Author Topic: Otapanje leda na polovima  (Read 102995 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #150 on: 23-01-2014, 12:46:12 »
Rekao bih da su rezultati obećavajući ali nikako konkluzivni i da nam treba još para, naravno  :lol:

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.723
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #151 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.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #152 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.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.723
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #153 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.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #154 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?

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.723
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #155 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".
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #156 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.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.723
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #157 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.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #158 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.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.723
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #159 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.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #160 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.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.723
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #161 on: 23-01-2014, 14:40:24 »
Onda smo završili. Za danas.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #162 on: 23-01-2014, 14:49:37 »
Dobro. Za danas. Ali:



PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #163 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.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #164 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.

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.325
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #165 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...
Mica

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #166 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.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #167 on: 19-02-2014, 10:09:06 »
Evo, Džon Keri je nazvao klimatske promene "oružjem masovnog uništenja". Još samo da vidimo koga treba bombardovati.  :lol:

дејан

  • омнирелигиозни фанатични фундаменталиста
  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.562
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #168 on: 19-02-2014, 12:07:47 »
па, то је бар јасно!
...barcode never lies
FLA

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #169 on: 20-02-2014, 10:20:31 »
 Darker Arctic boosting global warmingLess ice, more open water made Arctic  grow 8% darker between 1979 and 2011





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.
  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.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #170 on: 02-04-2014, 09:14:11 »
Najnoviji UN izveštaj o promeni klime nije ni malo obećavajuć.  :( :(



Evo njega.



A evo i TL;DR varijante:



Climate impacts 'overwhelming' - UN



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 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.
This is the second of a series 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."

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #171 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/
 
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 and April 7, 2014.  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
 
 
 

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.723
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #172 on: 13-04-2014, 13:53:48 »
И Шошана потписала. xfrog
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #173 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?



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://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #174 on: 09-05-2014, 09:13:38 »
Evo, neki se trude da pomognu:


Stanford to Purge $18 Billion Endowment of Coal Stock

Quote
Stanford University 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.
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 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, 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.


scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.723
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #175 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
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #176 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


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 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, 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 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."

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #177 on: 25-06-2014, 09:31:08 »
 Najtopliji Maj u zabeleženoj istoriji je za nama
Climate change: May breaks global temperature record



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.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #178 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?

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). 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). 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). 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). 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). 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), 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), 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). 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.

дејан

  • омнирелигиозни фанатични фундаменталиста
  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.562
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #179 on: 25-06-2014, 11:55:03 »
можда би могао да конкурише за расписану уцену награду


$10,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge


плус


Some Clarification on the $10,000/$1000 Challenges


и сам блог је сасвим забаван


треба бацити поглед на Круг дејва егерса, већина појава тамо гаји баш овакве страсти
...barcode never lies
FLA

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #180 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

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 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:



Ovo sve pišem kao predujam za naredna dva posta u kojima ću citirati nešto novo i nešto staro.  :lol:

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #181 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


Quote
Australia’s carbon price has been repealed, 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 modelling exercises 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 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 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.
 

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #182 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

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.723
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #183 on: 04-08-2014, 11:20:28 »
Vidim, Meho, da si sna\no
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.723
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #184 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.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #185 on: 04-08-2014, 12:01:24 »
Ma za majku Zemlju ja ne brinem, brinem za vaše potomstvo na njenoj površini.  :lol:

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.723
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #186 on: 04-08-2014, 12:12:21 »
Potomstvo ima više da nadrlja od sumanute politike nego od klimatskih promena.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #187 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...

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.325
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #188 on: 04-08-2014, 12:36:53 »
A to do sada nismo znali... Al Gor je sasvim slučajno glavni aktivista...  :)
Mica

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #189 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.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.723
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #190 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?
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.280
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #191 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?

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #192 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.


Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #193 on: 28-08-2014, 10:45:29 »
The Climate Scientist Who Pioneered Geoengineering Fears It's About to Blow Up



Quote
For years, Dr. Ken Caldeira's interest in planet hacking 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, 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.
 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, 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. 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 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', he was a subject in Jeff Goodell's general audience geoengineering book, How to Cool the Planet, and, perhaps most famously, a source in the sequel to Freakonomics. There, controversy ensued after he was allegedly quoted out of context 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."
 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."

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.325
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #194 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


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


ili


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


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






Mica

Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #195 on: 28-08-2014, 22:52:53 »
Bravo, Mićo! Držimo palčeve da sve super prođe!
 xcheers

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.325
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #196 on: 28-08-2014, 22:53:41 »
Uh... Hvala...
Mica

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #197 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


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 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, 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

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.745
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #198 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.





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—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. 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 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 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 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, 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 are inching upward, and recent reports suggest that switching from coal to natural gas 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, 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, “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, “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.
 

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.325
Re: Otapanje leda na polovima
« Reply #199 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?
Mica