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

Svakako da je dobar. Ali, čovek mora razmišljati i sopstvenom tintarom. Nije napravljena da se sve jednostarno usvaja, nego i da se sumnja. Sumnja je najkreativnije oruđe čoveka. Da je nema samo bismo verovali.

од кад је глобал вроминг постао клајмет чејнџ никоме ништа не верујем

'Half' of Extreme Weather Impacted by Climate Change

Quote
2012 was a rough year around the globe, and not for any of the Planet X/Mayan calendar doomsday reasons people feared. Instead, it was a year of extreme weather: drought and heat waves in the United States; record rainfall in the United Kingdom; unusually heavy rains in Kenya, Somalia, Japan, and Australia; drought in Spain; floods in China. And of course there was Superstorm Sandy.
One of the first questions asked in the wake of such an extreme weather event is: "Is this due to climate change?" In recent years, a brand of research called "climate attribution science" has sprouted from this question, examining the impact of extreme events to determine how much—often in fractional terms—is related to human-induced climate change, and how much to natural variability (whether in climate patterns such as the El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation, sea-surface temperatures, changes in incoming solar radiation, or a host of other possible factors).
In a report published online today in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (PDF), scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tackled this question head-on. The report—the second such annual report—analyzes the findings from about 20 scientific studies of a dozen or so extreme weather events that occurred around the world last year, seeking to parse the relative influence of anthropogenic climate change. The overall message of the report: It varies.
"About half of the events ... reveal compelling evidence that human-caused change was a [contributing] factor," said NOAA National Climatic Data Center Director Thomas Karl today at a press conference accompanying the release of the report. In addition, noted climate scientist Peter Stott of the U.K. Met Office, these studies show that in many cases, human influence on climate has increased the risks associated with extreme events.
Below, some highlights from the report:
December 2011: Two days of extreme rainfall deluge New Zealand's Southern Island, producing landslides in what scientists call a 1-in-500-year-event. Conclusion: Total moisture available for this extreme event was 1% to 5% higher as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
September 2012: Arctic sea ice reaches a record new low of 3.4 million square kilometers. A study examined three different factors: warmer-than-usual surface atmosphere conditions (related to global warming); sea-ice thinning prior to the melting season (also related to global warming); and an August storm that passed over the Arctic, stirring up the ocean, fracturing the sea ice and sending it southward to warmer climes. Conclusion: Global warming was primarily responsible, due equally to the thinning sea ice and warm atmospheric conditions.
Summer 2012: Heavy rainfall in eastern Australia. Conclusion: A La Niña episode—long associated with wetter-than-normal conditions in Australia—in 2012 likely accounts for most, but not all, of the heavy rainfall. Sea-surface temperatures north of Australia—driven by global warming—could also play a role, increasing the chances of above-average rainfall by as much as 5% in the future.
Superstorm Sandy: Although not among the most powerful windstorms to hit the U.S. East Coast, the storm's real impact came from the massive storm surge and inundation: It broke 16 historical records for storm-tide levels along the coast. Conclusion: The storm coincided with peak high tide in New York Harbor—but future sea-level rise will exacerbate this inundation, making a Sandy-level event more likely in the future, even if the storm itself is less severe.   

Hm, kao neke dobre vesti:

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change

Quote

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

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

Međutim, stiže brz demantij:

Have Matt Ridley, Wall Street Journal Finally Embraced Strong Climate Action And 2°C Warming Target?

Quote
Could it be that Matt Ridley and his fellow confusionists at the Wall Street Journal have finally embraced serious climate action? Have they actually endorsed the warming target of 2°C (3.6°F), long embraced by scientists and global leaders who want to avert the worst impacts of climate change?
Or have they published another epic blunder-fest of disinformation? Have they actually gone so far as to (mis)cite the work of a scientist who explained a year ago that Mr. Ridley is misusing his research and is "just plain wrong about future global warming!"? You be the judge.



Projected warming on our current emissions path from Michael Schlesinger et al 2012. This devastating warming occurs even with (an unlikely) low climate sensitivity of between 1.5°C and 2.0°C — and assuming there are no major unmodeled feedbacks (like the thawing permafrost). A WSJ op-ed that cites this work erroneously claims it shows total warming will stay below 2°C (3.6°F) this century!
Every major projection of future warming makes clear that if we keep listening to the falsehoods of the anti-science crowd at the Wall Street Journal and keep taking no serious action to reduce carbon pollution we face catastrophic 9°F to 11°F [5°C to 6°C] warming over most of the U.S. (see literature review here).
Last year, Matt Ridley wrote one of the most error-riddled pieces ever to appear in the Wall Street Journal. For those who didn't know Ridley, the WSJ noted his "family leases land for coal mining in northern England, on a project that will cease in five years" (a point that is strangely absent from the current piece).
Media Matters gathered quotes from leading climate scientists debunking the piece at the time. Here's one:

[A]s

John Abraham, an IPCC reviewer and the director of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, put it to Media Matters: the column "has such elementary errors in it that [it] casts doubt on the author's understanding of any aspects of climate change."

One of the many egregious blunders Ridley made was to confuse the feedback effect of water vapor with that of clouds. Another was to confuse equilibrium climate sensitivity with future warming. Since he makes a nearly identical blunder in his new piece, it bears repeating that the amount of warming we are going to subject our children and countless future generations to depends primarily on three factors:

   
• The so-called "equilibrium climate sensitivity" – the sensitivity of the climate to fast feedbacks like sea ice and water vapor — or how much warming you get if we only double CO2 emissions (from preindustrial levels) to 550 ppm and there are no major "slow" feedbacks.  We know the fast feedbacks, like water vapor, are strong by themselves. A major 2012 study of actual observations of relative humidity finds "that warming is likely to be on the high side of current projections ... projecting a global temperature rise for doubled carbon dioxide of more than 7 degrees F."
• The real-world slower (decade-scale) feedbacks. The carbon feedback from thawing permafrost alone is projected to add as much as 1.5°F (!) to total global warming by 2100. Ocean acidification may speed up total warming this century as much as 0.9°F.
• The actual CO2 concentration level we are likely to hit absent aggressive climate action, which is far beyond 550 ppm and now projected to exceed 800 ppm.

Last year, Ridley cited a University of Illinois study coauthored by Michael Schlesinger that found a relatively low ECS to justify his claims, but Dr. Schlesinger wrote a letter to the WSJ explaining:

In his article, Mr. Ridley is just plain wrong about future global warming. In our paper "A Fair Plan to Safeguard Earth's Climate"

(http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=20038), we show that by the middle of this century the warming will exceed the 2°C (3.6°F) maximum allowed by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to "prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". Schlesinger sent an email around to some journalists and scientists that included a figure from his work, which I posted at the top.
You would think that after being informed just how wrong they were, Ridley and team WSJ would at least stop citing his work to defend claims that we are headed towards low levels of warming this century absent strong climate action. You would be wrong. But at least now Ridley is attempting to confuse the public in a slightly different way:

A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: "transient climate response" (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is "likely" to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and "extremely unlikely" to be greater than 3 degrees....
Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm....
Yet these latest IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity may still be too high.... This was already apparent last year with two papers—by scientists at the University of Illinois and Oslo University in Norway—finding a lower ECS than assumed by the models.

Yes, Ridley and the WSJ cite the University of Illinois paper to supposedly prove that warming this century will be under 2°C —  when the author has already explained to them that his research shows the exact opposite!
And Ridley is as bewildered about the transient climate response as he was about the climate sensitivity. He seems to think that CO2 levels won't hit a doubling (550 ppm) for 70 years. But that would be true only with a very aggressive effort to reduce carbon pollution starting now. We are on track to blow well past 550 in 2083 — and that's not even counting the extra carbon in the air we are expected to see because of thawing permafrost and ocean acidification.
The bombshell is that Ridley and the WSJ appear to be embracing the 2°C target (though they are mistaken that this is the level below which there is no net harm). Ridley's whole (confused) point is that we can all breathe a sigh of relief because ECR and TCR are (supposedly) on the low side and thus we will not exceed the 2°C target this century.
So either Ridley and the Wall Street Journal have chosen to willfully ignore the facts presented to them by Schlesinger and others OR they have embraced Schlesinger's plans to keep global warming below the allowable maximum of 2°C. As Schlesinger explains, his plans "phase out the emission of greenhouse gases this century such that the cumulative greenhouse-gas emissions by the Developing and Developed Countries are equal."
Who knew Ridley and team WSJ were so progressive that they endorsed an equitable strategy for phasing out all the missions of greenhouse gases the century? 
Since Ridley seems so enamored of Schlesinger to keep citing him, it seems only fair to note that Schlesinger himself says it would be unwise to plan on a low sensitivity given the very real risks that it is not so low. I queried Schlesinger last year about whether his analysis included the feedback from the permafrost. He wrote me back:

What will most likely happen is ... permanent outgassing of carbon dioxide from permafrost and methane from clathrates/hydrates.  As you know, methane is a greenhouse gas that is 23 times more potent, molecule for molecule, than carbon dioxide.

If we hedge not against this outgassing, it's game over.
... In the scheme of things, we human beings are not a very intelligent species. All species have a finite lifetime. Most species do not self exterminate.
While this is a bit hyperbolic, it may not be far from the truth. Either Ridley and the WSJ agree with Schlesinger and his aggressive plan to mitigate carbon pollution or it would seem that they are perfect exemplars of his vision of homo "sapiens."

Da se spustim iz svemira na Zemlju. Juče nam je neki Kinez na UNESCO-voj radionici objašnjavao da im se na jednom jezeru nivo rapidno smanjuje iako su doticaji manje više isti. A onda je pokazao da u poslednjih tridesetak godina u toj oblasti prosečna godišnja temperatura raste 2,9 stepeni po dekadi. Prosto neverovatno...


Inače jedan drugi je pričao o Tibetskom platou, koga zove Treći pol... Kaže da se glečeri i tamo rapidno povlače, kao i ovi naši alpski...

UN panel veli da, uz trenutni tempo  prženja fosilnih goriva, stižemo do gornjeg limita emisije ugljendioksida do 2040. godine.
U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions

Quote
STOCKHOLM — The world's top climate scientists on Friday formally embraced an upper limit on greenhouse gases for the first time, establishing a target level at which humanity must stop spewing them into the atmosphere or face irreversible climatic changes. They warned that the target is likely to be exceeded in a matter of decades unless steps are taken soon to reduce emissions.       

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

Evo ga ovde i sam izveštaj:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

I pres riliz, kome je ono predugačko:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI-AR5_SPMPressRelease.pdf

Meteorologist vows never to fly again after seeing latest climate report

Quote

When meteorologist Eric Holthaus read the recent climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he saw that things were worse than even he had anticipated.

Writing a reaction piece in Quartz, Holthaus wrote that for the first time, the IPCC's report "mentioned projections of climate change beyond 2100 and painted a picture of a bleak world, possibly unrecognizable to those living today, should fossil fuel use continue on its current trajectory."

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





It's not an empty sacrifice for Holthaus, an avid traveler.
In another post for Quartz, Holthaus writes that while he's long done things to help the environment (he recycles, doesn't eat meat, brings his own bags to the store, etc.), his flying habits (75,000 miles flown last year) were no longer something he could ignore.

Holthaus used a carbon footprint calculator from UC Berkeley and found that his flying accounted for nearly half of his household's emissions. He found that if he stopped flying, his carbon footprint would go from being about double the American average to around 30 percent less than average.

Via Quartz:

I'll still have to travel a lot

(by car and train), and I'll use videoconferencing for meetings I can't miss. But by removing my single biggest impact on the climate in one swoop, I can rest a bit easier knowing I've begun to heed the IPCC's call to action. Individual gestures, repeated by millions of people, could make a huge difference.   

A da g. Eric Holthaus prestane uopšte da putuje ili da opiči pešaka?

Ili da prestane da koristi Internet!!!!!!!!!!! Koliko li ti silni serveri koji nose Twitter troše struje!!!

Deglobalizacija bi bila još bolja. Koliko bi ukidanje transporta đubreta po belom svetu smanjilo emisiju CO₂!!! Otapanje na polovima bi prestalo, čak bi se i globalisti zaledili.

Tako je. Nije bitno šta pojedinci rade, nego šta korporacije i države rade. Ovom naučniku bi bolje bilo da ne troši na putovanje vreme koje se može i pametnije iskoristiti, nego da ide avionom, a da na konferencijama i sastancima bude budan i odmoran.

 
Taj klajmat-čenđ fenomen je najversatilnije civilizacijsko dostignuće posle točka, fituje kao rukavica i proponentima i oponentima, a dušu je dao i za ekonomsku i političku manipulaciju, da sumanute teorije zavere sad i ne pominjemo. Ja sam, naravno, pod uticajem 3W perspective, tako da mi kritički prilazi dođu uvek nekako prihvatljiviji negoli oni holivudski režirani, mada ne odbacujem ništa kao mogućnost, a pogotovo ne one pristupe koji mi, kao osvedočenom laiku, izgledaju kao skroz pametno i zdravo očuvanje okoliša. Ali dalje od toga, sve te šou-melodrame skoro čežnjivog prizivanja apokalipse... to me mimoiđe.

Srećom pa su sirovi podaci danas pristupačni svakom laiku, ovo je ipak internet doba: najčešće analize dugoročnih klimatskih promena uglavnom se oslanjaju na sirove podatke koje sakupljaju centri poput CRU – Climate Research Unit, GISS - Goddard Institute for Space Studies, CDIAC - Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre, NCDC - National Climatic Data Centre, GHCN – Global Historical Climatology Network itd. a podaci koje ti centri prikupljaju jesu relativno slobodna informacija, tako da bar tu verovatno nema otvorene i značajne manipulacije, ona se može naći tek u tumačenjima tih podataka i u metodologijama koje neki tako vole da predstavljaju kao sakrosantne, dok su one, u suštini, većinom 'lucky guess / dospi brašna, dodaj vode' recepture. Bliže je istini poverovati da niti jedan metod kojim se procenjuju tako globalne i suštinske promene može da zdravo prepozna trend, a kamoli njegove uzroke, kad se hrani tako "mladom" bazom podataka. A da stvar bude još gora, mnoge od gore navedenih baza podataka nude zabeležena merenja koja skroz odudaraju od teorije kao takve, mnoge od tih merenja pokazuju konkretan trend zahlađenja a ne zagrevanja, tako da je konfuzija time još veća. Ali naravno, mnoge studije dobro znaju kako da iskoriste samo one podatke koji im idu u prilog, ili bolje rečeno, koji idu u prilog interesima koji te studije finansiraju...    ali bolje da tu stanem, da se i sama ne svrstam u onaj gore pomenuti "zavera" domen. 

Mogla si ti još. U klimatologiji, kao čedu meterologije, još se ne zna odakle vetar duva, a kamoli gde se prašina diže.

Ima solidan dokumentarac "Age of Stupid" u kome prikazuju porodicu koja se trudi da živi ekološki. Imaju neku malu sveščicu čiji su listovi vjerovatno napravljeni od recikliranog kartona, i tu zapisuju kolika im je emisija C02, pri čemu je let avionom ključna stavka. A onda slijedi prilog o indijskom mogulu, klasičnom korporativnom retardu koji u toku emisije stigne da da i par otkaza pred kamerama, koji pokreće avionsku kompaniju sa nekoliko stotina letjelica. I tu se vidi koliko taj pokret za smanjenje emisije može malo da postigne, jer jedan let aviona poništava životnu misiju nekoliko ljudi, pa su njihovi napori manji od kapi u moru. Taj pokret bi morao da se omasovi do nivoa nekoliko miliona, ako ne i više, da bi bilo nekih rezultata, što je u današnjoj ekonomiji gotovo nemoguće.

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

Ma, to je ko što se struja štedi tako što se u EU zakonom uvode štedljive sijalice, kao da je disipacija energije u domaćinstvima (i to kroz sijalice sa usijanim vlaknom) glavni uzrok energetskih nedaća sveta... da ne pominjem zakonsku zabranu toaleta sa velikim kazančetom u SAD itd... Zaista je dirljivo da građani žele da pomognu da se spase planeta al dok se korporacijama ne stavi uzda od toga je svakako slaba vajda.

Moji u Oklahomi se ubiše reciklirajući, pa kad napune garažu, odvezu sve do Centra za reciklažu. Bilans: čista savest, nula pazar.

Ma, reciklaža je okej. Ipak đubre ne treba da ide nekontrolisano u zemlju, a još bolje ako može da se iskoristi ponovo, ali ove mere štednje koje građanima objektivno život čine (za nijansu) manje udobnim dok na drugoj strani korporacije ne štede sve dok misle da zarađuju - to je tužni paradoks zapada.

Quote from: BladeRunner on 02-10-2013, 10:50:25
Ima solidan dokumentarac "Age of Stupid" u kome prikazuju porodicu koja se trudi da živi ekološki. Imaju neku malu sveščicu čiji su listovi vjerovatno napravljeni od recikliranog kartona, i tu zapisuju kolika im je emisija C02, pri čemu je let avionom ključna stavka. A onda slijedi prilog o indijskom mogulu, klasičnom korporativnom retardu koji u toku emisije stigne da da i par otkaza pred kamerama, koji pokreće avionsku kompaniju sa nekoliko stotina letjelica. I tu se vidi koliko taj pokret za smanjenje emisije može malo da postigne, jer jedan let aviona poništava životnu misiju nekoliko ljudi, pa su njihovi napori manji od kapi u moru. Taj pokret bi morao da se omasovi do nivoa nekoliko miliona, ako ne i više, da bi bilo nekih rezultata, što je u današnjoj ekonomiji gotovo nemoguće.

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

Pa kažem, ja jesam pod uticajem vrlo kritički raspoložene 3W perspective, jer da se ne lažemo, to što ljudi u razvijenom svetu vide (i verovatno doživljavaju) kao malu redukciju sopstvenog luksuza svakodnevice, u manje razvijenim zemljama može da znači ništa manje od razlike između života i smrti. To kažem bukvalno, bez preterivanja. Otud se i teoriji ne može uniformno pristupati, čak i ako je tačna. No naravno, svako suočavanje gledišta je dobrodošlo, ma kako strane međusobno bile udaljene, to po percepciji i po interesu:  ako ništa drugo, suočavanje će pomoći obema stranama da se bolje artikulišu i bolje prezentuju sopstvene ranjivosti. Na nekom individualnom, ličnom nivou, i ja sam sklona da poverujem kako uloga pojedinca svakako nije zanemarljiva, ali hipokrita u meni to misli samo dok može da se provuče sa sitnim ustupcima koji mu ne ugrožavaju ni minimum udobnosti a kamoli golu egzistenciju.   

MOJA teorija zavere je ta da sve to kenjaju da naplase svoj silan narod da im VERUJE u sve sto kazu, aaali bas SVE!
Sto ljudima vise pomracis um to je veca sijalichka kojom im malko zasvetlis da te vise vole i slepo veruju.Oduvek bilo i bice.  U svim mogucim drustvima i vrstama vlasti, uvek je isto....so simple....
Ej, cak i svi Ameri znaju da im dollar nista ne vredi, nema zlata da ga pokrije, duzni su u tim istim imaginarnim parama, i koga zabole...? Svi cute i miruju, u svojim glavama svi daju tu vrednost dollaru, ko sto su ga davali i zlatu ranije, ko sto mi dajemo i evru i dinaru nasim...

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

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

Quote from: Ugly MF on 02-10-2013, 11:56:18

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

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

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

QuoteSo let me take this opportunity to outline what has been U.S. policy towards the Middle East and North Africa, and what will be my policy during the remainder of my presidency.The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region...
...We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world.  Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends on the region's energy supply, and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.

тим америка из реди ту рол!

Kako smo već pričali, sugestije sirotinji da smanji svoj nivo emisije CO2 su dosta... cinične:

Small scale, small contribution

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

Ako je sve jasno, čemu dalje trućanje? Samo struganje šargarepa na dimenzije bejbi kerot proizvede više CO2 nego čitava proizvodnja šargarepa.

Ma, nije sve jasno. Bar ne svima. Debatuje se!!!!!!

Svaki učesnik u tim debatama izduva 150 litara CO₂ svakog sata. To je više nego što isprde sve krave sveta. Ko veruje da će oni koji su zasrali da za sobom počiste grdno se vara. Zna se ko je počistio Augijeve štale.

Interesantan projekat u kaliforniji, sa mašinama koje rade na biomasu a otpad umesto da ispuste u vidu CO2 u atmosferu, izlazi u formi, hm, "uglja" koji je dobar za đubrenje biljaka. Zvuči suviše dobro da bi bilo istinito ali evo:

Carbon-negative energy, a reality at last -- and cheap, too

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


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



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



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



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



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

U nastavku prethodnog posta:




A carbon negative biofuel?

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

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

Hydrocarbon fuel

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

Biochar

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

Cheap

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

Low Carbon Fuel Standard

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


http://www.energyacademy.org/article/126/a-carbon-negative-biofuel

Ja nadu polažem u parne automobile na torijumski pogon. Ako nas to ne spasi ništa neće.

Ja nadu polažem u svet bez automobila. To bi nas spasilo.

Škocki naučnici su pregledali tisućljetne podatke vezane za klimu i zaključili da Sunce nije ključni činilac klimatskih promena (aka globalnog zagrevanja) već da su to, verovatno, jelte, vulkani plus u poslednjih stotinak godina antropogeni faktori:

Sun not a key driver of climate change

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

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

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

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2040.html

I dalje se iskreno nadam da je reč o klimatskom kolebanju, a ne klimatskim promenama.

Pa šta je tu novo što se već nije znalo? Ako te već zanimaju klimatske promene, pročitaj malo stručnu literaturu o tome, a nemoj stalno prenositi novinske vesti. Sledećeg septembra ćemo u SANU organizovati jedan simpozijum na tu temu - sa posebnim naglaskom na paleoklimatske podatke i regionalne klimatske modele. Doći će narod iz celog sveta, pa dođi i ti da čuješ iz prve ruke...

Pa, Mićo, ja kapiram da  nije "novo" u smislu da su u pitanju graundbrejking otkrića, nego da je ovo više deo ongoing dijaloga sa onima koji insistiraju da su antropogene promene puka izmišljotina i deo zavere protiv poštenih biznismena itd. A pošto se ovaj topik time bavi sa nekog laičkog aspekta onda, eto...

re. ongoing dijaloga... 






http://themetapicture.com/scientists-tell-the-truth/

Oduševljen sam sa ovim komentarima "eksperimentalnih" uslova. Bar pola sam imao prilike da doživim ili da mi o nekim od njih pričaju.

Climate Change:



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/climate-change/californias-carbon-market-a-success-in-its-first-year.html

Eeee, ovo je vec je vrlo, vrlo zanimljivo: zasto protivnici teorije globalnog zagrevanja ne nude naucne radove u potporu svog stava? Phil Plait ceprka po toj zanimljivosti:

Quote





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


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


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


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






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


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


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



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


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


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



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


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

Dobro je pročeprkao. 

Srećom, tu su ljudi da nas umire i objasne da je antropogeno globalno zagrevanje samo sujeverni mit.


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


         Alleging 'Malpractice' With Climate Skeptic Papers, Publisher Kills Journal

QuoteA European publisher today terminated a journal edited by climate change skeptics. The journal, Pattern Recognition in Physics, was started less than a year ago. The editors-in-chief were Nils-Axel Mörner, a retired geophysicist from Stockholm University, and Sid-Ali Ouadfeul, a geophysicist at the Algerian Petroleum Institute.
Copernicus Publications, based in Göttingen, Germany, publishes 25 peer-reviewed open-access journals. It specializes in "strict, but fair and transparent peer-review." The publisher considers proposals for new journals, and, according to a note on its website:

The journal idea was brought to Copernicus' attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics. However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics.

Problems cropped up soon afterward. In July, Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado, Denver, noted "serious concerns" with Pattern Recognition in Physics. As he wrote on his blog about open-access publishing, Beall found self-plagiarism by Ouadfeul in the first paper published by the journal, which Ouadfeul co-authored. "Is this the kind of 'pattern recognition' the journal is talking about?" Beall quipped. The first five articles in the journal consisted of a pair by Ouadfeul, another two by climate skeptics, and the fifth article had "a significant amount of self-plagiarism."
Managing Director Martin Rasmussen, who could not be reached for comment, noted on the Pattern Recognition in Physics website that he was concerned by a special issue in December in which the editors concluded that they "doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project." Rasmussen went on to write: "In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing."
In a reply, which Mörner provided to ScienceInsider, he disputes that charge. "All papers were excellently reviewe[d] with very constructive comments," he wrote to Rasmussen. The termination, he wrote, "is taken on completely wrong and unfair grounds."
   

Antropogeno globalno zagađenje sigurno nije mit. Odnos radova za i protiv govori za globalno zagrevanje, ali loše je stajao i Ajnštajn prema Njutnu kad je objavio svoju teoriju. Glavni problem je što se "globalno zagrevanje" dokazuje u suviše kratkom vremenskom periodu. Milankovićeva teorija ledenih doba ne vidi problem, ali on nije znao koliko smo u stanju da zagadimo Zemlju. Da sve ne bi bilo opskurno suvo, priložiću i mišljenje još jednog Srbina. Naš Kornelijus, koji se prošle godine zimio šest meseci u Parizu, tvrdi da bi sve bilo još gore da nije globalnog zagrevanja.

Ne mogu da odolim a da ne linkujem jedan urnebesan rad koji čak i barata prilično opšteprihvaćenim ciframa ali u sve meša istočnjačku spiritualnost i... evo pogledajte:

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

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 20-01-2014, 10:45:10
Ne mogu da odolim a da ne linkujem jedan urnebesan rad koji čak i barata prilično opšteprihvaćenim ciframa ali u sve meša istočnjačku spiritualnost i... evo pogledajte:

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

ohhh, pa ovo je jedan od boljih stress relieversa na koji sam nabasala u zadnjih par meseci... 
(greota sto na sajtu ne nalazim imena & fotke saradnika, tek da se uverim da oni svi zaista postoje, a ne samo im urednica.  )

nego, kad smo vec kod ljudske naivnosti i nepouzdanja interent infoa, pre nedelju ili dve bio je na fb-u popularan urnebes oko nekih (okej, prilicno radikalnih, kao sto je ova u dnu posta) fotki Belgian blue govecadi, i to u cilju tvrdnje kako se radi o GMO eksperimentima koji su se oteli kontroli... naprosto je neverovatno koliko je bilo tesko ubediti one najvatrenije ucesnike da su u krivu. naravno, oni pametniji su odmah odustali a oni uporniji su pre odlaska ostavili par linkova...

I, ne znam da li je to zbog ladne zime ili šta (mada tekst ima određene teze), ali procenat američkog građanstva koje odbija da veruje u globalno zagrijevanje je na šestogodišnjem maksimumu. Ne kopiram ceo tekst jer ima grafikone i svašta, pa izvolite kliknuti:



Global-Warming Denial Hits a 6-Year High

Mada si naklonjeniji elokventnijim i sofisticiranijim raspravama po pitanju GW, pokušaću da pomognem bar oko dijagrama. Jes' da poslednjih godina olabavljuje uverenje da smo na naučno potkrepljenom putu (to je prvi dijagram), postavljeno je pitanje i koliko smo tvrdi u tom uverenju. Ispostavlja se da je cca. dve trećine nepokolebljivo, bilo za ili protiv, a da se giba trećina koja promeni mišljenje svaki put kad mora da dodatno založi kamin (ili šporet) ili uključi erkondišn. To znači da oni koji planiraju da li će ga biti ili neće biti ne moraju mnogo da brinu. Odnosno, linkovano ne treba da utiče na dalju raspravu ovde.

Da, pa tako nekako. Ta prokleta trećina nam svima radi o glavi  Kako već rekoh na onom drugom topiku pre par dana, sve bi bilo lakše da su naučni podaci kojima se operiše nedvosmisleni, laki za tumačenje, bazirani na lako proverljivim podacima. Ali naravno da nisu i onda se ovde zaista u slučaju mnogo ljudi radi o pitanju vere a što je opet vezano za druga uverenja u životu, pripadnost određenoj kulturnoj grupaciji itd.

Cenjeni Mehoslav je covek pun kontradikcija, kao i svi pasivno agresivni progresivci, pa otud i moze sa toliko lakoce ocekivati od javnog mnenja da utice na demokratski izabranu vlast, dok se ujedno i nada da ce demokratski izabrana vlast tu i tamo progurati i zakone koji nisu po volji vecine, ali su joj, jelte, korisni. Mnijem da prekovise ocekuje i od jednih i od drugih, ali ako, tako to i treba kod ljudi koji boldli idu gde niko jos krocio nije.   

sala sad ustranu, skoro 2 trecine zemalja na svetu vide u klajmat kontroverzi poslednju priliku da isprave neke konkretne istorijske nepravde, ili bar one koje tako izgledaju u njihovoj perspektivi. otud je recena kontroverza dobra moneta za potkusurivanje i kod progresivaca i kod konzervativaca jednako, pa je niko ne zeli ispucati pre vremena i na tamo neki olak blef: potrajace ovaj stendof jos neko vreme, dzaba mu tu trecina koja svinguje. a to sto cemo se svi u medjuvremenu mozda i podaviti ko misevi u rastucim nivoima okena, pa boze moj, nisu se ni dinosaur bolje proveli a znatno su manje krivi bili, pa treba disati makar i smog punim plucima i uzivati u zivotu dok ga ima. 

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

A stendof će verovatno potrajati sve dok ne vidimo neke neporecive potvrde da se vreme menja pod uticajem onog što čovek radi. A to verovatno opet podrazumeva kataklizmične scene koje prevazilaze ono što se ove zime dešavalo na istočnoj obali USA ili pre dva leta na celoj severnoj polulopti. Nažalost.

Treba voditi računa da je i nauka prilično klimava i značajnim delom proizvoljna. Pokazaću to baš na primeru globalnog otopljavanja. Ledene površine na polovima u poslednjih 30 godina se skoro eksponencijalno smanjuju i vreme/površina sugeriše da će se to nastaviti. I eto katastrofe. Najhrabriji predviđaju i potonuće Golfske struje što bi već bila prava katastrofa. Otprilike, zbog priliva slatke vode (lednici nisu slani) okolne okeanske mase neće moći da nose tu struju. Međutim, poznato je da na vremenske dijagrame utiču svi aktuelni parametri klime, pa bi u tom slučaju došlo do naglog zahlađenja, koje bi ledenu masu vratilo tamo gde joj je mesto, na kopnu, a Golfska struja bi isplivala. Taj drugi korak u promenama se ne razmatra ili ja nisam pročitao. Majka priroda je gibljiva koliko i javno mnjenje u SAD. To, naravno, ne znači da promene treba zanemariti, nego da se prema njima treba odnositi sa još više pažnje. Nevolja je što ta pažnja zavisi od ulaganja u istraživanja, a ta ulaganja treba da obezbede oni koji će od njih imati najviše štete.

Quote from: scallop on 23-01-2014, 12:15:00
Treba voditi računa da je i nauka prilično klimava i značajnim delom proizvoljna. (...)To, naravno, ne znači da promene treba zanemariti, nego da se prema njima treba odnositi sa još više pažnje. Nevolja je što ta pažnja zavisi od ulaganja u istraživanja, a ta ulaganja treba da obezbede oni koji će od njih imati najviše štete.

QFT!!!!!!!!!!

Upravo je tako: ne pričamo o jasnom problemu koji je moguće sažvakati u jednu rečenicu tako da svakom građaninu, od akademika do mene bude kristalno čisto šta se dešava, koje su posledice i šta nam je činiti, a već sama ideja da treba da se investira u dalje istraživanje je, držim mnogima sumnjiva jer dosadašnje istraživanje daje komplikovane i za tumačenje teške rezultate i najviše o čemu možemo da pričamo je trend...

Meho, daj razmisli. Ako ti dalja istraživanja zavise od sledeće tranše granta koji si jedva izboksovao, šta bi uradio?