Globalno zagrevanje

[iDemo]

#onokad se zaletish kad nema vode pa te posle zovu kad ima da overish... 

[iDemo]

[ivy]

to ja tvrdim vec odavno..

[Tale]

Šta, da globalno zagrevanje ne postoji? (ne mogu da pogledam video sada)

[ivy]

da,ne postoji

[ivy]

doduse cova podrzava nuklearnu energiju i ima dosta cudnih stavova sa kojima se ne slazem..ali stvar je u merenju i premalo vremena za statistiku

vreme se precizno meri tek 50god a to nije ni mikron u vremenu za tvrdnje o promenama..

 

previse ljudi i zagadjenje su problem ali ugl za zivotnu sredinu,okeane,sume,zivi svet i ostalo na zemlji..atmosfera je malo izdrzljivija od toga..

[Frile]

vreme se precizno meri tek 50god

 

netačno

[Have_Fun]

da,ne postoji

pa i ovo je netacno, al` svako moze da veruje ili ne veruje u sta hoce

[ivy]

naravno.

[Tale]

Što se tope glečeri?

 

A glede zagađenja: nikada mi neće biti jasno zašto se taj silni novac koji se troši na vađenje i preradu nafte i gasa ne preusmeri u vetro, hidro i solarne generatore

[radisa]

Što se tope glečeri?

 

A glede zagađenja: nikada mi neće biti jasno zašto se taj silni novac koji se troši na vađenje i preradu nafte i gasa ne preusmeri u vetro, hidro i solarne generatore

Stvarno ti nije jasno?

[MancMellow]

Što se tope glečeri?

 

A glede zagađenja: nikada mi neće biti jasno zašto se taj silni novac koji se troši na vađenje i preradu nafte i gasa ne preusmeri u vetro, hidro i solarne generatore

 

:D

[Tale]

Pa stvarno. Mislim, i ovde može da se zarađuje kako god zamisliš pogotovo ako ti ona prljava energija nije dostupna.

[hazard]

A glede zagađenja: nikada mi neće biti jasno zašto se taj silni novac koji se troši na vađenje i preradu nafte i gasa ne preusmeri u vetro, hidro i solarne generatore

 

salis se je l' tako :D

 

Akonto gornjeg nobelovca: da jedan nobelovac (koji je fizicar, a ne klimatolog) je sigurno u pravu naspram 99% klimatoloske zajednice na planeti. Sad ce neko da kaze "ali naucni konsenzus je gresio i ranije!" - ok, jeste, ali sa klimatskim promenama i globalnim zagrevanjem je stvar prilicno laka za rasudjivanje. Pod uslovom da su naucnici upravu, koliko kosta da ignorisemo njihove stav, a koliko kosta da postupimo po njihovim savetima? Ako ih ignorisemo, a u pravu su, rezultat na dugi rok su katastroficne klimatske promene koje mogu kostati zivota milione ljudi. Ako ih ne ignorisemo, a ispadne da nisu bili u pravu, ispasce da smo mozda bezveze potrosili neku veliku sumu novca i placali vise za energiju, ali u sustini trosak je skoro pa cisto monetarni, svakako se ne meri u milionima nestalih zivota. Za mene je to kompletni no-brainer.

 

Inace evo vam jedan clanak coveka koji je bio medju najglasnijim skepticima, pa je odlucio da sam sa drugim naucnicima koji su takodje bili skepticni prodje kroz podatke, i onda je potpuno promenio misljenje i sada itekako veruje u globalno zagrevanje kao posledicu ljudskih aktivnosti:

 

 

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

 

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

 

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

 

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

 

The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.

 

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

[zakintos]

znaci maja volk je u pravu  :o sva goveda na planeti kad prdnu™ omotac prokljuca