• úvod
  • témata
  • události
  • tržiště
  • Přišli jste skrz odkaz na příspěvek, který již neexistuje.

  • diskuze
  • nástěnka
  • přihlásit
    registrace
    ztracené heslo?
    TUHOKlimaticka zmena / Thank you so much for ruining my day
    PETER_PAN
    PETER_PAN --- ---
    AYOS: TADEAS se to snazil vysvetlit. Pokud myslis jakykoliv promysleny zpusob hospodareni ze je prumyslovy, pak se asi neshodneme na reci kterou mluvime.

    Mame tu ekosystemy ktere managujeme. Ten managment musime vest zpusobem ktery je nejenze respektujici enviromentalni potreby, ale i prinasejici nam potravu. Ty ekosystemy jsou a budou emitenty sklenikovych plynu vc. methanu a zaroven jsou a budou jejich zachytavaci. Oba fenomeny maji nejake mantinely v kterych se budeme pohybovat.

    Pri managmentu obsahujici i velke bylozravce v kombinace s pozadavkem aby nam neposkytoval uzitek budeme mit nejake emise sklenikovych plynu a na stejny ekosystem v kombinaci s nastavenim ze nam budou prinaset uzitek ve formne potravin - budou ty emise jine. Je mozne a pravdepodobne ze o neco vetsi a ted se bavime o tom ze diskuze s tebou je na urovni toho nemit zadne. To ssebou nese rezignaci na fungovani tech ekosystemu a rezignaci na to ptat se na opodstatnene, akceptovatelne emise v kontextu celkovych emisi a zachytu sklenikovych plynu nami v kazdem pripade managovanymi ekosystemy.
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    AYOS: na zruseni se te ptam proto, abych ilustroval, ze ekosystem zrusit nemuzes a ze bude mit emise. fosilni infrastrukturu potencialne zrusit/transformovat muzes a emise mit nebude. ekosystem nemuzes zrusit, muzes ho managovat, tzn. muzes napr. hybat s emisema v nejakym rozsahu. na ekosystem se muzeme divat z hlediska klimatu, ale hledisko klimatu pro nas jako ze zeme se zivici lidi stejne dulezity jako hledisko ekosystemu, protoze jsme (az do prichodu syntetickejch bilkovin) na nem plne zavisli, tzn. jsme nutne soucasti jeho cyklu (vc. cyklu toho metanu), tzn. nemuzeme ho zrusit, protoze z nej zijeme.

    tam kde se jedna o intenzivni chovy se uz nejedna o otevrenej ekosystem, je to nejakej uzavrenejsi system a tam uz lze plyny zachytavat a lepe pracovat s 'odpadem' (coz je feature pouze uzavrenejsich systemu).

    ty stovky milionu krav nekomu poskytuji vyzivu, zdroj jejich potravy jsou typicky ekosystemy, ze kterych jinak nez skrze ty zvirata obzivu moc neziskame. tzn. z hlediska land-use je tu volba, ze dane prostory jsou divocina (typicky ochuzena o ty bylozravce/megafaunu) a probiha tam lov, nebo tam neprobiha lov a my je nijak produkcne nevyuzivame, nebo tam probiha rizena pastva, nebo neco typu sklizeni sena, slamy vyuzivane k vykrmu. dokrmovani skotu nejakou produkci z orne pudy v celkovem meritku myslim nepredstavuje vyznamnej podil, ale je to problematicke, protoze to casto tu produkci metanu navysuje.

    ad 'nepotřebujeme obhajovat antropogenní emise metanu z chovu skotu skrze potřebu zachování cyklu uhlíku' - myslim si, ze 1/ potrebujeme obhajovat nejake nutne baseline emise ekosystemu, pokud za tyto ekosystemy nemame nahradu (pokud nemame lepsi alternativni land-use nebo lepsi alternativni zpusob managementu toho ekosystemu), 2/ potrebujeme obhajovat mene degenerativni zpusoby chovu skotu - protoze je to kvalitni zdroj potravy pro cloveka i z marginalnich ekosystemu, 3/ potrebujeme obhajovat regenerativni zpusoby pastvy skotu nebo jinych bylozravcu, protoze jsou esencialni funkci ekosystemu pri budovani/regeneraci pudy.
    JINDRICH
    JINDRICH --- ---
    Recent European drought extremes beyond Common Era background variability

    https://www.nature.com/..._biPT1W7MNC4b-lWWK7ET3Z30kaUeD44EvaRi1sKU34dqeVHAAJua_X5Phq8aJWl6JxVkEY%3D
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    AYOS: stranky jako celek jsem nevidel. pusobi to na me jako obrana chovu skotu (ne obecne zivocisne vyroby), s cimz castecne souznim, castecne ne, big ag muze cokoliv vyuzit ve svuj prospech :) ja se spis zameruju na potencial toho regenerativniho paseni (bylozravcu), spis nez na intenzivni chovy, ale v urcitym smyslu se to kryje v tom, co je pouzivano jako argument zastancu rostlinny stravy, tj. typicky to zacne u metanu.

    jestli chces neco vyjasnovat, tak se teda vyjadruj presne a rozlis mezi 'chovem hospodarskych zvirat' a 'chovem skotu', 'intenzivnim chovem' (dotovanym prumyslovou produkci na orne pude) a extenzivnim (neprumyslovym) chovem (managementem ekosystemu). rozlis 'nevyvolava zadne negativni efekty' vs. snahu nejak kontextualizovat ty dekontextualizovany (tvoje 'je to jedno') uvahy o metanu.

    ja ti k tomu rozliseni biogenni-pyrogenni-fosilni a antropogenni-prirozeny pridavam jiny, a to ekosystem vs. prumyslova infrastruktura. odpad (skladky) jsou v tomhle smyslu spis na strane ty prumyslovy infrastruktury - je to potencialne neco, co muzeme hodne ovlivnit, podobne jako fosilni metan. muzeme stejnym zpusobem ovlivnit skot, ryzoviste? muzeme je ovlivnit skrz management, tzn. napriklad skot vyuzivat k budovani pudy. ale nemuzeme ovlivnit, ze nejake oblasti nejsou vhodne jako orna puda, ze nejlepsi zpusob jak z nich ziskavat obzivu je skrze bylozravce, ze neni volba ten ekosystem jehoz jsou soucasti proste nemit. ryzoviste nevim, opet - maji byt zrusena? cim se budou zivit lidi, jejich civilizace stoji na ryzi? ta uvaha je od toho, co je postradatelny (ryze min nez fosilni energetika), protoze ekosystem trumfuje civilizacni infrastruktury, potrebujeme ho vic. procesy ekosystemu managujeme (nutne), nemuzeme se z toho vyvazat, development civilizacnich infrastruktur je v tomhle daleko volnejsi.

    v zakladu je uvaha, ze ekosystemy (nyni takrka vzdy managovane nami lidmi) maji nejake baseline emise, nemuzou je nemit. muzeme uvazovat o tom, jak je managovat jinak - zatimco z nich ziskavame potrebnou vyzivu a latky - tj. napr. tak, aby nemely destabilizacni ale stabilizacni vliv na klima, abychom svoji cinnosti v nich podporovali jejich procesy.
    PER2
    PER2 --- ---
    European summer droughts since 2015 unprecedented in past two millennia
    https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/europeandrought

    An international team, led by the University of Cambridge, studied the chemical fingerprints in European oak trees to reconstruct summer climate over 2,110 years. They found that after a long-term drying trend, drought conditions since 2015 suddenly intensified, beyond anything in the past two thousand years.

    i cesi podepsani pod touhle studii
    PETER_PAN
    PETER_PAN --- ---
    AYOS: Uz jsem se o tom jednou bavili, residence time ma omezenou vypovidajici hodnotu. Z hlediska rekcni kinetiky je relevantni half-time a ten je u methanu cca 7 let. Residence time muze byt i ve stovkach let, ale je to irelevatni udaj. Hlavne jedna se o arbitrarne urcenou hodnotu.

    Koukni na ilustracni obrazek, ktery je pro nas ucel rozhodne nepresny a tyka absorbni kinetiky latky X, ale pro laickou predstavu (pochopeni trendu) staci. Jednalo-li by se o reakcni kinetiku modelove latky X, residence time by byla v tisicich, mozna deseti-tisicich hodin. C0 (zde ~ 82 neceho) je aktualni koncentrace a half time je v case asi 8 hodin. Pricemz neustale aktualizovani C0 (vlivem prisunu novych a novych molu latky X) ma tohle v realu uplne jiny prubeh. Proto je dulezite se bavit o half-fime, nebo rovnovazne koncentraci atd. a ne residence time.

    Navic u methanu bude pri ruznych koncentracich aktualni souhrna rychlost vsech reakci methanu jina. Pouze cast methanu v atmosfere konci jako CO2.

    PETER_PAN
    PETER_PAN --- ---
    AYOS: A ad 4. Nic jako prirozeny cyklus neexistuje, jsme po usi v antropocenu a diskutovat ma cenu to cemu TADEAS rika managment ekosystemů. A ty jednotlive managmenty maji sledovat nejaky soubor cileu(a produkce potravin je jednim z tech cilu) a maji byt promysleny z globalniho kontextu a respektovat lokalni specifika.
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    AYOS: ad 'je úplně jedno zda je to biogení, pyrogení nebo fosilní metan, jde o to, že je antropogenní'. -- jedno z jakeho pohledu? leda z toho, ze je to metan a ze nam nejak jde o koncentrace v atmosfere. potud ano. pokud ale jdeme dal a ptame se co s tim, tak metan z fosilnich zdroju je pro nas necim jinym nez z tech biologickejch - biologicky jsou systemy a ty muzeme nejaka managovat, kdezto fosilni metan je dusledkem developmentu energetickejch infrastruktur. fosilni metan potencialni muzeme eliminovat, biogenni rozhodne eliminovat nemuzeme, protoze ekosystemy tu vzdy nejaky jsou a budou a my jsme zavisli existencialne na jejich funkci daleko bazalneji nez na funkci fosilni civilizacni infrastruktury. ... tohle tvoje 'je to jedno' prave primo cili na ten fatalni omyl - ne, neni to jedno a je zdrcujici, ze to neni jasne videt. pokud je to jedno, pak eliminace bylozravcu, ryzovist, vysuseni mocalu je v jedny rovine s regulaci fosilnich infrastruktur. smutny, ne.
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    AYOS: ne, nedavam to sem ukazku jako lzive propagandy. podle tebe to je lziva propaganda? propaganda ceho a co jsou ty lzi? rad se poinformuju. co vim:

    1/ nemluvi o vyvazene koncentraci v atmosfere, ale o vyvazenosti biogenniho cyklu metanu
    2/ ok. kdyz hledam, nachazim ruzny udaje, ipcc uvadi delsi
    3/ mluvi o "biogenic methane from steady-state sources", ne o metanu v atmosfere obecne. to je smysl toho prispevku - jak se zohlednuje v ruznejch modelech.
    4/ jakej industrialni intenzivni proces?
    DZODZO
    DZODZO --- ---
    AYOS: ad 2) mas odkaz na nejaku studiu ktora tvrdi ze je to dlhsie ako 8-12 rokov?
    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    JIMIQ: krasny, ted uz bitcoin presahl dopady na klima, destabilizuje stredni vychod a muze mit diky blackoutum i brzo na uctu obeti na zivotech

    hned bych do nej nasypal naky korunky, takovou prilezitost si nechat ujit .)
    JIMIQ
    JIMIQ --- ---
    Ráj kryptoměn v Číně končí. Těžaři berou energii Íránu, lidé jsou potmě - Seznam Zprávy
    https://www.seznamzpravy.cz/...ptomen-v-cine-konci-tezari-berou-energii-iranu-lide-jsou-potme-146800

    poměrně rozsáhlý článek
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    Governing In The Planetary Age
    https://www.noemamag.com/governing-in-the-planetary-age/

    If we’ve learned one lesson from the pandemic, it’s that nation-states don’t govern well at the planetary level or at the local level. The same is true for other planetary phenomena like climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions operate at a planetary level, but consequences vary dramatically from one locality to another. Neither the problem nor its impacts align with national boundaries.

    ...

    nation-states are also not the right institution for climate change adaptation: Los Angeles, Miami and Minneapolis are all impacted by climate change, but in vastly different ways that require vastly different policies. In fact, these cities’ climate impacts have more in common with cities in other nation-states (for example, Cape Town, Dhaka and Moscow, respectively) than they do with each other. Yet nation-states are wired for coordination and collaboration among the subnational entities contained within them, not across them.

    This dynamic is found across a range of major issues. From economic precarity to public health, the nation-state is ill-equipped to manage the planetary roots of the problems and the local consequences for communities.

    ...

    Solving these twin crises of ineffective and illegitimate governance requires a fundamental restructuring of our governing institutions. In particular, it requires stripping the nation-state of many of its powers and governance functions, moving some up to planetary institutions and others down to local institutions.

    ...

    The “planetary” refers to issues, processes and conditions that span the Earth and transcend nation-states. “Global” and “globalization” are the currently popular terms for describing world-scale issues. But the planet is not the globe: The globe is a conceptual category that frames the Earth in human terms. Globalization, likewise, adopts a fundamentally human-centric understanding of the “integration” that has happened over the last few decades — the accelerating flow of people, goods, ideas, money and more.

    The planet, by contrast, frames Earth without specific reference to humans. “To encounter the planet,” explains Dipesh Chakrabarty, “is to encounter something that is the condition of human existence and yet profoundly indifferent to that existence.” The Earth is not ours alone. Worldwide integration is not merely the intentional work of humans. Humans are embedded and codependent with microbes, the climate and technologically enabled emergent trans-species communities.

    Planetary thinking emerges from ongoing transformations in the fields of ontology, or the nature of being, and epistemology


    ...

    Like Galileo and Darwin in earlier eras, the planetary represents a paradigm shift. It is neither empirically nor normatively adequate to assume, as the idea of globalization does, that humans top the global hierarchy and all else must and can bend to the march of human progress. We are but one (very recent) component in the biogeochemical ferment of the Earth, caught up in feedback loops of the carbon cycle and microbial and multispecies codependency.

    ...

    By planetary governance institutions, we do not mean the traditional institutions of global governance. The U.N., I.M.F. and World Health Organization, among other contemporary global governance institutions, are multilateral member-state institutions that focus on human-specific flows and represent the interests of their member states. They don’t respond directly to planetary challenges or answer directly to citizens.

    The planetary demands new binding institutions at the planetary scale, not simply member state institutions that operate on a voluntarist basis. This does not mean a single world state. We envision a specifically delimited authority at the planetary level over specifically planetary things.

    In practice, this means we need binding planetary institutions that go beyond the Paris accord for climate, beyond the W.H.O. for syndromic surveillance and health, beyond the U.N. Environmental Program to deal with biodiversity and a wholly new planetary institution to deal with tech-related risks. Together, these would form a new planetary tier of governance, above and beyond the nation-state.

    ...

    Together, nested and interlocking planetary, national and local institutions would form a system of multilevel governance. This system architecture allows for governance bodies to be better suited to the scale of the issue they are tasked with governing. Rather than default to the nation-state (and then wring our hands when the nation-state fails), as we do now, the principle of subsidiarity provides a rule of thumb for determining which governing institutions should be assigned to deal with which challenges.
    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    Devět zemí chce od Evropské komise datum zákazu prodeje aut na fosilní paliva - Ekolist.cz
    https://ekolist.cz/.../devet-zemi-chce-od-evropske-komise-datum-zakazu-prodeje-aut-na-fosilni-paliva
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    TADEAS:

    Grand Transitions: How the Modern World Was Made, Smil, Vaclav - Amazon.com
    https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Transitions-Modern-World-Made-ebook/dp/B08WHLCN1H/
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    Grand Transitions: How the Modern World Was Made. – Vaclav Smil
    http://vaclavsmil.com/2021/03/05/grand-transitions-how-the-modern-world-was-made/

    What makes the modern world work? The answer to this deceptively simple question lies in four “grand transitions” of civilization – in populations, agriculture, energy, and economics – which have transformed the way we live. Societies that have undergone all four transitions emerge into an era of radically different population dynamics, food surpluses (and waste), abundant energy use, and expanding economic opportunities. Simultaneously, in other parts of the world, hundreds of millions remain largely untouched by these developments. Through erudite storytelling, Vaclav Smil investigates the fascinating and complex interactions of these transitions. He argues that the moral imperative to share modernity’s benefits has become more acute with increasing economic inequality, but addressing this imbalance would make it exceedingly difficult to implement the changes necessary for the long-term preservation of the environment. Thus, managing the fifth transition – environmental changes from natural-resource depletion, biodiversity loss, and global warming – will determine the success or eventual failure of the grand transitions that have made the world we live in today.



    Want Not, Waste Not
    https://www.noemamag.com/want-not-waste-not/

    There is no one threshold. There are many different thresholds. A lot of people said that China over the last few years was overdoing the exploitation of its natural resources. I said, “No, it may be constantly collapsing in some places, but it’s also constantly improving elsewhere.”

    ...

    Let’s look at things as they are: There is no “economy” — there is only energy conversion. Your car, your heated houses, your flights to Europe — all must take a big hit. Unless we invent some miraculous type of energy technology, seriously stemming climate change means we would have to deliberately decrease our standards of living. It’s impossible for everyone on the planet to live like people in Santa Clara County and still have a perfect environment. Just impossible.

    ...

    The idea that limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030 will make a big enough difference is wishful thinking. There are many papers scientifically showing that much more warming is already in the pipeline. We need to admit that the train has left the station. It’s very likely the warming ahead will exceed 2 degrees Celsius at least. So, yes, the realism you speak of must involve coping with rising seas, intense storms, perpetual wildfires and the rest.

    ...

    Our greatest hope is to finally realize how wasteful we are. We simply need to do what I call “rational management.” We waste up to 40% of all food we grow. And agriculture accounts for about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. We release all that into the biosphere to grow food, and then we waste 30, 35, 40% of it every year, year after year.

    Now, it’s impossible to run an economy with zero waste. But we could bring down waste to less than 15%. Certainly less than 30. The same is true about energy for transport. Thirty years ago, the best-selling vehicle was not the Ford F-150, but small and medium-sized cars. We waste energy, we waste food, we waste materials — in so many ways.
    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    How China Aims To Beat The U.S., Europe At ‘Net Zero’ Carbon
    https://www.forbes.com/...4/how-china-aims-to-beat-the-us-europe-at-net-zero-carbon/?sh=79db3704708a

    What does it mean? It means China is gearing up to invest in clean power technologies (think EV batteries and solar panels) and will add more zero-carbon, zero-emissions energy to its grid. Nuclear stood front and center during Premier Li Keqiang’s 2021 Government Work Report delivered at the start of the week long meeting.
    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    How Dirt Could Help Save the Planet - Scientific American
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-dirt-could-help-save-the-planet/

    As the largest terrestrial carbon sink, which stores three times more carbon than the entire atmosphere, soil offers a vast repository with immense, untapped capacity. Since the beginning of agriculture, food production has removed about half, or 133 gigatons, of the carbon once stored in agricultural soil, and the rate of loss has increased dramatically in the last two centuries, creating a large void to be filled. Restoring this carbon stockpile would sequester the equivalent of almost one fifth of atmospheric carbon, bringing greenhouse gas concentrations nearly to pre–industrial revolution levels and making soil less erodible. Let’s be realistic—we’re not going to restore 133 gigatons of carbon any time soon. But working toward this goal could be a centerpiece of a multifaceted plan to address both erosion and climate change.

    Farmers know that soil is no longer a renewable resource. Many farms are simply running out of it. A 2018 inventory from the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that the United States loses soil on average 10 times faster than it is generated; and in states such as Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada, erosion is much more rapid. In parts of Africa and Asia, soil erosion outstrips replenishment as much as a hundredfold.

    ...

    Replacing just 10 percent of a corn crop with strategically placed prairie plants reduces erosion 95 percent! Similarly, reforestation reduces erosion with large tree roots that anchor and enrich soil. All of these soil-protective practices accelerate carbon sequestration, reducing greenhouse gas accumulation.

    ...

    Intensive regenerative grazing, a method for pasturing cattle that boosts carbon sequestration by stimulating plant growth, duplicates the effects of the herds of bison that once roamed the American plains, contributing to formation of some of Earth’s most fertile soils. Regenerative grazing regimes involve moving cattle frequently—sometimes several times in a single day—to new pasture, thereby preventing the animals from cropping the vegetation close to the ground. The remaining plants recover and start growing again more quickly than those that have been reduced to nubs, enabling them to be more photosynthetically active over the growing season and accumulate more carbon. Some researchers estimate that regenerative grazing boosts carbon fixation through photosynthesis enough to cancel out most of the greenhouse gases released by beef production.
    PALEONTOLOG
    PALEONTOLOG --- ---
    KEB: winwin
    KEB
    KEB --- ---
    PALEONTOLOG: anebo je to babišova úlitba eko a snaha nabrat voliče u zelených (v kampani pak bude vykládat jak chvaletuce zavřel) Nehledě na to, že Babiš už si protlačil podporu bioplynkám.
    Kliknutím sem můžete změnit nastavení reklam