Globalno zagrevanje

[Indy]

Da okacim ovde, cisto da bih sam posle pronasao link (posto se sit napricah sam sa sobom na ovoj temi).Izuzetno zanimljiva razmena Petera Singera i Bjørn Lomborga na stranicama WSJ. Vecinom se (naravno) ne slazu, ali su tacke neslaganja same po sebi dobra hrana za mozak. A u ponecemu su cak i u (blagom) saglasju.

Plus nesto sto objavih na tu temu - izvinjavam se sto je na engleskom, ali me stvarno mrzi da prevodim... mislim, ako nekog stvarno, stvarno, zanima, moze i da se prevede.It couldn’t be more obvious, but I will say it anyway – these two authors are coming from two very different political camps: the progressive one on the Left, where Singer resides, and the libertarian economic-conservative camp on the Right, were Lomborg is “located”. While opposed on the Left-Right axis these two authors could both be said to be of the non-authoritarian (not to say, libertarian – as this term can cause confusion) general inclination.Peter Singer has been saying for a very long time now that the middle class Westerners are spending a lot on what they don’t really need. I suppose that this is not really controversial. His position has always been that a good chunk (or all?) of that could be redistributed towards the poor countries. Lomborg’s not so much disagreeing with this, as he maintains that, given the human selfishness this will simply never happen (and I tend to be with him on that one). I suppose it could be possible to some extent, and perhaps insisting (as Singer seems to do) that all of luxury consumption in the West should be curtailed on ethical basis is overshooting the target by a great deal.Both these authors seem to roughly be in agreement that reducing poverty will eventually lead to smaller families (how soon, that seems to be a matter of some disagreement). This is important, because argument could be put forward that any help towards poor nations could only make (environmental) matters worse, by further enlarging the (over)population.There is quite a bit of divergence between the authors on the account of the attitude of the present generation (that is, us) and the future generations. Singer, expectedly, wants us to be quite frugal in order to leave more resources to future generations. While this sounds fine on the first look, a more thorough inspection (as by Lomborg) reveals a problem: there is basically an almost infinite number of future generations – they will be needing, in totality, a heck of a lot of resources. That would leave precious little (if anything for us). Sure enough, some of these resources have a wonderful ability to self-replenish, but not all.There is also a matter of a certain amount of $250b paid anually by the EU members for a legally binding climate policy. While Singer applauds this, Lomborg has a problem: this amount (and this is just from the EU!) will achieve precious little in terms of climatic benefits (he mentions a reduction in 0.1°F in global temperature by 2100 – I haven’t check the reference for this).This really doesn’t appear to be value for money. While Singer basically says “we are ethically obliged to do something“, Lomborg suggests using only $50b towards mitigating climate change, $100b for R&D into cheap green energy (Singer readily agrees on this) and the remaining $100b for the poor people of the world. Now, Lomborg does state that (according to the UN) this will go “a long way” towards clean water, sanitation, food, health and education of the poor nations; Singer rather disingenuously quotes him as is if he were saying that the $100b is sufficient for this purpose (which it is not, as Singer eagerly points out).Lomborg “returns the favour” by interpreting Singer as he were advocating that we should all just eat porridge (to save the planet for future generations) and that he, being a greenie, is supporting reductions in yields (by being against GMO in agriculture, which Singer is not).The two ideologically opposed thinkers were not that far apart in saying that we need to invest a lot more in R&D to obtain cheap “green” energy and that at least in principle it is not impossible to work towards reducing poverty while making good on the environment

Edited January 23, 2011 by Indy

[Indy]

Greska, nisam dobro protumacio rad. Kad ne idem na spavanje na vreme... rad je samo rekao da je, kod avijacije, doprinos tragova mlaznjaka > od njihovog CO2 doprinosa (promeni klime). (Sad me je stvarno sram sto ispadoh glup u drustvu, srecom ovo niko ni ne cita).

Edited March 30, 2011 by Indy

[расејан]

Tragovi mlaznjaka uticu na promenu klime vise nego emisije CO2, tvrde naucnici sa nemackog Instituta za Atmosfersku Fiziku. (Ranije se mislilo da je ovaj efekt mali). "Burkhardt believes more should be done on reducing CO2 emissions from aeroplanes, as well as cutting back on condensation trails, which could be done by avoiding moist air."

Нека нађу било какав изговор, нека испадне да смо сви ми имали само илузију да већ осам и више година виђамо (и снимамо) кемтрејлове по небу, нек ја понесем ударничку значку теоретичара, само нека престану са тим већ једном.Кајсије ми се већ трећи дан пате да некако процветају, а већ је крај марта. Још ниједан сунчан дан није издржао дуже од поднева. Све нешто млечно.

[Indy]

Da si me lepo pitao, mogao sam da se pozabavim tvojom kajsijom... ovako, nista.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Indy

[Hella]

Globalno zagrevanje šansa SrbijeIzvor: Beta ponedeljak 24.10.2011 | 21:03Beograd -- Srbija bi trebalo da iskoristi očekivane klimatske promene dodatnim ulaganjem u poljoprivredu i šumarstvo, kažu stručnjaci....Milovanović, prodekanka za nastavu Fakulteta za primenjenu ekologiju Futura iz Beograda, je u beogradskom hotelu Kontinental na otvaranju trodnevne radionice o klimatskim promenama i rizicima koje one nose na zapadnom Balkanu kazala da je cilj okupljanja da se razvoj scenarija za ekonomski i socijalni razvoj Balkana uskladi sa klimatskim promenama.

[Skyhighatrist]

Predviđanja su da će u narednih 50 godina temperatura povećati za pola stepena Celzijusa, ali da je Balkan tu izuzetak.

'Ladovina ispod one šljive?

[hazard]

hm...http://www.economist.com/node/21540224

Climate changeGood news at last?The climate may not be as sensitive to carbon dioxide as previously believedNov 26th 2011 | from the print editionCLIMATE science is famously complicated, but one useful number to keep in mind is “climate sensitivity”. This measures the amount of warming that can eventually be expected to follow a doubling in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its most recent summary of the science behind its predictions, published in 2007, estimated that, in present conditions, a doubling of CO2 would cause warming of about 3°C, with uncertainty of about a degree and a half in either direction. But it also says there is a small probability that the true number is much higher. Some recent studies have suggested that it could be as high as 10°C.If that were true, disaster beckons. But a paper published in this week’s Science, by Andreas Schmittner of Oregon State University, suggests it is not. In Dr Schmittner’s analysis, the climate is less sensitive to carbon dioxide than was feared.Existing studies of climate sensitivity mostly rely on data gathered from weather stations, which go back to roughly 1850. Dr Schmittner takes a different approach. His data come from the peak of the most recent ice age, between 19,000 and 23,000 years ago. His group is not the first to use such data (ice cores, fossils, marine sediments and the like) to probe the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide. But their paper is the most thorough. Previous attempts had considered only small regions of the globe. He has compiled enough information to make a credible stab at recreating the climate of the entire planet.The result offers that rarest of things in climate science—a bit of good news. The group’s most likely figure for climate sensitivity is 2.3°C, which is more than half a degree lower than the consensus figure, with a 66% probability that it lies between 1.7° and 2.6°C. More importantly, these results suggest an upper limit for climate sensitivity of around 3.2°C.Before you take the SUV out for a celebratory spin, though, it is worth bearing in mind that this is only one study, and, like all such, it has its flaws. The computer model used is of only middling sophistication, Dr Schmittner admits. That may be one reason for the narrow range of his team’s results. And although the study’s geographical coverage is the most comprehensive so far for work of this type, there are still blank areas—notably in Australia, Central Asia, South America and the northern Pacific Ocean. Moreover, some sceptics complain about the way ancient data of this type were used to construct a different but related piece of climate science: the so-called hockey-stick model, which suggests that temperatures have risen suddenly since the beginning of the industrial revolution. It will be interesting to see if such sceptics are willing to be equally sceptical about ancient data when they support their point of view.

[iDemo]

Kandidat za "the badass of the year", Mr Stewart Franks, Associate Professor School of Engineering at University of Newcastle objasnio glavnom australijskom komesaru za klimu i klimaCka pitanja - kako se i pored svakolikog globalnog zagrevanja nekako stiglo (opet) od ovoga: do ovoga: 2012, pa opet 2012, pa onda malo 2007, pa opet malo 2012 pa 2005 i to bi bilo dosta, za danas...Sto bi rekao onomad prof Rob Wilby, Department of Geography, Loughborough University, UK

Recent work shows that, because of high variability from year to year and confounding factors, detection of climate change at regional scales is not expected for decades to come.

Mis'im ono - strpljivo & polako. I bez panike...

[Indy]

Samo ti iskopavaj te anonimuse koji objasnjavaju. Mnogo ce to da nam pomogne. Taman isto koliko i panika.BTW. Gornja hazardova "dobra vest" je netom posto je objavljena i demantovana kao pogresno shvacena (kao sto je isuvise mnogo stvari na putanji izmedju naucnog zurnala i popularne stampe).

Edited March 17, 2012 by Indy

[iDemo]

Samo ti iskopavaj te anonimuse koji objasnjavaju. Mnogo ce to da nam pomogne. Taman isto koliko i panika.

Pogledaj mu rezime kad budesh imao vremena - decko ima vishe objavljenog u peer-reviewed casopisima (na ovu & slicne teme) nego sto ce komesar sa sve svojim savetnicima imati za hiljadu godina... Ono Franks PDO i taj rad.

[Indy]

Niko nije nikad ni tvrdio da se svi eksperti (Flannery tu nije ukljucen bitan) slazu. Samo su tvrdili da se cca 97% njih slaze. Preostalih tri posto, sa simpatizerima, vise je nego dovoljno da napuni hiljade stranica blogova i foruma. Posto to pratim jedno 15 godina, mogu samo da konstatujem da nema nikakvih znacajnih novih elemenata na toj sceni.Par kisnih sezona ne definise klimu (mozda bi zaista trebalo obuciti ljude da razlikuju vreme od klime), a isto tako saka mavericka (i sa adekvatnom ekspertizom) ne znaci da je relacija izmedju koncentracije glasova staklene baste i prosecne globalne temperature atmosfere dovedena u pitanje.Franks jeste ekspert*, ali je uz to - isto tako bez sumnje - i radikalan klimatski skeptik: "Warming not caused by CO2".Inace, u udzbenicima nauke o promeni klime, znaci to je ono sto bi trebalo da zna svaki student, a ne kamoli profesor, stoji doslovno da se u buducnosti mogu ocekivati brojne godine hladnije (i vlaznije) od proseka, pa cak i citave decenije.Nije za dzabe klima definisana kao tridesetogodisnji (ili duzi) prosek vremenskih uslova. Znaci, sad smo imali drugu vlaznu sezonu u jednom kraju sveta i to je "dokaz" da je prica o promeni globalne klime nekako netacna. Znaci, niti je klima, niti je globalna.Medjutim, nepostojanje veze izmedju povecanja koncentracije CO2 i zagrevanja atmosfere je mnogo veci problem tu nego (prilicno standardna) prica o tome da je neko pobrkao varijabilnost sa promenom klime.Inace mi je oduvek izazivao transfer neprijatnosti neko kao Flannery (i mnogi njemu slicni) sa tvrdnjama "evo vruce je, znaci dokazano je da se globalna klima menja" (opet, niti je u pitanju klima, niti je globalno). U domenu svojih skromnih mogucnosti pokusavao sam da ih ispravim, i oni bi uvek rekli, jeste jeste, znamo da to nije klima, ali treba podsetiti ljude. Oficijelno, to je cak i nekakva strategija za objasnjavanje opasnosti od promene klime obicnim ljudima. Na zalost, o tome mene niko nije pitao, posto se ja sigurno s tim ne bih slozio. I sad, kad se takva nepazljiva strategija vraca sa kamatom ("Flannery out of his depth as flooding rains return") ja se naravno nisam nasao ni najmanje iznenadjen, samo to uopste ne moze da izmeni fiziku, tj. dodatak CO2, N2O, itd u atmosferu, moze samo da je zagreje (bez obzira na lokalne, interanualne varijacije, one uslovljene okeanom, itd. Sve je to desetinama hiljada ljudi jako dobro poznato, barem koliko i Franksu). Ako Franks to nekako moze da opovrgne, neka opovrgne.____*) Treba napomenuti da se, kao naucnik, bavi prevashodno odnosom hidroinzinjeringa i klime. Odricanjem dejstva emisija CO2 na globalnu klimu se "bavi" iskljucivo po (politicki intoniranim) internet blogovima i slicnim mestima, ne naucnim casopisima.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Indy

[fonTelefon]

Niko nije nikad ni tvrdio da se svi eksperti (Flannery tu nije ukljucen bitan) slazu. Samo su tvrdili da se cca 97% njih slaze. Preostalih tri posto, sa simpatizerima, vise je nego dovoljno da napuni hiljade stranica blogova i foruma. Posto to pratim jedno 15 godina, mogu samo da konstatujem da nema nikakvih znacajnih novih elemenata na toj sceni.Par kisnih sezona ne definise klimu (mozda bi zaista trebalo obuciti ljude da razlikuju vreme od klime), a isto tako saka mavericka (i sa adekvatnom ekspertizom) ne znaci da je relacija izmedju koncentracije glasova staklene baste i prosecne globalne temperature atmosfere dovedena u pitanje.Franks jeste ekspert*, ali je uz to - isto tako bez sumnje - i radikalan klimatski skeptik: "Warming not caused by CO2".Inace, u udzbenicima nauke o promeni klime, znaci to je ono sto bi trebalo da zna svaki student, a ne kamoli profesor, stoji doslovno da se u buducnosti mogu ocekivati brojne godine hladnije (i vlaznije) od proseka, pa cak i citave decenije.Nije za dzabe klima definisana kao tridesetogodisnji (ili duzi) prosek vremenskih uslova. Znaci, sad smo imali drugu vlaznu sezonu u jednom kraju sveta i to je "dokaz" da je prica o promeni globalne klime nekako netacna. Znaci, niti je klima, niti je globalna.Medjutim, nepostojanje veze izmedju povecanja koncentracije CO2 i zagrevanja atmosfere je mnogo veci problem tu nego (prilicno standardna) prica o tome da je neko pobrkao varijabilnost sa promenom klime.Inace mi je oduvek izazivao transfer neprijatnosti neko kao Flannery (i mnogi njemu slicni) sa tvrdnjama "evo vruce je, znaci dokazano je da se globalna klima menja" (opet, niti je u pitanju klima, niti je globalno). U domenu svojih skromnih mogucnosti pokusavao sam da ih ispravim, i oni bi uvek rekli, jeste jeste, znamo da to nije klima, ali treba podsetiti ljude. Oficijelno, to je cak i nekakva strategija za objasnjavanje opasnosti od promene klime obicnim ljudima. Na zalost, o tome mene niko nije pitao, posto se ja sigurno s tim ne bih slozio. I sad, kad se takva nepazljiva strategija vraca sa kamatom ("Flannery out of his depth as flooding rains return") ja se naravno nisam nasao ni najmanje iznenadjen, samo to uopste ne moze da izmeni fiziku, tj. dodatak CO2, N2O, itd u atmosferu, moze samo da je zagreje (bez obzira na lokalne, interanualne varijacije, one uslovljene okeanom, itd. Sve je to desetinama hiljada ljudi jako dobro poznato, barem koliko i Franksu). Ako Franks to nekako moze da opovrgne, neka opovrgne.____*) Treba napomenuti da se, kao naucnik, bavi prevashodno odnosom hidroinzinjeringa i klime. Odricanjem dejstva emisija CO2 na globalnu klimu se "bavi" iskljucivo po (politicki intoniranim) internet blogovima i slicnim mestima, ne naucnim casopisima.

Moram da ti prvo objasnim da CO2 je mnogo manji uzrocnik efekta staklene baste od H20 i da si ti i drugari iz poljoprivrede zestoko doprineli emisiji istog u atmosferu, u mnogim zemljama protoci reka su smanjeni 20-40% zbog navodnjavanja i upotrebe u gradovima i da ne znam sta ti pratis 15 godina. CO2 je u svom delu spektra odavno popio sve od zracenja sa povrsine koje je imalo, dodavanje u modelima ne znam kako im uopste vise radi, sidebands qrc palac sve je nizeg reda velicine. emisija ch4 iz permafrosta i sa morskog dna je daleko veci izvor sada, ali to je i inace prirodan ciklus.

[Indy]

Moram da ti prvo objasnim da CO2 je mnogo manji uzrocnik efekta staklene baste od H20 i da si ti i drugari iz poljoprivrede zestoko doprineli emisiji istog u atmosferu...

Sto se ne pridruzis ovom ciki Franksu iznad, pa lepo to objasnite u nekom feature clanku u Science ili Nature? A ne meni.Nego se ubiste tvrdeci kako eksperti nisu eksperti i kako CO2 nije gas staklene baste - po forumima i blogovima. Pa ne dokazuje se to tako i na tom mestu. Znate vi dobro gde se to demonstrira.Apsolutno me fasciniraju tipovi koji su totalni anonimusi, ali singlehandledly demontiraju citave naucne discipline. Doduse, od fonTelefona me to ne cudi, to je veliki akademac kome je Amerika bila mala, pa se vratio u Srbiju da radi na Nobelu.Mali sam ja za to, pa zaboga ja sam samo student u mastersu iz klimatologije. Sace meni fonTelefonac da objasni. Moji profesori mogu da setaju. Edited March 17, 2012 by Indy

[fonTelefon]

Sto se ne pridruzis ovom ciki Franksu iznad, pa lepo to objasnite u nekom feature clanku u Science ili Nature? A ne meni.Nego se ubiste tvrdeci kako eksperti nisu eksperti i kako CO2 nije gas staklene baste - po forumima i blogovima. Pa ne dokazuje se to tako i na tom mestu. Znate vi dobro gde se to demonstrira.Apsolutno me fasciniraju tipovi koji su totalni anonimusi, ali singlehandledly demontiraju citave naucne discipline. Doduse, od fonTelefona me to ne cudi, to je veliki akademac kome je Amerika bila mala, pa se vratio u Srbiju da radi na Nobelu.Mali sam ja za to, pa zaboga ja sam samo student u mastersu iz klimatologije. Sace meni fonTelefonac da objasni. Moji profesori mogu da setaju.

FYI to pise u svakom udzbeniku tako da nije za te casopise, na kom dopisnom si kursu sad ne znam. http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/climateroles/ Kvaka je u onom antropogenom.

[iDemo]

Franks jeste ekspert*, ali je uz to - isto tako bez sumnje - i radikalan klimatski skeptik: "Warming not caused by CO2"....____*) Treba napomenuti da se, kao naucnik, bavi prevashodno odnosom hidroinzinjeringa i klime. Odricanjem dejstva emisija CO2 na globalnu klimu se "bavi" iskljucivo po (politicki intoniranim) internet blogovima i slicnim mestima, ne naucnim casopisima.

Kao sto rekoh - provalili su ga neki drugi ljudi, bash onako temeljno - "...he's an engineer, not a scientist".

Inace mi je oduvek izazivao transfer neprijatnosti neko kao Flannery (i mnogi njemu slicni) sa tvrdnjama "evo vruce je, znaci dokazano je da se globalna klima menja" (opet, niti je u pitanju klima, niti je globalno). U domenu svojih skromnih mogucnosti pokusavao sam da ih ispravim, i oni bi uvek rekli, jeste jeste, znamo da to nije klima, ali treba podsetiti ljude. Oficijelno, to je cak i nekakva strategija za objasnjavanje opasnosti od promene klime obicnim ljudima. Na zalost, o tome mene niko nije pitao, posto se ja sigurno s tim ne bih slozio.

Upravo je u tome, cenim ja, najveci problem - sto 'upotreba' takvih "dokaza" u te svrhe radi - dok radi - a kad prestane da radi onda je kompletno kontraproduktivna. Posle ispadnu josh smeshniji kad krenu da govore kako ustvari i poplave i cunami talasi i ko zna sta sve jos - osim tradicionalne sushe - dokazuje globalno zagrevanje. Ljudi jesu - u proseku - naivni & neobaveshteni al' ih ne treba bash toliko potcenjivati... Narocito ove sto su iz ekipe "he's an engineer, not a scientist". Anyway - bice zanimljivo.