Otapanje leda na polovima

[Ugly MF]

[Meho Krljic]

How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once

[Meho Krljic]

U Americi transportna sredstva emituju više ugljendioksida od elektrana. Vele.


Planes, Trains, and Automobiles Have Become Top Carbon Polluters

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


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


The trend line for the transportation sector is less encouraging. Transportation emissions have begun rising as the economy rebounds. John DeCicco at the University of Michigan Energy Institute, who wrote the study, attributes the rebound we've seen during the past four years to straightforward causes: economic recovery and more affordable fuel prices. Vehicle sales numbers have been rising for several years, in particular for trucks and SUVs, and people are traveling more miles.
The trends have significant implications for the country's energy policy. President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan will help ensure that emissions from generating electricity continue to fall in the coming years, and there are plenty of alternatives to coal-fired power plants. As for transportation, gasoline and diesel figure to keep dominating the market for decades because electric cars, the alternative, have been slow to take off. Federal laws designed to increase fuel efficiency and reduce tailpipe emissions will only serve to offset increasing travel demand, DeCicco says.
That means that one of our best hopes for fighting climate change over the next few years will be the return of high-priced gas.

[Meho Krljic]

Uz dosta zrna soli može se baciti pogled na ovo:


Study: Earth's roughly warmest in about 100,000 years

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

Evo i same studije:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature19798.html

[Meho Krljic]

92% of the world's population exposed to unsafe levels of air pollution

[Meho Krljic]

 No country on Earth is taking the 2 degree climate target seriously



plus ovo:


'We'd have to finish one new facility every working day for the next 70 years'—Why carbon capture is no panacea

[scallop]

Mene više zabrinjava što i dalje trtljaju o "stalnom razvoju" kao globalnom prioritetu. Jes' da srljamo u provaliju, ali lokomotiva mora da se loži.

[Father Jape]

http://www.outsideonline.com/2112086/obituary-great-barrier-reef-25-million-bc-2016

[Meho Krljic]

Climate change could cross key threshold in a decade: scientists

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


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

[Meho Krljic]

Global CO2 Concentration Passes Threshold of 400 ppm—And That's Bad for the Climate

Scientists say humans may need to take some carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to stop global warming 
  The average level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere across the globe passed 400 parts per million (ppm) last year, a symbolic and worrying milestone in growth of manmade climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirmed Monday.
The carbon dioxide concentration is unlikely to dip below the 400 ppm mark for at least several decades, even with aggressive efforts to reduce global carbon emissions, according to the WMO report, which confirms similar findings reported last month. Carbon dioxide can last in the atmosphere for thousands of years without efforts to remove it.


"The year 2015 ushered in a new era of optimism and climate action," said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas, referring to the landmark Paris Agreement to address climate change. "The real elephant in the room is carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years and in the oceans for even longer."
Governments from across the globe committed to cutting their carbon dioxide emissions in the Paris Agreement, negotiated at the end of 2015, but most climate policy experts believe that scientists will need to develop cost-effective methods to actually pull the gas out of the atmosphere to keeping the globe from warming more than 2°C (3.6°F) by 2100. That's the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement and the level that, if crossed, scientists say could bring the worst effects of climate change.
Passing the 400 ppm threshold will not trigger any devastating effect by itself, but it does provide one metric of just how fast humans are emitting carbon dioxide. It is the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere that actually intensifies the greenhouse effect, in turn warming the climate. (On Venus, where carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reach 30,000 ppm, the average surface temperature is a toasty 864 F (462 C). Just what level of carbon concentration in the atmosphere poses an irrevocable danger is up for debate. Many scientists pegged 450 ppm as a red line, while others have said 350 ppm—which the Earth passed years ago—is the safe upper limit. (The Bill McKibben-led climate advocacy group 350.org takes its name from that number.) The reality is that there is no absolute red line—climate change isn't catastrophic at 401 ppm and safe at 399 ppm. But we do know that the more carbon we put into the atmosphere with no ability to take it out, the warner the world will get.
The finding comes as the globe continues to experience record a series of temperature records. Eleven of the last 12 months have been the hottest on record and 2016 is widely expected to be the hottest year ever recorded. At the same time, governments from around the globe have made significant progress on the issue in the last several months—from quick ratification of the Paris Agreement to passage of new deals on aviation and HFC emissions.

[Meho Krljic]

Lepa vest mada, kako i Mića negde gore reče, stručnjaci vele da je već kasno i da treba da se spremamo za posledice globalnog olavljenja...


Renewable capacity passes coal, additions outpacing demand in US, Europe

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

[Meho Krljic]

Climate change rate to turn southern Spain to desert by 2100, report warns

[Meho Krljic]

https://youtu.be/90CkXVF-Q8M

[Meho Krljic]

Interesantan proces koji pretvara kanalizacioni otpad (ili bar njegov organski deo) u sirovu naftu:


Mimicking nature turns sewage into biocrude oil in minutes


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

Naravno 2: nafta je izvor dosta naših zala 

[Meho Krljic]

Iako mi to subjektivno možda i nismo osetili:

2016 will be the hottest year on record, UN says

[Meho Krljic]

Musk Says Tesla's Solar Shingles Will Cost Less Than a Dumb Roof     

It's official: After Tesla shareholders approved the acquisition of SolarCity, the new company is now an unequivocal sun-to-vehicle energy firm. And Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk didn't take long to make his first big announcement as head of this new enterprise.
Minutes after shareholders approved the deal—about 85 percent of them voted yes—Musk told the crowd that he had just returned from a meeting with his new solar engineering team. Tesla's new solar roof product, he proclaimed, will actually cost less to manufacture and install than a traditional roof—even before savings from the power bill. "Electricity," Musk said, "is just a bonus."
If Musk's claims prove true, this could be a real turning point in the evolution of solar power. The rooftop shingles he unveiled just a few weeks ago are something to behold: They're made of textured glass and are virtually indistinguishable from high-end roofing products. They also transform light into power for your home and your electric car.
"So the basic proposition will be: Would you like a roof that looks better than a normal roof, lasts twice as long, costs less and—by the way—generates electricity?" Musk said. "Why would you get anything else?"
Make no mistake: The new shingles will still be a premium product, at least when they first roll out. The terra cotta and slate roofs Tesla mimicked are among the most expensive roofing materials on the market—costing as much as 20 times more than cheap asphalt shingles.
Much of the cost savings Musk is anticipating comes from shipping the materials. Traditional roofing materials are brittle, heavy, and bulky. Shipping costs are high, as is the quantity lost to breakage. The new tempered-glass roof tiles, engineered in Tesla's new automotive and solar glass division, weigh as little as a fifth of current products and are considerably easier to ship, Musk said.
When Musk first unveiled the tiles on Oct. 28, the pricing details were murkier. He said that someone who buys a Tesla roof when the product is released next summer will save money compared with someone who buys a comparable traditional roof, plus electricity from the grid. But on a large house over a long period of time, the value of that electricity could exceed $100,000. The new target he unveiled today is considerably cheaper, and it's considerably more promising for the future of rooftop solar power.

[Meho Krljic]

A onda i ovo:


France to shut down all coal-fired power plants by 2023 

France will shut down all its coal-fired power plants by 2023, president Francois Hollande has announced.
Speaking at an annual UN climate change conference on Wednesday, Mr Hollande vowed to beat by two years the UK's commitment to stop using the fossil fuel to generate power by 2025.
Mr Hollande, a keynote speaker at the event in Marrakech, Morocco, also praised his US counterpart Barack Obama for his work on climate change, and then appeared to snub president-elect Donald Trump.
Mr Trump is reportedly seeking ways to withdraw from the Paris agreement, a global treaty to limit climate change.
"The role played by Barack Obama was crucial in achieving the Paris agreement," Mr Hollande said, before adding, in what has been perceived as a dig at Mr Trump, that becoming a signatory to the treaty is "irreversible".
"We need carbon neutrality by 2050," the French President continued, promising that coal will no longer form part of France's energy mix in six to seven years' time.
France is already a world leader in low-carbon energy. The country has invested heavily in nuclear power over the past few decades and now derives more than 75 per cent of its electricity from nuclear fission. It produces so much nuclear energy, in fact, that it exports much of it to nearby nations, making around £2.5 billion each year.
The mood in Marrakech has been described as defiant, with more world leaders backing the Paris agreement plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which came into force on 4 November, since Mr Trump's remarkable victory.
Germany has said it is to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by up to 95 percent by 2050, the UK has pledged to wipe out coal power by 2025, and Chinese president Xi Jinping said China would continue its fight against global warming "whatever the circumstances", although it stressed the importance of cooperation with the US.
Mr Trump has said in the past he believes global warming is a Chinese hoax to make US manufacturing less profitable, something the country's foreign minister Liu Zhenmin rebuked on Wednesday.
"I hope the Republican administration will continue to support the process of tackling global warming. We have to expect they will take a right and smart decision," Mr Zhenmin said.
Also in Marrakech was current US secretary of state John Kerry, who said he would continue his efforts to implement the Paris agreement until Mr Obama leaves office on 20 January.
"The evidence is mounting in ways that people in public life should not dare to avoid accepting as a mandate for action," Mr Kerry said.

"Now the world's scientific community has concluded that climate change is happening beyond any doubt. And the evidence is there for everybody to see."
Over 300 leading US businesses have signed a statement calling on president-elect to support the Paris agreement.
Mr Kerry said the refusal to act on climate change was a "moral failure, and a betrayal of devastating consequences".

[Ugly MF]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

[mac]

Ako ne želimo da nestanemo kao vrsta s lica Zemlje onda želimo da uspostavimo kakvu-takvu kontrolu nad faktorima koji mogu da dovedu do našeg nestanka. Hrišćani smatraju da kontrola tih faktora treba da ostane u Božjim rukama (i "de fakto" ne može da ne ostane, koliko god se mi trudili), jer kako bi inače došlo do Sudnjeg dana? Možda i kontrolu tih faktora vide kao delo Đavola koji želi da spreči Sudnji dan? U svakom slučaju, ako nestanemo to je zato što smo zaslužili, a po Hrišćanima jesmo zaslužili jer tako piše u Bibliji.

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

Karlin priča o planeti Zemlji kao o entitetu koji tu nešto odlučuje, što nema potporu u onome što trenutno znamo o Zemlji. Prema tome ovaj video je samo komičarski monolog, a ne neka velika skrivena istina.

[Meho Krljic]

Tesla runs an entire island on solar power

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

A s druge strane:


Canada plans to phase out coal-powered electricity by 2030

[scallop]

Malo smo se zaneli.


at least some corners of the globe.

[Meho Krljic]

Pa, ceo poslednji pasus ukazuje da ovo nije nešto što je instant-rešenje za celu planetu, naravno. Ali je interesantan proof of concept. Kako smo već pričali, tehnologija za efikasno prikupljanje solarne energije je očigledno tu, sada je potrebno razviti pouzdane i visokokapacitetne tehnologije njenog skladištenja i distribucije i onda to neko zamenjivanje fosilnih goriva "čistijim" vidovima energije može da postane ozbiljnija inicijativa.

No, naravno, sve to zavisi od milion faktora... Nuklearna energija je u principu čistija i po ekosisteme manje štetna od fosilnih goriva, samo da nije ogromnih rizika vezanih za nju u slučaju nekakve nesreće...

[scallop]

Komplikovanije je to od nekoliko linkova.
Recimo:
- Ko će te sve ubiti, ako je rešenje zaista primenljivo?
- Šta ćemo sve potrošiti da bismo ga ostvarili?
- Šta ćemo saditi i koju stoku gajiti na "solarnim" livadama?
- Ko će na kraj s Arapima?
Ustvari, sve to vidim kao temu za SF radionicu:
Problem globalnog zagrevanja rešen?

[Aco Popara Zver]

Eo,  sve piše



Wear vegan.  Nači da oderemo vegana i eto krzna!

[Meho Krljic]

6 major countries have recently announced imminent phase-out of all coal-fired power plants

As of late, the idea of getting rid of coal in their own national electricity grid has become a popular one among several major nations across the world. At 6 least major countries, including Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and now Finland, have all recently announced the imminent phase-out of all coal-fired power plants.
Several of the announcement have been made just in the past few weeks since the Paris Agreement became effective earlier this month.
Earlier this week, Canada, which has already significantly reduced its use of coal to about 7% of its energy generation, announced a phase of the resource by 2030. The country's strong hydropower should keep dominating its energy generation, but the country has also been investing in wind and solar to make up the difference.
A week before Canada's announcement, France announced a more aggressive timeline of 2023 for its own phase-out of coal, but it should be more easily achievable since they have already reduced the use of coal to 3% of their electricity generation – thanks to a strong local nuclear industry.
As of last week, Germany official approved its Climate Action Plan 2050, which technically includes a phase-out of at least half the coal-fired power plants by 2030 and the rest could follow by the end of the 2050 timeframe of the action plan.
Finland is the latest country to join the group, but it also announced a more aggressive solution of simply banning entirely the use of coal to produce energy by 2030. The country gets about 12% of its electricity from coal, which it has to import.
Peter Lund, a researcher at Aalto University, and chair of the energy programme at the European Academies' Science Advisory Council, told New Scientist about the recently announced ban on coal:

"These moves are important forerunners to enforce the recent positive signals in coal use. The more countries join the coal phase-out club, the better for the climate as this would force the others to follow."

Who's going to be next? It's unlikely to be the US, which gets about 33% of its total electricity generation from coal. President-elect Donald Trump was elected partly on his promise to "bring back coal jobs" and grow the industry rather than to phase it out. Though experts have concluded that his plan isn't likely to have a massive impact on the industry despite the scrapping of environmental regulations.
The growth of renewable energy is difficult to stop and reducing the use of coal in electricity generation also has the consequence of increasing the positive impact of electric vehicles since they become powered by cleaner energy sources.

[Ugly MF]

Eo,  sve piše



Wear vegan.  Nači da oderemo vegana i eto krzna!

Ja ovde vidim keltski druidski paganizam, maske životinja,sexanje po prirodi, obožavanje majke prirode, sexanje iste....
a bune se kad ja oću da ne verujem Vavilonskim zvezdarima i gatarima u Nasi i Vatikanu....
Ko je bre ovde ćaknut?!?

[Meho Krljic]

Australia's Great Barrier Reef has worst coral die-off ever

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


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


Tourism on the Great Barrier Reef employs 70,000 people, and generates $5 billion (Australian) in income each year, the Centre said in a statement.
The good news is that much of the coral survived this bleaching event. But looking to the future, mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef will likely be an annual phenomenon within a decade, Torda said.
If all the coral died on the reef, "it would be among the largest mass extinction events in history," said Torda.

[scallop]

U trilemi dal' da se suočim sa sve izvesnijom činjenicom da nam država postaje poslednjim bastionom neoliberalizma i mahnitog globalizma, naporima radioničara da otkriju kako su poštovali ili nepoštovali zadatu temu, nekako mi je najbolje da se posvetim novom Mehinom linku koji zaključuje da je i SKUVANI Veliki koralni greben posledica otapanja leda na polovima.


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


Radoznaliji su odavno mogli da saznaju da su koralni grebeni, upravo zbog svoje raznovrsnosti, esencijalni evolucioni vrtlog. Isto tako i da su sve obale (linija gde se dodiruju more i kopno), jednom bile kršina usijane ili razbijene lave, pa smetlište i kenjara za prolaznike, pa evolutivna kuhinja i na kraju napuštena obala. Nevolja je što smo u Velikom vremenu samo foton, pa moramo da nagađamo, grešimo ili pogađamo. Ali, negde kopno izranja, negde u crnoj lavi niče prvo seme, negde se obale spuštaju u more, neke Atlantide tonu u pod vode s lednika koji se tope. Ko ume da švenkuje, možda nešto i vidi.

[Meho Krljic]

zaključuje da je i SKUVANI Veliki koralni greben posledica otapanja leda na polovima.

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

[Ugly MF]

De bre, man' se PRŽITE, neće vam ništa fali, znam ja, pošto živimo na TIGANJU okruženim ledom, imaaaaaaa biće svega doveka

[Aco Popara Zver]

Ja ne znam kako oni uopšte žive!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3541623.stm

[scallop]

zaključuje da je i SKUVANI Veliki koralni greben posledica otapanja leda na polovima.

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

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


Pametniji od mene već su požurili.

[Meho Krljic]

Ma, kako smo već rekli i na ovom topiku, neće ovo da zakači mene ili tebe, ali pričamo o mogućim dramatičnim promenama koje bi mogle da prouzrokuju ozbiljne poremećaje u naseljivosti velikih delova planete, da ne pričam o istrebljenju raznih vrsta, u kratkom roku od nekoliko vekova...

[Aco Popara Zver]

Nekoliko vijekova? Ako neće za Trampove vlade nije ni bitno!

Nafta će ionako da se potroši do 2070.

[scallop]

Nismo rekli i promene nisu dramatične. Dosta mi je i Aglijevog tupljenja o tiganju da bih sam upućivao na širu sliku. U mojoj viziji jedino treba da propadne proizvodnja đubreta, a na dobrom smo putu u tom pravcu. Možda ćemo morati oko toga i malo da se pobijemo, ali i to je dobro ako ne umemo da se dogovorimo. Krave će i dalje prdeti po Plejnsu, kao što su prdeli bizoni. Kod nas kiše dolaze, ali ćemo naučiti da plivamo. Evropa će postati obojeni kontinent, ali će na ivicama saharskih i subsaharskih pustinja biti upornih koji sade novu šumu. Mogao bih knjige da pišem o tome, ali ko će da me linkuje? Zato pokušavam da na radionici zadam teške teme, možda će neko te pisce prevoditi na engleski.

[mac]

Sa stanovišta same planete ništa tu nije dramatično. Ljudska rasa može da se samodesetkuje u nuklearnom ratu pokrenutom zbog masovnih migracija i nedostatka ključnih resursa poput pijaće vode, i biodiverzitet može da opadne toliko da će biti potrebno deset miliona godina da se vrati na nivo od pre industrijske revolucije, ali što se same planete tiče to su sve sitnice.

[scallop]

Sa stanovišta same planete ništa tu nije dramatično. Ljudska rasa može da se samodesetkuje u nuklearnom ratu pokrenutom zbog masovnih migracija i nedostatka ključnih resursa poput pijaće vode.

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

[Ugly MF]

Heeeej, pa i nuklearke su prevara!   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7jVHzYzYw0

[Aco Popara Zver]

Jedni kažu otopljavanje, drugi kažu ledeno doba, Tramp i Ugly kažu sve će biti u redu

[mac]

Nedostatak pijaće vode izaziva premeštanje do prvog sledećeg potoka.

Poljoprivrednici u Americi i Indiji imaju problem sa nedostatkom podzemne vode. Oni nemaju gde da se presele, i iscprli su vodu koju su imali. Šta ćemo njima da kažemo? Da se presele u mesta gde voda još nije iscprljena?

Oni koji nisu iscrpli svoju vodu sigurno neće pristati na to da im je neko drugi crpe, ali voda mora da teče, pa će se naći neki povod da se vlade destabilizuju i narodi obore na kolena. Ali akcija proizvodi i reakciju, i ono što se u nastavku desilo bi moglo da vas rasplače...

[scallop]

Ima preko četrdeset godina otkako sam saznao da su podzemne vode u Sahari (Libija) obilne, ali da im je potebno 30.000 godina da doteku od Konga. Skoro da od Sahare naprave Eden (probne piezobušotine radio Energoprojekt). Problem je bio kako sačekati sledećih 30.000 godina. Vode ima, samo nema dobre volje i funkcionalnih ideja. Ustvari, funkcionalniji ti je drugi link. Dok ima droge, jebe im se za život u pustinji. Brzi profit je važniji od dugoročnog. Postoje i projekti da se ledeni bregovi dotegnu tamo gde nema vode. Ionako se tope budzašto. Uz postojeće mogućnosti transporta, voda i hrana nisu nerešiv problem. Problem su kratkoročni ciljevi i interesi. Današnji biznis nije spreman da pravi piramide.

[Meho Krljic]

Google tvrdi da će do kraja godine postići da energija koju njihova firma troši 100% dolazi iz obnovljivih izvora:


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

[Meho Krljic]

Međutim, dok su se svi bavili ugljendioksidom, metan nas je zaskočio s leđa:

Rapid rise in methane emissions in 10 years surprises scientists


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

Fossil Fuel Divestment Has Doubled in the Last 15 Months

[mac]

Nije ni čudo što je autor teksta iznenađen, kad nigde u tekstu nije spomenut permafrost. Tako je povećan metan, odmrzavanjem onoga što smo naivno nazvali "večiti smrz".

[scallop]

Nekad smo samo disali, a sad i prdimo.

[Meho Krljic]

Kinezi u paklu smoga. Članak jeste iz USA Today ali ne deluje zlonamerno i pruža relativno uverljivo izgledajuće izvore za to što piše. Naravno, uvek treba biti oprezan...

China chokes on smog so bad that planes can't land

[Meho Krljic]

Obama Designates Atlantic, Arctic Areas Off-Limits To Offshore Drilling



Obama je sada i zvanično predsednik SAD koji je zaštitio najviše teritorije od ove vrste eksploatacije. Pa, eto.

[Mica Milovanovic]

Kinezi u paklu smoga. Članak jeste iz USA Today ali ne deluje zlonamerno i pruža relativno uverljivo izgledajuće izvore za to što piše. Naravno, uvek treba biti oprezan...

Meho, ja sam prvi put kad sam bio tamo dobio tako gadnu infekciju očiju da dva dana nisam mogao da gledam. Sunca nisam video, osim kroz izmaglicu... Drugi put je bilo nešto malo bolje, ali smog je katastrofalan. Štipa za oči. Ništa ne preteruju...

[Meho Krljic]

U međuvremenu sam video i snimke (na Beogradskoj Hronici, naravno) koji ilustruju istu poentu i... da, izgleda kao Mordor.

[mac]

Ovo mi YouTube ponudio večeras, video star 2 godine koji objašnjava neke detalje u vezi s promenom klime:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU