• 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
    PALEONTOLOG
    PALEONTOLOG --- ---
    ale zase buďme fér, není AI jako AI

    “Just like mining for Bitcoin, servers and processors are guzzling up energy with our everyday digital needs, but AI will 100% improve our transition to clean energy. By using algorithms to predict our energy usage patterns and forecast the availability of renewable energy, AI can efficiently manage the charge and discharge of batteries and perform load-shifting to optimise our energy use. The real question is, is the extra energy required for AI processing less than the energy it will save? Absolutely yes.”

    Will AI help or hinder the energy transition? - Power Technology
    https://www.power-technology.com/features/will-ai-help-or-hinder-the-energy-transition/?cf-view
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    názor

    Is private capital the missing piece in $125 trillion energy-transition puzzle?
    https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/is-private-capital-the-missing-piece-in-125-trillion-energy-transition-puzzle

    The UK is almost a microcosm of a worldwide energy transition quandary—where the amount of investment needed, globally, is closer to $125 trillion. While each market faces its unique set of circumstances and advantages, the same structural trends and questions remain: Where do we get the money?

    That dilemma can be seen in two ways. First, there’s the question of how to fund new sources of renewable energy and build the accompanying storage infrastructure to support those new sources. Second, the world must modernize power grids to handle more demand stemming from things like the proliferation of electric vehicle charging networks and power-hungry data centers fueling digitalization and AI adoption.

    ...

    Private capital has already honed in on the world’s growing energy need, with several of the largest managers launching strategies targeting energy infrastructure. For example, KKR is currently in the market with a $7 billion fund targeting energy transition investments. As of April, Blackstone had raised $1 billion for its latest energy transition vehicle.

    While fundraising activity has dipped in the past year, infrastructure investors are sitting on about $334 billion of dry powder. PitchBook data shows that the total capital raised by infrastructure funds reached a peak in 2022 with about $138.5 billion raised across 122 globally. The previous year, 2021, saw a peak in the total number of fund closes, with 146 closing on $132.7 billion.

    ...

    Two of the largest fundraising hauls came at the end of the 2023, with Brookfield Asset Management gathering $28 billion for its fifth infrastructure fund in December. Around the same time, the United Arab Emirates announced $30 billion vehicle with the backing of BlackRock, TPG and Brookfield.

    ...

    “Society depends on a digital economy and it wants very clearly an economy where energy is abundant and cleaner, and this creates great investment opportunities,” he said. “The private capital sector is extremely well positioned to meet those demands and the government’s role is not to fund it, but to put the right playing field in place.”
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    SHEFIK: permissionless vs permissioned - validovani centralni nebo decentralni. zda je btc mena je otazka (ne odpoved:) - spis je to base layer permissionless protokol kryty velkym mnozstvim vynalozene energie coz funguje jako "rezerva" pro dalsi menove, platebni systemy/aplikace

    z pohledu efektivniho vynalozeni energie je nejlepsi mit totalitni stat s centralni digitalni menou, kde maji primo obcane sve wallety. plny dohled a management problemu. prove me wrong ,)

    Digital renminbi - Wikipedia
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_renminbi
    CHOSIE
    CHOSIE --- ---
    Metacrisis: Getting Honest About the Human Predicament
    The world is in metacrisis. That means that many crises are occurring simultaneously and affecting one another.

    Attention must be placed first on the whole, not on the parts. That includes the natural world. It is the source of the resources including food that support human survival and prosperity. Disregarding the effects of our actions on nature is among the principal reasons for the metacrisis.

    --

    Even in the narrow case that only considers emissions, there is no evidence that the renewable energy transition has changed their upward trajectory despite thirty-six international climate conferences and trillions of dollars of investment over the last forty years.

    In fact, there is no evidence that an energy transition exists. Energy consumption and population continue to increase every year.

    --

    Growth is the problem. Carbon emissions are a consequence of the growth in energy consumption that has enabled the growth in human population and economic activity.

    As long as energy use continues to increase, efforts to limit carbon emissions will be negligible, and temperature will rise.

    Growth is also the root cause of the ongoing crisis of the natural world. Populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish have declined by an average of 69% since 1970.

    --

    The global financial system is highly interconnected, meaning a crisis in one region can quickly spread to others. Financial institutions and markets are increasingly reliant on digital infrastructure, making them vulnerable to cyber-attacks.

    Those who believe that a renewable energy transition is possible seem to ignore that carbon emissions, GDP, population and society’s ecological footprint all correlate with energy consumption. That means that there is a cost for lower emissions.

    Unless the future is somehow completely different from the past and present, the only solution to climate change and overshooting our planetary boundaries is a radical reduction in energy consumption. Lower economic growth and a lower population will be unavoidable components of a renewable energy future. That’s not part of the transition narrative, and is a non-starter for most people and political leaders.

    --

    We need a holistic approach, one that moves fluidly from the whole to the parts and back again. Otherwise, we’re simply shifting problems around, likely making everything worse in the process.


    Metacrisis: Getting Honest About the Human Predicament | Art Berman
    https://www.artberman.com/blog/metacrisis-getting-honest-about-the-human-predicament/
    CHOSIE
    CHOSIE --- ---
    TUHO: No, on jakkoliv přehledný graf stejně běžnému člověku moc neřekne, protože nemají představu, co globální průměr a oteplení znamená.
    Tam bych se spíše odkázal třeba na Our Final Warning: Six Degrees of Climate Emergency od Marka Lynase, který alespoň nějak nastíní co to oteplení dle nejaktuálnější vědy znamená.

    Pokud vím tak jsme stále nejblíže scénáří RCP 8.5, i když alespoň dle těch dat co máme, jsem došel k závěru, že se od jej čistě spalováním fosilních paliv v nějaké fazi oddálíme, protože jich není tolik dostupných - nejde pouze o fyzické rezervy, ale také o to zda se energeticky, finančně a technologicky vyplatí je extrahovat (viz EROEI / diminishing returns..), též platí pro všechny ostatní suroviny.

    Na druhou stranu IPCC nepočítá s mnoha pozitivními zpětnými vazbami a podceňuje maskovací efekt SO2 a jiných plynů. A samozřejmě také počítá s sekvestrací, která se neděje a nemáme ani žádný důkaz toho, že by šla v takovém rozsahu provést. To je i samotný problém s tzv "net-zero", který ve zkratce znamená "utrácej teď, zaplať zítra", a to je stále vize, ve které nesnižujeme koncetraci, ale pouze ji držíme tam kde je, což pokud vezmeme v potaz publikace, které James Hansen od minulého roku vydal, znamená oteplení o 8-10C v rámci 1000-1500 let.

    Nutno podotknout, že IPCC je spíše publikací politickou, než vědeckou, takže je tam zkrátka tato hrst naděje a udržení status quo "potřeba".

    To mě i přivádí k další kritice, i když se přiznám vycházím pouze z citace
    TUHO:
    The world is facing a poly-crisis of interconnected and complex new and emerging risks, driven by climate change, geopolitical instability, social inequality, digital transformation, and health challenges.

    Zajímavé, že zmíní klima, geopolitiku, společnost, aj., nicméně absolutně ignorují biofyzickou realitu, suroviny na planetě jsou omezeny množstvím, energie (paliva) jsou to co člověka napadne jako první, ale on i písek, nebo vzácné kovy, půda, voda,.. hrají velkou roli, a opět nelze spoléhat jen na dokázané rezevy, ale také myslet na kvalitu a energetickou/finanční návratnost, nebo na negativní externality spojené s těžbou apod.

    Osobně mám za to, že se o tomto nemluví, protože by to znamenalo zpochybnit myšlenku růstu, kterou IPCC/ekonomové/.. stále tlačí kupředu, a nebo je to částečně strach z toho jak by společnost reagovala? Kdo ví..
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    Novy report od pojistovny pojistoven Swiss Re

    SONAR 2024: New emerging risk insights
    The world is facing a poly-crisis of interconnected and complex new and emerging risks, driven by climate change, geopolitical instability, social inequality, digital transformation, and health challenges.

    https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2024.html
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    Digital Regenerative Agriculture | npj Sustainable Agriculture
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s44264-024-00012-6
    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.
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    Facing extinction, Tuvalu considers the digital clone of a country | Tuvalu | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/27/tuvalu-climate-crisis-rising-sea-levels-pacific-island-nation-country-digital-clone
    PER2
    PER2 --- ---
    PER2: a jeste treba federation drought (a starsi zaznamy asi nemame pac aborigicnci na to predtim pekli)

    Federation Drought | Australia’s Defining Moments Digital Classroom | National Museum of Australia
    https://digital-classroom.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/federation-drought

    Australia is the driest inhabited continent where long periods of low rainfall, sometimes lasting many years, are common. The Federation Drought from 1895 to 1903 (named after Australian Federation, achieved in 1901) was the worst drought ever recorded in Australia. During the drought Australia lost more than 40 per cent of its cattle, and it took 50 years for sheep numbers to recover. The drought also broke up the huge farms occupied by squatters and changed Australian farming practices.
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    btw sledujete meltdown muska kolem twitteru? co o tom myslite?

    Twitter, a place I’ve called my digital home for just over a decade now, is being eaten alive by billionaire child-king Elon Musk. He’s gorging on it so he can enter his next stage of evolution: Eco-Fascist Joffrey Baratheon.

    Out of his depth, mean-spirited and watching his genius myth dissolve, Musk’s mask has slipped. It’s clear to more each day he’s an enemy of the climate movement – his achievements are severely exaggerated and his efforts in support of fossil fuels and fossil-loving political parties like the Republicans are getting worse. He’s pouring toxic waste into an irreplaceable space for climate activism and networking, and he’s happy about it.

    Elon Musk’s far-right lurch helps the fossil fuel industry – Ketan Joshi
    https://ketanjoshi.co/2022/11/26/elon-musks-far-right-lurch-helps-the-fossil-fuel-industry/
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    TUHO: Relevantni take clanek

    The advent of digital computing in the 1950s sparked a revolution in the science of weather and climate. Meteorology, long based on extrapolating patterns in space and time, gave way to computational methods in a decade of advances in numerical weather forecasting. Those same methods also gave rise to computational climate science, studying the behaviour of those same numerical equations over intervals much longer than weather events, and changes in external boundary conditions. Several subsequent decades of exponential growth in computational power have brought us to the present day, where models ever grow in resolution and complexity, capable of mastery of many small-scale phenomena with global repercussions, and ever more intricate feedbacks in the Earth system. The current juncture in computing, seven decades later, heralds an end to what is called Dennard scaling, the physics behind ever smaller computational units and ever faster arithmetic. This is prompting a fundamental change in our approach to the simulation of weather and climate, potentially as revolutionary as that wrought by John von Neumann in the 1950s. One approach could return us to an earlier era of pattern recognition and extrapolation, this time aided by computational power. Another approach could lead us to insights that continue to be expressed in mathematical equations. In either approach, or any synthesis of those, it is clearly no longer the steady march of the last few decades, continuing to add detail to ever more elaborate models. In this prospectus, we attempt to show the outlines of how this may unfold in the coming decades, a new harnessing of physical knowledge, computation and data.

    Climbing down Charney’s ladder: machine learning and the post-Dennard era of computational climate science | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering S...
    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2020.0085
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    A tady celkem vyzivnej 40 strankovej clanek z historie klimatologie...

    Climate modelling is now a mature discipline approaching its fortieth birthday. The need for valid climate forecasts
    has been underlined by the recognition that human activities are now modifying the climate. The complex nature of
    the climate system has resulted in the development of a surprisingly large array of modelling tools. Some are relatively
    simple, such as the earth systems and energy balance models (EBMs), while others are highly sophisticated models
    which challenge the fastest speeds of the most powerful supercomputers. Indeed, this discipline of the latter half of
    the twentieth century is so critically dependent on the availability of a means of undertaking powerful calculations
    that its evolution has matched that of the digital computer. The multi-faceted nature of the climate system demands
    high quality, and global observations and innovative parameterizations through which processes which cannot be
    described or calculated explicitly are captured to the extent deemed necessary. Interestingly, results from extremely
    simple, as well as highly complex and many intermediate model types are drawn upon today for effective formulation
    and evaluation of climate policies. This paper discusses some of the important developments during the first 40 years
    of climate modelling from the first models of the global atmosphere to today’s models, which typically consist of
    integrated multi-component representations of the full climate system. The pressures of policy-relevant questions
    more clearly underline the tension between the need for evaluation against quality data and the unending pressure to
    improve spatial and temporal resolutions of climate models than at any time since the inception of climate modelling.
    Copyright © 2001 Royal Meteorological Society.

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Lectures/modellierung/mcguffie+henderson-s-01.pdf
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    longtermismus s dvojitou tvari

    What We Owe The Future — William MacAskill
    https://www.williammacaskill.com/what-we-owe-the-future

    My tentative hope is that What We Owe The Future will be like Animal Liberation but for future generations: impacting broadly how society thinks about the interests of future people, and inspiring us to take action to safeguard the long term.

    ...

    The fate of the world is in our hands. Humanity’s written history spans only five thousand years. Our yet-unwritten future could last for millions more — or it could end tomorrow. Astonishing numbers of people could lead lives of great happiness or unimaginable suffering, or never live at all, depending on what we choose to do today. In What We Owe The Future, philosopher William MacAskill argues for longtermism, that idea that positively influencing the distant future is a key moral priority of our time. From this perspective, it’s not enough to reverse climate change or avert the next pandemic. We must ensure that civilization would rebound if it collapsed; counter the end of moral progress; and prepare for a planet where the smartest beings are digital, not human. If we make wise choices today, our grandchildren’s grandchildren will thrive, knowing we did everything we could to give them a world full of justice, hope and beauty.
    SCHWEPZ
    SCHWEPZ --- ---
    YMLADRIS: já myslím, že s tou dobrovolností to nebude tak jednoduchý (o dobrovolné skromnosti dělala studie Prof. Librová z MU) a proto bude nutné nastavit ten udržitelnější vztah k biosféře, na níž jsme zcela závislý, skrze mechanismy daňového zatížení - započítat

    Externalita – Wikipedie
    https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalita

    ...případně kodifikovat něco jako carbon tax. Tam je ale podobný problém jako s daňovými ráji atp. - tedy že by to muselo být plošné. Muselo by se o tom jednat na platformě OSN nebo podobné world-wide organizace a bylo by to složité. Ale třeba tento nedávný úspěch ukazuje, že to jde:

    Organizace pro hospodářskou spolupráci a rozvoj [OECD] oznámila shodu u jednotné daně pro nadnárodní korporace.
    Globální korporátní daň má činit minimálně 15 procent po celém světě.

    International community strikes a ground-breaking tax deal for the digital age - OECD
    https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/international-community-strikes-a-ground-breaking-tax-deal-for-the-digital-age.htm
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    NVIDIA planuje spustit superpocitac Earth2, ktery ma modelovat klimaticky zmeny. Dle jejich tvrzeni umoznit zrychleni az faktorem milion diky pouziti neuronalnich sitich...

    Climate simulations are configured today at 10- to 100-kilometer resolutions. ... Meter-scale resolution is needed to simulate clouds that reflect sunlight back to space. Scientists estimate that these resolutions will demand millions to billions of times more computing power than what’s currently available.
    ...
    We can achieve million-x speedups by combining three technologies: GPU-accelerated computing; deep learning and breakthroughs in physics-informed neural networks; and AI supercomputers, along with vast quantities of observed and model data to learn from.

    NVIDIA this week revealed plans to build the world’s most powerful AI supercomputer dedicated to predicting climate change. Named Earth-2, or E-2, the system would create a digital twin of Earth in Omniverse.
    The system would be the climate change counterpart to Cambridge-1, the world’s most powerful AI supercomputer for healthcare research. We unveiled Cambridge-1 earlier this year in the U.K. and it’s being used by a number of leading healthcare companies.


    NVIDIA to Build Earth-2 Supercomputer to See Our Future | NVIDIA Blog
    https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2021/11/12/earth-2-supercomputer/
    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    Can Digital Replica of Earth Save the World from Climate Disaster? - Scientific American
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-digital-replica-of-earth-save-the-world-from-climate-disaster/

    The goal of this planetary megamodel is to simulate the effects of various natural processes and human activities on the planet and model scenarios of future evolution. For example, scientists might be able to model how replacing fossil fuel energy generation in a certain region with renewable power plants changes concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and how that shift, in turn, affects the rate of sea level rise.
    SHEFIK
    SHEFIK --- ---
    #digital #hardWayOut

    The computer chip industry has a dirty climate secret | Environment | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/18/semiconductor-silicon-chips-carbon-footprint-climate

    The industry presents a paradox. Meeting global climate goals will, in part, rely on semiconductors. They’re integral to electric vehicles, solar arrays and wind turbines. But chip manufacturing also contributes to the climate crisis. It requires huge amounts of energy and water – a chip fabrication plant, or fab, can use millions of gallons of water a day – and creates hazardous waste.

    ...

    TSMC alone uses almost 5% of all Taiwan’s electricity, according to figures from Greenpeace, predicted to rise to 7.2% in 2022, and it used about 63m tons of water in 2019. The company’s water use became a controversial topic during Taiwan’s drought this year, the country’s worst in a half century, which pitted chipmakers against farmers.

    In the US, a single fab, Intel’s 700-acre campus in Ocotillo, Arizona, produced nearly 15,000 tons of waste in the first three months of this year, about 60% of it hazardous. It also consumed 927m gallons of fresh water, enough to fill about 1,400 Olympic swimming pools, and used 561m kilowatt-hours of energy.
    PER2
    PER2 --- ---
    GLOBETROTTER: fakt, novy auta nehorej?
    Rare Brand New McLaren 765LT Burned To The Ground Just After Owner Bought It
    a mohl bych pokracovat cely den....

    btw ten pozar se porad vysetruje, takze asi vis neco vic, jen tak mimochodem si muzu taky zaspekulovat:
    "owner of the Model S Plaid is Bart Smith, who is the head of the digital asset group as Susquehanna International. Bloomberg stated that Smith’s firm owned around $1.1 billion worth of Tesla shares as of March 31. Things get a bit interesting here, though. @WholeMarsBlog shared on Twitter that there was a possibility that the global quant trading firm, which does trade Tesla’s stock, could hedge a short"

    "a je problém se z nich dostat ven?"
    hold je dobry, kdyz si neco koupis, precist si k tomu taky zakladni manual

    ale jsme tu s tim ot

    na prvni odkaz: nevidim nejak poroblem v tom nabit si auto o dve hodiny jindy, hold to chce i uloziste energie, verim, ze nemci se k tomu dopracujou, narozdil treba od nas ... nebo cekas, ze prejdeme na elektromobilitu ze dne na den bez jakychkoliv problemu?

    GLOBETROTTER: si doma taky nechavas auto s prazdnou nadrzi/uplne vybity? nebo proc bys mel chodit pesky?

    TUHO: na uhli at tu nikdo nechmata!
    "Jedním z předpokladů pro výstavbou dvou reaktorů v Temelíně mělo být snížení podílu uhelné energetiky a pomoc severním Čechám, které se ještě v devadesátých letech dusily pod exhalacemi z hnědouhelných elektráren. Už v září 2000 však ČEZ oficiálně oznámil, že žádné tepelné elektrárny neodstaví. Ani to nebylo v plánu. Po spuštění nových reaktorů se Česko zařadilo mezi největší světové vývozce elektřiny a v této pozici zůstává i dvacet let po spuštění a ČEZ začal vydělávat na exportech."
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    SHEFIK: digital fight bude hodne zajimavej, digitalita je zasadnim rozmerem planetarniho procesu
    Kliknutím sem můžete změnit nastavení reklam