|Ovo je stranica za razgovor za raspravu o poboljšanjima na članku Globalno zatopljenje.|
Izmijenio sam članak jer je izgledao kao da ga je napisao američki republikanac koji lobiranjem lažima u kongresu čuva svoja naftna polja. Zamolio bih da budući urednici pripaze na takve izmjene. Globalno zatopljenje danas ima konsenzus da je primarno antropogeno. U to više nema sumnje, stoga teoretičari zavjera i obožavatelji Paarovog modernog lika i djela tu nemaju što raditi. :) To što se javilo nekoliko znanstvenika koji misle drukčije nije vrijedno spomena. Postoji šačica biologa i geologa (kojima bi trebalo oduzeti diplomu) koji smatraju da je Zemlja stara 6000 godina i da je neko božanstvo sve stvorilo u sedam dana, ali nitko normalan ih ne spominje jer su nebitni. Endimion17 (razgovor) 03:33, 15. kolovoza 2013. (CEST)
Nije istina da postoji globalni konsenzus o globalnom zatopljenju. Premalo se zna o svim procesima koji utječu na globalnu temperaturu. Nitko još nije točno izračunao koliko ugljikov dioksid i metan (kravlji prdež) utječu na globalnu temperaturu. To su sve samo hipoteze. Rugaš se teorijama zavjere koje su protiv tvojih stavova, a i sam spominješ neku zavjeru i lobiranje republikanaca protiv teorije globalnog zatopljenja!? Kao da nema političara i lobija kojima je u interesu promocija te teorije! Neće baš biti da su svi ti političari i aktivisti altrusiti. Ali su oni danas toliko sigurni u tu teoriju da su je preimenovali u "klimatske promjene". Neumjesno je uspoređivati protivnike te teorije s onima koji misle da je Zermlja stvorena prije 6000 godina. Pa sličnih frikova ima i među pobornicima teorije globalnog zatopljenja (uzrokovanog čovjekovom djelatnošću)! Ogromna većina aktivista i političara nema pojma nego samo arlauče o tome jer je stvar u modi. Bez toga ne bi imali o čemu laprdati. Zbog njih bi se na isti način mogla ismijati i čitava teorija glob. zatoplj. A glede Paara, nisi mu ni do koljena. Možda ga shvatiš za jedno 20-30 godina. 18.104.22.168 15:24, 31. kolovoza is 2015. (CEST)
Purpose (WATCH free media at sres scenarios talk fully blocked in english[uredi]
Main purpose was enforced payments for unscientific pseodo fraud research etc. Payments and publications at EPA stopped already. IPCC SRES scenarios proved as fraud by SRES scenarios on IPCC Server as Excel Spreadsheet. Totally impossible extreme high written peaks nonsense like "maria" coal down until 2040 then up to 10 times 2100 etc. The datas for SRES primary fossil energy peak assumptions can be compared with assumptions based on EIA etc. fossil reserve and production datas with peak coal 2025-2030 mainly because of china with over 50% world production but less than 30 years reserves, peak oil 2014-2015 because of less world reserves and actual low price for reinvestments in expensive productions like in USA fracking with less reserves Venezuela sulfid rich tar and polar arctic deep sea oil not increasable and sand oils already used; and peak gas 2030-2035 with likely additional fracking gas findings also in china, india, africa etc. and high reserves in USA, russia, gulf countries also in mediterranean sea (about 18 year EU demand). Since the rising rate of carbon dioxide left in atmosphere is under 2ppm annually also after IPCC and NASA it would need over 200 years for a doubling from about 400 ppm today to 800ppm with +0.5° C effect for every +100ppm, all together for +400 ppm +2° C, like the 0.5°C effect assumed before for the rising over warm time normal 280ppm to 380ppm always with other increasing and decreasing effects like cooling from sulfates set free from burning of fossil reserves or vulcanism and solar cycles. In every case no one has fossil reserves for holding 200 years the same exploration rate like today with under +2ppm risin of carbon dioxide annually. Global warming was mainly local at arctic area based on a cooling phase before by streaming changes instead global equal like to be awaited for green house gases and sea level rise was normal most in equatorial area not in main warmed up arctic area based also on river and coast erosion and continental drift not ice melting like not sea level increasing arctic swimming ice melting and just about 2cm in 100 years from greenland ice melting and also not from volume expansion that can`t happen in everywhere always cold deep sea because warm water is always rising to the sea surface increasing night infrared radiation. An equal heating up by greenhouse gases is more storm decreasing than increasing because it is decreasing the storm causation the temperature difference between low and high altitudes with normal main warming up over the earth surface decreased. An ice melting is not causing an acceleration warm up effect called albedo effect over decreased sun ray radiation at day time because of also increased infrared radiation at night time of dark surfaces. Another big source for methane and carbon dioxide increase was also the desertification in africa and aral sea see also in new O-C-O NASA maps slowed down from increased rainfall by warming up over sea causing more sea water vapourisation as the original source of all rain or other water fallouts. Increased water fallouts, melting of permafrost and more carbon dioxide for plants fertilization caused by carbon dioxide global warming are increasing the biomass on landside thereby rebinding carbon dioxide mainly rebound by photosynthesis and chalk creators inside the world seas producing also as green lunge of the earth about 70% of the world oxygen. The natural conversion of carbon dioxide is about 550 Gt annually compared with about 30Gt annually from human sources but just 12Gt left in atmosphere annually in a self stabilizing carbon cycle else always already accelerated; long time with always less carbon dioxide left in atmosphere in long time earth climate history. The temperature increase charts 1870-today don`t correlate with carbon dioxide absolute levels rising charts with cooling phase and about same temperature rising at beginning and late phase. The today climate is just a lower than normal peak between about 100 000 years ice times still in a quaternary ice time from long time sun cycles caused by the run time of the sun inner fusion energy by photons to it`s surface about some 10 000 years leading also to sun`s next break in. Sure about global warming is the saving of heating costs, increased harvest times, decrease of all winter damages from snow and ice including coldness deaths from accidents etc. and general more urgently needed more rainfall in desertification areas worldwide. Polar bears did increase in population from about 5000 to 25 000 and are likely liking a warmer not deathly colder climate for hunting seals from ice floes far outside as good long distance swimmers like penguins who must find ice free places for the eggs. In the one side colder antarctica with about 90% of the world ice the ice increasing was approximately 82 Gt per year (with significant regional variation), reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm per year. In general the amount of animal species are increased in warm times and decreased in ice times like true for humans also today mainly because of loosing the food base caused by desertification, landsides staying all year under ice and sea level decline of about 120m decreasing also fish but greenhouse gas sulfide hexafluoride can solve the problem today for over multiple times 3200 years until fluorine reserves are going out then only laughing gas production left as last chance and for today cooling down just adding of methanol instead chalk into sulfide cleaning part spray towers of coal power plants needed rising strong cooling sulfate aerosols like dimethyl sulfate. The real problem in future is the energy problem left but first after the fossil energy maximum about 2025-2030 and can be solved with atomic power based on over 4 Gt sea water uranium under 300$/kg and thorium enough for 100 000 up to a million years today total world energy demand (140 PWh/a). Satellite accuracy is low if surface under clouds for long time. Every day, season and year change is at all stronger than a global middle value change with unknown accuracy and CO2 can be most reduced using it with H2 for methane production cheaper fracking.
- Zwally, H. Jay (2015). "Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses". Journal of Glaciology Forthcoming (230): 1019.