http://www.seas.harvard.edu/directory/janders), Philip S. Weld Professor of Applied Chemistry at Harvard SEAS and in Harvard’s Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology; and Debra Weisenstein, research management specialist at Harvard SEAS.
“Field experiments on solar geoengineering: Report of a workshop exploring a representative research portfolio (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/lookup/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0175)”
By David Keith; Riley Duren (http://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/people/r_duren/), chief systems engineer at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory at CalTech; and Douglas MacMartin (http://directory.caltech.edu/personnel/macmardg), senior research associate and lecturer at CalTech.
“Solar geoengineering to limit the rate of temperature change (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/lookup/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0134)”
By Douglas MacMartin; Ken Caldeira (http://globalecology.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/), senior scientist at the Carnegie Institute for Science and professor of environmental Earth system sciences at Stanford University; and David Keith.
“Governing solar geoengineering research as it leaves the laboratory (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/lookup/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0173)”
By Andy Parker (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/2701/andy_parker.html), associate of the Belfer Center at Harvard Kennedy School.             
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 27-11-2014, 10:51:50
Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/)



Quote
Windmills, solar, tidal - all a 'false hope', say Stanford PhDs



Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.
Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren't guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or "technology" of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE<C project, which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal.




RE<C was a failure, and Google closed it down (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/23/google_ditches_rec_project/) after four years. Now, Koningstein and Fork have explained the conclusions they came to after a lengthy period of applying their considerable technological expertise to renewables, in an article (http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change) posted at IEEE Spectrum.
The two men write:
At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope ...
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
 
One should note that RE<C didn't restrict itself to conventional renewable ideas like solar PV, windfarms, tidal, hydro etc. It also looked extensively into more radical notions such as solar-thermal, geothermal, "self-assembling" wind towers and so on and so forth. There's no get-out clause for renewables believers here.
Koningstein and Fork aren't alone. Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn't feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn't even vaguely plausible.
Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms - and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.
In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive - which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/28/decc_energy_costs_comedy/)). This in turn means that everyone would become miserably poor and economic growth would cease (the more honest hardline greens admit this openly (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/01/uk_must_abandon_growth_to_cut_co2/)). That, however, means that such expensive luxuries as welfare states and pensioners, proper healthcare (watch out for that pandemic), reasonable public services, affordable manufactured goods and transport, decent personal hygiene, space programmes (watch out for the meteor!) etc etc would all have to go - none of those things are sustainable without economic growth.
So nobody's up for that. And yet, stalwart environmentalists like Koningstein and Fork - and many others - remain convinced that the dangers of carbon-driven warming are real and massive. Indeed the pair reference the famous NASA boffin Dr James Hansen, who is more or less the daddy of modern global warming fears, and say like him that we must move rapidly not just to lessened but to zero carbon emissions (and on top of that, suck a whole lot of CO2 out of the air by such means as planting forests).
So, how is this to be done?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 27-11-2014, 11:21:56
Mislim da očekuješ da se ritnem. Pa, evo:

Izgleda da je zaključak da sve treba da batalimo, da potrošimo ono šta nam je preostalo i da kupimo pinkle sa ovog sveta. Sve to da bi:


to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal.

Do kraja teksta naići ćemo i na standardne neoliberalne konstrukcije o stalnom privrednom rastu, o održanju svih civilizacijskih vrednosti koje već posedujemo i slične burgije. Ko bi uložio u istraživanja usmerena na opstanak, odricanje, usporavanje privrednih marifetluka i slično? Niko. Boli ih kita ako nema profita. Da ne govorim o bitci za preuzimanje resursa od onih koji ih nisu potrošili. Biti dominantan na Zemlji je važnije od opstanka makar svi izginuli. 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 27-11-2014, 11:34:56
Da. Ono što deluje kao prirodan ishod ovakvog smera razmišljanja je odlučnije okretanje nuklearnoj energiji. A videćemo koliko je to dobro.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 27-11-2014, 11:43:33
To oće i Iran, al' mu ne davaju.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-01-2015, 08:58:50
2014. godina je najtoplija u zabeleženoj istoriji,vele ljudi koji znaju takve stvari:
 Hottest Year Ever: 5 Places Where 2014 Temps Really Cooked  (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hottest-year-ever-5-places-where-2014-temps-really-cooked/)
 
Quote

Though the official numbers aren't in for December, it's likely that 2014 will go down as the planet's hottest year on record, at least since scientists started keeping tabs on global temperature.
 
Data from three major climate-tracking groups agree: The combined land and ocean surface temperatures hit new highs this year (http://www.livescience.com/48841-2014-predicted-warmest-year-ever.html), according to the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United Kingdom's Met Office and the World Meteorological Association.
 
If December's figures are at least 0.76 degrees Fahrenheit (0.42 degrees Celsius) higher than the 20th century average, 2014 will beat the warmest years on record, NOAA said this month. The January-through-November period has already been noted as the warmest 11-month period in the past 135 years, according to NOAA's November Global Climate Report. [8 Ways Global Warming Is Already Changing the World (http://www.livescience.com/23026-global-warming-changing-world.html)]
 
Even with the planet gunning for new global heat records, not all regions sweltered year-round in 2014. For instance, parts of North America suffered from extreme cold in January and February. That said, there were plenty of places where heat records fell this year. Here is a look at five places that will help push 2014 into the global warming record books.
 
  • Australia: For the second year in a row, Australians saw heat records topple from the Gold Coast to the Coral Coast. The country kicked off January with an extreme heat wave; temperatures soared higher than 120 F (49 C). Heat waves in the autumn (March to May) and spring (September to November) also drove temperatures into the record books.
  • Eastern Pacific Ocean: Toasty temperatures developed in the eastern Pacific Ocean, despite an El Niño that never appeared. The heat was especially notable off the western coast of the United States. Fishing boats spotted species well north of their range, such as a giant ocean sunfish offshore of Alaska. For the global ocean, the September to November sea surface temperature was 1.13 F (0.63 C) above the 20th century average of 60.7 F (16.0 C), surpassing the previous record by 0.11 F (0.06 C), according to NOAA.
  • Siberia: Central Siberia defrosted in spring and early summer under temperatures more than 9 F (5 C) above its 1981 to 2010 average. Ice on the Ob River began to break up two weeks earlier than normal. The heat may have unleashed methane gas trapped in previously frozen permafrost, triggering underground explosions (http://www.livescience.com/47115-weird-siberian-holes-explained.html) that formed spectacularly deep holes.
  • California: The long-running drought in California (http://www.livescience.com/49029-california-drought-worst-ever.html) was made worse in 2014 by record heat. The first 10 months of 2014 were the warmest in California's history since 1895, further burdening the state's water demands.
  • Northern Europe: The same weather pattern that froze North America in early 2014 brought an unusually warm spring to countries including Denmark, Norway and Turkey. The sultry spring was the warmest in a century or more in these countries. In addition, January to October was the warmest 10-month period on record for Central England since 1659, and the warmest such period for the Netherlands since 1706.

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-01-2015, 09:07:13
A evo i interesantne statistike koja podseća koliko bi autentičan napor da se preokrene trend gobalnog zagrevanja bio zaista težak za pre svega razvijene zemlje. Naime, čak dva i po procenta svog ugljendioksida koji se ispusti u atmosferu dolazi izavionkih, er, auspuha. Što znači, kada bi avioindustrija bila država, bila bi u prvih deset zagađivača na svetu. Na linku imaju i neki korisni grafikoni pa baciti pogled:
 
 Every Time You Fly, You Trash The Planet — And There’s No Easy Fix (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/every-time-you-fly-you-trash-the-planet-and-theres-no-easy-fix/)
 
Quote

When the latest international Climate Conference (http://unfccc.int/meetings/lima_dec_2014/meeting/8141.php) wrapped up in Lima, Peru, last month, delegates boarded their flights home without much official discussion of how the planes that shuttled them to the meeting had altered the climate.
 
Aircraft currently contribute about 2.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions (http://www.cate.mmu.ac.uk/projects/bridging-the-aviation-co2-emissions-gap-why-emissions-trading-is-needed/). That might not seem like much, but if the aviation industry were a country, it would be one of the world’s top 10 emitters of CO2 (http://blogs.edf.org/climatetalks/files/2012/07/Aviation-CO2-Ranking.jpg). And its emissions are projected to grow between two and four times by 2050 without policy interventions (http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/EnvironmentReport-2010/ICAO_EnvReport10-Ch1_en.pdf).
 
Left unchecked, aviation emissions could help push global warming over the 2 degrees celsius line (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/12/two-degrees-will-we-avoid-dangerous-climate-change/). But cutting aviation’s impact poses a daunting challenge.
 
“Aviation is a global industry. People want global solutions,” said Daniel Rutherford, an environmental engineer at the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), an independent nonprofit. Planes often take off in one country and land in another, making country-by-country regulations impractical. For this reason, the task of addressing aviation’s climate consequences has fallen to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United Nations agency in charge of negotiating aviation agreements.
 
Planes don’t just release carbon dioxide, they also emit nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and black carbon (http://www.epa.gov/blackcarbon/basic.html), as well as water vapor that can form heat-trapping clouds, said Rutherford, who serves as a technical observer to ICAO’s working groups on climate issues. These emissions take place in the upper troposphere, where their effects are magnified. When this so-called radiative forcing effect is taken into account, aviation emissions produce about 2.7 times the warming effects of CO2 alone (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.php?idp=64), according to estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
 
Atmosfair (https://www.atmosfair.de/en/home), a German organization that sells “offsets” for people looking to compensate for the flights they take, offers a calculator (https://www.atmosfair.de/en/faqs/emissionsrechner) that takes radiative forcing into account. Its calculations show that a roundtrip flight from, say, Denver to New York produces the equivalent of nearly a year’s worth of emissions from a car, and more than the annual emissions of an average person living in India.
 
Basic physics means there’s no way around expending fuel to get a plane in the air. “Aircraft are heavy, so it takes a lot of energy to get them off the ground,” said Alice Bows-Larkin, an atmospheric scientist at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester. New aircraft designs can help, but even when new technologies come along, they may take years to reach critical mass in the fleet, because airplanes can last 30 years or more. (And aircraft retired from U.S. fleets often remain in the air when they’re acquired by airlines elsewhere.)
 
Fuel represents airlines’ No. 1 cost, so they’re highly motivated to optimize fuel efficiency, said Nancy Young, vice president for environment at Airlines for America, an industry trade group. American carriers have already posted impressive efficiency gains of 120 percent since 1978 (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/airlines-for-america-commends-international-civil-aviation-organization-committee-on-environmental-work-191208521.html), and that means there isn’t much low-hanging fruit left.
 
Undaunted, ICAO has pledged to increase fleet fuel efficiency by 1.5 percent per year up to 2020, and it aims for “carbon-neutral growth” after that, with the ultimate goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 50 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2050 (http://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/mbm-agreement-solid-global-plan-endoresements.aspx). The plan depends on improvements in three areas — fuels, aircraft technology and operations — as well as the introduction of so called “market-based mechanisms,” such as carbon offsets.
 
On the fuels front, work is underway to develop jet fuel from alternative sources such as algae (http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/algal_oil_workshop.html), switch grass and camelina (http://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=slick-sheet-project/jet-fuel-camelina), but it’s uncertain whether these fuels can be created at a rate that meets demand. In 2011, Lufthansa used biofuel on more than 1,100 short-haul flights, but it halted the program (http://www.dw.de/lufthansa-suspends-biofuel-test-flights/a-15661617) after failing to find a reliable source of the fuel. Still, other efforts are underway. United Airlines will start using biofuel on flights out of Los Angeles (https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/company/globalcitizenship/environment/alternative-fuels.aspx) beginning in the first quarter of 2015 and Southwest also just inked a deal (http://www.dallasnews.com/business/airline-industry/20140924-southwest-airlines-to-power-some-flights-with-biofuels.ece) to purchase an alternative fuel made from organic waste.
 
Meanwhile, incremental changes to aircraft, such as winglets (http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2010/t_5.html) (wing tips that point upward, to reduce drag) and revamped jet engines, are expected to improve fuel efficiency by about 15 to 25 percent by 2020, said Rutherford, the ICCT engineer. Added together with other improvements and more radical aircraft designs, such as a blended wing design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended_wing_body) that integrates the aircraft body into the wing, these new technologies could eventually triple efficiency, he said.
 
Operations also offer the potential for gains. The FAA’s NextGen navigation system (https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/slides/?slide=1) aims to improve traffic flow through airspace and airports by ensuring that planes are routed via the most efficient path, and by switching over to satellite, rather than ground-based radar navigation systems. One NextGen initiative, the Seattle Greener Skies project, is expected to cut carbon emissions equivalent to taking 4,100 cars off the road (https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/snapshots/stories/?slide=6).
 
Despite these promising developments, the numbers show that ICAO’s emissions targets will be impossible to achieve. ICAO readily acknowledges this, which is why it has agreed to develop a global market-based measure to address emissions, a plan its members agreed to at their 2013 assembly in Montreal. The plan would allow the aviation sector to buy the right to emit greenhouse gases from other industries, in the form of carbon credits.1 (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/every-time-you-fly-you-trash-the-planet-and-theres-no-easy-fix/#fn-1) Such a plan is absolutely necessary if ICAO is to meet its targets, because nothing else can bring emissions into line (http://www.cate.mmu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Bridging_the_aviation_emissions_gap_010313.pdf).
 
The charts below (taken from a report by researchers at Manchester Metropolitan University (http://www.cate.mmu.ac.uk/projects/bridging-the-aviation-co2-emissions-gap-why-emissions-trading-is-needed/)) show the emission reductions projected for various combinations of approaches: technology and operations, biofuel and emissions trading (MBM-ETS, for market-based measures and emissions trading systems in the chart). These approaches are compared to three objectives (based on the ICAO plan) — a 2 percent per year gain in efficiency, carbon-neutral growth from 2020 and a reduction to 2005 emission levels. Even added together, none of these approaches comes close to meeting the latter two goals.
The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) was set to include aviation emissions, which would have forced U.S. airlines that take off and land in the EU to participate. But after Congress and President Obama blocked American carriers from complying with the rules, the EU backed off (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/business/global/europe-offers-compromise-to-us-on-airline-emissions.html).
 
Despite such political resistance, the U.S. may soon enact new limits on aviation emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency is working on rules to address carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft after environmental groups forced the agency’s hand by suing to regulate aviation emissions as pollutants (http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=1967). The EPA is currently scheduled to propose its findings in late April (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm) this year and then make final determinations sometime in the spring of 2016. The U.S. is responsible for about a third of global aviation emissions, so action by the EPA would be “very significant,” Rutherford said, though how ambitious the EPA’s standards might be remains an open question.
 
Young’s group expects that the EPA standards will align with the CO2 standards ICAO is currently formulating, due for release in 2016. “There’s no one silver bullet — it’s silver buckshot,” she said. “You have to shoot a lot of these pellets.” She said reducing emissions can be done without making flights prohibitively expensive.
 
One option that’s not part of ICAO’s plan is reducing demand for flights. Doing so might sound radical, but a sober look at the numbers shows that it may be necessary. Bows-Larkin recently published an analysis concluding that the aviation industry is placing too much hope on emissions trading (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2014.965125) to help it attain CO2 reductions that would keep it in line with the 2 degrees goal for limiting global warming. Achieving this goal, she concluded, will require flying less.
 
“Flight is the most carbon-intensive activity that we can do,” said Bows-Larkin, who hasn’t flown since 2005. Carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere today can stick around for a hundred years, and it can’t easily be recaptured. The urgency of the problem requires a solution sooner rather than later, she said. “Time is massively against us.”
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 12-01-2015, 10:07:33
Majkl Man (ne taj, nego onaj sa hokejaškim štapom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy)) ima rad o tome kako interesne grupe ućutkuju naučnike kada se iznosi priča koja njima ne odgovara:



The Serengeti strategy: How special interests try to intimidate scientists, and how best to fight back (http://bos.sagepub.com/content/71/1/33.full.pdf+html)


Abstrakt:

Quote
Much as lions on the Serengeti seek out vulnerable zebras at the edge of a herd, special interests faced with
adverse scientific evidence often target individual scientists rather than take on an entire scientific field at once.
Part of the reasoning behind this approach is that it is easier to bring down individuals than an entire group of
scientists, and it still serves the larger aim: to dismiss, obscure, and misrepresent well-established science and
its implications. In addition, such highly visible tactics create an atmosphere of intimidation that discourages
other scientists from conveying their researchÕs implications to the public. This ÒSerengeti strategyÓ is often
employed wherever there is a strong and widespread consensus among the worldÕs scientists about the under-
lying cold, hard facts of a field, whether the subject be evolution, ozone depletion, the environmental impacts of
DDT, the health effects of smoking, or human-caused climate change. The goal is to attack those researchers
whose findings are inconvenient, rather than debate the findings themselves. This article draws upon the
authorÕs own experience to examine the ÒSerengeti strategy,Ó and offers possible countermeasures to such
orchestrated campaigns. It examines what responses by scientists have been most successful, and how to
combat the doubt-sowing that industry has done regarding the science behind climate change and other fields.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 22-01-2015, 10:41:54
How Climate Change Denial Still Gets Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/peer-reviewing-climate-denial)



Quote
Meet one of the world’s leading climate change skeptics.
Though he is not a scientist, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brentley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley), is a prolific and ​vocal opponent of mainstream climatology (http://www.webcitation.org/6QbGRQ6Hj). Once a Special Adviser to Margaret Thatcher, he now spends much of his time trumpeting conservative causes. He recently claimed there has been no warming for 18 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_puzzle), and penned a column blaming gay people for AIDS (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/26/lord-christopher-monckton-gay-issues-_n_6226282.html) and explaining that homosexuals have sex with up to 20,000 partners each. Practicing scientists have called his assertions (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-christopher-monckton) “very misleading,” “profoundly wrong,” and “simply false.” Not long ago, the House of Lords took the “unprecedented” (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords) step of demanding Monckton stop calling himself a lord.
Now Monckton has published a study in a peer-reviewed science journal, the Chinese Science Bulletin. He claims that this work refutes the robust body of climate science agreed upon by what he calls “the extremists at the IPCC,” or the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, which is comprised of hundreds of the world’s top climate scientists. Mainstream climate science projects that the world is heading for 3-5˚C temperature rise by the century’s end. Monckton says the warming will be significantly less than 1˚C, due to errors in climate modelers’ assumptions.
"The true-believers know that this paper spells doom for them,” he wrote me in an email. “This paper may well mark the end of the climate scare."
But Monckton is not a climatologist—he’s a journalist, a classics student, and a clever builder of math puzzles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_puzzle). And the study has already been harshly criticized by physicists (https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/the-designers-of-our-climate/) and climate scientists (https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/was-china-6-8-k-warmer-in-winter-6000-years-ago/). So how did he get it published in a serious academic journal? That’s what Gavin Schmidt wants to know. Schmidt is the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and is one of the world’s leading authorities on climate change.
“I can't speak to the peer review practice at that journal,” he told me in an email, “you'd need to ask them. However, the Monckton et. al paper is complete trash." Climate science is an intensely scrutinized, incredibly robust field, after all; there is a veritable mountain of evidence that supports the IPCC's claims, which each of which are fiercely pored-over themselves. In 2015, there are ​vanishingly few scientists (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) who actually question the fundamentals of climate science.
"The model they use is not new," Schmidt continued, "and they arbitrarily restrict its parameters and then declare all other models wrong.”
Which isn’t surprising, given that Monckton is not a scientist. In fact, he has been repeatedly lambasted by actual scientists for distorting their research: Skeptical Science was moved to publish an entire list of scientists (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm) whose work Monckton has cited in order to claim that climate change isn’t happening, and who have explicitly rejected his depiction of their work. It is a long list (http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf).
It seems unlikely that Monckton’s latest study, whose most prestigious co-author is Willie Soon, a Harvard researcher whose work is amply bankrolled by oil and coal companies (http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon), will inspire their confidence. “It will be completely ignored by scientists,” Schmidt says, “except as an example that, yes, you can get anything published if you try hard enough.”
Therein lies the issue. Monckton’s paper, which is titled Why Models Run Hot: Results of an Irreducibly Simple Climate Model (http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml), was the very first study announced in today’s EurekAlert blast, the widely-read newsletter that science journalists subscribe to in order to keep abreast of upcoming studies. EurekAlert doesn’t vet its stories for quality, and warns as much; and it’s a fact of modern life that junk science gets vacuumed up alongside respectable research. The media is apt to treat it as such, especially outlets with a specific ideological bent (http://www.foxnews.com/category/us/climate-change).


Nobody seems to know a whole lot about Science Bulletin, which dropped "Chinese" from its name this year. It is co-sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and it’s published by Springer, one of the major for-profit scientific publishers. All of which to say, this isn’t simply a joke science rag, though it's a far cry from Science or Nature.
Monckton insists that it was examined by three reviewers: “After a commendably short review period of just three months, the paper was accepted for publication and has now been published,” he told me. “We were most impressed with the fact that the reviewers, despite initial misgivings, were willing to recognize after a closer look that we had legitimate grounds to question the official profiteers of doom.”
Whoever those reviewers are, their work is now being denounced by NASA and the scientific establishment. It raises the question: How hard did they look?
Last year, a "sting" headed up by Science (http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/inside-science-magazines-sting-of-open-access-journals-1), in which an obviously faulty paper was submitted to 304 journals, saw nearly half accept the junk science (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full) for publication. Science targeted the open access journals that charge researchers fees for publication.I reached out to John Bohannon, PhD, the Science correspondent behind the sting, and he said that he hadn’t heard of Science Bulletin, and it didn’t even make it onto his radar for investigation. 
Furthermore, a random-paper-generating software successfully submitted scores of papers comprised of complete gibberish to journals; two major scientific publishers had to withdraw a total of 120 studies (http://retractionwatch.com/2014/02/24/springer-ieee-withdrawing-more-than-120-nonsense-papers/) that had already been approved as a result. One of those publishers was Springer. Monckton acknowledges that there was a publication fee, as well as an open access fee, which was covered by the Heartland Institute, and organization perhaps best known for displaying a billboard that compared those who believed in climate change to Charles Manson. (I have requested comment from Science Bulletin to ask about the review process for this particular paper,and will update if and when I hear back.)
“No one is happy about the state of peer review, but it’s not clear what the solution will be,” Bohannon told me in an email. “One possibility is to do peer review after publication, rather than before. If a paper is both important and bad science, then it will get sorted out quickly. So maybe what we see happening online to the Monckton et al. paper is a glimpse at the future of peer review: public, non-anonymous, fast, and vicious."
The entire episode is a reminder that the peer review process is in a moment of crisis, and that the science establishment is still grappling with globalization, digitization, and the proliferation of for-profit online journals. It is useful in considering how climate denial continues to trickle into the bloodstream, even when the world’s top agencies all agree that humans are warming the globe, and that, as a result, last year ​was the hottest ever recorded (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/this-is-the-worst-hottest-year-ever-ever).
Once a paper is accepted for peer review, it obtains a degree of respectability—even if its shoddy claims argue the precise opposite. It's just ​one more way (http://www.theguardian.com/science/series/badscience) that bad science, and climate denial, stumbles on.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 25-01-2015, 09:20:43

Science by democracy doesn’t work (https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/science-by-democracy-doesnt-work-ea74d160daa4)
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 24-02-2015, 10:20:27
Jedan od prominentnijih poricatelja antropogenih klimackih promena je do sada uzeo lepe pare od energetskih korporacija, a to nije pominjao u svojim radovima. Nije da to nešto odma znači ali nije zgoreg znati.


Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0)



Quote
For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.


The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/), the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/greenpeace/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center (http://www.climateinvestigations.org/), shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden.
“The whole doubt-mongering strategy relies on creating the impression of scientific debate,” said Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University and the co-author of “Merchants of Doubt (http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942),” a book about such campaigns. “Willie Soon is playing a role in a certain kind of political theater.”
Environmentalists have long questioned Dr. Soon’s work, and his acceptance of funding from the fossil-fuel industry was previously known. But the full extent of the links was not; the documents show that corporate contributions were tied to specific papers and were not disclosed, as required by modern standards (http://publicationethics.org/) of publishing.Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0#story-continues-5) “What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change,” said Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center, a group funded by foundations seeking to limit the risks of climate change.
Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center, acknowledged on Friday that Dr. Soon had violated the disclosure standards of some journals.
“I think that’s inappropriate behavior,” Dr. Alcock (http://astronomy.fas.harvard.edu/people/charles-r-alcock) said. “This frankly becomes a personnel matter, which we have to handle with Dr. Soon internally.”
Dr. Soon is employed by the Smithsonian Institution, which jointly sponsors the astrophysics center with Harvard.
“I am aware of the situation with Willie Soon, and I’m very concerned about it,” W. John Kress (http://newsdesk.si.edu/about/bios/w-john-kress-0), interim under secretary for science at the Smithsonian in Washington, said on Friday. “We are checking into this ourselves.”
Dr. Soon rarely grants interviews to reporters, and he did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls last week; nor did he respond to an interview request conveyed to him by his employer. In past public appearances, he has reacted angrily to questions about his funding sources, but then acknowledged some corporate ties and said that they had not altered his scientific findings.
“I write proposals; I let them decide whether to fund me or not,” he said at an event in Madison, Wis., in 2013. “If they choose to fund me, I’m happy to receive it.” A moment later, he added, “I would never be motivated by money for anything.”
The newly disclosed documents, plus additional documents compiled by Greenpeace over the last four years, show that at least $409,000 of Dr. Soon’s funding in the past decade came from Southern Company Services, a subsidiary of the Southern Company, based in Atlanta.
Southern is one of the largest utility holding companies in the country, with huge investments in coal-burning power plants. The company has spent heavily over many years to lobby against greenhouse-gas regulations in Washington. More recently, it has spent significant money to research (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/science/corralling-carbon-before-it-belches-from-stack.html) ways to limit emissions.
“Southern Company funds a broad range of research on a number of topics that have potentially significant public-policy implications for our business,” said Jeannice M. Hall, a spokeswoman. The company declined to answer detailed questions about its funding of Dr. Soon’s research.
Dr. Soon also received at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. (Mr. Koch’s fortune derives partly from oil (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/oil-petroleum-and-gasoline/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) refining.) However, other companies and industry groups that once supported Dr. Soon, including Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, appear to have eliminated their grants to him in recent years.
As the oil-industry contributions fell, Dr. Soon started receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars through DonorsTrust (http://www.donorstrust.org/), an organization based in Alexandria, Va., that accepts money from donors who wish to remain anonymous, then funnels it to various conservative causes.Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0#story-continues-7) Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0#story-continues-7) Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0#story-continues-7) The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/), in Cambridge, Mass., is a joint venture between Harvard and the Smithsonian Institution, housing some 300 scientists from both institutions. Because the Smithsonian is a government agency, Greenpeace was able to request that Dr. Soon’s correspondence and grant agreements be released under the Freedom of Information Act. Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0#story-continues-8)  Recent Comments     John Yesterday   Why is it that the findings of scientific research depend more on who sponsors the science than the conclusions reached by the research...
    James Wilson Yesterday  Once S Fred Singer debated Sherry Rowland about ozone depletion on NPR.  Every atmospheric scientist I talked to was amused that Rowland had...
    Drew Yesterday  This sounds like bad science so I don't see how protecting Dr. Soon is protecting academic freedom.  He should just go directly to work for...
   
  • See All Comments
  Though often described on conservative news programs as a “Harvard astrophysicist,” Dr. Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard. He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering. He has received little federal research money over the past decade and is thus responsible for bringing in his own funds, including his salary.
Though he has little formal training in climatology, Dr. Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun’s energy can explain most recent global warming. His thesis is that human activity has played a relatively small role in causing climate change.
Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.
Gavin A. Schmidt (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/), head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/) in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it.
“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said.
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, whose scientists focus largely on understanding distant stars and galaxies, routinely distances itself from Dr. Soon’s findings. The Smithsonian has also published a statement (http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithsonian-statement-climate-change) accepting the scientific consensus on climate change.
Dr. Alcock said that, aside from the disclosure issue, he thought it was important to protect Dr. Soon’s academic freedom, even if most of his colleagues disagreed with his findings.
Dr. Soon has found a warm welcome among politicians in Washington and state capitals who try to block climate action. United States Senator James M. Inhofe (http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/), an Oklahoma Republican who claims (http://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Hoax-Conspiracy-Threatens/dp/1936488493) that climate change is a global scientific hoax, has repeatedly cited Dr. Soon’s work over the years.
In a Senate debate last month, Mr. Inhofe pointed to a poster with photos of scientists questioning the climate-change consensus, including Dr. Soon. “These are scientists that cannot be challenged,” the senator said. A spokeswoman for the senator said Friday that he was traveling and could not be reached for comment.
As of late last week, most of the journals in which Dr. Soon’s work had appeared were not aware of the newly disclosed documents. The Climate Investigations Center is planning to notify them over the coming week. Several journals advised of the situation by The New York Times said they would look into the matter.
Robert J. Strangeway, the editor of a journal that published three of Dr. Soon’s papers, said that editors relied on authors to be candid about any conflicts of interest. “We assume that when people put stuff in a paper, or anywhere else, they’re basically being honest,” said Dr. Strangeway, editor of the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.
Dr. Oreskes (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ehsdept/bios/oreskes.html), the Harvard science historian, said that academic institutions and scientific journals had been too lax in recent decades in ferreting out dubious research created to serve a corporate agenda.
“I think universities desperately need to look more closely at this issue,” Dr. Oreskes said. She added that Dr. Soon’s papers omitting disclosure of his corporate funding should be retracted by the journals that published them.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 19-03-2015, 10:20:55
Solar in California's urban areas could provide 5 times the power the state needs (http://www.computerworld.com/article/2897288/solar-in-californias-urban-areas-could-provide-5-times-the-power-the-state-needs.html)



Quote
The amount of energy that could be produced through solar equipment constructed on or around existing infrastructure in California would easily exceed the state's demands, according to a new study (http://www.rebeccarhernandez.com/biological-soil-crusts-and-vascular-plant-emergence/).
Currently, solar energy deployments are complicated by the need to find space for equipment without significantly altering the surrounding area.
The study, from the Carnegie Institution for Science (http://carnegiescience.edu/news/solar_could_meet_california_energy_demand_three_five_times_over), found that the amount of energy that could be generated from solar installations on and around existing infrastructure in California would exceed the state's demand three to five times over.


The research showed that by using areas around existing infrastructure and brownfields, California could substantially how much energy it gets from solar, without converting natural habitat and causing harm -- and without moving the installations to remote locations. The researchers found that using small- and utility-scale solar power in and around developed areas could generate up to 15,000 terawatt-hours (trillion watt hours) of energy a year using photovoltaic technology, and 6,000 terrawatt-hours of energy a year using concentrating solar power technology.
Published today in the scientific journal Nature, the study claims that about 8% of California's terrestrial surfaces have been developed, ranging from cities and buildings to park spaces. Residential and commercial rooftops, it found, present plenty of opportunity for power generation through small- and utility-scale solar power installations. Other urban spaces, such as parks, also offer untapped areas for  installations.
The research was performed by post-doctoral environmental earth scientist Rebecca Hernandez (now at the University of California, Berkley), along with researchers Madison Hoffacker, and Chris Field.
Overall, the team of three researchers found that California has about 6.7 million acres of land that is compatible for photovoltaic solar construction and about 1.6 million acres compatible for concentrating solar power. There is an additional 13.8 million acres that is potentially compatible for photovoltaic solar energy development with minimal environmental impact and 6.7 million acres that would be compatible for concentrating solar power development.
"Integrating solar facilities into the urban and suburban environment causes the least amount of land-cover change and the lowest environmental impact," Hernandez said in a statement.




Additionally, there is opportunity for solar energy deployments in undeveloped sites that are not ecologically sensitive or federally protected, such as degraded lands like  salt-saturated areas near roads and land around existing transmission lines.
This study involved the use of two kinds of solar tech: photovoltaics, which use semiconductor technology on solar panels, and concentrating solar power, which uses curved mirrors to focus the sun's rays to generate steam to power an electrical turbine.
A mix of both options would be possible, the study states, depending on the particular areas of installation, whether on a rooftop, in a park, on degraded lands or anywhere else deemed compatible or potentially compatible.
"As California works to meet requirements that 33% of retail electricity be provided by renewable sources by 2020 and that greenhouse-gas emissions be 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, our research can help policymakers, developers, and energy stakeholders make informed decisions," said Field, director of Carnegie's Department of Global Ecology. "Furthermore, our findings have implications for other states and countries with similarly precious environmental resources and infrastructural constraints."
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 25-03-2015, 10:16:05
Kostarikanci su carevi. ne samo što ne troše pare na imanje vojske, nego, evo, sad, i slave jubilej od 75 dana koje je cela zemlja provela trošeći isključivo obnovljive izvore energije:


Costa Rica goes 75 days powering itself using only renewable energy  (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/costa-rica-goes-75-days-powering-itself-using-only-renewable-energy-10126127.html)



Quote
  Costa Rica has achieved a clean energy milestone by using 100 per cent renewable energy for a record 75 days in a row.
   The feat was achieved thanks to heavy rainfall, which powered four hydroelectric plants in the first three months of the year, the state-run Costa Rican Electricity Institute said.
No fossil fuels have been burnt to generate electricity since December 2014, in the state which is renowned for its clean energy policies.
While Costa Rica is a small country, with a popular of about 4.8 million people, it has made great strides in its use of renewable energy.
Last year 80 per cent of the energy used came from hydropower, while geothermal energy made up about 10 per cent of the mix in the volcano-strewn nation.

Currently 94 per cent of Costa Rica’s energy needs are met by renewables. New geothermal projects are already in the planning stages, to ensure that the Central American state does not have to rely on fossil fuels in the future.


The government approved a US$958 million geothermal project in mid-2014.
The first plant, when completed, is expected to produce 55 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 55,000 homes. A further two 50 megawatt plants will be built nearby.
Jake Richardson, of Clean Technica, said it was important the country did not become too dependent on hydropower.
“It’s good news that more geothermal will be coming on board, as there are obvious downsides of being too reliant on hydropower, especially run-of-the-river systems, which can be hindered by seasonal changes in water flow,” he told Science Alert (http://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica-powered-with-100-renewable-energy-for-75-days).
“Droughts can also severely impact power supplies. And there are also some environmental downsides to hydroelectric dams more generally, namely the impact on riparian ecosystems and passing fish.”
It helps that Costa Rica, which aims to be carbon-neutral by 2021, has excellent infrastructure.
The World Economic Forum ranked the country second in Latin America, behind Uruguay, for its electricity and telecommunications infrastructure in its 2014 Global Competitiveness Index.
In a sign of how committed Costa Rica is to renewables the government has decided not to exploit rich oil deposits - discovered along the country’s Caribbean coast - for environmental reasons.

Poslednja rečenica je pogotovo zanimljiva. Znajući kakva jagma vlada za naftom (ignorišimo trenutni strateški smer njenog pojeftinjavanja da bi se oslabila Rusija) i da Kosta Rika nema armiju, nije besmisleno pitati se kada će neko da kaže "Pabrate, ako oni neće, ima ko oće."
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 12-04-2015, 06:23:33
Malo eshatološkog diskursa na uskrs:
 
 The Last Time Oceans Got This Acidic This Fast, 96% of Marine Life Went Extinct (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-last-time-our-oceans-got-this-acidic-it-drove-earths-greatest-extinction)
 
Quote

The biggest extinction event in planetary history was driven by the rapid acidification of our oceans, a new study concl​udes (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6231/229.abstract). So much carbon was released into the atmosphere, and the oceans absorbed so much of it so quickly, that marine life simply died off, from the bottom of the food chain up.
That doesn’t bode well for the present, given the disturbingly similar rate that our seas are acidifying right now. Parts of the Pacific, for instance, are already so acidic that sea snails’ shells begin dissolving as soon as they’re born (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/our-acidic-oceans-dissolve-sea-snails-shells-as-soon-as-theyre-born).
The biggest die-off in history, the Permian Extinction event (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events), aka the Great Dying, extinguished over 90 percent of the planet's species—and 96 percent of marine species. A lot of theories have been put forward about why and how, exactly, the vast majority of Earth life went belly up 252 million years ago, but the new study, published in Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/), offers some compelling evidence acidification was a key driver.
A team led by University of Edinburgh researchers collected rocks in the United Arab Emirates that were on the seafloor hundreds of millions of years ago, and used the boron isotopes found within to model the changing levels of acidification in our prehistoric oceans. Through this “combined geochemical, geological, and modeling approach,” the scientists say, they were able to accurately model the series of “perturbations” that unfolded in the era.
They now believe that a series of gigantic volcanic eruptions in the Siberian Trap spewed a great fountain of carbon into the atmosphere over a period of tens of thousands of years. This was the first phase of the extinction event, in which terrestrial life began to die out.
The study explains that the second phase of the event happened much more quickly. “During the second extinction pulse, however, a rapid and large injection of carbon caused an abrupt acidification event that drove the preferential loss of heavily calcified marine biota," the authors write.
So does this study mean we should be especially worried about the phenomenon taking hold today?
"Yes," said Dr. Rachel Wood, a professor of carbonate geoscience at the University of Edinburgh and one of the paper's authors.
"We are concerned about modern ocean acidification," she told me in an email. "Although the amount of carbon added to the atmosphere that triggered the mass extinction was probably greater than today's fossil fuel reserves, the rate at which the carbon was released was at a rate similar to modern emissions."
In other words, the Siberian Traps probably spewed out more carbon in total, but we're spewing out just as fast. And that's overwhelming the planetary equilibrium.
"This fast rate of release was a critical factor driving ocean acidification," Wood said.
Why?
"The rate of release is critical because the oceans absorb a lot of the carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, around 30 percent of the carbon dioxide released by humans," Wood said. "To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of this CO2 reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean 'acidity' (H+ ion concentration)."
Marine animals whose skeletons are comprised of calcium carbonate—and that’s a lot of them (think snails, coral), which form a crucial part of the food chain—dissolved or couldn’t form in the first place. And that is what’s happening today.
"Between 1751 and 1994, surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30 percent in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans," Wood said.
That's a major uptick in ocean acidity in a relatively short amount of time, and it's happening because humans have burned fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas with reckless abandon since the Industrial Revolution. That's fueling climate change, of course, as well as its less-discussed, but potentially equally cataclysmic sibling, ocean acidification.
"Scientists have long suspected that an ocean acidification event occurred during the greatest mass extinction of all time, but direct evidence has been lacking until now,” study coordinator Dr. Matthew Clarkson said in a statement. “This is a worrying finding, considering that we can already see an increase in ocean acidity today that is the result of human carbon emissions."
Much of marine life is already in grave danger from acidification. It's contributing to the bleaching of coral reefs around the world (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17442.full), and, as mentioned before, it's killing sea snails (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/our-acidic-oceans-dissolve-sea-snails-shells-as-soon-as-theyre-born) in the Pacific. If it worsens, acidification could threaten the whole of the marine biosphere, and, obviously, the land-dwelling creatures that depend on it too.
In 2013, marine scientists released (http://www.stateoftheocean.org/research.cfm) a "State of the Oceans" report that found that the rate of current acidification was “unprecedented.” They noted that the seas were acidifying faster than any point in the last 300 million years. That study didn’t take into account the new data, of course, but that’s the timeline we’re dealing with: The last time the oceans were so acidic was in the midst of the greatest extinction in the history of the world.
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 12-04-2015, 06:29:34
I da bez gubljenja koraka vidimo i meditaciju o tome da li isključivanje sebe i svog domaćinstva sa centralizovane energetske mreže zaista spasava planetu. Meni se dopada što ovaj tekst podseća na neke teme koje smo već pominjali, na primer da je filozofija kako svaka individua mora da uradi svoj deo da bi se usporile/ preokrenule klimacke promene načelno pozitivna, ali da zapravo zamagljuje činjenicu da individue nisu one koje direktno te promene izazivaju, već da je to industrijska civilizacija koja se fundamentalno menja ozbiljnim poltičkim naporom širokog fronta sličnomislećih individua, a ne kupovinom dva solana panela:
 
 Does going “off the grid” actually help the climate? (http://thebulletin.org/does-going-%E2%80%9C-grid%E2%80%9D-actually-help-climate8191)
 
Quote
On February 11, CEO Elon Musk of Tesla Motors (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/12/this-new-tesla-battery-will-power-your-home-and-maybe-the-electric-grid-too/) said that his company would soon be unveiling plans for a battery that could power your home, and that production could begin as early as August. The kind of in-house energy storage he is proposing could help make renewables a bigger part of the global supply. But headlines announcing that a Tesla battery “could take your home off the grid” (http://www.zmescience.com/research/technology/tesla-battery-grid-25032015/) spread misconceptions about what it takes to be self-sufficient—and stop global warming.
If you’re an average American, you can’t go “off the grid” simply by mounting a few solar panels on your roof, installing a battery in your basement, and plugging your car into an electrical outlet to refuel it. That is like calling yourself a vegetarian even though you eat chicken or fish when it suits you.
Truly going off the grid usually means a commitment to using far less energy than most Americans: for example, purchasing extremely efficient appliances, scheduling energy usage, and living without a beer fridge or big-screen television or clothes dryer. Taking personal steps to conserve energy is commendable. But placing the responsibility for climate action on individuals, and encouraging an every-man-for-himself approach, may actually work against some energy solutions and do little to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions.
No compromises. While a Tesla home battery might appeal to someone living modestly in a remote cabin, it’s more likely to be purchased by a person like Jason Hughes, a day trader who apparently couldn’t wait for the off-the-shelf version. Hughes is spending $20,000 and countless hours to convert a Tesla car battery into an energy storage system (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-03-11/battery-hackers-are-building-the-future-in-the-garage) for his home.
He would probably fit in better at a “prepper” convention (http://www.npsexpo.com/)—a meeting of survivalists getting ready for disaster—than at the Paris climate talks (http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en) later this year. Responding to questions about the YouTube video of his battery hack (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=070JJwgupRw), Hughes wrote: “My goal is to basically have a Tesla-style ‘no compromises’ off-grid setup...thus a power hungry one.”
Some people just like the idea of being off the grid and don’t mind paying extra for it. It has a certain prestige, the way that driving a Tesla S makes you stand out in a crowd. A Tesla home battery will probably make its owner feel more invincible than and superior to a neighbor with a generator in his garage.
The price for the Tesla battery hasn’t been announced yet. But if it’s anything like the Tesla S car, which has a price tag ranging from $71,070 to $105,670, it will be a luxury item. Even if everyone could afford one, it’s not clear where the lithium and other raw materials for all those batteries would come from.
No man is an island. Home batteries may be great for power outages, but it’s unclear whether they will do much to mitigate global warming. In fact, they could undermine large-scale efforts to combat climate change, by isolating energy production and usage rather than sharing it efficiently within a network.
While Tesla owners, especially those who generate their own solar power, might have the greenest of intentions, they live in a virtual gated community that excludes most of humanity. And by focusing their considerable resources on individual empowerment rather than on systemic issues, they make global warming a matter of consumer choice rather than of political mobilization and community involvement. Markus Giesler, an associate professor of marketing at York University (http://www.tni.org/article/davos-where-journalism-pr-and-change-consumer-choice) in Toronto, writing about how the World Economic Forum has shifted the burden for solving global warming and other problems away from government and business, calls this phenomenon “consumer responsibilization.”
Just as the “crying Indian” anti-littering ad (http://www.adcouncil.org/Our-Campaigns/The-Classics/Pollution-Keep-America-Beautiful-Iron-Eyes-Cody) of the 1970s implied that pollution was the fault of individuals rather than corporations, Tesla seems to be suggesting that the climate crisis is something Americans should solve on their own rather than calling fossil fuel companies to account, or pressing elected officials about why the Energy Department’s fiscal year 2016 budget request (http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/02/f19/FY2016BudgetinBrief.pdf) would spend only $2.7 billion on energy efficiency and renewables—but a whopping $18.9 billion on nuclear defense activities.
The solar revolution. It’s great that California and a few other states are now generating a significant percentage of their electricity from solar power (http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20492). But most of the growth in California has come from a handful of utility-scale projects (http://californiasolarstatistics.ca.gov/), which together have more than twice the capacity of the almost 250,000 solar projects installed on homes and businesses.
While distributed energy generation has some distinct advantages—it eliminates transmission inefficiencies and doesn’t require sacrificing huge tracts of wilderness to energy industrialization—individuals alone cannot solve the massive problem of climate change. Especially if they are individuals like Jason Hughes, who envision going “off the grid” without dramatically reducing their energy consumption.
Few homeowners and businesspeople would be interested in installing solar systems if most states did not require “net metering,” which allows a customer’s electricity meter to run backward as well as forward: You can sell electricity to the local utility when you produce more than you need, and buy it when you run short. In effect, the grid acts like a giant battery—one that you don’t have to purchase or maintain. You just have to stay on the grid.
A utility “death spiral”? Net metering encourages consumers to make their own electricity, which is a good thing because it reduces the amount of electricity that must be generated elsewhere, but it is not without complications. As renewable energy production increases, utilities are complaining (http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2015/03/who-pays-for-solar-power-utilities-energy-firms-disagree.html) that they should not have to bear all the costs of backing up intermittent solar and wind power with steadier energy sources: hydropower, nuclear, coal, and natural gas. Turning conventional power plants on and off to match the variability of the sun or wind cuts into efficiency and increases greenhouse gas emissions, undermining the raison d’etre of renewables.
The utilities argue that renewable energy producers who want to sell electricity to the grid should help pay for backup power. Otherwise, that cost falls on a shrinking base of customers, forcing the utility to raise prices. Residential and business customers may then begin defecting in even larger numbers, raising the specter of a so-called “utility death spiral.” That isn’t likely to happen anytime soon, but utilities do need to update their business models with better provisions for load balancing and renewable energy storage.
If the future owners of Tesla home batteries remain on the grid, for example, utilities could pay them to store energy for others as well as for themselves. Teslas and other electric cars, parked at homes or businesses during most hours, could also become part of the grid’s giant “battery.”
Distributed energy storage. Some automobile manufacturers are already experimenting with using cars for energy storage. Nissan is currently testing a “Leaf to Home” system (http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/OVERVIEW/leaf_to_home.html) that would allow the battery in a Leaf car to power an average Japanese household (which uses about one-third the electricity of an American household) for about two days. Toyota has announced that it will start selling the Mirai, a hydrogen fuel cell car (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2863411/heres-everything-toyota-will-give-you-if-you-buy-the-hydrogen-powered-mirai.html) with a battery that can reportedly power a Japanese home for up to a week when fully charged, in California. And Honda has designed an experimental house (http://www.hondasmarthome.com/tagged/hems) that can be powered by an electric car parked in its garage.
None of these projects is intended for homes that are off the grid. They are primarily designed to help owners handle power outages. But why not use them to tackle the climate emergency?
With a smarter grid, excess electricity generated by solar panels and wind turbines could be distributed to a network of on-the-grid home and car batteries. Some utilities have also experimented with using home water heaters as an economical substitute for batteries (http://www.esource.com/ES-WP-18/GIWHs): turning them on by remote control to store excess power (in the form of heat), or off to relieve loads when the grid is experiencing heavy demand (while still providing hot water when customers need it).
Like car batteries, home water heaters are dormant for most of the day. It makes more sense, and costs less, to put this existing infrastructure to work than to build huge new energy storage facilities. But it’s not yet clear whether a network of smart water heaters, batteries, and other devices would be economical and efficient. Conserving energy is always a cheaper option than building or expanding energy infrastructure.
Americans are experts at wasting infrastructure, though: Just look at all the cars sitting idle in driveways and parking lots, and all the traffic jams caused by five-passenger vehicles with only one person in each of them. Purchasing expensive batteries only to reserve them for occasional emergency use, or to hoard electricity for a no-compromises lifestyle, would be another case study in wastefulness. Small solar systems with battery backups are a good solution for the world’s 1.3 billion people who have no electricity, and Musk is an investor in one such enterprise in Tanzania (http://offgrid-electric.com/). But Americans need to concern themselves more with conservation and global climate solutions than with the fantasy of achieving self-sufficiency through consumerism.
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 16-04-2015, 13:33:31
Evo jedne male meditacije o tome može li se ributovati civilizacija tako da se dobije nešto slično onome što imamo ali bez korišćenja fosilnih goriva:


Out of the ashes (http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/could-we-reboot-civilisation-without-fossil-fuels/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 21-04-2015, 09:16:05
Borba za kontrolu snabdevanja energijom se prenela i na houmfront otkada je solarna energija postala bitan koncept:


Solar Power Battle Puts Hawaii at Forefront of Worldwide Changes (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/business/energy-environment/solar-power-battle-puts-hawaii-at-forefront-of-worldwide-changes.html?_r=0)





Quote
HONOLULU —  Allan Akamine has looked all around the winding, palm tree-lined cul-de-sacs of his suburban neighborhood in Mililani here on Oahu and, with an equal mix of frustration and bemusement, seen roof after roof bearing solar panels.
Mr. Akamine, 61, a manager for a cable company, has wanted nothing more than to lower his $600 to $700 monthly electric bill with a solar system of his own. But for 18 months or so, the state’s biggest utility barred him and thousands of other customers from getting one, citing concerns that power generated by rooftop systems was overwhelming its ability to handle it.
Only under strict orders from state energy officials did the utility, the Hawaiian Electric Company, recently rush to approve the lengthy backlog of solar applications, including Mr. Akamine’s.
It is the latest chapter in a closely watched battle that has put this state at the forefront of a global upheaval in the power business. Rooftop systems now sit atop roughly 12 percent of Hawaii’s homes, according to the federal Energy Information Administration, by far the highest proportion in the nation.


“Hawaii is a postcard from the future,” said Adam Browning, executive director of Vote Solar, a policy and advocacy group based in California.
Other states and countries, including California, Arizona, Japan and Germany, are struggling to adapt to the growing popularity of making electricity at home, which puts new pressures on old infrastructure like circuits and power lines and cuts into electric company revenue.
As a result, many utilities are trying desperately to stem the rise of solar, either by reducing incentives, adding steep fees or effectively pushing home solar companies out of the market. In response, those solar companies are fighting back through regulators, lawmakers and the courts.
The shift in the electric business is no less profound than those that upended the telecommunications and cable industries in recent decades. It is already remaking the relationship between power companies and the public while raising questions about how to pay for maintaining and operating the nation’s grid.
The issue is not merely academic, electrical engineers say.
In solar-rich areas of California and Arizona, as well as in Hawaii, all that solar-generated electricity flowing out of houses and into a power grid designed to carry it in the other direction has caused unanticipated voltage fluctuations that can overload circuits, burn lines and lead to brownouts or blackouts.


“Hawaii’s case is not isolated,” said Massoud Amin, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Minnesota and chairman of the smart grid program at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, a technical association. “When we push year-on-year 30 to 40 percent growth in this market, with the number of installations doubling, quickly — every two years or so — there’s going to be problems.”
The economic threat also has electric companies on edge. Over all, demand for electricity is softening while home solar is rapidly spreading across the country. There are now about 600,000 installed systems, and the number is expected to reach 3.3 million by 2020, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/business/energy-environment/solar-power-battle-puts-hawaii-at-forefront-of-worldwide-changes.html?_r=0#story-continues-5) Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/business/energy-environment/solar-power-battle-puts-hawaii-at-forefront-of-worldwide-changes.html?_r=0#story-continues-5)  Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/business/energy-environment/solar-power-battle-puts-hawaii-at-forefront-of-worldwide-changes.html?_r=0#story-continues-5) The Edison Electric Institute, the main utility trade group, has been warning its members of the economic perils of high levels of rooftop solar since at least 2012, and the companies are responding. In February, the Salt River Project, a large utility in Arizona, approved charges (http://www.srpnet.com/newsroom/releases/022615.aspx) that could add about $50 to a typical monthly bill for new solar customers, while last year in Wisconsin, where rooftop solar is still relatively rare, regulators approved fees that would add $182 a year for the average solar customer.
In Hawaii, the current battle began in 2013, when Hawaiian Electric started barring installations of residential solar systems in certain areas. It was an abrupt move — a panicked one, critics say — made after the utility became alarmed by the technical and financial challenges of all those homes suddenly making their own electricity.
The utility wants to cut roughly in half the amount it pays customers for solar electricity they send back to the grid. But after a study showed that with some upgrades the system could handle much more solar than the company had assumed, the state’s public utilities commission ordered the utility to begin installations or prove why it could not.
It was but one sign of the agency’s growing impatience with what it considers the utility’s failure to adapt its business model to the changing market.


Hawaiian Electric is scrambling to accede to that demand, approving thousands of applications in recent weeks. But it is under pressure on other fronts as well. NextEra Energy, based in Florida, is awaiting approval to buy it, while other islands it serves are exploring defecting to form their own cooperative power companies.
It is also upgrading its circuits and meters to better regulate the flow of electricity. Rooftop solar makes far more power than any other single source, said Colton Ching, vice president for energy delivery at Hawaiian Electric, but the utility can neither control nor predict the output.
“At every different moment, we have to make sure that the amount of power we generate is equal to the amount of energy being used, and if we don’t keep that balance things go unstable,” he said, pointing to the illuminated graphs and diagrams tracking energy production from wind and solar farms, as well as coal-fueled generators in the utility’s main control room. But the rooftop systems are “essentially invisible to us,” he said, “because they sit behind a customer’s meter and we don’t have a means to directly measure them.”
For customers, such explanations offer little comfort as they continue to pay among the highest electric rates in the country and still face an uncertain solar future.
“I went through all this trouble to get my electric bill down, and I am still waiting,” said Joyce Villegas, 88, who signed her contract for a system in August 2013 but was only recently approved and is waiting for the installation to be completed.
Mr. Akamine expressed resignation over the roughly $12,000 he could have saved, but wondered about the delay. “Why did it take forceful urging from the local public utility commission to open up more permits?” he asked.
Installers — who saw their fast-growing businesses slow to a trickle — are also frustrated with the pace. For those who can afford it, said James Whitcomb, chief executive of Haleakala Solar, which he started in 1977, the answer may lie in a more radical solution: Avoid the utility and its grid altogether.
Customers are increasingly asking about the batteries that he often puts in along with the solar panels, allowing them to store the power they generate during the day for use at night. It is more expensive, but it breaks consumer reliance on the utility’s network of power lines.
“I’ve actually taken people right off the grid,” he said, including a couple who got tired of waiting for Hawaiian Electric to approve their solar system and expressed no interest in returning to utility service. “The lumbering big utilities that are so used to taking three months to study this and then six months to do that — what they don’t understand is that things are moving at the speed of business. Like with digital photography — this is inevitable.”
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 24-04-2015, 09:10:44
Međutim, evo kako jeftin benzin lako utiče na izbor ličnog prevoza: gomila ljudi koji su prethodno posedovali hibrid ili električna kola, sada se vraća na SUV jer je gorivo nikad pristupačnije:


Hybrid and Electric Vehicles Struggle to Maintain Owner Loyalty, Reports Edmunds.com (http://www.edmunds.com/about/press/hybrid-and-electric-vehicles-struggle-to-maintain-owner-loyalty-reports-edmundscom.html)





Quote
SANTA MONICA, Calif.  — April 21, 2015 — Car buyers are trading in hybrid and electric cars for SUVs at a higher rate than ever before, according to a new analysis from car-buying platform Edmunds.com. The analysis offers a surprising look at how today's gas prices are drawing hybrid and EV owners toward gas-guzzling vehicles at a much more accelerated pace than in recent years.
According to Edmunds.com, about 22 percent of people who have traded in their hybrids and EVs in 2015 bought a new SUV. The number represents a sharp increase from 18.8 percent last year, and it is nearly double the rate of 11.9 percent just three years ago. Overall, only 45 percent of this year's hybrid and EV trade-ins have gone toward the purchase of another alternative fuel vehicle, down from just over 60 percent in 2012. Never before have loyalty rates for alt-fuel vehicles fallen below 50 percent.
 "For better or worse, it looks like many hybrid and EV owners are driven more by financial motives rather than a responsibility to the environment," says Edmunds.com Director of Industry Analysis Jessica Caldwell. "Three years ago, when gas was at near-record highs, it was a lot easier to rationalize the price premiums on alternative fuel vehicles. But with today's gas prices as low as they are, the math just doesn't make a very compelling case."
To underscore the point, Edmunds calculates that at the peak average national gas price of $4.67/gallon in October 2012, it would take five years to break even on the $3,770 price difference between a Toyota Camry LE Hybrid ($28,230) and a Toyota Camry LE ($24,460). At today's national average gas price of $2.27/gallon, it would take twice as much time (10.5 years) to close the same gap.
Edmunds' analysis comes at a time when overall sales of alternative vehicles have continued to slide. EVs and hybrids accounted for just 2.7 percent of all new car sales in the first quarter of 2015, down from 3.3 percent during that same period last year. The share of SUVs, meanwhile, has increased from 31.8 percent in Q1 2014 to 34.2 percent in Q1 2015.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 24-04-2015, 09:30:35
Toliko o američkoj svesti o klimatskim promenama.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 06-05-2015, 09:12:02
Analiza kućnih Tesla baterija i njihovog potencijala da promene svet:


Tesla Battery Economics: On the Path to Disruption (http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/30/tesla-powerwall-battery-economics-almost-there/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 08-07-2015, 06:57:48
Imati na umu:
 
 The Balkans Are Giving Climate Change the Finger (http://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/the-balkans-are-giving-climate-change-the-finger/60673)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 08-07-2015, 07:04:15
Ona jadnica dobi veliki kašalj, a mi, kao i Kina, zagađujemo svet.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 08-07-2015, 07:27:31
Da bude gore, Kina, da sebe manje zagadi, sad nama potura ugalj.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 08-07-2015, 07:45:49
I ugalj kupujemo od Kine? :-? :-? :-?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 08-07-2015, 07:53:42
Hahah, ne, nego, kako tekst teoretiše:
 
Quote

All that makes the Balkans a microcosm of carbon geopolitics — sort of like a Cold War (http://www.ozy.com/flashback/eurovisions-cold-war-past-fun-freedom-sequins/31171) spy novel, only with coal plants standing in for missile silos. China sees the region as a possible entrée into Europe proper via what Winston Churchill once (wrongly) considered the continent’s “soft underbelly.” Europe, eager to wean itself off the Russian natural gas that produces roughly a third of its electricity, seems equally disinclined to break the region’s anthracite addiction. And Russia is still keen to retain a foothold in its old stomping grounds. The Balkan nations themselves, still sapped by their long war in the 1990s and subsequent anemic growth, are playing a bad hand as best they can, scrambling for any foreign investment that will let them shovel as much coal (http://www.ozy.com/acumen/chinas-coal-burnout/30146) as fast as possible.
In Serbia, China’s Export-Import Bank recently dropped $608 million on a new 350-megawatt generator for the Kostolac power plant; in Bosnia, meanwhile, it’s putting $833 million into a 450-megawatt unit at the Tuzla coal-fired plant. Not to be outdone, the China Development Bank provided $385 million for a Bosnian coal station. Chinese investors are funding similar construction in Montenegro and Romania. Ask the local rep for the Chinese Southeast European Business Association, Siniša Malus, why that is, and he’ll tell you it’s because European countries “prefer not to invest in coal.” (Which is largely but not entirely true; two major European development banks are also plowing $175 million into Serbia’s Kolubara coal mine.)
 
A simpler explanation might be that China, which is cutting back coal power to curb its own carbon emissions, is effectively exporting part of its coal industry to the Balkans. (Chinese construction firms and manufacturers are, unsurprisingly, deeply involved in these projects.) In the process it’s forging business ties with Europe that could pay off down the road.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mme Chauchat on 08-07-2015, 08:04:08
Mnogo mi je slatko što ovo nabrajanje uključuje Ukrajinu: "Across Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine (not technically part of the Balkans), Macedonia, Kosovo and Montenegro", i još usrdno dodaju kako tehnički Ukrajina nije na Balkanu, pa mice <3
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 08-07-2015, 08:05:33
Internet zaglupljuje. Svetski kapitalizam finansira debile da se bave razmišljanjem kako su svi osim njih u krivu, a da su oni u kravu. Evo, i mene već fata... :-x
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 12-07-2015, 06:47:28
A sad još i ovo:
 Earth heading for 'mini ice age' in just 15 years, scientists say (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/07/11/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-in-just-15-years-scientists-say/2751436649025/)
 
Quote

Solar scientists, armed with the best data yet regarding the activities of the sun, say the Earth is headed for a "mini ice age" in just 15 years -- something that hasn't happened for three centuries.
Professor Valentina Zharkova, of the University of Northumbria, presented the findings at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales this week, Britain's Independent reported Saturday (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/mini-ice-age-coming-in-next-fifteen-years-new-model-of-the-suns-cycle-shows-10382400.html). 
Researchers, saying they understand solar cycles better than ever, predict that the sun's normal activity will decrease by 60 percent around 2030 -- triggering the "mini ice age" that could last for a decade. The last time the Earth was hit by such a lull in solar activity happened 300 years ago, during the Maunder Minimum, which lasted from 1645 to 1715.
Scientists say there are magnetic waves in the sun's interior that fluctuate between the body's northern and southern hemispheres, resulting in various solar conditions over a period of 10 to 12 years. Based on that data, researchers say they are now better able to anticipate the sun's activity -- which has led to the Zharkova team's prediction.
"Combining both [magnetic] waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent," Zharkova said.
If the "mini ice age" does indeed arrive, scientists say it will be accompanied by bitter cold winters (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html) -- frigid enough to cause rivers, like the Thames in London, to freeze over.                                       
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 12-07-2015, 08:27:10
Ček, bre, šta je sad ovo? Da kupujete bunde ili su vam dosta gaće? Šta o tome reče Milanković? :shock:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 15-07-2015, 09:55:31
Kad sam već na madrbordu, evo teksta o tome da se posle velikog izlivanja nafte u meksičkom zalivu od pre pola decenije zapravo ništa nije promenilo u tretmanu ovog goriva:


http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-the-biggest-most-expensive-oil-spill-in-history-changed-nothing-at-all (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-the-biggest-most-expensive-oil-spill-in-history-changed-nothing-at-all)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 15-07-2015, 10:15:47
Što bi promenilo? BP platio kaznu, potrošači će nadoknaditi gubitak.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 17-07-2015, 09:22:45
A sad još i ovo:
 Earth heading for 'mini ice age' in just 15 years, scientists say (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/07/11/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-in-just-15-years-scientists-say/2751436649025/)
 


Kažu da su vesti o minijaturnom ledenom dobu koje nas čeka za 15 godina ipak malo preterane:


News about an imminent ‘mini ice age’ is trending — but it’s not true (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/)


Quote
“Scientists warn the sun will ‘go to sleep’ in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet,” blared one headline (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html) from this weekend.
“Earth heading for ‘mini ice age’ within 15 years,” warned another (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html).
By Sunday evening, news that the Earth could be headed for period of bitter cold was trending on Facebook and whizzing across Twitter. The story — which has been reported everywhere from conservative blogs (http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/34854) to the British (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html) press (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/13/mini-ice-age-earth-sunspots) to the Weather Channel (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-mini-ice-age-could-happen-on-earth-in-15-years-video-20150713-embeddedvideo.html) to the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592) — was based on a recent presentation (http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo) at the Royal Astronomical Society’s national meeting. Researchers studying sunspots found that solar activity is due to decline dramatically in the next few decades, reaching levels not seen since the 17th century, during a period known as the Maunder minimum. Back then, the decline coincided with what’s called the “Little Ice Age,” when Europe’s winters turned brutally cold, crops failed and rivers froze over. Could another one be on its way?
Not quite.
Though University of Northumbria mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova, who led the sunspot research, did find that the magnetic waves that produce sunspots (which are associated with high levels of solar activity) are expected to counteract one another in an unusual way in the coming years, the press release about her research mentions nothing about how that will affect the Earth’s climate. Zharkova never even used the phrase “mini ice age.” Meanwhile, several other (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html) recent (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/%7Estefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf) studies (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S167492781450007X) of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
Besides, that “Little Ice Age” that occurred during the Maunder minimum, it wasn’t so much a global ice age as a cold spell in Europe (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/littleiceage.pdf), and it may have been caused more by clouds of ash from volcanic eruptions (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/volcanoes-may-have-sparked/) than by fluctuations in solar activity.
(It’s also worth mentioning that Zharkova’s findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so her conclusions haven’t been vetted and refined.)


But those nuances were totally lost as stories about Zharkova’s research made the rounds on social media and in the press. Instead, we got 300-year-old engravings of Londoners cavorting on the frozen River Thames accompanied by predictions of food shortages and brutal cold — plus snarky tweets about not worrying about global warming anymore.


This isn’t the first time that a story about sunspots has turned into a story about climate change skepticism. John Casey, president of the Orlando-based Space and Science Research Corporation (http://spaceandscience.net/), which denies that global temperatures are rising, has written two books on the threat of impending “solar hibernation.” In 2011, when a series of studies concluded that the sun was heading into a cycle of unusually low activity, one headline (http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/06/14/global-warming-be-damned-we-might-be-headed-mini-ice-age#ixzz1PL7TcrhG) cheered “Global Warming Be Damned, We Might Be Headed for a Mini Ice Age.”
For decades, scientists have known that solar activity fluctuates according to a roughly 11-year cycle. Sunspots — (relatively) cool, dark blotches on the sun’s surface — indicate areas of intense magnetic activity. But recently sunspots have been weakening, as has the sun’s magnetic field, leading scientists to conclude that the sun is heading into an especially quiet cycle termed the “grand solar minimum”
The new research from Zharkova argues that the solar cycles are regulated by not one but two magnetic waves fluctuating at slightly different frequencies, and that the unusually low activity can be explained by the waves getting far enough out of sync that they effectively cancel one another out.
Even if the upcoming decline in solar activity turns out to be as Zharkova’s suggests, scientists who study the sun say we can’t be sure how it will affect Earth’s climate.
“We have some interesting hints that solar activity is associated with climate, but we don’t understand the association,” Dean Pesnell (http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/index.cfm?fuseAction=people.jumpBio&iphonebookid=19147), a NASA scientist who worked on one of the 2011 studies about the grand minimum, told National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110614-sun-hibernation-solar-cycle-sunspots-space-science/) at the time.
Those studies that have found a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures predict that the drop in temperatures associated with a grand minimum will be much smaller than the warming that’s predicted to occur due to greenhouse gas emissions: A 2010 study (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL042710/abstract) in the journal Geophysical Letters predicted it could cause a global temperature decrease of about 0.3 degrees Celsius by 2100 — not nearly enough to offset the 1 to 5 degree increase (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html#ref3) anticipated from human-caused global warming.


As for that image of Londoners frolicking at “frost fairs” on the frozen-over Thames? Those had less to do with the activity of the sun than the activities of humans. Historical climatologist George Adamson told the BBC last year that the river used to freeze because of the architecture of the old London Bridge, whose arches prevented salty sea water from passing upriver and lowering its freezing point. The construction of a new bridge in the 19th century, and other landscape changes that made the river flow faster, brought an end to those festivals — less so than the end of the Maunder minimum.
“I’d be surprised if it froze again to the extent where we’d be able to allow large numbers of people on the Thames,” he said.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-08-2015, 10:04:56
Pošto znamo da je metan GORI grinhaus ges nego ugljen dioksid, već se dugo gunđa o tome kako krave prde i podriguju i time pospešuju globalno zagrevanje. Sada vele da bi dodavanje u hranu sastojka koji bi suzbijao podrigivanje, emisija metana od strane ovih plemenitih životinja bila umanjena čitavih 30%



Antiburp compound could reduce methane emissions from cows (http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2015/07/antiburp-compound-could-reduce-methane-emissions-cows)


Quote
A simple supplement to a cow’s feed could substantially decrease a major source of methane, a planet-warming greenhouse gas, a new study suggests. Each year worldwide, the methane produced by cud-chewing livestock warms Earth’s climate by the same amount as 2.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide, a little more than 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity. That makes cows tempting targets for methane reduction efforts. In a new study, researchers added the chemical 3-nitrooxypropanol, also known as 3NOP, to the corn-and-alfalfa-based feed of 84 milk-producing Holsteins and monitored their methane production for 12 weeks—the largest and longest such trial of its type in lactating cows, the scientists say. For cows whose feed included 3NOP, methane emissions dropped, on average, by 30% (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/07/29/1504124112.abstract%29), the researchers reported online  yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The decline in emissions occurred during the first 2 weeks of the trials and persisted throughout the test, the researchers say. The additive didn’t seem to affect the cows’ appetite, nor did it affect either the production or the composition of the cows’ milk. And because 3NOP boosted the digestibility of nutrients in the feed, the cows that received the supplement actually gained more weight than cows that received none. Larger tests will be needed to see if detrimental effects crop up over the long term, the researchers admit, but in the meantime 3NOP is a promising methane-cutting additive. In previous short-term tests, the chemical has trimmed methane emissions in sheep and beef cattle as well as in nonlactating dairy cows.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 16-08-2015, 06:39:27
By 2100, Earth Will Have an Entirely Different Ocean (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/by-2100-everything-you-know-about-the-ocean-will-be-wrong)
 
Quote

The ocean is in the midst of a radical, manmade change. It can seem kind of crazy that one of the most immense properties on Earth—the ocean washes over 71 percent of the planet—could be completely transformed by a swarm of comparatively tiny, fleshy mammals. But humans are indeed remaking the ocean, in almost every conceivable way. The ocean we know today—that billions of people swim, fish, float, and surf in—that vast planetary body of water will be of an entirely different character by the end of the century.
“There is only one global ocean,” as NOAA likes to say (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/howmanyoceans.html). While it’s changing in different ways and to different degrees in different places, it’s a single, huge, interconnected system. Trash dumped off the coast of Australia can end up in the great Pacific Garbage Patch. Pollution from China drifts overseas into North America. All of our carbon emissions end up partially absorbed by oceans everywhere—the actions of residents of Sheboygan, USA have affected, in some minute way, the future of the seas in Bangladesh. That’s the thing about climate change.
It’s not just that the ocean is absorbing more heat than at any point over the last 10,000 years (http://science.time.com/2013/11/01/oceans-warming-faster-than-they-have-over-past-10000-years/), and that its levels are rising. It’s also becoming more acidic (http://motherboard.vice.com/tag/ocean+acidification). Its very chemical composition is changing. Ecosystems will be reordered, currents altered. To the billions who live closest to it, it will be more hostile. Coastal flooding will threaten cities (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/27/climate-change-triple-threat-flooding-new-york-los-angeles-boston), Arctic passageways will open new trade routes (http://www.cfr.org/arctic/thawing-arctic-risks-opportunities/p32082), and fishermen who depend on the seas will scramble to keep up with the shifting aquatic biomes (http://kuow.org/post/fish-are-relocating-toward-poles-avoid-warming-waters).
“In a worst case scenario, i.e. one in which we pursue business-as-usual through the end of the century,” the climatologist Michael Mann tells me, “the oceans will look something out of a post-apocalyptic Hollywood flick. We are talking about the depletion of fish populations by overfishing, the massive die-off of much other sea life due to water pollution and ocean acidification, the destruction of coral reefs by the twin impacts of ocean acidification and bleaching by increasingly warm ocean waters.”
Which is why it’s worth taking a look at the changes reshaping the body of water that defines our planet, and examining where our best predictive sciences say we’ll end up at the end of the century—in the year 2100, which is as good a benchmark as any. It’s a natural milestone, included in a lot of climate models’ projections, policy-oriented synthesis reports, and research-based recommendations for political leaders.
By combing through the most recent science and reaching out to oceanographers and climate scientists, I tried to render a snapshot of what the future of our oceans might look like.
 
Rising Tides
Right now, the ocean is growing. That’s due to two main factors; the melt of land ice—mostly from Arctic and Antarctic sheets, shelves, and glaciers—and thermal expansion (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html). In the ocean, thermal expansion occurs when water warms. It leads to an increase in volume, but a decrease in density. Right now, the ocean is absorbing about 90 percent of the excess heat (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mystery-of-ocean-heat-deepens-as-climate-changes/) generated by climate change, and is getting fed by numerous thawing ice stocks in the Arctic and Antarctica.
So sea levels are rising—but by how much?
The head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Gavin Schmidt, told me that the best available roadmap for the future of our oceans under climate change is probably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest report (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/). That 2014 behemoth of a survey is an invaluable resource, as it features an exhaustive synthesis of the latest body of ocean and climate science. Known for erring on the conservative side (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/), it predicts a sea level rise of between a foot and a half to five feet by the end of the century, depending on whether we reduce our greenhouse gas pollution.
“For high emissions IPCC now predicts a global rise by 52-98 cm by the year 2100, which would threaten the survival of coastal cities and entire island nations,” the oceanographer and climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf explains (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/sea-level-in-the-5th-ipcc-report/#sthash.QupPFssw.dpuf). The highest-emissions projections point us closer to 1.5 meters (5 feet) of sea level rise.
“But even with aggressive emissions reductions, a rise by 28-61 cm is predicted,” Rahmstorf notes. “Even under this highly optimistic scenario we might see over half a meter of sea-level rise, with serious impacts on many coastal areas, including coastal erosion and a greatly increased risk of flooding.” Even if we quickly and suddenly reduce emissions, in other words, expect the ocean to rise by at least a foot or two no matter what.
But other scientists warn of the prospect of sea levels that are much, much higher. The godfather of climate science, James Hansen, along with 16 respected co-authors, recently published new research that makes the case that (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html) land ice in Antarctica and Greenland will melt 10 times faster, and contribute 10 feet of sea level rise in a period as brief as 50 years (the study is controversial (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/20/the-worlds-most-famous-climate-scientist-just-outlined-an-alarming-scenario-for-our-planets-future/) and is currently under peer review). Clearly, that would be disastrous for human civilization as it is currently organized—with the bulk of our population centers posted on the coast—many scientists believe that we’re currently “locked in” to about that much sea level rise regardless, because of the inexorable melting of a giant ice sheet in West Antarctica (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/10-feet-of-global-sea-level-rise-now-inevitable). But it may take many decades beyond 2100.
So what does all this mean? What does 1.5 feet sea level rise look like, compared to 10? How should we envision this swelling of the oceans? There are a number of handy tools that help drive home how this saltwater creep will manifest: Climate Central, for instance, has a tool (http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/surgingseas/) that uses Google Maps to demonstrate how much of US coastal cities and land will be swallowed by the rise. NOAA has a similar one (http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr).
 
Most of New Orleans will be underwater with 5 feet of sea level rise, as will large swaths of Miami and New York City. Some cities may be spared the swamping with expensive water management technologies; others will have to be relocated. Some, the poorer ones, no doubt, will be evacuated and abandoned.
So, by 2100, the oceans will include at least the remains of some human infrastructure in its shallows; beachfront property, docks, boardwalks, and some of the roads that we used to get there. To illustrate, here's Miami, under 10 feet of saltwater.
 
Water can absorb far more heat than air, which is why the ocean has sucked down the bulk of the heat that has resulted from climate change. This is a good thing for the climate; it means air temperatures aren’t heating up as rapidly as they otherwise would—and it’s the reason there was a so-called “pause” (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/oceans-trapped-heat-during-the-global-warming-pause-but-itll-be-back-soon) in planetary warming. But it also means the ocean is beginning to heat up in a serious way.
“Over the last 39 years, oceans have warmed at average rates of >0.1˚C per decade in the upper 75 meter and 0.015˚C per decade at 700 m depth," the IPCC report explains. This may not sound like much, but it is. Shallow waters are warming up, fast. By the end of the century, if warming continues apace, shallow waters may be a full degree Celsius (1.8˚F) warmer, on average, which could be dangerous to marine ecosystems and may help feed tropical storms.
Even incremental increases in temperature cause coral to bleach, for instance, a phenomenon plaguing the keystone species around the world. Combined with acidification, which we’ll get to shortly, coral risks flat-out extinction by century's end. That’s the conclusion of a 2012 study published in Science (http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2012/12/coral-reefs-could-be-decimated-2100); “Nearly every coral reef could be dying by 2100 if current carbon dioxide emission trends continue.”
Meanwhile, because warmer water is quicker to evaporate, it means the ocean can fuel more powerful storms. Combined with higher sea levels, by 2100, the ocean will be more prone to overwhelm nearby communities in the event of a hurricane or tropical storm. And while the warming waters will prove problematic everywhere, the heating will be most pronounced away from the equator.
“The strongest warming trends are found at high latitudes,” the IPCC notes, away from the equator. Like the Arctic and Antarctic, where warmer water is melting icebergs and ice sheets from below, contributing to further sea level rise and robbing polar bears (still the most famous mascot of global warming), walruses, and other animals of their habitats. Last year, the lack of sea ice forced 35,000 walruses to crowd together (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/02/as-sea-ice-melts-amid-global-warming-35000-walrus-crowd-the-shores-of-alaska/) for the first time in observed history, making for one of the most iconic examples of polar warming in recent memory.
The Arctic region is warming twice as fast as the global average; thus, according to projections of climate agencies (http://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=207) like NOAA and the UK’s Met office, Arctic sea ice may be all but gone in the summers by century’s end. “In fact,” NOAA states (http://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=207), “it is thought that the melting of the sea ice could accelerate through the 21st century, with very little summer sea ice remaining by the year 2100.”
 
Warmer waters ripen conditions for invasive species, too, which is why crabs from the Caribbean are showing up in northern waters (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029657). Marine life all over is being driven northward—fish are heading towards the poles (http://kuow.org/post/fish-are-relocating-toward-poles-avoid-warming-waters). Sharks are spawning further north (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/sharks-snakes-and-giant-squids-oh-my-climate-change-driving-exotic-species-north-into-b-c-but-killing-others).
Algae is more likely to bloom—warmer-than-usual temperatures in the Pacific have fueled the record-breaking toxic bloom currently (http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/what-to-know-about-the-record-breaking-levels-of-toxic-algae-lapping-up-on-the-west-coast-20150812) stretching past California right now, for instance. “It's definitely the largest bloom of this particular algae seen on the West Coast, possibly anywhere, ever" Raphael Kudela, a professor of ocean sciences at the University of California Santa Cruz, recently told CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/toxic-algae-bloom-in-pacific-ocean-could-be-largest-ever/).
 
Finally, probably the most dire-sounding development of all: An expansion of marine dead zones, wherein oxygen levels become so low that little life can survive. Maybe the best known example is the massive dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140804_deadzone.html); it’s about the size of Connecticut. A number (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-may-boost-dead-zones-in-oceans/) of studies (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090128-ocean-dead-zones.html) have linked warming waters to the expansion of these dead zones, also known as hypoxia—fixtures that will become more or less permanent in our future ocean.
"Any increase in dead zones from global warming will last for thousands of years. They will be a permanent fixture" of our oceans, Gary Shaffer of the University of Copenhagen, who studies dead zones, told National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090128-ocean-dead-zones.html). His model “predicts that global warming could cause dead zones to grow by a factor of ten or more by the year 2100,” according to NatGeo. “In the worst-case scenario, dead zones could encompass more than a fifth of the world's oceans.”
 
That’s just the most dire prediction; we may not see dead zones of that size, but we’ll probably see a lot more of them than we do now. The bottom line is that as the ocean warms, it will transform in a host of very unpredictable, sometimes radical ways. So how hot does Gavin Schmidt think the oceans will be in 2100?
“Hot enough to boil a frog,” he said. “Metaphorically.” The frog in that metaphor, I think, is us.
 
Acid Splash
But we’re not just boiling; we’re risking an acid bath, too. About 30-40 percent of all carbon emissions are drawn down directly into the ocean, where it forms carbonic acid. As a result, the pH in the surface ocean today is 0.1 unit lower than it was before the Industrial Revolution. And the most recent research shows that ocean waters are on track to become much more acidic by 2100—up to 150 percent more so. In other words, by the end of the century, the ocean will be twice as acidic as it was in preindustrial times (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/earths-oceans-are-on-track-to-be-100-percent-more-acidic).
That’s what Taro Takahashi, a professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute who studies ocean acidification, tells me. He said that he agrees with the landmark 2009 study by Richard Freely (https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/handle/1912/3180) that attempted to project acidification levels into the future.
“The magnitude of acidification depends primarily on the amount of CO2 emitted into the air, and I agree with their prediction for the magnitude of acidification: the pH of surface ocean water decreases from today's about 8.1 to about 7.75 by 2100 (an increase of 225 percent in the hydrogen ion concentrations),” he tells me.
If we continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current pace, we’re on target to hit 800 parts per million by the end of the century (we’re at 400 ppm now (http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/a-400-ppm-world)). In that case, Freely explains, “surface water pH will drop from a pre-industrial value of about 8.2 to about 7.8... by the end of this century, increasing the ocean’s acidity by about 150 percent relative to the beginning of the industrial era.” (More recent studies have shown it could get even worse (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-11-18/ocean-acidification-may-more-than-double-by-2100-study).) So what’s the big deal? What ill is portended by slightly more acidic oceans?
For one thing, shellfish are in trouble. In some places, as in certain stretches of the Pacific, the ocean is already too acidic for some sea snails’ shells to properly form (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/our-acidic-oceans-dissolve-sea-snails-shells-as-soon-as-theyre-born). In 2100, entire ecosystems could be ravaged; not just corals and sea snails, but many creatures whose exoskeletons are made of calcium carbonate.
“The level of CaCO3 saturation would decrease by 50 percent or more, and colder oceans would become corrosive to CaCO3 shells,” Taro says. Plus, the last time the oceans got this acidic this fast, 96 percent of marine life went extinct (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-last-time-our-oceans-got-this-acidic-it-drove-earths-greatest-extinction).
Garbage Islands and Falling Fish
It’s not all carbon and climate change, either; humans are directly impacting the oceans, too, of course. We’re covering it in garbage, for starters. Three major papers published in 2014 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/150109-oceans-plastic-sea-trash-science-marine-debris/) sought to tally up the amount of debris we’ve loaded into the ocean. As National Geographic explained, “There are 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic debris in the ocean. Of that mass, 269,000 tons float on the surface, while some four billion plastic microfibers per square kilometer litter the deep sea.”
We have blanketed the seafloors, and sea-surface, with refuse, changing on every level the nature of those environments. And imagine what kind of trash that 85 years of nonstop development and free-market capitalism will churn out by 2100.
“A recent estimate of the amount of plastic that enters the ocean every year—8 million metric tons from 192 countries,” NOAA’s Asma Mahdi told me. “Those estimates don't differentiate between different kinds of plastic—it's very difficult, especially since waste management is so different across the country and the globe. If things remain as status quo, debris will fill our ocean.”
If we continue to dump 8 million metric tons of trash into the ocean every year, it will total 680 million tons by 2100. Some of that will have been cleaned up, as NOAA notes, but some of it will continue to form grand artificial landmasses in the Pacific and elsewhere.
The ocean of 2100 will be packed with trash.
Perhaps it can take the place of the fish, many (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120509154240.htm) species of which (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm) are rapidly being fished into extinction oceanwide. A survey of the recent science by Pew (http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2015/06/global-ocean-legacy-working-together-to-create-worlds-first-generation-great-parks-in-sea) found that “90 percent of the world’s fish stocks are overfished or fully fished,” and “Experts say populations of large predatory fish such as tunas and sharks have declined about 90 percent over the past 60 years.” Even the most fearsome of fish, the sharks, are being finned into extinction, scientists worry: they estimate that a staggering 100 million are killed each year (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/02/sharks-risk-extinction-overfishing-scientists).
The EDF, a mainstream enviro group, claims that (https://www.edf.org/oceans/overfishing-worse-you-might-think) “Of all the threats facing the oceans today, overfishing takes the greatest toll on sea life—and people.” That’s probably true for now, as hundreds of millions of people depend on seafood for protein, and the fishing practices currently draining our oceans are pretty destructive—remember shrimp trawling?
A 2006 Science study (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/aaft-b2a102706.php) showed that we were on pace to see the collapse of major fish stocks by midcentury, if overfishing continued. So far, it has. After the collapse, the study argues, we’d see just 10 percent of the original catch from 2050 on. Other studies (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X13003044?np=y) offer a less grim portrait, but most agree that we’re rapidly depleting major fish stocks upon which humans and other sea life rely.
By 2100, it’s hard to say exactly how much will be left.
The Oceans of 2100
“Never turn your back to the ocean,” my father used to say, whenever my brother and I would play too close to its waves. Two things strike me, about that nugget now—one is that it seems like, collectively, we’ve done exactly that: we’ve polluted, overfished, acidified, and warmed it. We’ve managed to trash the place, without necessarily intending to.
Second, it’s a little strange to think just how different the ocean of 2100 will be from the one I was turning my back on, literally—the next generation, and the one after that, will come of age with an entirely different ocean than the one we couldn’t bear to face. And how drastically it changes (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805) will depend a lot on how we decide to act right now; which policies and principles we choose to pursue.
That’s why even Dr. Mann, who gave me one of the grimmest prognostications, nonetheless holds out hope.
“The good news is that this doesn’t have to be our future,” he said. “There is still time to act to save the oceans for future generations.”
Hell or Salt Water is a series on Motherboard about exploring and preserving our oceans. Follow along here (http://motherboard.vice.com/hell-or-salt-water).
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 21-08-2015, 09:34:08
New Tool Allows Scientists To Annotate Media Coverage of Climate Change (http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/08/19/0447216/new-tool-allows-scientists-to-annotate-media-coverage-of-climate-change)


Quote
Have you ever been skeptical of a climate change story presented by a major media outlet?  A new tool holds journalists to account for the veracity of their stories.  "Using the Climate Feedback tool (http://climatefeedback.org/), scientists have started to diligently add detailed annotations to online content (http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/rolling-stone-eric-holthaus-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares/) and have those notes appear alongside the story as it originally appeared.  If you're the writer, then it's a bit like getting your homework handed back to you (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/aug/14/scientists-get-tool-to-mark-online-climate-science-media-coverage-and-its-not-a-rusty-teaspoon) with the margins littered with corrections and red pen. Or smiley faces and gold stars if you've been good." The project has already prompted The Telegraph to publish major corrections to their story (http://climatefeedback.org/the-telegraph-issues-a-public-correction-after-scientists-point-to-inaccuracies/) that suggested the Earth is headed for a "'mini ice age' within 15 years."  The article has been modified in such a way that there is no more statement supporting the original message of an "imminent mini ice age."
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 21-08-2015, 10:07:50
Ovo može u principu da se koristi za sav sadržaj na internetu, a ne samo za novinske članke na temu klimatskih promena. Ideja je dobra, ali problem je kome verovati. Kako se ulazi u klub onih koji mogu da daju komentare i ocenjuju članke?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 29-08-2015, 06:28:13
The Nations That Will Be Hardest Hit by Water Shortages by 2040 (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-nations-that-will-be-hardest-hit-by-water-shortages-by-2040)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 29-08-2015, 21:35:09
Meho, ovo ti je prikaz koji zanemaruje suštinu stvari!


Ne mogu se jednako tretirati zemlje koje nemaju para i one koje imaju para.
I danas bi većina arapskih zemalja koja ima puno para bila u velikom problemu da nema tih pustih para koje im omogućavaju da
se na različite načine nadomesti nedostatak vode: desalinizacija, virtuelna voda i sl.


Zato, Meho, ne brini ti za tvoju braću po veri koji imaju para - taj siroti Bahrein, Kuvajt, Katar i slične zemlje. Snaći će se oni.
Više brini za one koji, kao što je na primer Jemen, nemaju ni para ni vode...


Ili one koji imaju vode a nemaju para da je zahvate i prečiste...









Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 29-08-2015, 23:08:26
Zabeleženo!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 08-09-2015, 10:18:52
Butan:


Electric vehicles boost climate 'nirvana' in the Himalayas (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33959562)



Quote
Happiness? What's that?
Colleagues might say that a mouth full of cake and Ireland winning the rugby world cup would see me eternally content.
In fairness, one of the above might make me a tad less grumpy. For a while.
But surely the idea of "true" happiness is one of those concepts that only appeals to the young and the easily impressed - like Santa Claus. Or Kevin Pietersen.
Consider for a minute, a broader definition. 
Take Bhutan, the tiny Himalayan Kingdom that many years ago adopted a Gross National Happiness index (http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/), as an alternative approach to measuring the country's prosperity.
The index is built on the idea that wellbeing, and the physical, spiritual and environmental health of the nation are a better measure of wealth than bog-standard GDP.
To many, including the UN, the idea seems a more sophisticated,  grown-up, and dare I use the word, holistic, approach.
Bhutan is taking a similarly advanced approach to dealing with climate change.
In this strongly Buddhist country, where up to three-quarters of the population follow the religion, it's all about breathing in.
The law mandates that 60% of the territory must be covered in forest. Right now over 70% is under trees, the prime minister tells me. 
So great are the forests, according to that Tshering Tobgay, that the country absorbs far more carbon than its 750,000 population can produce.
Even on a business-as-usual approach the country will still be carbon negative in 2040.


As well as inhaling all that CO2, the Bhutanese are pushing out large amounts of electricity to India, generated by hydropower (http://www.bhsl.bt/) from their fast flowing rivers.
The prime minister says that their waters hold the potential to offset 100 million tonnes of Indian emissions every year. That's around a fifth of Britain's current annual outpourings (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/26/britain-carbon-emissions-idUSL6N0WS32U20150326).
It's a bold statement from a country that ranks 166th out of 190 in World Bank wealth rankings.
Like all developing nations, there is enormous pressure to grow and increase incomes.
But the rush to improve the country's economy is unlikely to disrupt the silent practices of meditative monks - Bhutan is abuzz with electric cars, a form of transport that the government is keen to encourage.
"In Bhutan the distances are short, electricity is very cheap and because of the mountains you can't drive exceedingly fast, so all these combined to provide us with the opportunity for the investment, " Tshering Tobgay told me.
"We see ourselves on the one hand being able to use electric cars for our own purposes, to protect our environment,  to improve our economy, but also to show in a small measure that sustainable transport works and that electric vehicles are a reality."
The government's plans envisage the capital city Thimpu, as a "clean-electric" city with green taxis for its 100,000 citizens - Bold plans for a city that at present doesn't have any traffic lights!
The country's approach to climate change has seen it declared a "role model" by Climate Action Tracker (http://climateactiontracker.org/), an independent analysis group comprising four research institutes.
They are keeping a close eye on what's being pledged ahead of the Paris climate meeting later this year, where negotiators are expected to finally agree a new global treaty to tackle the issue.
Even though Bhutan is yet to submit a national plan for the period beyond 2020, its current intentions are seen as world beating.
And according to Dr Marcia Rocha, it's not just a question of Bhutan being spectacularly endowed with natural advantages.
"I think they are a country that culturally are very connected to nature, in every document that they submit it's there, it's just a very important focus of their politics," she told me.
However the modest Bhutanese PM rejects the idea that his country is the leader of the climate pack.
"I feel that calling Bhutan a role model is not appropriate, every country has their own sets of challenges and their own sets opportunities - Paris has to be about individual countries balancing their opportunities and constraints."
With the latest round of UN negotiations underway (http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/strong-early-flow-of-national-climate-plans-bodes-well-for-positive-paris-outcome/) this week, let's hope this self-effacing, zen-like approach prevails as the serious political horse trading begins - but I won't be holding my breath.
Follow Matt on Twitter @mattmcgrathbbc

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 11-09-2015, 09:24:19
Često na ovom topiku kažemo kako je nepošteno da današnje bogate i razvijene post/industrijske nacije pridikuju nacijama čija industrija tek sada cveta i donosi im razvoj, kako treba da iskuliraju sa fosilnim gorivima i misle na opstanak planete jer, jasno je, te razvijene i bogate nacije su se i razvile & obogatile na ime momačkog korišćenja fosilnih goriva u svojim industrijskim istorijama. Naš pravedni gnev bi bio samo još lepši kada bismo nekako mogli da kvantifikujemo koliko nam te jebene Amerike i druge zemlje duguju zato što su upropastile ekosferu. Kladim se da bi se taj iznos merio, recimo, trilijunima dolara.


The US owes the world $4 trillion for trashing the climate (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-us-owes-the-world-4-trillion-for-trashing-the-climate)



Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 20-09-2015, 07:03:09
Zvuči suludo ali možda upali:
 
 Making Liquid Fuels From Sun And Air (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/09/16/making-liquid-fuels-from-sun-and-air/)
 
 
Quote

Liquid fuel powering internal combustion engines is inherently inefficient.  This is because innumerable explosions causing kinetic work to be done also makes piles of heat, and for other reasons.  The same amount of energy put into an electric motor and an internal combustion motor produce more usable work for the former than the latter. Also, electric motors can operate at similar efficiencies across a range of speeds, while internal combustion motors require more messing around to change speeds.  And then there is torque.  Torque is apparently at the center of coolness for many vehicle aficionados.  If you can get your hot car or motorcycle to go from zero to fast in a second or two, that is considered cool, even if it has almost no day to day applications.  An electric motor has that ability out of the box, an internal combustion motor has to be a super motor to do that well.
 
Also, liquid fuels spill and smell bad and can explode, and all that. On the other hand, electricity has its limitation too.  In the long run, we probably need to change most of our moving things, vehicles, planes, etc. over to mostly electric (with energy recovery from brakes, etc.).  But liquid fuel will still be important in certain applications. Mission critical backup generators that you hardly ever need but are life or death are probably best run on liquid fuels stored long term, like at the South Pole research station or in any hospital.  We probably will eventually see electric airplanes, but for long time we are probably going to have to put liquid fuel in flying machines. So, in order to not destroy the essential yet merely good enough in pursuit of an unrealistic simplistic perfection of some sort, we need to keep liquid fuels on the table. But, having said that, we need to entirely stop using fossil petroleum based liquid fuels and switch entirely to non-fossil molecules. 
 
One way to do that is to simulate the production of burnable liquids (as nature does) in machines, using non fossil based raw materials. Obviously biodiesel and ethanol are example of this, but these fuel sources have a serious limitation.  They take up agricultural resources, and over the next few decades we are likely to hit a ceiling in our agricultural productivity.  There are a lot of ways to address that problem, and one of the key ways on the table right now is to not convert much more agricultural land to ethanol or diesel production.
 
So what about a machine that takes sunlight, CO2 from the atmosphere, and some water and produces a burnable liquid?
 
The current issue of Science has a writeup on recent research in this area.  I’m fairly certain it is not behind a paywall, and can read it yourself:   Tailpipe to tank by Robert F. Service (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6253/1158.full).
 
The writeup talks about multiple alternative research projects that are approaching this problem with various difficulties and various levels of success.  This is all very early research but it is all very promising.
 
The task essentially boils down to running combustion in reverse, injecting energy from the sun or other renewables into chemical bonds. “It’s a very challenging problem, because it’s always an uphill battle,” says John Keith, a chemist at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. It’s what plants do, of course, to make the sugars they need to grow. But plants convert only about 1% of the energy that hits them into chemical energy. To power our industrial society, researchers need to do far better. Keith likens the challenge to putting a man on the moon.

The basic method seems to be about the same in all cases. You take a CO2 molecule and convert it to CO by knocking off one Oxygen atom, then combine the CO with H2) to produce “syngas” which can be converted to methanol (a kind of alcohol) which can then be converted into a variety of products.  A similar process in widespread use uses fossil methane as a base molecule instead of atmospheric CO2. 
 
A paper about to be published in Advanced Science details a process that uses CO and H2 and photovoltaic generated electricity.
 
It focuses a broad swath of sunlight onto a semiconductor panel that converts 38% of the incoming energy into electricity at a high voltage. The electricity is shunted to electrodes in two electrochemical cells: one that splits water molecules and another that splits CO2. Meanwhile, much of the remaining energy in the sunlight is captured as heat and used to preheat the two cells to hundreds of degrees, a step that lowers the amount of electricity needed to split water and CO2 molecules by roughly 25%. In the end, Licht says, as much as 50% of the incoming solar energy can be converted into chemical bonds.

This and other methods of making a sun, water, and air based liquid fuel would at least initially be expensive. But who cares? If we convert most of our energy to motion machinery to electric, we won’t need that much, and the remaining uses will be relatively specialized. So what if a hospital has to pay $10.00 a gallon to have a thousand gallons of fuel for use as a backup source of energy to run generators during emergencies?  That would be a tiny fraction of the cost of running a hospital.  A tiny fraction of a fraction. 
 
And, it need not be super expensive. There is not a rare substance that must be mined from third world war torn client states, or taken away from some other critical use, involved. Go read the original writ-up for a lot more detail on various processes and their potential (and potential costs).
 
I want to make this point: This is not a way of forestalling climate change by removing CO2 from the air. It would remove CO2, but the amount of CO2 humans have added is huge, and the use of sun/air/water liquid fuels would be small, and their use would return the CO2 to the air.  So this is not carbon capture.
 
Also, this. An industry that produces a synthetic liquid fuel can preferentially use a peak energy. I think we need to explore this idea more.  For example, imagine collecting piles of recycled aluminum at a plant that uses great amounts of electricity to melt it down and turn it into ingots for industrial use.  The entire plant could be designed to operate on demand and only now and then, when there happens to be piles of extra electricity in a clean-energy rich energy ecosystem, perhaps because it is sunny and windy and other demands happen to be low. The employment structure of the plant would also be designed to do this, drawing on-call workers off of other activities to run the plant.  This would essentially amount to carrying out a high energy demand industrial task with free energy.  Well, a sun/air/water liquid fuel system could work this way as well.  This idea has not gone un-thought:
 
…Paul Kenis, a solar fuels researcher at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, argues that the broad penetration of solar and wind power offers hope. Denmark, for example, already produces some 30% of its electricity from wind farms and is on pace to reach 50% by 2020. On a particularly blustery day in July, the nation’s wind turbines generated as much as 140% of the country’s electrical requirements. The excess was sent to its neighbors, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. But the oversupply added to utilities’ fears that in times of peak renewable power production, the value of electricity could fall to zero or even below, as producers would have to pay others to take it so as not to damage their grid.
That’s where solar fuel producers could stand to benefit, Kenis says: By absorbing that power and using it to make fuels and other commodities, they could essentially act as energy banks and perhaps earn some cash as well. For now, Kanan argues, it still makes the most economic sense simply to shunt excess renewable power into the grid, displacing fossil energy. But someday, if renewable power becomes widespread enough and the technology for making renewable fuels improves, we may be able to guzzle gas without guilt, knowing we are just burning sunlight.
 

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 27-09-2015, 07:06:42
A cleaner, greener way to store solar and wind energy (http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2015/09/cleaner-greener-way-store-solar-and-wind-energy) 
Quote
With the continuing rise of solar and wind power, the hunt is on for cheap batteries that are able to store large amounts of energy and deliver it when it’s dark and the wind is still. Last year researchers reported an advance on one potentially cheap, energy-packing battery. But it required toxic and caustic materials. Now, the same team has revised its chemistry, doing away with the noxious constituents—an advance that could make future such batteries far cheaper and simpler to build.
The new design is what’s known as a “flow battery,” which is usually far larger than your sleek lithium-ion cell or lead-acid car battery. Unlike conventional batteries, flow batteries don’t package all their battery components together. Rather, they separate the chemical power supply—a pair of liquids known as electrolytes—from the electrodes needed to tap that power. This design makes it easy to increase the battery’s energy storage capacity simply by increasing the amount of electrolytes stored in external tanks. That has many engineers eyeing these batteries as a way to store the overabundance of solar and wind power at periods of peak production for use at times when their production is off.
At the heart of flow batteries is a sandwich of electrodes, known as a stack, separated by an ion-conducting membrane. The electrolytes are pumped through the stack during charging and discharging. In most designs, when the battery is discharged to provide power, a positively charged electrode strips electrons from molecules in one electrolyte and sends them through a circuit to charge-accepting molecules in the second electrolyte. This process produces positively charged ions in the first electrolyte that travel through the membrane into the second electrolyte, where they balance the charges coming in from the electrons. When the battery is charged, the flow of electrolytes, electrons, and ions is reversed and electrons are dumped into the first electrolyte.
Last year, researchers led by Harvard University materials scientist Michael Aziz created a high-energy storage flow battery (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6182/352.summary?sid=e9ca8a28-9b81-4733-afb5-2ff41fcdb13a) that used organic compounds called quinones as the electron-storing components of one of its two electrolytes. The other, however, contained bromine, a toxic compound that also readily corrodes steel and other materials commonly used to contain the liquid electrolyte and pipe it around. That forced the Harvard team to contain it with expensive, corrosion-resistant materials, a solution too costly for most applications.
Aziz and his colleagues wondered whether there was a way to change the chemistry of their battery so that it wouldn’t need such caustic materials. Most batteries use electrolyte solutions that are either acidic or alkaline, as these are adept at ferrying electric charges from one side of the battery to the other, which is essential for a battery to both charge and discharge. In the team’s previous battery, both the quinone and bromine were dissolved in acidic solutions.
The Harvard team realized that a possible bromine replacement was a charge-carrying molecule called ferrocyanide, which sounds dangerous but is actually used as a food additive. Ferrocyanide, however, dissolves in alkaline solutions, not acidic ones. So Aziz and his colleagues tweaked the chemical structure of their quinone—ripping off a couple of sulfur groups and replacing them with pairs of hydrogen and oxygen atoms—in the end converting the compound into one that readily dissolves in an alkaline solution.
The scheme worked, and as the researchers report today in Science, the battery readily stores power with only components that are cheap, abundant, and nontoxic (http://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aab3033).
For now, Aziz notes the alkaline quinone battery stores only about two-thirds of the energy per volume as the previous acid-based version. But because it doesn’t require expensive materials to deal with bromine, it’s likely to be far cheaper to produce and friendlier to use. “This is chemistry I’d be happy to put in my basement,” Aziz says. And that may not be far off. A flow battery using the new quinones and ferrocyanide would likely only have to be the size of a couple of hot water tanks to store the energy produced by a conventional home rooftop solar array.
“The chemistry sounds great,” says David Keith, an energy expert at Harvard, who was not part of the current study. He notes that most homeowners and small businesses don’t yet need to use batteries as a backup for their renewable power supplies, because they are connected to the grid that can supply power when needed.
Aziz agrees, but adds that there are already niche applications where installing batteries makes financial sense. Many businesses, for example, are charged not only for the number of kilowatt hours of energy they use, but also the peak rate at which it is delivered, Aziz explains. That’s because businesses that use most of their power all at once have to have extra electrical power lines to deliver it all, and utilities charge them for it. By installing batteries, those businesses can use stored power to reduce the need for extra electrical connections, and thus reduce their costs. Such applications, Aziz predicts, are only going to grow. If so, cheap, nontoxic flow batteries could become a key part of our energy future.
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 27-09-2015, 12:03:41
Pitanje je kako se drži ovaj sistem u poređenju sa Tesla Powerwallom, mada ako te tečnosti mogu da se sintetizuju bez vađenja mnogo rude iz zemlje, onda to ima smisla i sa manjom efikasnošću od postojećih litijum-jonskih rešenja.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 09-10-2015, 10:39:35
Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/solar-wind-reach-a-big-renewables-turning-point-bnef)



Quote
It has never made less sense to build fossil fuel power plants.




Ima puno tabela i grafikona pa ne bih da lepim, kliknite na link.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 24-10-2015, 19:23:07
ups....sta sad?

http://bktvnews.com/kakav-sok-za-zemlju-globalno-zagrevanje-je-laz-eskimi-upozoravaju-pogledajte-sta-se-desava-sa-zemljom/ (http://bktvnews.com/kakav-sok-za-zemlju-globalno-zagrevanje-je-laz-eskimi-upozoravaju-pogledajte-sta-se-desava-sa-zemljom/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Dybuk on 24-10-2015, 19:42:26
Imam nekoliko pitanja. Pa ako neko moze da mi pojasni, jer nisam upucena a vidim da je u pitanju prakticno kontroverzna tema.


Zasto su ljudi koji ne veruju u globalno zagrevanje (sudeci po nekim stranim forumima) vernici i konzervativci?

Jesu li Bog i globalno zagrevanje dve suprostavljene pojave? Ako jesu. Zasto?

Ja primecujem da se klima drasticno promenila u poslednjih desetak godina. Je li to posledica globalnog zagrevanja i ako jeste, zasto neki ljudi tvrde da gz ne postoji kad klimatske promene osecaju na svojoj kozi?

Ako klimatske promene nisu posledica glob.zagrevanja, cega jesu? I kakve sve ovo veze ima s Bogom i religijom? (ups, duplo pitanje :lol:)

Hvala unapred, izvinjavam se ako su neka pitanja glupa ili suvisna.  :)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: džin tonik on 24-10-2015, 20:21:43
subjektivno zapazanje po usadjenim podsvjesnim predrasudama i nesvjesnoj agresiji spram tako stvorene iskrivljene slike prave vjere (krscanske, katolicke), uz nedostatak samorefleksije! :roll:
postoji bezbroj apela vatikana svim nacijama svijeta za poduzimanjem hitrih, efikasnih i pravednih mjera kontra uzroka i posljedica gz-a. i ne, to ne znaci apela za ucestalijim molitvama i pokrscivanjem nevjernika! iako mislim da tu grijese. ali ok. :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Dybuk on 24-10-2015, 20:26:20
Moguce da se ovo moje zapazanje ipak odnosi samo na Amerikance, a oni su posebna sorta :lol:

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: džin tonik on 24-10-2015, 21:58:04
bah, pojeo ih crnac kojem prija gz i sebicno-nemilosrdno rusi tradicionalnu zapadnjacku klimu svim sredstvima...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 24-10-2015, 22:00:05
Ljudi koji veruju u Sudnji dan žele u principu da se ta njihova verovanja obistine, jer valjda smatraju da su tako na pobedničkoj strani. Ako želiš da se Sudnji dan obistini onda ne želiš da ljudi spreče bilo šta što se dešava na globalnom nivou, jer pretpostavljam da veruju da ako se dešava na globalnom nivou onda je možda deo procesa kojim se dolazi do pomenutog Sudnjeg dana. Likovi nas namerno uvlače u krizu civilizacije, jer po njihovom računanju civilizacija mora u jednom trenutku i da se okonča, pa što ne već sad.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 25-10-2015, 09:28:15
Mac, ne razumem zašto sve stalno izokrećeš na religiju. Eto, meni ta eskimska priča deluje poznato, a ne patim zbog Biblije. Već par godina se cikloni i jake oluje pomeraju sve dublje u Evropu, a teški pacifički ka Meksiku. Tornada postaju češća istočno od Plejnsa, kao da im nije mesto u Oklahomi i Dorotinom Kanzasu. Pa mi ti sad reci da tu nema ničega.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 25-10-2015, 10:19:49
Verovatno ima nečega. Čega ima to za sad ne znamo. Možda se njihova ploča tamo pomerila dok niko nije gledao. Ja se nisam ni osvrtao na čitavu priču sa Eskimima. Nemam tu šta da ponudim, jer to je zaista misterija, duži dani i pomereno Sunce i zvezde. To treba istražiti, pa tek onda uvrstiti u neki narativ. Throw science at it.

Uostalom, šta je Uglyjev narativ ovde? Eskimima se pomerilo Sunce, znači ljudi nisu odgovorni za promenu klime, niti treba ikako da utiču na klimu, jer to je zaludan posao?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 25-10-2015, 10:38:51
Hajde, Mac, živi malo SF. Nismo, valjda, na ZS da pobijamo Uglijeve narative? Kao i Indijanci koji su pred jaku zimu sekli šumu za ogrev, tako se i Eskimima nešto "pomerilo". Nije ni teorija globalnog zagrevanja imperativ. Ajmo malo teorije zavere. Možda su Ameri nešto prčkali sa klimom. Nije zgodno živeti u zemlji gde na zapadu preti onaj rased, na jugu i istoku uragani, a po sredini se spajaju izlivi hladnog vazduha sa severa i topli sa Golfa i uzrokuju tornada. Pa sve malo pomerili. Oni vole da svoje nevolje podele sa drugima.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 25-10-2015, 10:57:00
Kontrola klime je vrhunski SF. Treba da poradimo na tome, i to brzo-brzo, da nam ne nestane pola flore i faune. Prvi korak: kontrola CO2 i metana na globalnom nivou. Ostali koraci: novi vidovi proizvodnje, skladištenja, transporta i potrošnje energije, popularizacija mini-atomskih centrala, kontrola rasta populacije, proizvodnja oblaka u Pacifiku, pravednija raspodela resursa (da smanjimo mogućnost fanaticima da nešto uprskaju). Eto, valjda je to dovoljno SF-a.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 25-10-2015, 11:40:17
To su teme za fentezi, a ne za SF. To nije imaginacija već reciklaža.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 25-10-2015, 12:42:03
Pih, mac, to što ti nazivaš, nekim naukama, ja komotno mogu da nazovem okultizmom, veštičarenjem, sektaštvom i na kraju satanizmom.
Nazivi koje koristim ti nisu moderni?
Žalosno, jer sve što si naveo je već imalo naziv u okultnome.

Ali sve na srtanu,vrh vrhova mi je tvoja ...pa i ne tvoja već tudja nauka koju fanatično slediš...
Kontrola Populacije!
Bog je rekao množite se, a danas samo čujem o prenaseljenosti?!?
Koga bre zajebavate?
I KO je taj, ko su ti koji će da odluče koliko i kakvih treba da nas ima?Pošalji ih prvo meni na testiranje....i retestisirizaciju ;)
Jade jadne, isti ste ko egipatski faraoni kad su robove bacali krokodilima, jer ih je bilo previše.
Tolko o tvojim naukama, humanosti,modernizmu i regeneresansi ;)...Ali da ste maaaaaalko proučavali nešto iz istorije,
shvatili bi ste da čak ni evolucija ne postoji, nego samo degradacija svega, ali to su više sfere kapiranja za tebe,
ne možeš ti to, a kamoli da kontrolišeš vreme....
hehehe,,,,kontrola vremena,,,jooooj dobar si......
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Dybuk on 25-10-2015, 13:04:36
Ugly, Bog reko mnozite se al nije racunao da ce se bas ovoliko namnoziti, u njegovo vreme bilo je malo opustenije :lol:

Scallop, nije mac okrenuo na religiju nego sam ja pitala o korelaciji izmedju verovanja u boga i negiranja klimatskih promena (gz)

Al sad ko da mi je jasnije, jer gz implicira da je ljudska aktivnost dovela do promene klime te da ljudi i emisija stetnih gasova, materija, nemilosrdno trosenje resursa i ostalo uticu na planetu i njen eventualni kraj, a ne Bog? Sto bi rekla Sajsi to je fashion no-no :)

Dobro verovatno se nesto menja i eksterno, ono, paralelno s tim sto ljudi rade prirodi/planeti.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 25-10-2015, 13:12:44
I ti ga, Ugli, drviš bez pokrića. Nisu valjale verske države, a ne valjaju ni bezverske. Svi bi da otmu, ubiju ili nešto drugo zverski. Nemaju vremena za dugoročno planiranje. Eto, Mac ima, ali ni to nikome ne odgovara.


@Dybuk, ako je Bog nešto rekao u vezi reprodukcije, moguće je, da je, iritiran, upotrebio onaj drugi glagol, a mi pogrešno preveli. xfrog
U promenama klime sigurno učesvuju i ljudi, sa onoliko glupih rešenja koje mogu da ispovrte, ali, kako bih ja rekao, po američkim ravnicama nekada su prdeli bizoni, a danas krave, pa smo sa gasovi na istom.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 25-10-2015, 13:25:10
Neće biti,Scallop,da drvenišem tek tako.Ja nigde ne pomenuh države, nego ti, a da si ikad imalo prelistao The Bajbl, vidio bi tamo kako se funkcioniše, i da može,ali pošto ti znaš i ono što nisi pročito ,verovatno tamo gde treba da pročitaš,ne bi verovao.

A što se tiče ovog ili onog vremena,to je pisano za sva vremena,tako da ne mogu da lupetam ko Dibuk...

Znate, sve se svodi na to, šta god mi radili, isto će biti...setim se Radovana Trećeg i njegove brane, planine i rudnika....
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 25-10-2015, 13:50:25
Šta ćeš, Ugli, ja ništa ne čitam.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Dybuk on 25-10-2015, 14:25:40
Quote from: Ugly MF
A što se tiče ovog ili onog vremena,to je pisano za sva vremena,tako da ne mogu da lupetam ko Dibuk...

Dybuk ne lupeta (opa, o sebi u 3.licu!!) Dybuk je sarkasticna.  :) Ok, nekad i lupetam al ne sad xfrog
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 25-10-2015, 14:31:14
Šta ćeš, Ugli, ja ništa ne čitam.
Pa gde si u mom gornjem postu pročitao da ja navodim države?
Ili narode....ili rase....
samo Ideologije,tj,religije.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 25-10-2015, 14:51:54
Čim si pomenuo Bibliju pomenuo si i narode i države i njihov odnos prema nevernicima. Religije su kao komunizam; kad bi bezgrešno funkcionisale sve bi bilo lepo i krasno. Međutim, religije su vrlo dobro sredstvo za poslušan narod, pa su sve države u istoriji koristile tu prednost. Da ti čitaš i procenjuješ ono šta čitaš i sam bi došao do istih zaključaka. Nema države koja se nije kešala uz religiju, ni religije da se nije keđala o državu. To je simbiotski odnos.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 25-10-2015, 15:25:17
religije su vrlo dobro sredstvo za poslušan narod,
Aha,ako ćemo tako,onda su sve države ukapirale da moraju da od svojih državnih poredaka naprave religije...
i kao nekada,ko kaže nešto protiv Boga, zgrešio je ,kamen!
Danas, ko kaže nešto protiv države i poretka, =Bigot!Homofob!Disident!Terorist!Antiglobalista!Zločinac!Nehuman!
Protiv abotrusa! Ne veruje u evoluciju! Lud! Ludačku košulju!

Dakle imamo dva izbora na ceeeeeloj planeti.Jedan kaže da sve zna šta je i kako je i kako treba,i kolko god se to nama ne svidjalo,tako je;Drugi kaže da ima teoriju kako bi trebalo,u nešto nije siguran,ali šta te briga,sve što ti se ne svidja,odbaci,i vidiš da je sve super!

Jesil' našao neki treći ,ja još nisam....priznajem....
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Dybuk on 25-10-2015, 15:30:12
Kad muskarci budu radjali decu imace pravo da iskazuju svoje stavove o abortusu. Do tad - njeno telo, njen izbor. Naravno, kontracepcija i planiranje porodice je bolja varijanta nego abortus kao kontraceptivni metod, ali jbg.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ukronija on 25-10-2015, 15:36:12
Kad muskarci budu radjali decu imace pravo da iskazuju svoje stavove o abortusu. Do tad - njeno telo, njen izbor. Naravno, kontracepcija i planiranje porodice je bolja varijanta nego abortus kao kontraceptivni metod, ali jbg.

 :| xcheers
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 25-10-2015, 15:37:30
Hteo sam nešto da odgovorim, ali neka se led otopi na polovima. :-x
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: džin tonik on 25-10-2015, 15:37:43
...njeno telo, njen izbor...

dobra!!!  xrofl
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ukronija on 25-10-2015, 15:39:34
dobra!!!  xrofl

ne dobra, već jedina istina.  :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Dybuk on 25-10-2015, 15:43:50
dobra!!!  xrofl

ne dobra, već jedina istina.  :lol:


Tako treba da bude. I bese dobro. Amin.  :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Linkin on 25-10-2015, 15:49:39
Naravno, kontracepcija i planiranje porodice je bolja varijanta nego abortus kao kontraceptivni metod, ali jbg.

A planira li riba abortus pre nego što će spavati s nekim tipom? Ono kad unapred zna da je to samo seks i neće biti ništa sem seksa, ali možd' da se omakne se, jbga...  :)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Dybuk on 25-10-2015, 15:57:58
Ne razumem, a i nisam vidovita :lol: Uopsteno. Ne, ne bih rekla da se abortus planira pre seksa.

Je l mislis na ono 'abortus kao metod kontracepcije'? To je izraz koji ne podrazumeva 'pravu' kontracepciju tj planiranje i preduzimanje zastite unapred vec se odnosi na neodgovoran i nemaran odnos prema...hmm odnosu koji rezultira trudnocom te se 'kontracepcija' sprovodi post festum. Izraz je pomalo sarkastican, dakle nije u pitanju regularan metod vec nesto skovano da opise trend koji sam gore pomenula.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 25-10-2015, 16:10:03
Hteo sam nešto da odgovorim, ali neka se led otopi na polovima. :-x

Pa toooooo....ali pre ce voda da ispari i da se osusimo ko sahara nego li da se podavimo....
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 25-10-2015, 16:19:19
To su mislili i oni što su se u stubove soli pretvarali, pa jedino Noje ispliva. :)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 25-10-2015, 17:41:15
Brinem se za vas. Ova priča o Inuitima i pomeranju Zemljine ose stara je skoro godinu dana (http://www.thebigwobble.org/2014/12/their-sky-has-changed-inuit-elders.html). Naravno, na Sagiti o tome može da se ima inteligentna rasprava ili da se ima suluda rasprava inspirisana žutom štampom. Inuiti javili NASI a NASA ignoriše. "Kakav šok!" "Globalno zagrevanje je laž!" Ozbiljno? Dakle, SVE opservatorije na svetu su plaćene od strane američkog industrijskog lobija koji lažima o antropogenom globalnom zagrevanju i ugljendioksidu koji ga uzrokuje pokušavaju da nateraju Kinu da smanji svoj industrijski rast, i ni jedna od njih ne javlja ono što su Inutiti zapazili kada tokom duge, dosadne polarne noći gledaju u nebo. Štajebreovo? Ona zvezda pre deset godina nije bila onde!!!!! Klimatske promene su dakle, zato što se Zemlja "pomerila", odnosno "zateturala" odnosno "nagnula prema severu".  WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
U odbranu ovih novinara, teorija o promeni položaja Zemljine ose i odnosnih klimatskih promena je solidno utemeljena već više od sto godina i nije samo proizvod žute štampe (videti, recimo ovo (http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/ice-ages-and-earths-wobble/)) a kažu da se zemljina osa recentno zaista dosta pomerila (videti ovo (http://www.technologyreview.com/view/415093/earths-chandler-wobble-changed-dramatically-in-2005/)) tako da ako se na stranu stave ove priče, sa svojom žutinom i senzacionalizmom, svakako treba videti čega tu ima. Milanković je i sam dosta pisao o ovome, na kraju krajeva i nije da se nauka ne bavi i ovim pitanjem.
 
Ali kako smo od naginjanja zemljine ose došli do abortusa, zaboga?
 
I da li zaista treba da se podseća da onog trenutka kada ograničiš pristup elektivnom abortusu, ne dobijaš više rođene dece nego više nebezbednih abortusa? Abortus se sprečava podukom o kontracepciji, ne restrikcijama.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 25-10-2015, 18:06:46
Pazi, znam ja da Zemlja mrda, ali to samo instument može da primeti, a ne tamo neki posmatrač prirode. 9 metara na Zemljinoj površini (podatak iz wiki članka) čini pomeraj od 9m/40,075km=2.2×10-7, što mu dođe nekih 0.3 sekundi (ono minut, stepen, sekunda). To čovek ne može da primeti, dakle to što su Inuiti primetili mora biti da je nešto drugo.

I, ako me google-fu nije prevario, priča potiče iz 2010. i dokumentarca Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change. Mada, pošto svi u dokumentarcu pričaju inuitski moguće je da je neko nalepio lažan prevod, i sad obmanjuje narod.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 25-10-2015, 18:24:52
Ama na ovaj ili onaj način,meni je ok zagrevanje,pa i ja sam se sećam kako sam provodio leta pre dvajs' godine a kako sad.....ili sam samo ja odrtavio.
Ja 'teo da sa postom o eskimosima poduprem teoriju, slažem se sa njom, iz svih uglova,,,,
,,,samo što čisto sumnjam da će ikakvo selektiranje ovoga ili onoga da nam uspomogne....
i da će šta god iko da isteoretiše, teško da će primeniti u praksi...

 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Dybuk on 25-10-2015, 20:28:12
Quote from: Meho Krljic
Ali kako smo od naginjanja zemljine ose došli do abortusa, zaboga?

Ah, kako inace dolazi do poslovicnog oftopicarenja na ovom forumu?  :lol: Spontano, pretpostavljam...sori za direjl, mada eto, srecom nije potrajalo, sve opet na mestu. Ili nagnuto ;)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-11-2015, 10:18:11
Climate change could have a significant impact on our economy (http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/climate-change-could-have-a-significant-impact-on-our-economy/)



Quote
Climate change may have many economic impacts, including loss of crops, changes in water supply, increased incidence of natural disaster, and spikes in health care costs related to infectious diseases and temperature-related illnesses. However, hard evidence about the effects of climate change on economic activity has been inconsistent.
A new paper published in Nature takes on the ambitious task of connecting micro- and macro-level estimates of climate costs. The study finds that climate change can be expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23 percent by the year 2100. This study is important because it solves a problem that has existed in prior models of climate change effects on economics: discrepancies between macro- and micro-level observations. This study presents the first evidence that economic activity in all regions is coupled in some way to global climate. The study also sets up a new empirical paradigm for modeling economic loss in response to climate change.
The study uses data from the years 1960 to 2010 to analyze what’s clearly a complex relationship between temperature and economic productivity. The authors’ analysis uses a novel approach to dealing with confounding variables, which allowed them to account for four important factors: (1) constant differences between countries, such as cultural differences, (2) common contemporaneous shocks, such as global price changes, (3) country-specific trends in growth rates, and (4) non-linear effects of annual average temperature and rainfall.
This modeling allowed them to examine whether country-specific deviations from growth trends were related to country-specific differences in temperature and precipitation trends, while accounting for any global shifts that would be experienced to affect all countries.
The main results from this analysis show that there is an overall non-linear pattern in the relationship between temperature and economic development. Instead of a linear relationship, the productivity rises steadily and slowly until it reaches a peak at the ideal average annual temperature for productivity (55 degrees Fahrenheit or 15 degrees Celsius). Then, past this peak ideal temperature, there is a very sharp and steady decline in productivity as temperatures continue to rise. This relationship is partially due to geographic effects, as most low-income countries are in warmer regions and therefore likely to suffer stronger effects from climate change. By contrast, richer and more industrialized countries tend to be in more temperate areas, so climate change will have a less severe effect on their economies.
This finding does bring an important historical question to mind: are wealthy countries wealthier because they’re in regions that are less susceptible to climate-related economic variability? Unfortunately, answering that question goes beyond the scope of this study, but it could be a compelling direction for future research.
The study suggests that overall economic productivity reaches its peak at an annual average temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit (or 15 degrees Celsius) and declines sharply at both higher and lower temperatures. It appears that this finding applies to all countries included in the study and has been constant since 1960, which suggests that it is applicable to all types of economic activities, including agricultural and industrial, and in all types of countries, including richer and poorer nations. However, the countries that exist closest to this ideal temperature for productivity tend to be more industrialized countries, which raises a question about the existence of a causal relationship for this finding. Did the ideal temperature allow these countries to become more productive, or did their high productivity bias the findings such that their average temperatures were found to be the most productive?
The most striking finding of the study, however, is that continued global warming will cause average global incomes to fall by approximately 23 percent by the year 2100. In addition, as global incomes fall, global income inequality will continue to widen. Scenarios in which climate change is limited don’t see similar decreases in global incomes.
The take home message of this article is that climate change has serious economic consequences, especially in lower-income countries, which are the most likely to suffer adverse economic consequences. If there’s one thing everyone responds to, it’s a hit to their wallets, and this study demonstrates that unless we take steps to rein in climate change, we’ll all be taking that hit in the later decades of this century.
Nature, 2015. DOI: 10.1038/nature15643 (http://dx.doi.org/:10.1038/nature15643) (About DOIs (http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/dois-and-their-discontents-1.ars)).
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 04-11-2015, 12:53:34
To ako ih ne zabrine ništa neće.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: džin tonik on 11-11-2015, 15:40:36
znate, bas nesto razmisljam, ima tu nesto; ono, kad te sredinom jedanaestog mjeseca nocu trgne iz sna podmukli napad komarca, a nisi u brazilu...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ukronija on 11-11-2015, 16:35:58
A na koga tacno mislis? :idea:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: džin tonik on 11-11-2015, 20:48:11
na komarca. aktivni komarac u nj sredinom 11. mj.
sad vec negdje brinem za dalmose, no zelja za povratkom panonskog mora jaca. :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ukronija on 11-11-2015, 21:15:04
Pa..da se vrati Panonsko more, ja bih prva stradala. :(
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: džin tonik on 11-11-2015, 21:28:24
hm, cek, sad kad kazes, nasao bih se tu negdje i ja. :cry:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 19-11-2015, 10:17:48
For d rekord, protekli Oktobar je i po NASA podacima i po podacima Japanske Meteorološke Agencije najtopliji otkad se beleže ovi podaci:




http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/11/16/nasa-reports-astonishing-uptick-in-surface-temperature/ (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/11/16/nasa-reports-astonishing-uptick-in-surface-temperature/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: džin tonik on 21-11-2015, 07:34:45
a tek studeni, em opet komarac, em pljusak, grmljavina.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Father Jape on 09-12-2015, 12:08:06
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-science-communication-failure-1.3345524 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-science-communication-failure-1.3345524)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: дејан on 09-12-2015, 12:21:56
‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed (http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/)

Quote
It is safe to predict that when 20,000 world leaders, officials, green activists and hangers-on convene in Paris next week for the 21st United Nations climate conference, one person you will not see much quotedis Professor Judith Curry. This is a pity. Her record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none, and in America she has become a public intellectual. But on this side of the Atlantic, apparently, she is too ‘challenging’. What is troubling about her pariah status is that her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is not derived from warped ideology, let alone funding by fossil-fuel firms, but from solid data and analysis.
Some consider her a heretic. According to Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a vociferous advocate of extreme measures to prevent a climatic Armageddon, she is ‘anti-science’. Curry isn’t fazed by the slur.
‘It’s unfortunate, but he calls anyone who doesn’t agree with him a denier,’ she tells me. ‘Inside the climate community there are a lot of people who don’t like what I’m doing. On the other hand, there is also a large, silent group who do like it. But the debate has become hard — especially in the US, because it’s become so polarised.’ Warming alarmists are fond of proclaiming how 97 per cent of scientists agree that the world is getting hotter, and human beings are to blame. They like to reduce the uncertainties of climate science and climate projections to Manichean simplicity. They have managed to eliminate doubt from what should be a nuanced debate about what to do.
Professor Curry, based at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, does not dispute for a moment that human-generated carbon dioxide warms the planet. But, she says, the evidence suggests this may be happening more slowly than the alarmists fear.
In the run-up to the Paris conference, said Curry, much ink has been spilled over whether the individual emissions pledges made so far by more than 150 countries — their ‘intentional nationally determined contributions’, to borrow the jargon — will be enough to stop the planet from crossing the ‘dangerous’ threshold of becoming 2°C hotter than in pre-industrial times. Much of the conference will consist of attempts to make these targets legally binding. This debate will be conducted on the basis that there is a known, mechanistic relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and how world average temperatures will rise.
Unfortunately, as Curry has shown, there isn’t. Any such projection is meaningless, unless it accounts for natural variability and gives a value for ‘climate sensitivity’ —i.e., how much hotter the world will get if the level of CO2 doubles. Until 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave a ‘best estimate’ of 3°C. But in its latest, 2013 report, the IPCC abandoned this, because the uncertainties are so great. Its ‘likely’ range is now vast — 1.5°C to 4.5°C.
This isn’t all. According to Curry, the claims being made by policymakers suggest they are still making new policy from the old, now discarded assumptions. Recent research suggests the climate sensitivity is significantly less than 3˚C. ‘There’s growing evidence that climate sensitivity is at the lower end of the spectrum, yet this has been totally ignored in the policy debate,’ Curry told me. ‘Even if the sensitivity is 2.5˚C, not 3˚C, that makes a substantial difference as to how fast we might get to a world that’s 2˚C warmer. A sensitivity of 2.5˚C makes it much less likely we will see 2˚C warming during the 21st century. There are so many uncertainties, but the policy people say the target is fixed. And if you question this, you will be slagged off as a denier.’
Curry added that her own work, conducted with the British independent scientist Nic Lewis, suggests that the sensitivity value may still lower, in which case the date when the world would be 2˚C warmer would be even further into the future. On the other hand, the inherent uncertainties of climate projection mean that values of 4˚C cannot be ruled out — but if that turns out to be the case, then the measures discussed at Paris and all the previous 20 UN climate conferences would be futile. In any event, ‘the economists and policymakers seem unaware of the large uncertainties in climate sensitivity’, despite its enormous implications.
Meanwhile, the obsessive focus on CO2 as the driver of climate change means other research on natural climate variability is being neglected. For example, solar experts believe we could be heading towards a ‘grand solar minimum’ — a reduction in solar output (and, ergo, a period of global cooling) similar to that which once saw ice fairs on the Thames. ‘The work to establish the solar-climate connection is lagging.’
Curry’s independence has cost her dear. She began to be reviled after the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, when leaked emails revealed that some scientists were fighting to suppress sceptical views. ‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with sceptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead I was tossed out of the tribe. There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do. Since then, I’ve stopped judging my career by these metrics. I’m doing what I do to stand up for science and to do the right thing.’
She remains optimistic that science will recover its equilibrium, and that the quasi-McCarthyite tide will recede: ‘I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased all that much. Maybe then there will be the funding to do the kind of research on natural variability that we need, to get the climate community motivated to look at things like the solar-climate connection.’ She even hopes that rational argument will find a place in the UN: ‘Maybe, too, there will be a closer interaction between the scientists, the economists and policymakers. Wouldn’t that be great?’
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 12-12-2015, 23:33:25
Da vidimo  kako se završio klimacki samit u Parizu:
 
With landmark climate accord, world marks turn from fossil fuels (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-idUSKBN0TV04L20151212)
Quote
 
The global climate summit in Paris agreed a landmark accord on Saturday, setting the course for a historic transformation of the world's fossil fuel-driven economy within decades in a bid to arrest global warming.
 After four years of fraught U.N. talks often pitting the interests of rich nations against poor, imperiled island states against rising economic powerhouses, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared the pact adopted to the standing applause and whistles of delegates from almost 200 nations."With a small hammer you can achieve great things," Fabius said as he gaveled the agreement, capping two weeks of tense negotiations at the summit on the outskirts of Paris.Hailed as the first truly global climate deal, committing both rich and poor nations to reining in rising emissions blamed for warming the planet, it sets out a sweeping long-term goal of eliminating net man-made greenhouse gas output this century."It is a victory for all of the planet and for future generations," said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who led the U.S. negotiations in Paris."We have set a course here. The world has come together around an agreement that will empower us to chart a new path for our planet, a smart and responsible path, a sustainable path."It also creates a system to encourage nations to step up voluntary domestic efforts to curb emissions, and provides billions more dollars to help poor nations cope with the transition to a greener economy powered by renewable energy.Calling it "ambitious and balanced", Fabius said the accord would mark a "historic turning point" in efforts to avert the potentially disastrous consequences of an overheated planet.The final agreement was essentially unchanged from a draft unveiled earlier in the day, including a more ambitious objective of restraining the rise in temperatures to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, a mark scientists fear could be a tipping point for the climate. Previously, the goal on temperature rise was set at 2 degrees Celsius in 2010.In some ways its success was assured before the summit began: 187 nations have submitted detailed national plans for how they will contain the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, commitments that are the core of the Paris deal.While leaving each country to pursue those measures on its own, the agreement finally sets a common vision and course of action after years of bickering over how to move forward. Officials hope a unified stance will be a powerful symbol for world citizens and a potent signal to the executives and investors they're counting on to spend trillions of dollars to replace coal-fired power with solar panels and windmills."This agreement establishes a clear path to decarbonize the global economy within the lifetimes of many people alive today," said Paul Polman, the CEO of consumer goods maker Unilever and a leading advocate for sustainable business practices.It will "drive real change in the real economy".TOO MUCH, OR NOT ENOUGH?While some climate change activists and U.S. Republicans will likely find fault with the accord - either for failing to take sufficiently drastic action, or for overreacting to an uncertain threat - many of the estimated 30,000 officials, academics and campaigners who set up camp on the outskirts of Paris say they see it as a long overdue turning point.Six years after the previous climate summit in Copenhagen ended in failure and acrimony, the Paris pact appears to have rebuilt much of the trust required for a concerted global effort to combat climate change, delegates say."Whereas we left Copenhagen scared of what comes next, we'll leave Paris inspired to keep fighting," said David Turnbull, Director at Oil Change International, a research and advocacy organization opposed to fossil fuel production.Most climate activists reacted positively, encouraged by long-term targets that were more ambitious than they expected, while warning it was only the first step of many."Today we celebrate, tomorrow we have to work," European Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said.From the outset, some have criticized the deal for setting too low a bar for success. Scientists warn that the envisaged national emissions cuts will not be enough to keep warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit).Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the last major climate deal agreed in 1997, the Paris pact will also not be a fully legally binding treaty, something that would almost certainly fail to pass the U.S. Congress. 

 
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: дејан on 18-12-2015, 13:01:14
ево и првих акција после сјајног хепенинга у паризу! британска влада је одлучном акцијом подржала напоре свих 40000 учесника (од којих неки нису слетели на оближњи аеродром) климатског самита у ле буржеу смањењем субвенција за соларне плоче за 65%!
 (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2015/dec/17/uk-cuts-renewable-energy-make-a-mockery-of-its-pledge-paris-climate-talks)
Quote

UK cuts to renewable energy make a mockery of its pledge at Paris climate talks
The Tory party’s cuts to clean energy subsidies won’t save consumers more than a few pounds a year – but will cost the industry, and the climate, dearly

“My priority is to ensure energy bills for hardworking families and businesses are kept as low as possible,” said energy and climate change secretary Amber Rudd, announcing sweeping cuts to renewable energy subsidies on Thursday.
Yet this rationale crumbles to dust under the slightest scrutiny. The nations’s most popular energy technology, solar power, adds just a few pounds a year to energy bills. The best cost-saving measure - energy efficiency - has had its support slashed by Rudd and the Conservative party has forgone the cheapest of all low-carbon energy, onshore wind.
Coming just five days after a global agreement on climate change was signed in Paris, which Rudd attended and said was ”vital for our long-term economic and global security”, the government was under heavy pressure to row back on its proposed 87% cut to subsidies for solar panels on homes.
It did, reducing the cut to 65%. But it has also imposed a cap on the total subsidy paid out, meaning the rate of domestic solar installations is set to halve, according to the Solar Trade Association. Larger solar installations (more than 1MW) on roofs and in solar parks have had their support cut by 85% and 71% respectively, meaning the market for the most cost-effective projects is all but dead.
All this while the global solar market soars and while the UK solar industry had already said it wanted to be off subsidies by 2020. These cuts are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It makes a mockery of prime minister David Cameron’s speech to the Paris climate summit: “Instead of making excuses tomorrow to our children and grandchildren, we should be taking action against climate change today.”
Rudd said on Thursday: “We have to get the balance right and I am clear that subsidies should be temporary, not part of a permanent business model. When the cost of technologies come down, so should the consumer-funded support.”
Yet this only applies to renewable energy. Nuclear power, whose cost never comes down, will enjoy 35 years of bill payer subsidies to support Hinkley Point, the most expensive power station ever built.
Fossil fuels enjoy £27bn a year in subsidies in the UK, according to the IMF, £425 for every man, woman and child in the country. Are these coming down? No, the UK is the only G7 nation increasing fossil fuel subsidies.
What about carbon capture and storage (CCS), the technology deemed vital to tackling global warming by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? The UK government’s own advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, warn that without CSS the costs of meeting carbon targets will double.
But at the last moment, the government reneged on its manifesto commitment and last month abandoned a £1bn competition for demonstration plants. Does that sound like “ensuring energy bills for hardworking families and businesses are kept as low as possible” or “taking action against climate change today”?
Action is certainly being taken on shale gas, with measures to allow fracking under protected areas pushed through on Wednesday. Rudd signalled a new dash for gas power stations just a month ago. Nick Mabey, from the thinktank E3G, summed this up pithily: “The government replaces domestic renewables and efficiency with imported gas, then proposes shale to solve the [energy] security problem. Mad.”
In May, Rudd said: “I want to unleash a new solar revolution – we have a million people living under roofs with solar panels and that number needs to increase.”
When the renewable energy industry has friends like Rudd, who needs enemies?
But enemies there are, principally George Osborne, the driving force behind the barrage of anti-green moves since May’s election.
Matthew Spencer, at the Green Alliance, has wise advice for the chancellor: “Unlike budget announcements, successful infrastructure policy can’t be made tactically; if Osborne does eventually become prime minister, he risks inheriting an energy policy mess he has created, and will find that the remaining policy levers in his hands don’t produce quick results ... He’d better not leave it too late to get on the right side of the [climate] argument.”
тако се то ради у цивилизованом свету (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/17/uk-solar-panel-subsidies-slashed-paris-climate-change)
Quote
The government has decided to cut subsidies to householders installing rooftop solar panels by 65% just days after agreeing to move swiftly to a low-carbon energy future at the climate change conference in Paris.
An impact assessment study by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) admits the move could wipe out up to 18,700 of the industry’s 32,000 jobs.
A second subsidy scheme known as the renewables obligation has also been cut for small-scale and large projects angering both the solar industry and environmentalists, who dismissed the moves as “huge and misguided”.
The government argues it needs to protect wider energy bills from the rising impact of renewable energy subsidies and that this justifies paying rooftop solar installers 4.39p per kilowatt hour from February instead of the existing 12.47p.
The new figure means Amber Rudd, the energy and climate change secretary, has rowed back from an original proposal to slash subsidies by 87% to 1.63p after a storm of criticism.
“My priority is to ensure energy bills for hardworking families and businesses are kept as low as possible whilst ensuring there is a sensible level of support for low carbon technologies that represent value for money,” she said.
“We have to get the balance right and I am clear that subsidies should be temporary, not part of a permanent business model. When the cost of technologies come down, so should the consumer-funded support.”
The government said there would be a £100m cap on spending by 2019.
The shadow energy and climate secretary, Lisa Nandy, said the solar cuts were misguided, especially after ministers had just forked out £175m to diesel farm developers.
“These short-sighted cuts will place big limits on our solar industry and lead to thousands of job losses. These cuts stand in stark contrast to the generous handouts ministers recently announced to dirty diesel generators. At a time when energy bills are a big concern it makes no sense to limit one of the cheapest forms of clean energy.”
Friends of the Earth said it was disappointing that less than a week after the UK government agreed a deal in Paris to keep global temperature rises to well below 2 degrees, the government had shown its true colours – “and they’re certainly not green”.
Alasdair Cameron, FoE’s renewable energy campaigner, said: “These huge, misguided cuts to UK solar are a massive blow for jobs and the economy, and further undermine the government’s already tarnished credibility on tackling climate change.”
The Solar Trade Association had warned that more than 6,000 jobs have been lost, with solar installers such as the Mark Group closing down ahead of likely cuts.
Greenpeace said the government was moving in the wrong direction. “Bowing to pressure from the public and businesses, the government has swapped a blunt axe for a sharp scalpel, but it’s still cutting in the wrong place,” said Barbara Stoll.
“In just one month, one nuclear plant at Hinkley would swallow up four years’ worth of subsidies for the whole solar sector. Why are ministers signing a blank cheque for expensive, outdated nuclear power while pinching pennies for an energy source on the cusp of a massive investment boom? This makes no economic sense and will only put up bills in the long run.
“With costs falling, demand rising, and post-Paris momentum growing, the UK solar sector will see off the government’s attacks. The question is how many more jobs, investments, and business opportunities are we wasting because of George Osborne’s incoherent policies.
“If the government is as committed as it claims to be to the Paris climate deal, then solar is one of the cheapest and safest ways for the UK to deliver on it.”
Paul Barwell, chief executive of the Solar Trade Association, said he was particularly concerned the government was cutting the “grandfathering” commitment from the renewables Obligation, which ensures that any subsidy levels are protected for the lifetime of a project.
“Closing the renewables obligation for solar is not in the interests of billpayers when solar is soon to become the cheapest low-carbon energy source. Following the Paris agreement, this needs rethinking.
“Removing the grandfathering guarantee makes no sense for solar – it’s the thin end of the wedge. If you invest £1m of capital into a solar project today, in 20 years’ time you have still invested £1m – it is a sunk cost. You cannot have the level of support changing over the lifetime of a project as investors won’t take the risk.”
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Father Jape on 26-12-2015, 15:38:27
http://www.knowable.com/a/arnold-schwarzenegger-just-blew-everyone-away-with-this-post-on-fb-wow (http://www.knowable.com/a/arnold-schwarzenegger-just-blew-everyone-away-with-this-post-on-fb-wow)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 17-02-2016, 07:19:26
Last January Was the Hottest Global Temperature Anomaly of Any Month on Record (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/january-hottest-month-anomaly-recorded-history)
 
Quote

NASA has released its global temperature data for January 2016 (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt), and, once again, the record for the hottest month in recorded history has been shattered. At a time when these kinds of records (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/getting-warmer) are broken with some regularity (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/this-is-the-worst-hottest-year-ever-ever), it takes a particularly scorching month to raise eyebrows in the climate science community. It has to be the hottest hottest month by a pretty hot margin.
Sure enough, last January did the trick: It was 1.13˚ C warmer than the global average of 1951-1980 (the benchmark NASA uses to measure warming trends)—in other words, a full 2˚F warmer than pre-1980 levels.
In fact, January 2016 was a full 0.3˚ C hotter than January 2015. That, as Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of physics at Potsdam University, points out (https://twitter.com/rahmstorf), makes for not only the hottest January, but the “biggest increase over previous record and hottest anomaly for any month ever.”
Regional heat anomalies appear most acute in parts of Asia, particularly, it appears, the Caucasuses, and the Arctic—Canada, Russia, and Alaska were abnormally hot—and parts of the North Pole hit close to 32˚F and risked thawing in early January. “For the Arctic this is definitely the strangest winter I’ve ever seen," Mark Serreze, the director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, told climate reporter Andrew Freedman (http://mashable.com/2016/02/05/arctic-sea-ice-hits-record-low-for-january/#0apIQLbbGiqg).
Plenty of other regions were far hotter than average, too, however—southern Europe and Saharan Africa were scorched, as were the northwestern nations in South America.
January NASA data: hottest January, biggest increase over previous record and hottest anomaly for any month ever.
pic.twitter.com/W517iYwuja (https://t.co/W517iYwuja)
— Stefan Rahmstorf (@rahmstorf) February 15, 2016 (https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/699142725749207040)
NASA isn’t alone in declaring January the hottest yet by a remarkable factor, either. Even two of the nation’s most notorious climate change skeptics, John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, declared January 2016 “the warmest first month of the year since satellite data began to be reported in 1978,” according to Reason (http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/05/hottest-january-in-satellite-temperature), which reported on the duo’s satellite findings. “January's global average temperature was +0.54 degrees Celsius above the 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.”
So, last month was an especially hot one during what is by far the hottest period in recent human history.
January--that's the far right--was the hottest month ever measured on our planet
pic.twitter.com/Gngl45gmld (https://t.co/Gngl45gmld)
— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) February 15, 2016 (https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/699227404825403393) 2015 was the hottest year ever recorded by a large margin (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/2015-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-by-a-huge-margin). 2015 was alarmingly hot, but 2016 may already be on track to surpass it.
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 25-02-2016, 10:18:18
Nivo mora raste brže nego ikada u poslednjih 2800 godina veli nova studija. Studija je čitava dostupna ovde:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1517056113 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1517056113)


A evo i dajdžesta za nas nedostojne hardkor nauke:



Sea levels are rising faster than they have in 2,800 years (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/sea-level-rise-1.2951884)


Quote
Sea levels on Earth are rising several times faster than they have in the past 2,800 years and are accelerating because of human-caused global warming, according to new studies.


Robin Edwards and Benjamin Horton coring a salt marsh in Newfoundland, Canada, to retrieve a record of sea level for the past 2,000 years. (Ben Horton)
An international team of scientists dug into two dozen locations across the globe, including a salt marsh and coastal wetland in Newfoundland, to chart gently rising and falling seas over centuries and millennia. Until the 1880s and the world's industrialization, the fastest seas rose was about three to four centimetres (1 to 1.5 inches) a century, plus or minus a bit. During that time global sea level really didn't get much higher or lower than eight centimetres (three inches)  above or below the 2,000-year average.
But in the 20th century the world's seas rose 14 centimetres (5.5 inches). Since 1993 the rate has soared to 30 centimetres (a foot) per century. And two different studies published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said by 2100 that the world's oceans will rise between 28 to 131 centimetres (11 to 52 inches), depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth's industries and vehicles expel.


"There's no question that the 20th century is the fastest," said Rutgers earth and planetary sciences professor Bob Kopp, lead author of the study that looked back at sea levels over the past 3,000 years (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1517056113). "It's because of the temperature increase in the 20th century which has been driven by fossil fuel use."
To figure out past sea levels and rates of rise and fall, scientists engaged in a "geological detective story," said study co-author Ben Horton, a Rutgers marine scientist. They went around the world looking at salt marshes and other coastal locations and used different clues to figure out what the sea level was at different times. They used single cell organisms that are sensitive to salinity, mangroves, coral, sediments and other clues in cores, Horton said. On top of that they checked their figures by easy markers such as the rise of lead with the start of the industrial age and isotopes only seen in the atomic age.
When Kopp and colleagues charted the sea level rise over the centuries — they went back 3,000 years, but aren't confident in the most distant 200 years — they saw Earth's sea level was on a downward trend until the industrial age.
Sea level rise in the 20th century is mostly man-made, the study authors said. A separate, not-yet-published study by Kopp and others found since 1950, about two-thirds of the U.S. nuisance coastal floods in 27 locales have the fingerprints of man-made warming.
And if seas continue to rise, as projected, another 45 centimetres (18 inches) of sea level rise is going to cause lots of problems and expense, especially with surge during storms, said study co-author Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
"There is such a tight relationship between sea level and temperature," Horton said. "I wish there wasn't, then we wouldn't be as worried."


An international team of scientists dug into two dozen locations across the globe, including this coastal wetland in Newfoundland, to chart gently rising and falling seas over centuries and millennia. (Ben Horton)
The link to temperature is basic science, the study's authors said. Warm water expands. Cold water contracts. The scientists pointed to specific past eras when temperatures and sea rose and fell together.
The Kopp study and a separate one published by another team projected future sea level rise (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1500515113) based on various techniques. They came to the same general estimates, despite using different methods, said Anders Levermann, a co-author of the second paper and a researcher at the Potsdam Institute.
If greenhouse gas pollution continues at the current pace, both studies project increases of about 57 to 131 centimetres (22 to 52 inches). If countries fulfil the treaty agreed upon last year in Paris and limit further warming to another 1 C (2 degrees Fahrenheit), sea level rise would be in the 28 to 56 centimetres (11 to 22 inch range).
Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona, who wasn't part of the studies, praised them, saying they show a clear cause and effect between warming and sea level rise.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 16-03-2016, 09:11:59
Science can now link climate change with some extreme weather events (http://m.phys.org/news/2016-03-attribution-extreme-weather-events-context.html)



Quote
Extreme weather events like floods, heat waves and droughts can devastate communities and populations worldwide. Recent scientific advances have enabled researchers to confidently say that the increased intensity and frequency of some, but not all, of these extreme weather events is influenced by human-induced climate change, according to an international National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report released today (March 11).
"In the past, many scientists have been cautious of attributing specific extreme weather events to climate change. People frequently ask questions such as, 'Did climate change cause Hurricane Sandy?' Science can't answer that because there are so many relevant factors for hurricanes. What this report is saying is that we can attribute an increased magnitude or frequency of some extreme weather events to climate change," said David Titley, professor of practice in Penn State's Department of Meteorology and founding director of Penn State's Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk, who chaired the committee that wrote the report.
The committee found that scientists can now confidently attribute some heat waves and cold events, and to a lesser degree droughts and extreme rainfall, to human-caused climate change. Even a decade ago, many scientists argued that research could not confidently tie any specific weather events to climate change, which the committee reports today is no longer true today.
"If we can actually understand how and why frequencies or magnitudes change of extreme events are changing, those are two components of risk. Understanding that risk is crucial for governments and businesses. For example, if you're managing a business, you may need to know whether there may be more droughts in the future because that may impact supply chain logistics and, ultimately, your bottom dollar," said Titley.
Scientific confidence for attributing extreme weather events is a three-legged stool, said Titley. To confidently link specific weather events to climate change, researchers need an understanding of the underlying physical causes of weather events, enough observational data to place a specific event within a historical context and the ability to replicate an event with computer models. For example, when examining hurricanes and typhoons, the lack of a high-quality, long-term historical record, uncertainty regarding the impact of climate change on storm frequency and inability to accurately simulate these storms in most global climate models raises significant challenges when attributing assessing the impact of climate change on any single storm.
Attributing the cause of extreme weather to climate change or other factors can "enhance scientists' ability to accurately predict and project future weather and climatic states," said Titley. Predicting both the frequency and intensity of extreme events—those that are rare in a location—could allow society to lessen their impact and potentially avoid loss of life and destruction.
The committee identified research priorities to further enhance the scientific community's ability to attribute specific extreme weather events to climate change. In addition to endorsing action on relevant items outlined by the World Climate Research Programme in 2014, the report recommends developing transparent community standards for attributing classes of extreme events, and formulating systematic criteria for selecting events to be studied. The committee also recommends that some future event attribution activities could be incorporated into an integrated weather-to-climate forecasting efforts on a broad range of timescales, with an ultimate goal of providing predictive risk-based forecasts of extreme events at lead times of days to seasons.
More information: The report (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21852/attribution-of-extreme-weather-events-in-the-context-of-climate-change), "Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change," was created by the NAS Committee on Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change Attribution.
Provided by: Pennsylvania State University
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-03-2016, 06:18:26
Climate Change Is Much Worse Than We Thought, According to the Scientist Who First Warned (http://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-much-worse-we-thought-according-scientist-who-first-warned-439614)
 
 
Quote

The rewards of being right about climate change are bittersweet. James Hansen should know this better than most—he warned of this whole thing (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html) before Congress in 1988, when he was director of NASA’s Institute for Space Studies. At the time, the world was experiencing its warmest five-month run since we started recording temperatures 130 years earlier. Hansen said, “It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.”
Fast forward 28 years and, while we’re hardly out of the Waffle House yet (http://grist.org/climate-energy/trump-says-nuclear-weapons-are-the-riskiest-kind-of-climate-change/), we know much more about climate change science. Hansen is still worried that the rest of us aren’t worried enough.
  Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week         
Last summer, prior to countries’ United Nations negotiations in Paris, Hansen and 16 collaborators authored a draft paper that suggested we could see at least 10 feet of sea-level rise in as few as 50 years. If that sounds alarming to you, it is (http://grist.org/climate-energy/james-hansens-new-climate-study-is-terrifying-but-he-still-has-hope/)—10 feet of sea-level rise is more than enough to effectively kick us out of even the most well-endowed coastal cities. Stitching together archaeological evidence of past climate change, current observations, and future-telling climate models, the authors suggested that even a small amount of global warming can rack up enormous consequences—and quickly.
However the paper, publicized before it had been through peer review, elicited a mix of shock and skepticism, with some journalists calling the news a “bombshell” (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html) but a number of scientists (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/a-rocky-first-review-for-a-climate-paper-warning-of-a-stormy-coastal-crisis/) urging deeper consideration (http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/james-hansen-sea-level-rise).
Now, the final version of the paper (https://app.box.com/s/i4u002tbpcvkamj9wq4n8t1u8wxsjhis) has been published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. It’s been reviewed and lightly edited, but its conclusions are still shocking—and still contentious.
So what’s the deal? The authors highlight several of the threats they believe we’ll face this century, including many feet of sea-level rise, a halting of major ocean circulatory currents, and an outbreak of super storms. These are the big threats we’ve been afraid of—and Hansen et al. say they could be here before we know it — well before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s sanctioned climate models predict.
Here we help you understand their new paper:Sea-level RiseThe scientists estimate that existing climate models aren’t accounting well enough for current ice loss off of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Right now, Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets both contribute under or near 1 millimeter to sea-level rise every year; they each contain enough stored ice to drive up ocean levels by 20 and 200 feet, respectively (https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html).
This study suggests that, since the rate of ice loss is increasing, we should think of it not as a straight line but as an exponential curve, doubling every few years. But how much time it takes to double makes a big difference. Right now, measurements of ice loss aren’t clear enough to even make a strong estimate about how long that period might be. Is it 10 years or is it 40? It’s hard to say based on the limited data we have now, which would make a big difference either way.
But then again, we don’t even know that ice loss is exponential. Ian Joughin—a University of Washington researcher unaffiliated with the paper and who has studied the tipping points of Antarctic glaciers (http://grist.org/article/the-west-antarctic-glaciers-are-breaking-up-with-us/)—put it this way (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X51BLD6LQEA): Think about the stock market in the ’80s. If you observed a couple years of accelerating growth, and decided that rate would double every 4 years—you’d have something like 56,000 points in the Dow Jones Industrial by now.
Or if stocks aren’t your thing, think about that other exponentially expanding force of nature: bacteria. Certain colonies of bacteria can double their population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_growth) in a matter of hours. Can they do this forever? No, or else we’d be nothing but bacteria right now (and while we’re certainly a high percentage of bacteria, there’s still room for a couple other things).
Nature tends to put limits on exponential growth, Joughin points out — and the same probably goes for ice loss: “There’s only so fast you can move ice out of an ice sheet,” Joughin explained. While some ice masses may be collapsing at an accelerating rate, others won’t be as volatile.
This means, while some parts of ice sheet collapse may very well proceed exponentially, we can’t expect such simple mathematics to model anything in the real world except the terror spike of the Kingda Ka (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emf0G8LN5bQ).Ocean TurnoverMmm mm, ocean turnover: Is it another word for a sushi roll or a fundamental process that keeps the climate relatively stable and moderate (http://grist.org/article/climate-change-will-destroy-the-planets-circulatory-system/)?
That’s right—we’re talking the Atlantic Meridonal Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, and other currents like it.
As cold meltwater flows off of glaciers and ice sheets at enormous rates, it pools at the ocean’s surface, trapping the denser but warmer saltwater beneath it. This can seriously mess with the moving parts of the ocean, the so-called “conveyor belts” that cycle deep nutrient-rich water to the surface. These slow currents are driven by large-scale climate processes, like wind, and drive others, like the carbon cycle. But they also rely on gradients in temperature and density to run; if too much cold water from the glaciers pools at the surface, the whole conveyor belt could stutter to a stop.
In the North Atlantic, this would mean waters get colder, while the tropics, denied their influx of colder water, would heat up precipitously. Hansen says we’re already seeing the beginnings of AMOC’s slowdown: There’s a spot of unusually cool water hanging out off of Greenland, while the U.S. East Coast continues to see warmer and warmer temperatures. Hansen said it plainly in a call with reporters: “I think this is the beginning of substantial slowdown of the AMOC.”SuperstormsPointing to giant hunks of rock that litter the shore of the Bahamas, among other evidence of ancient climates, the study’s authors suggest that past versions of Earth may have featured superstorms capable of casually tossing boulders like bored Olympians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/11/28/oceans/).
And as the temperature gradient between the tropic and the polar oceans gets steeper, thanks to that slowing of ocean-mixing currents, we could see stronger storms, too.
This is surprisingly intuitive: Picture a temperature gradient like a hill, with the high temperatures up at the top and the low temperatures down at the bottom. As the highs get higher and the lows get lower, that hill gets a lot steeper—and the storms are the bowling balls you chuck down the hill. A bowling ball will pick up a lot more speed on a steep hill, and hurt a lot more when it finally runs into something. Likewise, by the time these supercharged storms are slamming into coasts in the middle latitudes, they will be carrying a whole lot of deadly force with them.So What Does it all Mean?Whether other scientists quibble over these results or not—and they probably will—the overall message is hardly new. It’s bad, you guys. It might be really, truly, deeply bad, or it might be slightly less bad. Either way, says Hansen, what we know for sure is that it’s time to do something about it. “Among the top experts, there’s a pretty strong agreement that we’ve reached a point where this is truly urgent,” he said.
So Hansen is frustrated once more with the failure of humanity to respond adequately. The result he’d hoped for when he released an early version of the paper online last summer was to get world leaders to come together in Paris to agree on a global price on carbon. As he told Grist’s Ben Adler at the time (http://grist.org/climate-energy/james-hansens-new-climate-study-is-terrifying-but-he-still-has-hope/), “It’s going to happen.” (It didn’t happen, but some other stuff (https://grist.org/series/the-paris-climate-talks-yes-oui-can/) did (https://grist.org/climate-energy/green-groups-are-deeply-divided-on-whether-the-paris-agreement-is-a-win-or-loss/).)
Still, true urgency would require more of us than just slowing the growth of emissions—it requires stopping them altogether. In a paper published in 2013 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648), Hansen found that we have to cut 6 percent of our use of carbon-based fuels every year, if we want to avoid dangerous climate change.
Carbon prices and emissions cuts are more the purview of politicians and diplomats, but if anything, Hansen has shown he is unafraid to stray beyond the established protocol of academic science.
“I think scientists, who are trained to be objective, have something to offer by analyzing the problem all the way to the changes that are needed in order to address it,” he said on a press call. “That 6 percent reduction—that’s not advocacy, that’s science. And then I would advocate that we do that!”
And to pre-empt the haters, Hansen wants you to remember one thing. “Skepticism is the life blood of science. You can be sure that some scientists will find some aspects in our long paper that they will think of differently,” he said. “And that’s normal.”
So while scientists continue their debate over whether the ice sheets are poised to collapse in the next 50 years or the next 500, the prognosis is the same: The future is wetter, stranger, stormier unless we make serious moves to alternative energy sources now. Will we? Maybe. We’ve started but we still have a long, long way to go. If it’s a race between us and the ice sheets, neither I nor James Hansen nor anyone else can tell you for sure who will win.
Hey, no one said telling the future was easy.
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-03-2016, 09:23:52
Takođe i:



Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2681.html)



Abstrakt:

Quote
Carbon release rates from anthropogenic sources reached a record high of ~10 Pg C yr−1 in 2014. Geologic analogues from past transient climate changes could provide invaluable constraints on the response of the climate system to such perturbations, but only if the associated carbon release rates can be reliably reconstructed. The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is known at present to have the highest carbon release rates of the past 66 million years, but robust estimates of the initial rate and onset duration are hindered by uncertainties in age models. Here we introduce a new method to extract rates of change from a sedimentary record based on the relative timing of climate and carbon cycle changes, without the need for an age model. We apply this method to stable carbon and oxygen isotope records from the New Jersey shelf using time-series analysis and carbon cycle–climate modelling. We calculate that the initial carbon release during the onset of the PETM occurred over at least 4,000 years. This constrains the maximum sustained PETM carbon release rate to less than 1.1 Pg C yr−1. We conclude that, given currently available records, the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years. We suggest that such a ‘no-analogue’ state represents a fundamental challenge in constraining future climate projections. Also, future ecosystem disruptions are likely to exceed the relatively limited extinctions observed at the PETM.


Ostalo košta 32 dolara da se čita. Ali eo prepričano u Wpostu:



What we’re doing to the Earth has no parallel in 66 million years, scientists say (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/21/what-were-doing-to-the-earth-has-no-parallel-in-66-million-years-scientists-say/)


Quote
If you dig deep enough into the Earth’s climate change archives, you hear about the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. And then you get scared.
This is a time period, about 56 million years ago, when something mysterious happened (http://people.earth.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Pagani/1_2006%20Pagani_Science.pdf) — there are many ideas as to what — that suddenly caused concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to spike, far higher than they are right now. The planet proceeded to warm rapidly, at least in geologic terms, and major die-offs of some marine organisms followed due to strong acidification of the oceans (http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/zachos05sci_133124.pdf).
The cause of the PETM has been widely debated. Some think it was an explosion of carbon (http://people.earth.yale.edu/paleoceneeocene-thermal-maximum) from thawing Arctic permafrost. Some think there was a huge release of subsea methane (http://www.netl.doe.gov/kmd/cds/disk10/kennett.pdf) that somehow made its way to the atmosphere — and that the series of events might have been kickstarted by major volcanic eruptions.
  [We had all better hope these scientists are wrong about the planet’s future (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/22/we-had-all-better-hope-these-scientists-are-wrong-about-the-planets-future/)]
In any case, the result was a hothouse world from pole to pole, some 5 degrees Celsius warmer overall. But now, new research suggests, even the drama of the PETM falls short of our current period, in at least one key respect: We’re putting carbon into the atmosphere at an even faster rate than happened back then.
  This high-resolution animation shows carbon dioxide emitted from fires and megacities over a five day period in June 2006. The model is based on real emission data so that scientists can observe how the greenhouse gas behaves once it has been emitted. (Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center)  Such is the result of a new study (http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/ngeo2681) in Nature Geoscience, led by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and colleagues from the University of Bristol in the UK and the University of California-Riverside.
“If you look over the entire Cenozoic, the last 66 million years, the only event that we know of at the moment, that has a massive carbon release, and happens over a relatively short period of time, is the PETM,” says Zeebe. “We actually have to go back to relatively old periods, because in the more recent past, we don’t see anything comparable to what humans are currently doing.”
That’s why this time period is so crucial to study — as a possible window on our own.
There’s no doubt that a lot of carbon — about as much as contained the fossil fuel reserves that humans have either already burned, or could still burn, combined — made its way into the atmosphere during the PETM. The result was a major warming event that lasted over 100,000 years. But precisely how rapidly the emissions occurred is another matter.
“If anthropogenic emissions rates have no analogue in Earth’s recent history, then unforeseeable future responses of the climate system are possible,” the authors write.
To examine what happened in the PETM, the researchers used a deep ocean core of sediment from off the coast of New Jersey. The goal was to determine the ratios between different isotopes, or slightly different elemental forms, of carbon and oxygen, in the sediments during the PETM.
The relationship between the two lets researchers determine how atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, as reflected in the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/), in turn influenced temperatures (which can be inferred based on oxygen isotopes in the ocean (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/22/antarctica-could-be-more-vulnerable-to-major-melting-than-we-thought/)).
“In terms of these two systems, the first shows us when the carbon went into the system, and the second tells us when the climate responded,” says Zeebe.
It turns out that there is a lag time between massive pulses of carbon in the atmosphere and subsequent warming, because the oceans have a large thermal inertia. Therefore, a large lag would indicate a greater carbon release, whereas the lack of one actually means that carbon dioxide came out more slowly.
The geologic evidence from the new core did not show a lag, the new study reports. That means, the authors estimate, that while a gigantic volume of carbon entered the atmosphere during the PETM — between 2,000 and 4,500 billion tons — it played out over some 4,000 years. So only about 1 billion tons of carbon were emitted per year. In contrast, humans are now emitting about 10 billion tons annually — changing the planet much more rapidly.
“The anthropogenic release outpaces carbon release during the most extreme global warming event of the past 66 million years, by at least an order of magnitude,” writes Peter Stassen, an Earth and environmental scientist at KU Leuven, in Belgium, in an accompanying commentary on the new study.
The analogy between the PETM and the present, then, is less than perfect — and our own era may be worse in key ways. “The two main conclusions is that ocean acidification will be more severe, ecosystems may be hit harder because of the rate” of carbon release, says Zeebe.
And not only have we only begun to see the changes that will result from current warming, but there may be other changes that lack any ancient parallel, because of the current rate of change.
“Given that the current rate of carbon release is unprecedented throughout the Cenozoic, we have effectively entered an era of a no-analogue state, which represents a fundamental challenge to constraining future climate projections,” the study concludes.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 25-03-2016, 08:43:11
Rockefeller fund dumping fossil fuels, hits Exxon on climate issues (http://www.reuters.com/article/rockefeller-exxon-mobil-investments-idUSL2N16V14A)



Quote
The Rockefeller Family Fund said on Wednesday it will divest from fossil fuels as quickly as possible and "eliminate holdings" of Exxon Mobil, chiding the oil company for allegedly misleading the public about the threat of climate change.
The move by the U.S. based charity, which will also include coal and Canadian oil sands holdings, is especially notable because a century ago John D. Rockefeller Sr. made a fortune running Standard Oil, a precursor to Exxon Mobil.  Exxon did not immediately comment.




A i ovo:




China Is on an Epic Solar Power Binge (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601093/china-is-on-an-epic-solar-power-binge/)




Quote
It’s worth taking a minute to appreciate the sheer scale of what China is doing in solar right now. In 2015, the country added more than 15 gigawatts of new solar capacity, surpassing Germany as the world’s largest solar power market. China now has 43.2 gigawatts of solar capacity, compared with38.4 gigawatts in Germany and 27.8 in the United States.

According to new projections, it seems that trend is going to continue. Under its 13th Five Year Plan, China will nearly triple solar capacity by 2020, adding 15 to 20 gigawatts of solar capacity each year for the next five years, according to Nur Bekri, director of the National Energy Administration. That will bring the country’s installed solar power to more than 140 gigawatts. To put that in context, world solar capacity topped 200 gigawatts last year and is expected to reach 321 gigawatts by the end of 2016.

Of course, China is also the world’s largest carbon emitter, it burns more coal than any other nation, and its solar capacity is only a small fraction of its total energy portfolio. What’s more, capacity does not always equate to generation: the National Energy Administration estimates that nearly one-third of solar capacity in Gansu province, and more than one-quarter in Xinjiang, was idle last year.

China’s stated goal in adding such gargantuan amounts of solar is that it wants meet its targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases under the Paris climate accord. But that’s far from the whole story. China’s leaders are desperate to reduce the coal-fired air pollution that renders the air in big cities like Shanghai and Beijing virtually unbreathable.

And China’s massive solar panel manufacturing sector needs new markets for its products. Patrick Jobin, an analyst at Credit Suisse, said Monday that a solar panel glut could hit the sector this year as China’s top three producers, JA Solar, JinkoSolar, and Trina Solar, continue to ramp up production despite flattening international demand. “We believe solar manufactures face an exacerbated, oversupplied environment in 2016,” he wrote. So the central government’s bold plans could be a strategy for soaking up the excess supply.It’s worth taking a minute to appreciate the sheer scale of what China is doing in solar right now. In 2015, the country added more than 15 gigawatts of new solar capacity, surpassing Germany as the world’s largest solar power market (http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2442764/chinese-solar-capacity-outshone-germanys-in-2015). China now has 43.2 gigawatts of solar capacity, compared with38.4 gigawatts in Germany and 27.8 in the United States.
   According to new projections, it seems that trend is going to continue. Under its 13th Five Year Plan (https://www.e3g.org/library/china-accelerates-while-europe-deliberates-on-the-clean-energy-transition), China will nearly triple solar capacity by 2020, adding 15 to 20 gigawatts of solar capacity each year (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-21/china-to-more-than-triple-solar-power-capacity-in-five-years) for the next five years, according to Nur Bekri, director of the National Energy Administration. That will bring the country’s installed solar power to more than 140 gigawatts. To put that in context, world solar capacity topped 200 gigawatts last year and is expected to reach 321 gigawatts by the end of 2016 (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/gtm-research-global-solar-pv-installations-grew-34-in-2015).
Of course, China is also the world’s largest carbon emitter, it burns more coal than any other nation, and its solar capacity is only a small fraction of its total energy portfolio. What’s more, capacity does not always equate to generation: the National Energy Administration (http://en.ndrc.gov.cn/mfod/200812/t20081218_252224.html) estimates that nearly one-third of solar capacity in Gansu province, and more than one-quarter in Xinjiang, was idle last year.
China Is on an Epic Solar Power BingeChina Is on an Epic Solar Power Binge
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 31-03-2016, 04:54:10
Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/03/30/what-6-feet-of-sea-level-rise-looks-like-for-our-vulnerable-coastal-cities/)
Uprkos malo blicovskom naslovu, tekst je dovoljno ozbiljan a ne kopiram ga ovde jer ima dosta slika i grafikona.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 16-04-2016, 06:54:09
It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming  (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/13/its-settled-90100-of-climate-experts-agree-on-human-caused-global-warming)
 
Quote

All-star team with authors of seven previous climate consensus studies collaborate to debunk the ‘no consensus’ myth once and for all
 
 
 

 
Evo odmah i odgovora na to:
 
 
 
 
 Strangest Chart Ever Created? (http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/04/strangest-chart-ever-created/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 18-04-2016, 08:03:21
Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade, says new study (http://phys.org/news/2016-04-fossil-fuels-phased-worldwide-decade.html#jCp)



Quote
The worldwide reliance on burning fossil fuels to create energy could be phased out in a decade, according to an article published by a major energy think tank in the UK.

Professor Benjamin Sovacool, Director of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex, believes that the next great energy revolution could take place in a fraction of the time of major changes in the past.

But it would take a collaborative, interdisciplinary, multi-scalar effort to get there, he warns. And that effort must learn from the trials and tribulations from previous energy systems and technology transitions.

In a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy Research & Social Science, Professor Sovacool analyses energy transitions throughout history and argues that only looking towards the past can often paint an overly bleak and unnecessary picture.

Moving from wood to coal in Europe, for example, took between 96 and 160 years, whereas electricity took 47 to 69 years to enter into mainstream use.

But this time the future could be different, he says – the scarcity of resources, the threat of climate change and vastly improved technological learning and innovation could greatly accelerate a global shift to a cleaner energy future.

The study highlights numerous examples of speedier transitions that are often overlooked by analysts. For example, Ontario completed a shift away from coal between 2003 and 2014; a major household energy programme in Indonesia took just three years to move two-thirds of the population from kerosene stoves to LPG stoves; and France's nuclear power programme saw supply rocket from four per cent of the electricity supply market in 1970 to 40 per cent in 1982.

Each of these cases has in common strong government intervention coupled with shifts in consumer behaviour, often driven by incentives and pressure from stakeholders.

Professor Sovacool says: "The mainstream view of energy transitions as long, protracted affairs, often taking decades or centuries to occur, is not always supported by the evidence.

"Moving to a new, cleaner energy system would require significant shifts in technology, political regulations, tariffs and pricing regimes, and the behaviour of users and adopters.

"Left to evolve by itself – as it has largely been in the past – this can indeed take many decades. A lot of stars have to align all at once.

"But we have learnt a sufficient amount from previous transitions that I believe future transformations can happen much more rapidly."

In sum, although the study suggests that the historical record can be instructive in shaping our understanding of macro and micro energy transitions, it need not be predictive.

Explore further: Energiewende in the Alps: Switzerland's transition away from nuclear

More information: Benjamin K. Sovacool. How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions, Energy Research & Social Science (2016). DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.020


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-04-fossil-fuels-phased-worldwide-decade.html#jCp (http://phys.org/news/2016-04-fossil-fuels-phased-worldwide-decade.html#jCp)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 21-04-2016, 09:32:16
Solar is now cheaper than coal, says India energy minister  (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/04/18/solar-is-now-cheaper-than-coal-says-india-energy-minister/)



Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 22-04-2016, 07:51:07
 Warmest March in Global Recordkeeping; 2016 Roars Ahead of Pack (https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/warmest-march-in-global-recordkeeping-2016-roars-ahead-of-pack)



A ima i ovo (https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/721084941405184001):



Quote
Too soon? I estimate >99% chance of an annual record in 2016 in @NASAGISS (https://twitter.com/NASAGISS) temperature data, based on Jan-Mar alone
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 24-04-2016, 06:36:28
San Francisko usvojio uredbu po kojoj sve novoizgrađene zgrade moraju da imaju ugrađene solarne panele (http://www.scottwiener.com/supervisors_unanimously_passes_legislation_to_require_solar). Vrlo lepo.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 28-04-2016, 08:53:34
Ovo bi moglo i na potforum koji se bavi tehnologijom ali ajde ovde jer je politički vezano:


Tesla will install more energy storage with Solarcity in 2016 than the USA installed in 2015 (http://electrek.co/2016/04/25/tesla-solarcity-battery-energy-storage/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-05-2016, 07:50:08
Ako ste pomislili da je izbeglica sa bliskog istoja i iz severne Afrike i pored svih sukoba ipak premalo, imate sreće.


Climate-exodus expected in the Middle East and North Africa (http://phys.org/news/2016-05-climate-exodus-middle-east-north-africa.html)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 12-05-2016, 07:41:28
Well... bar je smanjen efekat staklene bašte aj ges:


Electric, hybrid and other eco-friendly cars fill the air with as many toxins as dirty diesels say scientists (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3579878/Electric-hybrid-eco-friendly-cars-air-toxins-dirty-diesels-say-scientists.html)
Quote
  • Eco-friendly electric and hybrid cars fill air with as many toxins as diesels
  • That was finding of a study looking at particles from tyre and brake wear
  • Greener alternative produces more tiny particles because they are heavier
  • Made heavier by batteries and parts meaning tyres and brakes wear faster
        Research: Electric, hybrid and other eco-friendly cars fill the air with as many toxins as dirty diesel vehicles, scientists have found (file photo)Electric, hybrid and other eco-friendly cars fill the air with as many toxins as dirty diesel vehicles, scientists have found.
The greener alternative produce more tiny particles from tyre and brake wear because batteries and other parts needed to propel them make them heavier.
It happens because when eco-cars accelerate or slow down the tyres and brakes wear faster, in turn producing more particulates. More particles are also whipped up from the road surface because of the extra weight.
These extra emissions are almost equal to the toxic particulates saved by reduced engine use, according to Jonathan Leake at The Sunday Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eco-vehicles-fill-air-with-deadly-toxins-jklbkzvwp).
The research, led by Peter Achten and co-author Victor Timmers of Edinburgh University, is published in the journal Atmospheric Environment.
Achten said: 'We found that non-exhaust emissions, from brakes, tyres and the road, are far larger than exhaust emissions in all modern cars.
'These are more toxic than emissions from modern engines so they are likely to be key factors in the extra heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks seen when air pollution levels surge.'
The research used technical data from the motor industry and government research agencies, including direct tests of brake, tyre and road wear rates.
The aim was to show that non-exhaust emissions a vehicle produces its directly related to its weight.
Scientists found that electric and eco-friendly cars weighed around 24 per cent more than conventional vehicles, a discovery that linked to anecdotal complaints from greener car owners that their tyres wear out faster.
A leading professor at the University of Hertfordshire, Ranjeet Sokhi, also led a study into the impact of non-exhaust emissions.
After installing particulate air pollution monitors in the southbound Hatfield tunnel on the A1(M), which has 49,000 vehicles a day travelling through it, scientists found that each one produced 34-39 micrograms of particles per kilometre. But only a third came from the engine.        The greener alternative, including hybrid cars (similar to the one pictured), are said to produce more particles from tyre and brake wear because batteries and other parts needed to propel them make them heavier


Everything else was from small pieces of bitumen whipped up from the road, rubber from tyres and brake dust.
Professor Sokhi said the findings highlighted the significance of non-exhaust emissions and a need for legislation.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Department of Transport said eco-vehicles still had huge benefits in cutting CO2 emissions.


Evo i same studije (pejvolovane):


Non-exhaust PM emissions from electric vehicles (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101630187X)

Quote
AbstractParticulate matter (PM) exposure has been linked to adverse health effects by numerous studies. Therefore, governments have been heavily incentivising the market to switch to electric passenger cars in order to reduce air pollution. However, this literature review suggests that electric vehicles may not reduce levels of PM as much as expected, because of their relatively high weight. By analysing the existing literature on non-exhaust emissions of different vehicle categories, this review found that there is a positive relationship between weight and non-exhaust PM emission factors. In addition, electric vehicles (EVs) were found to be 24% heavier than equivalent internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). As a result, total PM10 emissions from EVs were found to be equal to those of modern ICEVs. PM2.5 emissions were only 1–3% lower for EVs compared to modern ICEVs. Therefore, it could be concluded that the increased popularity of electric vehicles will likely not have a great effect on PM levels. Non-exhaust emissions already account for over 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 emissions from traffic. These proportions will continue to increase as exhaust standards improve and average vehicle weight increases. Future policy should consequently focus on setting standards for non-exhaust emissions and encouraging weight reduction of all vehicles to significantly reduce PM emissions from traffic.
Highlights•A positive relationship exists between vehicle weight and non-exhaust emissions.•Electric vehicles are 24% heavier than their conventional counterparts.•Electric vehicle PM emissions are comparable to those of conventional vehicles.•Non-exhaust sources account for 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 from traffic.•Future policy should focus on reducing vehicle weight.


Ljudi koji komentarišu ove stvari na slešdotu su uvereni da je ovo hrpa besmislica...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 12-05-2016, 07:53:51
S druge strane:


Germany had so much renewable energy on Sunday that it had to pay people to use electricity (http://qz.com/680661/germany-had-so-much-renewable-energy-on-sunday-that-it-had-to-pay-people-to-use-electricity/)


Quote
On Sunday, May 8, Germany hit a new high in renewable energy generation. Thanks to a sunny and windy day, at one point around 1pm the country’s solar, wind, hydro and biomass plants were supplying about 55 GW of the 63 GW being consumed, or 87%.
Power prices actually went negative for several hours, meaning commercial customers were being paid to consume electricity.


Last year the average renewable mix was 33%, reports Agora Energiewende (https://www.agora-energiewende.de/de/ueber-uns/), a German clean energy think tank. New wind power coming online should push that even higher.
“We have a greater share of renewable energy every year,” said Christoph Podewils of Agora. “The power system adapted to this quite nicely. This day shows again that a system with large amounts of renewable energy works fine.”
Critics have argued (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432404579052900100464562) that because of the daily peaks and troughs of renewable energy—as the sun goes in and out and winds rise and fall—it will always have only a niche role in supplying power to major economies. But that’s looking less and less likely. Germany plans to hit 100% (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=99&nr=24&menu=1449) renewable energy by 2050, and Denmark’s wind turbines already at some points generate more electricity (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand) than the country consumes, exporting the surplus to Germany, Norway and Sweden.
Germany’s power surplus on Sunday wasn’t all good news. The system is still too rigid for power suppliers and consumers to respond quickly to price signals. Though gas power plants were taken offline, nuclear and coal plants can’t be quickly shut down, so they went on running and had to pay to sell power into the grid for several hours, while industrial customers such as refineries and foundries earned money by consuming electricity.Read this next: Where in the world have we achieved 100% renewable power? (http://qz.com/576437/which-places-have-achieved-100-renewable-power/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 25-05-2016, 08:58:48
Tesla co-founder says hydrogen fuel cells are a ‘scam’ (http://electrek.co/2016/05/23/tesla-founder-marc-tarpenning-hydrogen-fuel-cells-scam/)



Quote
People affiliated with Tesla have often been outspoken about how hydrogen fuel cells are simply a bad solution to the sustainable transport issue. Just last week we reported on Tesla co-founder and CTO, JB Straubel, going on a quick rant about hydrogen (http://electrek.co/2016/05/19/tesla-cto-jb-straubel-truck-hydrogen-battery/) and saying that fuel cells will soon be “irrelevant” in the transportation industry.
Now another Tesla co-founder, Marc Tarpenning, went a little further than Straubel and called hydrogen fuel cells a “scam”. He also said out loud what many in the industry are thinking – that energy companies are supporting the technology for its inefficiency.
Tarpenning is not with Tesla anymore, but he is one of the original co-founders with his long-time friend and business partner, Martin Eberhard. He was on the Internet History Podcast last week to talk about his ventures and he explained in great details the foundings of his two companies; NuvoMedia and Tesla Motors.
The podcast is worth listening in full – see below (Tesla starts at about 25 minutes in), but I found the rant about hydrogen fuel cells particularly interesting.
After selling NuvoMedia, a maker of e-book readers, he and Eberhard first investigated alternative fuel sources in order to start a company to solve the sustainable transport issue. They looked into hydrogen fuel cells and quickly dismissed it:
If your goal is to reduce energy consumption, petrol or whatever resource, you want to use it as efficiently as possible. You don’t want to pick something that consumes a lot for whatever reason, and hydrogen is uniquely bad.
There’s a saying in the auto industry that hydrogen is the future of transportation and always will be. It’s a scam as far as I can tell because the energy equation is terrible. It’s just terrible.
People will say that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but it’s abundant out there in the universe not here. We live on a planet where hydrogen is super reactive – it’s bound up into everything. It’s bound up into water, wood and everything else. They only way that you get hydrogen requires you to pour energy into it to break it from the chemical bonds.
Electrolysis is the most commen method. You put electricity in water and it separates it, but you are pouring energy in order to make hydrogen, and then you have to compress it and that takes energy, and then you have to transport it to wherever you actually need it, which is really difficult because hydrogen is much harder to work with than gasoline or even natural gas – and natural gas is not that easy.
And then you ultimately have to place it into a car where you’ll have a very high-pressure vessel which offers its own safety issues – and that’s only to convert it back again to electricity to make the car go because hydrogen fuel cell cars are really electric cars. They just have an extraordinary bad battery.
Hydrogen is an energy carrier and not a primary fuel source on this planet. Maybe out somewhere in the universe, but not on a terrestrial planet.
When you add that all up, it turns out that the amount of energy per kilometer driven is just terrible. It’s way worse than almost anything else you can come up with – which I always suspected is one of the reasons why the energy companies have long been big proponents of it.
When we were raising money the first time, we had very carefully gone through the math to understand fuel cells because there was a bunch of money going into fuel cells at the time and we also looked at biofuels and ethanols – we sort of went down the whole list to figure out what the most energy efficient system was – which turned out to be battery electric cars.
Tarpenning then described how they included a slide about hydrogen fuel cells in their powerpoint presentation when trying to raise money from venture capitalists for Tesla. The slide was of course about why Tesla would use batteries to power its vehicles and not hydrogen.
He says that half of the VCs would ask them to skip the slide saying that they already ran their own cost analysis and they are aware of the inefficiency of the system, but the other half of the VCs would go really quiet and then start asking more questions. Marc explained that those VCs had already invested in fuel cell companies, which most went out of business by now.
Tarpenning left Tesla in 2008 after an internal power-struggle saw his co-founder Martin Eberhard ousted as CEO and Elon Musk took over not long after. He is still involved in the electric vehicle industry. He invested, alongside Eberhard, in electric motorcycle maker Alta Motors in 2014 (http://electrek.co/2015/12/18/electric-motorcycle-startup-backed-by-tesla-founders-delivers-its-first-bike-to-customers-the-redshift-gallery/).
We also recently reported on him joining the advisory board of ‘self-driving vehicles for industry’ company: Clearpath Robotics (http://electrek.co/2016/03/11/tesla-founder-self-driving-vehicles-clearpath-robotics/).
Here’s the podcast in full:




http://youtu.be/8vMJq8-RuA4 (http://youtu.be/8vMJq8-RuA4)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 03-07-2016, 05:56:57
'Healing' detected in Antarctic ozone hole (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36674996) 
 
Quote

Researchers say they have found the first clear evidence that the thinning in the ozone layer above Antarctica is starting to heal.
The scientists said that in September 2015 the hole was around 4 million sq km smaller than it was in the year 2000 - an area roughly the size of India.
The gains have been credited to the long term phasing out of ozone-destroying chemicals.
The study (http://science.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aae0061) also sheds new light on the role of volcanoes in making the problem worse.
 Skin cancer worry The natural production and destruction of ozone in the stratosphere balances itself out over long time, meaning that historically there has been a constant level to protect the Earth by blocking out harmful ultraviolet radiation from the Sun.
Its absence increases the chances of skin cancer, cataract damage, and harm to humans, animals and plants.
British scientists first noticed a dramatic thinning of ozone in the stratosphere some 10 kilometres above Antarctica in the mid 1980s.
In 1986, US researcher Susan Solomon showed that ozone was being destroyed by the presence of molecules containing chlorine and bromine that came from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These gases were found in everything from hairsprays to refrigerators to air conditioning units.
The reason the thinning was occurring mainly over Antarctica was because of the extreme cold and large amounts of light. These helped produce what are termed Polar Stratospheric Clouds (https://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/research/equable/psc.html).
In these chilled-out clouds, the chlorine chemistry occurs that destroys the ozone.
Thanks to the global ban on the use of CFCs in the Montreal Protocol (http://ozone.unep.org/en/treaties-and-decisions/montreal-protocol-substances-deplete-ozone-layer) in 1987, the situation in Antarctica has been slowly improving.
Several studies have shown the declining influence of CFCs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29152028), but according to the authors this new study shows the "first fingerprints of healing" and the ozone layer is actively growing again.
Prof Solomon and colleagues, including researchers from the University of Leeds in the UK, carried out detailed measurements of the amount of ozone in the stratosphere between 2000 and 2015.
Using data from weather balloons, satellites and model simulations, they were able to show that the thinning of the layer had declined by 4 million sq km over the period. The found that more than half the shrinkage was due solely to the reduction in atmospheric chlorine.
Normally measurements are taken in October when the ozone hole is at its largest. But this team believed they would get a better picture by looking at readings taken in September, when temperatures are still low but other factors that can influence the amount of ozone, such as the weather, are less prevalent.
"Even though we phased out the production of CFCs in all countries including India and China around the year 2000, there's still a lot of chlorine left in the atmosphere," Prof Solomon told the BBC World Service Science in Action (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002vsnb) programme.
"It has a lifetime of about 50-100 years, so it is starting to slowly decay and the ozone will slowly recover.
"We don't expect to see a complete recovery until about 2050 or 2060 but we are starting to see that in September the ozone hole is not as bad as it used to be."
 
One finding that puzzled researchers was the October 2015 reading that showed the biggest ozone hole on record over Antarctica.
The scientists believe that a key contributor to the record hole was volcanic activity.
"After an eruption, volcanic sulphur forms tiny particles and those are the seeds for Polar Stratospheric Clouds," Prof Solomon told Science in Action.
"You get even more of these clouds when you have a recent major volcanic eruption and that leads to additional ozone loss."
"Until we did our recent work no-one realised that the Calbuco eruption in Chile, actually had significantly affected the ozone loss in October of last year."
The study has been hailed as "historically significant" by some other researchers in the field.
"This is the first convincing evidence that the healing of the Antarctic ozone hole has now started," said Dr Markus Rex from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany.
"Right now the state of the ozone layer is still really bad, but I find it very important that we know the Montreal Protocol is working and has an effect on the size of the hole and that is a big step forward."
 Differing views However others are not entirely convinced that the decline shown in the new study is down to a reduction in the amount of chlorine in the stratosphere.
"The data clearly show significant year to year variations that are much greater than the inferred trends shown in the paper," said Dr Paul Newman from Nasa.
"If the paper included this past year, which had a much more significant ozone hole due to lower wave driven forcing, the overall trend would be less."
Regardless of these questions, the scientists involved in the study believe the ozone story is a great role model for how to tackle global environmental problems.
"It's just been remarkable," said Prof Solomon.
"This was an era in which international co-operation went rather well on some issues. I was inspired by the way the developed and developing countries were able to work together on dealing with the ozone hole," said Prof Solomon.
The study has been published in the journal (http://science.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aae0061) Science.
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 15-07-2016, 00:14:42
Upravo mi je palo na pamet ideja za hlađenje Zemlje. Najviše Sunčeve energije se upija u okeanima, jel tako? Što ne bismo pokrili okeane nekom materijom koja je lakša od vode, ne degradira na suncu i u slanoj vodi, i nije škodljiva po živi svet? I pritom odbija sunčeve zrake nazad u svemir! Još ako može sama da se replicira...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 02-08-2016, 09:16:03
Ovaj mac bi bio zajeban ludi naučnik u nekom stripu.

U međuvremenu, nešto što bi moglo da actually bude efikasno, mada zvuči skoro predobro da bi bilo stvarno:


 Solar Cells converts Co2 into hydrocarbon fuel  (http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/07/solar-cells-converts-co2-into.html)

Quote
Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago have engineered a potentially game-changing solar cell that cheaply (https://news.uic.edu/breakthrough-solar-cell-captures-co2-and-sunlight-produces-burnable-fuel?utm_source=UICedu&utm_medium=campusgrid&utm_content=072916&utm_campaign=misc) and efficiently converts atmospheric carbon dioxide directly into usable hydrocarbon fuel, using only sunlight for energy.
 
 The finding is reported in the July 29 issue of Science and was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy. A provisional patent application has been filed.
 
 Unlike conventional solar cells, which convert sunlight into electricity that must be stored in heavy batteries, the new device essentially does the work of plants, converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into fuel, solving two crucial problems at once. A solar farm of such “artificial leaves” could remove significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and produce energy-dense fuel efficiently.
 
 “The new solar cell is not photovoltaic — it’s photosynthetic,” says Amin Salehi-Khojin, assistant professor of mechanical and industrial engineering at UIC and senior author on the study.
 
 “Instead of producing energy in an unsustainable one-way route from fossil fuels to greenhouse gas, we can now reverse the process and recycle atmospheric carbon into fuel using sunlight,” he said.


 While plants produce fuel in the form of sugar, the artificial leaf delivers syngas, or synthesis gas, a mixture of hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide. Syngas can be burned directly, or converted into diesel or other hydrocarbon fuels.
 The ability to turn CO2 into fuel at a cost comparable to a gallon of gasoline would render fossil fuels obsolete.
 
 Chemical reactions that convert CO2 into burnable forms of carbon are called reduction reactions, the opposite of oxidation or combustion. Engineers have been exploring different catalysts to drive CO2 reduction, but so far such reactions have been inefficient and rely on expensive precious metals such as silver, Salehi-Khojin said.
 
 “What we needed was a new family of chemicals with extraordinary properties,” he said.
 
 Salehi-Khojin and his coworkers focused on a family of nano-structured compounds called transition metal dichalcogenides — or TMDCs — as catalysts, pairing them with an unconventional ionic liquid as the electrolyte inside a two-compartment, three-electrode electrochemical cell.
 
 The best of several catalysts they studied turned out to be nanoflake tungsten diselenide.
 
 “The new catalyst is more active; more able to break carbon dioxide’s chemical bonds,” said UIC postdoctoral researcher Mohammad Asadi, first author on the Science paper.
 
 In fact, he said, the new catalyst is 1,000 times faster than noble-metal catalysts — and about 20 times cheaper.
 Other researchers have used TMDC catalysts to produce hydrogen by other means, but not by reduction of CO2. The catalyst couldn’t survive the reaction.
 
 “The active sites of the catalyst get poisoned and oxidized,” Salehi-Khojin said. The breakthrough, he said, was to use an ionic fluid called ethyl-methyl-imidazolium tetrafluoroborate, mixed 50-50 with water.
 
 “The combination of water and the ionic liquid makes a co-catalyst that preserves the catalyst’s active sites under the harsh reduction reaction conditions,” Salehi-Khojin said.
 
 The UIC artificial leaf consists of two silicon triple-junction photovoltaic cells of 18 square centimeters to harvest light; the tungsten diselenide and ionic liquid co-catalyst system on the cathode side; and cobalt oxide in potassium phosphate electrolyte on the anode side.
 
 When light of 100 watts per square meter – about the average intensity reaching the Earth’s surface – energizes the cell, hydrogen and carbon monoxide gas bubble up from the cathode, while free oxygen and hydrogen ions are produced at the anode.
 
 “The hydrogen ions diffuse through a membrane to the cathode side, to participate in the carbon dioxide reduction reaction,” said Asadi.
 
 The technology should be adaptable not only to large-scale use, like solar farms, but also to small-scale applications, Salehi-Khojin said. In the future, he said, it may prove useful on Mars, whose atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, if the planet is also found to have water.
 
 “This work has benefitted from the significant history of NSF support for basic research that feeds directly into valuable technologies and engineering achievements,” said NSF program director Robert McCabe.
 
 “The results nicely meld experimental and computational studies to obtain new insight into the unique electronic properties of transition metal dichalcogenides,” McCabe said. “The research team has combined this mechanistic insight with some clever electrochemical engineering to make significant progress in one of the grand-challenge areas of catalysis as related to energy conversion and the environment.”
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 02-08-2016, 09:23:49
Ако је ово могуће наука ће нам средити и проблеме с килажом.

Мада, цака је да ће произвести гориво, како то онда може да буде еколошки боље од тренутне ситуације?

Да ли стварно обрада смећа смањује смеће?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 02-08-2016, 09:28:44
Brzo si prepoznao kvaku u ovom pristupu: vadiš ugljendioksid iz atmosfere, vezuješ ga u gorivo koje onda koristiš da opet oslobodiš ugljendioksid u atmosferu. Dakle, u stvari ne smanjuješ koncentraciu ugljendioksida direktno, ali pretpostavka je da ćeš tim gorivom zameniti druga goriva - fosilna, pre svega, jelte - pa će apsolutna količina ugljendioksida emitovanog u atmosferu da se smanjuje.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: lilit on 02-08-2016, 11:01:15
vas dvojicu bih u tim samo da mislite :)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 02-08-2016, 11:05:54
dobar je pravac kretanja, umjesto da se smeće odlaže ono se ponovo koristi, još kad bi bukvalno otpad počeli da prerađuju bilo bi super

nadam se samo da neće, po običaju, naftne kompanije da izvrše pritisak, uklone konkurenciju i zadrže stare dobre fosile

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: lilit on 02-08-2016, 11:10:39
evo ti i primer kako se prerada otpada radi ozbiljno

http://www.vienna.convention.at/Event-Planning/Green-Meetings---CSR/Eine-lebenswerte-Stadt/Waste-management-and-recycling.aspx

https://www.wien.gv.at/umwelt/ma48/service/publikationen/pdf/abfallwirtschaft-en.pdf
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 02-08-2016, 12:21:38
Quote
vas dvojicu bih u tim samo da mislite


Ekspertska mišljenja su od krucijalnog značaja kod timskog rada...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: lilit on 02-08-2016, 12:25:07
ti si nam CEO al računala sam da se to podrazumeva  :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 02-08-2016, 12:33:46
Koliko smo mi ovdje propali govori i podatak da je par bosanskih gradova bukvalno smrdilo početkom ljeta, zbog neadekvatnog odlaganja... nači ne znaju ni da odlože smeće, ne da ga prerade. Najgore od svega je što sam ponekad u ovim balkanskim državicama viđao kontejnere predviđene za staklo, plastiku itd, a čak i u njih ljudi bacaju klasično smeće... ludo



a pošto nema maca da ovo promisli umjesto nas, rekao bih i da trigliceridno gorivo takođe ne bi škodilo da proizvedu

ukačiš crijevo u pupak a drugi kraj u automobil
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 11-08-2016, 07:46:50
Earth’s resources used up at quickest rate ever in 2016 (http://www.france24.com/en/20160807-earth-overshoot-day-resources-depleted-quickest-rate-ever-2016)



Quote
In just over seven months, humanity has used up a full year's allotment of natural resources such as water, food and clean air – the quickest rate yet, according to a new report.  The point of "overshoot" will officially be reached on Monday, said environmental group Global Footprint Network -- five days earlier than last year.
"We continue to grow our ecological debt," said Pascal Canfin of green group WWF, reacting to the annual update.
"From Monday August 8, we will be living on credit because in eight months we would have consumed the natural capital that our planet can renew in a year."


The gloomy milestone is marked every year on what is known as Earth Overshoot Day.
In 1993, the day fell on October 21, in 2003 on September 22 and last year on August 13.
In 1961, according to the network, humankind used only about three-quarters of Earth's annual resource allotment. By the 1970s, economic and population growth sent Earth into annual overshoot.
"This is possible because we emit more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than our oceans and forests can absorb, and we deplete fisheries and harvest forests more quickly than they can reproduce and regrow," the network said in a statement.
To calculate the date for Earth Overshoot Day, the group crunches UN data on thousands of economic sectors such as fisheries, forestry, transport and energy production.
Earth-warming greenhouse gas emissions, it said, are now the fastest-growing contributor to ecological overshoot, making up 60 percent of humanity's demands on nature -- what is called the ecological "footprint".
According to the UN, the number of people on Earth is forecast to grow from 7.3 billion today to 11.2 billion by the end of the century -- piling further pressure on our planet and its finite resources.
But there was some good news, too.
"The rate at which Earth Overshoot Day has moved up on the calendar has slowed to less than one day a year on average over the past five years, compared to an average of three days a year since the overshoot began in the 1970s," said the network.
(AFP)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 22-08-2016, 07:57:38
Every Month This Year Has Been the Hottest in Recorded History (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/july-hottest-noaa-nasa-climate-environment-global)




Despite the cruise ship that’s now plowing through a melting Arctic (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/arctic-cruises-for-the-wealthy-climate-change-feedback-loop-crystal-serenity-northwest-passage), or the wildfires that have consumed (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wildfire-researchers-tell-us-why-our-future-is-flames-fort-mcmurray) parts of North America, and devastating drought (http://www.unocha.org/el-nino-east-africa) that's stricken in East Africa, it can still be easy to ignore sometimes that our climate is rapidly changing. But 2016 has been a remarkable year (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/2016-is-set-to-break-all-kinds-of-climate-records-and-its-only-half-over) for record-breaking temperatures, and even in the midst of it, July stands out as the hottest month of all.
On Wednesday, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that July was the hottest month (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201607) ever recorded on our planet, since modern record-keeping began in 1880.
JUST IN:
#July (https://twitter.com/hashtag/July?src=hash) was hottest month on record for globe - @NOAANCEIclimate (https://twitter.com/NOAANCEIclimate) #StateOfClimate (https://twitter.com/hashtag/StateOfClimate?src=hash)https://t.co/yfJUYpFugi (https://t.co/yfJUYpFugi) pic.twitter.com/wCU2odlLZ2 (https://t.co/wCU2odlLZ2)
— NOAA (@NOAA) August 17, 2016 (https://twitter.com/NOAA/status/765925588477546496) NASA has reached (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/news/20160816/) the same conclusion. July smashed all previous records.
July 2016 was absolutely the hottest month since the instrumental records began.
pic.twitter.com/GQNsvARPDH (https://t.co/GQNsvARPDH)
— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) August 15, 2016 (https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/765281511121780737)Keep in mind that July almost always stands out as the warmest month in a given year, across the planet. “July is, climatologically speaking, the world’s warmest month of the year,” NOAA climatologist Ahira Sanchez-Lugo told me in an interview. That’s because the Northern hemisphere “has more landmass, and less ocean” than the South, she continued, and the land heats up more quickly.
But this July was the hottest month recorded on Earth, ever—beating the previous record, which was actually just set the July before.


Temperature records are falling like dominoes, month after month, year after year. Although July stands out, each consecutive month in 2016 has broken its own previous record (May was the hottest May, April the hottest April, etc.) Consider this:
June 2016 was the hottest on record (http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/07/june-2016-hottest-month-recorded-climate-change/492041/).
So was May. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/14/may-marks-one-more-record-hot-month-for-the-world)
April smashed previous temperature records (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/16/april-third-month-in-row-to-break-global-temperature-records).
March did by a long shot (http://time.com/4296481/march-record-temperatures/).
February (https://weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-february-global-2016) and January (https://www.theweathernetwork.com/us/news/articles/climate-and-environment/its-official-january-2016-was-warmest-on-record/63847) were the hottest ever.


“The streak of consecutive records started in May 2015,” Sanchez-Lugo told me. We’ve now lapped ourselves, and are starting to break records set within this same streak, last year.
According to the NOAA, July was the fifteenth month in a row where the global land and ocean temperature was the highest recorded since 1880. “This marks the longest such streak in NOAA’s 137 years of record keeping,” its report says (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201607). (NASA’s analysis varies, but only slightly: It calls July the tenth record-breaking month (http://www.sciencealert.com/july-2016-was-the-world-s-hottest-month-since-records-began-nasa-confirms) in a row.)
It seems pretty certain that 2016 will go down in history as the hottest recorded year (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/2016-is-set-to-break-all-kinds-of-climate-records-and-its-only-half-over) on Earth, although we’ll have to wait for the data to confirm that. If and when that happens, this will be the third record-breaking year in a row, which would be a new record in itself: Let’s not forget that 2015 set its own annual temperature record (http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015), breaking the one set in 2014 (http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/).
“We should be absolutely concerned,” Sanchez-Lugo said. “We need to look at ways to adapt and mitigate. If we don’t, temperatures will continue to increase.”
Next year is expected to be slightly less intense, with the fierce El Niño we’ve been experiencing now abating. But the truth is that record-breaking temperatures, month after month, year after year, are starting to look less like an exception, more like the norm.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 05-09-2016, 07:52:56
Paris climate deal: US and China formally join pact (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-37265541)



Quote
The US and China - together responsible for 40% of the world's carbon emissions - have both formally joined the Paris global climate agreement.
After arriving with other leaders of G20 nations for a summit in the city of Hangzhou, Mr Obama said: "History will judge today's effort as pivotal."
CO2 emissions are the driving force behind climate change.
Last December, countries agreed to cut emissions in a bid to keep the global average rise in temperatures below 2C.
What is climate change? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772)
What does the climate deal mean for me? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35092127)
The Paris deal is the world's first comprehensive climate agreement. It will only come into force legally after it is ratified by at least 55 countries, which between them produce 55% of global carbon emissions.
Members of China's National People's Congress Standing Committee adopted "the proposal to review and ratify the Paris Agreement" on Saturday morning at the end of a week-long session.

Analysis: BBC environmental analyst Roger Harrabin                                                                                                    This is a big step towards turning the Paris climate agreement into reality.
Other nations will still tussle over their own ratification, but this will put pressure on G20 nations over the weekend to move faster with their pledge to phase out subsidies to fossil fuels.
But even if enough other players step forward to make the Paris deal law, huge challenges lie ahead.
Read more from Roger (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37261246)

Before China made its announcement, the 23 nations that had so far ratified the agreement accounted for just over 1% of emissions.
The UK has yet to ratify the Paris deal. A spokesman for the prime minister told BBC News that the government would ratify as soon as possible - but gave no date.
The White House issued a statement on Saturday morning announcing the US move.


In a speech in Hangzhou, Mr Obama said the Paris deal was the "single best chance that have to deal with a problem that could end up transforming this planet".
He praised US and Chinese leadership on the climate issue, saying: "We are moving the world significantly towards the goal we have set."


UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon praised Mr Obama for what he called "inspiring" leadership.
Mr Ban said Mr Obama and China's President Xi Jinping had both been "far-sighted, bold and ambitious".
However, analysts warn that the target of keeping temperature rises below 2C is already in danger of being breached.
For 14 consecutive months meteorologists have recorded the hottest month on record, and the UK's Met Office has forecast (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35121340) that 2016 is likely to hit temperatures 1.1C above pre-industrial levels.
Average temperatures worldwide are likely to increase more in the coming years as the effect of previous carbon emissions makes itself felt.
Environmental campaigning group Friends of the Earth welcomed the move by China and the US.
But spokesman Asad Rehman added: "The Paris agreement is a step in the right direction, but the reality is it's too weak and delays action to the next decade.
"What's needed is comprehensive and urgent action now to slash emissions and build a low-carbon future."
The G20 summit in Hangzhou (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-37241253) starts on Sunday.
This is expected to be Mr Obama's last trip to Asia as US president.
However, as he arrived there was a security dispute on the tarmac at Hangzhou airport as White House officials, including National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and reporters tried to get closer to the president. A Chinese official shooed them away shouting: "This is our country! This is our airport!"

Paris agreement: Key points
  • To keep global temperature increase "well below" 2C and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C
  • To peak greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and achieve a balance between sources and sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century
  • To review progress every five years
  • $100bn a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020, with a commitment to further finance in the future
  • Once the deal comes into force, countries that have ratified it have to wait for a minimum of three years before they exit
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 05-09-2016, 07:57:30
Nego, ne mogu da se setim da li sam već na ovom topiku linkovao sajt Skeptical Science koji je vrlo koristan izvor proverljivih podataka a koji se tiču mitova, predrasuda, laži i drugih dilema vezanih za klimacke promene.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

Ovde je spisak čestih, recimo, dilema:


https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 10-09-2016, 06:19:50
Costa Rica has gone 76 straight days using 100% renewable electricity (http://www.vox.com/2016/9/8/12847160/costa-rica-renewable-electricity) 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 12-09-2016, 08:01:04
Indirektno vezano:

10 Percent of the World's Wilderness Has Been Lost Since 1990s (http://www.livescience.com/56051-world-wilderness-catastrophic-declines.html)

Quote
  Wilderness areas around the world have experienced catastrophic declines over the last two decades, with one-tenth of global wilderness lost since the 1990s, according to a new study.
 Since 1993, researchers found that a cumulative wilderness area twice the size of Alaska and half the size of the Amazon has been stripped and destroyed.
 The shrinking wilderness (http://www.livescience.com/29569-8-of-the-worlds-most-endangered-places.html) is due, in part, to human activity such as mining, logging, agriculture, and oil and gas exploration. The researchers said theirfindings underscore the need for international policies to recognize the value of wilderness and to protect wilderness areas from the threats they face. [In Images: One-of-a-Kind Places On Earth (http://www.livescience.com/17105-images-unique-places-earth.html)]
 "Globally important wilderness areas — despite being strongholds for endangered biodiversity, for buffering and regulating local climates, and for supporting many of the world's most politically and economically marginalized communities — are completely ignored in environmental policy," study lead author James Watson, an associate professor in the School of Geography Planning and Environmental Management at the University of Queensland, in Australia, said in a statement (https://newsroom.wcs.org/News-Releases/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/9254/Study-A-Tenth-of-the-Worlds-Wilderness-Lost-since-the-1990s.aspx).
 "Without any policies to protect these areas, they are falling victim to widespread development. We probably have one to two decades to turn this around," said Watson, who is also director of the Science and Research Initiative at the Wildlife Conservation Society.
 Central Africa and the Amazon saw the most wilderness decline, the researchers found. Of the roughly 1.27 million square miles (3.3 million square kilometers) of global wilderness lost, the Amazon (http://www.livescience.com/55387-how-many-trees-in-amazon.html) accounted for nearly one-third, and 14 percent of the world's wilderness was lost from Central Africa, according to the study.
 The researchers determined that only 11.6 million square miles (30.1 million square km) of wilderness is left, which equates to just 20 percent of the Earth's total land mass.
 "The amount of wilderness loss (http://www.livescience.com/52070-global-tree-census-human-impacts.html) in just two decades is staggering," study co-author Oscar Venter, an associate professor of ecosystem science and management at the University of Northern British Columbia, said in the statement. "We need to recognize that wilderness areas, which we've foolishly considered to be de-facto protected due to their remoteness, is actually being dramatically lost around the world."
 The researchers defined wilderness as "biologically and ecologically intact landscapes that are mostly free of human disturbance." In their new study, the scientists mapped these areas around the world to assess how their ecosystems have changed over the years. The researchers noted that wilderness areas do not exclude people, but rather have lower levels of human impact (http://www.livescience.com/52070-global-tree-census-human-impacts.html) that results in biophysical disturbance to natural habitats.
 Once wilderness is gone, it cannot be restored because the ecological processes that underpin the ecosystems are destroyed, the researchers said. The only option, they said, is to proactively protect what is left.
 "If we don't act soon, there will only be tiny remnants of wilderness around the planet, and this is a disaster for conservation, for climate change, and for some of the most vulnerable human communities on the planet," Watson said. "We have a duty to act for our children and their children."
 The study was published online Thursday (Sept. 8) in the journal Current Biology (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2816%2930993-9).
 Original article on Live Science (http://www.livescience.com/56051-world-wilderness-catastrophic-declines.html).
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 12-09-2016, 19:30:44
Odličan opis klimatskih promena u poslednjih 22000 godina.

http://xkcd.com/1732/ (http://xkcd.com/1732/)

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 17-09-2016, 05:04:14
The Sixth Mass Extinction Will Be Like Nothing In Earth's History (http://gizmodo.com/the-sixth-mass-extinction-will-be-like-nothing-in-earth-1786598392) 
 
Quote

 
The sixth mass extinction (http://gizmodo.com/yes-we-are-in-the-early-stages-of-a-mass-extinction-1712668648)—the one that seven billion humans are doing their darnedest to trigger at this very moment—is shaping up to be like nothing our planet has ever seen. That’s the conclusion of a sweeping new analysis, which compared marine fossil records from Earth’s five previous mass extinction events to what’s happening in the oceans right now.
“There is no past event that looks biologically like what’s happening today,” lead study author Jonathan Payne, of Stanford University, told Gizmodo. Unlike the past, Payne said, “processes like warming and ocean acidification are not the dominant cause of threat in the modern ocean.”
Instead, the dominant threat is people. It’s the nets, harpoons, and trawlers that are systematically emptying the oceans of fish (http://gizmodo.com/were-emptying-the-oceans-of-fish-and-filling-them-with-1753888064) and other marine life forms. Whereas the mass extinctions of the past tended to target organisms in certain environments, the sixth mass extinction is poised to hit the biggest animals the hardest. And that could have have profound implications for how our planet’s future unfolds.
  A paleontologist by training, Payne and his research group started compiling data on modern marine organisms several years back, in order to study how body size and ecological traits have changed over evolutionary time. Payne, who has studied the End Permian extinction event (http://io9.gizmodo.com/5558871/why-did-nearly-all-life-on-earth-die-250-million-years-ago) that wiped out more than 95 percent of all marine species 250 million years ago, soon realized that his dataset—which included living and extinct members of nearly 2500 marine genera—could serve another purpose.
 
 
“We thought the data we had would allow us to examine extinction in the modern [era] in a way that would be very comparable to the fossil record,” Payne said. “Our hope was that we might be able to identify past events that biologically were most similar to the extinction threat the oceans are facing today.”
    So that’s exactly what the researchers did. By comparing the extinction threat faced by modern marine genera (as indicated by their official conservation status) with their ancestral counterparts, Payne and his colleagues discovered that modern extinction threat is more strongly associated with body size. Larger animals face a greater risk of disappearing than smaller animals.
In past mass extinction events, body size didn’t matter that much. Instead, it was an organism’s habitat that dictated its fate. Animals that lived in the open ocean, or pelagic zone, went extinct at a higher rate than benthic creatures living on the seafloor.

This difference in “extinction selectivity” can be explained by different drivers. During the End Permian, changes in ocean chemistry (http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/permian-extinction/#page=4) triggered by microbes, volcanoes, or some combination of the two are thought to have created a toxic environment for most marine life. At the end of the Cretaceous period, an enormous asteroid impact followed by supervolcano eruptions (http://gizmodo.com/what-killed-the-dinosaurs-was-more-devastating-than-an-1733831989#_ga=1.158446330.1939995688.1470551476) sent plumes of dust into the sky, choking out sunlight and cutting off the energy supply at the bottom of the food chain. In both cases, organisms that lived in more isolated, sheltered environments away from the ocean’s surface fared better.
Today, the dominant driver of marine extinction is people, and people aren’t terribly selective about which environments they pluck animals from. We go for the biggest game, fishing down the food web and removing top predators (http://gizmodo.com/top-predators-may-be-the-most-important-animals-on-eart-1689082949). Within species, too, we tend to hunt the largest individuals, which is why North Atlantic cod and Chesapeake oysters were historically much larger. “In a sense, we’re driving evolution [toward smaller individuals],” Payne said.
   
 
There are a few big caveats to the analysis. For the sake of comparison, Payne and his co-authors only analyzed marine genera that have fossil counterparts, which means certain soft-bodied organisms that don’t preserve well (like octopods) were excluded. What’s more, they only looked at organisms whose extinction risk has been assessed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). That creates a rather serious bias toward big, charismatic groups—fish, sea turtles, marine mammals, and the like. There are countless species of marine invertebrates that we simply don’t have enough data on to do a proper threat assessment.

Perhaps most significantly, the study excluded corals, which are currently in the midst of a catastrophic, global die-off (http://gizmodo.com/scientists-have-no-idea-when-the-worst-coral-dieoff-in-1782302815). As habitat for roughly a quarter of all marine species, the loss of coral reefs due to global warming and ocean acidification would be a major blow to the health of the oceans overall.
“This study largely does not address the impact we are having on ocean ecosystems through global climate change,” Mark Eakin, a biological oceanographer with NOAA who was not involved with the study told Gizmodo. “Our increases in atmospheric CO2 will add to the impacts found by the authors to broaden our species’ destructive reach.”
Even considering the omissions, the pattern the authors uncovered implies that the trajectory of the sixth mass extinction could be unique. The loss of large animals tends to cause what ecologists call a “tropic cascade,” basically, a ripple effect down the food chain. Larger organisms also play an outsized role in global nutrient cycling—whale poop fertilizes the oceans with iron, for instance, while salmon migrations bring nitrogen and phosphorus upstream and even onto the land.
It’s unclear whether the loss of these ecosystem services will make it harder for marine life to recover, but it’s certainly a possibility. The study minces no words to this point: “The preferential removal of the largest animals from the modern oceans, unprecedented in the history of animal life, may disrupt ecosystems for millions of years.”
There is, however, a bright spot: things haven’t gotten too terrible yet. In Payne’s dataset, there is only one genus that has actually gone extinct in the past 500 years. While more species have gone extinct, and some genera are too poorly studied to be sure, we’re at best on the precipice of a sixth mass extinction (http://gizmodo.com/yes-we-are-in-the-early-stages-of-a-mass-extinction-1712668648). We can still turn this sinking ship around.
“We have the opportunity to totally avert this, if we make the right decisions,” Payne said. “Even on the land, where we have lost a bunch of large species, almost everything at the genus level is still here.”

“To claim we’re in a sixth mass extinction is something very enormous,” he continued. “It is a possibility. It is not the reality yet.”
[Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/)]
This article has been updated to include comments from Dr. Mark Eakin.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 17-09-2016, 12:08:15
:D
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 27-09-2016, 11:23:23
 How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/sep/23/how-climate-science-deniers-can-accept-so-many-impossible-things-all-at-once)


Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 28-09-2016, 08:41:24
U Americi transportna sredstva emituju više ugljendioksida od elektrana. Vele.


Planes, Trains, and Automobiles Have Become Top Carbon Polluters (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602458/planes-trains-and-automobiles-have-become-top-carbon-polluters/)

Quote
For the first time in decades, more carbon emissions will come from transportation than from coal- and gas-fired power plants.


Transportation is likely to surpass the electricity sector in 2016 as the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, according to a new analysis of government data.
In 2008, the global financial crisis caused widespread declines in energy use. In the U.S., that coincided with the early stages of a large-scale shift away from coal toward cleaner-burning natural gas as a way to generate electricity. As a result, carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector have continued to decline from their 2007 peak, even as the economy has resumed growing.


The trend line for the transportation sector is less encouraging. Transportation emissions have begun rising as the economy rebounds. John DeCicco (http://energy.umich.edu/faculty/john-m-decicco) at the University of Michigan Energy Institute, who wrote the study, attributes the rebound we’ve seen during the past four years to straightforward causes: economic recovery and more affordable fuel prices. Vehicle sales numbers (http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-car-sales-poised-for-their-best-month-ever-1451999939) have been rising for several years, in particular for trucks and SUVs (http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/auto-sales/consumer-demand-trucks-suvs-outdistances-interest-cars), and people are traveling more miles (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602441/semi-autonomous-cars-could-increase-distracted-driving-deaths/).
The trends have significant implications for the country’s energy policy. President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600888/the-us-energy-industry-is-charging-toward-big-carbon-reductions-no-matter-what-the-supreme/) will help ensure that emissions from generating electricity continue to fall in the coming years, and there are plenty of alternatives to coal-fired power plants. As for transportation, gasoline and diesel figure to keep dominating the market for decades because electric cars, the alternative, have been slow to take off. Federal laws designed to increase fuel efficiency and reduce tailpipe emissions will only serve to offset increasing travel demand, DeCicco says.
That means that one of our best hopes for fighting climate change over the next few years will be the return of high-priced gas.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 29-09-2016, 10:42:33
Uz dosta zrna soli može se baciti pogled na ovo:


 Study: Earth’s roughly warmest in about 100,000 years (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/study-earths-roughly-warmest-in-about-100000-years/2016/09/26/2672bb28-8412-11e6-b57d-dd49277af02f_story.html)


Quote
WASHINGTON — A new study paints a picture of an Earth that is warmer than it has been in about 120,000 years, and is locked into eventually hitting its hottest mark in more than 2 million years.
As part of her doctoral dissertation at Stanford University, Carolyn Snyder , now a climate policy official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, created a continuous 2 million year temperature record, much longer than a previous 22,000 year record. Snyder’s temperature reconstruction, published Monday in the journal Nature , doesn’t estimate temperature for a single year, but averages 5,000-year time periods going back a couple million years.
Snyder based her reconstruction on 61 different sea surface temperature proxies from across the globe, such as ratios between magnesium and calcium, species makeup and acidity. But the further the study goes back in time, especially after half a million years, the fewer of those proxies are available, making the estimates less certain, she said.
These are rough estimates with large margins of errors, she said. But she also found that the temperature changes correlated well to carbon dioxide levels.
Temperatures averaged out over the most recent 5,000 years — which includes the last 125 years or so of industrial emissions of heat-trapping gases — are generally warmer than they have been since about 120,000 years ago or so, Snyder found. And two interglacial time periods, the one 120,000 years ago and another just about 2 million years ago, were the warmest Snyder tracked. They were about 3.6 degrees (2 degrees Celsius) warmer than the current 5,000-year average.
With the link to carbon dioxide levels and taking into account other factors and past trends, Snyder calculated how much warming can be expected in the future.
Snyder said if climate factors are the same as in the past — and that’s a big if — Earth is already committed to another 7 degrees or so (about 4 degrees Celsius) of warming over the next few thousand years.
 “This is based on what happened in the past,” Snyder said. “In the past it wasn’t humans messing with the atmosphere.”
Scientists give various reasons for past changes in carbon dioxide and heat levels, including regular slight shifts in Earth’s orbital tilt.
Four outside scientists praised the study’s tracking of past temperatures, with caveats about how less certain it is as it gets deeper in the past. Jeremy Shakun of Boston College said “Snyder’s work is a great contribution and future work should build on it.”
But many of the same scientists said Snyder’s estimate of future warming seems too high. Shakun called it unrealistic and not matching historical time periods of similar carbon dioxide levels.
A fifth scientist, Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, called the study provocative and interesting but said he remains skeptical until more research confirms it. He found the future temperature calculations “so much higher than prevailing estimates that one has to consider it somewhat of an outlier.”


Evo i same studije:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature19798.html
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 01-10-2016, 06:32:07
92% of the world’s population exposed to unsafe levels of air pollution (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160927144248.htm)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 10-10-2016, 08:25:55
 No country on Earth is taking the 2 degree climate target seriously (http://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fossil-fuels)



plus ovo:


‘We’d have to finish one new facility every working day for the next 70 years’—Why carbon capture is no panacea (http://thebulletin.org/%E2%80%98we%E2%80%99d-have-finish-one-new-facility-every-working-day-next-70-years%E2%80%99%E2%80%94why-carbon-capture-no-panacea9949)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 10-10-2016, 09:10:25
Mene više zabrinjava što i dalje trtljaju o "stalnom razvoju" kao globalnom prioritetu. Jes' da srljamo u provaliju, ali lokomotiva mora da se loži. :-x
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Father Jape on 14-10-2016, 09:21:56
http://www.outsideonline.com/2112086/obituary-great-barrier-reef-25-million-bc-2016
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 26-10-2016, 07:49:32
Climate change could cross key threshold in a decade: scientists (http://in.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-impacts-conference-idINKCN11S1FE)



Quote
OXFORD, England (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting accelerating loss of glaciers, steep declines in water availability, worsening land conflicts and deepening poverty, scientists said this week.Last December, 195 nations agreed to try to hold world temperature rise to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius, with an aim of 1.5 degrees Celsius.But the planet is already two-thirds of the way to that lower and safer goal, and could begin to pass it in about a decade, according to Richard Betts, head of climate impacts research at the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre.With world emissions unlikely to slow quickly enough to hit that target, it will probably be necessary to remove some carbon pollution from the atmosphere to stabilize the planet, scientists said at a University of Oxford conference on how to achieve the 1.5 degree goal.That could happen by planting forests or by capturing and then pumping underground emissions from power plants. Or countries could turn to controversial "geoengineering" techniques, such as blocking some of the sunlight arriving on the planet, to hold down temperatures, they said."Negative emission technologies are likely to be needed, whether we like them or not," said Pete Smith, a plant and soil scientist at the University of Aberdeen.But other changes – such as reducing food waste and creating more sustainable diets, with less beef and fewer imported greenhouse vegetables – could also play a big role in meeting the goal, without so many risks, he said."There are lots of behavioral changes required, not just by the government ... but by us," Smith said.The scientists said building resilience to deal with climate change impacts was likely to prove tricky, not least because their scale and timing remains hard to predict with precision. "We need to get ready to deal with surprise," said Jim Hall, director of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford.TO WARN - OR NOT TO WARN?
 Maarten van Aalst, director of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre, said officials in the Netherlands failed to issue a heat warning earlier this month, despite a prediction of very hot days, because they assumed – falsely – that lower nighttime temperatures in September would help moderate the problem.That kind of difficulty in making good decisions about changing conditions is playing out in many places, van Aalst said. "This is the sort of misperception ... that will determine how we cope with these risks," he said.Virginie Le Masson, a researcher on disaster risk, climate change and gender issues at the London-based Overseas Development Institute, said climate change was another factor – on top of widespread problems such as bad governance and social inequality – adding to the pressures people face.Helping those most vulnerable to climate change to withstand the problem will require efforts to help them not only adapt to changes but also to absorb shocks, van Aalst said.Ethiopia's government, for instance, operates a public works program that pays poor people cash or food for work on public projects, such as improving water channels or roads.


The program can be quickly scaled up in times of drought to provide a social safety net for those affected, while the work done improves water systems and builds drought resilience, said Stephane Hallegatte, a senior economist working on climate change issues at the World Bank.Other effective ways to boost resilience among the poor include Rwanda's push to provide health insurance – 80 percent of people now have coverage – and giving poor people access to savings accounts, as a safer alternative to the tradition of putting cash into disaster-vulnerable livestock, Hallegatte said.COMPETITION FOR LAND
 The problem, the scientists said, is that some of the coming pressures may be very hard to reduce. Competition for land, for instance, is likely to grow in coming years as it is simultaneously needed to grow food, to protect biodiversity and store carbon in forests, and to grow more climate-friendly biofuel crops.That makes holding down global temperature rise – currently on a path toward at least 2.7 degrees Celsius of warming – more difficult, the scientists said."We are woefully behind in our current response to climate change," said Stefan Raubenheimer, the director of SouthSouthNorth, a Cape Town-based organization. (Reporting by Laurie Goering; editing by Katie Nguyen.; Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, climate change, women's rights, trafficking and property rights. Visit news.trust.org/climate (http://news.trust.org/climate))
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 27-10-2016, 08:00:41
Global CO2 Concentration Passes Threshold of 400 ppm—And That’s Bad for the Climate (http://time.com/4542889/carbon-dioxide-400-ppm-global-warming/)



Quote
Scientists say humans may need to take some carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to stop global warming 
  The average level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere across the globe passed 400 parts per million (ppm) last year, a symbolic and worrying milestone in growth of manmade climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirmed (http://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/globally-averaged-co2-levels-reach-400-parts-million-2015) Monday.
The carbon dioxide concentration is unlikely to dip below the 400 ppm mark for at least several decades, even with aggressive efforts to reduce global carbon emissions, according to the WMO report, which confirms similar findings (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/world-passes-400-ppm-threshold-permanently-20738) reported last month. Carbon dioxide can last in the atmosphere for thousands of years without efforts to remove it.


“The year 2015 ushered in a new era of optimism and climate action,” said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas, referring to the landmark Paris Agreement (http://time.com/4146764/paris-agreement-climate-cop-21/?iid=sr-link1) to address climate change. “The real elephant in the room is carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years and in the oceans for even longer.”
Governments from across the globe committed to cutting their carbon dioxide emissions in the Paris Agreement, negotiated at the end of 2015, but most climate policy experts believe that scientists will need to develop cost-effective methods to actually pull the gas out of the atmosphere to keeping the globe from warming more than 2°C (3.6°F) by 2100. That’s the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement and the level that, if crossed, scientists say could bring the worst effects of climate change.
Passing the 400 ppm threshold will not trigger any devastating effect by itself, but it does provide one metric of just how fast humans are emitting carbon dioxide. It is the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere that actually intensifies the greenhouse effect, in turn warming the climate. (On Venus, where carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reach 30,000 ppm, the average surface temperature is a toasty 864 F (462 C). Just what level of carbon concentration in the atmosphere poses an irrevocable danger is up for debate. Many scientists pegged 450 ppm as a red line, while others have said 350 ppm—which the Earth passed years ago—is the safe upper limit. (The Bill McKibben-led climate advocacy group 350.org (https://350.org/) takes its name from that number.) The reality is that there is no absolute red line—climate change isn’t catastrophic at 401 ppm and safe at 399 ppm. But we do know that the more carbon we put into the atmosphere with no ability to take it out, the warner the world will get.
The finding comes as the globe continues to experience record a series of temperature records. Eleven of the last 12 months (http://time.com/4535354/nasa-september-hottest-record/) have been the hottest on record and 2016 is widely expected to be the hottest year ever recorded (http://time.com/4154331/warmest-year-2016-climate-change-el-nino/). At the same time, governments from around the globe have made significant progress on the issue in the last several months—from quick ratification of the Paris Agreement to passage of new deals on aviation (http://time.com/4507779/climate-change-flying-emissions/) and HFC emissions (http://time.com/4154331/warmest-year-2016-climate-change-el-nino/).
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 28-10-2016, 07:57:06
Lepa vest mada, kako i Mića negde gore reče, stručnjaci vele da je već kasno i da treba da se spremamo za posledice globalnog olavljenja...


Renewable capacity passes coal, additions outpacing demand in US, Europe (http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/renewable-capacity-passes-coal-additions-outpacing-demand-in-us-europe/)


Quote
According to the International Energy Agency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency), 2015 was a banner year for renewable power, marking the first time that total installed renewable capacity passed coal. The agency just released its analysis of the medium-term prospects for renewables, which includes a look at the state of the global market in 2015. The report predicts that 2015 is only the beginning; by 2021, renewables will generae enough electricity to handle all of the demand in the US and Europe.
As of 2015, hydropower remained the largest global source of renewable electricity, accounting for just over 70 percent of it. But wind power is now 15 percent, and solar has grown from negligible to four percent. The new additions of capacity, however, indicate that these two power sources are just getting started.
Last year saw 153 GigaWatts of renewable capacity added globally, an increase of 15 percent from the year 2014. This was enough to push renewables past coal, becoming the largest source of new capacity. Wind accounted for 66 GW of these additions, with photovoltaics at 49 GW. Combined, that means that 75 percent of the new renewables were solar or wind (the remainder were primarily hydro and biomass). To provide a sense of scale, the IEA notes that this means half a million solar panels were installed every day. Two wind turbines were installed every hour—in China alone.
It's important to note that this doesn't translate directly to 150GW of electricity produced. Well-sited renewable hardware tends to have capacity factors a bit above 30 percent, meaning they only generate a third of their potential capacity. So, we're still generating more electricity using coal than renewables at the moment. But, in a number of markets, the capacity factor for existing coal plants is dropping as they are being undercut by cheap renewables and natural gas. If that situation expands, renewables may pass coal sooner than the raw numbers suggest.
Based on the IEA's projections five years into the future (meaning 2021), that's a reasonable possibility. The agency estimates renewable growth that's 13 percent higher than the projections the agency made in 2014. The addition of renewables will account for more than 60 percent of the new generating capacity and add up to 800GW over the coming five years, keeping them well ahead of any other power source. That'll be driven in part by continued drops in the cost of renewables; while wind is expected to drop by low double digits, photovoltaics are expected to be 25 percent lower than they are already.
All that's assuming that countries don't do anything aggressive to meet their Paris Treaty goals.
Even a non-aggressive approach means that, by 2021, renewables will reshape the energy landscape. Wind and solar will account for nearly a third of renewable generation, pushing hydro to under 60 percent. The total electricity generated by renewables would reach 7600 TeraWatt-hours in 2021, enough to satisfy all the demand in the US and EU.
The IEA expects that the four areas that will dominate renewable installs are China, the EU, India, and the US. But  each nation will see different results. For China and India, growing demand means that renewable generation alone won't be able to meet the demand for new capacity by 2021. That means a significant amount of fossil fuel or nuclear plants will have to be brought online in that period. In the EU and US, in contrast, renewable additions will be much larger than the need for increased generation (from a combination of growing demand and retirement of existing plants).
As a result, the EU and US will either retire hardware before its useful lifetime is up or existing fossil fuel plants will be compelled to reduce their capacity factors further.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 30-10-2016, 05:41:51
Climate change rate to turn southern Spain to desert by 2100, report warns  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/27/climate-change-rate-to-turn-southern-spain-to-desert-by-2100-report-warns)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-11-2016, 08:58:16
https://youtu.be/90CkXVF-Q8M
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 07-11-2016, 09:03:49
Interesantan proces koji pretvara kanalizacioni otpad (ili bar njegov organski deo) u sirovu naftu:


Mimicking nature turns sewage into biocrude oil in minutes (http://newatlas.com/mimic-nature-sewage-oil/46260/)


Naravno, poskupo je to i sve, ali opet, zanimljivo.

Naravno 2: nafta je izvor dosta naših zala  :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 17-11-2016, 10:03:50
Iako mi to subjektivno možda i nismo osetili:

 2016 will be the hottest year on record, UN says  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/14/2016-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record-un-says)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 20-11-2016, 07:47:24
Musk Says Tesla’s Solar Shingles Will Cost Less Than a Dumb Roof (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/musk-says-tesla-s-solar-shingles-will-cost-less-than-a-dumb-roof)     
Quote
  It’s official: After Tesla shareholders approved the acquisition of SolarCity, the new company is now an unequivocal sun-to-vehicle energy firm. And Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk didn’t take long to make his first big announcement as head of this new enterprise.
Minutes after shareholders approved the deal—about 85 percent of them voted yes (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/tesla-seals-2-billion-solarcity-deal-set-to-test-musk-s-vision)—Musk told the crowd that he had just returned from a meeting with his new solar engineering team. Tesla’s new solar roof product (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-31/no-one-saw-tesla-s-solar-roof-coming), he proclaimed, will actually cost less to manufacture and install than a traditional roof—even before savings from the power bill. “Electricity,” Musk said, “is just a bonus.”
If Musk’s claims prove true, this could be a real turning point in the evolution of solar power. The rooftop shingles he unveiled just a few weeks ago are something to behold: They’re made of textured glass and are virtually indistinguishable from high-end roofing products. They also transform light into power for your home and your electric car.
“So the basic proposition will be: Would you like a roof that looks better than a normal roof, lasts twice as long, costs less and—by the way—generates electricity?” Musk said. “Why would you get anything else?”
Make no mistake: The new shingles will still be a premium product, at least when they first roll out. The terra cotta and slate roofs Tesla mimicked are among the most expensive roofing materials on the market—costing as much as 20 times more than cheap asphalt shingles.
Much of the cost savings Musk is anticipating comes from shipping the materials. Traditional roofing materials are brittle, heavy, and bulky. Shipping costs are high, as is the quantity lost to breakage. The new tempered-glass roof tiles, engineered in Tesla’s new automotive and solar glass division, weigh as little as a fifth of current products and are considerably easier to ship, Musk said.
When Musk first unveiled the tiles on Oct. 28, the pricing details were murkier. He said that someone who buys a Tesla roof when the product is released next summer will save money compared with someone who buys a comparable traditional roof, plus electricity from the grid. But on a large house over a long period of time, the value of that electricity could exceed $100,000. The new target he unveiled today is considerably cheaper, and it's considerably more promising for the future of rooftop solar power.
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 20-11-2016, 07:50:07
A onda i ovo:
 
 
 France to shut down all coal-fired power plants by 2023 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-close-coal-plants-shut-down-2023-global-warming-climate-change-a7422966.html) 
 
Quote

France (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/France) will shut down all its coal-fired (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/FossilFuel) power plants by 2023, president Francois Hollande (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/Francois%20Hollande) has announced.
Speaking at an annual UN (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/UnitedNations) climate change (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/climate-change) conference on Wednesday, Mr Hollande vowed to beat by two years the UK's commitment to stop using the fossil fuel (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/FossilFuel) to generate power by 2025.
Mr Hollande, a keynote speaker at the event in Marrakech, Morocco (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/Morocco), also praised his US counterpart Barack Obama (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/BarackObama) for his work on climate change, and then appeared to snub president-elect Donald Trump (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/DonaldTrump).
Mr Trump is reportedly seeking ways to withdraw from the Paris agreement (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-climate-change-paris-agreement-morocco-quick-ways-of-withdrawing-a7414551.html), a global treaty to limit climate change.
“The role played by Barack Obama was crucial in achieving the Paris agreement,” Mr Hollande said, before adding, in what has been perceived as a dig at Mr Trump, that becoming a signatory to the treaty is “irreversible”.
“We need carbon neutrality by 2050,” the French President continued, promising that coal will no longer form part of France's energy mix in six to seven years’ time.
France is already a world leader in low-carbon energy. The country has invested heavily in nuclear power over the past few decades and now derives more than 75 per cent of its electricity from nuclear fission. It produces so much nuclear energy, in fact, that it exports much of it to nearby nations, making around £2.5 billion each year.
The mood in Marrakech has been described as defiant, with more world leaders backing the Paris agreement plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which came into force on 4 November, since Mr Trump's remarkable victory.
Germany has said it is to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by up to 95 percent by 2050, the UK has pledged to wipe out coal power by 2025, and Chinese president Xi Jinping said China would continue its fight against global warming “whatever the circumstances", although it stressed the importance of cooperation with the US.
Mr Trump has said in the past he believes global warming is a Chinese hoax to make US manufacturing less profitable, something the country's foreign minister Liu Zhenmin rebuked on Wednesday.
“I hope the Republican administration will continue to support the process of tackling global warming. We have to expect they will take a right and smart decision,” Mr Zhenmin said.
Also in Marrakech was current US secretary of state John Kerry, who said he would continue his efforts to implement the Paris agreement until Mr Obama leaves office on 20 January.
“The evidence is mounting in ways that people in public life should not dare to avoid accepting as a mandate for action,” Mr Kerry said.
 
“Now the world’s scientific community has concluded that climate change is happening beyond any doubt. And the evidence is there for everybody to see.“
Over 300 leading US businesses have signed a statement calling on president-elect to support the Paris agreement.
Mr Kerry said the refusal to act on climate change was a “moral failure, and a betrayal of devastating consequences".
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 23-11-2016, 11:59:39
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 23-11-2016, 14:30:42
Ako ne želimo da nestanemo kao vrsta s lica Zemlje onda želimo da uspostavimo kakvu-takvu kontrolu nad faktorima koji mogu da dovedu do našeg nestanka. Hrišćani smatraju da kontrola tih faktora treba da ostane u Božjim rukama (i "de fakto" ne može da ne ostane, koliko god se mi trudili), jer kako bi inače došlo do Sudnjeg dana? Možda i kontrolu tih faktora vide kao delo Đavola koji želi da spreči Sudnji dan? U svakom slučaju, ako nestanemo to je zato što smo zaslužili, a po Hrišćanima jesmo zaslužili jer tako piše u Bibliji.

Možda je za ljude najbolje da Islam postane dominantna religija. Oni se ne zanose toliko Sudnjim danom.

Karlin priča o planeti Zemlji kao o entitetu koji tu nešto odlučuje, što nema potporu u onome što trenutno znamo o Zemlji. Prema tome ovaj video je samo komičarski monolog, a ne neka velika skrivena istina.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 24-11-2016, 09:35:50
Tesla runs an entire island on solar power (https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/22/tesla-runs-island-on-solar-power/)



Quote
    Now that Tesla has officially acquired SolarCity (https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/21/tesla-solarcity-acquisition/), it's not wasting any time showing what the combined entity can do. Tesla has revealed (http://blog.solarcity.com/island-in-the-sun/) that it's running the island of Ta'u (in American Samoa) on a solar energy microgrid that, at 1.4 megawatts, can cover "nearly 100 percent" of electrical needs. It's not just the 5,328 solar panels that are key -- it's the 60 Tesla Powerpacks (https://www.engadget.com/2015/10/12/tesla-batteries-power-california-buildings/) that offer 6 megawatt-hours of energy storage. While Ta'u is normally very sunny, the packs can keep it running for three days without sunlight. They don't have to worry about a cloudy day leading to blackouts.
     The solar switch, which took a year to complete, has both its long-term environmental and immediate practical benefits. Like many remote communities (https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/07/hydroponic-gardens-could-end-arctic-food-shortages/), Ta'u previously had to run on diesel generators. That burns 300 gallons of fuel per day, which is neither eco-friendly nor cheap. Solar eliminates the pollution, of course, but it also saves the cost of having to continuously buy and ship barrels of diesel. And crucially, it provides a more reliable source of electricity. Locals previously had to ration power (say, if a diesel shipment wasn't on time) or accept periodic outages. Now, they can assume they'll have power at all times.
Ta'u is clearly an ideal test case. On top of its paradise-like weather, there are less than 600 residents with relatively modest power needs. It'd require much, much more power to accommodate a full-blown city, especially in climates where cloudy days are more commonplace. However, it could still serve as a good example. Tesla's mission is to wean the world off of fossil fuels, and this shows that it's a realistic goal in at least some corners of the globe.




A s druge strane:


 Canada plans to phase out coal-powered electricity by 2030  (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/21/canada-coal-electricity-phase-out-2030)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 24-11-2016, 10:16:35
Malo smo se zaneli.


at least some corners of the globe.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 24-11-2016, 10:36:22
Pa, ceo poslednji pasus ukazuje da ovo nije nešto što je instant-rešenje za celu planetu, naravno. Ali je interesantan proof of concept. Kako smo već pričali, tehnologija za efikasno prikupljanje solarne energije je očigledno tu, sada je potrebno razviti pouzdane i visokokapacitetne tehnologije njenog skladištenja i distribucije i onda to neko zamenjivanje fosilnih goriva "čistijim" vidovima energije može da postane ozbiljnija inicijativa.

No, naravno, sve to zavisi od milion faktora... Nuklearna energija je u principu čistija i po ekosisteme manje štetna od fosilnih goriva, samo da nije ogromnih rizika vezanih za nju u slučaju nekakve nesreće...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 24-11-2016, 10:58:01
Komplikovanije je to od nekoliko linkova.
Recimo:
- Ko će te sve ubiti, ako je rešenje zaista primenljivo?
- Šta ćemo sve potrošiti da bismo ga ostvarili?
- Šta ćemo saditi i koju stoku gajiti na "solarnim" livadama?
- Ko će na kraj s Arapima?
Ustvari, sve to vidim kao temu za SF radionicu:
Problem globalnog zagrevanja rešen?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 24-11-2016, 11:13:14
Eo,  sve piše

(http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/16/47/768x1012/gallery-1479925528-alicia-silverstone-wool-768x1012.jpg)

Wear vegan.  Nači da oderemo vegana i eto krzna!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 28-11-2016, 10:24:07
6 major countries have recently announced imminent phase-out of all coal-fired power plants (https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/6-major-countries-phase-out-coal/)



Quote
As of late, the idea of getting rid of coal in their own national electricity grid has become a popular one among several major nations across the world. At 6 least major countries, including Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and now Finland, have all recently announced the imminent phase-out of all coal-fired power plants.
Several of the announcement have been made just in the past few weeks since the Paris Agreement became effective earlier this month.
Earlier this week, Canada, which has already significantly reduced its use of coal to about 7% of its energy generation, announced a phase of the resource by 2030. The country’s strong hydropower should keep dominating its energy generation, but the country has also been investing in wind and solar to make up the difference.
A week before Canada’s announcement, France announced a more aggressive timeline of 2023 (https://electrek.co/2016/11/17/france-is-serious-about-carbon-will-stop-using-coal-by-2023-might-carbon-tax-us-goods-if-us-pulls-out-of-climate-agreements/) for its own phase-out of coal, but it should be more easily achievable since they have already reduced the use of coal to 3% of their electricity generation – thanks to a strong local nuclear industry.
As of last week, Germany official approved its Climate Action Plan 2050 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Climate_Action_Plan_2050#Energy_sector), which technically includes a phase-out of at least half the coal-fired power plants by 2030 and the rest could follow by the end of the 2050 timeframe of the action plan.
Finland is the latest country to join the group, but it also announced a more aggressive solution of simply banning entirely the use of coal to produce energy by 2030. The country gets about 12% of its electricity from coal, which it has to import.
Peter Lund, a researcher at Aalto University, and chair of the energy programme at the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, told New Scientist (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113827-finland-set-to-become-first-country-to-ban-coal-use-for-energy/#.WDb5ulccxHg.facebook) about the recently announced ban on coal:
“These moves are important forerunners to enforce the recent positive signals in coal use. The more countries join the coal phase-out club, the better for the climate as this would force the others to follow.”
Who’s going to be next? It’s unlikely to be the US, which gets about 33% of its total electricity generation from coal. President-elect Donald Trump was elected partly on his promise to “bring back coal jobs” and grow the industry rather than to phase it out. Though experts have concluded that his plan isn’t likely to have a massive impact (http://time.com/4570070/donald-trump-coal-jobs/) on the industry despite the scrapping of environmental regulations.
The growth of renewable energy is difficult to stop and reducing the use of coal in electricity generation also has the consequence of increasing the positive impact of electric vehicles since they become powered by cleaner energy sources.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 28-11-2016, 10:55:01
Eo,  sve piše

(http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/16/47/768x1012/gallery-1479925528-alicia-silverstone-wool-768x1012.jpg)

Wear vegan.  Nači da oderemo vegana i eto krzna!

Ja ovde vidim keltski druidski paganizam, maske životinja,sexanje po prirodi, obožavanje majke prirode, sexanje iste....
a bune se kad ja oću da ne verujem Vavilonskim zvezdarima i gatarima u Nasi i Vatikanu....
Ko je bre ovde ćaknut?!?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 01-12-2016, 08:49:29
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has worst coral die-off ever (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2016/11/28/great-barrier-reef-australia-coral-die-off/94554934/)



Quote
One of the world’s treasures, the Great Barrier Reef, just suffered from its worst coral die-off ever recorded, Australian scientists announced Monday (https://www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/life-and-death-after-great-barrier-reef-bleaching).
Stress from unusually warm ocean water heated by man-made climate change and the natural El Niño climate pattern caused the die-off. "The coral was cooked,” Terry Hughes, director of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, told the BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-38127320).
At more than 1,400 miles long, Australia's Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest coral reef and the planet's biggest structure made by living organisms. In the northernmost section of the reef, which had been considered the most "pristine," some 67% of the coral died.
The good news, scientists said, was that central and southern sections of the reef fared far better, with "only" 6% and 1% of the coral dead, respectively.
Coral reefs result from the work of little polyps, creatures only a few millimeters long, budded on top of one another. Over centuries, the shells of these creatures combine to form the exotic shapes of coral reefs. Tiny differences in the anatomy of each polyp species affect the shape of their shells and produce the exotic shapes of each reef.


The vibrant colors that draw thousands of tourists to the Great Barrier Reef each year come from algae that live in the corals tissue. When water temperatures become too high, coral becomes stressed and expels the algae, which leave the coral a bleached white color.
Mass coral bleaching is a new phenomenon and was never observed before the 1980s as global warming ramped up.
Besides their beauty, reefs shelter land from storms, and are also a habitat for myriads of species.
"Coral reefs are therefore the most biologically diverse ecosystems of the planet, and provide a number of ecosystem services that hundreds of millions of people rely on," said Greg Torda, also of the Centre, in an e-mail to USA TODAY.
"These include provisioning (fishing, other types of harvesting, for pharmaceuticals, for example), coastal protection, aesthetic and cultural values – to name a few. If corals are lost, so are all the services they provide to humans; and so are all the species that directly or indirectly rely on them."


Tourism on the Great Barrier Reef employs 70,000 people, and generates $5 billion (Australian) in income each year, the Centre said in a statement.
The good news is that much of the coral survived this bleaching event. But looking to the future, mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef will likely be an annual phenomenon within a decade, Torda said.
If all the coral died on the reef, “it would be among the largest mass extinction events in history,” said Torda.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 01-12-2016, 10:33:23
U trilemi dal' da se suočim sa sve izvesnijom činjenicom da nam država postaje poslednjim bastionom neoliberalizma i mahnitog globalizma, naporima radioničara da otkriju kako su poštovali ili nepoštovali zadatu temu, nekako mi je najbolje da se posvetim novom Mehinom linku koji zaključuje da je i SKUVANI Veliki koralni greben posledica otapanja leda na polovima.


Pošto smo vremenom shvatili da od sticanja Velike pameti sa internetom nema ništa, možda je vreme da se pozabavimo ekstinkcijom. Jeste da pametnjakovići i dalje pokušavaju da dovedu u sumnju evoluciju, ali je možda vreme da oni drugi prepoznaju da je esktinkcija nezaobilazni deo evolucije. Nastajanje je tesno povezano sa nestajanjem. Tek kad je postalo nemoguće da ih reptili zgaze sisari su mogli da porastu.


Radoznaliji su odavno mogli da saznaju da su koralni grebeni, upravo zbog svoje raznovrsnosti, esencijalni evolucioni vrtlog. Isto tako i da su sve obale (linija gde se dodiruju more i kopno), jednom bile kršina usijane ili razbijene lave, pa smetlište i kenjara za prolaznike, pa evolutivna kuhinja i na kraju napuštena obala. Nevolja je što smo u Velikom vremenu samo foton, pa moramo da nagađamo, grešimo ili pogađamo. Ali, negde kopno izranja, negde u crnoj lavi niče prvo seme, negde se obale spuštaju u more, neke Atlantide tonu u pod vode s lednika koji se tope. Ko ume da švenkuje, možda nešto i vidi.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 01-12-2016, 10:41:53
zaključuje da je i SKUVANI Veliki koralni greben posledica otapanja leda na polovima.



Tj. da su i jedno i drugo posledica klimatskih promena koje bi mogle u relativno skorije vreme učiniti planetu teško nastanjivom za nas.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 01-12-2016, 10:52:30
De bre, man' se PRŽITE, neće vam ništa fali, znam ja, pošto živimo na TIGANJU okruženim ledom, imaaaaaaa biće svega doveka ;)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 01-12-2016, 10:58:41
Ja ne znam kako oni uopšte žive! 8-)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3541623.stm
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 01-12-2016, 11:03:27
zaključuje da je i SKUVANI Veliki koralni greben posledica otapanja leda na polovima.


Tj. da su i jedno i drugo posledica klimatskih promena koje bi mogle u relativno skorije vreme učiniti planetu teško nastanjivom za nas.


Hajde, Meho, da budemo realni, a ne relativni. Pa da požurimo na Mars? Tamo je lakše? Ne možemo mi toliko da zaseremo, a da majčica Zemlja ne može da počisti.


Pametniji od mene već su požurili.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 01-12-2016, 11:09:34
Ma, kako smo već rekli i na ovom topiku, neće ovo da zakači mene ili tebe, ali pričamo o mogućim dramatičnim promenama koje bi mogle da prouzrokuju ozbiljne poremećaje u naseljivosti velikih delova planete, da ne pričam o istrebljenju raznih vrsta, u kratkom roku od nekoliko vekova...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 01-12-2016, 11:30:21
Nekoliko vijekova? Ako neće za Trampove vlade nije ni bitno!

Nafta će ionako da se potroši do 2070.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 01-12-2016, 11:39:59
Nismo rekli i promene nisu dramatične. Dosta mi je i Aglijevog tupljenja o tiganju da bih sam upućivao na širu sliku. U mojoj viziji jedino treba da propadne proizvodnja đubreta, a na dobrom smo putu u tom pravcu. Možda ćemo morati oko toga i malo da se pobijemo, ali i to je dobro ako ne umemo da se dogovorimo. Krave će i dalje prdeti po Plejnsu, kao što su prdeli bizoni. Kod nas kiše dolaze, ali ćemo naučiti da plivamo. Evropa će postati obojeni kontinent, ali će na ivicama saharskih i subsaharskih pustinja biti upornih koji sade novu šumu. Mogao bih knjige da pišem o tome, ali ko će da me linkuje? Zato pokušavam da na radionici zadam teške teme, možda će neko te pisce prevoditi na engleski.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 01-12-2016, 11:51:09
Sa stanovišta same planete ništa tu nije dramatično. Ljudska rasa može da se samodesetkuje u nuklearnom ratu pokrenutom zbog masovnih migracija i nedostatka ključnih resursa poput pijaće vode, i biodiverzitet može da opadne toliko da će biti potrebno deset miliona godina da se vrati na nivo od pre industrijske revolucije, ali što se same planete tiče to su sve sitnice.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 01-12-2016, 12:26:56
Sa stanovišta same planete ništa tu nije dramatično. Ljudska rasa može da se samodesetkuje u nuklearnom ratu pokrenutom zbog masovnih migracija i nedostatka ključnih resursa poput pijaće vode.


Ne znam zašto se uvek izađe iz realnih okvra. Da, jedina prava ljudska pretnja je nuklearni rat, ali neće biti pokrenut zbog migracija ili pijaće vode. Skoro sam razmišljao o ljudskim migracijama i nijedna, od prve kad je čovek obrao smokvu (volim da baš tako napišem), nije prouzrokovala istrebljenje nego suprotno. Naravno, tu ne vidim velike pohode nego ekonomske migracije. Nedostatak pijaće vode izaziva premeštanje do prvog sledećeg potoka. Slično je bilo sa obradivom zemljom, dok ljudi nisu naučili da tlo mora i da se nahrani da bi bilo rodno. Ako je tako, a ubeđen sam da jeste, onda postoji samo jedna pretnja ravna nuklearnom ratu, a to je pretnja same Zemlje. No, to je dugačka priča, pa neću zamarati.




Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 01-12-2016, 12:33:06
Heeeej, pa i nuklearke su prevara!   :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7jVHzYzYw0
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 01-12-2016, 12:34:19
Jedni kažu otopljavanje, drugi kažu ledeno doba, Tramp i Ugly kažu sve će biti u redu
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 01-12-2016, 12:45:20
Nedostatak pijaće vode izaziva premeštanje do prvog sledećeg potoka.

Poljoprivrednici u Americi i Indiji imaju problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdrafting) sa nedostatkom podzemne vode. Oni nemaju gde da se presele, i iscprli su vodu koju su imali. Šta ćemo njima da kažemo? Da se presele u mesta gde voda još nije iscprljena?

Oni koji nisu iscrpli svoju vodu sigurno neće pristati na to da im je neko drugi crpe, ali voda mora da teče (http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Spice_Melange), pa će se naći neki povod da se vlade destabilizuju i narodi obore na kolena. Ali akcija proizvodi i reakciju, i ono što se u nastavku desilo bi moglo da vas rasplače...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 01-12-2016, 13:19:52
Ima preko četrdeset godina otkako sam saznao da su podzemne vode u Sahari (Libija) obilne, ali da im je potebno 30.000 godina da doteku od Konga. Skoro da od Sahare naprave Eden (probne piezobušotine radio Energoprojekt). Problem je bio kako sačekati sledećih 30.000 godina. Vode ima, samo nema dobre volje i funkcionalnih ideja. Ustvari, funkcionalniji ti je drugi link. Dok ima droge, jebe im se za život u pustinji. Brzi profit je važniji od dugoročnog. Postoje i projekti da se ledeni bregovi dotegnu tamo gde nema vode. Ionako se tope budzašto. Uz postojeće mogućnosti transporta, voda i hrana nisu nerešiv problem. Problem su kratkoročni ciljevi i interesi. Današnji biznis nije spreman da pravi piramide.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 08-12-2016, 08:58:50
Google tvrdi da će do kraja godine postići da energija koju njihova firma troši 100% dolazi iz obnovljivih izvora:


https://blog.google/topics/environment/100-percent-renewable-energy/

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 15-12-2016, 08:51:01
Međutim, dok su se svi bavili ugljendioksidom, metan nas je zaskočio s leđa:

 Rapid rise in methane emissions in 10 years surprises scientists (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/12/rapid-rise-methane-emissions-10-years-surprises-scientists)


Ali s druge strane, trend deinvestiranja u fosilna goriva je u porastu:

Fossil Fuel Divestment Has Doubled in the Last 15 Months (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fossil-fuel-divestment-has-doubled-in-the-last-15-months)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 15-12-2016, 10:50:14
Nije ni čudo što je autor teksta iznenađen, kad nigde u tekstu nije spomenut permafrost. Tako je povećan metan, odmrzavanjem onoga što smo naivno nazvali "večiti smrz".
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 15-12-2016, 11:17:25
Nekad smo samo disali, a sad i prdimo.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 21-12-2016, 09:06:07
Kinezi u paklu smoga. Članak jeste iz USA Today ali ne deluje zlonamerno i pruža relativno uverljivo izgledajuće izvore za to što piše. Naravno, uvek treba biti oprezan...

China chokes on smog so bad that planes can't land (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/12/19/china-chokes-smog-so-bad-planes-cant-land/95604308/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-12-2016, 08:50:23
Obama Designates Atlantic, Arctic Areas Off-Limits To Offshore Drilling (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/20/506336885/obama-designates-atlantic-arctic-areas-off-limits-to-offshore-drilling)



Obama je sada i zvanično predsednik SAD koji je zaštitio najviše teritorije od ove vrste eksploatacije. Pa, eto.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 23-12-2016, 08:59:05
Quote
Kinezi u paklu smoga. Članak jeste iz USA Today ali ne deluje zlonamerno i pruža relativno uverljivo izgledajuće izvore za to što piše. Naravno, uvek treba biti oprezan...


Meho, ja sam prvi put kad sam bio tamo dobio tako gadnu infekciju očiju da dva dana nisam mogao da gledam. Sunca nisam video, osim kroz izmaglicu... Drugi put je bilo nešto malo bolje, ali smog je katastrofalan. Štipa za oči. Ništa ne preteruju...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-12-2016, 09:11:59
U međuvremenu sam video i snimke (na Beogradskoj Hronici, naravno) koji ilustruju istu poentu i... da, izgleda kao Mordor.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 25-12-2016, 00:33:52
Ovo mi YouTube ponudio večeras, video star 2 godine koji objašnjava neke detalje u vezi s promenom klime:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 20-01-2017, 08:49:35
Earth hit record hot year in 2016, third-straight time according to NASA (http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/earth-hit-record-hot-year-in-2016-thirdstraight-time-according-to-nasa/news-story/fcdfdbea44e0366c55f80c0e49f7a121)



Quote
EARTH sizzled to a third-straight record hot year in 2016, government scientists have said.
They mostly blame man-made global warming with help from a natural El Niño, which has since disappeared.
Measuring global temperatures in slightly different ways, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that last year passed 2015 as the hottest year on record.
NOAA calculated that the average 2016 global temperature was 14.84 degrees Celsius (58.69 degrees Fahrenheit) — beating the previous year by 0.04 Celsius (0.07 degrees F).
NASA’s figures, which include more of the Arctic, are higher at 0.22 degrees (0.12 Celsius) warmer than 2015.Hoards of people pack Bondi Beach today after record temperatures in Sydney earlier this month. Picture: Jenny EvansSource:News Corp AustraliaThe Arctic “was enormously warm, like totally off the charts compared to everything else,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, where the space agency monitors global temperatures.
Records go back to 1880.
This is the fifth time in a dozen years that the globe has set a new annual heat record. Records have been set in 2016, 2015, 2014, 2010 and 2005.
The World Meteorological Organisation and other international weather monitoring groups agreed that 2016 was a record, with the international weather agency chief Petteri Taalas saying “temperatures only tell part of the story” of extreme warming.
“This is clearly a record,” NASA’s Dr Schmidt said in an interview. “We are now no longer only looking at something that only scientists can see, but is apparent to people in our daily lives.”A polar bear cools down in a pool at the Moscow Zoo after hot temperatures in 2011. Picture: APSource:APDr Schmidt said his calculations show most of the record heat was from heat-trapping gases from the burning of oil, coal and gas.
Only about 12 per cent was due to El Niño, which is a periodic warming of parts of the Pacific that change weather globally, he said.
“Of course this is climate change, it’s overwhelmingly climate change,” said Corinne Le Quere, director of England’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, who wasn’t part of the NOAA or NASA teams. “Warming (is) nearly everywhere. The Arctic sea ice is collapsing. Spikes in fires from the heat. Heavy rainfall from more water vapour in the air.”This is the third straight year which has been marked by record temperatures. Picture: APSource:APAccording to NOAA, 2016 was 0.94 degrees Celsius warmer than the 20th Century average. The first eight months of 2016 all broke heat records.
NASA has last year at 0.99 degrees Celsius warmer than their mid-20th Century average and about 2 degrees warmer than the start of the industrial age in the late 19th Century.
“The effects are more than just records, but actually hurt people and the environment,” said Oklahoma University meteorology professor Jason Furtado.
“They’re harmful on several levels, including human welfare, ecology, economics, and even geopolitics,” he said.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-02-2017, 06:28:21
  ‘Beyond the extreme’: Scientists marvel at ‘increasingly non-natural’ Arctic warmth  (http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/%E2%80%98beyond-the-extreme%E2%80%99-scientists-marvel-at-%E2%80%98increasingly-non-natural%E2%80%99-arctic-warmth/ar-AAmvwVZ?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 04-02-2017, 09:12:00
opa, flatearth mapiranje! ;)
velkam tu rijaliti!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 04-02-2017, 12:02:27
Aha, eto ga skeptik među klajmat ćejnđ naučnicima, nači ima nade!

Sto posto su ga izvadili iz konteksta, ipak je to sve prirodno
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 13-02-2017, 08:56:18
Kakvog li će ovo efekta imati na envajronment...

Four of Iceland's main volcanoes all preparing for eruption (http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/nature_and_travel/2017/02/07/four_of_iceland_s_main_volcanoes_all_preparing_for_/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 18-02-2017, 06:53:55
Murray Energy CEO claims global warming is a hoax, says 4,000 scientists tell him so (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/17/murray-energy-ceo-claims-global-warming-is-a-hoax.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104289949&yptr=yahoo)
 
Quote
Murray Energy Chairman and CEO Robert Murray on Friday claimed global warming is a hoax and repeated a debunked claim that the phenomenon cannot exist because the Earth's surface is cooling.
Murray appeared on CNBC's "Squawk Box" (http://www.cnbc.com/squawk-box-us/) to discuss Republicans' rollback of an Obama-era rule that would have restricted coal mining near waterways. President Donald Trump (http://www.cnbc.com/donald-trump/) signed the measure (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/coal-rule-gop-struck-down-would-have-created-as-many-jobs-as-it-cost.html) on Thursday in front of Murray and a group of Murray Energy workers.
Murray Energy is the country's largest coal miner. Many of its mines are in Appalachia, a region that would suffer some of the biggest impacts (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/coal-rule-gop-struck-down-would-have-created-as-many-jobs-as-it-cost.html) of the rule. Murray also successfully sued to delay implementation of the Clean Power Plan, which would regulate planet-warming carbon emissions from power plants.
  Asked about the economic analysis behind President Barack Obama (http://www.cnbc.com/barack-obama/)'s energy regulations, Murray said, "There's no scientific analysis either. I have 4,000 scientists that tell me global warming is a hoax. The Earth has cooled for 20 years."
It was not immediately clear who the 4,000 scientists Murray referenced are.
 Asked for clarification, a spokesperson for Murray Energy sent links to the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, which says "human-caused climate change is not a global crisis," and the Global Warming Petition Project, a list of science degree holders who don't think humans cause climate change.
 
Murray's claim that there is no scientific analysis behind climate change is not true.
 
A landmark 2013 study assessed 4,000 peer-reviewed papers by 10,000 climate scientists that gave an opinion on the cause of climate change. It showed 97 percent of the authors attributed climate change to manmade causes.
 
His second claim that Earth is cooling is also false.
 
Temperatures were the warmest on record last year (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally), according to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It was the third year in a row global average temperatures set a record.
 
"The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere," NASA and NOAA said.
 
Climate change skeptics sometimes point to cool land temperatures to dispute global warming. Scientists have repeatedly noted that water covers 70 percent of the Earth's surface, so it is highly misleading to cast temperatures on land as a representation of global-scale temperatures.
 
Land also heats and cools more quickly (https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change) than the ocean, The Weather Channel noted while debunking a recent Breitbart News article that was widely found to have cherry-picked data to cast doubt on climate change.
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 28-02-2017, 12:06:21
Ej, Globalisti, nisam ovo 'teo na Flat Earth,
mada možete pogledati ceo klip, Vvvvvvrrrrrrrlo je edukativan, ali što se tiče ovog topika, pogledajte negde od 8:15, radi se o Global Warmingu, hahahaaaaaaa,,,,Vic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tv4Lkcz6-A
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 16-03-2017, 08:49:22
Istraživanje koje veli da je jedno polovina otapanja leda na polovima posledica prirodnih uvjeta a da je za drugu polovinu kriv čovek:

Arctic ice loss driven by natural swings, not just mankind: study (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-arctic-idUSKBN16K21V)



Evo linka do same studije: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~qinghua/pdf/24.pdf
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ALEKSIJE D. on 16-03-2017, 08:59:21
E moj Meho, ništa bez religije. Ima tu nekih čudnih poslova.



www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMRWk7B_E7Y
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 18-03-2017, 21:55:08
Evo zašto:


http://webtribune.rs/zasto-mediji-cute-da-je-na-polovima-zemlje-doslo-do-porasta-leda-kakav-nije-viden-decenijama/


Ko će sada da izađe na kraj sa kontraevolucionistima i flatertovcima?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 18-03-2017, 21:58:31
Webtribune je neka varijanta nesmešnog njuz.net-a. Sve što kažu je izmišljeno, a pritom nije ni smešno. Klasičan primer onoga što se sad zove "fake news". Skrobonja na Fejsbuku stalno linkuje ka tom sajtu što me pomalo iritira. On valjda misli da je to zabavno. Nije.

Naravno, isto se odnosi i na bilo koji dokaz da je Zemlja ravna, ali dva minusa ne daju plus, pa ni odgovaranje fejkom na fejk ne proizvodi istinu.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 18-03-2017, 22:04:04
Naravno, nije fejk spomenuti da je na Zemlji ista temperatura kao i prije pet hiljada godina, po macovom grafikonu!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 18-03-2017, 22:10:03
Sve na internetu je pomalo tačno i pomalo pogrešno. Pa, ko šta odabere. A o vremenu je više znao Boris Koljčicki.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 18-03-2017, 22:51:17
Bato, nije problem visina nego brzina promena. Rečeno ti je to nekoliko puta, ali ne slušaš, jer bitnije je da nekom na internetu uvališ prstenac, nego da tvoje potomstvo ima pristojan život. Uzgred, zar nismo već prešli granicu od pet hiljada godina? <jedno guglanje kasnije...> da evo, ove temperature Zemlja je videla ne pre 5 nego pre 115 hiljada godina (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/03/global-temperature-climate-change-highest-115000-years).
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 18-03-2017, 22:57:57
Scallope, bilo koji njihov članak pod kategorijom "iza ogledala (http://webtribune.rs/kategorij/iza-ogledala/)" je teška bljuvotina. Za ostale kategorije ne znam, ali očigledno im je click-baiting biznis model.

Članak koji si linkovao je takođe u navedenoj kategoriji :)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 18-03-2017, 23:00:08
Zemlja je stara jedva 7000 godina, ima tačno, mrzi me da tražim.
Sve ostalo je paganska jeres! :)
I ravna je ko longplejka!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 18-03-2017, 23:02:26
Mac, nemoj da te ja učim matematici. Ekstrapolacija krive na slobodnom kraju, posebno ako se ne poznaju svi parametri koji na nju utiču, je ravna gledanju u pasulj, a prognoze plaše mečku s rešeto.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 18-03-2017, 23:17:15
Mac, ne obmanjuj javnost, dao si sliku u kojoj 4. milenijum stare ere ima današnju temperaturu. Nači 6000 godina.
To umnogome dovodi u pitanje tvoju tezu o antropogenim dokazima.

Čak i Meho prizno da bar pola nije antropogeno!

A i generalno preuveličavate posljedice
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 18-03-2017, 23:25:13
Scallope, da ja i ti radimo tu ekstrapolaciju onda bi to zaista bilo gledanje u pasulj. Ali ne radimo mi, nego ljudi koji znaju tu matematiku i umeju da je primene. Imaju ljudi modele. Evo, Syukuro Manabe i Richard T. Wetherald su napravili klimatski model pre 50 godina, i taj model je predvideo promenu klime upravo onako kako je merimo. Dakle model je tačan u tih 50 godina. Da li će biti tačan i u nastavku? Teško je reći, ali biće (evo to ja ekstrapoliram). Japanac napominje da model nije uračunao uticaj promene klime na ekosisteme, i da bi i to trebalo uračunati. S obzirom da su promene toliko nagle postojeći ekosistemi mogu samo da krahiraju, a ne i da se prilagode, i uspore klimatske promene.

Naučni rad sa klimatskim modelom: Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281967%29024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2)
Članak u Forbsu: The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly (https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly)

Glavni nalaz u navedenom naučnom radu: According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2°C.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 18-03-2017, 23:34:10
Nisi nikada video šta sam ja radio, pa se ostavi pasulja. Baš ste junaci kad branite tuđe protiv našeg.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 18-03-2017, 23:47:51
Pa dobro, da li znaš sve "parametre koji utiču na krivu"? Da li si klimatolog? Ako nisi da li bi dozvolio klimatolozima, kolegama naučnicima, da nastave da rade svoj posao, bez uplitanja osobe koja nije učila klimatologiju?

I šta tačno znači ovo da branim tuđe protiv našeg? Postoje neki naši klimatolozi koji imaju različite zaključke od onih koje je Japanac izneo pre 50 godina?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 19-03-2017, 00:27:50
Pa, eto. Naše klimatologe ne braniš, a braniš Japanca od pre 50. godina. Šta je pedeset godina? Ni jedan klik! Milankoviću je bila potrebna samo tintara, a tri nauke su skrljale decenije da pokažu da je njegova teorija ledenih doba ispravna. Tvrdim ti da su naučnici danas previše užurbani da svetu nešto pokažu i sebe dokažu. Progresivni naučnici se očas pretvaraju u tvrdoglave zastupnike svojih rešenja. Recimo, svaki čas neko izračuna šta će se sve potopiti kad se led na polovima otopi. Metri, kvadratni kilometri, potop, Nojeva barka... E, nema tog prdeža koji će da potopi svet. Jednom smo razmatrali saopštenja sa nekog naučnog skupa u Stokholmu. Neki mudroser zabezeknuo publiku sa proračunom da jedna kašičica botulin toksina može da ubije pola stanovništva Stokholma. Ja sam samo pitao kako će da ga raspodeli stanovništvu. Kad počnu ozbiljna pitanja pogube se ozbiljni odgovori. E, time sam se bavio. U mojim proračunima mikroklima je bila samo jedan od parametara. Moderni prognozeri slabo uzimaju u obzir da je emisija CO2 parametar koji utiče manje nego kad prdne Etna. Takođe, ne znaju za sve parametri, a neki još nisu pokazali svoje delovanje.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 19-03-2017, 00:54:47
If the ENTIRE Greenland ice sheet melts, the sea level will rise by approximately 8 meters (26 feet), submerging huge amounts of coastal and low-lying areas around the world, including the majority of the state of Florida.

Nači najgore moguće je da se podigne 8 metara? Bežbre.

Pritom, how convenient, zaboraviše sve ostale kenj modele iz šezdesetih, koji su tvrdili da ćemo propasti do 2000.

I ova temperaturnaslika protivrječi prethodnoj slici od prije neki mjesec. Tamo temp prelazi nulu 1980. a ovdje početkom vijeka.

Kažem ja sve macovi simulakrumi.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 19-03-2017, 01:00:34
A šta Milanković predviđa za sledećih 50 godina? Ja sam mislio da su njegovi ciklusi malo veći, i da je on tim svojim ciklusima ugrubo objasnio ledena doba, a ne promenu klime kojom se sada konkretno bavimo. Dobar je Milanković, ali nisam siguran da nam je naročito od koristi njegov rad u ovoj sad raspravi.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 19-03-2017, 01:18:12
Ništa nisi shvatio. Mnogo pratiš linkove.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 19-03-2017, 01:42:15
Šta to nisam shvatio?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 19-03-2017, 09:18:51
Šta to nisam shvatio?


1.Da je Milanković primer da se velike teorije dokazuju i proveravaju vekovima. Njega sam odabrao zato što je naš.
2. Da su mnogi naučnici u svetu podlegli neoliberalizmu i svoja istraživanja plasiraju kao da su uzeli kratkoročni kredit.
3. Da su tvrdnje toliko brojne da prevazilaze broj proroka, pa je sigurno neko pogodio.


Teško da ćeš i ovo razumeti, ali tu mogu malo šta. Skepsa je osnov nauke, a vizije su osnov naučne fantastike. Razumem se i u jedno i u drugo, pa bi bilo zgodno da se uzme u obzir. Bre, linkovi su postali fantastičniji od naučne fantastike. Ubi me konkurencija.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 19-03-2017, 09:25:17
Uuuuuuuuu,,,,ovaj pasus bez nabrajanja je nešto što ja mlatim non-stop, a Scalllop napisao ozbiljno!
Daj neki ozbiljan o Flatearthu!!!
Misliiiiim, južni pol ionako ne postoji, jelte....a no severni, to je centar kruga! :)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 19-03-2017, 09:32:18
Uuuuuuuuu,,,,ovaj pasus bez nabrajanja je nešto što ja mlatim non-stop, a Scalllop napisao ozbiljno!
Daj neki ozbiljan o Flatearthu!!!
Misliiiiim, južni pol ionako ne postoji, jelte....a no severni, to je centar kruga! :)


Tebi treba nacrtati, a da sam znao sam sebi bih pravio stripove. Bar ne bi stripadžije pravile sebi scenarija.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 19-03-2017, 09:42:28
Ufffffff,,,,znači ništa 'Sallop The Flatearther'?
ok, ima vremena.... ;)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 19-03-2017, 10:14:48
Ufffffff,,,,znači ništa 'Sallop The Flatearther'?
ok, ima vremena.... ;)


Da se nagodimo. Možemo li sve da zamislimo kao kalem za magnetofonske trake, one stare ako se sećaš. I na njemu ima rupa u sredini. Pa svet pluta na strani gde je etiketa, Flat nevernike božanska struja vuče ka ivicama i prevaljuje ih na Donji svet. Tamo ih sačekuju đavoli i raspoređuju iz po kazanima, koji sa gornje strane pućkaju kao vulkani. Prva slika, magnetofonska traka, muzika iz Mokranjčevih Rukoveti. Kamera ulazi u sliku, kalem raste dok se pretoči u svet... Bre, film bismo mogli da napravimo! Ja scenario, ti story board, tu smo maheri.
Eto, Ugly, zato ništa od tvoje zamisli. Stripadžija nema šanse uz ludog pisca.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 19-03-2017, 12:19:54
Nemre.
Zamisli da je ravno, sa ledenim ivicama, i kupolom iznad!
Kao one male snowballl kugle!
Nema padneš kad se dođe do kraja, samo ledeni zid.
To je već dokazano, vidli smo snimke ;)
Trebamo da pravimo fantazi kako se Nasa kosmonauti razlepe ko muve po omotaču :)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 19-03-2017, 12:25:19
Volim zajebante, ne volem agitatore.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 19-03-2017, 13:02:43
Pa ja se i ne zajebavam sa ravnom zemljom,
ispada da kolko god da je svejedno, globus ili tanjir, ne mogu sebe da smatram za neopredeljenog mlakonju.
Pa sam se opredelio da ne verujem u globus i heliocentrizam.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 19-03-2017, 13:16:22
1.Da je Milanković primer da se velike teorije dokazuju i proveravaju vekovima. Njega sam odabrao zato što je naš.

Da li s ovom tvrdnjom implicitno ide i tvrdnja da dok se teorija 100% ne dokaže ni mi laici ni naučnici nemamo pravo da gradimo na osnovama koje nova (75% dokazana) teorija daje?

Kad je Kopernik dao teoriju da se Zemlja okreće oko Sunca i tada je bilo malih neslaganja podataka s teorijom. Teorija je naime držala da su putanje Zemlje i ostalih planeta kružne, a ne eliptične. Kepler je zaključio da su orbite zapravo eliptične, to jest gradio je na osnovama koje je pružila Kopernikova teorija.

Kad govorimo o teoriji koju je Japanac dao sigurno i tu može da se gradi. Pa sam Japanac je rekao kako teorija može da se unapredi da pruži preciznija predviđanja. Ali nećemo ignorisati teorije koje nisu 100% dokazane. Uzećemo sve teorije u obzir i proveravati ih empirijski, i naučnim konsenzusom usvajati šta nam je dalje činiti. Kad je klimatologija u pitanju oni koji nisu dovoljno stručni u klimatologiji nemaju glas u tom naučnom konsenzusu.

2. Da su mnogi naučnici u svetu podlegli neoliberalizmu i svoja istraživanja plasiraju kao da su uzeli kratkoročni kredit.

Koje su osnove za ovu tvrdnju? Kako da znamo da ova tvrdnja nije plasirana od strane onih koji mogu da izgube mnogo para u procesu uvođenja novih polisa zasnovanih na novim naučnim saznanjima? Ova tvrdnja je prilično "slobodna", da ne kažem proizvoljna. Koje su osnove?

3. Da su tvrdnje toliko brojne da prevazilaze broj proroka, pa je sigurno neko pogodio.

Tako je, i onda sačekamo 50 godina da se razdvoji žito od kukolja, i ostane Japanac. I sad pričamo o Japancu, ali ne i o ostalim prorocima. Držalo vodu 50 godina. Hoće li držati i nadalje. Pa jako su velike šanse. Nije čovek došao do modela sričući knjige proročke, nego merio, razmatrao, i modelirao. Skoro kao pravi naučnik.

Uzgred, ja stalno spominjem Japanca, a Amerikanca ni jednom, ali to je za potrebe forumaške rasprave. Obojica su zaslužni.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 19-03-2017, 13:33:09
1. Mac mi krade argumente!

2. Stavio sam link na Živimo SF, još nisi pročito!

3. 75% pogođena teorija dovoljno da promaši datum nestanka lednika i onda pada na 0%, makar sve ostalo bilo tačno
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 19-03-2017, 13:49:13
Ja sam izgleda ograničen, jer ne znam šta mi sada pričaš. Formuliši to tako da ja razumem, kao što je scallop uradio, pa ćemo videti šta dalje. U okviru prevoda na macovski jezik objasni molim te i kakve veze ima link na drugoj temi sa klimatologijom.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 19-03-2017, 13:56:04
Pa sa naukom i neoliberalizmom, to je scallopovo #2.

#3 samo da je topljenje lednika ključna stvar u modelu, a pritom nijedan naučnik ne može da zna kako se ponašaju lednici, jer za njih ne mogu imati podatke hiljadama godina unazad.

Ovdje je bre nestalo Panonsko more bez ijednog fabričkog dimnjaka mi pričamo kako će Tramp da istopi Grenland.

Pritom je vrlo zanimljivo da Eskimi nemaju pojma o kakvoj klimi Al Gor prdi.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 19-03-2017, 14:10:18
Tvrdiš da link na Živimo SF daje osnovu za scallopovu tvrdnju da naučnici liberalno lažu jer su liberali? Ajd, videću. Ne verujem, ali šta da se radi..

Koja je osnova za tvrdnju da je topljenje lednika ključna stvar u modelu? Da li pričamo o Japančevom modelu? Nabacuješ laičke komentare, a kladim se da nisi ni pogledao naučni rad u PDF-u. Ja pogledao, ali suviše je stručan za mene. Ništa nisam shvatio.

I kao i pet puta dosada napominjem da je problem u brzini promene klime, a ne u samom povećanju temperature. Zašto ignorišeš ključni problem i konstantno opovrgavaš manje bitan detalj u celoj priči?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 19-03-2017, 14:35:11
Ne da lažu, no koje je ustrojstvo nauke danas i kakvo je bilo prije neoliberalizma, čak i kakvo je u SSSR.

Ako bih baš pravio zavjeru istakao bih da je skok klimatsje propagande počeo 1988. Saslušanja naučnika NASA-e s apokaliptičnom pričom, uz najavu borbe za životnu sredinu direkt iz usta Buša Seniora i Margaret Tačer.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 19-03-2017, 14:55:49
Možemo o svemu da raspravljamo, ali ako se ostaviš Japanca. Teorija drži vodu trenutno, uskoro ce početi da curi.


Ako ćemo o neoliberalizmu, onda je tu Bata jači. Ja sam zakačen za stagflaciju i uverenje da je nametnuta teza da je kretanje cilj, a da je stablinost propast. Biznis je isključio posao, trgovanje proizvodnju, finansijski centri su od podrške postali vodilje. O kreditima samo da se stiglo do zida kad su proglašeni za proizvod. Na ovom mestu Mac moža da prestane da čita, jer dalje govorim o naučnom rezultatu kao o proizvodu.


Nikada u istoriji nije bilo toliko "naučnih rezultata", a isto tako i oborenih, demantovanih i pogrešnih teza. Lillit je o tome nešto pisala. Da bi bilo jasno daću konkretamn primer. Moja kćerka je, nekih četiri godine nakon odlaska iz istraživanja u Filadelfiji, bila dobro plaćena zbog argumentovanih formulacija za grantove i naredna istraživanja. Jednog dana, bio sam tamo, došla mi je sa papirom koji je očekivao naredni grant. Rekla mi je da ona to ne može, da su raspoloživi podaci oskudni, nedovoljni i neupotrebljivi. Gurnula je papir pred mene ne bih li je demantovao. Budući da se ponešto razumem u eksperimentalna istraživanja, pregledao sam, tražio bilo kakvo uporište i zaključio da je u pravu. Tako je ona izgubila lovu, a ja nadu da će ostati u poslu koji joj je tako dobro išao.
Dakle, nauka je ostala bez kritičkog stava, a postepeno i bez karaktera. Neoliberalizam je ostavio isti trag na nauku kao i na sve ostalo. Najvažnije je postalo dobiti kredit ili grant, a posle, ko se snađe - snađe. Ne možete zamisliti koliko su na nauku uticali finansijski interesi. Kad je trebalo izbaciti Diditi i zameniti ga organofosfatnom zaštitom bilja, našli su miligrame diditija u ribama Ontarija, najhrabriji i u mozgu nerođenih beba. Džaba je bilo što su branioci diditija platili istraživanja naučnicima koji su šest meseci bukvalno krkali diditi. Da ne pominjem da su svi nervnbi bojni otrovi - organofosfati
Tako, da kad se ponašamo kao robovi linkova, sigurno nismo na pravom putu. Ako nekog zanima mogu ja da dam više primera, ali mrzim što ću dati za pravo Bati, koji zastupa još sumnjiviju nauka, gde se za manje para može ispisati više gluposti. Da ne pominjem Uglyja koji veruje, pa postoji.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 19-03-2017, 15:31:17
Pročitao tekst sa linka. Nigde se ne spominje kako liberalni naučnici lažu zato što su liberalni. Zapravo se suprotno spominje, naučnici ne smeju da budu liberalni u svojim vizijama, jer ideja mora da bude ziheraški "sigurna" i opravdana pre nego što se ispita. Upravo ovo što je scallop opisao.

Ono što se na linku spominje je da je tehnički progres ukočen zbog patentnog sistema, kao i uvođenja birokratije u nauku, s ciljem da se poveća odnos dobijenog i utrošenog, ali se ispostavlja da je na duge staze efekat suprotan. Ali sve to nema nikakve veze s pitanjem kojim se ovde i sada bavimo: da li i koliko ugljen dioksid u atmosferi utiče na promenu klime.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 19-03-2017, 16:00:22
Možemo i o CO2, ali najpre o birokratiji. Parkinsonovi zakoni su nedvosmisleno utvrdili da je birokratija samooplođujuća. Tako je moj zet iz sve snage bio za ObamaCare, ali se ispostavilo da je počeo da gubi mediscinsko osoblje i tehničku podršku, na uštrb birokratije koja se sve dublje ušuškavala. Takođe, svojevremeno sam bio zadužen za tim za izradu sistematizacije i opisa i popisa poslova čitavog VTI. Ceo istraživački kada, preko 900 profila, doktore nauka, inđenjere, lekare, više, obične tehničare, pa i laborante, strpao sam u osam ili deset kategorija. Administracija se žilavo opirala, pa smo se jedva izvukli sa oko pedeset kategorja neophodnih birokrata. Nije važna lokomotiva, važni su vagoni u koje se pakuju putnici.


Što se tiče CO2, ako ništa, onda je atmosfera gušća, a to ima svoju cenu. Koliko, hajde da pogledamo. Sagorevanje fosilnih goriva, nadam se da problem nije u kravama i ostaloj stoci, niko nije digao dreku dok se tehnologije nisu autsorsovale, pa se imalo gde uperiti prst. Niko nije redukovao vozikanje automobila, grade se autoputevi, a ne železničke pruge. Forsiraju se neke nove tehnologije, a prava, pozadinska namera nije vidljiva. Nemojte zaboraviti da 90% grantova ima pozadinu različitu od deklarisane. L'enfer c'est les autres. Međutim, ja bih uperio prst na podatke da gotovo trećinu CO2 konzumira okeanski, pa i drugi fitoplankton. Tu ću uvesti Majčicu Prirodu koja vrlo fleksibilno raspoređuje živi svet čim se pojavi višak resursa. Treba očekivati novi parametar - žderača CO2.


Pa, dosta je dok Mac opet ne napiše: "A, Japanac?"
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 19-03-2017, 17:33:18
Dobro, sad ste malo redukovali raspravu. Ona se ne vodi oko toga da li CO2 izaziva efekat staklene bašte - pošto se zna da izaziva - već o drugim temama: da li je antropogena proizvodnja CO2 najviše/ presudno zaslužna za u ovom trenutku uočene klimatske promene i da li se prelaskom na izvore energije koji ne daju CO2 kao nusproizvod ove promene mogu usporiti/ zaustaviti/ preokrenuti. Krave nisu optužene kao proizvođač CO2 već metana, koji ima "gora"greenhouse gas svojstva od CO2, a nije da se nije dizala dreka ranije, svi se sećamo da su fluorohlorokarbonati još pre 40 i kusur godina identifikovani kao opasni po envajronment i da uništavaju ozonski omotač a što takođe doprinosi efektu staklene bašte pa su oni vremenom uglavnom izbačeni iz upotrebe kao propelenti u sprejevima.
 
Dakle, rasprava bi trebalo da bude o tome da li postoje razumno proverljivi dokazi da je trenutna promena klime - a koja dovodi do kiselosti mora, kao i otapanja leda na polovima - u presudnoj meri pod uticajem ljudskog rada i da li se onda isplati raditi na preokretanju tog efekta.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 19-03-2017, 18:38:34
Stiže još jedan klimatolog, sa teškom artiljerijom. Dakle, na astal smo izneli svašta, a najviše impresivnu terminologiju. Pored CO2 sad imamo i metan, a bogami i jednu bogatu, a krajnje netačnu konstrukciju - hlorofluorokarbonate. Nisi ti kriv Meho, nisu znali ni oni koji su tumačili. Dalje, imamo antropogeno, greenhouse gas, envajronment, propelenti... Grozna je i tpična podmetačina poslednja rečenica, ali o njoj ću na kraju.


Krave pored CO2 isprđavaju i metan, pa krave kao antropogeni faktor definitivno treba uništiti. Nema veze što su isto isprđavala i krda bafala po svim mogućim svetskim prerijama, pa smo njih efikasno satrli. Briga za okolinu (envajroment) je tako tipična za Amere. Treba isušiti i bare jer i iz njih nekontrolisano brboće. Svi svetski okeani su iste takve bare samo su tamo mehurovi ogroooomni. E, za to su krivi trijas, jura i kreda, pa bih molio da se metan isključi iz spiska. Nije bilo ljudskog zla, tada. Jeste toksičan i u rakiji zna ljude da oslepi, ali nije posledica ljudskog faktora. Dakle, krave i produkti prirodnog biološkog raspada. Ende.


E, fluorohlorogrozomorno se vika - haloni. Jedinjenja inertnih gasova, pogledati kod Mendeljejeva. Definitivno antropogeni proizvodi i optuženi za rupe u ozonskom omotaču. Upotreba: kao postojani, za stabilna punjenja sistema koji rade pod gasnim pritiskom. Isključeni iz frižidera, ako neko ne laže, kao sprej propelenti se, umesto njih, koristi butan, ko jebe koliko je on štetan. Sad, pogledajte oko sebe. Koliko erkondišna ima po fasadama? Mnogo? Enormno? Svi su punjeni nekim halonom i svi cure. Svake godine dopunjuju moja dva, valjda i sve ostale. Uništimo erkondišne! Cvrc! Klimatske promene su ništa kad je napolju +40oC, a kroz otvorene prozore utiče samo jara.


Na kraju - podmetanje. Razumno proverljivi dokazi, trenutna promena klima, dovodi do kiselosti mora, otapanje leda na polovima... Nisam sklon prihvatanju sugestija pretpostavljenih činjenica kao objektivno stanje. Možemo li da razgovaramo o trenutnosti promene klime? Spor i jeste oko trajanja promena i koliko su pouzdane procene. Možemo li da se zadovoljimo sa C02?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 19-03-2017, 22:39:12
Pročitao tekst sa linka. Nigde se ne spominje kako liberalni naučnici lažu zato što su liberalni. Zapravo se suprotno spominje, naučnici ne smeju da budu liberalni u svojim vizijama, jer ideja mora da bude ziheraški "sigurna" i opravdana pre nego što se ispita. Upravo ovo što je scallop opisao.

Ono što se na linku spominje je da je tehnički progres ukočen zbog patentnog sistema, kao i uvođenja birokratije u nauku, s ciljem da se poveća odnos dobijenog i utrošenog, ali se ispostavlja da je na duge staze efekat suprotan. Ali sve to nema nikakve veze s pitanjem kojim se ovde i sada bavimo: da li i koliko ugljen dioksid u atmosferi utiče na promenu klime.
Piše da nauka nije dovoljno naučna da procjenjuje bilo šta. Zbog neoliberalizma. A piše i da SSSR-u klimatologija nije bila na vrhu prioriteta.

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 19-03-2017, 22:42:45
E, sad Skalope, podmetačina... Dakle, naravno da hlorofluorokarbonati nisu prava reč, ali se freoni (tj. haloni, tj. haloalkani) jesu u vreme kad sam ja išo u školu skraćeno nazivali CFC (hlor, fluor, ugljenik) tako da sam ja samo napravio zgodnog Frankenštajna (doduše naopakog).
 
Ali ja ne podmetačujem - samo kažem o čemu treba da je rasprava, ne o tome da li je CO2 štetan ili ne.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 19-03-2017, 23:03:13
Treba đecu slat da sade drveće!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 19-03-2017, 23:33:22
Piše da nauka nije dovoljno naučna da procjenjuje bilo šta. Zbog neoliberalizma. A piše i da SSSR-u klimatologija nije bila na vrhu prioriteta.

Jel'? Gde to piše, ovo prvo? Daj citat.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 19-03-2017, 23:35:21
E, sad Skalope, podmetačina... Dakle, naravno da hlorofluorokarbonati nisu prava reč, ali se freoni (tj. haloni, tj. haloalkani) jesu u vreme kad sam ja išo u školu skraćeno nazivali CFC (hlor, fluor, ugljenik) tako da sam ja samo napravio zgodnog Frankenštajna (doduše naopakog).
 
Ali ja ne podmetačujem - samo kažem o čemu treba da je rasprava, ne o tome da li je CO2 štetan ili ne.


CO2 je štetan i kad se jorganom pokriješ preko glave. Ima ga više u gradovima nego na selu. U dolini nego na planini. Jel' da begamo iz Beograda? Priznaj da si guglao, nemaš ti to pamćenje iz škole. A razlika između halona i freona je kao između nožića za brijanje i žileta.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 20-03-2017, 00:40:22
Piše da nauka nije dovoljno naučna da procjenjuje bilo šta. Zbog neoliberalizma. A piše i da SSSR-u klimatologija nije bila na vrhu prioriteta.

Jel'? Gde to piše, ovo prvo? Daj citat.
Piše da je naučni razvoj zaustavljen i da nam je posljednja riječ nauke internet stvoren prije 50+ godina. I da je nauka zaribala u osrednjim tezama, otkrićima i pronalascima.

I poredi se sa naučnim radom u SSSR.

Uostalom, oko čega se raspravljamo, od kada je kompjuterski model postao superioran metod naučnog istraživanja?

U neka pametnija vremena ne bi pogledali te radove krajičkom oka.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 20-03-2017, 01:02:44
Okej, ali ti reče zbog neoliberalizma, a to ne piše u članku. Piše zbog birokratije i patentnih zakona.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 20-03-2017, 01:22:53
Šta smo nas dvojica čitali...  Šta je uopšte poenta članka nego da kapitalistički sistem guši razvoj nauke, za razliku od sovjetskog?

Čemu uopšte poređenja sa Sovjetima u trenutku neoliberalne deregulacije u SAD?

Što mora da piše riječ "neoliberalizam" da bi to bilo to? Ja čak ne znam ni da li se spominje ili ne, bitna je suština a ne riječ. Može da piše radulizacija, isto se hvata.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 20-03-2017, 03:00:18
Pa evo, nek pročita još neko (kome bi i ja verovao), pa nek da svoj sud. Poređenje sa Sovjetima sam video u svetlu toga da su se tada Sovjeti i Amerikanci takmičili, i pokušavali da nadmaše jedan drugog ne samo tehnički, nego i kulturalno. Sovjeti su maštali, trošili resurse na svašta nešto, i na kraju propali. Ostala je Rusija, koja sada ima grdniji kapitalizam od same Amerike, ali s večitim vođom na čelu. Sovjeti ne predstavljaju dobar naučni model, jer su ekonomski propali. Za ikakvu nauku trebaju pare, a pare stižu iz ekonomije.

Možemo da maštamo kombinaciji sovjetske nauke i američke ekonomije, ali to su samo maštanja. Pare imaju zadnju reč, dakle biće onako kako para kaže. Američki model ne treba menjati sovjetskim, nego ga treba unaprediti. Više hrabrosti i vizije, manje birokratije i patenata. Imam ja ideju za novi sistem trijaže ideja, ali kasno je sad. A da ga i iznesem verovatno bi se neargumentovano popišao na isto, so..

Uzgred, članak se pojavio u tenutku kad smo zaista na korak do bar dve tehnološke revolucije (roboti i genetika), a možda i više (AI, energetika, transport...). Čekaj i videćeš.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 20-03-2017, 06:26:53
Re: Freoni: Guglao sam, naravno, jer nisam mogao da se setim je li fluorohloro, kako sam napisao isprva ili hlorofloro. A Freon je postalo ime za gomilu različitih gasova pa je to uključivalo i halone, ne tehnički ispravno ali prihvaćeno - nisam to ja izmislio.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 20-03-2017, 10:16:38
Gugl i ti skoro kao ja. To je dokaz da internet ne povećava inteligenciju. Povećava iluziju. Jednostavno - ne razumeš. Priznaj, nisi ni u srednjoj školi voleo hemiju. Puko si na valencama? Svejedno.


Odoh ja do Bate i Mac. Zanimljiviji su.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 20-03-2017, 10:23:27
Ne, hemija mi je bila najomiljeniji predmet, čak sam u srednjoj završio upravo hemijski smer. Ali kad trideset godina ne pominješ neke stvari, ne sećaš ih se najbolje...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 20-03-2017, 10:36:54

Što mora da piše riječ "neoliberalizam" da bi to bilo to?


Stvarno, što bi moralo? Ma, zato što ako ne piše u linku, onda se ne važi.


Osnovna teza neoliberalizma je da ne treba tražiti ništa izvan njega, jer je on sve. Ne može da opstane ako nije sam. Svedoci smo da je tako. Eno, ruši se, samo što nije.
I nemojmo trabunjati o dostignućima. Ajfoni, cvajfoni, drajfoni... Napredak sa ciljem dominacije na polju informatike, da širi religiju neoliberalizma. Ekonomija iber ales! Najveću moć ima ko naštampa najviše para! I simbioza između vrsta je biznis.
I nemojmo trabunjati o robotici i AI. Alati i šlus. Objekti, a ne subjekti. Otkud na spisku transport? Bre, ne znaju ni do svemirskih stanica da doture zalihe. Ako ne plate Rusima.
Samo me je stra' da nismo previše otupeli oklevajući da im se dođe glave.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 20-03-2017, 10:38:08
Ne, hemija mi je bila najomiljeniji predmet, čak sam u srednjoj završio upravo hemijski smer. Ali kad trideset godina ne pominješ neke stvari, ne sećaš ih se najbolje...
Mehice, može tvoj post biti poslednji na ovu temu, ali će i dalje isto mirisati.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 20-03-2017, 10:53:58
Na runolist, bez sumnje  :lol:
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 20-03-2017, 13:34:26
Mac, stvarno pogrešno gledaš... Kakve veze koja je ekonomija propala, zbog čega je to bitno zs kvalitet nauke?

Tačno, za nauku treba imati pare, ali to nije dovoljno. Jer kapitalizam ulaže pare u specifične naučne discipline, dok druge ne napreduju.

Itd, kasnije...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 20-03-2017, 16:40:41
Sovjeti su imali pet puta slabiju ekonomiju a nisu imali slabiju nauku. Znači nije da pare tek tako odlučuju jer ovi pare i neće da daju, iako ih imaju pet puta više.

Drugo, članak pokazuje da se isto desilo u nauci što i u društvu. Sve dok je postojala prijetnja Sovjeta i proletarijata, naučna trka se finansirala a radila je i država blagostanja. Čim se sletjelo na Mjesec simbolično je poražen komunizam i počinje razgradnja welfare state-a i naučnih instituta već sa Niksonom.

Danas već neki misle da je Radul zdrav razum. Vidjeli smo njegov obrazovni sistem u kojem su najbolji van budžeta, jer im roditelji pripadaju srednjoj klasi.

Pa eto ti razloga propasti nauke,  right there. Ne vodi se obrazovni sistem obrazovnim kriterijumima no učinimo ih jednakim u znanju. Eto osrednjosti nauke u najavi.

A kapitalizam naravno prvenstveno razvija militaristički dio nauke. Sve što je proizvedeno prvo ima vojnu upotrebljivost, od turbo injectiona u automobilima, preko interneta, kompjutera i mobilne telefonije, do dezodoransa koji upija znoj ili jakne koja hladi ili grije. Prvo vojska, poslije dobije civilno stanovništvo.

Lijekovi, vakcine... Našli su oni i za klimu neku korist, samo da prokljuvimo koju. Sem već navedene da je u pitanju pokušaj zaustavljanja razvoja.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 20-03-2017, 16:46:44
Jel' možeš dalje bez mene? Snalaziš se.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 21-03-2017, 06:31:35
Kad smo već kod metana:
 Siberia permafrost: Over 7,000 methane-filled bubbles 'ready to explode' discovered in Arctic (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/siberia-permafrost-over-7000-methane-filled-bubbles-ready-explode-discovered-arctic-1612581)
 
Quote

There are over 7,000 gas-filled bubbles in remote parts of Siberia that are set to explode, scientists have discovered. Following extensive field expeditions and satellite surveys, researchers in Russia have identified thousands of bulging bumps in the Yamal and Gydan peninsulas – far more than they had expected.
Alexey Titovsky, director of Yamal department for science and innovation, told the Siberian Times (http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0905-7000-underground-gas-bubbles-poised-to-explode-in-arctic/) that understanding the bubbles is of paramount important to assessing the risk they pose.
 
In July last year, scientists released footage of the ground on Bely Island wobbling underfoot (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/siberian-tundra-wobbling-like-waterbed-methane-gas-leak-1571832). When they punctured them, methane and carbon dioxide was released. It is thought an abnormally warm summer had caused the permafrost to thaw (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/arctic-permafrost-starting-thaw-that-very-very-bad-news-1601286), leading to the release of methane that had been locked up in the ground. At present, it is thought this process is behind the emergence of the numerous craters that have appeared over recent years – including the 'gateway to the underworld' crater (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gateway-underworld-crater-remote-siberia-keeps-expanding-permafrost-melts-1609633) near Batagaiin.Titovsky said the 7,000 bulging bumps identified could also collapse into craters: "At first such a bump is a bubble, or 'bulgunyakh' in the local Yakut language. With time the bubble explodes, releasing gas. This is how gigantic funnels form.
"We need to know which bumps are dangerous and which are not. Scientists are working on detecting and structuring signs of potential threat, like the maximum height of a bump and pressure that the earth can withstand."
The team plans to continue throughout the year to chart and map all of the underground bubbles in Yamal.
 
 
Thawing permafrost as a result of global warming is expected to lead to more methane release in the future, a spokesman from the Ural branch of Russian Academy of Science said. "An abnormally warm summer in 2016 on the Yamal peninsula must have added to the process," they added.
On Bely Island, scientists found methane was 1,000 times above normal, while CO2 was around 25 times higher. "As we took off a layer of grass and soil, a fountain of gas erupted," one of the scientists working at the site explained.
The release of methane from the thawing permafrost is of huge concern to climate scientists (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/arctic-permafrost-starting-thaw-that-very-very-bad-news-1601286). Max Holmes, the deputy director and senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Centre (http://whrc.org/), told IBTimes UK it could lead to the collapse of human infrastructures, like roads and towns, as well as creating a feedback cycle that results in even more warming.
 
 
"That is a self-reinforcing cycle with greenhouse gasses released as permafrost thaws, which causes warming," he said. "This results in more permafrost thaw and causes more warming and on and on. That is something we worry a lot about. Once this cycle gets going it is hard to stop.
"How do we stop it? We control what we can control. Permafrost thaw is driven fundamentally by global warming, which is amplified in the Arctic. How do you control global warming? You control the emissions that are directly under your control – fossil fuel combustion and deforestation."
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 21-03-2017, 08:25:38
A, ko je zatvorio metan? Da ne ometaju Ruske Južne, Severne i Istočne Tokove, Rusi bi sve već prodali Evropi i Japanu. Ako su za naftu odgovorni dinosauri i kitovi, a za ugalj drveta, onda su za metan krive trave. Pravda i sloboda za metan!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 21-03-2017, 10:23:36
Uvešće zakone da plaćamo porez na prdež!
Uvoznici pasulja, nahebal'ste!!!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 21-03-2017, 10:44:45
I KUPUSI SU OPASNI!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 21-03-2017, 11:31:35
To onaj kis'o?
Leleeee, da znaš!
Ako ne uvežbamo samo 'tihavce' da ispuštamo, gotovi smo kao vrsta!!!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 21-03-2017, 11:42:11
To onaj kis'o?



Ne znaš ni šta su kupusi?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 21-03-2017, 11:47:55
Pa znam, al' sam izdvojio najopasniji, 'ebaga sad de, odma će sitničariš....
tuuuu breeeeee,,,,kaki si to čo'ek, breeee...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 21-03-2017, 11:50:30
Izvini. Dobar je i kiseo kupus.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 21-03-2017, 11:54:58
Pa saaaarma brateee, sarma!
Ima da 'edemo sarme pa makar se ceo svet ugušio u našim prdežima!
Ua globalno zagrevanje, ua prenaseljena planeta, ua globus, ua politička korektnost!
Živeo, pasulj i prdež!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 24-03-2017, 09:02:27
'Extreme and unusual' climate trends continue after record 2016 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39329304)




Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 24-03-2017, 10:14:35
Ko još veruje u tu prevaru o globalnom zagrevanju?!?
To nam valjaju isti oni kojima treba populacija od 500000 ljudi zbog 'prenaseljenosti'!?!
Dajte breeee.....Meho, uozbilji se pa ti, razuman si čovek!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 24-03-2017, 10:39:07
Naravno. Ne može da bude globalno, jer Zemlja nije globus, zar ne?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 24-03-2017, 10:51:40
Upravo jer je ljudima čim temperatura u Julu padne ispod 15 stepeni prva stvar na usnama "A jel' vidiš kako lažu? GLOBALNO ZAGREVANJE A JA SE SMRZO!" termin je odavno penzionisan i umesto njega se koristi termin "klimatske promene" koji je i svakako bolji jer ono što se dešava kompleksan fenomen i ne opisuje se dovoljno precizno ako se fokusira samo na zagrevanje...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 24-03-2017, 11:26:48
Meho, to nam podmeću isti oni koji bi da imaju populaciju od 500.000 ljudi na celoj planeti...
Čista zavera, kakvo zagrevanje, gomila gluposti, oće zabrane nama Srbima da pečemo rakiju kad nam ćefne i da ne pravimo sušeničke i roštilje ....ma gamad belosvetska!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 24-03-2017, 11:37:08
Pa ja i kažem, nije "zagrevanje" nego "promene"  :lol:

A, hahah, ne verujem da ih boli što Srbi peku rakiju, verovatno je mnogo više to što Kinezi ostvaruju vrtoglav privredni rast baziran na energiji koja se dobija velikim delom iz fosilnih goriva. Naravno, Kinezi imaju fabrike jer ih je zapad tamo izvezao u određenoj meri tako da...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 24-03-2017, 11:49:34
Quote
Naravno. Ne može da bude globalno, jer Zemlja nije globus, zar ne?


А како онда може да буде отапања леда на половима?
Tу нешто није у реду.
Ја само знам да код pole dancing-а долази до приличног загревања у публици...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 24-03-2017, 12:42:23
Zar nije i Milanković prognozirao topljenje leda, odnosno pomjeranje polova?


Elem, a ja čito da je climate change fraza koju su podvalili Republikanci jer je eufemizam za global warming, koji bi građani spremnije prihvatili.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 24-03-2017, 12:50:00
Sa klimom je uvek klimavo. I Indijanci seku šumu za zimu, jer su na vestima čuli da će biti oštra.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 24-03-2017, 13:00:01


Elem, a ja čito da je climate change fraza koju su podvalili Republikanci jer je eufemizam za global warming, koji bi građani spremnije prihvatili.

Uglavnom je obrnuto: republikanci su skakali na global warming svaki put kada se zimi temperatura spustila ispod proseka pa je u političkoj terminologiji onda počeo da se koristi drugi izraz. Inače, sajt sceptical science koji sam na ovom topiku linkovao nekoliko puta ima detaljnu diskusiju o tome da su oba termina legitimna jer opisuju zapravo različite pojmove (warming je trend, climate change njegova posledica...), pa se u nauci oba koriste:

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

Oću da kažem, nauka uglavnom pazi šta radi koliko može, ali njene političke aplikacije su ono gde nastaje kontroverza...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 26-03-2017, 07:56:17
Sea ice extent sinks to record lows at both poles (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170322143149.htm)
Quote

Arctic sea ice appears to have reached on March 7 a record low wintertime maximum extent, according to scientists at NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. And on the opposite side of the planet, on March 3 sea ice around Antarctica hit its lowest extent ever recorded by satellites at the end of summer in the Southern Hemisphere, a surprising turn of events after decades of moderate sea ice expansion.
  On Feb. 13, the combined Arctic and Antarctic sea ice numbers were at their lowest point since satellites began to continuously measure sea ice in 1979. Total polar sea ice covered 6.26 million square miles (16.21 million square kilometers), which is 790,000 square miles (2 million square kilometers) less than the average global minimum extent for 1981-2010 -- the equivalent of having lost a chunk of sea ice larger than Mexico.
The ice floating on top of the Arctic Ocean and surrounding seas shrinks in a seasonal cycle from mid-March until mid-September. As the Arctic temperatures drop in the autumn and winter, the ice cover grows again until it reaches its yearly maximum extent, typically in March. The ring of sea ice around the Antarctic continent behaves in a similar manner, with the calendar flipped: it usually reaches its maximum in September and its minimum in February.
This winter, a combination of warmer-than-average temperatures, winds unfavorable to ice expansion, and a series of storms halted sea ice growth in the Arctic. This year's maximum extent, reached on March 7 at 5.57 million square miles (14.42 million square kilometers), is 37,000 square miles (97,00 square kilometers) below the previous record low, which occurred in 2015, and 471,000 square miles (1.22 million square kilometers) smaller than the average maximum extent for 1981-2010.
"We started from a low September minimum extent," said Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "There was a lot of open ocean water and we saw periods of very slow ice growth in late October and into November, because the water had a lot of accumulated heat that had to be dissipated before ice could grow. The ice formation got a late start and everything lagged behind -- it was hard for the sea ice cover to catch up."
The Arctic's sea ice maximum extent has dropped by an average of 2.8 percent per decade since 1979, the year satellites started measuring sea ice. The summertime minimum extent losses are nearly five times larger: 13.5 percent per decade. Besides shrinking in extent, the sea ice cap is also thinning and becoming more vulnerable to the action of ocean waters, winds and warmer temperatures.
This year's record low sea ice maximum extent might not necessarily lead to a new record low summertime minimum extent, since weather has a great impact on the melt season's outcome, Meier said. "But it's guaranteed to be below normal."
In Antarctica, this year's record low annual sea ice minimum of 815,000 square miles (2.11 million square kilometers) was 71,000 square miles (184,000 square kilometers) below the previous lowest minimum extent in the satellite record, which occurred in 1997.
Antarctic sea ice saw an early maximum extent in 2016, followed by a very rapid loss of ice starting in early September. Since November, daily Antarctic sea ice extent has continuously been at its lowest levels in the satellite record. The ice loss slowed down in February.
This year's record low happened just two years after several monthly record high sea ice extents in Antarctica and decades of moderate sea ice growth.
"There's a lot of year-to-year variability in both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, but overall, until last year, the trends in the Antarctic for every single month were toward more sea ice," said Claire Parkinson, a senior sea ice researcher at Goddard. "Last year was stunningly different, with prominent sea ice decreases in the Antarctic. To think that now the Antarctic sea ice extent is actually reaching a record minimum, that's definitely of interest."
Meier said it is too early to tell if this year marks a shift in the behavior of Antarctic sea ice.
"It is tempting to say that the record low we are seeing this year is global warming finally catching up with Antarctica," Meier said. "However, this might just be an extreme case of pushing the envelope of year-to-year variability. We'll need to have several more years of data to be able to say there has been a significant change in the trend."
 

 
A evo i malo za nas laike:
  A layman's guide to the science of global warming  (https://borepatch.blogspot.rs/2017/03/a-laymans-guide-to-science-of-global.html)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 07-04-2017, 07:42:52
Yes, 50 million years ago the earth was hotter. Here's why climate change is still a major problem (http://www.popsci.com/carbon-emissions-warming#page-3)

Quote
If we do nothing to reduce our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (http://www.popsci.com/tags/carbon-emissions), by the end of this century the Earth will be as hot as it was 50 million years ago in the early Eocene, according to a new study out today in the journal Nature Communications. This period—roughly 15 million years after dinosaurs went extinct and 49.8 million years before modern humans appeared on the scene—was 16F to 25F (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/early-eocene-period) warmer than the modern norm (http://www.popsci.com/2016-hottest-year-on-record-NOAA).
Climate change (http://www.popsci.com/tags/climate-change) doubters often point to these earlier temperature shifts as a way of rebutting the scientific evidence (http://www.popsci.com/evidence-climate-change-is-real) that climate change is caused by human activity. And yes, less than a million years ago parts of the Midwest were covered in glaciers, while 56 million years ago (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-06/fyi-what%E2%80%99s-hottest-earth-has-ever-gotten) the Arctic (http://www.popsci.com/arctic-just-got-its-2016-climate-report-card-and-its-flunking) was warm enough that crocodiles roamed Greenland (http://www.popsci.com/tags/greenland). All of this is true.
But greenhouses gases (http://www.popsci.com/tags/greenhouse-gases) like CO2 are so named for their ability to magnify the sun’s energy, and 50 million years ago the sun wasn’t as hot— our star is getting hotter with age. During the Eocene, it took more atmospheric CO2 to influence temperatures than it does today. In fact, if we don’t change our behavior, 2100 (http://www.popsci.com/best-places-to-live-in-america-in-2100-ad-0) will be as hot as the Eocene with much less atmospheric CO2 than was present at the time. A hotter sun means we get more bang for our CO2 buck.
“Climate change denialists often mention that CO2 was high in the past, that it was warm in the past, so this means there's nothing to worry about,” said lead study author Gavin Foster, a researcher in isotope geochemistry and paleoceanography at the United Kingdom’s University of Southampton. “It's certainly true, that the CO2 was high in the past and that it was warm in the past. But because the sun was dimmer, the climate wasn't being forced as much [as it will be] in the future if we carry on as we are.”


If we keep going and exhaust our supplies of fossil fuels (http://www.popsci.com/tags/fossil-fuels) like gas and coal, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could rise to 2000 ppm by 2250— levels not seen since 200 million years ago. And because the sun was much dimmer then, that concentration of CO2 would translate into temperatures not seen in the last 420 million years—not since long before the time of the dinosaurs.
Roughly 400 million years ago, CO2 levels actually declined because the warming sun increased the rate of biochemical reactions on the Earth. “The main [CO2] controller is silicate weathering, which is the term for breaking rock down into soil (http://www.popsci.com/topsoil-agriculture-food),” said Foster.  “That’s the natural way in which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. And that process is temperature and runoff dependent. It depends on how wet it is, and how warm it is.”
But innate silicate weathering didn’t reduce atmospheric CO2 to modern levels on its own. The increased rate of soil formation fueled the rise of land plants over the last 400 million years, which helped speed up the silicate weathering and reduce the levels of atmospheric CO2.
And yes, these processes will speed up in the presence of more CO2, but they're incredibly slow—it’s like speeding up a sloth. Even if you double its speed, the sloth (http://www.popsci.com/article/science/sloth-fur-might-yield-new-drugs) will still get run over. RIP sloth, RIP us.
“CO2 gets locked away out of the atmosphere when it's formed as part of the skeleton of an organism in the ocean, and that organism then sinks to the seabed when its dead,” said Foster. “It's the weathering, but it’s the weathering that then transports the items that were in the rock to the seawater. The organisms take it up in the sea, then they sink into the seabed. The process of one molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere getting locked away in the seabed takes a long time.”
If we stopped emitting CO2 today, traces of our emissions would still be in the atmosphere in a million years’ time.
“We are completely over swamping the natural processes,” said Foster.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 07-04-2017, 12:41:07
Eto, opet ona macova slika protivrječi sa svojim temperaturama
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 07-04-2017, 12:49:29
Brzina je problem, braćo. Brzina, a ne zvona i praporci.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 07-04-2017, 13:14:24
Pa ne govorim o brzini, ovaj priča da će se do 2100. godine temp dići za 25 farenhajta, a onaj tvoj simulakrum tvrdi bar duplo manje.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-04-2017, 17:06:31
Ja bih o nauci, mada je teško odvojiti od politike. Bilo ponešto na različitim mestima, ali neka bude ovde ako ću o dekretima koji orjentišu ili ukidaju nauku.


Ne čudim se što o nauci više pričaju oni koji nemaju pojma nego oni koji se njome bave. Proveo sam radni vek u nečemu što se zvalo Institut za tehničko-medicinsku zaštitu, pa sam stalno imao priliku da lekari govore o onima koji se bave šrafcigerima i mučkanjem, a inženjeri se kleli da mogu da potamane više laboratorijskih parcova od lekara. I kod mene su oni koji koji su se bavili protivparnom zaštitom znali više o protivaerosolnoj od onih koji su se bavili protivaerosolnom zaštitom i obratno. Ljudska sudbina je uvek bila da se više zna ono šta se ne zna.


Niko se ne osvrnu da je Trump dekretom ukinuo globalno zagrevanje, pa odmah dobismo najhladniji april u "istoriji" naše meteorologije. Ko bi rekao da je tako dalekosežan! Juče i prekjuče opsednuti šetanjem u SAD marširaju protiv dekreta kojim Trump "ukida" nauku. Jest' on doneo uredbu da se ulaganje u svakojaka istraživanja malo pretoče u korist radnika koji od toga nemaju nikakvu fajdu, ali dok to stigne do zaparloženih mozgova taman je dovoljno da se smisle novi protesti.


Kad bismo bili u stanju da malo podrobnije razmislimo a nismo, dosetili bismo se da je i na ZS raspravljano o visokoj nepouzdanosti lansiranih naučnih istraživanja i rezultata. Kao i neoliberalizam u celini i nauka je usrljala u marketing po svaku cenu. Takva nauka nije nikome potrebna. Time su stvoreni rejtinzi u nauci i indeks citiranja, kao da je to pobogu tenis ili golf.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 23-04-2017, 19:11:36
...Tramp je rekao da je zemlja ravna!
Kaće da ukine globus?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-04-2017, 19:26:08
Ajde, teraj dalje. Ovo je ozbiljan tekst.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 23-04-2017, 19:45:19
Za praćenje klime nije bitna trenutna temperatura vazduha u nekom mesecu, nego trend promene temperature u okeanima. Kladim se da svetski okeani nisu imali najhladniji april u "istoriji" srpske meteorologije.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-04-2017, 19:47:25
Nemoj da se kladiš. Izgubićeš.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 23-04-2017, 20:06:05
Mogu da se kladim, neću izgubiti. Evo trenda prosečne temperature svih vodenih površina. Trend pokazuje rast. Verovatnoća da je baš u ovom mesecu aprilu prosečna temperatura svih vodenih površina bila na nivou iz tamo neke 1950. je ništavna:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature#/media/File:Global_Sea_Surface_Temperature.jpg
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 23-04-2017, 20:22:50
Nači prvo je padala od 1880. do 1910. Zašto je tada padala? Pa je rasla do 1945. pa opet pala pa počela da raste? Simulakrum 8-)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 23-04-2017, 20:39:24
You keep saying that word...

Taj pad je nastao jer su Britanci počeli masovno da mere temperaturu na kraju rata, a oni to rade drugačije nego Amerikanci.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthcomment/charlesclover/3343062/Global-sea-temperature-drop-was-artificial.html

Taj jedan pad je "simulakrum". Ostali padovi su slabije izraženi i objašnjavaju se vulkanskom aktivnošću (Krakatau 1883, Santa Maria 1902, Novarupta 1912). Erupcija vulkana Krakatau je bila baš velika, a druge dve erupcije su održavala nivo sulfata u atmosferi sve do 1920 i tako privremeno hladile Zemlju.

Ukupan globalni rast nije simulakrum.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-04-2017, 20:44:08
Bato, obrati pažnju da je baseline za period 1971-2000. Što nije za 130 godina? Mac, zar nije dosta sa tim manipulacijama? Znaš li koliko je Farenhajt? Pričaš o frtalj oC, a oscilacija 1,5oC. Sam napišeš da je Krakatau bio gori od sveg CO2 emitovanog. Jedan Jelouston i mirni smo.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 23-04-2017, 21:22:36
Jeste gori ali daje privremeno efekat. 10-15 godina maksimalno. Kad pepeo i sulfurdioksid padnu nazad na Zemlju (teži su od vazduha) temperatura nastavlja tamo gde je stala, jer ugljendikosid nije nikuda otišao (nije dovoljno teži od vazduha). Ako je tvoje rešenje za spas svog biodiverziteta da aktiviramo vulkane svakih deset godina, onda nam se loše piše.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-04-2017, 21:33:15
Sad ćeš i hemiju da me učiš? Postoji li na ZS ekspert koji ne zna ono šta ne zna?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 23-04-2017, 21:35:51
Pa ne, poslije 1945. je valjda zbog rata? Mislim, i sad tvrde ako Kim ili Tramp njukiraju nastupa nuklearna zima.
Tad je bila Hirošima, jelte...

Al stani sad nešto, hajd i da stvarno samo vulkani i bombe spuštaju temperaturu, problem je što je industrija 19. vijeka maestralno manja od one iz sredine 20. vijeka, kamoli u novom milenijimu.

A po ovom simulakrumu 1880, 1930. i 1980. ista temperatura.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 23-04-2017, 21:41:03
Šta se mijenja ako average nije tih 40 godina? Ne kontam

A druga stvar, po čemu je relevantna temp površine mora?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-04-2017, 21:51:01
Šta se mijenja ako average nije tih 40 godina? Ne kontam

A druga stvar, po čemu je relevantna temp površine mora?


1. Ako je čitav period, onda bi baseline bila niža, a samim tim efekat staklene bašte drugačiji. Znači, manipulacija.


2. Temperatura površine mora jeste relevantna, ako prihvatamo efekat El Ninjo. Mada, ni ti uragani nisu više dosledno poslušni. Da ne govorimo o tome da posrču vodu sa zahvaćene površine okeana, onu topliju, pa je izruče negde drugde. Majka Zemlja je lukavija od klimatologa. Onaj naš Boris Koljčicki je bio lukaviji i pametniji.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 23-04-2017, 22:02:29
Ček, ček, mac valjda misli da će topliji okean da otopi lednike, te je poseban problem da li je okean topliji ili je samo površina toplija i šta s tim.

A onda ispade da tu topliju vodu posrče El Ninjo. Nači do lednika i ne dopire.

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-04-2017, 22:10:38
Ma, do pre desetak godina bila je zgodna teorija da će otopljavanje da se slije i u Atlantski Okean. Ubrzo je neko shvatio da ima previše mora da bi podizanje nivoa bilo nedovoljno za veliku štetu. Malu, da. Sa druge strane, bila je zanimljiva i teza da će zbog viška slatke vode da potone Golfska struja, pa će da nastupi ledeno doba. Izgleda da su shvatili da bi to ledeno doba povuklo vodu nazad na kopno i da bi Golfska struja isplivala. Sve je to zgodno za zamajavanje, ali ne traje.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-04-2017, 22:13:49
Da ne pominjem da će višak CO2 izazvati napredak fitoplanktona koji će ga posrkati. Ko ne računa sa svim parametrima pravi nesuvisle ekstrapolacije. Tako, kad god vidiš neku takvu, sa "projketovanim" nastavkom, radi se o gluposti ili podvali.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 23-04-2017, 22:25:31
Macovi simulakrumi!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-04-2017, 22:31:19
Nisu njegovi. Samo je lakoveran i pošten.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 23-04-2017, 22:51:10
Neka srkaju ti fitoplanktoni već jednom, što čekaju da temperatura naraste toliko?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-04-2017, 22:57:20
A, bre, koliko? Ti postade i antievolucionista samo da dokažeš neka nenaučna istraživanja. Eno ti tabor Uglija, osećaćeš se komotno.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 24-04-2017, 00:06:27
Kako sad pa antievolucionista? Pa ne može koral za 20 godina da se premetne u drugi koral kome ne smeta topla voda. Niti može da se spusti malo niže u more, jer tamo nema svetlosti. Niti može da se pomeri dalje od ekvatora, jer nema noge za tako nešto. Kako će ljuskari na pobegnu od kisele vode, kad je sva voda kisela? Šta, napraviće otpornije oklope? Vrsta belog medveda doduše može da osmudi jer se meša sa smeđim. Nešto će negde preživeti, ali biodiverzitet se smanjuje i smanjivaće se još više.

Dakle klimatolozi pričaju da se klima menja. Biolozi pričaju da se smanjuje biodiverzitet. Hidrolozi pričaju da se smanjuje količina pitke vode (povremene velike kiše privremeno napune basene, kao što i vulkani privremeno ohlade Zemlju, ali trend je ka smanjivanju). Konflikti zbog vode su sve učestaliji (http://www2.worldwater.org/conflict/list/). A mudrolozi mudruju...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 24-04-2017, 00:21:30
Mac, jes ti pročito taj link...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 24-04-2017, 00:42:23
Dao sam dva linka. Pročitao sam prvi, koji je Telegrafov članak, i tako i napisao u mom postu. Drugi je spisak svih poznatih konflikta zbog vode, od pamtiveka do danas. To nisam čitao, ali evo ti statistike. Konflikti su grupisani u periode.

1900-1949 (50 godina) ima 25 konflikta
Sledećih 25 godina ima 24 (duplo veća učestanost)
Sledećih 25 ima 65 konflikta
2000-2010 (10 godina) ima 94 konflikta (20 puta učestanije nego na početku prethodnog veka)
2011-2017 ima 128 konflikta, a nismo završili ni deceniju.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 24-04-2017, 01:08:23
Ali to nisu konflikti ZBOG vode.

Zbog vode je da je voda cilj, a ja ne vidim kako je cilj. Inače, na tom linku se spominje Mojsijevo razdvajanje mora kao vid konflikta u kojem se koristi voda.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 24-04-2017, 01:28:27
Ako žene moraju daleko po vodu onda je voda cilj. Ako te žene bivaju napastvovane dok idu po vodu, onda je to incident zbog vode. Da je voda u česmi u kući onda incidenta ne bi bilo. Zbog vode je.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 24-04-2017, 08:03:42
mac, ovo za konflikte zbog vode je čista manipulacija. Ne veruj svemu što piše na internetu.
Ovi što to rade su klasična američka globalizacijska organizacija.
Pregledaj aktivnosti UNESCO-a po tom pitanju i videćeš da to baš i nije tako strašno.

Pravih sukoba između nacija zbog vode praktično da nije ni bilo.
Naravno da često ima nesporazuma zbog toga što pojedine uzvodne zemlje bez konsultacija sa nizvodnim vrše određene radnje
da zadrže vodu na svojoj teritoriji i time ugrožavaju interese nizvodnih zemalja (i u našem regionu ima takvih slučajeva), ali do
pravih ratnih sukoba gotovo da nije dolazilo, osim tamo gde nesuglasice već postoje pa ovo dođe kao šlag na tortu.
Ni međunarodno pravo po tom pitanju nije do kraja eksplicitno i stalno se razvija.
Ja sam učestvovao u testiranju UNESCO-vog programa PCCP za prevazilaženje konflikta u oblasti voda i to je
vrlo zanimljiv program, ali to je i dalje u domenu teorija - rad na sprečavanju potencijalnih sukoba i pregovaranju
kao načinu zadovoljavanja interesa.
Da će možda biti sukoba zbog vode, verovatno da će biti, ali za to će pre biti zaslužno povećanje broja stanovništva nego
smanjivanje vodnih resursa (mada ne tvrdim da ni do toga ne može doći na određenim prostorima).
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 24-04-2017, 09:27:56
Naravno, da je voda potencijalni uzrok sukoba i dobro je misliti o tome na vreme. Voda je drugi vitalni resurs na Zemlji.


Prvi je vazduh i gde nije bilo dovoljno vazduha nije bilo ni života. Nameravao sam da pričam o vazduhu, ali nemam ništa protv voda.
Za početak ću samo da dam osnovne mere. N2 - 70%, O2 - 20,7% i CO2 - 0,3%. Ostalo u margini. Čovek zna da se delimično prilagodi.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 24-04-2017, 20:15:19
Neću pričati o azotu. On je garnirug. Narihtani smo na kiseonik, onaj koji sam pomenuo.


Da li znate da disanjem skidamo samo oko 5% kiseonika? Možete li da pretpostavite koliko onda CO2 izdišemo? Kao i mi, šibica se gasi kad procenat kiseonika padne na 16%.


Da li znate da je procenat kiseonika nešto niži u velikim gradovima? Dete zaspi čas posla kad ga odvedete na Zlatibor, recimo. Uspava ga bolji vazduh. Ne možete da skuvate jaje na visinama iznad 4000 m. Nema dovoljno vazduha da voda proključa.


CO2 je ipak teži od vazduha. U hermetičnim prostorijama nemojte legati na pod, tamo je procenat CO2 viši.


Podsetiću vas na srednju školu. Postoji nešto što se naziva Zakon o dejstvu masa. Jeste da su gasovi pokretljivi i da će viša koncentracija težiti da se ujednači sa prostorom gde je niža, ali to je sporiji proces. Između više i niže koncentracije se uspostavlja nešto što se naziva gradijent koncentracije, pa je slično strmoj ravni gde se zbog potencijala dešava kotrljanje nizbrdo. To znači da se svuda na Zemlji sastav atmosfere neprestano koriguje. Fitoplankton srče CO2, prija mu, razmnožava se, iz okoline se nadoknađuje i to je proces. Kad prdne krava, namirisaćemo ako nije suviše daleko.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Mica Milovanovic on 24-04-2017, 20:52:46
http://www.sepa.gov.rs/download/VAZDUH2015.pdf
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 24-04-2017, 21:10:00
Nadam se da će shvatiti bar osnovno. Dok sam čitao bilo mi jasno. Ako shvate da atmosferski molekuli putuju biće dovoljno.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: дејан on 25-04-2017, 00:36:06
ево и забавног блога The Deplorable Climate Science Blog (https://realclimatescience.com/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 25-04-2017, 08:42:52
Da ne bi izgledalo da tvrdim da je pitanje stanja atmosfere samo zabavno i da nema posledica, podsetiću na velike kineske gradove i snimke koji pokazuju veliko aerozagađenje. Takođe, ako ničega drugog sigurno se sećate filma sa Šonom Konerijem "Vrač", gde smo gledali kako se grade putevi kojima će izneti posečenu šumu iz "pluća Sveta" u Amazonu.


Optužićemo Kinu da nam razjebava atmosferu, a Brazil da uništava mogućnost obnove. To nije za zezanje. To je pitanje koje postavlja svetski pokret za zaštitu okoline. Međutim, kako je sve što se događa na Zemlji splet uzroka i posledica, uvek najpre prebiram po uzrocima. Mac stavlja dijagram koji pokazuje prstom na poslednjih četrdeset godina. Meni nije čudno. Taman toliko smo u raljama neoliberalizma. Jest da Kina zagađuje svet, ali ako je GDP imperativ, kako dostići one koji su izmakli napred u za njih pogodnom društveno političkom momentu istorije? 6% rasta devastira okolinu. 4% će devastirati Srbiju. Zamislite pola miliona tona izvoza junećeg mesa godišnje. To je milion i po krava, da će da kupuju krave, ali Kina bi junetinu, a to je još tri puta više u kravama. Od toga će 2/3 da ostane nama kao otpad. Da ne pričam da milion i po krava prdi CO2 i metan ko nekad svi bizoni u američkim prerijama. Da ne pređe na zezanje, podsetiću na priču od pre pedesetak godina o narudžbini šibica za Kinu. Računali smo da bismo morali da posečemo svu šumu, gore nego nekad Otomanska imperija. Dakle, promovisani stalni rast privrede je osnovni uzrok devastiranja Zemlje. Neoliberalizam je uzrok onih Macovih frtalj oC globalnog porasta temperature. Koga taj dijagram upozorava? Ko treba od nečega da odustane da se ne bi otišlo u tandariju?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 25-04-2017, 10:28:47
Svi naravno treba da odustanu od nečeg. Pravo pitanje nije ko, nego "ko koliko". EDIT: mada ni "odustajanje" nije baš pravi pojam ovde. Treba promeniti ekonomiju da uključi nevidljivu cenu trošenja globalnih resursa. Kad se ekonomija tako promeni akteri će morati da se prilagode, ali u tom prilagođavanju neki će biti i na dobitku. Neće svi biti gubitnici.

Prešli smo na vazduh, ali voda nije prestala da bude bitna. Evo skorašnjeg članka o rastvaranju malih životinja u moru zbog viška ugljendioksida u vodi:

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-canary-kelp-forest-sea-creature.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-04-canary-kelp-forest-sea-creature.html)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 25-04-2017, 10:52:40
Svi naravno treba da odustanu od nečeg. Pravo pitanje nije ko, nego "ko koliko".



Znam ja da je globalistima najteže da odustanu od neoliberalizma. Pitanje je samo - KO. Nema SVI, jer je to podvala. Surova jer su nas ubeđivali 40 godina da je to najbolje. Prvi problem je bankarski sistem koji odavno ne služi privredi nego privreda njemu. Što? Da bi mogli da se kockaju po Wall Streetu i drugim berzama? Ameri autsorsovali svoju privredu... Cvrc! ... vlasništvo banaka, po nerazvijenim zemljama gde robovi rade skoro mufte. Bre, tri četvrtine onog šta kupim u SAD je made in China! Ostalo iz drugih kosookih i mrkih država. Pa, pošto Kina oseća da neoliberalizam puca, da su američki dugovi toliki da ih nikada neće platiti ni po cenu nuklearanog rata, planira OBOR da krčmi svoju robu na drugim tržištima.


Misliš globalno tek ako posmatraš globalno. Šta misliš zašto se vodi bitka? Protiv Rusije? Jok. Za Sibir. Pa bi ga spičkali čas posla u svrhu "održivog razvoja". A, "održivi razvoj" je staza koja vodi u globalno otopljavanje i sva druga sranja koja proističu iz devastacije Zemlje. Jebeš CO2, daj da uništimo uzrok, a ne da se foliramo saniranjem posledica.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 25-04-2017, 11:20:09
Kako to održivi razvoj vodi u globalno otopljavanje? Ja mislim da to nije tačno, pa bih voleo detaljnije objašnjenje.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 25-04-2017, 12:02:37
Šta vodi u globalno otopljavanje? CO2.
Kako nastaje višak CO2? Preteranom potrošnjom fosilnih goriva.
Zašto trošimo fosilna goriva?


a. Zbog energije za proizvodnju i svekoliku potrošnju;
b. Jer nam obnovljivi izvori energije smetaju u eksploataciji postojećih tehnologija proizvodnje i potrošnje.


Treba uzeti u obzir i da tekuća proizvodnja obuhvata kompletnu industriju farmacije i plastike, uključujući i gadžet industriju mobilne telefonije koju i ti koristiš. Ta industrija je namerno sve lošijeg kvaliteta da bi se i dalje proizvodilo i prodavalo. Đubreta nikad previše. Sa druge strane, potrošnja fosilnih goriva obuhvata napajanje svih prevoznih sredstava na Zemlji. Čak i tamo gde misliš da se troši električna energija, dobar deo nastaje iz fosilnih goriva. U SAD država subvencioniše veliku potrošnju, sva vozila imaju skoro dvostruku potrošnju nego u Evropi, veliki lanci transportuju robu iz Čilea i drugih vukojebina, brodovi iz svih robovskih zemalja sveta. Za dvadeset dana sam u SAD gde u našem dvorištu stoje tri vena. Zašto? Ima se može se. U Talsi su gradski autobusi ređi od bicikala, pešačkih staza gotovo da nema. Što bi kad se svi voze?


Održivi razvoj pretpostavlja bar 3% godišnjeg rasta. Čemu, ako više bacamo nego što nam treba? Ubi se Don Kihot aka Džejmi Oliver da dokaze da BACAMO. Moja kćerka svojevremeno ponudila da u obdaništu najmlađeg deteta sprema užinu. Pristali, ali su je pravilnici časkom izbacili iz koloseka. Interesi su jači i od potrebe dece. Tamo ako instaliraš vetrogenerator ima da platiš struju koju proizvedeš zbog zahteva proizvođača fosilnih goriva koji nemaju gde da skladište isisano iz zemlje. Naravno, potresi postaju češći, pa sad pored tornada imaju i zemljotrese. Eto, to su posledice održivog razvoja.


Da ne govorim o tih 3%. Jer, onima koji imaju baš i ne treba ali bi pristali na više, a onima koji nemaju nije dovoljno. Oni koji imaju šest košulja lako bi pristali da oni koji imaju dve imaju samo jednu. Šta će im dve?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 25-04-2017, 13:19:41
Čekaj malo. Održivi razvoj nije "konstantan godišnji rast" nego "takav tip rasta koji teoretski može da traje unedogled, jer se ne troše neobnovljivi resursi, a obnovljivi se troše samo onolikom brzinom kojom se obnovljivi resursi obnavljaju". Održivo u smislu da može da traje i traje. Energija dobijena iz gasa definitivno ne spada u održivi razvoj, jer gasa pod zemljom nema beskonačno.

Pričaš o nekim pravilima koji ometaju održivi razvoj, i onda kažeš da su posledice tih pravila posledice održivog razvoja. Taj iskaz nije istinit.

Kako bi izgledala nova ekonomija koju sam spomenuo par postova ranije? Mora da se uvede vrednost koštanja potrošenih skrivenih resursa, i da se ta vrednost uvrsti u cenu eksploatacije. Mora ceo svet da se dogovori oko toga, jer su ti resursi globalni. Što je resurs više na ivici održivosti to je cena koštanja eksploatacije veća po svetskom dogovoru.

Oni koji neće da učestvuju u novoj ekonomiji prosto neće učestvovati, ali biće izolovani, i vremenom će ipat biti primorani da poštuju nova pravila. A naplatiće im se i ono globalno što su trošili bez plaćanja. Pojedinac koji želi da promeni ekonomiju (da se preseli) moraće da plati svoj deo koji njegova stara ekonomija još nije platila.

Ovo je jedno moguće rešenje, ali sigurno ima i drugih, i nova ekonomija je neumitna budućnost. Eksploatatori se svim silama trude da sad iscrpu sve što iscrpsti može, dok ne počne ta nova ekonomija, da bi od početka bili u prednosti, a ostatak sveta se trudi da što pre započne tu novu ekonomiju da bismo konačno mogli da rešavamo probleme koje eksploatatori stvaraju.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 25-04-2017, 14:31:19
Evo, neću više da se bakćem s tobom, a nemoj ni ti sa mnom.


Održivi razvoj = konstantan godišnji rast, pa se besi gde hoćeš.


Tvoje lične teorije se ne nalaze nigde u dokumentima koji se razmatraju.


Sukob koji traje je otpor promenama i cena može da bude fatalna.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 25-04-2017, 14:38:21
Dobro, nije baš tako. Aktuelna deklaracija (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld) pominje "sustained economic growth", ali takođe veli i "shared prosperity and decent work for all, taking into account different levels of national development and capacities", pa onda "we pledge that no one will be left behind. Recognizing that the dignity of the human person is fundamental, we wish to see the Goals and targets met for all nations and peoples and for all segments of society. And we will endeavour to reach the furthest behind first. "

Itd.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 25-04-2017, 14:50:57
Evo ga i njega! Šta ono znači - growth? Ostalo je floskula.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 25-04-2017, 15:00:17
http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Managing_the_economy/Sustainable_growth.html (http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Managing_the_economy/Sustainable_growth.html)

Quote
Sustainable economic growth means a rate of growth which can be maintained without creating other significant economic problems, especially for future generations. There is clearly a trade-off between rapid economic growth today, and growth in the future. Rapid growth today may exhaust resources and create environmental problems for future generations, including the depletion of oil and fish stocks, and global warming.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development


Quote
Sustainable development is the organizing principle for meeting human development goals while at the same time sustaining the ability of natural systems to provide the natural resources and ecosystem services upon which the economy and society depends. The desirable end result is a state of society where living conditions and resource use continue to meet human needs without undermining the integrity and stability of the natural systems.[/size]
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 25-04-2017, 15:05:11
U pitanju je sintagma. Jeste growth, ali je sustainable. Ako nije sustainable onda nije sustainable growth. Kako je sustainable? Tako što ne uništavamo ono što omogućava sam "growth".
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 25-04-2017, 15:24:35
Evo ga i njega! Šta ono znači - growth? Ostalo je floskula.

Pokušavam da kažem da si se ti usredsredio na jedan element sustainable developmenta koji nije nužno njegov najvažniji element u diskusijama koje se vode o ovoj temi u forumima koji takve diskusije vode. Čak ni ne mislim da nisi u pravu, potera za ekonomskim rastom jeste u korenu problema, samo mislim da ne treba raspravu o sustainable developmentu svoditi samo na ekonomski rast.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 25-04-2017, 17:23:04
Napisao sam da ja o uzroku, a vi biste da razblažizte. Koji drugi uzrok bi mogao da bude?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 19-05-2017, 07:49:58
Ne nužno klimatska stvar ali moguće da jeste:

Where have all the insects gone? (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insects-gone)



Quote
Entomologists call it the windshield phenomenon. "If you talk to people, they have a gut feeling. They remember how insects used to smash on your windscreen," says Wolfgang Wägele, director of the Leibniz Institute for Animal Biodiversity in Bonn, Germany. Today, drivers spend less time scraping and scrubbing. "I'm a very data-driven person," says Scott Black, executive director of the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation in Portland, Oregon. "But it is a visceral reaction when you realize you don't see that mess anymore."
Some people argue that cars today are more aerodynamic and therefore less deadly to insects. But Black says his pride and joy as a teenager in Nebraska was his 1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1—with some pretty sleek lines. "I used to have to wash my car all the time. It was always covered with insects." Lately, Martin Sorg, an entomologist here, has seen the opposite: "I drive a Land Rover, with the aerodynamics of a refrigerator, and these days it stays clean."
Though observations about splattered bugs aren't scientific, few reliable data exist on the fate of important insect species. Scientists have tracked alarming declines in domesticated honey bees, monarch butterflies, and lightning bugs. But few have paid attention to the moths, hover flies, beetles, and countless other insects that buzz and flitter through the warm months. "We have a pretty good track record of ignoring most noncharismatic species," which most insects are, says Joe Nocera, an ecologist at the University of New Brunswick in Canada.

Of the scant records that do exist, many come from amateur naturalists, whether butterfly collectors or bird watchers. Now, a new set of long-term data is coming to light, this time from a dedicated group of mostly amateur entomologists who have tracked insect abundance at more than 100 nature reserves in western Europe since the 1980s.
Over that time the group, the Krefeld Entomological Society, has seen the yearly insect catches fluctuate, as expected. But in 2013 they spotted something alarming. When they returned to one of their earliest trapping sites from 1989, the total mass of their catch had fallen by nearly 80%. Perhaps it was a particularly bad year, they thought, so they set up the traps again in 2014. The numbers were just as low. Through more direct comparisons, the group—which had preserved thousands of samples over 3 decades—found dramatic declines across more than a dozen other sites.


Such losses reverberate up the food chain. "If you're an insect-eating bird living in that area, four-fifths of your food is gone in the last quarter-century, which is staggering," says Dave Goulson, an ecologist at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom, who is working with the Krefeld group to analyze and publish some of the data. "One almost hopes that it's not representative—that it's some strange artifact."
No one knows how broadly representative the data are of trends elsewhere. But the specificity of the observations offers a unique window into the state of some of the planet's less appreciated species. Germany's "Red List" of endangered insects doesn't look alarming at first glance, says Sorg, who curates the Krefeld society's extensive collection of insect specimens. Few species are listed as extinct because they are still found in one or two sites. But that obscures the fact that many have disappeared from large areas where they were once common. Across Germany, only three bumble bee species have vanished, but the Krefeld region has lost more than half the two dozen bumble bee species that society members documented early in the 20th century.
Members of the Krefeld society have been observing, recording, and collecting insects from the region—and around the world—since 1905. Some of the roughly 50 members—including teachers, telecommunication technicians, and a book publisher—have become world experts on their favorite insects. Siegfried Cymorek, for instance, who was active in the society from the 1950s through the 1980s, never completed high school. He was drafted into the army as a teenager, and after the war he worked in the wood-protection division at a local chemical plant. But because of his extensive knowledge of wood-boring beetles, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich awarded him an honorary doctorate in 1979. Over the years, members have written more than 2000 publications on insect taxonomy, ecology, and behavior.
The society's headquarters is a former school in the center of Krefeld, an industrial town on the banks of the Rhine that was once famous for producing silk. Disused classrooms store more than a million insect specimens individually pinned and named in display cases. Most were collected nearby, but some come from more exotic locales. Among them are those from the collection of a local priest, an active member in the 1940s and 1950s, who persuaded colleagues at mission stations around the world to send him specimens. (The society's collection and archive are under historical preservation protection.)


Tens of millions more insects float in carefully labeled bottles of alcohol—the yield from the society's monitoring projects in nature reserves around the region. The reserves, set aside for their local ecological value, are not pristine wilderness but "seminatural" habitats, such as former hay meadows, full of wildflowers, birds, small mammals—and insects. Some even include parts of agricultural fields, which farmers are free to farm with conventional methods. Heinz Schwan, a retired chemist and longtime society member who has weighed thousands of trap samples, says the society began collecting long-term records of insect abundance partly by chance. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, local authorities asked the group for help evaluating how different strategies for managing the reserves affected insect populations and diversity.
The members monitored each site only once every few years, but they set up identical insect traps in the same place each time to ensure clean comparisons. Because commercially available traps vary in ways that affect the catch, the group makes their own. Named for the Swedish entomologist René Malaise, who developed the basic design in the 1930s, each trap resembles a floating tent. Black mesh fabric forms the base, topped by a tent of white fabric and, at the summit, a collection container—a plastic jar with an opening into another jar of alcohol. Insects trapped in the fabric fly up to the jar, where the vapors gradually inebriate them and they fall into the alcohol. The traps collect mainly species that fly a meter or so above the ground. For people who worry that the traps themselves might deplete insect populations, Sorg notes that each trap catches just a few grams per day—equivalent to the daily diet of a shrew.
Sorg says society members saved all the samples because even in the 1980s they recognized that each represented a snapshot of potentially intriguing insect populations. "We found it fascinating—despite the fact that in 1982 the term ‘biodiversity' barely existed," he says. Many samples have not yet been sorted and cataloged—a painstaking labor of love done with tweezers and a microscope. Nor have the group's full findings been published. But some of the data are emerging piecemeal in talks by society members and at a hearing at the German Bundestag, the national parliament, and they are unsettling.
Beyond the striking drop in overall insect biomass, the data point to losses in overlooked groups for which almost no one has kept records. In the Krefeld data, hover flies—important pollinators often mistaken for bees—show a particularly steep decline. In 1989, the group's traps in one reserve collected 17,291 hover flies from 143 species. In 2014, at the same locations, they found only 2737 individuals from 104 species.
Since their initial findings in 2013, the group has installed more traps each year. Working with researchers at several universities, society members are looking for correlations with weather, changes in vegetation, and other factors. No simple cause has yet emerged. Even in reserves where plant diversity and abundance have improved, Sorg says, "the insect numbers still plunged."


Changes in land use surrounding the reserves are probably playing a role. "We've lost huge amounts of habitat, which has certainly contributed to all these declines," Goulson says. "If we turn all the seminatural habitats to wheat and cornfields, then there will be virtually no life in those fields." As fields expand and hedgerows disappear, the isolated islands of habitat left can support fewer species. Increased fertilizer on remaining grazing lands favors grasses over the diverse wildflowers that many insects prefer. And when development replaces countryside, streets and buildings generate light pollution that leads nocturnal insects astray and interrupts their mating.
Neonicotinoid pesticides, already implicated in the widespread crash of bee populations, are another prime suspect. Introduced in the 1980s, they are now the world's most popular insecticides, initially viewed as relatively benign because they are often applied directly to seeds rather than sprayed. But because they are water soluble, they don't stay put in the fields where they are used. Goulson and his colleagues reported in 2015 that nectar and pollen from wildflowers next to treated fields can have higher concentrations of neonicotinoids than the crop plants. Although initial safety studies showed that allowable levels of the compounds didn't kill honey bees directly, they do affect the insects' abilities to navigate and communicate, according to later research. Researchers found similar effects in wild solitary bees and bumble bees.
Less is known about how those chemicals affect other insects, but new studies of parasitoid wasps suggest those effects could be significant. Those solitary wasps play multiple roles in ecosystems—as pollinators, predators of other insects, and prey for larger animals. A team from the University of Regensburg in Germany reported in Scientific Reports in February that exposing the wasp Nasonia vitripennis to just 1 nanogram of one common neonicotinoid cut mating rates by more than half and decreased females' ability to find hosts. "It's as if the [exposed] insect is dead" from a population point of view because it can't produce offspring, says Lars Krogmann, an entomologist at the Stuttgart Natural History Museum in Germany.
No one can prove that the pesticides are to blame for the decline, however. "There is no data on insecticide levels, especially in nature reserves," Sorg says. The group has tried to find out what kinds of pesticides are used in fields near the reserves, but that has proved difficult, he says. "We simply don't know what the drivers are" in the Krefeld data, Goulson says. "It's not an experiment. It's an observation of this massive decline. The data themselves are strong. Understanding it and knowing what to do about it is difficult."


The factors causing trouble for the hover flies, moths, and bumble bees in Germany are probably at work elsewhere, if clean windshields are any indication. Since 1968, scientists at Rothamsted Research, an agricultural research center in Harpenden, U.K., have operated a system of suction traps—12-meter-long suction tubes pointing skyward. Set up in fields to monitor agricultural pests, the traps capture all manner of insects that happen to fly over them; they are "effectively upside-down Hoovers running 24/7, continually sampling the air for migrating insects," says James Bell, who heads the Rothamsted Insect Survey.
Between 1970 and 2002, the biomass caught in the traps in southern England did not decline significantly. Catches in southern Scotland, however, declined by more than two-thirds during the same period. Bell notes that overall numbers in Scotland were much higher at the start of the study. "It might be that much of the [insect] abundance in southern England had already been lost" by 1970, he says, after the dramatic postwar changes in agriculture and land use.
The stable catches in southern England are in part due to constant levels of pests such as aphids, which can thrive when their insect predators are removed. Such species can take advantage of a variety of environments, move large distances, and reproduce multiple times per year. Some can even benefit from pesticides because they reproduce quickly enough to develop resistance, whereas their predators decline. "So lots of insects will do great, but the insects that we love may not," Black says.
Other, more visible creatures may be feeling the effects of the insect losses. Across North America and Europe, species of birds that eat flying insects, such as larks, swallows, and swifts, are in steep decline. Habitat loss certainly plays a role, Nocera says, "but the obvious factor that ties them all together is their diet."
Some intriguing, although indirect, clues come from a rare ecological treasure: decades' worth of stratified bird droppings. Nocera and his colleagues have been probing disused chimneys across Canada in which chimney swifts have built their nests for generations. From the droppings, he and his colleagues can reconstruct the diets of the birds, which eat almost exclusively insects caught on the wing.
The layers revealed a striking change in the birds' diets in the 1940s, around the time DDT was introduced. The proportion of beetle remains dropped off, suggesting the birds were eating smaller insects—and getting fewer calories per catch. The proportion of beetle parts increased slightly again after DDT was banned in the 1970s but never reached its earlier levels. The lack of direct data on insect populations is frustrating, Nocera says. "It's all correlative. We know that insect populations could have changed to create the population decline we have now. But we don't have the data, and we never will, because we can't go back in time."
Sorg and Wägele agree. "We deeply regret that we did not set up more traps 20 or 30 years ago," Sorg says. He and other Krefeld society members are now working with Wägele's group to develop what they wish they had had earlier: a system of automated monitoring stations they hope will combine audio recordings, camera traps, pollen and spore filters, and automated insect traps into a "biodiversity weather station". Instead of tedious manual analysis, they hope to use automated sequencing and genetic barcoding to analyze the insect samples. Such data could help pinpoint what is causing the decline—and where efforts to reverse it might work best.
Paying attention to what E. O. Wilson calls "the little things that run the world" is worthwhile, Sorg says. "We won't exterminate all insects. That's nonsense. Vertebrates would die out first. But we can cause massive damage to biodiversity—damage that harms us."
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 19-05-2017, 15:44:14
http://sanmigueltimes.com/2017/05/bill-gates-we-need-socialism-to-save-the-planet/
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 19-05-2017, 18:56:50
Bil Gejts konstantno jede govna koja mu drugi serviraju, pa povraca u javnos'...
mani ga slusate, ce zglajzate sas pameti....
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 19-05-2017, 19:48:36
Ne mora baš pravi socializam, dovoljno je taksa na skrivene troškove koje plaćaju jedni, a od kojih profitiraju drugi.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 19-05-2017, 21:18:09
Apokalipsa!

http://www.abc2news.com/news/state/a-massive-17-year-cicada-brood-is-crawling-out-of-the-gorund-early

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 21-05-2017, 06:03:23
Rising seas set to double coastal flooding by 2050: study (https://phys.org/news/2017-05-seas-coastal.html) 
 
Quote

   Rising sea levels driven by global warming are on track to dramatically boost the frequency of coastal flooding worldwide by mid-century, especially in tropical regions, researchers said Thursday.   A 10-to-20 centimetre (four-to-eight inch) jump in the global ocean watermark by 2050—a conservative forecast—would double flood risk in high-latitude regions, they reported in the journal Scientific Reports.
Major cities along the North American seaboard such as Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles, along with the European Atlantic coast, would be highly exposed, they found.
But it would only take half as big a jump in ocean levels to double the number of serious flooding incidents in the tropics, including along highly populated river deltas in Asia and Africa.
Even at the low end of this sea rise spectrum, Mumbai, Kochi and Abidjan and many other cities would be significantly affected.
"We are 95 percent confident that an added 5-to-10 centimetres will more than double the frequency of flooding in the topics," lead author Sean Vitousek, a climate scientist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told AFP.
Small island states, already vulnerable to flooding, would fare even worse, he added.
"An increase in flooding frequency with climate change will challenge the very existence and sustainability of these coastal communities across the globe."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-05-seas-coastal.html#jCp (https://phys.org/news/2017-05-seas-coastal.html#jCp) Rising sea levels driven by global warming are on track to dramatically boost the frequency of coastal flooding worldwide by mid-century, especially in tropical regions, researchers said Thursday.
A 10-to-20 centimetre (four-to-eight inch) jump in the global ocean watermark by 2050—a conservative forecast—would double flood risk in high-latitude regions, they reported in the journal Scientific Reports.
Major cities along the North American seaboard such as Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles, along with the European Atlantic coast, would be highly exposed, they found.
But it would only take half as big a jump in ocean levels to double the number of serious flooding incidents in the tropics, including along highly populated river deltas in Asia and Africa.
Even at the low end of this sea rise spectrum, Mumbai, Kochi and Abidjan and many other cities would be significantly affected.
"We are 95 percent confident that an added 5-to-10 centimetres will more than double the frequency of flooding in the topics," lead author Sean Vitousek, a climate scientist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told AFP.
Small island states, already vulnerable to flooding, would fare even worse, he added.
"An increase in flooding frequency with climate change will challenge the very existence and sustainability of these coastal communities across the globe."
Coastal flooding is caused by severe storms, and is made worse when large waves, storm surge and high tides converge.
Hurricane Sandy in the United States (2012), which caused tens of billions or dollars in damage, and Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines (2013), which left more than 7,000 dead or missing, both saw devastating flooding.
Rising seas—caused by the expansion of warming ocean water and runoff from melting ice sheets and glaciers—is also a contributing factor.
Sea level 'wild card'
But up to now, global estimates of future coastal flooding have not adequately taken into account the role of waves, Vitousek said.
"Most of the data used in earlier studies comes from tidal gauge stations, which are in harbours and protected areas," he explained. "They record extreme tide and storm surges, but not waves."
To make up for the lack of observational data, Vitousek and his colleagues used computer modelling and a statistical method called extreme value theory.
"We asked the question: with waves factored in, how much sea level rise will it take to double the frequency of flooding?"

Not much, it turned out.
Sea levels are currently rising by three to four millimetres (0.10 to 0.15 inches) a year, but the pace has picked up by about 30 percent over the last decade.
It could accelerate even more as continent-sized ice blocs near the poles continue to shed mass, especially in Antarctica, which Vitousek described as the sea level "wild card."
If oceans go up 25 centimetres by mid-century, "flood levels that occur every 50 years in the tropics would be happening every year or more," he said.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicts global average sea level will rise by as much as 2.5 metres (98 inches) by 2100.
Global average temperatures have increased by one degree Celsius (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit) since the mid-19th century, with most of that happening in the last 70 years.
The 196-nation Paris Agreement, inked in 2015, calls for capping global warming at well under 2C (3.6F), a goal described by climate scientists as extremely daunting.
 
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 03-06-2017, 18:59:40
(http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/co2_2006_pc.jpg)

Interesting
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 03-06-2017, 20:42:10
Mac, Meho, neka neko reaguje!

  http://standard.rs/svet/37907-шта-је-трамп-учинио-рушећи-мит-о-климатским-променама-више-него-што-сањате   (http://standard.rs/svet/37907-шта-је-трамп-учинио-рушећи-мит-о-климатским-променама-више-него-што-сањате)

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 04-06-2017, 06:28:06
Trump misunderstood MIT climate research, university officials say (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-trump-mit-idUSKBN18S6L0)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 04-06-2017, 10:36:45
Al sad je rekla kazala, u poređenju s prvim tekstom. Ako je tačna vijest, jelte...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 13-06-2017, 07:51:20
A šta ako je spas u mahovini?


This 'tree' has the environmental benefits of a forest (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/07/world/citytree-urban-pollution/index.html)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 27-06-2017, 07:57:59
The trouble with geoengineers “hacking the planet” (http://thebulletin.org/trouble-geoengineers-%E2%80%9Chacking-planet%E2%80%9D10858)



Bože sakloni, ovo je stvarno ko neki SF iz šezdesetih...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 29-06-2017, 08:02:30
 New study confirms the oceans are warming rapidly  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jun/26/new-study-confirms-the-oceans-are-warming-rapidly)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: дејан on 30-06-2017, 15:20:15
ево, не само што се загревају већ им се и диже (ниво, људи, ниво)

http://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/new-island-north-carolina/index.html
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 13-07-2017, 09:09:03
 Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says  (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change?CMP=twt_gu)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 31-08-2017, 07:54:31
NASA study proposes way to prevent Yellowstone super volcano from destroying United States (http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/nasa-study-proposes-way-to-prevent-yellowstone-super-volcano-from-destroying-united-states/news-story/68fb6ff011365c7d935141cfd72961f4)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 19-09-2017, 08:55:32
  White House Seeks to Avoid Quitting Paris Deal, Climate Officials Say  (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/white-house-wont-withdraw-from-paris-deal-eu-says/ar-AAs1bmH)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 26-09-2017, 07:43:03
Ponovo o prdenju krava:

To save the planet, scientists figured out how to fix cow farts  (http://www.popsci.com/climate-cow-fart)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 26-09-2017, 07:57:35
There's much more farting to fix.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Аксентије Новаковић on 29-09-2017, 14:55:20
Više od 31.000 znanstvenika smatra da je globalno zatopljenje politička izmišljotina

Quote

Više od 31.000 znanstvenika smatra da je globalno zatopljenje politička izmišljotina

Više od 31.000 znanstvenika potpisalo je peticiju protiv političke agende koja se nalazi iza teorije o globalnom zatopljenju. Ovaj znanstveni konsenzus zagovara neophodnost ugljikovog dioksida i protivi se agendi iza zagovaranja teorije o globalnom zatopljenju, kojoj je cilj uništenje industrijske proizvodnje, centralizirano ekonomsko planiranje i globalne mjere oporezivanja. Ovi znanstvenici otvoreno su progovorili protiv prijevare o globalnom zatopljenju.

Peticiju, koja je popraćena znanstvenim istraživanjem, podupiru znanstvenici mnogih znanstvenih područja. Peticija upozorava da potpisivanje postojećih međunarodnih sporazuma koji su proizašli iz zagovaranja teorije o globalnom zatopljenju, predstavljaju financijski teret građanima svojih zemalja, kradu nacionalni suverenitet, i ograničavaju proizvodnju energije.

Pismo Fredericka Seitza, predsjednika Američke nacionalne akademije znanosti, popratilo je peticiju, a u njemu Seitz upozorava na površnost teorija o štetnosti ugljikovog dioksida. Ugljikov dioksid je jedna od osnovnih komponenti života, a ne opasni zagađivač kojeg treba odstraniti iz atmosfere. Njegovo pismo upozorava na opasnosti koje prijete SAD-u potpisivanjem raznih međunarodnih sporazuma, koji ograničavaju energetsku neovisnost i konfisciraju bogatstvo države.

Peticija poziva nadležne da odbace Protokol iz Kyota, potpisan 1997. godine, kao i slične sporazume. Uklanjanje stakleničkih plinova poput ugljikovog dioksida bi jednostavno naštetilo planetu, oduzimajući mu ključni element kojeg biljke koriste za preživljavanje. Ako je ugljikov dioksid toliko loš za planet, zašto korisnici staklenika kupuju CO2 generatore kako bi povećali proizvodnju u staklenicima?

Peticija, zajedno s pratećim istraživanjem, razbija mit o tome da će predviđena razina ugljikovog dioksida izazvati katastrofalno zagrijavanje Zemljine atmosfere i klimatološke poremećaje. Dokazi zapravo govore u korist stakleničkih plinova, koji su potrebni biljnom svijetu.

Peticija zatim kritizira agendu globalnog zatopljenja, te kaže da će ona spriječiti napredak znanosti i tehnologije diljem svijeta. Iako znanstvenici ne osporavaju postojanje zagađenja i potrebu za očuvanjem okoliša, stoje iza tvrdnje da je teorija o globalnom zatopljenju većim dijelom obična izmišljotina osmišljena s određenim političkim ciljevima vladajućih elita, te da bi se trebalo pozabaviti stvarnim uzrocima zagađenja u svijetu.

Izvor: Natural News

http://tribun.hr/vise-31-000-znanstvenika-smatra-da-globalno-zatopljenje-politicka-izmisljotina/



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E&feature=youtu.be

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf



Službeni podaci opovrgavaju tvrdnje o podizanju razine mora

Quote

Službeni podaci opovrgavaju tvrdnje o podizanju razine mora

Novo istraživanje otkrilo je da je Zemlja zapravo proširila svoje kopnene površine, suprotno mišljenju da globalno zatopljenje uzrokuje podizanje razine mora radi otapanja leda na polovima. No, to zapravo nije nimalo čudno uslijed spoznaje da su polovi sve hladniji te da leda na njima ima sve više.

Nizozemski istraživački institut Deltares proveo je istraživanje koje je potvrdilo da se Zemljina kopnena površina povećala za 275.000 kvadratnih kilometara tijekom proteklih 30 godina, uključujući oko 50.000 kvadratnih kilometara uz obalu.

Na određenim lokacijama se more proširilo i potopilo dio kopna, no te površine su daleko manje od površina gdje se more povuklo, odnosno kopno proširilo. U tih istih 30 godina, planet je dobio novih 180.000 kvadratnih kilometara vodenih površina, što uključuje 30.000 kvadratnih kilometara obale.

„Očekivali smo da će se obala povlačiti zbog porasta razine mora, ali iznenađujuće je saznanje da se zapravo kopno širi po svuda na planeti“, rekao je dr. Fedor Baart. „Stvorilo se više novog kopna nego što ga je more potopilo.“

Očigledno je da se planet s vremenom mijenja, kao što je to radio kroz čitavu povijest. Očito je i da se s vremenom događaju određene klimatske promjene, kao što je bio slučaj nebrojeno puta kroz povijest, i daleko ranije nego što je čovjek uopće kročio Zemljom.

Problem se javlja kad određene interesne skupine pod svaku cijenu žele uvjeriti cijeli svijet u svoje manjkave teorije, koje eto, zahvaljujući samoj prirodi polako bivaju diskreditirane. Pravo pitanje je u čijem interesu i sa kojom namjerom se takve teze već gotovo dvadesetak godina dogmatski promoviraju.

Izvor: Newsmax, Tribun


http://tribun.hr/sluzbeni-podaci-opovrgavaju-tvrdnje-podizanju-razine-mora/




Brod bedaka: Arktička ekspedicija u potrazi za dokazima globalnog zatopljenja, frustrirana ogromnim količinama leda

Quote

Brod bedaka: Arktička ekspedicija u potrazi za dokazima globalnog zatopljenja, frustrirana ogromnim količinama leda

Arktička ekspedicija čiji je cilj bio podići svijest o opasnosti promjena klime uzrokovanih čovjekovim utjecajem, iskazala je frustracije neočekivano velikim količinama leda.

Polar Ocean Challenge, čiji je cilj bio oploviti Arktik u jedrilici tijekom ljeta dok je led otopljen, suočio se s velikim problemima. Voditelj ekspedicije je istraživač David Hempleman-Adams, koji je opravdao ekspediciju slijedećim riječima:

    „Trajna nepovratna promjna na ledenom krajoliku Arktika čini se neizbježnom. To će/je već ima globalne ekonomske, političke i socijalne posljedice. Značajna promjena u mom životu.

    Vidim tu mogućnost obilaska Arktika kao nešto što sam želio provesti bez obzira na rizik, s ciljem povećanja pažnje svijeta na učinke arktičke klimatske promjene. Možda još postoji mogućnost da se obuzda to progresivno zagrijavanje i otapanje na Arktiku. Ali čak i ako to nije moguće, slijedeća najvažnija stvar je da se u najmanju ruku istakne potreba za ‘odgovornim plovom u budućnosti Arktika’.“

Ekspedicija kasni već 4 do 6 tjedana u odnosu na predviđeni plan, zbog toga što je zadržana u moru Laptev i to ledenim santama za koje jedan od „stručnjaka“ sa Sveučilišta u Cambridgeu, Peter Wadhams, tvrdi da će se uskoro zauvijek otopiti i nestati s Arktika.

Izvještaj s broda od 18. kolovoza daje zanimljive činjenice:

„Pa, ustao sam se jutros u 08:00. Led, led i još usr…g leda.“

Još jedan primjer:

    „U Stamukhi je ledena santa koja upravo dotiče dno broda.“

    „Sinoć smo se morali okrenuti od leda prema obali i našli smo neko sigurno mjesto priveza/sidra. Bilo je jakih vjetrova, pa smo morali otići negdje drugdje dok prođu, a odgovor je bio Stamukha.“

Jedan od članova posade, 14-godišnji Ben Edwards, napisao je:

    „Još uvijek plovimo po ledu, aaaaaaa! Imali smo površine čiste vode da nismo mogli vidjeti drugu stranu, dovoljno velike da počnete razmišljati da ste možda vidjeli posljednji dio leda, a onda se iznad horizonta počne nazirati poput domaće zadaće koju ste pokušali izbjeći seljenjem u Indiju, samo kako bi ustanovili da škole i tamo postoje.“

    „Čini se da je led osvetoljubiva tvar i da nas odbija ostaviti na miru.“

Zanimljivo, prethodno spomenuti Peter Wadhams rekao je na BBC-jevom radiju kako je Arktik danas u gorem položaju nego ikad prije. Wadhams je također tvrdio čak i da tajni agenti naftnih kompanija prate znanstvenike koji se bave klimom, jer dotični navodno „previše znaju.“

Izvor: Breitbart London

http://tribun.hr/brod-bedaka-arkticka-ekspedicija-potrazi-dokazima-globalnog-zatopljenja-frustrirana-ogromnim-kolicinama-leda/




Antarktika postaje sve hladnija – što se dogodilo sa „globalnim zatopljenjem“?

Quote

Antarktika postaje sve hladnija – što se dogodilo sa „globalnim zatopljenjem“?

Zapadna Antarktika postala je još jedna žrtva globalnog zahladnjenja. Prema posljednjem istraživanju, zapadna Antarktika „nije osjetila zatopljenje od kraja devedesetih godina prošlog stoljeća“.

„Godišnja prosječna temperatura značajno se smanjila, a najveće zahladnjenje osjeti se tijekom australskog ljeta. Temperature su pale kao posljedica velikog intenziteta hladnoće, istočnih vjetrova koji su rezultat ciklonskih uvjeta u sjevernom Weddellovom moru u kombinaciji sa jakim strujanjem. Ova strujanja utjecala su i na pomak morskog leda prema istočnoj obali poluotoka, time pojačavajući utjecaj.“

Drugim riječima, zagovornici teorije o globalnom zatopljenju su upravo izgubili jedan od najčešće isticanih primjera globalnog zatopljenja.

Posljednjih petnaestak godina porast temperature na zapadnoj Antarktici, odnosno Antarktičkom poluotoku, stalno je naglašavan kao potvrda turobnih predviđanja klimatskih promjena od strane zagovornika ideje o globalnom zatopljenju, što su mediji bez kritike dogmatski prihvaćali kao neosporivu činjenicu.

NBC iz 2013.:

„Antarktički poluotok jedno je od mjesta na planeti gdje se zagrijavanje najviše primjeti…“

BBC iz 2012.:

„Nova analiza temperaturnih podataka ukazuje na to da se ledeni pokrivač na zapadnoj Antarktici zagrijava dvostruko brže nego se to mislilo.“

„Američki istraživači tvrde da su pronašli prvi dokaz zagrijavanja tijekom ljetnih mjeseci južne hemisfere.“

„Zabrinuti su da bi se ubrzano topljenje leda zbog porasta temperature moglo odraziti na povećanje razine mora.“

BBC iz 2001.:

„Britanski znanstvenici kažu da se dijelovi Antarktike u posljednje vrijeme zagrijavaju puno brže nego ostatak planeta.“

„Vjeruju da se takvo nešto nije događalo u toj mjeri tijekom posljednje dvije tisuće godina.“

Ova fraza o „najbržem zatopljavanju na planeti“ postala je toliko važna aktivistima koji rade u „klimatskom biznisu“, da niti nakon ove najnovije objave nisu u stanju sagledati i revidirati svoje vlastite stavove. To uključuje i autore studije koja je ukazala na to da se zapadna Antarktika zapravo hladi posljednjih 18 godina, koji to nazivaju uobičajenom prirodnom promjenom. Međutim, nije prirodna kad se radi o zatopljenju, zar ne?

Naslov iz Washington Posta:

„Antarktički poluotok se hladi, ali to ne opovrgava globalno zatopljenje“

Prevelik je biznis u pitanju da bi se samo tako odustalo od mantre o globalnom zatopljenju, i milijardi dolara koji se ulažu u istraživanje tog ljudski stvorenog fenomena.

Izvor: Breitbart, Tribun

http://tribun.hr/antarktika-postaje-hladnija-sto-se-dogodilo-globalnim-zatopljenjem/





George Soros dao Al Goreu desetke milijuna dolara da promiče obmanu o globalnom zatopljenju

Quote

George Soros dao Al Goreu desetke milijuna dolara da promiče obmanu o globalnom zatopljenju

Milijarder Goerge Soros dao je grupaciji za zaštitu okoliša kojom je predsjedavao bivši američki potpredsjednik Al Gore, desetke milijuna dolara kroz par godina kako bi se stvorili „politički uvjeti za aktivno djelovanje“, stoji u dokumentima DC Leaksa.

U dokumentu piše da je Institut Otvoreno Društvo želio učiniti više za promicanje ideje o globalnom zatopljenju. To je uključivalo godišnji budžet od 10 milijuna dolara koje je Institut donirao Gore-ovoj grupaciji kroz nekoliko godina.

„Američki program posvećen globalnom zatopljenju uključio se u promicanje tematike globalnog zatopljenja prije četiri godine, na sugestiju Georgea Sorosa“, piše u dokumentu Instituta.

    „Unatrag nekoliko proteklih godina izdvajali smo godišnje 11 milijuna dolara za potpomaganje tog programa. Ovaj iznos obuhvaća naše obećanje o doniranju 10 milijuna dolara godišnje grupaciji ‘Alliance for Climate Protection’, koja se bavi edukacijom javnosti o klimatskim promjenama s ciljem stvaranja političkog prostora za agresivnu akciju SAD-a u skladu sa onim što znanstvenici smatraju da je potrebno kako bi se naša nacija dovela na put smanjenja emisije ugljičnog dioksida.“

Nije poznato iz koje godine datira navedeni dokument, međutim, Gore je osnovao „Alliance for Climate Protection“ 2006. godine, dok je svoje ime grupacija 2011. godine promijenila u „The Climate Reality Project“. 2008. godine je grupacija pokrenula 300 milijuna dolara vrijednu kampanju kojom je poticala Amerikance na „agresivniju borbu za smanjenje stakleničkih plinova“.

ACP je 2008. godine primio 10 milijuna dolara od Instituta Otvoreno Društvo, sudeći prema poreznim izvješćima. 2009. godine je primio 5 milijuna dolara. Za ostale godine podaci nisu poznati.

Obmana o globalnom zatopljenju

Snimke NASA-inih satelita ukazuju na to da se ledeni pokrivač na polovima nije uopće smanjio u odnosu na podatke iz 1979. godine, štoviše, čak se minimalno i povećao. U razdoblju nakon 2005. godine počelo je blago smanjivanje ledenog pokrivača koje je trajalo nekoliko godina, do 2012. godine se njegova površina smanjila za nekih 10 posto, što nije ništa značajno, pogotovo uzevši u obzir da je 1979. godina bila ekstremna.

Unatoč tome, zagovaratelji globalnog zatopljenja i poslušni mediji stalno su dogmatski ponavljali da je to znak nadolazeće katastrofe. Al Gore je čak predviđao da će arktička ledena kapa nestati do 2014. godine.

Krajem 2012. godine se ledeni pokrivač drastično povećao te čak prestigao podatke iz 1979. godine. Od tada pa do danas pokrivač je stalno iznad tih izmjera. Prema posljednjim podacima, ledeni pokrivač je za 5 posto veći od podataka iz 1979. godine.

Izvor: Daily Caller, Forbes


http://tribun.hr/george-soros-dao-al-goreu-desetke-milijuna-dolara-da-promice-obmanu-globalnom-zatopljenju/


Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Аксентије Новаковић on 07-10-2017, 16:03:50
Arktički led povećao površinu za 40 posto u zadnjih pet godina

Jedan od popularnijih „dokaza“ koje zagovornici globalnog zatopljenja vole isticati jest teza o topljenju arktičkog leda. Svi smo već vidjeli dokumentarce s poznatim scenama polarnog medvjeda koji se muči pentrajući se na odlomljeni komad leda, znajući da ga zapravo čeka sigurna smrt zbog nestanka njegovog staništa. No, je li to sve doista tako? Što današnja znanstvena saznanja govore o tome što se događa na Arktiku?

Climate Depot objavio je posljednje podatke iz američkog Nacionalnog centra za praćenje snijega i leda, sa sveučilišta u Coloradu, koji pokazuju da se zaleđena površina na Arktiku povećala za čak 40 posto od 2012. godine.

Štoviše, sam Grenland bilježi deset puta veću površinu kopnenog leda nego unatrag pet godina. A da sve to nije samo slučajnost, pokazuje i to da najpoznatiji grenlandski ledenjak, Petermannov ledenjak, konstantno raste u posljednjih pet godina.

To sve zapravo i nije neka velika novost. Još 2015. godine BBC News je objavio reportažu o tome da je tada površina leda porasla za 30 posto, za što su okrivili „neobično hladno ljeto“. No taj trend se očito nastavio i narednih godina.

Tadašnjih trideset posto već je predstavljalo značajno povećanje, samo te godine površina leda povećala se za 200.000 kvadratnih kilometara.

Unatoč svim tim pokazateljima, i dalje svakodnevno slušamo one iste priče o kataklizmičkim klimatološkim promjenama i globalnom zatopljenju.


http://tribun.hr/arkticki-led-povecao-povrsinu-40-posto-zadnjih-pet-godina/

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 07-10-2017, 18:57:21
Znači nije bitno što temperatura vode na celoj kugli raste, nego je bitno što na Arktiku ima više leda? Saznaj kako se računa prosečna temperatura na Zemlji. Arktik je u principu dobar indikator dešavanja na celoj Zemlji, ali nije 100% precizan. I sam Grenland je u vikinško doba bio zelen, ali globalna temperatura je tada bila manja nego sada. Lokalna odstupanja ne govore mnogo o globalnom trendu.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 07-10-2017, 18:59:15
Dobiću boles' od tvoje upornosti.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 07-10-2017, 19:44:09
Uzgred, to što ima više leda na Grenlandu (kopnu) ne znači mnogo ako se led smanjuje na ostatku Arktika (na vodi). Led odbija sunčevu svetlost, a voda upija. Led na vodi je bitniji za regulaciju temperature od leda na kopnu.

Takođe uzgred, to što ima više leda na Grenlandu je možda zato što ima više padavina, jer je važnost vazduha veća, jer voda više isparava, jer JE VODA TOPLIJA.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 07-10-2017, 20:20:48
Nadam se da je količina vode i dalje konstantna. Nema fisije, zar ne? Slova uragana su ove godine kasnila? Ima ih više kad je voda toplija? Priobalje Golfa i čitave istočne obale su "erotični" par milenijuma. Ukupne padavine su se pomerile ka Evropi, ali su Eskimi objasnili zbog čega. Uostalom, ta voda i potiče iz Afrike, Jedino mi se žalila kuma, koja ima kuću na Zlatiboru, da zbog suvoće nema vrganja, a i treća berba majkine dušice je izostala. Drugi berači, sa Kopaonika, Tare i okoline Valjeva se ne žale. Zašto je toliko teško prihvatiti da nekad i nismo u pravu?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 07-10-2017, 20:37:44
Masa vode na Zemlji u svim agregatnim stanjima je zaista mane-više konstantna u vremenu. To nije sporno, ali istovremeno nije ni bitno. Ne znam što uopšt pričamo o ukupnoj količini vode u svetu. Bitan je biodiverzitet, nekakav mir u svetu, i bitan je procenat viška vrednosti koji je svet mora godišnje da odvoji za oporavak od klimatskih promena. Ako taj procenat poraste onda se smanjuje za druge stvari, recimo za istraživanje svemira.

Porast globalne temperature negativno uriče na sve navedeno. Ali količina vode ostaje ista, to je istina.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 07-10-2017, 20:47:32
Dakle, nije količina vode, ali jeste količina toplote. Kod nas ove godine poranila jesen. Znam po puštenom grejanju. Ti sad počinješ sa biodiverzitetom, oporavkom od klimatskih promena, pa i na čiji račun, a nismo sigurni šta ugrožava biodiverzitet i da li, uopšte, ima klimatskih promena. Dokaži da ima. Ali, nemoj meni sa eksponecijalnim krivama i nedopustivim ekstrapolacijama na slobodnom kraku apscise ka budućnosti. NIje taj tip krive, zaboga!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 07-10-2017, 21:29:09
Zemlja se zagreva i to je već dokazano i utvrđeno. Ozbiljni ljudi ne dovode u pitanje da se Zemlja zagreva, niti dovode u pitanje nikad ranije viđenu brzinu kojom se Zemlja zagreva.

Drugo pitanje koje se postavlja je da li su ljudi uticali na te promene. Ozbiljni ljudi zapravo ni to ne dovode više u pitanje. Ljudi su ti koji su izneli ugljen dioksid na površinu i pojačali efekat staklene bašte.

Treće pitanje je da li čovečanstvo može nešto da uradi da bi usporilo i možda i poništilo promene.

Tek je sledeće pitanje predviđanje trenda i postojanja nekih mehanizama u prirodi koji zagrevanje mogu da uspore, ali i da ubrzaju. Ali prva dva pitanja su već odgovorena u naučnoj zajednici.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 07-10-2017, 21:30:57
Onda ja ne spadam u ozbiljne, ako se to uopšte broji.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Аксентије Новаковић on 08-10-2017, 02:53:10
Znači nije bitno što temperatura vode na celoj kugli raste, nego je bitno što na Arktiku ima više leda? .

Тема је отапање леда на половима.
И кад се приложе докази да је та прича једна измишљена алгоровштина, онда се креће у неку другу причу.

Uzgred, to što ima više leda na Grenlandu (kopnu) ne znači mnogo ako se led smanjuje na ostatku Arktika (na vodi).

Climate Depot objavio je posljednje podatke iz američkog Nacionalnog centra za praćenje snijega i leda, sa sveučilišta u Coloradu, koji pokazuju da se zaleđena površina na Arktiku povećala za čak 40 posto od 2012. godine.


Ekspedicija kasni već 4 do 6 tjedana u odnosu na predviđeni plan, zbog toga što je zadržana u moru Laptev i to ledenim santama za koje jedan od „stručnjaka“ sa Sveučilišta u Cambridgeu, Peter Wadhams, tvrdi da će se uskoro zauvijek otopiti i nestati s Arktika.

Izvještaj s broda od 18. kolovoza daje zanimljive činjenice:

„Pa, ustao sam se jutros u 08:00. Led, led i još usr…g leda.“

Još jedan primjer:

    „U Stamukhi je ledena santa koja upravo dotiče dno broda.“

    „Sinoć smo se morali okrenuti od leda prema obali i našli smo neko sigurno mjesto priveza/sidra. Bilo je jakih vjetrova, pa smo morali otići negdje drugdje dok prođu, a odgovor je bio Stamukha.“

Jedan od članova posade, 14-godišnji Ben Edwards, napisao je:

    „Još uvijek plovimo po ledu, aaaaaaa! Imali smo površine čiste vode da nismo mogli vidjeti drugu stranu, dovoljno velike da počnete razmišljati da ste možda vidjeli posljednji dio leda, a onda se iznad horizonta počne nazirati poput domaće zadaće koju ste pokušali izbjeći seljenjem u Indiju, samo kako bi ustanovili da škole i tamo postoje.“

    „Čini se da je led osvetoljubiva tvar i da nas odbija ostaviti na miru.“



Zemlja se zagreva i to je već dokazano i utvrđeno. Ozbiljni ljudi ne dovode u pitanje da se Zemlja zagreva, niti dovode u pitanje nikad ranije viđenu brzinu kojom se Zemlja zagreva.

Ал Гор и његови сателити нису никакви озбиљни људи, већ криминалци.

Могу да споменем како се пре 6 година залагао за депопулизацију становништва Земље, тртљајући како су деца крива за климатске промене.

Ал Гор, бивши потпредседник Сједињених Држава, познат по томе што се фанатично залаже за контролу популације, као и за „борбу против климатских промена“, изјавио је у Њујорку да би једно од решења проблема нестабилне климе на планети могло да буде смањење броја деце у породицама.


Такве особе би требало да буду процесуиране и правично кажњене због планирања и спровођења геноцида.
Таквим особа не би смело да се верује и да кажу да је данас недеља, осми октобар 2017. године.

Ozbiljni ljudi

Значи, ти 31.000-у научника не сматраш озбиљним људима????

Više od 31.000 znanstvenika smatra da je globalno zatopljenje politička izmišljotina
Više od 31.000 znanstvenika potpisalo je peticiju protiv političke agende koja se nalazi iza teorije o globalnom zatopljenju. Ovaj znanstveni konsenzus zagovara neophodnost ugljikovog dioksida i protivi se agendi iza zagovaranja teorije o globalnom zatopljenju, kojoj je cilj uništenje industrijske proizvodnje, centralizirano ekonomsko planiranje i globalne mjere oporezivanja. Ovi znanstvenici otvoreno su progovorili protiv prijevare o globalnom zatopljenju.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E&feature=youtu.be

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf


Drugo pitanje koje se postavlja je da li su ljudi uticali na te promene. Ozbiljni ljudi zapravo ni to ne dovode više u pitanje. Ljudi su ti koji su izneli ugljen dioksid na površinu i pojačali efekat staklene bašte.

Људи, људи, људи.
Зашто причаш уопштено?
Идентификуј кривце.
Јел толико тешко то урадити, или је лакше заклањати се иза алгоровштина о "људима" и "крављим прдежима"?

Затим, колико атомских проба је извршено и на копну, али и у нашој атмосфери?
Ко је кривац за то?
Ком генијалцу је пало на памет да изазива нуклеарне експлозије по атмоферским омотачима?
Да ли је тај генијалац сносио било какве кривичне последице?

Saznaj kako se računa prosečna temperatura na Zemlji.


Дај ти мени неку формулу да израчунам колико прдежи једног стада крава загађују атмосферу.  :D

Onda ja ne spadam u ozbiljne, ako se to uopšte broji.

Ти си скалопе озбиљан, а мац је неинформисан о 31.000 научника који оповргавају наводне климатске промене, и као пијан плота се држи флоскула о "озбиљним људима".

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 08-10-2017, 09:33:24
Koliko ima klimatologa među ovih 31k naučnika? I ekonomisti su nekakvi naučnici, ali njihovo mišljenje nema težinu kada se raspravlja o klimi. Mogao si da kažeš i da 31k pecaroša ne veruje u promenu klime, isto bi bilo.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 08-10-2017, 09:42:11
Pecaroši poznaju bolje klimatologiju od elektroinženjera.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 08-10-2017, 10:46:39
Climate Depot objavio je posljednje podatke iz američkog Nacionalnog centra za praćenje snijega i leda, sa sveučilišta u Coloradu, koji pokazuju da se zaleđena površina na Arktiku povećala za čak 40 posto od 2012. godine.

Kad čataš naslove članaka sa Climate Depota jasno je kome su naklonjeni.

S druge strane pogledaj grafik na sajtu NASA o trendu leda na Arktiku: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/ (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/) Zaista, ako odabereš 2007. godinu kao neku referencu onda se čini kao da je grafik stagnantan., Ako odabereš 2012 izgleda kao da raste. Ali šta je toliko specijalno sa 2007. godinom, ili sa 2012. godinom? Ako odabereš već 2006. godinu onda grafik pada, ali ni 2006. nije specijalna. Tek celi grafik kad gledaš počevši od 1979. godine vidi se očigledan pad.

Pogledaj i video ispod grafika. Video prikazuje stanje leda svakog septembra počevši od 1979. godine. Probaj golim očima da uočiš trend.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 08-10-2017, 10:56:23
Kad smo već kod NASE, pogledaj i grafik za kopneni led na Grenlandu, https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/ drugi grafik (prvi je za Antarktik). Ja ne znam kakvo je to merenje na koje se ti pozivaš kad je led na Grenlandu u pitanju ali na ovom grafiku se vidi da leda na Grenlandu ima svake godine sve manje. Bukvalno se nije desila godina da je najniža količina leda bila veća nego prethodne godine. Led je u konstantnom padu.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 11-10-2017, 07:56:31
Kao da nam nije bilo dosta plašenja, sad i zemlje treba da se plašimo:

 Carbon emissions from warming soils could trigger disastrous feedback loop  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/05/carbon-emissions-warming-soils-higher-than-estimated-signalling-tipping-points)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Ugly MF on 11-10-2017, 08:38:12
Znaš ono, kapitalizam, pa ako ništa ne proizvodiš, nemaš ni pare...
Nauku, fikciju, itd takodje moraš...ili nema pareeeeee...
Tako su u zadnjih par decenija i astro-fizičari 'našli' mnoge stvari od kojih žive...
..i svaki dan nalaze....

...verovatno tako i ovi biolozi...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 13-10-2017, 04:45:37
A Giant Hole Just Appeared in Antarctica (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/news/a28607/antarctica-has-giant-ice-hole/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 14-10-2017, 06:21:10
A možda nas sve prvo sjebe onaj supervulkan u Jeloustonu, pa cela ova rasprava bude nizašta:
 
 
 A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/science/yellowstone-volcano-eruption.html)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 15-10-2017, 05:59:47
The world’s first “negative emissions” plant has begun operation—turning carbon dioxide into stone (https://qz.com/1100221/the-worlds-first-negative-emissions-plant-has-opened-in-iceland-turning-carbon-dioxide-into-stone/)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 15-10-2017, 08:49:37
Nije da sam ja protivnik zaštite životne sredine, ali bih da zaštitim i Pizzabatu. Ima da rikne pokušavajući da protumači dijagram u linku. Za sada, preporučio bih samo da se obrati pažnja na oblik krivih do i od 2015. godine. Pamet mi nije toliko "glatka" da prihvatim.


Ustvari, biće da sam protiv, jer sam zabrinut za SF. I za njega najavljuju da crkava, a on živ živcijat. Mada, konkurencija u obliku FS (fictive science) ulaže velike napore da mu doaka.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: ЖивОзбиљан on 16-10-2017, 18:22:18
Tramp je crto glatku krivu poslije 2015. Jedino objašnjenje!

Pitam se gdje će da uvale to kamenje
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 16-10-2017, 18:38:48
Kamenje je već uvaljeno, ispod zemlje. Ugljen dioksid se upumpava u porozno kamenje koje ga "upija" i hemijski vezuje, tako da ne može da pobegne. Nije to baš neki održivi proces, nema tog kamenja beskonačno, ali možda ga ima dovoljno mnogo za prvih par decenija.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 16-10-2017, 18:40:15

Pitam se gdje će da uvale to kamenje


Ne brini za kamenje. Učvrščivaćemo klizišta. Nego, nisi primetio da se isplati samo tamo gde ima 40% CO2. Tamo gde ima 0,04% ne važi. Taman će da potroše pare za projekte, pa da brzo postane neisplativo. Znaš kako ide u farmaceutskoj industriji, najskuplji deo su istraživanje i verifikacija. Kad svima počnu da uvaljuju, vade pare. Bolje da se bave razvojem fitoplanktona. Em, srče CO2, em ga ždere zooplankton, em zooplankton žderu kitovi, pa ih tako štitimo kao vrstu. Ne znam da li si video efekte vraćanja vukova u Jelouston. Naterali jelene i bafala da rade fitnes, rasterali sitne predatore poput kojota i lisica, time podstakli male travojede i dabrove, koji su napravili brane, umirili tokove, tako ojačali obale, na kojima je počelo da raste drveće. To već vidim kao brigu za okolinu.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: džin tonik on 19-10-2017, 08:44:42
Insects decline dramatically in German nature reserves: study (https://phys.org/news/2017-10-three-quarters-total-insect-population-lost.html)

potvrdjeno u sto po osjecaju svaki sofer posumnjao (nekad se nakon stotinjak km autoputa sofer-sajba morala prati, danas maltene sterilna): od 1989. broj insekata smanjio se za prosjecno 76%.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 19-10-2017, 09:16:02
Eh, nekad sam mogao, čas posla, da napunim kutiju za šibice muvama kojima bih otkinuo glave, pa na pecanje.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Аксентије Новаковић on 23-10-2017, 07:46:31
Tisuće pingvina uginulo na Antarktiku zbog – previše leda

U koloniji pingvina na Antarktiku, koja broji 36.000 jedinki, preživjela su samo dva mladunca. Razlog ovom masovnom ugibanju je pomalo bizaran – prevelike količine leda.

Zbog neočekivano velikih količina leda, odrasli pingvini morali su dalje putovati kako bi pronašli hranu, a ovo je druga takva loša sezona parenja, otkako se identičan slučaj dogodio 2015.

Skupine za očuvanje životinjskih vrsta pozvale su na hitno otvaranje pomorskog zaštitnog područja u istočnom dijelu Antarktika, kako bi zaštitili koloniju. Iz skupina navode kako bi zabrana lova rakova u dotičnom području pomogla u očuvanju ove vrste pingvina, ali i drugih životinja.

http://tribun.hr/tisuce-pingvina-uginulo-antarktiku-zbog-previse-leda/
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 23-10-2017, 11:17:16
Antarktički led se uvećava poslednjih 10000 godina. To je zgodno za praćenje klime poslednjih 10000 godina. Bušiš u led i gledaš u prošlost, kao što bi radio sa godovima na drvetu. Led nije počeo nedavno da se uvećava, nego je proces koji traje milenijumima. Ono što je zabrinjavajuće je da je gomilanje leda usporeno u poslednjim godinama. U periodu 1992-2001 led se uvećavao tempom od 112 milijarde tona godišnje. U periodu 2003-2008 tempo je usporio na 82 milijarde tona godišnje. Pročitaj izveštaj koji je NASA sastavila, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses . Antarktički još uvek raste, ali sporije nego ranije.

Obrati pažnju da pingvinima nije toliko problem što se debljina leda u poslednjih desetak godina uvećala desetak centimetara. Problem pingvina iz te jedne kolonije je što im se ogromni ledeni breg uglavio u zaliv (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica_penguin_deaths), pa su pingvini prinuđeni da pešače 65 km da bi došli do hrane. Pingvini iz drugih kolonija nemaju takav ledeni breg na svom putu, i nemaju probleme sa hranom. Neki pingvini iz te kolonije su već počeli da migriraju u potrazi za boljim mestom, da im mladunci ne bi umirali.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-10-2017, 11:27:49
Sad ćemo o usporavanju gomilanja leda? Postoji li trenutak kad korigujemo sopstvena uverenja i zablude? 

Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Аксентије Новаковић on 23-10-2017, 12:45:51
Antarktički još uvek raste, ali sporije nego ranije.

Прво су се укључили аларми - отопљавање леда на половима.
Сад испада да лед успорава гомилање.
Заправо, Ал Гор дрма кинту, и врти своје вернике у круг.

ogromni ledeni breg uglavio u zaliv

Зар алгоровци не тврде да се лед на мору топи, јер се вода загрева?
Сад испаде да неотопљени ледени брегови плутају, и мало им је то што тако неотопљени плутају, него још зачепљују заливе...

Pročitaj izveštaj koji je NASA sastavila,

Свемирска агенција и лед.
Кључне речи свемир и лед наводе на закључак да је Хербигер са Теоријом вечитог леда био у праву.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 23-10-2017, 13:15:25
Ni jedan ni drugi niste opovrgli ništa od konkretnih podataka i naučnih tvrdnji, pa pretpostavljam da se slažete s tim podacima i tvrdnjama, ali vam se nešto drugo tu ne sviđa, što nema veze sa podacima i tvrdnjama. Ali ni sa mnom.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-10-2017, 13:25:39
Ni jedan ni drugi niste opovrgli ništa od konkretnih podataka i naučnih tvrdnji.


Opovrgli smo konkretnost tih podataka. Neka naučna istraživanja su svedena na nešto šta je jedino slično pravcima u ekonomiji ili stilu u likovnoj umetnosti. Tehnička nauka ne sme da bude svedena na tlapnje. Nestane poverenje u nju. Ako to tebi nije jasno, onda džaba krečimo. Popizdim kad mi se internet prepunjava denikenštovinom. Pouzdanost naučnih informacija je nestala pod pritiskom kurentnosti vesti. Ispada da prognoza vremena zavisi od toka da li Indijanci cepaju drva za zimu.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Аксентије Новаковић on 23-10-2017, 13:29:16
Деникен је чак и признао где је погрешио.
Ови научни радници не признају, него из тлапње у тлапњу...
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 23-10-2017, 13:33:22
Satelitska merenja nisu tlapnje. Ili ako jesu molim da se to obrazloži kako su satelitska merenja tlapnje. NASA izmeri da led raste. Istovremeno NASA izmeri da je sam rast usporen. Šta je tu konkretno tlapnja?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Аксентије Новаковић on 23-10-2017, 13:37:00
Ако лед расте, па макар и успорено, онда се он не топи.
Сад одлучи да ли се лед на половима топи, или само успорено расте.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 23-10-2017, 13:43:24
U ovome što sam pročitao nije precizirano da li led raste tokom cele godine, ili deo godine raste raste a deo pada, ali na godišnjem nivou raste. U skladu s tim nemam dovoljno podataka da tvrdim bilo jedno bilo drugo što zahtevaš. Ja nemam dovoljno podataka, ali moguće je da ti podaci postoje, samo ih treba pronaći.

Ja se ne bih mnogo fiksirao na naslov neke teme na nekom forumu. To nije naučni podatak.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Meho Krljic on 23-10-2017, 13:44:03
Evo, NASA je pre dve i po godine anticipirala da će biti postavljeno ovakvo pitanje:

NASA Study Shows Global Sea Ice Diminishing, Despite Antarctic Gains (https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains)
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Аксентије Новаковић on 23-10-2017, 13:56:32
Мац, ако на годишњем нивоу лед расте, онда нема никаквог отапања леда, односно нема опасности да полови остану без леда.
Самим тим, Ал Гор је довео милионе људи у заблуду, а у томе су помогле и одређене компромитоване и корумпиране структуре из свемирске агенције.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 23-10-2017, 14:08:59
Na osnovu Mehovog linka može se reći da led na polovima (led na svim polovima) opada, iako led na jednom polu zapravo raste. Integritet naslova topika ostaje nenarušen! Pobeda!
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-10-2017, 14:14:43
Aksentije, karakter foruma ZS je da niko ne odustaje. Videće isto i da su slepi.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: mac on 23-10-2017, 14:23:40
Znači slažemo se da satelitska merenja nisu tlapnje? Satelit izmeri da led raste tom i tom brzinom i to nije sporno. A šta je onda sporno?
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: scallop on 23-10-2017, 14:47:37
Znači slažemo se da satelitska merenja nisu tlapnje? Satelit izmeri da led raste tom i tom brzinom i to nije sporno. A šta je onda sporno?

Tumačenja. Tuđa i ovdašnja na ZS.
Title: Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
Post by: Аксентије Новаковић on 27-10-2017, 08:05:14