• úvod
  • témata
  • události
  • tržiště
  • diskuze
  • nástěnka
  • přihlásit
    registrace
    ztracené heslo?
    TUHOKlimaticka zmena / Thank you so much for ruining my day
    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    #related #hope

    Large-scale solar can cool nearby areas – pv magazine International
    https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/10/06/large-scale-solar-can-cool-nearby-areas/

    Solar facilities were found to produce “cool islands” that extend up to 700 meters from the boundaries of the arrays. Land surface temperature was reduced by up to 2.3 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) at 100 meters away; the cooling effects tapered off exponentially to 700 meters.
    ...
    The study authors concluded the effect could have impact on local ecological processes. Productivity, decomposition, and ultimately the carbon balance could be skewed by the cooling. The scale of effect depends on location, and impacts could range from positive, negative, or inconsequential based on local ecosystems.

    For example, in California’s Mojave Desert, lower surface temperatures leads to reduced germination rates and a loss of biodiversity. But, in the Tibetan Plateau, lower surface temperatures could potentially reduce the amount of methane lost to the atmosphere, said the scientists.
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    Agrivoltaics. An economic lifeline for American farmers?
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=2ue53mBUtNY
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    Pathway to Regeneration with Phil Gregory
    https://youtu.be/eJZGzU3Emx4
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    Climate Executive Summary — RethinkX
    https://www.rethinkx.com/climate-executive-summary

    Our previous research has shown that disruptions of the energy, transportation, and food sectors are inevitable. Solar, wind, and batteries (SWB) will disrupt coal, oil, and gas. Autonomous electric vehicles (A-EVs) providing transportation-as-a-service (TaaS) will disrupt internal combustion engines and private vehicle ownership. And precision fermentation and cellular agriculture (PFCA) will disrupt meat, milk, and other animal products. The three disruptions are already unfolding simultaneously, and their implications for climate change are profound. Yet it will be up to us to decide whether or not we deploy these technologies worldwide rapidly enough to avoid dangerous climate change.

    The greatest barrier to fighting climate change is therefore our mindset. Conventional thinking views emissions mitigation through a linear, reductive lens that fails to appreciate the character, speed, and dynamics of change in both natural systems and human systems. By failing to fully appreciate these systems dynamics, conventional models have tended to underestimate not only the threat of climate change itself, but also the potential of technology to address it. As a result, we have seen a consistent pattern of mistakes and corrections over time, where each year the underestimated threat of climate change is corrected in the direction of ‘worse than we originally thought’ while the underestimated potential of technology to address it is corrected in the direction of ‘better than we originally thought’. Conventional thinking has therefore wasted time, attention, and resources on an eclectic array of ‘Band-Aid’ approaches to solving climate change like subsidies and taxes, biofuels, clean coal, clean diesel and other superficial techno-fixes that merely treat symptoms rather than the underlying problem.

    Instead, a simpler and more effective approach is to focus on a handful of key technologies that will transform the entire foundation of our economy. But simple does not mean easy. Simple means we understand the key drivers and levers of major systemic change. However, there are many obstacles to overcome, and we cannot afford to be complacent. Despite the tremendous opportunities that the clean disruption of energy, transportation, and food will bring, technology alone is not enough. Societies around the world must make the right choices. We can either accelerate the disruptions and solve the climate crisis by ushering in a new era of clean prosperity, or we can waste precious time and trillions of dollars propping up the incumbent system with an ineffective ‘all-of-the-above’ approach that exposes humanity to additional risk of climate change impacts.

    In this report, we help decisionmakers understand these choices by categorizing sources of emissions according to three stages of mitigation readiness: Research, Deploy, and Scale. More than three quarters of global GHG emissions can be mitigated by just eight key technologies that are either already at market and able to scale immediately, or ready to begin deploying to market. This provides a guide for decision-making based on how to prioritize our efforts to maximize mitigation benefits as soon as possible. Without such a framework, decisionmakers are left with a scattershot rather than focused approach to fighting climate change, which runs the risk of misallocating financial, material, and political resources.

    To maximize the climate benefits of these disruptions, investors, policymakers, civic leaders, and other decisionmakers should focus attention and resources in direct proportion to where the fastest and most impactful opportunities for emissions mitigation are located. Since the overwhelming majority of these opportunities already lie in the Deploy and Scale stages, our primary efforts should be on enabling economic forces to do the heavy lifting by ensuring open, competitive, and transparent markets. This means removing barriers that favor the incumbents such as utility monopolies in the energy sector, removing regulatory hurdles to electric and autonomous vehicles in the transportation sector, and removing livestock farming subsidies and protections in the food sector.
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    PETER_PAN: Manabe je velky borec. Doporucuju precist knihu Paula Edwardse, ktery zkouma historii vyvoje klimaticke vedy (A vast machiine), kde je jeho role v ustanoveni klimaticke vedy zminovana.

    But headlines are never as reliable as going to the scientific source itself, and the ultimate source, in this case, is the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald. 50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper, the science can be robustly evaluated, and they got almost everything exactly right.
    The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/
    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    #alreadyHere

    https://ekolist.cz/cz/zpravodajstvi/zpravy/od-roku-2009-zmizelo-kvuli-oteplovani-oceanu-14-procent-koralovych-utesu

    V letech 2009 až 2018 se plocha korálových útesů snížila o 14 procent. Uvedla to ve své studii mezinárodní organizace GCRMN, která stav korálových útesů monitoruje. Za negativní vývoj podle badatelů mohou v první řadě vyšší teploty vod světových oceánů, uvedla dnes agentura AFP. Ve sledovaném období se plocha korálových útesů snížila o 11 700 kilometrů čtverečních, což je plocha, která odpovídá rozměru Středočeského kraje a Prahy.
    PETER_PAN
    PETER_PAN --- ---
    Nobelovu cenu za fyziku získala trojice vědců za porozumění klimatu - Seznam Zprávy
    https://www.seznamzpravy.cz/clanek/nobelovu-cenu-za-fyziku-ziskala-trojice-vedcu-za-porozumeni-klimatu-176412

    Nobelovu cenu za fyziku získali tři vědci za modely klimatu naší planety. Poloviční podíl na ní má Ital Giorgio Parisi a zbývající polovinu japonsko-americký meteorolog Syukuro Manabe s německým kolegou Klausem Hasselmannem.

    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    TUHO: pac je autor nadcasovej :)) az to bude nekdo cist za rok, bude se "at the time" porad vztahovat k roku v tabulce
    JIMIQ
    JIMIQ --- ---
    ano, vypadá to jako blbá formulace, ale myslej tím to co říká Shefik dle další věty
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    JIMIQ: SHEFIK: "and divides it by the number of people living in the country at the time"
    ...ja bych dle toho cekal, ze to rika "vydeleno poctem lidi, zijicim v danem case", nikoliv v soucasnosti. Ale je to trochu za hranici mejch schopnosti prekladu a asi by to davalo vetsi smysl, jak rikas ty.
    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    JIMIQ: kdyz te ctu podruhy, tak asi jo :) jen ti tam neco chybi u "Druhý počítá per capita za každý rok zvlášť", pac pak se to jeste kumuluje aby z toho byl total
    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    SHEFIK: vzhledem k tomu, ze jsme montovna a energetickej vyvozce, tak nebude ani vazenej kumulativni prumer adekvatni :) #noteasy
    JIMIQ
    JIMIQ --- ---
    SHEFIK: říkáme to samé :D Estonsku hodně klesl počet obyvatel, takže když se emise vydělí současným počtem, tak vycházejí vysoko, když se vydělí pro každý rok tím správným počtem obyvatel, tak už je to číslo nižší
    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    JIMIQ: nemyslim se, dle tech vet oboji uvazuje past emise.

    ten rozdil dle vysvetleni je, ze bud vezmu:
    kumulativni emise a vydelim AKTUALNIMI obyvateli, tedy dostanu nejakou rozvahu toho, jak si stoji CR vuci ostatnim v poctu na AKTUALNI obyvatele (pokud by driv zilo 20 mil v CR, je to nefer scitat jejich emise a delit aktualnim)

    nebo ferovejsi zpusob - kazdy rok vydelim danym poctem obyvatel - tedy vazeny prumer, ktery nasledne sectu za vsechny roky
    JIMIQ
    JIMIQ --- ---
    TUHO: tím at the time se myslí nyní, to je vysvětleno "assigning responsibility for the PAST to those alive TODAY"

    takže první způsob vezme kumulativní děleno populace DNES. Druhý počítá per capita za každý rok zvlášť
    JIMIQ
    JIMIQ --- ---
    TUHO: líbí se mi že tam je i Brazílie a Indonézie coby ničitelé pralesů
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    TUHO: Btw tuhle cast uz ctu trikrat a stale nechapu rozdil, nepomuze mi nekdo? .)) Prvni pristup: vydeli kumulativni emise daneho roku velikosti populace v dane dobe (tedy spocita per capita emise daneho roku ne?)
    Druhy pristup: Scita per capita kazdy rok...
    V cem je rozdil?

    The first approach takes a country’s cumulative emissions in each year and divides it by the number of people living in the country at the time, implicitly assigning responsibility for the past to those alive today. The table, below left, shows the top 20 countries on this basis, as of 2021.
    The second approach takes a country’s per-capita emissions in each year and adds them up over time, with the result, as of 2021, shown in the table, below right. This gives equal weight to the per-capita emissions of the populations of the past and of the present day.
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    TUHO: Podle analyzy Carbon Brief, jsme v "cummulative emissions per capita" az desaty nejhorsi na svete. Predchozi jediny vycisleni naz posilalo do cela zebricku
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    Ktera zeme je nejvic zodpovedna za klimatickou krizi_

    Which countries are historically responsible for climate change?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zP0L69ielU


    Analysis: Which countries are historically responsible for climate change? - Carbon Brief
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill | US political lobbying | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon-microsoft-disney-lobby-groups-climate-bill-analysis
    Kliknutím sem můžete změnit nastavení reklam