The Climate Crocks Interview: Where are we in 2016

March 22, 2016

55 minutes.

I usually prefer to stay off camera, but they did a good job here.

One big goof on my part, I mistated Michigan’s renewable portfolio standard
as 15 percent, it’s ten.
Otherwise not a bad synopsis.
Most of it globally applicable, some discussion of impacts in upper midwest.

Covers what Exxon knew, the disinformation society, key impacts, the China question,  and solutions.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “The Climate Crocks Interview: Where are we in 2016”


  1. Prior to MLO the atmospheric CO2 concentrations, both paleo ice cores and inconsistent contemporary grab samples, were massive wags. Instrumental data at some of NOAA’s tall towers passed through 400 ppm years before MLO reached that level. IPCC AR5 TS.6.2 cites uncertainty in CO2 concentrations over land. Preliminary data from OCO-2 suggests that CO2 is not as well mixed as assumed. Per IPCC AR5 WG1 chapter 6 mankind’s share of the atmosphere’s natural CO2 is basically unknown, could be anywhere from 4% to 96%. (IPCC AR5 Ch 6, Figure 6.1, Table 6.1)
    The major global C reservoirs (not CO2 per se, C is a precursor proxy for CO2), i.e. oceans, atmosphere, vegetation & soil, contain over 45,000 Pg (Gt) of C. Over 90% of this C reserve is in the oceans. Between these reservoirs ebb and flow hundreds of Pg C per year, the great fluxes. For instance, vegetation absorbs C for photosynthesis producing plants and O2. When the plants die and decay they release C. A divinely maintained balance of perfection for thousands of years, now unbalanced by mankind’s evil use of fossil fuels.
    So just how much net C does mankind’s evil fossil fuel consumption add to this perfectly balanced 45,000 Gt cauldron of churning, boiling, fluxing C? 4 Gt C. That’s correct, 4. Not 4,000, not 400, 4! How are we supposed to take this seriously? (Anyway 4 is totally assumed/fabricated to make the numbers work.)
    IPCC AR5 attributes 2 W/m^2 of unbalancing RF due to the increased CO2 concentration between 1750 and 2011 (Fig TS.7, SPM Fig 5.). In the overall global heat balance 2 W (watt is power, not energy) is lost in the magnitudes and uncertainties (Graphic Trenberth et. al. 2011) of: ToA, 340 +/- 10, fluctuating albedos of clouds, snow and ice, reflection, absorption and release of heat from evaporation and condensation of the ocean and water vapor cycle. (IPCC AR5 Ch 8, FAQ 8.1)
    IPCC AR5 acknowledges the LTT pause/hiatus/lull/stasis in Text Box 9.2 and laments the failure of the GCMs to model it. If IPCC can’t explain the pause, they can’t explain the cause. IPCC GCMs don’t work because IPCC exaggerates climate sensitivity (TS 6.2), of CO2/GHGs RF in the power flux balance and dismisses the role of water vapor because man does not cause nor control it.
    The sea ice and sheet ice is expanding not shrinking, polar bear population is the highest in decades, the weather (30 years = climate) is less extreme not more, the sea level rise is not accelerating, the GCM’s are repeat failures, the CAGW hypothesis is coming unraveled, COP21 turned into yet another empty and embarrassing fiasco, IPCC AR6 will mimic SNL’s Roseanne Roseannadanna, “Well, neeeveeer mind!!”
    One can only hope that 2016 will be the year honest science prevails. In the meantime the hyperbolic CAGW hotterist’s hysteria will continue to fleece the fearful, neurotic and gullible, (i.e. the world’s second oldest profession).

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Booooring! Haven’t we seen this cherry-picked and misinterpreted BS before? Isn’t it taken from the same pages in the Manual of Denier Horseshit that Master Bates is always quoting from? Where is the bit about trees growing under glaciers in Alaska?

      And the sea ice and sheet ice is “expanding” and sea level is not rising? LOL And “CAGW hotterist’s hysteria will continue to fleece the fearful, neurotic and gullible…” is mindless hyperbole of the highest order.

      Lord love a duck, but Crock seems to be attracting more of the “utter nutters” (a hotwhopper term) like Nicholas—-he comes to us from WUWT (where he can often be found spouting similar nonsense to the applause of the WUWT lemmings and the head moron Watts).

  2. 1happywoman Says:

    “[T]hey did a good job here.”

    It was YOU who did the good job, Peter. You were poised and articulate, and you made good transitions. The interviewer’s “good job” consisted simply of being minimally directive.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: