Is This Any Way to Model a Catastrophe? IPCC Methane Projections Are As Exaggerated As Temperature Projections
The IPCC AR5 draft was recently leaked, and, well, it’s not very supportive of catastrophe. What may be most interesting about it is that one of the chapters ‘speaks’ of amplification factors for a solar influence, which is sort of common knowledge amongst the so-called denier scientists. Ah, but those guys aren’t politically correct, so no need to respect their positions. So far.
Whether the final IPCC report will have the ‘new’ stuff about solar amplification scrubbed, remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Anthony watts believes that the biggest “bombshell” in the leaked draft report is that temperatures are trending well below the most expected values, for all of the models.
Perhaps this shouldn’t be all that surprising:
It is not well known that even the IPCC agrees that the direct effects of CO2 will only increase world temperatures by 1.2°C. All of the projections above that (3.3°C , 6°C etc) come from model projections based on assumptions of what water vapor and clouds will do (these are the feedback effects of the original 1.2°C).[i] Are the feedbacks correct?
If the IPCC models are right about the feedbacks, we would see a hot spot 10km above the tropics. The theory is that with more heat, more water will evaporate and rise, keeping relative humidity constant at all heights in the troposphere. The point has been conclusively tested with 28 million weather balloons since 1959.[ii]
If water vapor, the #1 greenhouse gas, can’t save the anthropogenic CO2 climate catastrophism hypothesis, perhaps methane can do the job?
It sure doesn’t look that way. Take a look at the first graph in Another example of clear failure of IPCC models to predict reality in the AR5 draft