Mudança Climática: Seis Décadas de Erros de Previsão Climática

O site Daily Caller tratou ontem dos erros de previsão climática dos cientistas. Há seis décadas, eles só erram. E erram para cima, preveem que vai fazer mais calor. Vejam gráfico acima.

Por que será que eles erram tanto e recorrentemente? Será que eles querem acelerar as políticas públicas contra um suposto aquecimento global? 

Satélites mostram que não tem havido aquecimento da Terra, apesar de maiores emissões de carbono pelo homem.

Vejam texto abaixo.

Climate Models Have Been Wrong About Global Warming For Six Decades

By Michael Bastasch

Climate models used by scientists to predict how much human activities will warm the planet have been over-predicting global warming for the last six decades, according to a recent working paper by climate scientists.

“Everyone by now is familiar with the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in the rate of global warming that has taken place over the past 20 years of so, but few realize is that the observed warming rate has been beneath the model mean expectation for periods extending back to the mid-20th century—60+ years,” Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger, climate scientists at the libertarian Cato Institute, write in a working paper released in December.

Michaels and Knappenberger compared observed global surface temperature warming rates since 1950 to what was predicted by 108 climate models used by government climate scientists to predict how much carbon dioxide emissions will warm the planet.

What they found was the models projected much higher warming rates than actually occurred.

         

“During all periods from 10 years (2006-2015) to 65 (1951-2015) years in length, the observed temperature trend lies in the lower half of the collection of climate model simulations,” Michaels and Knappenberger write, “and for several periods it lies very close (or even below) the 2.5th percentile of all the model runs.”

To further bolster their case that climate models are over-predicting warming rates, Michaels and Knappenberger looked at how climate models fared against satellite and weather balloon data from the mid-troposphere. The result is the same, and climate models predicted way more warming than actually occurred.

“This is a devastating indictment of climate model performance,” Michaels and Knappenberger write. “For periods of time longer than about 20 years, the observed trends from all data sources fall beneath the lower bound which contains 95 percent of all model trends and in the majority of cases, falls beneath even the absolute smallest trend found in any of the 102 climate model runs.”

“The amount of that over-prediction comports well with a growing body of scientific findings and growing understanding that the sensitivity of the earth’s surface temperature to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels… lies towards (and yet within) the low end of the mainstream assessed likely range.”

Satellite temperatures, which measure the lowest few miles of the Earth’s atmosphere, show there’s been no significant global warming for the last two decades despite rapidly rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

The so-called “hiatus” in warming has sparked an intense debate among climate scientists over what’s caused warming to disappear. Dozens of theories have been put forward as to why global warming has stalled, but no one has cracked the case.

Michaels and Knappenberger, however, suggest the “hiatus” and the previous decades of overblown temperature predictions point to a huge flaw in climate science: the climate isn’t as sensitive to CO2 as previously thought.

The Cato scientists argue “climate sensitivity” estimates are too high and are causing climate models to over-predict how much warming will happen with increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Climate sensitivity refers to how much warming would occur with a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

Climate scientists typically put climate sensitivity at 3 degrees Celsius, but a slew of new studies suggest that’s way too high an estimate based on how much warming has been observed in recent decades. One estimate put together by the U.K.-based Global Warming Policy Foundation last year found climate sensitivity may be as low as 1.75 degrees Celsius — almost half what mainstream climate models use.

O Acordo do Clima de Paris - EUA admite que Reduzir Carbono Não tem Efeito, China pode Construir Usina de Carvão, Hansen chama de Bullshit,...

Aqui vão algumas notícias desanimadoras para os ambientalistas sobre os resultados da Conferência do Clima:

1)  É pior acordo na história, US$ 1,5 trilhão por ano para reduzir a temperatura em 0,048 graus, se ninguém mentir.

2) John Kerry admite que Reduzir Carbono não terá efeito nenhum.

3) Mesmo ambientalistas admitem que o Acordo de Paris foi completa perda de tempo. O Acordo não vale nada.

4) Acordo é dito ser apenas "tiger paper" (mentirinha) e não é verificável.

5) O criador dessa história de que carbono emitido por seres humanos provoca aquecimento global, o cientista James Hansen, chamou o acordo de "bullshit" (cocô de vaca)  e falso.

6) China e Índia poderão construir mais 2.400 usinas de carvão pelo acordo celebrado.

7) Acordo não incluiu setor de aviação e transporte, que são parte importante das emissões.

8) O milionário Maurice Strong que estabeleceu a agenda ambiental da ONU faleceu sem ver o resultado mais recente de sua empreitada. No passado, ele foi pego recebendo muito dinheiro ilícito.

Abaixo também um exemplo de bom texto sobre o assunto:

Unenforceable Paris Climate Agreement, ‘Worse than a Failure,’
Would Trap the Poor in Poverty if Implemented
Burke, VA, December 14, 2015—“The agreement reached at the Paris climate summit is worse than a failure,” said Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

“The ‘commitments’ made in the Paris agreement are voluntary and unenforceable,” Beisner said, “which means most nations will not comply. EU nations said they would make binding commitments only if all major emitters did—and they didn’t. So the EU’s ‘commitments’ lose all substance.”

China and India, the #1 and #3 CO2 emitting nations, plan for their emissions to continue rising at least until 2030, and reductions even in rate of growth later will depend on whether they can be made without slowing their rise out of poverty. Other developing countries’ “commitments” are similar.

“That’s perfectly understandable,” Beisner said. “Risks from poverty are far greater than from climate change, so whatever slows economic growth means greater harm than global warming.” That thinking is behind the Cornwall Alliance’s petition, Forget ‘Climate Change’, Energy Empowers the Poor.

Full compliance with the Paris agreement would cost hundreds of billions of dollars per year beginning now and rise to $1–2 Trillion per year from 2030 onward. As Copenhagen Consensus Center President Bjørn Lomborg, pointed out, it would still reduce CO2 emissions by only 1% of the amount the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is needed to limit global warming to 2˚C (3.6˚F) over pre-industrial levels.

Even the United States, despite President Barack Obama’s determined efforts, is unlikely to achieve its “commitments” to reduce CO2 emissions by 26–28 percent under 2005 levels by 2025. Even assuming all the regulations he has proposed survive judicial review, which is unlikely, their full implementation would achieve only about a 13–14 percent reduction.

The Paris agreement continues a “commitment” made by rich nations at the Copenhagen summit in 2009 to contribute $100 billion per year to help developing nations bear the costs of adaptation to changing climate and of CO2 emissions restrictions. But that fund has never materialized, and the rich nations “committed” to it only on condition that the poor nations would commit to emission reductions, which they did not.

Beisner said the most worthwhile outcome of the Paris summit is probably “the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a global group of private investors who will support companies that are taking innovative clean-energy ideas out of the lab and into the marketplace,” as Bill Gates described it, saying, “Our primary goal with the Coalition is as much to accelerate progress on clean energy ….”

“But to the extent that the Paris agreement actually gets implemented, it’s a disaster for the poor around the world,” Beisner said. “It will slow their access to the abundant, affordable, reliable energy indispensable to rising and staying out of poverty, while achieving no discernable improvement in climate but diverting trillions of dollars from solving hunger, malnutrition, and disease.”