Diversos sobre ambiente, energia e aquecimento global

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Climate Progress » Blog Archive » The Global Freshwater Crisis refere que The American Prospect dedica o seu número de Junho aos problemas da água no mundo - podem aceder em special report on the water crisis a esse conjunto de artigos.

• I'm melting Gristmill: The environmental news blog Grist. As outras consequências do desaparecimento do gelo no Árctico:
  "In other words, if it continues, the recent trend in sea ice loss may triple Arctic warming, causing large emissions in carbon dioxide and methane from the tundra this century. What is especially worrisome is that 2007 provides strong evidence on behalf of this theory:
  NOAA reported that methane levels rose in 2007 for the first time since 1998 (see here).
  
  The tundra can emit vast amounts of methane when it defrosts (see Part 1).
  
  Scientific analysis suggests the rise in 2007 methane levels came from Arctic wetlands (see here).
  
  And 2007 saw record Arctic ice loss (see "Ice, ice, maybe (not)")."
  
  
  
  
  

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  Climate Progress » Blog Archive » Denier, denier, planet’s on fire! Como joga a filiação partidária com a percepção do aquecimento global (ver gráfico acima).

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Climate Progress » Blog Archive » Global warming causes deluges and flooding, just like the Midwest is seeing (again) (ver gráfico acima).
  
  
  
  

  2007 saw the second most extreme precipitation over the United States in the historical record, according to NCDC’s Climate Extremes Index (CEI). Here is a plot of the percentage of this country (times two) with much greater than normal proportion of precipitation derived from extreme 1-day precipitation events (where extreme equals the highest tenth percentile of deluges): The U.S. Climate Extremes Index was explicitly created to take a complicated subject (”multivariate and multidimensional climate changes in the United States“) and make it more easily understood by American citizens and policy makers.
  
  
  
  

  As far back as 1995, analysis by the National Climatic Data Center showed that over the course of the 20th century, the United States had suffered a statistically significant increase in a variety of extreme weather events, the very ones you would expect from global warming, such as more — and more intense — precipitation. That analysis concluded the chances were only “5 to 10 percent” this increase was due to factors other than global warming, such as “natural climate variability.” And since 1995, the climate has gotten much more extreme.



• 
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  

  Climate Progress » Blog Archive » Must read IEA report, Part 1: Act now with clean energy or face 6°C warming. Cost is NOT high — media blows the story
  
  

  "When the normally conservative International Energy Agency (IEA) agrees with both the middle of the road IPCC and more … progressive voices like Climate Progress, it should be time for the world to get very serious, very fast on the clean energy transition. "
  
  

  "... the real news from the global energy agency is:
  
  

  Failing to act very quickly to transform the planet’s energy system puts us on a path to catastrophic outcomes. The investment required is “an average of some 1.1% of global GDP each year from now until 2050. This expenditure reflects a re-direction of economic activity and employment, and not necessarily a reduction of GDP.” In fact, this investment partly pays for itself in reduced energy costs alone (not even counting the pollution reduction benefits)!

• The world is on the brink of a renewables (and efficiency) revolution. [ver gráfico acima].

  Probably the biggest difference between the IEA and the U.S. Energy Information Administration is that the EIA lives in a fantasy world where oil production can continue growing forever and greenhouse gas emissions are not something an energy agency needs to factor into planning. The IEA, however, lives in the real world, as its new report makes painfully clear:

  Unsustainable pressure on natural resources and on the environment is inevitable if energy demand is not de-coupled from economic growth and fossil fuel demand reduced.

  The situation is getting worse…. Baseline scenario foreshadow a 70% increase in oil demand by 2050 and a 130% rise in CO2 emissions…. a rise in CO2 emissions of such magnitude could raise global average temperatures by 6°C (eventual stabilisation level), perhaps more. The consequences would be significant change in all aspects of life and irreversible change in the natural environment. In short, business as usual energy policy leads to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 1000 parts per million or more, and that is the end of life as we know it on this planet (See “Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 0: The alternative is humanity’s self-destruction“).





• Climate Progress » Blog Archive » What Mr. Crude Oil Sees Ahead: High prices until demand is destroyed, but no peak!:
  "Goldman Sachs analyst Arjun Murti predicted the recent spike in oil prices, so it’s worth looking at his recent interview in Barron’s"