YMLADRIS: presne tak, a proto uz je to davno, jeste nez xchaos a nyrlem booknuli auditko, co jsem prisel s konceptem klimaticke trampoliny. pokud postavime dostatek trampolin, tak jak klimaticka zmena bude dopadat, trampoliny ji budou odrazet. dejte mi dostatecne velkou trampolinu a odrazim jakoukoliv katastrofu. pak jdu rovmou na hokej

TADEAS: "love, fate, destiny, hope"

Trochu o Norhausovi DICE modelu na Skeptical Science.

Matheus Grasselli, another of the speakers, presented quite a detailed analysis of William Nordhaus’s DICE model. He highlighted how it essentially assumes that the system is always in equilibrium, even if there has been some major shock. He also showed how the results depended strongly on assumptions about damages. What I thought was particularly interesting is that in the DICE model, everything seems to recover even in extreme scenarios.

So, it seems that there is a general view that there are many valid criticisms of these economic analyses. However, at the risk of being accussed of being deferential again, I do think there are many economists who acknowledge this and who are trying to do more appropriate analyses. I do think that some of the damage estimates are way too low, and that the results of some of these analyses have been presented in ways that then play into the hands of those who want to minimise the impact of climate change.

Estimates of the economic damages from climate change
https://skepticalscience.com/estimates-economic-damages-climate.html

NYRLEM: Ta korelace je zpusobena tim, ze mnozstvi CO2 meni radiacni bilanci atmosfery, to je fakt znamej uz od poloviny devatenactyho stoleti. Vsechno soucasny vedeni o fyzice atmosfery, reakci oceanu, biosfery, kryosfery, chemie atmosfery etc rika, ze se bude oteplovat a ze tam neni pouze korelace, ale kauzalni vztah.
Zaroven uz mame nekolik desetileti uspesnejch predpovedi klimatickejch modelu. Ale z hlediska teorie vedy jsou teorie fundamentalne neoveritelny tak ci tak, takze o "neoveritelny teorii" muzes mluvit do nekonecna.
Point je, ze mame miliardu velmi zavaznejch duvodu se domnivat, ze nas ceka extremni pruser, pokud rychle nezvednem prdel a neco s tim neudelame.

za vedro muzou americani, protoze jejich rakety saturn V pohnuly zemskou osou.

no videli jste ty rakety?? vzdyt to bylo obrovsky. takze se nelze divit nasledkum.

NYRLEM:


Věřte, nevěřte – znělka
https://youtu.be/cqOyBghzURM

modrá, nikoli zelená ikonka

ze na to mas energii :)

A o co se tedka hraje podle Johana Rockstroma, jednoho z top svetovych vedcu v tyhle oblasti.

Johan Rockström on a +2 and +3 degrees world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuQIMnJejHc

A k tematu. Neco pokryvajici klimaticka rizika

At one degree – the world we are already living in – vast wildfires scorch California and Australia, while monster hurricanes devastate coastal cities. At two degrees the Arctic ice cap melts away, and coral reefs disappear from the tropics. At three, the world begins to run out of food, threatening millions with starvation. At four, large areas of the globe are too hot for human habitation, erasing entire nations and turning billions into climate refugees. At five, the planet is warmer than for 55 million years, while at six degrees a mass extinction of unparalleled proportions sweeps the planet, even raising the threat of the end of all life on Earth.

https://www.amazon.com/Our-Final-Warning-Degrees-Emergency-ebook/dp/B07YN9WSN8

NYRLEM: Stupen uz mame davno za sebou.

NYRLEM: Pokud tenhle fuckup globalne nezvladnem, zadny strelivo ti nepomuze. Ted uz je proste prilis pozde na to bejt pesimista ))