MRAKY: nevidel jsem na co se odkazuje gojatla, na ktereho reagujes, nicmene - adaptovat se lze biologicky nebo skrz civilizacni infrastruktury. biologicky to ma nejaky rozsah, civilizacne taky. pokud se parametry prostredi dostanou mimo biologickou toleranci na dostatecnou dobu (eg ten wet bulb, coz nebylo soucasti "normalu od historie"), tak jsi ko, nebo se musis chranit napr. klimatizaci, ktera ale nesmi selhat. pokud selze, mas naraz masovy umrti mnoha lidi, protoze to uz je mimo biologickou schopnost se na to adaptovat.

nejde jen o teplotu, ale o kombinaci teploty a vlhkosti

Wet-bulb temperature - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature

GOJATLA: do diskuzi o predikcich teplot se poustet nebudu. Nic o tom nevim.
jen reaguju na clanek, ktery jsi pastnul Jen jsem poopravil, ze ted tam nejaka super nezvykla teplota neni ( ted je vyrazne pod 50) a chtel jsem zduraznit, ze v te oblasti se zahodily stare a osvedcene metody adaptace na vysokou teplotu a ze stale je mozne se pripravit i na vyrazne vyssi.

ta vysoka cisla na lidi co vyrostli v evrope/usa mozna pusobi jako sok, ale jsou to cisla, se kterymi se musely populace potykat v historii.

MRAKY: na tom neco je, nicmene klicovy problem je v tom, ze tyhle teplotni podminky se rozsiruji, takze budou vyzadovat zmenu v zivotnim stylu a zmenu civilizacni infrastruktury stale vetsiho mnozstvi lidi.

dalsi vec je, ze na teplotni podminky jsou nejakym zpusobem adaptovane i ekosystemy na jejichz produkci jsme zavisli. celkem snadno se da dokumentovat, ze druhy migruji pomerne rychle k polum a do vyssich poloh.

ekosystemy jsou komplexni adaptivni systemy, ktery maj tu vlastnost, ze udrzujou nejakou rovnovahu. toho jsou schopny ale do urcity miry, po prekonani kriticky hranice nastava fazovy prechod do kvalitativne odlisneho stavu. to prinasi celou radu problemu a nakladu pro lidskou spolecnost.

celkove spousta veci neni neresitelnych, ale je to rizikovy faktor, ktery zvysuje krehkost spolecnosti. treba michael mann si v tomhle vypomaha metaforou, ze klimaticka krize je jako chuze po stal hustsim minovem poli.

s kazdym dalsim krokem riskujes vic a vic. ale neni to tak, ze by ty rizika neexistovalo driv a byli zvela novy. na strednin vychode je treba dobre videt, jak se vlny sucha a neurody promitly do vnitrostatni migrace, zvysenych cen potravin, spolupusobici spolecenskou destabilizaci a nakonec spolupodilejici se na vlne prevratu a obcasnych valek v regionu. sami o sobe by zrejme byly managovatelne, ale vem si uz z jinych duvodu nestabilni system a muze to byt ta posledni kapka, kvuli ktery se system zhrouti

Starší série tří videí o klimatické změně od ekologického institutu Veronika
Příčiny globální změny klimatu (1. díl)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM4ULyn9tKU

Dopady klimatické změny (2. díl)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUpNfkRIIUg

Adaptace na změnu klimatu (3. díl)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JamRaMtikPo

MRAKY: tady jeste dodam Na BV se idiotsky zmenila architektura. Kdysi cela oblast byla uzpusobena zit v 45+. architektura byla cilene zamerena na zvyseni prutoku vzduchu. Pouzivala se tekouci voda na chlazeni prostredi. Populace zila v podvecer/rano/noci. Dneska? Baraky jsou staveny tak, ze vyzaduji klimatizaci. na tekouci vodu nenarazich. Populace je tlacena do zivotniho rytmu, ktery odpovida mirnym klimatickym podminkam... Proste se vytraci adaptace na prostredi.

NJAL: When experts in the fields covered by Lomborg check his texts, they most often find that the evidence has been distorted. Danish biologist Kåre Fog has systematically over many years checked Lomborg´s texts against his sources and references and against other scientific literature. His conclusion is that Lomborg´s texts are systematically manipulated to fit a certain agenda.
The web site Lomborg-errors has been established to document this claim. It gathers and publishes errors found in Bjørn Lomborg´s books, especially "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (2001) and Cool it! (2007).

hele koukam, ze prvni dochovane zminky o sklenikovem efektu pry pochazi od prace Eunice Footeove, vedkyne, vynalezkyne a bojovnice za zenska prava .]

In 1859, Tyndall showed that gases including carbon dioxide and water vapour can absorb heat. His heat source was not the Sun, but radiation from a copper cube containing boiling water. In modern terms, this was infrared radiation – just like that emanating from the Earth’s surface.
Previous work had shown that the Earth’s temperature was higher than expected, which was put down to the atmosphere acting as an insulator. But no-one knew the explanation for what we now call the greenhouse effect – gases in the atmosphere trapping heat.
What Tyndall did was to discover and explain this mechanism. He wrote: “Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat; but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”
He realised that any change in the amount of water vapour or carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could change the climate. His work therefore set a foundation for our understanding of climate change and meteorology.
Tyndall was not, however, the first to make the climate link. That prize goes to the American Eunice Foote, who showed in 1856 using sunlight that carbon dioxide could absorb heat. She suggested that an increase in carbon dioxide would result in a warmer planet.

John Tyndall: the forgotten co-founder of climate science
https://theconversation.com/john-tyndall-the-forgotten-co-founder-of-climate-science-143499

Eunice Newton Foote - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Newton_Foote

aneb "worst case scenario is still our bestchoice"

But a new study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argues that the high-end projection for greenhouse gas concentrations is still the most realistic for planning purposes through at least 2050, because it comes closest to capturing the effects "of both historical emissions and anticipated outcomes of current global climate policies, tracking within 1 percent of actual emissions."
The scenarios, called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), roughly show how much warmer the world will be by 2100, depending on how much more fossil fuel is burned, and how the climate responds. The best-case scenario (RCP 2.6) is the basis for the Paris climate agreement and would lead to warming of about 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.8 Celsius) by 2100. In that scenario, about 10 percent of the world's coral reefs could survive, and 20 percent of Alpine glaciers would remain.
The worst-case pathway (RCP 8.5) would result in warming of more than 8 degrees Fahrenheit (4.3 Celsius) by 2100, probably killing nearly all the world's reefs and definitely pushing vast areas of polar ice sheets to melt, raising sea level by as much as 3 feet by 2100.

RCP8.5 tracks cumulative CO2 emissions | PNAS
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/07/30/2007117117