Je li ovo godina početka kraja?

[Guardian]

ovo je vec uznemirujuce...

[RIFF]

hmm povrsina dvije kontinentalne amerike? zar se to nebi vidilo na satelitskim slikama? a dje je? jos jedna senzacija bez ikakvog ikakvog pokrica?

[Turin Turambar]

hmm povrsina dvije kontinentalne amerike? zar se to nebi vidilo na satelitskim slikama? a dje je? jos jedna senzacija bez ikakvog ikakvog pokrica?

Mr Moore said that because the sea of rubbish is translucent and lies just below the water's surface, it is not detectable in satellite photographs. "You only see it from the bows of ships," he said.

[RIFF]

hmm povrsina dvije kontinentalne amerike? zar se to nebi vidilo na satelitskim slikama? a dje je? jos jedna senzacija bez ikakvog ikakvog pokrica?

Mr Moore said that because the sea of rubbish is translucent and lies just below the water's surface, it is not detectable in satellite photographs. "You only see it from the bows of ships," he said.

ahaaam,a pretpostavljam da podvodne fotografije isto nema zbog...?

[Isis Rosenkreuz]

Već kad smo kod smeća, imamo i slučaj Italije o kojemu su izvjestili i naši mediji.
Naime, Napulj (glavni grad regije Campania) je doslovce zatrpan vrećema smeća koje nitko ne odvozi. A nemaju ni gdje, budući da su im odlagališta krcata, a stanovništvo se buni protiv istih i protiv otvaranja novih odlagališta, a druge regije ne žele preuzeti to smeće. Moram napomenuti i to da je tu svoje prste imala (i ima još uvijek) i mafija.
Ne samo da se vreće sa otpadom penju do prvih katova zgrada, nego neki predviđaju, ako se problem ne riješi do ljeta, svakakve boleštine...

[Turin Turambar]

hmm povrsina dvije kontinentalne amerike? zar se to nebi vidilo na satelitskim slikama? a dje je? jos jedna senzacija bez ikakvog ikakvog pokrica?

Mr Moore said that because the sea of rubbish is translucent and lies just below the water's surface, it is not detectable in satellite photographs. "You only see it from the bows of ships," he said.

ahaaam,a pretpostavljam da podvodne fotografije isto nema zbog...?

Šta je ovo, "pics or it never happened"? 4chan škola?
Evo ti film pa gledaj:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9953943147

[Lucifer]

E, Turine, možda offtopic, no zanima me što misliš Carterovom doomsday argumentu.

[Turin Turambar]

E, Turine, možda offtopic, no zanima me što misliš Carterovom doomsday argumentu.

Sorry, "podsjeti me" nikad čuo

[Lucifer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_catastrophe

The Doomsday argument (DA) is a probabilistic argument that claims to predict the future lifetime of the human race given only an estimate of the total number of humans born so far. Simply put, it says that supposing the humans alive today are in a random place in the whole human history timeline, chances are we are about halfway through it.

Mislim da je to malo veći problem za ljude nego nedostatak nafte, što ne?

[Turin Turambar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_catastrophe

The Doomsday argument (DA) is a probabilistic argument that claims to predict the future lifetime of the human race given only an estimate of the total number of humans born so far. Simply put, it says that supposing the humans alive today are in a random place in the whole human history timeline, chances are we are about halfway through it.

Mislim da je to malo veći problem za ljude nego nedostatak nafte, što ne?

Apstraktna matematička spekulacija protiv neumoljivih činjenica (pogotovo ako nestašici fosilnih goriva dodamo i globalno zatopljenje)? I'll go for the no. 2

Nego, i ja sam tebe htio pitat nešto...šta misliš o ovome:
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/ ... 7s+Paradox
http://www.energybulletin.net/3917.html

Ukratko, argument da je zbog drugog zakona termodinamike nužna posljedica nestanka fosilnih goriva propast industrijske civilizacije (jer nema koncentriranijeg izvora energije od nafte), i da je naša fantazija progresa sa kontinuiranim povećanjem potrošnje energije i ekspanzije u svemir jednostavno - fantazija.
Ali molim te, pročitaj u cijelosti oba teksta (ili bar jedan) prije nego odgovoriš.
Uz to "ali" na umu, evo ti kratki sažetak:

On another level, though, Fermi’s Paradox can be restated in another and far more threatening way. The logic of the paradox depends on the assumption that unlimited technological progress is possible, and it can be turned without too much difficulty into a logical refutation of the assumption. If unlimited technological progress is possible, then there should be clear evidence of technologically advanced species in the cosmos; there is no such evidence; therefore unlimited technological progress is impossible. Crashingly unpopular though this latter idea may be, I suggest that it is correct – and a close examination of the issues involved casts a useful light on the present crisis of industrial civilization.

[RIFF]

hmm povrsina dvije kontinentalne amerike? zar se to nebi vidilo na satelitskim slikama? a dje je? jos jedna senzacija bez ikakvog ikakvog pokrica?

Mr Moore said that because the sea of rubbish is translucent and lies just below the water's surface, it is not detectable in satellite photographs. "You only see it from the bows of ships," he said.

ahaaam,a pretpostavljam da podvodne fotografije isto nema zbog...?

Šta je ovo, "pics or it never happened"? 4chan škola?
Evo ti film pa gledaj:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9953943147

kako sam i mislio,svako 6 kilometara plasticna boca,to bas i nije kontinent od smeca
dosta mi je vise tog dizanja panike,sve se mora preuvelicavat

u 24 dana 100 primjeraka smeca?!?! pa to je jedan kontejner

[Turin Turambar]

So, for those who want the Peak Shrink recap:
Humans are burning more fossil fuel and making less money doing so.
Politicians say: Planetary Catastrophe would definitely be bad for business, the stock market, and fossil fuel prices.
Scientists say: A lot of really bad, bad stuff is happening that we never thought possible, and we are completely and totally blown away by it. We feel helpless and out of control, because if some of us even IMAGINED that it could happen, we thought it was going to be a long time from now. We are scientists, though, and not crazy Doomers, so we use words that are calming; like “implies” and “close to being committed” instead of saying we’re screwed.” It’s been said that scientists live in a world of their own. We now have first hand confirmation. In order to have scientifically valid models, we’ll just have to wait for really bad stuff we can’t imagine, like Greenland’s ice sheet, to melt first. Two billion of us won’t be able to drink the water as the melting continues. If the phytoplankton die with the heating and acidification of the waters, the game is over. Soon our oceans will be considered industrial waste water by the US environmental agencies, because of the acid levels. There is a run away train of CO2 emission: Forests can’t pick up roots and relocate because the climate changes. As things break down because of climate change, the trees and indigenous plants slow down their absorption of CO2, and then, as they die, start releasing CO2 they are holding. This is also true when soils heat up: it causes faster organic matter decomposition and greater CO2 release.
Hotter, dryer conditions also lead to more forest fires, and wildfires, which currently release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the trees absorb naturally. As it gets dryer and dryer, they will catch fire more easily, and that will speed up the CO2 emissions as well. We call these changes “novel” and climates “disappearing,” but these are confusing terms that mean that our ecosystems and everything now in them will be destroyed. We don’t know how, because it will be destroyed in tremendously novel ways we have no models for. We scientists like models, but the Earth isn’t conforming to our models anymore and this is freaking us out. But we can predict one thing: The Arctic Sea Ice as a big surprise in the center: Methane! When methane is released, if it still acts like methane, and not like creamy nugget, 90% of the species on Earth will become extinct. “I just don’t see a happy ending for this” confided one scientist. We can use cloth toilet paper if we want to but the corporations have a huge role to play. The wrath of the planet will soon be upon us, folks. Time for rational disaster planning worldwide.

http://www.peakoilblues.com/blog/?p=144

[RIFF]

“The Arctic sea-ice may disappear entirely as early as 2013, and climate scientists are shocked by what they are seeing.”

tu sam presto citat,sry

[Turin Turambar]

“The Arctic sea-ice may disappear entirely as early as 2013, and climate scientists are shocked by what they are seeing.”

tu sam presto citat,sry

[Lucifer]

Apstraktna matematička spekulacija protiv neumoljivih činjenica (pogotovo ako nestašici fosilnih goriva dodamo i globalno zatopljenje)? I'll go for the no. 2

Kao prvo, zagovornici Carterovog DA tvrde da je stvar daleko više od "apstraktne matematičke spekulacije", i da odlično opisuje prijašnja izumiranja.
Kao drugo, DA opisuje IZUMIRANJE, a ne samo smanjenje energetskog ]outputa, tako da mu je tematika već apriori ozbiljnija. Bez nafte ljudska vrsta (dakle, ne "moderna zapadnjačka civilizacija") može preživjeti, što je evidentno u milijunima godina prethodnog postojanja. No ekstinkcija je ekstinkcija i točka. Nije baš da vidimo previše živih dinosaura danas, ne?

šta misliš o ovome:
http://www.energybulletin.net/3917.html

Let's take it one at a time.

But the exhaustion of fossil fuels, which supply three quarters of this energy, is not far off, and no other energy source is abundant and cheap enough to take their place. A collapse of the earth's human population cannot be more than a few years away. If there are survivors(1), they will not be able to carry on the cultural traditions of civilization, which require abundant, cheap energy. It is unlikely, however, that the species itself can long persist without the energy whose exploitation is so much a part of its modus vivendi(2).

1: Autor ovdje pretpostavlja (bar djelomično - "if there are survivors") da nedostatak nafte znači uništenje cijele civilizacije. Što je jebeno apsurdno. Nafta ne samo da nije jedini izvor energije, nego i one usporedne stvari (lijekovi, gnojivo, asfalt) nisu krucijalne za preživljavanje ljudske vrste. Moram li objašnjavati zašto, i na temelju čega to tvrdim?

2: Eksploatacija nafte je "modus vivendi" "moderne zapadne civilizacije", a ne "ljudske vrste", što autor (čini se) eurocentrično ne razlikuje.


Još jedna točka što se udara na populaciju tiče.... genetska istraživanja pokazuju da je ljudska vrsta prošla kroz "usko grlo" tijekom svoje evolucije (Toba event) gdje je ekzistiralo negdje cca 100.000 pojedinaca. To ti je 99.998% trenutačnog broja. Dakle, kolaps, kakvog ovaj najavljuje, mora ostaviti na životu manje od 0.002% svjetske populacije (što ti je samo 1 živ u 60,000) da bi došla na najmanji prijašnji nivo populacije kojeg smo, evidentno, preživjeli.

Reci mi, zar zaista smatraš da bi nedostatak nafte bio toliko smrtonosan?

The human species may be seen as having evolved in the service of entropy, and it cannot be expected to outlast the dense accumulations of energy that have helped define its niche.

Bullshit.
Zar je zaista potrebno pokazivati da se ljudska vrsta NIJE razvila u ikakvom kontekstu s naftom? Ova "gusta akumulacija energije" bi, ako pričamo o ljudskoj evoluciji, trebalo značiti "Zemljina biosfera", a ako to padne, onda sumnjam da će nedostatak nafte biti ikakav problem.

Malthus did not know that the universe is governed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics(1); he did not understand the population dynamics of introduced species; and he did not appreciate that humans, having evolved long after the resource base on which they now rely, are effectively an introduced species on their own planet(2).

1: Ako se povlači argument entropije i drugog zakona termodinamike, mora se shvatiti da Zemlja NIJE ZATVORENI SUSTAV, kako MC Hawking kaže - "it's powered by the sun / fuck the damned creationists / Doomsday get my gun". Osim ako ćemo pričati o kozmološkim razmjerima (gdje su nafta i slično samo tričarije), Sunce doslovce možemo smatrati beskonačnim izvorom. Tako da je bezveze povlačiti argument drugog zakona termodinamike u raspravi o ovako "skorim" (ajmo "skoro" definirati kao bilo šta kraće od milijardu godina) događajima.

2: Sudeći po ovom članku, heterotrofi su ti "introduced species", ne? To je osobina Homo Sapiensa koja nas čini uvedenom vrstom, koliko sam skontao. Jer se ništa drugo ne spominje u tekstu (osim, eventualno, progamabilnosti, ali ne kontam kakve to ima veze s gustoćom dostupne energije ). See, problem je u tome što heterotrofi kontinuirano postoje milijunima i milijardima godina. I to postoje zato jer niša kojom o kojoj ovise (autotrofi), ovisi o izvoru koji je, for all intents and purposes, beskonačan.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/search?q=+Solving+Fermi%27s+Paradox

On another level, though, Fermi’s Paradox can be restated in another and far more threatening way. The logic of the paradox depends on the assumption that unlimited technological progress is possible, and it can be turned without too much difficulty into a logical refutation of the assumption. If unlimited technological progress is possible, then there should be clear evidence of technologically advanced species in the cosmos; there is no such evidence; therefore unlimited technological progress is impossible. Crashingly unpopular though this latter idea may be, I suggest that it is correct – and a close examination of the issues involved casts a useful light on the present crisis of industrial civilization.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Ne samo da smo mi pregledali samo jedan djelić Galaksije (nemogu sad reći točno koliko, a neda mi se kopati), u priču o tehnološkoj ekstraterestrijalnoj civilizaciji ulazi daleko više faktora od mogućnosti neograničenog tehnološkog napretka. Ovo je samo proizvoljno i neargumentirano svođenje samo na jednog. Može li objašnjenje eliminacije svih ostalih argumenata i svođenje paradoksa samo na ovaj jedan? Nisam ni mislio.

It’s been an article of faith for years now, and not just among science fiction fans, that progress will take care of the difference. Progress, however, isn’t simply a matter of ingenuity or science. It depends on energy sources, and that meant biomass, wind, water and muscle until technical breakthroughs opened the treasure chest of the Earth’s carbon reserves in the 18th century.

Normalno da je bio "article of faith", jer ništa od tih ideja nije bilo testirano. Od slaganja vozila u orbiti, do "jahanja" na kometima i asteroidima, ništa nije testirano. Tvrditi da je furanje svemirom nemoguće jer Saturn V nema dovoljnu snagu je isto kao da se tvrdi da je nemoguće furati po vodi jer nemožemo na njoj stajati, ili da je nemoguće letjeti jer nemamo krila, ili da je nemoguće da avion leti jer je pretežak, ili........ you catch my drift, nadam se.

The modern faith in progress assumes that this process can continue indefinitely. Such an assertion, however, flies in the face of thermodynamic reality. A brief summary of that reality may not be out of place here. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and left to itself, it always flows from higher concentrations to lower; this latter rule is what’s called entropy.

I, opet, povlačenje argumenta termodinamike implicira da stvar stoji sasvim lijepa, čista i nedirnuta barem još 5 milijardi godina.

The resources now being proposed as ways to power industrial civilization are all much more diffuse than fossil fuels.

No zato su (recimo u slučaju izravne konverzije fotona) pouzdanija i daleko više dugotrajnija. Pitanje kratke i nagle, ili duge i laganije akumulacije energije.

(Nuclear power advocates need to remember that uranium-235, which has a great deal of energy when refined and purified, exists in very low concentrations in nature and requires a hugely expensive infrastructure to turn it into usable energy, so the whole system yields very little more energy than goes into it(1); fusion, if it even proves workable at all, will require an infrastructure a couple of orders of magnitude more expensive than fission(2), and the same is true of breeder reactors.)

1 & 2: LOL. Pogotovo za točku 2.Predložena goriva za fuzijski reaktor su i više nego bogato zastupljena u Sunčevom sustavu (ako i ne na Zemlji), i moguće je dizajnirati relativno jeftini način dostave, recimo, helija sa Saturna za fuzijske reaktore na Zemlji.

We can apply this same logic to Fermi’s paradox and reach a conclusion that makes sense of the data. Since life creates localized concentrations of energy, each planet inhabited by life forms will develop concentrated energy resources. <...> but all will reach the point we are at today – the point at which it becomes painfully clear that the biosphere of a planet can only store up a finite amount of concentrated energy, and when it’s gone, it’s gone.

Ovaj argument (tj. pogled na Fermijev paradoks) ignorira činjenicu da postoje i nebiološko generiranje energije. Ogromna većina načina na koji se, recimo, generira struja je užasno primitivna, gorivo koje pokreće parnu turbinu. Između termoelektrana i nuklearnih elektrana jedina razlika je u gorivu, što je cijela ova stvar o "gustoći energije". No, kao što tehnologija fotovoltažnih ćelija pokazuje, moguće je izravno, tehnološki, pretvarati energiju i iskorištavati ju. Čak i kad je iiskorištena cijela zaliha fosilnih goriva, moguće je energiju dobivati izravno iz obližnje zvijezde ili, kao što sam spomenuo gore, iz plinskog diva iz susjedstva.

Et cetera. Ako sam nešto zaboravio, ili preskočio, slobodno mi ukaži.