Otapanje leda na polovima

[scallop]

Šta se mijenja ako average nije tih 40 godina? Ne kontam

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

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


2. Temperatura površine mora jeste relevantna, ako prihvatamo efekat El Ninjo. Mada, ni ti uragani nisu više dosledno poslušni. Da ne govorimo o tome da posrču vodu sa zahvaćene površine okeana, onu topliju, pa je izruče negde drugde. Majka Zemlja je lukavija od klimatologa. Onaj naš Boris Koljčicki je bio lukaviji i pametniji.

[Aco Popara Zver]

Ček, ček, mac valjda misli da će topliji okean da otopi lednike, te je poseban problem da li je okean topliji ili je samo površina toplija i šta s tim.

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

[scallop]

Ma, do pre desetak godina bila je zgodna teorija da će otopljavanje da se slije i u Atlantski Okean. Ubrzo je neko shvatio da ima previše mora da bi podizanje nivoa bilo nedovoljno za veliku štetu. Malu, da. Sa druge strane, bila je zanimljiva i teza da će zbog viška slatke vode da potone Golfska struja, pa će da nastupi ledeno doba. Izgleda da su shvatili da bi to ledeno doba povuklo vodu nazad na kopno i da bi Golfska struja isplivala. Sve je to zgodno za zamajavanje, ali ne traje.

[scallop]

Da ne pominjem da će višak CO₂ izazvati napredak fitoplanktona koji će ga posrkati. Ko ne računa sa svim parametrima pravi nesuvisle ekstrapolacije. Tako, kad god vidiš neku takvu, sa "projketovanim" nastavkom, radi se o gluposti ili podvali.

[Aco Popara Zver]

Macovi simulakrumi!

[scallop]

Nisu njegovi. Samo je lakoveran i pošten.

[mac]

Neka srkaju ti fitoplanktoni već jednom, što čekaju da temperatura naraste toliko?

[scallop]

A, bre, koliko? Ti postade i antievolucionista samo da dokažeš neka nenaučna istraživanja. Eno ti tabor Uglija, osećaćeš se komotno.

[mac]

Kako sad pa antievolucionista? Pa ne može koral za 20 godina da se premetne u drugi koral kome ne smeta topla voda. Niti može da se spusti malo niže u more, jer tamo nema svetlosti. Niti može da se pomeri dalje od ekvatora, jer nema noge za tako nešto. Kako će ljuskari na pobegnu od kisele vode, kad je sva voda kisela? Šta, napraviće otpornije oklope? Vrsta belog medveda doduše može da osmudi jer se meša sa smeđim. Nešto će negde preživeti, ali biodiverzitet se smanjuje i smanjivaće se još više.

Dakle klimatolozi pričaju da se klima menja. Biolozi pričaju da se smanjuje biodiverzitet. Hidrolozi pričaju da se smanjuje količina pitke vode (povremene velike kiše privremeno napune basene, kao što i vulkani privremeno ohlade Zemlju, ali trend je ka smanjivanju). Konflikti zbog vode su sve učestaliji. A mudrolozi mudruju...

[Aco Popara Zver]

Mac, jes ti pročito taj link...

[mac]

Dao sam dva linka. Pročitao sam prvi, koji je Telegrafov članak, i tako i napisao u mom postu. Drugi je spisak svih poznatih konflikta zbog vode, od pamtiveka do danas. To nisam čitao, ali evo ti statistike. Konflikti su grupisani u periode.

1900-1949 (50 godina) ima 25 konflikta
Sledećih 25 godina ima 24 (duplo veća učestanost)
Sledećih 25 ima 65 konflikta
2000-2010 (10 godina) ima 94 konflikta (20 puta učestanije nego na početku prethodnog veka)
2011-2017 ima 128 konflikta, a nismo završili ni deceniju.

[Aco Popara Zver]

Ali to nisu konflikti ZBOG vode.

Zbog vode je da je voda cilj, a ja ne vidim kako je cilj. Inače, na tom linku se spominje Mojsijevo razdvajanje mora kao vid konflikta u kojem se koristi voda.

[mac]

Ako žene moraju daleko po vodu onda je voda cilj. Ako te žene bivaju napastvovane dok idu po vodu, onda je to incident zbog vode. Da je voda u česmi u kući onda incidenta ne bi bilo. Zbog vode je.

[Mica Milovanovic]

mac, ovo za konflikte zbog vode je čista manipulacija. Ne veruj svemu što piše na internetu.
Ovi što to rade su klasična američka globalizacijska organizacija.
Pregledaj aktivnosti UNESCO-a po tom pitanju i videćeš da to baš i nije tako strašno.

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

[scallop]

Naravno, da je voda potencijalni uzrok sukoba i dobro je misliti o tome na vreme. Voda je drugi vitalni resurs na Zemlji.


Prvi je vazduh i gde nije bilo dovoljno vazduha nije bilo ni života. Nameravao sam da pričam o vazduhu, ali nemam ništa protv voda.
Za početak ću samo da dam osnovne mere. N₂ - 70%, O₂ - 20,7% i CO₂ - 0,3%. Ostalo u margini. Čovek zna da se delimično prilagodi.

[scallop]

Neću pričati o azotu. On je garnirug. Narihtani smo na kiseonik, onaj koji sam pomenuo.


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


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


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


Podsetiću vas na srednju školu. Postoji nešto što se naziva Zakon o dejstvu masa. Jeste da su gasovi pokretljivi i da će viša koncentracija težiti da se ujednači sa prostorom gde je niža, ali to je sporiji proces. Između više i niže koncentracije se uspostavlja nešto što se naziva gradijent koncentracije, pa je slično strmoj ravni gde se zbog potencijala dešava kotrljanje nizbrdo. To znači da se svuda na Zemlji sastav atmosfere neprestano koriguje. Fitoplankton srče CO₂, prija mu, razmnožava se, iz okoline se nadoknađuje i to je proces. Kad prdne krava, namirisaćemo ako nije suviše daleko.

[Mica Milovanovic]

http://www.sepa.gov.rs/download/VAZDUH2015.pdf

[scallop]

Nadam se da će shvatiti bar osnovno. Dok sam čitao bilo mi jasno. Ako shvate da atmosferski molekuli putuju biće dovoljno.

[дејан]

ево и забавног блога The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

[scallop]

Da ne bi izgledalo da tvrdim da je pitanje stanja atmosfere samo zabavno i da nema posledica, podsetiću na velike kineske gradove i snimke koji pokazuju veliko aerozagađenje. Takođe, ako ničega drugog sigurno se sećate filma sa Šonom Konerijem "Vrač", gde smo gledali kako se grade putevi kojima će izneti posečenu šumu iz "pluća Sveta" u Amazonu.


Optužićemo Kinu da nam razjebava atmosferu, a Brazil da uništava mogućnost obnove. To nije za zezanje. To je pitanje koje postavlja svetski pokret za zaštitu okoline. Međutim, kako je sve što se događa na Zemlji splet uzroka i posledica, uvek najpre prebiram po uzrocima. Mac stavlja dijagram koji pokazuje prstom na poslednjih četrdeset godina. Meni nije čudno. Taman toliko smo u raljama neoliberalizma. Jest da Kina zagađuje svet, ali ako je GDP imperativ, kako dostići one koji su izmakli napred u za njih pogodnom društveno političkom momentu istorije? 6% rasta devastira okolinu. 4% će devastirati Srbiju. Zamislite pola miliona tona izvoza junećeg mesa godišnje. To je milion i po krava, da će da kupuju krave, ali Kina bi junetinu, a to je još tri puta više u kravama. Od toga će 2/3 da ostane nama kao otpad. Da ne pričam da milion i po krava prdi CO₂ i metan ko nekad svi bizoni u američkim prerijama. Da ne pređe na zezanje, podsetiću na priču od pre pedesetak godina o narudžbini šibica za Kinu. Računali smo da bismo morali da posečemo svu šumu, gore nego nekad Otomanska imperija. Dakle, promovisani stalni rast privrede je osnovni uzrok devastiranja Zemlje. Neoliberalizam je uzrok onih Macovih frtalj ^oC globalnog porasta temperature. Koga taj dijagram upozorava? Ko treba od nečega da odustane da se ne bi otišlo u tandariju?

[mac]

Svi naravno treba da odustanu od nečeg. Pravo pitanje nije ko, nego "ko koliko". EDIT: mada ni "odustajanje" nije baš pravi pojam ovde. Treba promeniti ekonomiju da uključi nevidljivu cenu trošenja globalnih resursa. Kad se ekonomija tako promeni akteri će morati da se prilagode, ali u tom prilagođavanju neki će biti i na dobitku. Neće svi biti gubitnici.

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

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-canary-kelp-forest-sea-creature.html

[scallop]

Svi naravno treba da odustanu od nečeg. Pravo pitanje nije ko, nego "ko koliko".

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


Misliš globalno tek ako posmatraš globalno. Šta misliš zašto se vodi bitka? Protiv Rusije? Jok. Za Sibir. Pa bi ga spičkali čas posla u svrhu "održivog razvoja". A, "održivi razvoj" je staza koja vodi u globalno otopljavanje i sva druga sranja koja proističu iz devastacije Zemlje. Jebeš CO₂, daj da uništimo uzrok, a ne da se foliramo saniranjem posledica.

[mac]

Kako to održivi razvoj vodi u globalno otopljavanje? Ja mislim da to nije tačno, pa bih voleo detaljnije objašnjenje.

[scallop]

Šta vodi u globalno otopljavanje? CO₂.
Kako nastaje višak CO₂? Preteranom potrošnjom fosilnih goriva.
Zašto trošimo fosilna goriva?


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


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


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


Da ne govorim o tih 3%. Jer, onima koji imaju baš i ne treba ali bi pristali na više, a onima koji nemaju nije dovoljno. Oni koji imaju šest košulja lako bi pristali da oni koji imaju dve imaju samo jednu. Šta će im dve?

[mac]

Čekaj malo. Održivi razvoj nije "konstantan godišnji rast" nego "takav tip rasta koji teoretski može da traje unedogled, jer se ne troše neobnovljivi resursi, a obnovljivi se troše samo onolikom brzinom kojom se obnovljivi resursi obnavljaju". Održivo u smislu da može da traje i traje. Energija dobijena iz gasa definitivno ne spada u održivi razvoj, jer gasa pod zemljom nema beskonačno.

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

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

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

Ovo je jedno moguće rešenje, ali sigurno ima i drugih, i nova ekonomija je neumitna budućnost. Eksploatatori se svim silama trude da sad iscrpu sve što iscrpsti može, dok ne počne ta nova ekonomija, da bi od početka bili u prednosti, a ostatak sveta se trudi da što pre započne tu novu ekonomiju da bismo konačno mogli da rešavamo probleme koje eksploatatori stvaraju.

[scallop]

Evo, neću više da se bakćem s tobom, a nemoj ni ti sa mnom.


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


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


Sukob koji traje je otpor promenama i cena može da bude fatalna.

[Meho Krljic]

Dobro, nije baš tako. Aktuelna deklaracija (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld) pominje "sustained economic growth", ali takođe veli i "shared prosperity and decent work for all, taking into account different levels of national development and capacities", pa onda "we pledge that no one will be left behind. Recognizing that the dignity of the human person is fundamental, we wish to see the Goals and targets met for all nations and peoples and for all segments of society. And we will endeavour to reach the furthest behind first. "

Itd.

[scallop]

Evo ga i njega! Šta ono znači - growth? Ostalo je floskula.

[mac]

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Managing_the_economy/Sustainable_growth.html

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

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

Sustainable development is the organizing principle for meeting human development goals while at the same time sustaining the ability of natural systems to provide the natural resources and ecosystem services upon which the economy and society depends. The desirable end result is a state of society where living conditions and resource use continue to meet human needs without undermining the integrity and stability of the natural systems.[/size]

[mac]

U pitanju je sintagma. Jeste growth, ali je sustainable. Ako nije sustainable onda nije sustainable growth. Kako je sustainable? Tako što ne uništavamo ono što omogućava sam "growth".

[Meho Krljic]

Evo ga i njega! Šta ono znači - growth? Ostalo je floskula.

Pokušavam da kažem da si se ti usredsredio na jedan element sustainable developmenta koji nije nužno njegov najvažniji element u diskusijama koje se vode o ovoj temi u forumima koji takve diskusije vode. Čak ni ne mislim da nisi u pravu, potera za ekonomskim rastom jeste u korenu problema, samo mislim da ne treba raspravu o sustainable developmentu svoditi samo na ekonomski rast.

[scallop]

Napisao sam da ja o uzroku, a vi biste da razblažizte. Koji drugi uzrok bi mogao da bude?

[Meho Krljic]

Ne nužno klimatska stvar ali moguće da jeste:

Where have all the insects gone?

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

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


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


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


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


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

[Aco Popara Zver]

http://sanmigueltimes.com/2017/05/bill-gates-we-need-socialism-to-save-the-planet/

[Ugly MF]

Bil Gejts konstantno jede govna koja mu drugi serviraju, pa povraca u javnos'...
mani ga slusate, ce zglajzate sas pameti....

[mac]

Ne mora baš pravi socializam, dovoljno je taksa na skrivene troškove koje plaćaju jedni, a od kojih profitiraju drugi.

[Aco Popara Zver]

Apokalipsa!

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

[Meho Krljic]

Rising seas set to double coastal flooding by 2050: study 

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

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

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

[Aco Popara Zver]

Interesting

[Aco Popara Zver]

Mac, Meho, neka neko reaguje!

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

[Meho Krljic]

Trump misunderstood MIT climate research, university officials say

[Aco Popara Zver]

Al sad je rekla kazala, u poređenju s prvim tekstom. Ako je tačna vijest, jelte...

[Meho Krljic]

A šta ako je spas u mahovini?


This 'tree' has the environmental benefits of a forest

[Meho Krljic]

The trouble with geoengineers "hacking the planet"



Bože sakloni, ovo je stvarno ko neki SF iz šezdesetih...

[Meho Krljic]

New study confirms the oceans are warming rapidly

[дејан]

ево, не само што се загревају већ им се и диже (ниво, људи, ниво)

http://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/new-island-north-carolina/index.html

[Meho Krljic]

Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says

[Meho Krljic]

NASA study proposes way to prevent Yellowstone super volcano from destroying United States

[Meho Krljic]

  White House Seeks to Avoid Quitting Paris Deal, Climate Officials Say

[Meho Krljic]

Ponovo o prdenju krava:

To save the planet, scientists figured out how to fix cow farts