Rising methane: is there a methane emergency?
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2021.0334

The atmospheric methane burden rose rapidly in 2020: more rapidly than at any previous time in the observational record. The causes of this rise are complex and not well understood. It is likely much of the growth is driven by increased emissions from biological sources, such as natural wetlands, agriculture and landfills, especially in the Tropics and sub-Tropics. Other processes such as declining methane sinks may also be contributing.

The methane budget is not closed. In the overall estimates by Saunois et al. (2020), there are wide uncertainty margins in each sub-category and huge discrepancies between Top-Down and Bottom-Up assessments. Moreover, in seeking to track methane, we are chasing a very fast-changing target—the global methane budget in 2021 is very different from the budget in 2010.

...

Is the warming feeding the warming? Will methane emissions rise in response to climate warming? The answer is not known: it depends on what exactly is driving growth. A warmer world is also a wetter world. Wetland emissions grow both with temperature and with wetland area. Thus, a feedback is likely and expected. Tropical and Boreal/Arctic wetland sources will most probably emit more methane.

As the planet warms, becoming wetter and hotter, and the Tropics expand, tropical farming will become more productive. An increase in human agriculture will likely occur with more ruminants, more crops and crop waste fires, more use of fertilizer running off into wetlands, all leading to methane emission.

Fossil fuel methane emissions may also respond to climate warming. Although warmer winters in the North may lead to a decline in the use of gas for heating, warmer Tropical and sub-Tropical summers will occur. Air conditioning is now very widespread across the tropics and sub-tropics and will drive rising demand for electricity, much of it currently gas- or coal-fired with attendant methane emissions

Startup vyrábí jídlo ze vzduchu. Svět by levně uživil z plochy malého státu - Seznam Zprávy
https://www.seznamzpravy.cz/clanek/tech-technologie-startup-vyrabi-jidlo-ze-vzduchu-svet-by-levne-uzivil-z-plochy-maleho-statu-185627

Denní dávku proteinů člověka by dokázal pokrýt za 10 korun a na jejich výrobu oproti třeba hovězímu potřebuje jen setinu vody a tisícinásobně méně půdy. Finský podnik produkuje i méně emisí a svůj produkt živí právě hlavně plyny.

Scientists call for a moratorium on climate change research until governments take real action
https://theconversation.com/scientists-call-for-a-moratorium-on-climate-change-research-until-governments-take-real-action-172690

Where to from here for climate change scientists?
The first option is to collect more evidence and hope for action. Continue the IPCC process that stays politically neutral and abstains from policy prescriptions. A recent editorial in Nature called on scientists to do just that: stay engaged to support future climate COPs.

However, this choice not only ignores the complex relationship between science and policy, it runs counter to the logic of our scientific training to reflect and act on the evidence. We know why global warming is happening and what to do. We have known for a long time.

Governments just haven’t taken the necessary action. In a recent Nature survey, six in ten of the IPCC scientists who responded expect 3℃ warming above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Persisting with this first option is therefore untenable.

The second option is more intensive social science research and climate change advocacy. As Harvard historian Naomi Oreskes recently observed, the work of the IPCC’s Working Group I (WGI, on the physical science basis of climate change) is complete and should be closed down. Attention needs to focus on translating this understanding into action, which is the realm of WGII (on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) and WGIII (on mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions).

In parallel, growing numbers of scientists are getting involved in diverse forms of advocacy, including non-violent civil disobedience

...

We call for a moratorium on climate change research that does little more than document global warming and maladaptation.

Attention needs to focus on exposing and re-negotiating the broken science-society contract. Given the rupture to the contract outlined here, we call for a halt on all further IPCC assessments until governments are willing to fulfil their responsibilities in good faith and mobilise action to secure a safe level of global warming. This option is the only way to overcome the tragedy of climate change science.

...

We have reached a critical juncture for humanity and the planet. Given the unfolding tragedy, a moratorium on climate change research is the only responsible option for revealing and then restoring the broken science-society contract.

TADEAS: nas korporatny firewall si mysli ze su to zle myslienky :)))

Web Page Blocked!
You have tried to access a web page which belongs to a category that is blocked.

Tání arktické půdy, která nikdy neměla roztát, ohrožuje celý svět, tvrdí studie - Novinky.cz
https://www.novinky.cz/veda-skoly/clanek/tani-arkticke-pudy-ktera-nikdy-nemela-roztat-ohrozuje-cely-svet-tvrdi-studie-40383862

Nic co bysme tady nevedeli, ale clanek v cestine o tom v mainstreamu (vzacnost celkem) - takze to sem postuju.

IMHO: Jako to jak moc to bude skokove proste jeste nedokazi domyslet ani ti komentatori.

DNF: Tadeasova farma ma u me 5 hvezdicek z 5 moznych.

Ten problem je v necem jinem. Predstava ze zemedelstvi bude pro 8 MLD lidi neco co nebude mechanizovane, a promyslene (prumyslove) a zaroven to bude funkcni a nasyti 8 MLD lidi je nesmysl.

Naopak, dnesni zemedelstvi jeste vubec neni z meho pohledu prumyslove, protoze neni dobre promyslene. Zameruje se jen na 1 aspekt celku. Skutecne prumyslove zemedelstvi bude promyslene tak ze bude respektovat ty potreby ekosystemu, protoze bez neho bude muset nejen draze a slozite kompenzovat svoje vlastni chyby, ale za par desitek let skonci uplne.

DNF: ekosystemy na rozzil od klimatu jsou lokalni, regionalni, pro me budoucnost nastala https://refar.ma/

DNF: Ano, ja se toho bojim. Dezinfo kolem dusledku konzumace zivocisne stravy na lidsky organismus je plna pulka veganskejch auditek po internetech.

A kde se to uz stalo? Dobra paralela. No treba v oblasti toho ze se BIO potraviny vnimaji jako neco lepsiho ten posun je celospolecensky je to cistej byznys se lzi. Neresi to ani welfare, ani erozi pudy, ani ekosystemove externality a uz vubec neplati ze dane prostredky (arbitrarne a neodborne urcene) ochrany jsou lepsi nez moderni vyvinute latku (muzu jmenovat radu prikladu kde je to presne naopak - napr. jicha vs. moderni synteticke prostredky proti plisnim co maji biologickou rozlozitelnost 2 tydny (jicha je perzistentni a toxicka)).

TUHO: prave to neni prerod, je to furt to samy, snaha se vymanit z toho prumyslovyho paradigmatu a najit to co je tomu ekosystemu patricny, tzn. vedoma hyperpredace, management ekosystemu k jeho integralnimu stavu za danejch podminek

TADEAS: Proof of podjeb .))
No a jak probihala tvoje "konverze" k veganstvi a potom k regenerativnimu zemedelstvi. Koneckoncu jsou to pomerne kompilkovany identitarni prerod .))

TADEAS: Ja to chapu, ale myslim, ze pro vsechny bude prinosnejsi, kdyz to explicitne kontextualizujes jako tedka :) Me to naivni veganstvi leze na nervy taky (castecne proto, ze jsem ho dlouhodobe praktikoval :D)... Nicmene nevim, jestli tyhle bocni ustepacny podjeby jsou cesta vpred .))

TUHO: potrebuju se vyrovnavat s emocionalnima apelama na to, ze rostlinne zemedelstvi spasi svet a delam to i pasivne agresivnim trolenim. obecne me sere povsechny ekosystemovy ignoranstvi, ktery se v tomhle havu vydava za neco lepsiho. mam si na to zridit separatni klubik? .]