Tady trosku k tomu vysvetleni, proc environemntalni hnuti je casto proti jadru... Aneb jeden z duvodu je nevyrseni otazky jadernyho odpadu, ale druhy je vojensky vyuziti radioaktivniho materialu

Slovenský ochranársky snem
Emil Grobauer · 4 hod ·
Z čoho vlastne vzniklo ekologické hnutie? "Greenpeace v septembri 2021 oslavovalo 50 rokov environmentálneho aktivizmu, ktorý pochádza z prvej kampane na zastavenie testu jadrovej bomby na Aljaške. Ekológia však na začiatku 70. rokov nebola módnou myšlienkou. Ochranárske skupiny chránili parky, ale neexistovalo žiadne globálne aktivistické hnutie, ktoré by dalo hlas samotnej Zemi. V sedemdesiatych rokoch vo Vancouveri sa malá skupina ľudí vydala vytvoriť ekologické akčné hnutie v rovnakom rozsahu ako hnutia za mier alebo občianske práva. Počas pretekov v jadrovom zbrojení po druhej svetovej vojne získalo globálne mierové hnutie dynamiku. V USA biológ Dr. Barry Commoner našiel stopy stroncia-90, karcinogénneho vedľajšieho produktu jadrových výbuchov, v detských zuboch. Podobné štúdie v Rusku a Európe odhalili, že rádioaktívne jadrové vedľajšie produkty kontaminovali všetky oblasti Zeme. Mierové hnutie a ekologické hnutie sa začali spájať." Aj dnes naliehavo potrebujeme, aby sa ekologické a mierové hnutie spojilo znova dohromady. Naša planéta krváca. "Od roku 1971 sa ľudská populácia viac ako zdvojnásobila (z 3,76 na 7,67 miliardy), zatiaľ čo hojnosť stavovcov klesla o viac ako 30% a ryby, obojživelníky, plazy, vtáky a cicavce klesli o 60%. Komerčné zásoby rýb boli vyčerpané o 85% a oceánske zóny vyčerpané kyslíkom sa zvýšili o 75%. Každý rok strácame približne 13 miliónov hektárov lesov. Od roku 1971 sa emisie uhlíka zvýšili o 250 %, z približne 4 na 10 gigaton ročne." To posledné, čo dnes na ťažko skúšanej Zemi potrebujeme je návrat studenej vojny a rinčanie zbraňami. Namiesto zvyšovania medzinárodného napätia, rastu výdavkov na zbrojenie, príprav na reálnu vojnu veľmocí s využitím cudzích území, ako je napríklad aj naše malé a krásne Slovensko sa potrebujeme sústrediť na klimatickú a ekologickú krízu, aby sme zachránili našu civilizáciu. Peniaze vyhodené na zbrojenie treba použiť na podporu vzdelanosti a ekologické projekty. Západ investuje do zbrojenia mnohonásobne viac, ako napríklad Rusko, tak načo ešte ďalej zbrojiť a zvyšovať napätie? To vyhovuje len tým, ktorí na zbrojárskom biznise zarábajú. Nikomu inému. Spomeňte si, z čoho ekologické hnutie vzišlo priatelia. Make Peace not War!

Klimatologie na MUNI
V Nature byl tento týden publikován článek věnující se dopadům tání permafrostu (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-021-00247-8). V současné době činí plocha trvale zmrzlé půdy kolem 30 mil. km2 jejíž teplota během let 2007-2016 stoupla o průměrně o 0,4 °C. Přes veškeré současné i budoucí snahy se očekává trvalá ztráta permafrostu o ploše 4 mil. km2 do konce století. Není však jasné, jestli s rostoucí teplotou bude tundra zarůstat trávou a křovinami (proces greeningu) nebo naopak vysychat.
V každém případě je již nyní ohroženo 70 % současné infrastruktury postavené na permafrostu, přičemž největší problémy očekává Rusko. Do r. 2050 bude navíc táním ohroženo 30–50 % silnic, potrubí, měst a továren postavených za polárním kruhem.
Tání permafrostu navíc představuje spolu s dalším faktory (např. tání mořského ledu, požáry v tajze, změna tryskového proudění) jeden z bodů zlomu, po jejichž překročení se může klimatický systém na dlouhou dobu vychýlit z rovnováhy (viz přiložené schéma známých bodů zlomu)

SHEFIK:

Staying below 2° C warming costs less than overshooting and correcting | Ars Technica
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/staying-below-2-c-warming-costs-less-than-overshooting-and-correcting/

Not surprisingly, minimizing temperature overshoot will require much greater investments in the short term (starting within the next 10 years). But all of the models project that these upfront costs will result in a higher global GDP (up to 2 percent higher) by 2100, with most showing benefits already by around 2080. The authors note that greater investments in the short term will likely be fully compensated by more GDP growth in the second half of the century.

The key is to reach net-zero emissions around mid-century, and our study shows that this requires both a very strong reduction of the use of fossil fuels and additionally at least some scaling up of options for removing carbon from the atmosphere,” wrote Bertram. “In the first article based on this study (published in summer), we showed that in the short-term, the critical factor is the decarbonization of the power sector, mostly via rapid expansion of renewable energy.”

#climateEconomy

Extreme weather could be as expensive as investing in cutting carbon ASAP | Ars Technica
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/extreme-weather-could-be-as-expensive-as-investing-in-cutting-carbon-asap/

Recently, a network of climate modeling groups showed that it will cost more to overshoot the Paris Agreement temperature goals than it will to stay on a low-temperature trajectory.

2020

Scientists’ warning on affluence | Nature Communications
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16941-y

For over half a century, worldwide growth in affluence has continuously increased resource use and pollutant emissions far more rapidly than these have been reduced through better technology. The affluent citizens of the world are responsible for most environmental impacts and are central to any future prospect of retreating to safer environmental conditions.

We summarise the evidence and present possible solution approaches. Any transition towards sustainability can only be effective if far-reaching lifestyle changes complement technological advancements. However, existing societies, economies and cultures incite consumption expansion and the structural imperative for growth in competitive market economies inhibits necessary societal change.

Arctic Methane Readings Signaling Further Destabilisation of Arctic Permafrost.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScientistsWarning/permalink/631116364883715/

In the past few days, large plumes of methane have been detected over the Arctic ocean. The readings are showing 2300+ ppb concentrations effectively maxing out the ability of the satellite to measure it. These are highly anomalous particularly as this is the coldest month of the year where we would not expect to see additional melting of sub-sea permafrost.

Concentrated methane readings are typically associated with man-made activities, intensive farming, gas, and oil fields. These seeps are a long way from human activity and therefore indicate a disturbing change in the patterns of emission from natural sources.

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.