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


    "Given the sheer enormity of climate change, it’s okay to be depressed, to grieve. But please, don’t stay there too long. Join me in pure, unadulterated, righteous anger."


    "I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. Once you start to act, the hope is everywhere."

    "Our best scientists tell us insistently that a calamity is unfolding, that the life-support systems of the Earth are being damaged in ways that threaten our survival. Yet in the face of these facts we carry on as usual."

    “We’ve got to stop burning fossil fuels. So many aspects of life depend on fossil fuels, except for music and love and education and happiness. These things, which hardly use fossil fuels, are what we must focus on.”

    A nejde o to, že na to nemáme dostatečné technologie, ty by na řešení použít šly, ale chybí nám vůle a představivost je využít. Zůstáváme při zemi, přemýšlíme až moc rezervovaně. Technologický pokrok to sám o sobě nevyřeší. Problém jsme my, ne technologické nástroje.

    Rostouci hladiny oceanu, zmena atmosferickeho proudeni, zmeny v distribuci srazek a sucha. Zmeny karbonoveho, fosforoveho a dusikoveho cyklu, okyselovani oceanu. Jake jsou bezpecnostni rizika a jake potencialni klady dramatickych zmen fungovani zemskeho systemu?
    Ale take jak funguji masove dezinformacni kampane ropneho prumyslu a boj o verejne mineni na prahu noveho klimatickeho rezimu post-holocenu.
    rozbalit záhlaví
    ZAHRADKAR
    ZAHRADKAR --- ---
    JIMIQ: jj, ja vim a doufam v to - ze za deset let to nejak prekopu kvuli elektroautu a ty panely budou porad vyrabet. Ale taky vydrzet nemusi, muzou moralne zastarat tak, ze je radeji nahradim necim ucinejsim (mam precijen omezenou plochu a kdyby ucinnost stoupla treba k 30%, byla by to pecka), muze na ne spadnout strom nebo nektere mohou vykazovat defekty. Je to zkratka dlouhe obdobi a takove investici na >10 let uz proste moc neverim - riziko.
    JIMIQ
    JIMIQ --- ---
    ZAHRADKAR: životnost systému bez baterky je daleko přes 10 let. Je jistá nenulová pravděpodobnost, že ti za deset let klekne měnič, ale to je tak třetina celkové ceny. Možná i míň
    ZAHRADKAR
    ZAHRADKAR --- ---
    sry, ta spotreba je 4MWh = 1.2 prodej (virtualni baterie) + 0.4 nakup + prima samospotreba 2.4
    ZAHRADKAR
    ZAHRADKAR --- ---
    TADEAS: Prave i na ten planetarni urovni mam o vyhodnosti bateriovych FVE na RD pochybnosti. Nerikam, ze to u nekoho nemusi byt opravdu efektivni, ale obecne si myslim, ze ty systemy casto funguji tak, ze baterie nasledne posila energii do nejakeho tepelneho cerpadla nebo bojleru a meni elektrinu na teplo. Toto lze ale dosahnout s aku nadrzi (sud s vodou) mnohem levneji bez baterek, draheho stridace, atp. Nepocital jsem to, ani nebudu.


    TUHO: Nemuzes pocitat dnesni ceny energie a investici 3 roky starou - musis to odurocit. Cena energie v dobe, kdy to kupoval, byla polovicni. Ty penize by mu na burze vydelaly desitky procent mezitim - opportunity costs. Neni to tak jednoduche, jak se zda. Navic mnoho lidi, vcetne jeho dost pravdepodobne, meli fixnutou silovku. Ted mu bude naopak rust cena za distribuci (urcite se s cerpadlem neodstrihne i s takto velkou FVE, protoze v lednu nesviti a je zima). Ta navratnost bude jen s dotaci a jen s odrenyma usima. A nedej boze, aby mu nekdy po 5-ti nebo 10ti leteh lehl stridac. Ty hybridni 10kWp stridace jsou otazkou >50tis.

    Stranou nechme to, ze bateriove systemy konzumuji enegii i kdyz FVE nevyrabi. Baterku je treba udrzovat nabitou. Toto muze v sume zvysit celkovou spotrebu domacnosti o 1MWh ( https://www.irozhlas.cz/ekonomika/energetika-elektrina-ceny-fotovoltaika-solarni-panel_2305021400_gut ). Je toto environmentalni?

    Budu mluvit za sebe - vcera mi prislo zuctovani od CEZu. Baterii jsem taky mimochodem zvazoval, dokonce ji i chtel poridit, ale cisla me utvrdila o tom, ze to nedava smysl: spotrebuju 4MWh, z toho pokryju rovnou 2.8 primo z FVE (bez baterie), dalsi 1.2 prodam do site a dokoupim 400kwh. Naklady 70 tisic (130k bez dotace). Ta navratnost mi v dobe porizeni ('21) vychazela na 6-7 let (s dotaci). S vyssimi cenami je asi o neco mene. Zivotnost toho systemu budu uvazovat 10 let. To neni kdovijak dobra investice, ale tak je to cista energie a panely vypadaji cool:) Kdybych poridil baterii, cely system by stal dvojnasobek, ale realne bych usetril jen za distribuci tech 1.2MWh, ktere poslu do site - to je tak mozna ~2kkc/rok. Cili 20k za 10 let. Ekonomicky nesmysl. A environmentalni taky, protoze ta baterie je u RD malo vyuzivana - malo cykluje a navic jeji vyroba stoji taky CO2 atp atd.

    Proto pisu, SHEFIK, ze by bylo mnohem efektivnejsi, kdyby stat ty penize pres distributory nalil do ulozist. Napr u kazde trafacky jedna vetsi baterka a komunitne vyrovnaval pretoky. Sit by byla stabilnejsi a meli by z toho prospech vsichni, nejen ti, co si mohou dovolit stresni FVE. Takto chudsi dotuji levnou energii bohatym. Socialni nesmysl.

    Proc to stat neudela? Protoze je jednodussi a popularnejsi lidem davat penize na ruku, nez rozumne rozvijet spolecnou infrastrukturu. Je to nakup volicu a podpora lobbystickych skupin vydelavajicich na instalacich FVE. Ty firmy si v podstate celou tu dotaci vezmou.
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    TADEAS: tak jasne, tomu rozumim.
    ja reagoval na to “ekonomicka navratnost je nerealna i s dotaci”. coz teda zkusenosti zrovna tohodle znamyho vyvraci a trochu pochybuju, ze by do toho tolik lidi slo, kdyby to byla pravda…
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    TUHO: musel bys srovnat celej ten cyklus tech vyroben a ulozist energie, podle me uspory z rozsahu budou na strane tech velkejch vyroben a o ulozistich pak nepocbybuju, tam ta komplexita uz je daleko vyssi nez jen u do gridu primo napojene FV na strese. servás malych instalaci bude nakonec nejspis o dost narocnejsi a v celkove energrticko materialove kalkulaci to muze hrat znacnou roli. jestli realne lokalizovany vyrobny ulehcujou distribucni siti, to nevim, ale tipuju ze je to taky zodpovezeno. to ze se to vyplati/nevyplati financne, to ue jedno hledisko, principialni civilizacni hledisko je jake ten system ma eroei jako celek, spis nez kdo co komu zaplatil, coz je dulezite, ale melo by to byt sekundarni.
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    LACIF: Tak na ty veci je u solidnich firem snad nejaka zaruka ne?
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    ZAHRADKAR: fakt? osobni zkusenosti znamejch teda mluvej o opaku… Konkretni zkusenost kamarada ze severu Cech zde:

    Zdarec,
    hele spokojenost naramna. Kazdy rok to udela cca 13MWh, z cehoz 12MWh spotrebuju a zbytek prodam. Tak si to prepocitej na penize.
    Mam to uz tusim 3. rokem, takze kdyz budu pocitat, ze to vyrobilo 50MWh x 3000Kc = 150KKc. A dal jsem do toho 190KKc. Jeste 2 roky a mam to zpatky:)

    Samozrejme kdyz jsem to delal, tak cena elektriny byla jinde, ale i tak jsem mel navratnost spocitanou asi na 8 let.

    S dotaci se to rozhodne vyplati. Bez ni by to bylo sporny.

    Ted si nechavam jeste dodelat 4 panely, abych vyuzil stridac naplno a prebytky budu prodavat. To hodi rocne taky tak 7KKc.

    A co se tyce udrzby, tak jsem na to zatim nesahnul:)
    LACIF
    LACIF --- ---
    …já to teď řeším u rekonstrukce… a vlastně vsichni, koho jsem oslovil (elektrikari, projektanti etc.) mi říkali to samy - tak často se něco vysere, ze je to nevýhodný
    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    ZAHRADKAR: muzes tu velkou neefektivitu rozepsat plz?
    PER2
    PER2 --- ---
    ZAHRADKAR: to by bylo urcite pekny a mnohem efektivnejsi, ale znas cesky lidi: "ja nebudu nic sdilet s pepou a jeste mu to platit" a hlavne, jakmile neco sdilis, chovas se k tomu o mnoho hur => kaslu na nejaky setreni energii ze spolecny baterie
    ZAHRADKAR
    ZAHRADKAR --- ---
    PER2: Nevim,jestli jasat nebo brecet. Ty baterie jsou na rodinnych domech velmi neefektivni - stat by udelal mnohem lepe, kdyby dotoval sdilena uloziste. Ekonomicka navratnost FVE s baterii na RD je mizerna az naprosto nerealna, i s dotaci.
    ZAHRADKAR
    ZAHRADKAR --- ---
    PER2: jj, to vypada jako dobra prognoza, diky. Myslim ale,ze do 2505 to civilizace v tehle forme neda, nastesti:)
    PER2
    PER2 --- ---
    TUHO:
    k tomu jeste tahle troska u nas a jen houst:
    V České republice bylo loni zprovozněno rekordních 82.799 nových solárních zdrojů, což je oproti roku 2022 o 49.039 zařízení více. Výrazně, o 970 megawattů (MW), vzrostl také instalovaný výkon. Největší část loňských instalací tvořila zařízení na rodinných domech, namontováno na ně bylo asi o 80.000 elektráren s celkovým výkonem 823 MW.
    Nyní je v České republice připojeno přes 167.000 fotovoltaických elektráren. Za poslední dva roky se z toho instalovalo 116.000 zařízení, uvedlo ministerstvo průmyslu a obchodu.
    Více než 90 procent loni instalovaných fotovoltaik bylo s baterií, celkem byla připojena akumulace s výkonem 917 megawattů. Meziročně jde o nárůst o 255 procent.
    PER2
    PER2 --- ---
    ZAHRADKAR: neco takovyho? :)
    IDIOCRACY Opening Scene (2006) Mike Judge
    https://youtu.be/sP2tUW0HDHA
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    Dutch Caribbean islanders sue Netherlands over climate change | Climate crisis | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/11/dutch-caribbean-islanders-sue-netherlands-over-climate-change
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    Safe and just Earth System Boundaries

    Abstract
    The stability and resilience of the Earth system and human well-being are inseparably linked1,2,3, yet their interdependencies are generally under-recognized; consequently, they are often treated independently4,5. Here, we use modelling and literature assessment to quantify safe and just Earth system boundaries (ESBs) for climate, the biosphere, water and nutrient cycles, and aerosols at global and subglobal scales. We propose ESBs for maintaining the resilience and stability of the Earth system (safe ESBs) and minimizing exposure to significant harm to humans from Earth system change (a necessary but not sufficient condition for justice)4. The stricter of the safe or just boundaries sets the integrated safe and just ESB. Our findings show that justice considerations constrain the integrated ESBs more than safety considerations for climate and atmospheric aerosol loading. Seven of eight globally quantified safe and just ESBs and at least two regional safe and just ESBs in over half of global land area are already exceeded. We propose that our assessment provides a quantitative foundation for safeguarding the global commons for all people now and into the future.

    Safe and just Earth system boundaries | Nature
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06083-8
    PALEONTOLOG
    PALEONTOLOG --- ---
    YMLADRIS: i na nyxu musíš fyzikům vysvětlit termohalinní cyklus, protože o něm vůbec netuší. zato velmi přesně vědí, že všechna energie se vyzáří zpět do vesmíru, takže šach-mat, oteplení není možný.
    YMLADRIS
    YMLADRIS --- ---
    Může se hodit TUHO (predplatny nemam)

    How Republicans Are Trying to Kill One of Biden's Most Successful Climate Programs

    Republicans are on the hunt for "the next Solyndra." But what does that mean?

    A brief history of Solyndra and the scandal that plagued the LPO

    Why Republicans—yes, the party of climate obstruction—started the LPO in 2005

    The “Valley of Death” problem that prevents much climate innovation

    How the LPO helped launch EVs and wind energy

    Why Republicans are going after a climate program they created two decades ago

    How Republicans Are Trying to Kill One of Biden's Most Successful Climate Programs
    https://www.distilled.earth/p/how-republicans-are-trying-to-kill
    YMLADRIS
    YMLADRIS --- ---
    TUHO: ad inzenyr s rovnicemi - ta Sabine Hossenfelder, fyzička co se (kromě jiných věcí) snaží mluvit o climate change, k tomuto psala, že z její zkušenosti drtivá většina vědců, kteří dodnes popírají klima, jsou bohužel fyzici. Vysvětluje si to tak, že jsou zpravidla supersmart a myslí si, že všechno ví nejlíp
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    TUHO: People who write about climate change are accustomed to getting emails explaining why they are mistaken. The writer, often a retired engineer, sends a couple of pages of equations “proving” that adding carbon dioxide gas (CO2) to the atmosphere cannot cause global warming. Is there a simple physics model that shows in a transparent way how humanity’s emissions of gases do heat the planet? History offers an instructive approach to this question. When scientists attacked the problem, what mental obstacles did they encounter, and how were those overcome? Two centuries of effort, summarized below, concluded that greenhouse calculations require computer models far too complex to be understood intuitively—but simple, readily grasped observations show that the models’ conclusions are plausible.

    Intuitive models
    The struggle began in 1824 when Joseph Fourier, as a minor aside from his landmark contributions to the physics and mathematics of heat flow, published a speculation. He proposed (wrongly) that interplanetary space is inherently very cold, and he wondered why our Earth is not frozen. Perhaps our atmosphere retains heat like a blanket? He compared the air to a pane of glass covering a box: the glass lets sunlight in but stops heat (infrared) radiation from leaving. This would later be called the “greenhouse effect.” Not until 1909 did a physicist, Robert W. Wood, point out that the phrase is misleading; the main work of the glass in an actual greenhouse is to separate the warm air inside from the cold winds outside. Still, Fourier’s rudimentary model of the atmosphere raising Earth’s temperature by blocking outgoing infrared radiation sounded plausible.

    The idea got little traction. There was no actual evidence that Earth needed help in keeping warm, and anyway air seemed to be entirely transparent to radiation. But then geologists discovered the ice ages: a constant global temperature could no longer be taken for granted. Could an ice age be caused by a change in the composition of the atmosphere? John Tyndall decided to check that by devising an apparatus to measure the passage of infrared rays through gases. In 1859, he found that the main constituents of the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, are indeed transparent—but water vapor, CO2, methane, and some other gases absorb infrared rays.

    How does that affect Earth’s climate? Tyndall, a superb science popularizer, came up with a simple model of the process that has never been bettered: “As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [heat] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.” A fine analogy—but understanding a process doesn’t signify much until you get numbers. How much would global temperature change if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere changed?

    Calculating a number
    In 1896, after half a century of advances in infrared measurements, Svante Arrhenius attempted to quantify the greenhouse effect. He began with a short list of equations, the first real physics model. There was much to calculate. Adding CO2 at a given height in the atmosphere would absorb a certain amount of radiation and warm that level. But then the warmer air would hold more water vapor, itself a potent greenhouse gas. So that had to be calculated too. Arrhenius made a separate calculation for each band of latitude, noting that when the surface in northern latitudes grew warmer, it would retain less ice and snow, uncovering dark ocean and soil that would absorb additional heat. In the end, he spent a full year on pencil-and-paper computations. Yet it was a simple model; one modern microchip could do the calculation in a fraction of a second.

    Arrhenius announced that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should warm the planet something like 4 °C. That was obviously only a rough estimate, but the exact number did not seem to matter much. At the rate that humanity was burning coal, Arrhenius figured it would take thousands of years to double the CO2.

    Other scientists soon decided that Arrhenius’s estimate was worthless. They were right, for as we will see, he left out factors that are crucial for climate. But their main argument was a simple one that apparently refuted the greenhouse effect altogether. A basic laboratory measurement indicated that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere could make no difference at all. For in the broad bands of the infrared spectrum where CO2 acts to absorb radiation, there was already enough of the gas in the atmosphere to make the air utterly opaque: that part of the infrared spectrum was “saturated.”

    So matters stood until 1956, when Gilbert Plass took a fresh look at the greenhouse question. The laboratory measurement of CO2 that supposedly refuted Arrhenius had been done at sea-level pressure. That seemed reasonable when everyone looked at the atmosphere from the bottom up, as if it indeed acted like a solid slab of glass. But if you looked down from space, you would see infrared radiation coming mostly from the thin air near the top of the atmosphere—air that was heated by absorbing radiation from below. Drawing on decades of progress in theory and spectroscopy, Plass knew that in this thin air, the bands of infrared absorption resolve into a thicket of individual lines. Adding CO2 would broaden the lines, and they would absorb more radiation. The place from which heat radiation finally escaped into space would migrate to a higher level. Everything below would get warmer, as in Tyndall’s analogy of a dam.

    Even with the new digital computers, it was a huge job to calculate the effect, layer by layer through the atmosphere and point by point across the spectrum. Plass could model only a one-dimensional column of air, a simpler physical model than Arrhenius’s even as it required much more computation. Plass found that doubling the CO2 in his model did raise the temperature by a few degrees down to ground level: the greenhouse question was revived. However, he had left out so many things (water vapor, for one) that everyone knew the question was not answered. Indeed, when Fritz Möller tried the calculation including water vapor, he got an unreasonable surface temperature rise of 10 °C or more.

    Complete calculations
    Syukuro Manabe took up the challenge. His equations included a crucial process that almost everyone had overlooked: convection. Heat rises from Earth’s surface not only in radiation but in columns of air and moisture, carried skyward, for example, in thunderstorms. That is what prevents Möller’s runaway surface heating. Manabe’s model was in a sense still simple, equations that could be written down on a couple of pages. But he meticulously fed it the details of the actual infrared absorption and humidity at 18 levels of the atmosphere. Calculating it all just for a one-dimensional column of air still needed a state-of-the-art computer. In 1967, working with a collaborator, Manabe produced a simulated atmospheric profile that looked pretty much like the real one. Then, like Arrhenius and Plass, he doubled the CO2 level in his simulated atmosphere and calculated the change in surface temperature—a number that would be called the climate “sensitivity.” It was roughly 2 °C. The calculation was impressive, convincing many scientists that greenhouse warming was worth looking into. Yet Manabe’s model was clearly too simple. In particular, like everyone else, Manabe had left out a feature of climate that profoundly affects radiation: clouds.

    Over the next decade, leaps in computer power enabled Manabe and his collaborators to clone their one-dimensional column thousands of times to wrap a globe in three dimensions, and to incorporate clouds and other essential climate features. To get the pattern of cloudiness, they had to calculate how the atmosphere exchanges moisture with simplified sea, land, and ice surfaces, and how rain or snow falls on the surfaces and evaporates or runs off in rivers, and more. Then there were the oceans, with their own circulation transporting vast amounts of heat from the tropics toward the poles. In the end, Manabe produced a simulated planet with trade winds, tropical rain bands, deserts, ice caps, and so forth in all the right places. Finally, a model complicated enough to look like the real world! Doubling the CO2 got, again, a sensitivity of roughly 2 °C.

    Humanity was now burning fossil fuels an order of magnitude faster than in Arrhenius’s day. Measurements of the CO2 level in the atmosphere revealed it was rising fast. A doubling was not a thousand years off, but likely before the end of the 21st century. National policies for energy production might need to be reconsidered.

    The U.S. President’s Science Adviser, geophysicist Frank Press, heard of the problem. In 1979, he turned to the nation’s traditional provider of trustworthy science advice: the National Academy of Sciences. The Academy duly convened a panel to conduct a study. The panel ploughed through publications on a variety of rudimentary models like Plass’s. They interviewed Manabe at length about his 2 °C finding. And they interviewed James Hansen, the author of the only other big climate model at that time, which computed a sensitivity of 4 °C. The panel found it very probable that doubling CO2 would seriously heat the planet. Splitting the difference between Manabe and Hansen, they estimated the sensitivity would be 3 °C give or take 50%, that is, 1.5–4.5 °C.

    The Academy panel judged well. The scientific consensus today still puts the most likely sensitivity at 3 °C (a climate of severe global disruption). The range of uncertainty was not narrowed until 2021, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put the likely lower bound at 2 °C and the upper at 4 °C, although they could not rule out 5 °C (an unimaginable catastrophe). So there persists a disturbing uncertainty. The most advanced models, embodying orders of magnitude more features than Manabe’s, disagree among themselves. Climate is inextricably complicated. That raises a different and urgent question: can these models, far too elaborate to be grasped intuitively, be trusted at all?

    Verifying the number
    The first convincing answer came in 1985 from Vostok, Antarctica, where the Soviet Union drilled a hole kilometers deep into the ice cap. Tiny bubbles in the ice preserved ancient air with its CO2. The ratio of oxygen isotopes (18O/16O) in the ice measured the temperature of the clouds at the time the snow had fallen, for the warmer the air, the more of the heavier isotope got into the ice crystals. Analysis showed that through the coming and going of entire ice ages, temperature and CO2 had soared and plunged in lockstep. And the sensitivity? Doubled CO2 meant a temperature rise of … wait for it … 3 °C give or take 50%.

    In any field of science, when two utterly different approaches give you the same number, you can feel you are in touch with reality. Researchers took up the problem with other independent methods, working out ingenious ways to find temperature and CO2 in distant geological eras (for example, the density of pores in fossil leaves reflects the CO2 level of the air, as do carbon isotope ratios in carbonates precipitated in ancient soils, while oxygen isotope ratios in shells in seabed sediments vary with the ocean surface temperature, etc.). A variety of studies kept getting the same sensitivity. Meanwhile, other researchers used the actual warming of recent decades as a sort of natural experiment. They found that the patterns of heating measured deep in individual ocean basins neatly matched the patterns that computer models calculated for rising CO2. They found that the distribution of cloud types seen by satellites changed with warming much like the responses of computed clouds … and so forth.

    The most impressive feature of the ongoing natural experiment is rudimentary. If you superimpose the rising curve of CO2 since the 1950s on the rising curve of observed global temperature, you find an ominous match (the match is particularly precise if you assume that an exponential rise of CO2 should cause a linear rise of temperature—Arrhenius, for one, found this intuitively plausible). Extrapolate to doubled CO2, and the temperature rise is, yes, near 3 °C.

    In 1979, when the Academy panel made their estimate, the world was on track to reach doubled CO2 well before 2100. However, if nations adopt policies to fulfill the pledges they have made, we can arrest the rise a bit short of doubling—unless we have bad luck and, as some models find possible, the warming triggers a vicious cycle of additional greenhouse gas emissions.

    Climate models today explore hundreds of interacting processes in computer runs lasting weeks at teraflop rates. Nature does not allow a simple, transparent model for global warming. But we have something perhaps better: simple, transparent ways to show that we must take the models seriously.

    REFERENCES
    1.Key papers by Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Plass, Manabe, the National Academy “Charney” panel, Vostok researchers, and more are reprinted with commentary in D. Archer and R. T. Pierrehumbert (editors), The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation for the Climate Change Forecast (Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, 2011).

    2.For full history and references, see S. Weart, “Basic radiation calculations” and “Simple models of climate change” (American Institute of Physics, 2022)

    S. Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming, 2nd ed. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2008).
    Google Scholar
    3.A short history from another viewpoint is H. Le Treut et al, “Historical overview of climate change science,” in S. Solomon, et al. (editors), Climate Change 2007:The Physical Basis of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007), pp. 93–127, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf.

    4.On matching CO2 and temperature curves, see J. Aber and S. V. Ollinger, “Simpler presentations of climate change,” Eos 103 (Sept. 13, 2022)
    5.For a college-level “simple” but reasonably complete model, see R. E. Benestad, “A mental picture of the greenhouse effect,” Theor. Appl. Climatol. 128, 679–688 (2017). All websites accessed Oct. 1, 2022.

    Spencer Weart published articles on solar physics in leading scientific journals and then turned to studying the history of science. From 1974 until his retirement in 2009, he was director of the Center for History of Physics at the American Institute of Physics. His publications include children’s science books, The Rise of Nuclear Fear, and The Discovery of Global Warming.
    Kliknutím sem můžete změnit nastavení reklam