Ekologija

Share
avatar

Posts : 6396
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: Ekologija

Post by Gargantua on Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:05 pm

Nerd stuff: ima jedan akademski članak o dokumentu CIA o Jugoslaviji iz oktobra 1990 (NIE 15-90) koji je, manje-više, deprimirano zaključio da će se zemlja raspasti. Zadnjih par godina se taj dokument izučava kao primer koji ne treba ponavljati, ne treba šokirati političare i ugurati ih u poziciju u kojoj oni ne veruju da postoje aktivne radnje koje se mogu preduzeti.

Ok, različite su kategorije tekstova i različite su publike kojima se obraćaju, ali mehanizam delovanja je zanimljiv.
avatar

Posts : 7403
Join date : 2015-11-26
Location : Location, Location

Re: Ekologija

Post by Kinder Lad on Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:15 pm

Da, ok, to je jedan, legitiman, nacin razmisljanja. Drugi je da ako politicarima kazes da moze sve da se iskontrolise da ce oni, usled otpora biznisa, biti u fazonu - ok ima vremena. Ne znam, nisam pametan.


_____
alt-lib
avatar

Posts : 5520
Join date : 2015-05-16

Re: Ekologija

Post by No Country on Tue Jul 11, 2017 12:35 am

Нисам још стигао да прочитам чланак, али мислим да људе (у крајњој инстанци) треба плашити. Оно у принципу не треба, треба им разумно скренути пажњу на чињенице... но шта да радиш када то доказано не помаже?
avatar

Posts : 10566
Join date : 2014-12-01

Re: Ekologija

Post by Filipenko on Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:34 am

No Country wrote:Нисам још стигао да прочитам чланак, али мислим да људе (у крајњој инстанци) треба плашити. Оно у принципу не треба, треба им разумно скренути пажњу на чињенице... но шта да радиш када то доказано не помаже?


Jel tako radite i sa staljinizmom? Ono, ako ih već ne možemo ubediti u lepotu demokratizma, daj barem da pljujemo i klevetamo da ogadimo ljudima slobodu, narodnu demokratiju, socijalizam?
avatar

Posts : 6396
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: Ekologija

Post by Gargantua on Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:23 am

Još reakcija:




https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/is-the-earth-really-that-doomed/533112/

Are We as Doomed as That New York Magazine Article Says?
Why it's so hard to talk about the worst problem in the world


No one knows how to talk about climate change right now.

I don’t have an idea about where to begin, and I write about it professionally. On the one hand, the natural consequences of climate change seem increasingly severe and devastating. Just in the past two years, I’ve written about how global warming will probably cause more mega-droughts in Arizona and New Mexico; how dangerously sweltering summer days are three times likelier to occur today than they were in 1900; and how even slightly warmer oceans will destroy the Great Barrier Reef.

On the other hand, a strategy for addressing climate change is coming together. The cost of solar and wind energy are plunging worldwide; carmakers are promising to take more of their fleet electric, and the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere from human activity has stabilized over the past three years. Decarbonizing will be an arduous and difficult global project—but technological development and government policy are finally bringing it into the realm of the possible.

But on the other, other hand, the Trump administration is methodically and successfully undermining the substance of American climate policy. It has spread untruths about climate science, abandoned the Paris Agreement, and stricken dozens of climate-focused EPA rules from the law books. Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton professor who has observed climate diplomacy for 30 years, told me that this is one of the most dispiriting moments he can remember—and that he believes Earth is now doomed to warm by more than two degrees Celsius.

That’s the state of the world right now. There are three ongoing shifts and no easy way to synthesize them. The facts don’t lend themselves to an overwhelming vision. Instead, they suggest that the planet’s economic system is in the middle of a difficult and supremely important political battle with itself. As Brad Plumer, a New York Times climate reporter, tweeted last week: There are “two radically opposed visions of the future; [it’s] not yet clear which one will win out.”

It’s into that morass that this week’s New York magazine walks. In a widely shared article, David Wallace-Wells sketches the bleakest possible scenario for global warming. He warns of a planet so awash in greenhouse gas that Brooklyn’s heat waves will rival Bahrain’s. The breadbaskets of China and the United States will enter a debilitating and everlasting drought, he says. And millions of brains will so lack oxygen that they’ll slip into a carbon-induced confusion.

Unless we take aggressive action, “parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” he writes. “No matter how well-informed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough.”

It’s a scary vision—which is okay, because climate change is scary. It is also an unusually specific and severe depiction of what global warming will do to the planet. And though Wallace-Wells makes it clear that he’s not predicting the future, only trying to spin out the consequences of the best available science today, it’s fair to ask: Is it realistic? Will this heat-wracked doomsday come to pass?  

Many climate scientists and professional science communicators say no. Wallace-Wells’s article, they say, often flies beyond the realm of what researchers think is likely. I have to agree with them.

At key points in his piece, Wallace-Wells posits facts that mainstream climate science cannot support. In the introduction, he suggests that the world’s permafrost will belch all of its methane into the atmosphere as it melts, accelerating the planet’s warming in the decades to come. We don’t know everything about methane yet, but the picture does not seem this bleak. Melting permafrost will emit methane, and methane is an ultra-potent greenhouse gas, but scientists do not think so much it will escape in the coming century.

“The science on this is much more nuanced and doesn’t support the notion of a game-changing, planet-melting methane bomb,” writes Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State, in a Facebook post. “It is unclear that much of this frozen methane can be readily mobilized by projected warming.”

At other points, Wallace-Wells misstates what we know about the climate change that has already happened. Satellite data does not show that the world has warmed twice as fast as scientists thought, as he says; rather, the observed warming has tracked pretty close to what the models predicted. Carbon-dioxide levels only get high enough to seriously depress brain function in indoor spaces, though he implies it will become a global problem. Most importantly, we do not know nearly as much about climate change and war as he claims—an idea that I will return to in a moment.

This isn’t to say that his piece is worth discarding in its entirety. Wallace-Wells paints a vivid and frightening version of a doomed world. Many scientists just don’t think we live in that world—and they don’t think it’s helpful to tell people that we do.



Over the past decade, most researchers have trended away from climate doomsdayism. They cite research suggesting that people respond better to hopeful messages, not fatalistic ones; and they meticulously fact-check public descriptions of global warming, as watchful for unsupported exaggeration as they are for climate-change denial.

They do this not because they think that climate change will be peachy. They do it because they want to be exceptionally careful with facts for such a vital issue. And many of them, too, think that a climate-changed world will look less like a starved wasteland and more like our current home—just more unequal and more impoverished.

What does that world look like? We got a fairly good look late last month, actually, when a new consortium of economists and scientists called the Climate Impact Lab published their first study in the journal Science. Their research looks at how global warming will afflict Americans economically, on a county-by-county level. It tells a frightening but much more mundane story.

Climate change, they say, will not turn us into idiots before broiling us in our sleep. Instead, it will act as a kind of ecological reverse Robin Hood, stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. It will impoverish many of the poorest communities in the country—arrayed across the South and Southwest, and especially along the Gulf Coast—while increasing the fortunes of cities and suburbs on both of the coasts.

“This study—the climate equivalent of being informed that smoking carries serious risk of lung cancer—should be enough to motivate us,” says Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist and professor of political science at Texas Tech University. “The NYMag article is the climate equivalent of being told that everyone in the world’s life will end in the most grisly, worst-case possible scenario if we keep on smoking.”

The Climate Impact Labs’ accounting is a much likelier view of what is “much more likely to occur than the doomsday scenario,” she added.

Other communicators reject Wallace-Wells’s approach for a third reason: He glosses over the many reasons that climate advocates now have hope. Many of these criticisms came not from researchers but from other climate communicators. “Through combo of exaggeration and hopelessness, [the NYMag piece] turns away those in the middle we need to persuade. It makes action harder,” tweeted Ramez Naam, a technologist and novelist. “We’ve made huge climate strides. Business-as-usual used to mean six or seven degrees Celsius or warming. Now it looks like three to four, and [it’s] trending down.”

Chuck Wendig, another novelist, called the story irresponsible. “It leans very hard on the EXTINCTION PORN angle, and almost not at all on the BUT HERE'S WHAT WE DO angle,” he said on Twitter.

I’m not so sure about this last angle. I have been writing about climate change nearly full-time for several years now. I don’t think journalists should frame the truth to better inspire people—that’s not our job.

But I vacillate considerably on the doom versus no-doom question. Consider what Wallace-Wells writes about climate change and war:

Researchers like Marshall Burke and Solomon Hsiang have managed to quantify some of the non-obvious relationships between temperature and violence: For every half-degree of warming, they say, societies will see between a 10 and 20 percent increase in the likelihood of armed conflict. In climate science, nothing is simple, but the arithmetic is harrowing: A planet five degrees warmer would have at least half again as many wars as we do today. Overall, social conflict could more than double this century.

That final sentence is simplistic; we cannot wield careful social science conclusions like an abacus. It is also too certain: While Burke and Hsiang have found links between conflict and climate change, another group of researchers from Oslo have found far weaker connections. They observe a link between natural disaster and war only when a country is divided by ethnicity.

Yet this is worrisome by itself. Consider the world that climate scientists say is more realistic: a place where sea levels cause mass migration within and without the developed world; where the economy is never great but isn’t in shambles either; where voters fear for their livelihoods and superpowers poke at each others’ weaknesses.

Does that world sound like a safe and secure place to live? Does it sound like a workable status quo? And how many small wars need to start in that world before they all fuse together? Who needs planet-killing methane burps when nine different countries have 15,000 nuclear weapons between them? In short, there are plenty of doomsday scenarios to worry about. They don’t need to be catastrophic on their face to induce catastrophe.
avatar

Posts : 5520
Join date : 2015-05-16

Re: Ekologija

Post by No Country on Tue Jul 11, 2017 4:47 pm

Filipenko wrote:
No Country wrote:Нисам још стигао да прочитам чланак, али мислим да људе (у крајњој инстанци) треба плашити. Оно у принципу не треба, треба им разумно скренути пажњу на чињенице... но шта да радиш када то доказано не помаже?


Jel tako radite i sa staljinizmom? Ono, ako ih već ne možemo ubediti u lepotu demokratizma, daj barem da pljujemo i klevetamo da ogadimo ljudima slobodu, narodnu demokratiju, socijalizam?
Аха, Стаљину су спаковали. Fake news. Bad!

Примера ради, знаш ли колико је предратних чланова КПЈ преживело Стаљина, у Москви? Један. Од њих двадесет и кусур.

Прочитах чланак у међувремену. Шта да вам кажем... заправо се не сећам времена у коме није могао да се напише сличан чланак, али на друге теме. Нпр. о лепотама нуклеарне зиме, или како ће нас све побити озонска рупа. Са друге стране, глобално загревање се врло успешно игнорише од стране политичара а богами и најшире јавности, или му се у најбољем случају учини становити lip-service, а ла млађахни Трудо - тако да мрачења ове врсте могу да имају сврху. Коначно, и са хладним ратом и са озоном смо нешто урадили - када смо се довољно уплашили.
avatar

Posts : 6396
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: Ekologija

Post by Gargantua on Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:41 pm

‘Personally, I Would Rate the Likelihood of Staying Under Two Degrees of Warming As Under 10 Percent’: Michael Oppenheimer on the ‘Unknown Unknowns’ of Climate Change
By   [url=http://nymag.com/author/David Wallace-Wells/] David Wallace-Wells[/url]  
 
This week, to accompany our cover story on worst-case climate scenarios, we’re publishing a series of extended interviews with climatologists on the subject — most of them from the “godfather generation” of scientists who first raised the alarm about global warming several decades ago.
Now a professor at Princeton, Michael Oppenheimer was the longtime chief scientist of the Environmental Defense Fund’s Climate and Air program, and was an early force in the U.N. efforts on climate change that resulted, ultimately, in the Kyoto protocol. He has also been a long-standing participant in the U.N.’s IPCC climate-reporting project, including serving as the lead author of its 2007 Fourth Assessment. But he has also, over the years, spoken out about the limitations of the IPCC process and the reports it produces.


How do you think about the IPCC process and their estimates? I know you’ve been critical in the past.
I’ve been involved in the IPCC since the first assessments, and while I have criticisms of the way certain aspects of the climate system have been assessed by the IPCC and the way the judgments were reported, I certainly think the whole process has done what it was supposed to — to give government a basis for proceeding to develop policy rather than spending their time arguing about the science. All the governments accept the science. So IPCC has done a good job, but it could do a better job.
My own involvement in the question you’ve asked goes back 30 years —more than that, actually. The key question: What are the risks that we really ought to worry about, what are the risks that ought to frame policy including outcomes that might be unlikely but, were they to occur, would have massive impact. These are the kinds of things that I’ve long thought that policy makers ought to be paying attention to, they are the kinds of things that the intelligence community and the Defense Department has long focused on.
They are not focused on the average of what might happen, they worry about the surprises — what Donald Rumsfield notably tried to distinguish when he talked about the “known unknowns” and the “unknown unknowns.” We have both categories with climate. There are things we can identify as potentially happening but can’t really quantify very well — those are the known unknowns. And then are the things that we are constantly challenged by, that happened and which we didn’t really predict or even identify as a possible outcome — the unknown unknowns. In the latter category you might put the speed at which ice has been lost in Greenland and Antarctica, by processes that were not anticipated and barely thought about at all in the early IPCC reports. The classic surprise in all of this wasn’t in climate, it was in the ozone — the appearance of the ozone hole.
That’s really the best example of an unknown unknown showing up.

What are the frontiers of understanding right now as you see them? What are the things we should be trying to study more, or things that haven’t yet been integrated into our understanding?

For a long time — going back at least to 1983, the ice sheets and the potential for rapid loss of ice was thought about, and attempts were made to quantify the likelihood. In fact there was enough attention early on it that I shouldn’t even have called it an unknown unknown — that should be in the category of known unknown.
For decades, scientists have tried to model the ice sheets better, and to observe them better. The field has grown over time, and we’ve started to accumulate a lot of data and started seeing these bizarre things happening in the mid-1990s. The scientific consensus had landed on the idea that ice sheets couldn’t move fast, they could only move glacially, to make a little joke. It turned out that things were happening rapidly in both ice sheets. The old picture was that it was going to be millennia. And if the West Antarctic ice sheet were to disgorge its ice sheet, which would result in something like four meters, if it did that over the course of a century that would be huge. That idea was totally disfavored, until we started to see, over the last 20 years or so, we started to see that ice sheets were beginning to move fast in various parts, and some very surprising things were happening, like the collapse of a gigantic part of an ice shelf in the course of a few weeks in 2002.
That was important not just because it showed how fast ice can disintegrate, but also because the ice behind that ice shelf began discharging faster into the ocean, causes a faster sea-level effect. Other things like that began to happen quite a lot. But it remains, to a large extent, an unknown unknown. There is no well-accepted way of incorporating ice melt into climate models. That, to me, remains, of the things we have reason to believe have a fairly good chance of happening over time as the world warms, that remains the most risky. Because we know if we warm the world enough, it’s going to happen.
And the reason we know that the last time the world was two degrees warmer, sea levels were between six and nine meters higher. And that could only happen if parts of Antarctica and the Greenland ice sheet had melted. So we know it’s going to happen with only a relatively modest warming, we just don’t know how fast, and that’s critically important.

What kind of warming is likely? I know that there are so many factors that go into that, including how we adapt; what is the likelihood we stay below two degrees?

I think the likelihood that we stay below two degrees even with diligent efforts was relatively small — maybe 20 percent, in my view — before the Trump withdrawal from Paris. And the likelihood is now increased markedly that we’re not going to make the two degrees. Personally I would rate the likelihood as under 10 percent. So I think we need to be prepared for a world where we are going to have eventually a large sea-level rise, for a world in which we have extended episodes of unbearable excess heat, for a world where eventually crop yields will decline significantly in parts of the world and cause food-security problems that go over the edge at least periodically, and that means more starvation and malnutrition. Where natural ecosystems like coral reefs, some of them, are going to be doomed. We’re probably already bought into a world we’re not going to like very much — and the likelihood of other surprising outcomes is increasing markedly. One of the ones that’s already been pointed to that is of special concern is a shutdown or slowing of the ocean conveyor belt.

Can you walk me through what that would mean, if that slowed down significantly?

It’s called the MOC, and it performs several functions — it basically transfers heat, humidity, and salinity from the southern latitudes to the high latitudes. That’s one factor in keeping parts of Europe warmer than they would otherwise be, another factor is that a bunch of Europe has a semi-maritime climate. Projections do show that the extreme parts of NW Europe, under simulations that shut-down the circulation, do show a colder climate, rather than a warmer climate. Other parts of Scandinavia could get much colder. Depending on how fast that happens, it could be very damaging. Changes can occur over the course of a decade, or less in some cases. But we don’t know how fast those switches can happen. In a warm period like we’re in now, or even in a “super warm” period like it looks like we’re gonna be in in the future. That’s one of the big known unknowns. And, potentially, it could be quite threatening, because if it happens as rapidly as it did in the distant past it would be difficult for societies to adapt.

You were talking about things we need to prepare for. You mentioned significant sea-level rise and unbearable heat … 

Yeah. Let me talk about the unbearable heat a little bit. It’s an emerging area. It focuses on what’s called the wet-bulb temperature — a combination of heat and humidity. Humans simply cannot survive outdoors above a certain wet-bulb temperature doing any sort of even normal levels of work, like construction jobs, farmer jobs, children playing. Normal levels of effort can be life-threatening in a situation where the wet-bulb temperature gets too high. And there are now starting to be projections showing that beginning with brief periods, and then expanding to many days at a time, potentially — when you get beyond the end of the century — eventually getting to most of the summer, in some areas, you’re looking at wet-bulb temperatures that are just too high for humans to carry on normal outdoor activity. That would be shocking for more areas.
It wouldn’t happen overnight. We would have some chance to adjust. But it would make the world a totally different place in those areas than it is now. During the warm season, you’d have to live in a bubble. And some people might argue that it’s in currently air-conditioned environments.
Some places, in very hot parts of the world, many people do live in air-conditioned environments. But I don’t like to live that way. It’s clearly destructive to ecosystems, and in addition in much of the developing world people can’t afford air-conditioning. In the future — 50 years from now, say — many people still won’t be able to afford it. That’s true in parts of the United States as well. So we’re talking about the development of a life-threatening situation.
That’s the most extreme case, but even with the garden-variety heat increases that middle-of-the-road climate projections show, you’re going to get big increases, even in the immediate projections. If you look at what’s projected for even 35 years from now, in the mid-latitudes, for business-as-usual scenarios, we see that the number of days that used to be the 10 percent hottest — the 90-degree days in NYC in 1950s — by 2040 or 2050 they become 30 percent of the days. So the days that used to be the 10 percent hottest now occur 30 percent of the time. The former 10 percent is now recorded 15–17 percent of the time. The number of days that now occur 5 percent of the time are gonna occur maybe 15 or 20 percent of the time by the time you get to 2040 or 2050. These are huge changes, and they’re not in some weird future world, they’re in your lifetime. Think about the children. Think about the changes in the world of our children. It’s humongous. That isn’t if something really weird happens that we don’t expect. That’s just garden-variety climate change that we can project.

Are there things that seem to you like unlikely possibilities that you don’t think we’ve paid enough attention to — or should be thinking of as more likely than conventional wisdom holds?

Conventional wisdom doesn’t have a good reputation anymore. In the climate business there isn’t very much conventional wisdom, simply because a lot of times a lot of the predictions have been … Some of the predictions have been smack-on. Some have been a little too high. But maybe the more interesting ones have been too low. And so ice sheets and sea-level rise, those features and the Arctic, the way the icy parts of the world have behaved, have changed more rapidly than expected. And that has massive implications.
The only things we have delivered wisdom about are the relatively simple and straightforward parts of the problem where there’s been a consensus for a long time. Like “Is the Earth warming?” and “Is the Earth’s warming caused by the buildup of green house gases?” and “How much will we have to cut emissions in order to stabilize and eventually return the climate to something that resembles what it was in the recent past?”
But for these sort of edgy parts of the problem there is no delivered wisdom, so everybody has a very open mind about these questions — the periphery of the problem, whether it’s things that we’re not sure about or we don’t have good ways to model them but where they could have very high impact outcomes. You talk about, for instance, the feedback in the system if this generation of the permafrost ecosystem leads to a lot of methane being released into the atmosphere — methane being a powerful greenhouse gas that would further amplify the warming. Somewhat more unlikely but also less known is what happens if the so-called methane hydrates that are on the continental shelf at the sea bed or even in deeper waters get liberated as warming penetrates. How much methane will that put into the atmosphere? That whole feedback system is not well understood. That lack of understanding has disturbed and energized a lot of scientists, so there’s now increasing focus on it.

It’s been a little bit hard for me to get a handle on that material, because it seems like a few years ago there was more direct anxiety about it as a short-term risk. There seems to be diminishing fear about that generally speaking. 

What you should do is take a look at the IPCC report. They did about as good a job as they could do. And in that report the IPCC has, I think in chapter six, a substantial section. And that was the first time I think they really tried to incorporate some actual numbers. If you read it you’ll get the feeling that there is a lot that’s unknown about it. What they caution about it is just because we see some bubbles — there’s some bubbling up in Siberia — doesn’t mean that there’s about to be a catastrophe. Because methane has probably leaked from these things for a long time. The question is, how much will and can it accelerate. And we just don’t know. So that’s an important area where progress needs to be made.

Are there any other things in that category that you want to be sure to mention? Other things that we’re unsure about but should be worrying a bit more about?

The next category of things I worry about aren’t physical systems.
These are ecosystems and social systems. When you talk about coral reefs disintegrating, that is an ecosystem disintegrating. You’re not just talking about something that’s pretty. You’re talking about something that’s not only highly biodiverse, but which economies that a lot of otherwise quite poor nations depend on. The coral reefs go to tourism, so it’s fishing boats, the fishing. It’s a lot to worry about.
One of the ones that’s been talked about lately, I think a little bit too loosely sometimes, was the connection between climate change, human migration, and conflict. It’s been sort of a leap: The climate in the Middle East has been unusually dry in the last few decades, that generated problems with food security, and that’s the reason we have a mess right now. It’s obviously a lot more complicated than that. A lot of work has been done recently using entirely new methods on the relationship between both climate change and human migration, and separately the relationship between climate change and human conflict. And there’s a very strong case now that for all types of conflict, running from interpersonal one-on-one violence up to a large-scale war, that there’s a relationship there, and that climate change tends to generate conflict and the hotter the world gets now, the more likely it is that there’ll be conflict at all scales. That research is new. It’s somewhat controversial. But it needs to be paid very careful attention to because we live in a world that doesn’t need anymore conflict.

Is there a researcher focused on that you can point me to?

Solomon Hsiang. He’s at UC Berkeley.
Another thing that needs to be paid attention there — the related problem with migration. I think it’s sometimes framed incorrectly as, we’re gonna have tens of millions migrants globally. That’s not, to my mind, the scale you should look at. We need to look at particular border regions.
Migrants are absorbed very well in some countries for long periods of time without creating difficulty, as has been the case in the United States periodically. What you want to look at is regions where the countries either have difficult absorbing the migrants, as we saw in Europe over the last few years, or where countries that used to be peopled efficiently lose too many of their resources and become unstable. There’s a lot of literature — I contributed a lot to this literature — which shows that in many regions warming has in the past stimulated movement of populations.

There’s the case of Bangladesh where there’s just going to be so many people that it’s hard to imagine.

It depends how fast sea level rises. Bangladesh has already got big problems. Bangladeshis already get shot when they try to cross the border into India. That could turn into a disaster. Again, the complexity of social situations is not just that they’re threatening in some way, because climate changes causes threats that destabilize them. You could reach a tipping point when things get out of control in certain areas. But the opposite can happen. In some cases human societies sometimes do address in appropriate ways.
And I would speculate that sometimes we’ll be surprised in the positive direction, but too often we’ll be surprised in the negative direction. The social tipping points are a key about which we know very little. And there’s got to be an intense focus of expert research in the next decade or two so we can at least get a feeling of where the hot spots may be and we can try and mobilize resources to minimize the risks.
But if you talk to Sol, there’s an even broader issue than just the question of conflict arising from climate change. Some of Sol’s work and the work of others has shown that economic productivity should be on your mind as temperature increases. And the numbers give economic damages due to climate change, which is much higher than any of the other previous models suggested.
Again, this is an emerging area. We don’t have final answers. But if that work is even close to being right, the damage from climate change even in wealthy countries could be much higher than previously imagined. 

And they may also undermine our ability to take large-scale action as a result.

Absolutely. And again that’s an emerging area that we pretty quickly need to be able to land on some numbers — to get a consensus. Each of these is an area where IPCC for instance has looked at it in their assessments previously, but in some cases did not spend enough focus on it. It started moving the ice sheet and sea-level question into high focus somewhat in the fourth assessment, and a lot in the fifth assessment where they did a much better job. I anticipate this might be a point of very intense focus for the sixth, although we don’t know yet what the sixth assessment report is going to look like.

That’s not scheduled until 2022 or something?

That’s right. There was just a scoping meeting, which is where an outline was drafted. I was at the meeting. The outline won’t become final until the whole panel, at the next meeting. I’m not sure when the next whole meeting of the panel is. We’ll approve an outline and then we’ll have some idea.

Well, thanks so much for taking the time to talk to me.

If I were you and I was going to emphasize something, I would certainly spend time on the physical parts of the system. But it’s these socioeconomic responses that scientists knew— but there hasn’t been enough attention to it in the past. It’s really emerging as the area where we’re gonna understand whether humans are gonna be able to manage climate change or whether we’re about to really go over a cliff. That’s where the big unknowns are gonna be. That’s where the big surprises are gonna be.
avatar

Posts : 239
Join date : 2016-06-29

Re: Ekologija

Post by Joó János on Mon Jul 24, 2017 5:56 pm



_____
Joó János 18 éves, Gyõri lakos. 1983 október huszonhatodikán hosszan italozott ismerõseivel majd este a Gyõri belvárost a Révfalui kerülettel összekötö Duna-hídon. Minden ok nélkül belekötött egy kerékpárját toló, idõs emberbe, majd felkapta és a folyómederbe dobta. Joó Jánost, csak az arra haladó határõrök segítségével tudták megfékezni
avatar

Posts : 4860
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Ekologija

Post by Indy on Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:31 am

[quote="Kinder Lad"]
Gargantua wrote:

Poenta je da je  kada je opasnost takva - ogromna - nije lose razdrmati ljude i politicare malo dramaticnijim scenarijom, posto je i onaj "objektivan" u stvari jeziv.

Dosta sam se isključio iz svega ovoga, zabavljen uber-kapitalizmom, međutim da nešto malo prokomentarišem... Teško da su doomsayers neki problem (čak i ako nisu u svemu u pravu, što je moguće.) Meni lično upada u oči da cela ova industrija koja je izrasla na pretnji ekološke destrukcije, počev od samostalnih konsultanata pa sve do globalno vodećih ličnosti ima u direktnom interesu da "širi optimizam". Sve je postalo marketing i samo-promocija, samo naivčine idu okolo i govore šta stvarno misle o bilo čemu... Ne radi se to tako, nego se uvek gura "pitch", tj. nešto se prodaje - ne kažem time da se radi nužno o moralnom porsrnuću, već je to više ono kako se stvari danas rade, nema veze da li si u nauci, konsaltingu, umetnosti, komediji, bilo čemu... moraš non-stop da hvališ svog ata, da prodaješ svoju robu.

(Jeste, postoji i segment tržišta za doom & gloom, ali mislim da je to ipak minorna pojava u odnosu na potražnju za dobrim vestima, nagoveštajima da će biti bolje i da se nešto može ipak uraditi, pogotovo ako pritom ne mora ništa naročito da se menja, i da će doći neočekivani Ilon Mask i iznenada se pojaviti i rešiti stvar... E to je megamarket.) Sve u svemu, jeb'o tržišno rešenje. ... i wisdom of crowds.



_____
Take a day and walk around... Watch the Nazis run your town... Then go home and check yourself... You think we're singing 'bout someone else
avatar

Posts : 42019
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Ekologija

Post by William Murderface on Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:14 pm



_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 2752
Join date : 2014-10-28

Re: Ekologija

Post by Daï Djakman Faré on Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:02 pm

Blind Lime Pie wrote:a one ideje da će "priroda sve to sama regulisati" su apsolutno tačne. nestankom agenta koji uvodi brzu promenu u sistem - on će se stabilizovati. ako je taj agent tehnološka civilizacija koja počiva na fosilnim gorivima, to nam je što nam je.
vaso ili ako neko drugi zna - jel taj korpus ideja mozda potpada pod tzv gaia hypothesis ili postoji jos neki konkretnija odrednica ?

konkretno za ovaj boldovani deo.


_____
--to give the metals back their alchemical significance that has been neglected since the beginnings of the industrial revolution
--to alienate common apparati/mechanismi to create a perpetuum mobile called Motor Sehn-Sucht--
avatar

Posts : 6215
Join date : 2012-02-11

Re: Ekologija

Post by Ointagru Unartan on Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:14 pm

Daï Djakman Faré wrote:
Blind Lime Pie wrote:a one ideje da će "priroda sve to sama regulisati" su apsolutno tačne. nestankom agenta koji uvodi brzu promenu u sistem - on će se stabilizovati. ako je taj agent tehnološka civilizacija koja počiva na fosilnim gorivima, to nam je što nam je.
vaso ili ako neko drugi zna - jel taj korpus ideja mozda potpada pod tzv gaia hypothesis ili postoji jos neki konkretnija odrednica ?

konkretno za ovaj boldovani deo.

Ne mora da bude gaia hypothesis. Ima prirodnih mehanizama za skladistenje CO2, koji ce nastaviti da deluju kada ljudi budu prestali da zagadjuju. Postoji doduse mogucnost da globalno zagrevanje dovede do posledica (topljenje leda, dakle manje odbijanja toplote u atmosferu, prestanak upijanja CO2 od strane okeana, oslobadjanje metana iz okeana i permafrosta) koje bi delovale kao povratna sprega i pojacale zagrevanje, sto bi pretvorilo Zemlju u sprzenu pustinju poput Venere, ali to je, kazu, malo verovatno.


_____
"Ne morate krenuti odavde da biste dosli tamo. Moguce je krenuti odavde i vratiti se ponovo tu, ali preko onoga tamo."
Aca Seltik, Sabrana razmisljanja o topologiji, tom cetvrti.

My Moon Che Gavara.
avatar

Posts : 2752
Join date : 2014-10-28

Re: Ekologija

Post by Daï Djakman Faré on Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:42 pm

Ointagru Unartan wrote:Ne mora da bude gaia hypothesis. Ima prirodnih mehanizama za skladistenje CO2, koji ce nastaviti da deluju kada ljudi budu prestali da zagadjuju. Postoji doduse mogucnost da globalno zagrevanje dovede do posledica (topljenje leda, dakle manje odbijanja toplote u atmosferu, prestanak upijanja CO2 od strane okeana, oslobadjanje metana iz okeana i permafrosta) koje bi delovale kao povratna sprega i pojacale zagrevanje, sto bi pretvorilo Zemlju u sprzenu pustinju poput Venere, ali to je, kazu, malo verovatno.
pa da, boldovano je opste mesto klimatske nauke, ali konkretno ovaj momenat sa samoregulativnom osvetom majke Prirode nad disrupting agent-om bi trebao da je 1 na 1 gaia hypothesis (makar prema ovom izvoru, str. 68).

mislim ovde me ne zanima klimatska nauka kao takva, vec vise da tacno delineisem zanrove, odn. razdvojim sta potpada pod koji narativ.


_____
--to give the metals back their alchemical significance that has been neglected since the beginnings of the industrial revolution
--to alienate common apparati/mechanismi to create a perpetuum mobile called Motor Sehn-Sucht--
avatar

Posts : 4860
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Ekologija

Post by Indy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:54 pm

Hard Gaia je da je Ona u stvari 1 živi organizam. Striktno govoreći, malo je nenaučna, ali ja to ne držim protiv nje.


_____
Take a day and walk around... Watch the Nazis run your town... Then go home and check yourself... You think we're singing 'bout someone else

Posts : 3309
Join date : 2016-06-25

Re: Ekologija

Post by Zuper on Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:28 pm

Prove Paris was more than paper promises
http://www.nature.com/news/prove-paris-was-more-than-paper-promises-1.22378

All major industrialized countries are failing to meet the pledges they made to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, warn David G. Victor and colleagues.
Beyond US President Donald Trump's decision in June to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris climate agreement, a more profound challenge to the global climate pact is emerging. No major advanced industrialized country is on track to meet its pledges to control the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change.
Wishful thinking and bravado are eclipsing reality. Countries in the European Union are struggling to increase energy efficiency and renewable power to the levels that they claimed they would. Japan promised cuts in emissions to match those of its peers, but meeting the goals will cost more than the country is willing to pay. Even without Trump's attempts to roll back federal climate policy, the United States is shifting its economy to clean energy too slowly.
avatar

Posts : 4860
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Ekologija

Post by Indy on Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:57 am

Percepcije i realnost kada su u pitanju izvori obnovljive enrgije...

Can economic growth continue without fossil fuels? The IPCC thinks so — here’s why its decarbonisation models are broken

...it turns out that much economic growth has been enabled by surplus energy — possibly two-thirds of the growth that is usually attributed to ‘technical change’ is actually due to the availability of cheap energy, much of it easily transportable liquid fuels.

We need to come to terms with the fact that economic growth may be incompatible with abatement targets.

we simply don’t have the understanding of the complexity and feedback processes to confidently project several decades into the future.

The IPCC’s grafting of 20th century growth and productivity data onto future scenarios completely misses the intimate relationship between energy and economies.

I iz drugog teksta istog autora:

Just one litre of petrol provides the equivalent of a week or more of pre-industrial human labour. Having achieved this miraculous transformation, it is not likely that societies will voluntarily turn back.


_____
Take a day and walk around... Watch the Nazis run your town... Then go home and check yourself... You think we're singing 'bout someone else
avatar

Posts : 6396
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: Ekologija

Post by Gargantua on Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:34 pm

Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

Academic papers vindicating its Roundup herbicide were written with the help of its employees.

By Peter Waldman , Tiffany Stecker , and Joel Rosenblatt
9 August 2017 10:00 GMT+2


Monsanto Co. started an agricultural revolution with its “Roundup Ready” seeds, genetically modified to resist the effects of its blockbuster herbicide called Roundup. That ability to kill weeds while leaving desirable crops intact helped the company turn Roundup’s active ingredient, the chemical glyphosate, into one of the world’s most-used crop chemicals. When that heavy use raised health concerns, Monsanto noted that the herbicide’s safety had repeatedly been vetted by outsiders. But now there’s new evidence that Monsanto’s claims of rigorous scientific review are suspect.

Dozens of internal Monsanto emails, released on Aug. 1 by plaintiffs’ lawyers who are suing the company, reveal how Monsanto worked with an outside consulting firm to induce the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology to publish a purported “independent” review of Roundup’s health effects that appears to be anything but. The review, published along with four subpapers in a September 2016 special supplement, was aimed at rebutting the 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. That finding by the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization led California last month to list glyphosate as a known human carcinogen. It has also spurred more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts by plaintiffs who claim they contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup exposure.

Monsanto disclosed that it paid Intertek Group Plc’s consulting unit to develop the review supplement, entitled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate.” But that was the extent of Monsanto’s involvement, the main article said. “The Expert Panelists were engaged by, and acted as consultants to, Intertek, and were not directly contacted by the Monsanto Company,” according to the review’s Declaration of Interest statement. “Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.”

Monsanto’s internal emails tell a different story. The correspondence shows the company’s chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, and other Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and editing drafts submitted by the outside experts. At one point, Heydens even vetoed explicit requests by some of the panelists to tone down what one of them wrote was the review’s “inflammatory” criticisms of IARC.

“An extensive revision of the summary article is necessary,” wrote that panelist, John Acquavella, an epidemiologist at Aarhus University in Denmark, in a February 2016 email attached to his suggested edits of the draft. Alarmed, Ashley Roberts, the coordinator of the glyphosate papers for Intertek, forwarded Acquavella’s note and edits to Heydens at Monsanto, with the warning: “Please take a look at the latest from the epi(demiology) group!!!!”

Heydens reedited Acquavella’s edits, arguing in six different notes in the draft’s margin that statements Acquavella had found inflammatory were not and should not be changed, despite the author’s requests. In the published article, Heydens’s edits prevailed. In an interview, Acquavella says that he was satisfied with the review’s final tone. According to an invoice he sent Monsanto, he billed the company $20,700 for a single month’s work on the review, which took nearly a year to complete.
Monsanto defends the review’s independence. Monsanto did only “cosmetic editing” of the Intertek papers and nothing “substantive” to alter panelists’ conclusions, says Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president for global strategy. While the “choice of words” in the Declaration of Interest “was not ideal,” he says, “it didn’t change the science.”

In July 2016, the journal’s editor, Roger McClellan, emailed his final instructions to Roberts at Intertek on what the paper’s Acknowledgment and Declaration of Interest statements should include. “I want them to be as clear and transparent as possible,” he wrote. “At the end of the day I want the most aggressive critics of Monsanto, your organization and each of the authors to read them and say—Damn, they covered all the points we intended to raise.”

Specifically, McClellan told Roberts to make clear how the panelists were hired—“ie by Intertek,” McClellan wrote. “If you can say without consultation with Monsanto, that would be great. If there was any review of the reports by Monsanto or their legal representatives, that needs to be disclosed.”

Roberts forwarded McClellan’s emails, along with a more technical question, to Heydens, who responded, “Good grief.” The Declaration of Interest statement was rewritten per McClellan’s instructions, despite being untrue. There was no mention of the company’s participation in the editing.

Monsanto’s editorial involvement appears “in direct opposition to their disclosure,” says Genna Reed, a science and policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy. “It does seem pretty suspicious.”
In response to questions, McClellan wrote in an email on Aug. 7 that he’d been unaware of the Monsanto documents and has forwarded the matter to the journal’s publisher, Taylor & Francis, in Abingdon, England. “These are serious accusations relative to scientific publishing canons and deserve very careful investigation,” he wrote. “I can assure you that Taylor and Francis, as the publisher, and I, as the Scientific Editor of Critical Reviews in Toxicology, will carefully investigate the matter and take appropriate action.” A Taylor & Francis spokeswoman says it has begun an investigation.
The Monsanto documents, more than 70 in all, were obtained through pretrial discovery and posted online by some of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, who claim Monsanto missed a 30-day window to object to their release. Monsanto says it was blindsided by the disclosures and has asked U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco to order the documents pulled from the web and to punish the attorneys for violating confidentiality orders. Says Monsanto’s Partridge: “It’s unfortunate these lawyers are grandstanding at the expense of their clients’ interests.”

Other emails show that Monsanto’s lead toxicologist, Donna Farmer, was removed as a co-author of a 2011 study on glyphosate’s reproductive effects, but not before she made substantial changes and additions to the paper behind the scenes. The study, published in Taylor & Francis’s Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, served to counter findings that glyphosate hampers human reproduction and development. Partridge says Farmer’s contributions didn’t warrant authorship credit. While almost all of her revisions made it into the published paper, her name doesn’t even show up in the acknowledgments.


BOTTOM LINE - Monsanto has long noted that independent scientists have vouched for the safety of its Roundup herbicide. Court data show its employees edited some of those reviews.
avatar

Posts : 11941
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : сви јунаци ником поникоше

Re: Ekologija

Post by паће on Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:01 pm

Заверетичари,


_____
памтим савршено - не сећам се кад сам последњи пут нешто заборавио
They say you can't have a cake and eat it too. Then they say "have a cake".
avatar

Posts : 5218
Join date : 2014-12-09

Re: Ekologija

Post by uskok i ajduk on Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:06 pm


http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/reportaze/aktuelno.293.html:679276-Rimska-rudarska-metropola-kod-Sopota
IDILIČNI prostor današnjih zelenih bregova u 2. veku su Rimljani pretvorili u jezivu golet. Sa površine od oko 60 kvadratnih kilometara posekli su šumu neophodnu za topljenje rude, a brda izbušili hiljadama jama koje i danas vrebaju pod lišćem. 

- Slika iz tog vremena je vrlo tmurna - opisuje dr Crnobrnja. - Kilometri padina golih brda bili su pokriveni stotinama hiljada tona troske koja ni za više od narednih 1.000 godina neće dozvoliti da se obnovi šuma. 


_____
"U novoprimljenim EU zemljama su korumpirani (policija, sudovi, političari) do koštane srži dan danas, pare što su od primitka dobili su raskrali i profućkali, nešto malo se izgradilo, bez pravog plana i preplaćeno. Ulazak Srbije u EU ne bi bio mnogo drugačiji. Naprotiv, političarska bagra ovih postsoc banana se u EU vremenom još osili. " / otto katz 
avatar

Posts : 11941
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : сви јунаци ником поникоше

Re: Ekologija

Post by паће on Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:15 pm

Па и Далмација је, како чух, била шумовита док није мало засео Наполеон.


_____
памтим савршено - не сећам се кад сам последњи пут нешто заборавио
They say you can't have a cake and eat it too. Then they say "have a cake".

Posts : 3309
Join date : 2016-06-25

Re: Ekologija

Post by Zuper on Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:05 am

German Wind Energy Market “Threatening To Implode”…”Things Have Never Been This Bad”!

By P Gosselin on 30. August 2017
While Germany likes to fancy itself as being among the “global leaders” in tackling climate change by expanding green energies, the country has in fact taken very little action recently to back up the appearances.
If anything, Germany is more in the green energy retreat mode. There are good reasons for this.
German flagship business daily “Handelsblatt” reported here yesterday how Germany’s wind energy market is now “threatening to implode” and as a result “thousands of jobs are at risk“.
José Luis Blanco, CEO of German wind energy giant Nordex, blames the market chaos on “policymakers changing the rules“. Subsidies have been getting cut back substantially.
The problem, Blanco says, is that worldwide green energy subsidies are being capped and wind parks as a result are no longer looking profitable to investors. The Handelsblatt writes that “things have never been this bad“.
50% drop in new German parks
The online Hasepost here reports that while in 2016 some 4600 megawatts of new German wind power capacity were installed onshore, the figure will fall almost 50% to 2450 megawatts of new power by 2019. The fall could even be greater.
Blanco told Handelsblatt:
In the next two years we will see a substantial collapse in the installation of new wind parks in Germany  – we will have to react to this.“
Recently Germany moved to scale back subsidies for new wind parks because the power transmission grid has not kept par with the rapid wind park installation, and as a result the grid has become riddled with inefficiencies and has become increasingly prone to grid collapses from unstable power feed in. Also consumer electricity prices had been skyrocketing.

Citizens groups increasing their protests.
There has also been growing protests against wind parks by citizens groups. Angela Merkel’s campaign stops are increasingly being met in part by wind energy protesters. Yesterday in Brandenburg Merkel was met again by wind energy protesters, who however were over-shadowed by a raucous 1500-strong crowd of right-wing protesters shouting “Merkel must go!
Despite the loud protests, Merkel’s party remains poised to win the coming late-September national election handily, as she and her party lead the rival SPD socialist party, led by Martin Schulz, by double digits.
Wind energy, once greeted with open-arms a decade ago, is now increasingly unwelcome and getting the door slammed in its face.
Comeback coal
Yesterday at the East German Energy Forum in Leipzig, both the centrist CDU and the SPD socialists were in agreement: brown coal (lignite) must remain a part of Germany’s energy mix, the online Lausitzer Rundschau writes. Speaking before 400 industry representatives, Brandenburg’s Minister President Dietmar Woidke (SPD) complained that green energies are foremost “unreliable energy sources“.
“More realism”
Saxony Anhalt Minister President Reiner Haseloff (CDU) called for more realism, saying that “brown coal belonged to east Germany until 2050″.
Saxony Minister President Stanislaw Tillich (CDU) called the European Commissions limit values for CO2 emissions “as going beyond the technical possibilities“.
What does this all tell us? Despite all the hype over green energies in Germany, the general sentiment and movement in the country show a very different picture.

avatar

Posts : 10566
Join date : 2014-12-01

Re: Ekologija

Post by Filipenko on Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:55 am

Gle čuda, kad se ne subsidiraju, tzv. "zelene" tehnologije odjednom nisu tako efikasne niti isplative. 


Ja bih im ponudio dodatni gas iz Sibira, pod uslovom da ga dopremaju južnim tokom koji će prethodno EU finansirati i izgraditi 

Posts : 3309
Join date : 2016-06-25

Re: Ekologija

Post by Zuper on Sun Sep 03, 2017 12:18 pm

Gas iz Sibira ce stici ali Severnim tokom 1 i 2. Kec je vec zavrsen a dvojka se gradi i pored pokusaja Poljaka da opstruiraju, Nemci odlucuju. Pa ce Poljak iz Nemacke kupovati ruski gas, ni za njih nema vise tranzitne rente. Balkanski lopovi(Bojko, Vucko...) su marionete a Nemacka ce naplacivati tranzit Balkanu, iako je bilo suprotno planirano.

avatar

Posts : 10566
Join date : 2014-12-01

Re: Ekologija

Post by Filipenko on Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:49 pm

Videćemo hoće li Ameri to uopšte dozvoliti Nemačkoj. Sada imaju zakonski osnov da uvode sankcije zbog Severnog Toka 2, a u tome će ih podržati ne samo Poljska, već i sve zemlje bezdodičnog Višegrada. U svakom slučaju, ja bih insistirao da moraju da grade i Južni Tok 1 i 2 zbog direktive o ravnomernom razvoju...
avatar

Posts : 6396
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: Ekologija

Post by Gargantua on Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:09 pm



Re: Ekologija

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:01 am