Globalno zagrevanje

[hazard]

sve objasnjeno u jednoj recenici (bold)

 

 

John Kerry has attacked “powerful forces” that have resisted action on climate change as he prepares to step down as US secretary of state, with his likely successor to be ExxonMobil boss Rex Tillerson.

 

“Powerful forces, invested in the status quo are working against change. But the fact is that change has already started. We need to find ways to speed it up dramatically,” said Kerry.

 

“Now this really shouldn’t be a tough call. But as I said, we face resistance of a strange combination of doubters and people making a lot of money off today’s paradigm. That’s what it’s all about.”

 

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/01/09/kerry-criticises-vested-interests-as-he-steps-aside-for-oil-man/

 

edit: e da, i ovo je dobro rekao

 

 

But Kerry called on policymakers to truly factor in the costs associated with burning fossil fuels – from health impacts of pollution, to the clean-up costs of disasters. Those costs, he said “in the case of dirty fuels are enough to at least double or triple the more obvious upfront expense”.

Edited January 10, 2017 by hazard

[iDemo]

Sad sam pronasao brojeve sto je ovaj baja gore veselo i samouvereno propustio™ kroz nekakvu least-square refresiju koja kao raste dramaticno™. 

Ima da ih pustim predvece kroz statisticke testove - onako sporta radi pa da delimo rezultate. 

 

Period je 457 meseci: 1978/12 do 2016/12.

Koliko je kosher da odvojim za prvi period a koliko za drugi - pola/pola ili 3/4 i 1/4 ili 90/10 (%) - ili da probamo sve pa kako nam bob da??

12 statistickih testova ce pokazati da li se/kako/koliko razlikuju ta dva period (kako god da ih izaberem/o) - dakle - ne shac-metoda "vidi se na oko" nego ljucki i covecanski statisticki test(ovi)... 

[iDemo]

 

TREND is designed to facilitate statistical testing for trend, change and randomness in hydrological and other time series data.

 

TREND has 12 statistical tests, based on the WMO/UNESCO Expert Workshop on Trend/Change Detection and the CRC for Catchment Hydrology publication Hydrological Recipes.

 

Kundzewicz, Z.W. and Robson, A. (Editors) (2000)  Detecting Trend and Other Changes in Hydrological Data. World Climate Program – Water, WMO/UNESCO, WCDMP-45, WMO/TD 1013, Geneva, 157 pp.

 

Grayson, R.B., Argent, R.M., Nathan, R.J., McMahon, T.A. and Mein, R. (1996)  Hydrological Recipes: Estimation Techniques in Australian Hydrology. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Australia, 125 pp.

 

 

 

 

Statistical tests in TREND

 

Tests for trend

 

Mann-Kendall (non-parametric)

Spearman’s Rho (non-parametric)

Linear Regression (parametric)

 

Tests for step change in mean/median

 

Distribution Free CUSUM (non-parametric)

Cumulative Deviation (parametric)

Worsley Likelihood Ratio (parametric)

 

Tests for difference in mean/median in two different data periods

 

Rank-Sum (non-parametric)

Student’s t-test (parametric)

 

Tests for randomness

 

Median Crossing (non-parametric)

Turning Points (non-parametric)

Rank Difference (non-parametric)

Autocorrelation (parametric)

 

 

Cautionary Words

 

Must have good data and must understand data (via exploratory data analysis).

 

Must understand statistical test and the assumptions.

 

A statistical test provides evidence, not proof.

 

Significance is not the same as importance (e.g., a change may be detected, but the size of the change may be so small that it is of no importance).

 

If H0 is rejected, the reason for the trend/change must be investigated.

 

Svih 12 testova pokazuje da je onaj niz gore zaista statisticki drugaciji (increasing trend) u drugoj polovini perioda (i kad se podeli na pola  a i kad se ostavi samo 10-15 niza za "period #2". Ima jedan mali disclaimer - TREND je pravljen i dizajniran za analizu i "obradu" godisnjih vrednosti (prosecnih padavina, protoka i slicno) - sto ne mora samo po sebi da bude problematicno al' bi se nesumnjivo svaki skeptik prvo uhvatio za to. S druge strane - razvlaciti 'dijagonalu' kao sto je onaj baja uradio moze samo da izazove grceve u stomaku kod ljudi kojima je statistika makar maglovito poznata... 

 

inace, 

Support for Trend has been discontinued.

Trend functionality is available within the Water Quality Analyser tool.

Please contact us at support@ewater.com.au should you have any questions.

 

WQA danas kosta A$299 na godinu al' ja iskusno imam TREND instalaciju iz 2005te. Radi uz dotnetfx - Microsoft dotNET Framework Version 1.1 Redistributable Package + vjredist_1.1.4322.  I legalno je - proverio sam kod support@ewater.com.au 

 

Ovo moze (svako?) uradi za pola sata (sa sve instalacijom) i ne vidim zasto bi se diskusija vodila na nivou dogmatsko/verske umesto na nivou klinicko/naucno/inzenjerske. Otvoreno je pitanje - zasto samo 1978-2016, da li je niz homogen i sto i jedno drugo pitanje al' ako do njih ne moze da se stigne od panike i drame - je@o ti tu nauku...

[iDemo]

10-15%

[Zverilla]

Svih 12 testova pokazuje da je onaj niz gore zaista statisticki drugaciji (increasing trend) u drugoj polovini perioda (i kad se podeli na pola  a i kad se ostavi samo 10-15 niza za "period #2". Ima jedan mali disclaimer - TREND je pravljen i dizajniran za analizu i "obradu" godisnjih vrednosti (prosecnih padavina, protoka i slicno) - sto ne mora samo po sebi da bude problematicno al' bi se nesumnjivo svaki skeptik prvo uhvatio za to. S druge strane - razvlaciti 'dijagonalu' kao sto je onaj baja uradio moze samo da izazove grceve u stomaku kod ljudi kojima je statistika makar maglovito poznata... 

 

niz od pre 1978 ide jos vise u korist trenda koji si i ti potvrdio.

e sad, zasto je opalio neku linearnu regresiju? rekao bih, zato sto postuje na tviteru i obraca se astrucnim ljudima, gde niti ima mesta za detaljnu analizu, niti bi je vecina shvatila.

naucni radovi su zasigurno odradili, ali ko ce od obicnog plebsa da procita 10 naucnih radova koji imaju vise od 2 reda a nemaju ni clickbait naslov

(sad, sumnjam da ce i ovaj tvit promeniti stav i jednog jedinog od onih koji odbijaju da priznaju da globalno zagrevanje postoji i da je izazvano ljudskim delovanjem, ali to je vec vise tema o socijalnim medijima neg o zagrevanju :) )

 

Ovo moze (svako?) uradi za pola sata (sa sve instalacijom) i ne vidim zasto bi se diskusija vodila na nivou dogmatsko/verske umesto na nivou klinicko/naucno/inzenjerske. Otvoreno je pitanje - zasto samo 1978-2016, da li je niz homogen i sto i jedno drugo pitanje al' ako do njih ne moze da se stigne od panike i drame - je@oti tu nauku...

 

tvoja analiza trenda (za koju ti svaka cast - nije tipicno za forumsku diskusiju da se neko toliko potrudi da objektivno analizira svoju tezu, i onda kaze da nije u pravu), ali zapravo ne pokazuje/dokazuje bas mnogo. narocito ne da je zagrevanje izazvano covekovim delovanjem i sagorevanjem fosilnih goriva

 

kao sto rekoh gore, ovaj, i mnogi drugi pojedinacni skupovi podataka su detaljno analizirani u nauci, ali svaki od njih, bez obzira na to koliko je statisticki validan, se moze dovesti u pitanje. ako nicim drugim, cuvenim pitanjem da li iz korelacije sledi kauzacija

ono sto (za mene kao laika, i bitnije, za vecinu onih koji se profesionalno bave klimatskim promenama) predstavlja dokaz globalnog zagrevanja je da se sve te nezavisne analize slazu u zakljucku da zagrevanje postoji, i da je izazvano ljudskim faktorom

odlican i poduzi clanak o tome mozes naci ovde, ako te zanima

https://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32#.ntu9ycp0i

Edited January 14, 2017 by Zverilla

[iDemo]

Hvala.

Da vidis s kojim sam ja karakondzulama morao da se fajtam da bi dokazao™ povecanje oticaja u rekama/potocima (reda velicine par procenata) nastalo veshtackim osemenjivanjem™ oblaka sve bi ti bilo jasno... :)

 

Ko god misli da savremena klimatologija, meteorologija i dalje redom imaju odgovor na odredjena pitanja nek' razmisli jos jednom pre nego sto stavi na to neku paru. Ja im dinar ne bi dao - ni za nauku ni za sav taj verski zanos i krstashki duh kojim pokusavaju da nadoknade cega nema i da popune tamo gde je shuplje. 

[iDemo]

https://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32#.ntu9ycp0i

Simpatican clanak.

[hazard]

niz od pre 1978 ide jos vise u korist trenda koji si i ti potvrdio.

e sad, zasto je opalio neku linearnu regresiju? rekao bih, zato sto postuje na tviteru i obraca se astrucnim ljudima, gde niti ima mesta za detaljnu analizu, niti bi je vecina shvatila.

naucni radovi su zasigurno odradili, ali ko ce od obicnog plebsa da procita 10 naucnih radova koji imaju vise od 2 reda a nemaju ni clickbait naslov

(sad, sumnjam da ce i ovaj tvit promeniti stav i jednog jedinog od onih koji odbijaju da priznaju da globalno zagrevanje postoji i da je izazvano ljudskim delovanjem, ali to je vec vise tema o socijalnim medijima neg o zagrevanju :) )

 

 

Meni je uopste smesna ideja da se preko tvitera sa svojim ogranicenjem od 140 karaktera raspravlja o takvim stvarima. Da ne pricamo o tome da jednostavno, vecina bitnih stvari na svetu i u drustvu prevazilazi kognitivne sposobnosti vecine ljudi

[iDemo]

Meni je uopste smesna ideja da se preko tvitera sa svojim ogranicenjem od 140 karaktera raspravlja o takvim stvarima. Da ne pricamo o tome da jednostavno, vecina bitnih stvari na svetu i u drustvu prevazilazi kognitivne sposobnosti vecine ljudi

Jasno i vrlo precizno... :) 

 

Osim toga - novi prilozi™ za biografiju ostatka sveta - a sve u tom smislu... 

 

[Zverilla]

Meni je uopste smesna ideja da se preko tvitera sa svojim ogranicenjem od 140 karaktera raspravlja o takvim stvarima. 

 

pa najbolje je cutati, dok "skeptici" tvitaju kako je sve to masonska zavera i da podaci zapravo pokazuju da crva nije bilo.

 

ne zaboravi da politicari u normalnim drzavama kolko-tolko deluju po tome sta od njih glasacko telo ocekuje.

a glasacko telo se ne informise u Journal of Climate - American Meteorological Society, vec bas na tom skrnavom tviteru

[ivy]

Ono sto je mene uvek zanimalo a nikada nisam uspeo da pronadjem odgovarajuci odgovor je sledece: koriscenjem vetrenjaca isisava se neka energija iz vetra, tj. iz klimatskog sistema. Ako se vetrenjace koriste na nekom megamasivnom nivou, u kom trenutku to oduzimanje energije pocinje da utice na sam klimatski sistem? Lokalno, globalno?

 

 

 

 

to nema nikakvog uticaja..vetar nastaje zbog razlike u vazdusnom pritisku izmedju dve neke oblasti,dakle on je posledica i ima energiju pa je ima..

on okrece turbine i nastavlja dalje mozda oslabljen ali nema neki znacajan uticaj na eko sistem ..kao i talasi koji su posledica nekog procesa..

 

na vreme najvise uticu sunceva energija/toplota i vazdusni pritisak pa vlaga u vazduhu pa vetar(koji je ugl posledica)

[ivy]

Ovako laicki, kapiram da i sume menjaju strukturu vetra i kradu deo energije pa se opet ljudi ubise u preporukama da se posumljava ko blesavo.

 

 

 

 

pa suma ima vise benefita..vetar ionako samo isusuje i odnosi zemljiste pa i u tom smislu vetrobrana treba da se posumljava a o kiseoniku,antierozivnom dejstvu i stanistu za zivotinje da ne pricamo..

[ivy]

ugl vetar i talasi ce prestati kad planeta prestane da se okrece posto su velikim delom i posledica toga

[hazard]

ne zaboravi da politicari u normalnim drzavama kolko-tolko deluju po tome sta od njih glasacko telo ocekuje.

a glasacko telo se ne informise u Journal of Climate - American Meteorological Society, vec bas na tom skrnavom tviteru

 

U normalnim drzavama politicari imaju strucna savetodavna tela i vagaju ono sto im ta tela kazu i javno mnjenje. Pa i pokusavaju da edukuju to javno mnjenje i da im prenesu jednostavnije ono sto im kazu strucna tela. Dobar deo drzavne politike je na taj nacin "top-down" a ne "bottom up"

[hazard]

Pronadjen je novi metod za skupljanje ugljen dioksida direktno iz vazduha, i to izgleda slucajno. Vodeni rastvor spec. materijala koji se u dodiru sa vazduhom kristalizuje, a ti kristali ustvari "zarobljavaju" CO2. Kada se kristali zagreju na 80 do 120 stepeni celzijusa, CO2 se ispusta i ponovo se dobija originalni materijal koji moze opet da se koristi za "hvatanje" CO2 iz vazduha. Dakle teoretski bi ovakvi rastvori mogli da se postave na raznim mestima, pa da se CO2 u kristalnoj formi transportuje negde gde je odredjeno mesto za recimo vracanje CO2 pod zemlju, CO2 se ispusti, a rastvori se vrate "u pogon".

 

https://www.ornl.gov/news/crystallization-method-offers-new-option-carbon-capture-ambient-air

 

 

OAK RIDGE, Tenn., Jan. 9, 2017 – Scientists at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory have found a simple, reliable process to capture carbon dioxide directly from ambient air, offering a new option for carbon capture and storage strategies to combat global warming. 

 

Initially, the ORNL team was studying methods to remove environmental contaminants such as sulfate, chromate or phosphate from water. To remove those negatively charged ions, the researchers synthesized a simple compound known as guanidine designed to bind strongly to the contaminants and form insoluble crystals that are easily separated from water. 

 

In the process, they discovered a method to capture and release carbon dioxide that requires minimal energy and chemical input. Their results are published in the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 

 

“When we left an aqueous solution of the guanidine open to air, beautiful prism-like crystals started to form,” ORNL’s Radu Custelcean said. “After analyzing their structure by X-ray diffraction, we were surprised to find the crystals contained carbonate, which forms when carbon dioxide from air reacts with water.”

 

Decades of research has led to the development of carbon capture and long-term storage strategies to lessen the output or remove power plants’ emissions of carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas contributing to a global rise in temperatures. Carbon capture and storage strategies comprise an integrated system of technologies that collects carbon dioxide from the point of release or directly from the air, then transports and stores it at designated locations. 

 

A less traditional method that absorbs carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere, called direct air capture, is the focus of ORNL’s research described in this paper, although it could also be used at the point where carbon dioxide is emitted.

 

Once carbon dioxide is captured, it needs to be released from the compound so the gas can be transported, usually through a pipeline, and injected deep underground for storage. Traditional direct air capture materials must be heated up to 900 degrees Celsius to release the gas -- a process that often emits more carbon dioxide than initially removed. The ORNL-developed guanidine material offers a less energy-intensive alternative.

 

“Through our process, we were able to release the bound carbon dioxide by heating the crystals at 80-120 degrees Celsius, which is relatively mild when compared with current methods,” Custelcean said. After heating, the crystals reverted to the original guanidine material. The recovered compound was recycled through three consecutive carbon capture and release cycles. 

 

While the direct air capture method is gaining traction, according to Custelcean, the process needs to be further developed and aggressively implemented to be effective in combatting global warming. Also, they need to gain a better understanding of the guanidine material and how it could benefit existing and future carbon capture and storage applications. 

 

The research team is now studying the material’s crystalline structure and properties with the unique neutron scattering capabilities at ORNL’s Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), a DOE Office of Science User Facility. By analyzing carbonate binding in the crystals, they hope to better understand the molecular mechanism of carbon dioxide capture and release and help design the next generation of sorbents. 

 

The scientists also plan to evaluate the use of solar energy as a sustainable heat source to release the bound carbon dioxide from the crystals. 

The study titled, “CO2 Capture from Ambient Air by Crystallization with a Guanidine Sorbent,” included Charles Seipp of ORNL and the University of Texas at Austin; Neil Williams of ORNL and the University of Tennessee; and ORNL’s Michelle Kidder and Radu Custelcean. 

The research was funded by DOE’s Office of Science.