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

Kad sam već na madrbordu, evo teksta o tome da se posle velikog izlivanja nafte u meksičkom zalivu od pre pola decenije zapravo ništa nije promenilo u tretmanu ovog goriva:


http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-the-biggest-most-expensive-oil-spill-in-history-changed-nothing-at-all

Što bi promenilo? BP platio kaznu, potrošači će nadoknaditi gubitak.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 12-07-2015, 07:47:28
A sad još i ovo:
Earth heading for 'mini ice age' in just 15 years, scientists say

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


News about an imminent 'mini ice age' is trending — but it's not true

Quote"Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet," blared one headline from this weekend.
"Earth heading for 'mini ice age' within 15 years," warned another.
By Sunday evening, news that the Earth could be headed for period of bitter cold was trending on Facebook and whizzing across Twitter. The story — which has been reported everywhere from conservative blogs to the British press to the Weather Channel to the Huffington Post — was based on a recent presentation at the Royal Astronomical Society's national meeting. Researchers studying sunspots found that solar activity is due to decline dramatically in the next few decades, reaching levels not seen since the 17th century, during a period known as the Maunder minimum. Back then, the decline coincided with what's called the "Little Ice Age," when Europe's winters turned brutally cold, crops failed and rivers froze over. Could another one be on its way?
Not quite.
Though University of Northumbria mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova, who led the sunspot research, did find that the magnetic waves that produce sunspots (which are associated with high levels of solar activity) are expected to counteract one another in an unusual way in the coming years, the press release about her research mentions nothing about how that will affect the Earth's climate. Zharkova never even used the phrase "mini ice age." Meanwhile, several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
Besides, that "Little Ice Age" that occurred during the Maunder minimum, it wasn't so much a global ice age as a cold spell in Europe, and it may have been caused more by clouds of ash from volcanic eruptions than by fluctuations in solar activity.
(It's also worth mentioning that Zharkova's findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so her conclusions haven't been vetted and refined.)


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


This isn't the first time that a story about sunspots has turned into a story about climate change skepticism. John Casey, president of the Orlando-based Space and Science Research Corporation, which denies that global temperatures are rising, has written two books on the threat of impending "solar hibernation." In 2011, when a series of studies concluded that the sun was heading into a cycle of unusually low activity, one headline cheered "Global Warming Be Damned, We Might Be Headed for a Mini Ice Age."
For decades, scientists have known that solar activity fluctuates according to a roughly 11-year cycle. Sunspots — (relatively) cool, dark blotches on the sun's surface — indicate areas of intense magnetic activity. But recently sunspots have been weakening, as has the sun's magnetic field, leading scientists to conclude that the sun is heading into an especially quiet cycle termed the "grand solar minimum"
The new research from Zharkova argues that the solar cycles are regulated by not one but two magnetic waves fluctuating at slightly different frequencies, and that the unusually low activity can be explained by the waves getting far enough out of sync that they effectively cancel one another out.
Even if the upcoming decline in solar activity turns out to be as Zharkova's suggests, scientists who study the sun say we can't be sure how it will affect Earth's climate.
"We have some interesting hints that solar activity is associated with climate, but we don't understand the association," Dean Pesnell, a NASA scientist who worked on one of the 2011 studies about the grand minimum, told National Geographic at the time.
Those studies that have found a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures predict that the drop in temperatures associated with a grand minimum will be much smaller than the warming that's predicted to occur due to greenhouse gas emissions: A 2010 study in the journal Geophysical Letters predicted it could cause a global temperature decrease of about 0.3 degrees Celsius by 2100 — not nearly enough to offset the 1 to 5 degree increase anticipated from human-caused global warming.


As for that image of Londoners frolicking at "frost fairs" on the frozen-over Thames? Those had less to do with the activity of the sun than the activities of humans. Historical climatologist George Adamson told the BBC last year that the river used to freeze because of the architecture of the old London Bridge, whose arches prevented salty sea water from passing upriver and lowering its freezing point. The construction of a new bridge in the 19th century, and other landscape changes that made the river flow faster, brought an end to those festivals — less so than the end of the Maunder minimum.
"I'd be surprised if it froze again to the extent where we'd be able to allow large numbers of people on the Thames," he said.

Pošto znamo da je metan GORI grinhaus ges nego ugljen dioksid, već se dugo gunđa o tome kako krave prde i podriguju i time pospešuju globalno zagrevanje. Sada vele da bi dodavanje u hranu sastojka koji bi suzbijao podrigivanje, emisija metana od strane ovih plemenitih životinja bila umanjena čitavih 30%



Antiburp compound could reduce methane emissions from cows

QuoteA simple supplement to a cow's feed could substantially decrease a major source of methane, a planet-warming greenhouse gas, a new study suggests. Each year worldwide, the methane produced by cud-chewing livestock warms Earth's climate by the same amount as 2.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide, a little more than 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity. That makes cows tempting targets for methane reduction efforts. In a new study, researchers added the chemical 3-nitrooxypropanol, also known as 3NOP, to the corn-and-alfalfa-based feed of 84 milk-producing Holsteins and monitored their methane production for 12 weeks—the largest and longest such trial of its type in lactating cows, the scientists say. For cows whose feed included 3NOP, methane emissions dropped, on average, by 30%, the researchers reported online  yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The decline in emissions occurred during the first 2 weeks of the trials and persisted throughout the test, the researchers say. The additive didn't seem to affect the cows' appetite, nor did it affect either the production or the composition of the cows' milk. And because 3NOP boosted the digestibility of nutrients in the feed, the cows that received the supplement actually gained more weight than cows that received none. Larger tests will be needed to see if detrimental effects crop up over the long term, the researchers admit, but in the meantime 3NOP is a promising methane-cutting additive. In previous short-term tests, the chemical has trimmed methane emissions in sheep and beef cattle as well as in nonlactating dairy cows.

By 2100, Earth Will Have an Entirely Different Ocean

Quote

The ocean is in the midst of a radical, manmade change. It can seem kind of crazy that one of the most immense properties on Earth—the ocean washes over 71 percent of the planet—could be completely transformed by a swarm of comparatively tiny, fleshy mammals. But humans are indeed remaking the ocean, in almost every conceivable way. The ocean we know today—that billions of people swim, fish, float, and surf in—that vast planetary body of water will be of an entirely different character by the end of the century.
"There is only one global ocean," as NOAA likes to say. While it's changing in different ways and to different degrees in different places, it's a single, huge, interconnected system. Trash dumped off the coast of Australia can end up in the great Pacific Garbage Patch. Pollution from China drifts overseas into North America. All of our carbon emissions end up partially absorbed by oceans everywhere—the actions of residents of Sheboygan, USA have affected, in some minute way, the future of the seas in Bangladesh. That's the thing about climate change.
It's not just that the ocean is absorbing more heat than at any point over the last 10,000 years, and that its levels are rising. It's also becoming more acidic. Its very chemical composition is changing. Ecosystems will be reordered, currents altered. To the billions who live closest to it, it will be more hostile. Coastal flooding will threaten cities, Arctic passageways will open new trade routes, and fishermen who depend on the seas will scramble to keep up with the shifting aquatic biomes.
"In a worst case scenario, i.e. one in which we pursue business-as-usual through the end of the century," the climatologist Michael Mann tells me, "the oceans will look something out of a post-apocalyptic Hollywood flick. We are talking about the depletion of fish populations by overfishing, the massive die-off of much other sea life due to water pollution and ocean acidification, the destruction of coral reefs by the twin impacts of ocean acidification and bleaching by increasingly warm ocean waters."
Which is why it's worth taking a look at the changes reshaping the body of water that defines our planet, and examining where our best predictive sciences say we'll end up at the end of the century—in the year 2100, which is as good a benchmark as any. It's a natural milestone, included in a lot of climate models' projections, policy-oriented synthesis reports, and research-based recommendations for political leaders.
By combing through the most recent science and reaching out to oceanographers and climate scientists, I tried to render a snapshot of what the future of our oceans might look like.

Rising Tides
Right now, the ocean is growing. That's due to two main factors; the melt of land ice—mostly from Arctic and Antarctic sheets, shelves, and glaciers—and thermal expansion. In the ocean, thermal expansion occurs when water warms. It leads to an increase in volume, but a decrease in density. Right now, the ocean is absorbing about 90 percent of the excess heat generated by climate change, and is getting fed by numerous thawing ice stocks in the Arctic and Antarctica.
So sea levels are rising—but by how much?
The head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Gavin Schmidt, told me that the best available roadmap for the future of our oceans under climate change is probably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest report. That 2014 behemoth of a survey is an invaluable resource, as it features an exhaustive synthesis of the latest body of ocean and climate science. Known for erring on the conservative side, it predicts a sea level rise of between a foot and a half to five feet by the end of the century, depending on whether we reduce our greenhouse gas pollution.
"For high emissions IPCC now predicts a global rise by 52-98 cm by the year 2100, which would threaten the survival of coastal cities and entire island nations," the oceanographer and climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf explains. The highest-emissions projections point us closer to 1.5 meters (5 feet) of sea level rise.
"But even with aggressive emissions reductions, a rise by 28-61 cm is predicted," Rahmstorf notes. "Even under this highly optimistic scenario we might see over half a meter of sea-level rise, with serious impacts on many coastal areas, including coastal erosion and a greatly increased risk of flooding." Even if we quickly and suddenly reduce emissions, in other words, expect the ocean to rise by at least a foot or two no matter what.
But other scientists warn of the prospect of sea levels that are much, much higher. The godfather of climate science, James Hansen, along with 16 respected co-authors, recently published new research that makes the case that land ice in Antarctica and Greenland will melt 10 times faster, and contribute 10 feet of sea level rise in a period as brief as 50 years (the study is controversial and is currently under peer review). Clearly, that would be disastrous for human civilization as it is currently organized—with the bulk of our population centers posted on the coast—many scientists believe that we're currently "locked in" to about that much sea level rise regardless, because of the inexorable melting of a giant ice sheet in West Antarctica. But it may take many decades beyond 2100.
So what does all this mean? What does 1.5 feet sea level rise look like, compared to 10? How should we envision this swelling of the oceans? There are a number of handy tools that help drive home how this saltwater creep will manifest: Climate Central, for instance, has a tool that uses Google Maps to demonstrate how much of US coastal cities and land will be swallowed by the rise. NOAA has a similar one.

Most of New Orleans will be underwater with 5 feet of sea level rise, as will large swaths of Miami and New York City. Some cities may be spared the swamping with expensive water management technologies; others will have to be relocated. Some, the poorer ones, no doubt, will be evacuated and abandoned.
So, by 2100, the oceans will include at least the remains of some human infrastructure in its shallows; beachfront property, docks, boardwalks, and some of the roads that we used to get there. To illustrate, here's Miami, under 10 feet of saltwater.

Water can absorb far more heat than air, which is why the ocean has sucked down the bulk of the heat that has resulted from climate change. This is a good thing for the climate; it means air temperatures aren't heating up as rapidly as they otherwise would—and it's the reason there was a so-called "pause" in planetary warming. But it also means the ocean is beginning to heat up in a serious way.
"Over the last 39 years, oceans have warmed at average rates of >0.1˚C per decade in the upper 75 meter and 0.015˚C per decade at 700 m depth," the IPCC report explains. This may not sound like much, but it is. Shallow waters are warming up, fast. By the end of the century, if warming continues apace, shallow waters may be a full degree Celsius (1.8˚F) warmer, on average, which could be dangerous to marine ecosystems and may help feed tropical storms.
Even incremental increases in temperature cause coral to bleach, for instance, a phenomenon plaguing the keystone species around the world. Combined with acidification, which we'll get to shortly, coral risks flat-out extinction by century's end. That's the conclusion of a 2012 study published in Science; "Nearly every coral reef could be dying by 2100 if current carbon dioxide emission trends continue."
Meanwhile, because warmer water is quicker to evaporate, it means the ocean can fuel more powerful storms. Combined with higher sea levels, by 2100, the ocean will be more prone to overwhelm nearby communities in the event of a hurricane or tropical storm. And while the warming waters will prove problematic everywhere, the heating will be most pronounced away from the equator.
"The strongest warming trends are found at high latitudes," the IPCC notes, away from the equator. Like the Arctic and Antarctic, where warmer water is melting icebergs and ice sheets from below, contributing to further sea level rise and robbing polar bears (still the most famous mascot of global warming), walruses, and other animals of their habitats. Last year, the lack of sea ice forced 35,000 walruses to crowd together for the first time in observed history, making for one of the most iconic examples of polar warming in recent memory.
The Arctic region is warming twice as fast as the global average; thus, according to projections of climate agencies like NOAA and the UK's Met office, Arctic sea ice may be all but gone in the summers by century's end. "In fact," NOAA states, "it is thought that the melting of the sea ice could accelerate through the 21st century, with very little summer sea ice remaining by the year 2100."

Warmer waters ripen conditions for invasive species, too, which is why crabs from the Caribbean are showing up in northern waters. Marine life all over is being driven northward—fish are heading towards the poles. Sharks are spawning further north.
Algae is more likely to bloom—warmer-than-usual temperatures in the Pacific have fueled the record-breaking toxic bloom currently stretching past California right now, for instance. "It's definitely the largest bloom of this particular algae seen on the West Coast, possibly anywhere, ever" Raphael Kudela, a professor of ocean sciences at the University of California Santa Cruz, recently told CBS News.

Finally, probably the most dire-sounding development of all: An expansion of marine dead zones, wherein oxygen levels become so low that little life can survive. Maybe the best known example is the massive dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico; it's about the size of Connecticut. A number of studies have linked warming waters to the expansion of these dead zones, also known as hypoxia—fixtures that will become more or less permanent in our future ocean.
"Any increase in dead zones from global warming will last for thousands of years. They will be a permanent fixture" of our oceans, Gary Shaffer of the University of Copenhagen, who studies dead zones, told National Geographic. His model "predicts that global warming could cause dead zones to grow by a factor of ten or more by the year 2100," according to NatGeo. "In the worst-case scenario, dead zones could encompass more than a fifth of the world's oceans."

That's just the most dire prediction; we may not see dead zones of that size, but we'll probably see a lot more of them than we do now. The bottom line is that as the ocean warms, it will transform in a host of very unpredictable, sometimes radical ways. So how hot does Gavin Schmidt think the oceans will be in 2100?
"Hot enough to boil a frog," he said. "Metaphorically." The frog in that metaphor, I think, is us.

Acid Splash
But we're not just boiling; we're risking an acid bath, too. About 30-40 percent of all carbon emissions are drawn down directly into the ocean, where it forms carbonic acid. As a result, the pH in the surface ocean today is 0.1 unit lower than it was before the Industrial Revolution. And the most recent research shows that ocean waters are on track to become much more acidic by 2100—up to 150 percent more so. In other words, by the end of the century, the ocean will be twice as acidic as it was in preindustrial times.
That's what Taro Takahashi, a professor at Columbia University's Earth Institute who studies ocean acidification, tells me. He said that he agrees with the landmark 2009 study by Richard Freely that attempted to project acidification levels into the future.
"The magnitude of acidification depends primarily on the amount of CO2 emitted into the air, and I agree with their prediction for the magnitude of acidification: the pH of surface ocean water decreases from today's about 8.1 to about 7.75 by 2100 (an increase of 225 percent in the hydrogen ion concentrations)," he tells me.
If we continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current pace, we're on target to hit 800 parts per million by the end of the century (we're at 400 ppm now). In that case, Freely explains, "surface water pH will drop from a pre-industrial value of about 8.2 to about 7.8... by the end of this century, increasing the ocean's acidity by about 150 percent relative to the beginning of the industrial era." (More recent studies have shown it could get even worse.) So what's the big deal? What ill is portended by slightly more acidic oceans?
For one thing, shellfish are in trouble. In some places, as in certain stretches of the Pacific, the ocean is already too acidic for some sea snails' shells to properly form. In 2100, entire ecosystems could be ravaged; not just corals and sea snails, but many creatures whose exoskeletons are made of calcium carbonate.
"The level of CaCO3 saturation would decrease by 50 percent or more, and colder oceans would become corrosive to CaCO3 shells," Taro says. Plus, the last time the oceans got this acidic this fast, 96 percent of marine life went extinct.
Garbage Islands and Falling Fish
It's not all carbon and climate change, either; humans are directly impacting the oceans, too, of course. We're covering it in garbage, for starters. Three major papers published in 2014 sought to tally up the amount of debris we've loaded into the ocean. As National Geographic explained, "There are 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic debris in the ocean. Of that mass, 269,000 tons float on the surface, while some four billion plastic microfibers per square kilometer litter the deep sea."
We have blanketed the seafloors, and sea-surface, with refuse, changing on every level the nature of those environments. And imagine what kind of trash that 85 years of nonstop development and free-market capitalism will churn out by 2100.
"A recent estimate of the amount of plastic that enters the ocean every year—8 million metric tons from 192 countries," NOAA's Asma Mahdi told me. "Those estimates don't differentiate between different kinds of plastic—it's very difficult, especially since waste management is so different across the country and the globe. If things remain as status quo, debris will fill our ocean."
If we continue to dump 8 million metric tons of trash into the ocean every year, it will total 680 million tons by 2100. Some of that will have been cleaned up, as NOAA notes, but some of it will continue to form grand artificial landmasses in the Pacific and elsewhere.
The ocean of 2100 will be packed with trash.
Perhaps it can take the place of the fish, many species of which are rapidly being fished into extinction oceanwide. A survey of the recent science by Pew found that "90 percent of the world's fish stocks are overfished or fully fished," and "Experts say populations of large predatory fish such as tunas and sharks have declined about 90 percent over the past 60 years." Even the most fearsome of fish, the sharks, are being finned into extinction, scientists worry: they estimate that a staggering 100 million are killed each year.
The EDF, a mainstream enviro group, claims that "Of all the threats facing the oceans today, overfishing takes the greatest toll on sea life—and people." That's probably true for now, as hundreds of millions of people depend on seafood for protein, and the fishing practices currently draining our oceans are pretty destructive—remember shrimp trawling?
A 2006 Science study showed that we were on pace to see the collapse of major fish stocks by midcentury, if overfishing continued. So far, it has. After the collapse, the study argues, we'd see just 10 percent of the original catch from 2050 on. Other studies offer a less grim portrait, but most agree that we're rapidly depleting major fish stocks upon which humans and other sea life rely.
By 2100, it's hard to say exactly how much will be left.
The Oceans of 2100
"Never turn your back to the ocean," my father used to say, whenever my brother and I would play too close to its waves. Two things strike me, about that nugget now—one is that it seems like, collectively, we've done exactly that: we've polluted, overfished, acidified, and warmed it. We've managed to trash the place, without necessarily intending to.
Second, it's a little strange to think just how different the ocean of 2100 will be from the one I was turning my back on, literally—the next generation, and the one after that, will come of age with an entirely different ocean than the one we couldn't bear to face. And how drastically it changes will depend a lot on how we decide to act right now; which policies and principles we choose to pursue.
That's why even Dr. Mann, who gave me one of the grimmest prognostications, nonetheless holds out hope.
"The good news is that this doesn't have to be our future," he said. "There is still time to act to save the oceans for future generations."
Hell or Salt Water is a series on Motherboard about exploring and preserving our oceans. Follow along here.

New Tool Allows Scientists To Annotate Media Coverage of Climate Change

QuoteHave you ever been skeptical of a climate change story presented by a major media outlet?  A new tool holds journalists to account for the veracity of their stories.  "Using the Climate Feedback tool, scientists have started to diligently add detailed annotations to online content and have those notes appear alongside the story as it originally appeared.  If you're the writer, then it's a bit like getting your homework handed back to you with the margins littered with corrections and red pen. Or smiley faces and gold stars if you've been good." The project has already prompted The Telegraph to publish major corrections to their story that suggested the Earth is headed for a "'mini ice age' within 15 years."  The article has been modified in such a way that there is no more statement supporting the original message of an "imminent mini ice age."

Ovo može u principu da se koristi za sav sadržaj na internetu, a ne samo za novinske članke na temu klimatskih promena. Ideja je dobra, ali problem je kome verovati. Kako se ulazi u klub onih koji mogu da daju komentare i ocenjuju članke?

The Nations That Will Be Hardest Hit by Water Shortages by 2040

Meho, ovo ti je prikaz koji zanemaruje suštinu stvari!


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


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


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

Zabeleženo!

Butan:


Electric vehicles boost climate 'nirvana' in the Himalayas

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


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

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


The US owes the world $4 trillion for trashing the climate

Zvuči suludo ali možda upali:

Making Liquid Fuels From Sun And Air

Quote

Liquid fuel powering internal combustion engines is inherently inefficient.  This is because innumerable explosions causing kinetic work to be done also makes piles of heat, and for other reasons.  The same amount of energy put into an electric motor and an internal combustion motor produce more usable work for the former than the latter. Also, electric motors can operate at similar efficiencies across a range of speeds, while internal combustion motors require more messing around to change speeds.  And then there is torque.  Torque is apparently at the center of coolness for many vehicle aficionados.  If you can get your hot car or motorcycle to go from zero to fast in a second or two, that is considered cool, even if it has almost no day to day applications.  An electric motor has that ability out of the box, an internal combustion motor has to be a super motor to do that well.

Also, liquid fuels spill and smell bad and can explode, and all that. On the other hand, electricity has its limitation too.  In the long run, we probably need to change most of our moving things, vehicles, planes, etc. over to mostly electric (with energy recovery from brakes, etc.).  But liquid fuel will still be important in certain applications. Mission critical backup generators that you hardly ever need but are life or death are probably best run on liquid fuels stored long term, like at the South Pole research station or in any hospital.  We probably will eventually see electric airplanes, but for long time we are probably going to have to put liquid fuel in flying machines. So, in order to not destroy the essential yet merely good enough in pursuit of an unrealistic simplistic perfection of some sort, we need to keep liquid fuels on the table. But, having said that, we need to entirely stop using fossil petroleum based liquid fuels and switch entirely to non-fossil molecules. 

One way to do that is to simulate the production of burnable liquids (as nature does) in machines, using non fossil based raw materials. Obviously biodiesel and ethanol are example of this, but these fuel sources have a serious limitation.  They take up agricultural resources, and over the next few decades we are likely to hit a ceiling in our agricultural productivity.  There are a lot of ways to address that problem, and one of the key ways on the table right now is to not convert much more agricultural land to ethanol or diesel production.

So what about a machine that takes sunlight, CO2 from the atmosphere, and some water and produces a burnable liquid?

The current issue of Science has a writeup on recent research in this area.  I'm fairly certain it is not behind a paywall, and can read it yourself:   Tailpipe to tank by Robert F. Service.

The writeup talks about multiple alternative research projects that are approaching this problem with various difficulties and various levels of success.  This is all very early research but it is all very promising.

The task essentially boils down to running combustion in reverse, injecting energy from the sun or other renewables into chemical bonds. "It's a very challenging problem, because it's always an uphill battle," says John Keith, a chemist at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. It's what plants do, of course, to make the sugars they need to grow. But plants convert only about 1% of the energy that hits them into chemical energy. To power our industrial society, researchers need to do far better. Keith likens the challenge to putting a man on the moon.

The basic method seems to be about the same in all cases. You take a CO2 molecule and convert it to CO by knocking off one Oxygen atom, then combine the CO with H2) to produce "syngas" which can be converted to methanol (a kind of alcohol) which can then be converted into a variety of products.  A similar process in widespread use uses fossil methane as a base molecule instead of atmospheric CO2. 

A paper about to be published in Advanced Science details a process that uses CO and H2 and photovoltaic generated electricity.

It focuses a broad swath of sunlight onto a semiconductor panel that converts 38% of the incoming energy into electricity at a high voltage. The electricity is shunted to electrodes in two electrochemical cells: one that splits water molecules and another that splits CO2. Meanwhile, much of the remaining energy in the sunlight is captured as heat and used to preheat the two cells to hundreds of degrees, a step that lowers the amount of electricity needed to split water and CO2 molecules by roughly 25%. In the end, Licht says, as much as 50% of the incoming solar energy can be converted into chemical bonds.

This and other methods of making a sun, water, and air based liquid fuel would at least initially be expensive. But who cares? If we convert most of our energy to motion machinery to electric, we won't need that much, and the remaining uses will be relatively specialized. So what if a hospital has to pay $10.00 a gallon to have a thousand gallons of fuel for use as a backup source of energy to run generators during emergencies?  That would be a tiny fraction of the cost of running a hospital.  A tiny fraction of a fraction. 

And, it need not be super expensive. There is not a rare substance that must be mined from third world war torn client states, or taken away from some other critical use, involved. Go read the original writ-up for a lot more detail on various processes and their potential (and potential costs).

I want to make this point: This is not a way of forestalling climate change by removing CO2 from the air. It would remove CO2, but the amount of CO2 humans have added is huge, and the use of sun/air/water liquid fuels would be small, and their use would return the CO2 to the air.  So this is not carbon capture.

Also, this. An industry that produces a synthetic liquid fuel can preferentially use a peak energy. I think we need to explore this idea more.  For example, imagine collecting piles of recycled aluminum at a plant that uses great amounts of electricity to melt it down and turn it into ingots for industrial use.  The entire plant could be designed to operate on demand and only now and then, when there happens to be piles of extra electricity in a clean-energy rich energy ecosystem, perhaps because it is sunny and windy and other demands happen to be low. The employment structure of the plant would also be designed to do this, drawing on-call workers off of other activities to run the plant.  This would essentially amount to carrying out a high energy demand industrial task with free energy.  Well, a sun/air/water liquid fuel system could work this way as well.  This idea has not gone un-thought:

...Paul Kenis, a solar fuels researcher at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, argues that the broad penetration of solar and wind power offers hope. Denmark, for example, already produces some 30% of its electricity from wind farms and is on pace to reach 50% by 2020. On a particularly blustery day in July, the nation's wind turbines generated as much as 140% of the country's electrical requirements. The excess was sent to its neighbors, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. But the oversupply added to utilities' fears that in times of peak renewable power production, the value of electricity could fall to zero or even below, as producers would have to pay others to take it so as not to damage their grid.
That's where solar fuel producers could stand to benefit, Kenis says: By absorbing that power and using it to make fuels and other commodities, they could essentially act as energy banks and perhaps earn some cash as well. For now, Kanan argues, it still makes the most economic sense simply to shunt excess renewable power into the grid, displacing fossil energy. But someday, if renewable power becomes widespread enough and the technology for making renewable fuels improves, we may be able to guzzle gas without guilt, knowing we are just burning sunlight.

A cleaner, greener way to store solar and wind energy 

Quote
With the continuing rise of solar and wind power, the hunt is on for cheap batteries that are able to store large amounts of energy and deliver it when it's dark and the wind is still. Last year researchers reported an advance on one potentially cheap, energy-packing battery. But it required toxic and caustic materials. Now, the same team has revised its chemistry, doing away with the noxious constituents—an advance that could make future such batteries far cheaper and simpler to build.
The new design is what's known as a "flow battery," which is usually far larger than your sleek lithium-ion cell or lead-acid car battery. Unlike conventional batteries, flow batteries don't package all their battery components together. Rather, they separate the chemical power supply—a pair of liquids known as electrolytes—from the electrodes needed to tap that power. This design makes it easy to increase the battery's energy storage capacity simply by increasing the amount of electrolytes stored in external tanks. That has many engineers eyeing these batteries as a way to store the overabundance of solar and wind power at periods of peak production for use at times when their production is off.
At the heart of flow batteries is a sandwich of electrodes, known as a stack, separated by an ion-conducting membrane. The electrolytes are pumped through the stack during charging and discharging. In most designs, when the battery is discharged to provide power, a positively charged electrode strips electrons from molecules in one electrolyte and sends them through a circuit to charge-accepting molecules in the second electrolyte. This process produces positively charged ions in the first electrolyte that travel through the membrane into the second electrolyte, where they balance the charges coming in from the electrons. When the battery is charged, the flow of electrolytes, electrons, and ions is reversed and electrons are dumped into the first electrolyte.
Last year, researchers led by Harvard University materials scientist Michael Aziz created a high-energy storage flow battery that used organic compounds called quinones as the electron-storing components of one of its two electrolytes. The other, however, contained bromine, a toxic compound that also readily corrodes steel and other materials commonly used to contain the liquid electrolyte and pipe it around. That forced the Harvard team to contain it with expensive, corrosion-resistant materials, a solution too costly for most applications.
Aziz and his colleagues wondered whether there was a way to change the chemistry of their battery so that it wouldn't need such caustic materials. Most batteries use electrolyte solutions that are either acidic or alkaline, as these are adept at ferrying electric charges from one side of the battery to the other, which is essential for a battery to both charge and discharge. In the team's previous battery, both the quinone and bromine were dissolved in acidic solutions.
The Harvard team realized that a possible bromine replacement was a charge-carrying molecule called ferrocyanide, which sounds dangerous but is actually used as a food additive. Ferrocyanide, however, dissolves in alkaline solutions, not acidic ones. So Aziz and his colleagues tweaked the chemical structure of their quinone—ripping off a couple of sulfur groups and replacing them with pairs of hydrogen and oxygen atoms—in the end converting the compound into one that readily dissolves in an alkaline solution.
The scheme worked, and as the researchers report today in Science, the battery readily stores power with only components that are cheap, abundant, and nontoxic.
For now, Aziz notes the alkaline quinone battery stores only about two-thirds of the energy per volume as the previous acid-based version. But because it doesn't require expensive materials to deal with bromine, it's likely to be far cheaper to produce and friendlier to use. "This is chemistry I'd be happy to put in my basement," Aziz says. And that may not be far off. A flow battery using the new quinones and ferrocyanide would likely only have to be the size of a couple of hot water tanks to store the energy produced by a conventional home rooftop solar array.
"The chemistry sounds great," says David Keith, an energy expert at Harvard, who was not part of the current study. He notes that most homeowners and small businesses don't yet need to use batteries as a backup for their renewable power supplies, because they are connected to the grid that can supply power when needed.
Aziz agrees, but adds that there are already niche applications where installing batteries makes financial sense. Many businesses, for example, are charged not only for the number of kilowatt hours of energy they use, but also the peak rate at which it is delivered, Aziz explains. That's because businesses that use most of their power all at once have to have extra electrical power lines to deliver it all, and utilities charge them for it. By installing batteries, those businesses can use stored power to reduce the need for extra electrical connections, and thus reduce their costs. Such applications, Aziz predicts, are only going to grow. If so, cheap, nontoxic flow batteries could become a key part of our energy future.
 

Pitanje je kako se drži ovaj sistem u poređenju sa Tesla Powerwallom, mada ako te tečnosti mogu da se sintetizuju bez vađenja mnogo rude iz zemlje, onda to ima smisla i sa manjom efikasnošću od postojećih litijum-jonskih rešenja.

Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point

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

Ima puno tabela i grafikona pa ne bih da lepim, kliknite na link.

ups....sta sad?

http://bktvnews.com/kakav-sok-za-zemlju-globalno-zagrevanje-je-laz-eskimi-upozoravaju-pogledajte-sta-se-desava-sa-zemljom/

Imam nekoliko pitanja. Pa ako neko moze da mi pojasni, jer nisam upucena a vidim da je u pitanju prakticno kontroverzna tema.


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

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

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

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

Hvala unapred, izvinjavam se ako su neka pitanja glupa ili suvisna. 

subjektivno zapazanje po usadjenim podsvjesnim predrasudama i nesvjesnoj agresiji spram tako stvorene iskrivljene slike prave vjere (krscanske, katolicke), uz nedostatak samorefleksije!
postoji bezbroj apela vatikana svim nacijama svijeta za poduzimanjem hitrih, efikasnih i pravednih mjera kontra uzroka i posljedica gz-a. i ne, to ne znaci apela za ucestalijim molitvama i pokrscivanjem nevjernika! iako mislim da tu grijese. ali ok.

Moguce da se ovo moje zapazanje ipak odnosi samo na Amerikance, a oni su posebna sorta

bah, pojeo ih crnac kojem prija gz i sebicno-nemilosrdno rusi tradicionalnu zapadnjacku klimu svim sredstvima...

Ljudi koji veruju u Sudnji dan žele u principu da se ta njihova verovanja obistine, jer valjda smatraju da su tako na pobedničkoj strani. Ako želiš da se Sudnji dan obistini onda ne želiš da ljudi spreče bilo šta što se dešava na globalnom nivou, jer pretpostavljam da veruju da ako se dešava na globalnom nivou onda je možda deo procesa kojim se dolazi do pomenutog Sudnjeg dana. Likovi nas namerno uvlače u krizu civilizacije, jer po njihovom računanju civilizacija mora u jednom trenutku i da se okonča, pa što ne već sad.

Mac, ne razumem zašto sve stalno izokrećeš na religiju. Eto, meni ta eskimska priča deluje poznato, a ne patim zbog Biblije. Već par godina se cikloni i jake oluje pomeraju sve dublje u Evropu, a teški pacifički ka Meksiku. Tornada postaju češća istočno od Plejnsa, kao da im nije mesto u Oklahomi i Dorotinom Kanzasu. Pa mi ti sad reci da tu nema ničega.

Verovatno ima nečega. Čega ima to za sad ne znamo. Možda se njihova ploča tamo pomerila dok niko nije gledao. Ja se nisam ni osvrtao na čitavu priču sa Eskimima. Nemam tu šta da ponudim, jer to je zaista misterija, duži dani i pomereno Sunce i zvezde. To treba istražiti, pa tek onda uvrstiti u neki narativ. Throw science at it.

Uostalom, šta je Uglyjev narativ ovde? Eskimima se pomerilo Sunce, znači ljudi nisu odgovorni za promenu klime, niti treba ikako da utiču na klimu, jer to je zaludan posao?

Hajde, Mac, živi malo SF. Nismo, valjda, na ZS da pobijamo Uglijeve narative? Kao i Indijanci koji su pred jaku zimu sekli šumu za ogrev, tako se i Eskimima nešto "pomerilo". Nije ni teorija globalnog zagrevanja imperativ. Ajmo malo teorije zavere. Možda su Ameri nešto prčkali sa klimom. Nije zgodno živeti u zemlji gde na zapadu preti onaj rased, na jugu i istoku uragani, a po sredini se spajaju izlivi hladnog vazduha sa severa i topli sa Golfa i uzrokuju tornada. Pa sve malo pomerili. Oni vole da svoje nevolje podele sa drugima.

Kontrola klime je vrhunski SF. Treba da poradimo na tome, i to brzo-brzo, da nam ne nestane pola flore i faune. Prvi korak: kontrola CO₂ i metana na globalnom nivou. Ostali koraci: novi vidovi proizvodnje, skladištenja, transporta i potrošnje energije, popularizacija mini-atomskih centrala, kontrola rasta populacije, proizvodnja oblaka u Pacifiku, pravednija raspodela resursa (da smanjimo mogućnost fanaticima da nešto uprskaju). Eto, valjda je to dovoljno SF-a.

To su teme za fentezi, a ne za SF. To nije imaginacija već reciklaža.

Pih, mac, to što ti nazivaš, nekim naukama, ja komotno mogu da nazovem okultizmom, veštičarenjem, sektaštvom i na kraju satanizmom.
Nazivi koje koristim ti nisu moderni?
Žalosno, jer sve što si naveo je već imalo naziv u okultnome.

Ali sve na srtanu,vrh vrhova mi je tvoja ...pa i ne tvoja već tudja nauka koju fanatično slediš...
Kontrola Populacije!
Bog je rekao množite se, a danas samo čujem o prenaseljenosti?!?
Koga bre zajebavate?
I KO je taj, ko su ti koji će da odluče koliko i kakvih treba da nas ima?Pošalji ih prvo meni na testiranje....i retestisirizaciju
Jade jadne, isti ste ko egipatski faraoni kad su robove bacali krokodilima, jer ih je bilo previše.
Tolko o tvojim naukama, humanosti,modernizmu i regeneresansi ...Ali da ste maaaaaalko proučavali nešto iz istorije,
shvatili bi ste da čak ni evolucija ne postoji, nego samo degradacija svega, ali to su više sfere kapiranja za tebe,
ne možeš ti to, a kamoli da kontrolišeš vreme....
hehehe,,,,kontrola vremena,,,jooooj dobar si......

Ugly, Bog reko mnozite se al nije racunao da ce se bas ovoliko namnoziti, u njegovo vreme bilo je malo opustenije

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

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

Dobro verovatno se nesto menja i eksterno, ono, paralelno s tim sto ljudi rade prirodi/planeti.

I ti ga, Ugli, drviš bez pokrića. Nisu valjale verske države, a ne valjaju ni bezverske. Svi bi da otmu, ubiju ili nešto drugo zverski. Nemaju vremena za dugoročno planiranje. Eto, Mac ima, ali ni to nikome ne odgovara.


@Dybuk, ako je Bog nešto rekao u vezi reprodukcije, moguće je, da je, iritiran, upotrebio onaj drugi glagol, a mi pogrešno preveli.
U promenama klime sigurno učesvuju i ljudi, sa onoliko glupih rešenja koje mogu da ispovrte, ali, kako bih ja rekao, po američkim ravnicama nekada su prdeli bizoni, a danas krave, pa smo sa gasovi na istom.

Neće biti,Scallop,da drvenišem tek tako.Ja nigde ne pomenuh države, nego ti, a da si ikad imalo prelistao The Bajbl, vidio bi tamo kako se funkcioniše, i da može,ali pošto ti znaš i ono što nisi pročito ,verovatno tamo gde treba da pročitaš,ne bi verovao.

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

Znate, sve se svodi na to, šta god mi radili, isto će biti...setim se Radovana Trećeg i njegove brane, planine i rudnika....

Šta ćeš, Ugli, ja ništa ne čitam.

Quote from: Ugly MFA što se tiče ovog ili onog vremena,to je pisano za sva vremena,tako da ne mogu da lupetam ko Dibuk...

Dybuk ne lupeta (opa, o sebi u 3.licu!!) Dybuk je sarkasticna.  Ok, nekad i lupetam al ne sad

Quote from: scallop on 25-10-2015, 13:50:25
Šta ćeš, Ugli, ja ništa ne čitam.

Pa gde si u mom gornjem postu pročitao da ja navodim države?
Ili narode....ili rase....
samo Ideologije,tj,religije.

Čim si pomenuo Bibliju pomenuo si i narode i države i njihov odnos prema nevernicima. Religije su kao komunizam; kad bi bezgrešno funkcionisale sve bi bilo lepo i krasno. Međutim, religije su vrlo dobro sredstvo za poslušan narod, pa su sve države u istoriji koristile tu prednost. Da ti čitaš i procenjuješ ono šta čitaš i sam bi došao do istih zaključaka. Nema države koja se nije kešala uz religiju, ni religije da se nije keđala o državu. To je simbiotski odnos.

Quote from: scallop on 25-10-2015, 14:51:54
religije su vrlo dobro sredstvo za poslušan narod,

Aha,ako ćemo tako,onda su sve države ukapirale da moraju da od svojih državnih poredaka naprave religije...
i kao nekada,ko kaže nešto protiv Boga, zgrešio je ,kamen!
Danas, ko kaže nešto protiv države i poretka, =Bigot!Homofob!Disident!Terorist!Antiglobalista!Zločinac!Nehuman!
Protiv abotrusa! Ne veruje u evoluciju! Lud! Ludačku košulju!

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

Jesil' našao neki treći ,ja još nisam....priznajem....

Kad muskarci budu radjali decu imace pravo da iskazuju svoje stavove o abortusu. Do tad - njeno telo, njen izbor. Naravno, kontracepcija i planiranje porodice je bolja varijanta nego abortus kao kontraceptivni metod, ali jbg.

Quote from: Dybuk on 25-10-2015, 15:30:12
Kad muskarci budu radjali decu imace pravo da iskazuju svoje stavove o abortusu. Do tad - njeno telo, njen izbor. Naravno, kontracepcija i planiranje porodice je bolja varijanta nego abortus kao kontraceptivni metod, ali jbg.

Hteo sam nešto da odgovorim, ali neka se led otopi na polovima.

Quote from: Dybuk on 25-10-2015, 15:30:12
...njeno telo, njen izbor...

dobra!!! 

Quote from: zosko on 25-10-2015, 15:37:43
dobra!!! 

ne dobra, već jedina istina. 

Quote from: Carlyle on 25-10-2015, 15:39:34

Quote from: zosko on 25-10-2015, 15:37:43
dobra!!! 

ne dobra, već jedina istina. 

Tako treba da bude. I bese dobro. Amin. 

Quote from: Dybuk on 25-10-2015, 15:30:12
Naravno, kontracepcija i planiranje porodice je bolja varijanta nego abortus kao kontraceptivni metod, ali jbg.

A planira li riba abortus pre nego što će spavati s nekim tipom? Ono kad unapred zna da je to samo seks i neće biti ništa sem seksa, ali možd' da se omakne se, jbga... 

Ne razumem, a i nisam vidovita Uopsteno. Ne, ne bih rekla da se abortus planira pre seksa.

Je l mislis na ono 'abortus kao metod kontracepcije'? To je izraz koji ne podrazumeva 'pravu' kontracepciju tj planiranje i preduzimanje zastite unapred vec se odnosi na neodgovoran i nemaran odnos prema...hmm odnosu koji rezultira trudnocom te se 'kontracepcija' sprovodi post festum. Izraz je pomalo sarkastican, dakle nije u pitanju regularan metod vec nesto skovano da opise trend koji sam gore pomenula.

Quote from: scallop on 25-10-2015, 15:37:30
Hteo sam nešto da odgovorim, ali neka se led otopi na polovima.

Pa toooooo....ali pre ce voda da ispari i da se osusimo ko sahara nego li da se podavimo....

To su mislili i oni što su se u stubove soli pretvarali, pa jedino Noje ispliva.

Brinem se za vas. Ova priča o Inuitima i pomeranju Zemljine ose stara je skoro godinu dana. Naravno, na Sagiti o tome može da se ima inteligentna rasprava ili da se ima suluda rasprava inspirisana žutom štampom. Inuiti javili NASI a NASA ignoriše. "Kakav šok!" "Globalno zagrevanje je laž!" Ozbiljno? Dakle, SVE opservatorije na svetu su plaćene od strane američkog industrijskog lobija koji lažima o antropogenom globalnom zagrevanju i ugljendioksidu koji ga uzrokuje pokušavaju da nateraju Kinu da smanji svoj industrijski rast, i ni jedna od njih ne javlja ono što su Inutiti zapazili kada tokom duge, dosadne polarne noći gledaju u nebo. Štajebreovo? Ona zvezda pre deset godina nije bila onde!!!!! Klimatske promene su dakle, zato što se Zemlja "pomerila", odnosno "zateturala" odnosno "nagnula prema severu".  WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

U odbranu ovih novinara, teorija o promeni položaja Zemljine ose i odnosnih klimatskih promena je solidno utemeljena već više od sto godina i nije samo proizvod žute štampe (videti, recimo ovo) a kažu da se zemljina osa recentno zaista dosta pomerila (videti ovo) tako da ako se na stranu stave ove priče, sa svojom žutinom i senzacionalizmom, svakako treba videti čega tu ima. Milanković je i sam dosta pisao o ovome, na kraju krajeva i nije da se nauka ne bavi i ovim pitanjem.

Ali kako smo od naginjanja zemljine ose došli do abortusa, zaboga?

I da li zaista treba da se podseća da onog trenutka kada ograničiš pristup elektivnom abortusu, ne dobijaš više rođene dece nego više nebezbednih abortusa? Abortus se sprečava podukom o kontracepciji, ne restrikcijama.

Pazi, znam ja da Zemlja mrda, ali to samo instument može da primeti, a ne tamo neki posmatrač prirode. 9 metara na Zemljinoj površini (podatak iz wiki članka) čini pomeraj od 9m/40,075km=2.2×10^-7, što mu dođe nekih 0.3 sekundi (ono minut, stepen, sekunda). To čovek ne može da primeti, dakle to što su Inuiti primetili mora biti da je nešto drugo.

I, ako me google-fu nije prevario, priča potiče iz 2010. i dokumentarca Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change. Mada, pošto svi u dokumentarcu pričaju inuitski moguće je da je neko nalepio lažan prevod, i sad obmanjuje narod.

Ama na ovaj ili onaj način,meni je ok zagrevanje,pa i ja sam se sećam kako sam provodio leta pre dvajs' godine a kako sad.....ili sam samo ja odrtavio.
Ja 'teo da sa postom o eskimosima poduprem teoriju, slažem se sa njom, iz svih uglova,,,,
,,,samo što čisto sumnjam da će ikakvo selektiranje ovoga ili onoga da nam uspomogne....
i da će šta god iko da isteoretiše, teško da će primeniti u praksi...

Quote from: Meho KrljicAli kako smo od naginjanja zemljine ose došli do abortusa, zaboga?

Ah, kako inace dolazi do poslovicnog oftopicarenja na ovom forumu?  Spontano, pretpostavljam...sori za direjl, mada eto, srecom nije potrajalo, sve opet na mestu. Ili nagnuto