If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop Their Deceptive Ads?

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

Many visitors here and at WattsUpWithThat will remember that a little over three years ago I published my first posts that illustrated how the process of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) created what appeared to be upward shifts in the sea surface temperature anomalies of major portions of the global oceans. (Refer to those posts here and here, and the cross posts at WattsUpWithThat here and here.) In numerous follow-up posts since then, I have discussed, illustrated and animated the processes that cause those upward shifts.

I’ve also published a series of posts over the past year about the climate models used by the IPCC in their 4th Assessment Report (AR4). Those posts show how poorly those models simulated the rates at which global surface temperatures warmed and cooled when the 20th Century is broken down into the 2 warming periods and 2 “flat temperature” periods—periods that are acknowledged by the IPCC. There was also a post that showed how poorly the climate models used by the IPCC simulated sea surface temperatures over the last 30 years for the individual ocean basins on time-series and zonal-mean(latitude-based) bases. Many of those posts were also cross posted at WattsUpWithThat.

I’ve collected the content of all of those posts in an ebook (pdf format) titled If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop Their Deceptive Ads? (13MB) $5.00 (U.S.)

Cover art by Josh of CartoonsByJosh

I have tried take myself out of technical-writer mode to make the book reader-friendly. This, hopefully, will help those without technical backgrounds understand the story being told by the data. The book contains very basic discussions, including why temperature anomalies are being used in the graphs instead of absolute temperatures. Since the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a major contributor to the rise in global sea surface temperatures during the satellite era, there is a 70-page section devoted to the many interrelated processes of ENSO. That section begins with very basic illustrations and discussions of trade winds and ocean currents in the Pacific Ocean, and ends with links to a series of animations. The ENSO section alone includes over 50 illustrations. In total, there are more than 200 illustrations in the book. I’ve also included a section that introduces the reader to the KNMI Climate Explorer, which is the source of the observations- and model-based data presented in the book. Using screen captures, it walks the reader, step by step, from downloading data, to entering the data into a spreadsheet, to creating a graph, to adding linear trend lines with equations.

All that for a grand total of $5.00. Please buy a copy.

- Download immediately after purchase through PayPal account or with Credit and Debit Cards

- 240+ pages with over 200 illustrations

A copy of the introduction, table of contents, and closing can be found here:

Introduction-Table of Contents-Closing of If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product

The following are the opening notes:

Dear Readers,

This book does not present some new-fangled theory about manmade global warming. This is the story told by the instrument-based global surface temperature data and by the output data from the climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to simulate those global temperatures. I’m simply presenting the story told by the data and providing background information in layman terms to help you understand the story the data has been telling all along.

The book is based on my blog posts over the past three years at Climate Observations. Many of those posts have been cross posted by Anthony Watts at WattsUpWithThat, which is the world’s most-viewed website on global warming and climate change. I have, however, attempted in this book to present the discussions in very basic layman terms, where possible, with hope of making it easier to understand, especially by those without technical backgrounds.

Similar to my blog posts, I’ve kept many of the graphs at full page width. The reason: the data in the graphs, not my discussions of them, are what confirms or contradicts the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, or are what shows if the models can or cannot reproduce the rates at which global surface temperatures warmed and cooled over the 20thCentury. In a blog post, there are no page breaks, and page formatting is not a concern. The number of large graphs in this book, unfortunately, causes page formatting problems; only one graph at full page width will fit on a page. So there are pages with a graph and some text and blank space. If this book was a print version, the blank space would be a problem, but this is an ebook. The blank space doesn’t add to publishing costs.

Thank you for your interest in the topics discussed in this work. And, of course, my thanks to Josh of CartoonsbyJosh for the cover art.

Each page of the downloaded pdf is watermarked, starting with “Prepared exclusively for…” As far as I can tell, that’s standard language for pdf stamping. That does not mean I wrote the book exclusively for you. It means your downloaded copy was watermarked for you to remind you that your copy is for your use only.

I have no plans to publish hard cover or paperback versions. I also looked into Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) and have decided against it for now. Kindle Direct Publishing converts color images to black and white, and that would make most of the comparison graphs difficult to view. I also don’t believe links would work, and there are a plethora of links in the text, similar to a blog post.

About these ads

68 thoughts on “If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop Their Deceptive Ads?

  1. Anthony! I went to buy it but it is not a Kindle version. When will you have it on Amazon?

    I live in Vietnam.

    Have your readers seen this:

    If you have not already heard and read this; please do. Great stuff, I like this guy: SENATOR JAMES INHOFE (R-OKLAHOMA)

    Sen. Inhofe Talks to NewsBusters About Global Warming, Gingrich and Politico’s Energy Policy Maker of the Year

    By Noel Sheppard | November 30, 2011 | 20:08

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/30/sen-inhofe-talks-newsbusters-about-global-warming-gingrich-and-politi#ixzz1mTCWWWC4

    Thanks and keep up the good work.

  2. A bit unfair on homeopathists I reckon. At least there is SOME evidence that their stuff might actually help people.

  3. Another great cartoon from Josh.
    The homeopathy was invoked by Gavin of the ‘Real Climate’ blog as a response to a comment of mine:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/unforced-variations-jan-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-224607

    where I was occasional contributor (the cartoon history: vuk-tallbloke-josh)
    I cannibalised some of the other Josh’s stuff and this version

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CHshow.htm

    had well over 2000 hits.
    Gavin has banned my posts despite getting his PhD from the same university I got an MSc some years earlier, suffice to say neither of us studied climate, environmental or earth sciences. I hope his science is healthier than his sense of humour.

  4. “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” –Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

    The ideological origin of the warmist scare-mongers is indelible. This isn’t a conspiracy theory. The trail, going back to Club of Rome, is littered with their own words, proclaiming the leftist dream, or leftist scientists and leftist politicians telegraphing their agreement with this leftist dream + their intent to deceive on AGW: http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
    Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren in ’73 called for the “de-development of the United States.” Why is it that the solution to g warming just happens to be -exactly- what the eco-idealists had demanded years before: cutting industrial production. It stretches credulity to think that this is just a wild coincidence. Not a chance.
    The Cry Wolfers (read the fable) had most of us duped good, for a long time. But now, with the CGate emails and Hide the Decline etc etc, their deceptive intent, and ideological motives, is undeniable. ALL their predictions of disaster, and ALL their models, have failed.
    Indeed, the wheels have fallen off their deception mobile. Yet these guys seem unfazed, moving apace like mindless automatons they roll out fresh baloney daily it seems, and new, but transparently false — and laughable — predictions of doom. A joke.
    I don’t think CO2 is a primary.. or secondary … driver of climate. Spread the word on this ~ 3 minute video which gives 90% of the final word on CO2, plus it shows algor in the fundamental deception: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg

  5. Hi Anthony-san:

    I tried to purchase your book from Japan, but there seems to be a bug in the address portion of card payment protocol, as it would only allow the first three digits of a seven digit postal code, and therefore would not allow the transaction to complete.

  6. Ian Rudge says:
    February 15, 2012 at 9:46 am
    A bit unfair on homeopathists I reckon. At least there is SOME evidence that their stuff might actually help people.
    =================================================================
    I doubt that there is any REAL evidence that it helps.
    At least it can’t hurt you unless you choose to use that instead of real medicine for an illness.
    I will believe in “alternative” medicine when they prove that there is “alternative” physics, mathematics etc

  7. Comment for Bob

    I paid my $5.00 to paypal today by credir card (receipt # available) but they would not let me download. When I clicked on your link on the page with the receipt I got a message that my paypal account was blocked with a $0.00 balance. Technically they are correct; I have tried many times over the past few years to close my paypal account, which they point blank refuse to do. I do not and will not use paypal, basically because I do not trust them and will not reactivate my account with them because I do not want an account with them.

    Can you let me know how I can now download your book. Thanks

  8. StudioBronze:
    Okay, so let’s set aside the science-is-settled-certainty aspect.
    How does one explain the Evans 2006 measurements of downward longwave radiation from anthropogenic GHGs if AGW theory is not correct?

  9. Note to Bob:

    If you put the book onto Lulu.com, it can be purchased as a colour PDF. And the book can be copy-safeguarded with DRM (Digital Rights Management), which stops copyingnof PDFs.

    Also, it you put it onto Kindle, the original PDF is NOT converted to black and white. Thus anyone purchasing the file with a Kindle Fire tablet, will see the book in colour.

    .

  10. Matthew W says:
    February 15, 2012 at 10:28 am
    Ian Rudge says:
    February 15, 2012 at 9:46 am
    A bit unfair on homeopathists I reckon. At least there is SOME evidence that their stuff might actually help people.
    =================================================================
    I doubt that there is any REAL evidence that it helps.
    At least it can’t hurt you unless you choose to use that instead of real medicine for an illness.
    I will believe in “alternative” medicine when they prove that there is “alternative” physics, mathematics etc

    ==========

    Not sure where Vitamin D fits in but you’d be surprise how many chronic diseases you’d fix by taking vitamin D at the right dosage (no difference than fixing vitamin D deficiency). Thankfully, the latest studies are flowing in showing that we may have needed much more vitamin D than previously thought…

    http://www.biochemj.org/bj/441/0061/bj4410061.htm

    I take 5000 IU a day during just to prevent cold, flu, sinus infection during the winter and also drastically reduce risk of getting cancer (any one of at least 18 types of cancer including melanoma) in the long run. The recommended amount is only 600 IU a day. Think 5,000 IU a day is a lot? Try 20,000 IU from the sun exposure after 30 minutes for white people with shirt off between 10am and 2 pm. However we work inside all day. We sit inside during the summer because it’s cool inside. Air pollution blocks UVB from reaching us. The darker the skin is, the longer it takes to reach 20,000 IU (6-10 times longer than white people).

    Yet CDC tells us to ignore widespread vitamin D deficiency – http://www.naturalnews.com/032202_vitamin_D_deficiency_disease.html – so… ask yourself… how many of these vaccines were created due to vitamin D deficiency when simply taking enough vitamin D supplement is all it takes?

  11. If AGW theory is a hoax, then how do you explain the Evans and Puckrin 2006 results (http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm) , which show that the measured downward longwave radiation from anthropogenic greenhouse gases indicate that “an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850″?

    To give your post the serious answer that it deserves, there are two reasons.

    First of all, your post begins with a straw man. “Skeptics think AGW is a hoax.” I’m a skeptic but I certainly don’t. Most of the people who post on this blog, I think acknowledge that the GHE is real and responsible for a fraction of the Earth’s mean surface temperature and indirectly “climate”. However, in your post you left out the critical “C”. Most of the skeptics on this list don’t believe in Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and yeah, we do tend to be very skeptical of papers that publish one thing, then assert something else utterly without foundation.

    For example, in your post (and in the associated paper) the missing “C” is there by implication. 3.5 W/m^2 over a mere 150 years! Oh my! And this can be positively and believably predicted by only a few years of surface observations we can now be certain that we know what the GHE was in 1850 because there are no possible confounding effects that might contribute to or modulate the GHE in ways left out of our model.

    Leaving alone the issue of whether this itself is believable — model computations by their nature tend to verify the assumptions built into them by their programmers because one never builds them blind, one always goes back and tunes them until they do — where is the factor of 3-5 positive feedback predicted by the IPCC in all of this that is required for the “C”? Not so much there.

    Second, a truly dedicated skeptic might note that this paper is looking at the wrong end of the pipe. The paper seems by hypothesis to consider upwelling or downwelling radiation to be the only factors that heat or cool the surface, and then only in an appallingly linear fashion. In fact, there are many heat transport mechanisms at work here, and some of them might well modulate the overall rates at which surface warming occurs. I personally dislike any discussion of the GHE that references upwelling and downwelling radiation because it is remarkably difficult to actually chart the flow of heat in the global atmosphere on this basis, where there is continuous mass transport of heat via convection that very probably has every bit as great an effect on mean surface temperatures as direct surface radiation, at least when one doesn’t live in the middle of the dry, relatively calm, Sahara desert. In the middle of the Sahara the actual atmospheric GHG mediated GHE might be resolvable in terms of downwelling radiation — in moist old windy stormy Canada it is not, I think.

    Fortunately, one can look at the other end of the pipe — one can look at the greenhouse effect in the one place it really matters — the top of the troposphere, where greenhouse cooling of the greenhouse gases occurs. At the top of the atmosphere life is far simpler. One doesn’t care how heat is transported or “trapped” or anything else down below. One cares about one thing, and one thing only — the measured TOA IR spectrum, integrated over the surface of the planet and over all frequencies. That is what has to balance total non-reflected insolation. The GHE is then reduced to its simplest possible terms. Some parts of the TOA emission come from cold GHGs high in the troposphere. Those bands, and their associated “temperature” are clearly visible in IR spectra. Some parts of the TOA emission come from the surface, in e.g. the water window. Some parts come from e.g. water vapor in clouds or the air in between. To the extent that parts of the spectrum emit colder, other parts must emit warmer to compensate given constant solar heat input.

    Of course one is not given constant solar heat input. There is now direct evidence that the Earth’s albedo is increasing (obtained from studying lunar reflection of Earthlight) even as TOA TSI is diminishing as the sun moves further out from the 9000 year Grand Solar Maximum of the twentieth century — the one CAGW enthusiasts like to pretend could not possibly have had anything to do with the warming of the late 70s to the 1998 El Nino. But of course they also like to “deny” that there was a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age because if there were, it suggests that the natural variation of the climate is as great or greater than any gain associated with AGW due to many factors, not just greenhouse gases. Humans and their goats probably created the Sahara desert — land use and redistribution of water may “own” part of the warming observed over the last 160 years along with changing solar state and complex system feedback in the major global decadal climate oscillations and oceanic heat transport systems. It is a bit silly, don’t you think, to imagine that you can make predictions concerning the heat flow through what is quite literally the world’s most difficult open system coupled Navier-Stokes problem based on the presumed value of just a tiny handful of parameters! The entire system is quite capable of reorganizing itself spontaneously to alter global average temperatures by a factor larger than the supposed GHE gain.

    Finally, by focusing on the TOA IR the skeptic gets rid of a whole lot of rubbish that can lead to results of entire computations, however well-intentioned, being mere garbage themselves on the GIGO principle. The lower atmosphere is already optically thick in CO_2 and relatively stable elsewhere. Adding more CO_2 there has almost no global effect on surface upwelling or downwelling radiation levels, however much it might locally warm a city or airport as part of the UHI effect. What matters is the temperature of the overhead emitters as they lose the energy to space. The warmer they emit, the cooler the entire system underneath them in the unblocked bands. The cooler they emit, the warmer.

    This reduces everything associated with CO_2 — not feedback, not all GHGs, not aerosols, just CO_2 — to the single question — how, exactly does the outgoing IR emission temperature of the upper troposphere in the CO_2 band change with CO_2 concentration?

    I think there is a strong case to be made that the answer is “hardly at all”. The ENSO modulates it far more than secular changes in CO_2 by forcibly uplifting the tropopause in the warm tropics, but the tropopause in general has not significantly changed in height in the entire period of time that we have been measuring it. After all, its height is not a linear function of CO_2 concentration — it is determined by a mix of the wet and dry ALR, the associated pressure-density profile, the details of the varying composition of the stratosphere (which has become 10% drier since the solar state returned to “normal” and nobody quite knows why, they only know in retrospect that the extra water there was probably responsible for as much as 30% of the warming of the 80′s right there), and of course the complex action of the major decadal oscillations, that change whole major portions of the globe from being places that on average uplift the tropopause to places that drop it down, modulating the GHE far more than the CO_2 concentration ever does in the process.

    There is some reason to believe that there is a weak (logarithmic) boost to the CO_2 mediated GHE from increased concentration, but even that may be overwhelmed by negative feedback in the water cycle.

    You don’t have to believe any or all of this as you like — I’m just pointing out that it is really pretty easy to be a rational skeptic even through the trauma of learning of a model computation that proves beyond any doubt that there has been 3.5 W/m^2 net forcing due to all GHGs since 1850, reliable because it is based on a few years — in fact, reading the paper and looking at the table it appeared to be a very few years — of measuring the downwelling IR spectrum in Canada. I’m certain that this result is perfectly general and describes downwelling IR in the Sahara, over the tropical Pacific, and elsewhere perfectly well, just as I’m certain that clouds have absolutely no effect save to transform the modest AGW actually observed into the “C”AGW that justifies spending a few trillion dollars over a decade against the small chance that overall feedback will end up being positive, be as large and catastrophic as Hansen claims, and cause the oceans to boil (his claim, again, however unbelievable). Hell, he’s never been right so far, but there is always a chance of it, right?

    Not.

    A lot of skeptics, you see, aren’t religious GHE-denying zealots. We’re just lukewarmist. Sure, there is some AGW, but where’s the need to panic and authorize the wholesale looting of modern civilization against the small chance of a sky-is-falling level of catastrophic threat. All the more so when even the proponents of most of the measures agree that they won’t have any meaningful effect but to redistribute wealth from rich countries to poor ones. Could that be the real agenda here?

    Even more all the more so when one considers that if we as a species do nothing special, the ordinary expected progress of technology and predicted changes in the sheer economics of the recovery of unmined fossil fuel resources make it nearly certain that long before CO_2 doubles, humans will stop using carbon much for fuel. In thirty years coal burning power plants will be as obsolete as TV antennas on rooftops or mainframe computers, and this will happen no matter what anybody does with regard to carbon trading. Sure, we could speed up the process by making rational decisions now (and save ourselves a bunch of money in the long run with selected investments) but the last thing in the world one wants to do is hobble the economies of the energy producers in the developed countries with carbon trading and wealth redistribution schemes. One wants them to have lots of money to invest in new technologies as they reach the price point compared to fossil fuels that make them the only rational way to generate new electricity, for example. It wouldn’t hurt to build more nuclear fission power plants in the meantime as well, ideally with Thorium technology that is nearly nuclear-proliferation proof. And if and when thermonuclear fusion becomes economically feasible and efficient, the game is over. Power will never again be scarce, and will never again come from burning carbon anywhere but maybe — maybe — in cars, where it is still difficult to store 35 KW-hours of energy in the volume of one US gallon any way except in gasoline.

    rgb

    rgb

  12. Richard B. Woods says:
    February 15, 2012 at 11:36 am

    “How does one explain the Evans 2006 measurements of downward longwave radiation from anthropogenic GHGs if AGW theory is not correct?”

    IMO it is the view of most here that the theory is correct, but it has negligable effect on the earths temperature due to water vapour giving negative feedback. It is CAGW, ie, the alarmists 20 foot sea level rises that bring out the skeptics in full force.

    Personally, I doubt that we will ever be able to measure the warming due to the extra CO2 we have added. The error bars are too wide. The negative feedbacks too strong.

    The recent demonstration of how it is gravity/pressure working on our planets atmosphere, combined with the sun, which gives us the greenhouse effect also has to be refuted, and so far no warmist has done so. As I understand it, the standard CO2 theory cannot even predict the warming on the other planets, whereas the gravity/pressure theory can.

    In any case, extra warming is good, and extra CO2 is doubly good. I like the idea that my driving a car is feeding the planet!

  13. Richard B. Woods says:
    February 15, 2012 at 11:36 am

    “How does one explain the Evans 2006 measurements of downward longwave radiation from anthropogenic GHGs if AGW theory is not correct?”

    Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) is the energy leaving the earth as infrared radiation at low energy, what level of low energy NOT leaving the earth is acceptable? or as a function of temperature, what is to stop it from cooling? as Heat energy tends to move from warmer areas to colder areas, Atmospheric gases? at what point do Atmospheric gases, oceans and land surface area NOT transport heat energy from warmer areas to colder areas? Inferring that Anthropogenic sources of longwave radiation will cause a catastrophic amount of global warming by blocking that transport of heat energy is a silly idea, especially when two of the proposed culprits of agw are extremely beneficial (if not necessity) for life on earth, one is CO2 which is part of an important trace gas and the other is warmth. The “AGW theory” as you call it is a FAIL.

  14. Peridot says: “I bought the download but cannot access it due to having no password. How do I get my money’s worth?”

    No password is required. After the purchase, they should have returned you to the original webpage(automatically) where the file was accessable. Try clicking on the link again and checking to see if you can download the file. It should still be available to you. If not, leave me another message here:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/ebook-if-the-ipcc-was-selling-manmade-global-warming-as-a-product-would-the-ftc-stop-their-deceptive-ads/

  15. Silver Ralph: Thanks for the correction. When I first looked at Kindle Direct Publishing two months ago, they were saying the images were converted to multiple shades of gray (16 shades, if memory serves). Now with Kindle Fire, you’re right, they will produce the images in color. But that still leaves out all the other Kindle users with the older B&W. If they bought copies, I’d get a multitide of complaints.

    Regards

  16. Robert Brown says:
    February 15, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Dr. Brown, absolutely brilliant. I sure hope you saved this comment for future use. With only slight modifications it can be used to refute almost any alarmist claim. In fact, I think I’ll save a reference to it as well.

  17. SAMURAI: Doesn’t PayPal ask you for your country? I would think when you switched to your location the number of postal code digits would change. Doesn’t it? It has for me when I’ve purchased products from other countries.

  18. Paypal/download worked fine for me.

    Heck, the title and Josh’s cover cartoon is worth $5.00!

    Thanks to both Bob and Anthony for making this available.

  19. A bargain at $5. I have always enjoyed your posts Bob, and am more than happy to order your book.

    Thanks for your meticulous analysis and detailed descriptions of what the data says.

  20. I still don’t feel you will get far arguing about temperatures and observed variations from models. The argument against the IPCC has to be about the physics involved. The single and most important error in their physics is their conjecture that when a cold atmosphere sends radiation to the surface that the energy in that radiation will be converted to extra thermal energy in the surface. This is wrong.

    Maybe this (previous) post bears repeating …

    When solar radiation (UV, visible and IR etc) travels through space we do not know what its end effect will be until it strikes something. We will observe its effect and say – there’s some light from the Sun – but it may be more light if it hits a white surface than a dark surface, as a camera exposure meter will confirm. It may generate thermal energy (more or less depending on what it strikes) or it may appear as light as it starts to penetrate the oceans, but end up as thermal energy in the deeper depths. Of course some will be reflected or scattered and strike another target sooner or later, and another etc.

    My point is, “heat” is the transfer of thermal energy, but thermal energy is not a fixed amount of energy travelling along with radiation. The energy in the radiation has to go through a physical process of being converted to thermal energy. This happens only for those frequencies in the radiation which are above the natural frequencies that can be emitted by the target, because the target cannot re-emit those frequencies. (The hotter the source of spontaneous radiation, the higher will be the peak frequency.) So solar radiation can be converted to thermal energy in the Earth’s surface, but radiation emitted from a cooler atmosphere cannot be converted to thermal energy in a warmer surface. “Heat” only appears to be transferred (and only from hot to cold) because only radiation from hot to cold will be converted to extra thermal energy in the target.

    It does not matter whether you are increasing the rate of warming in the morning or decreasing the rate of cooling later in the day, you still need extra thermal energy to do this. You cannot get this extra thermal energy from a cooler atmosphere, morning or evening. You cannot say the Second Law is not broken because of the direction of net radiation or net heat flow. All that matters is, what actually happens between any two points – one point on the surface and one point in a cooler atmosphere. What goes on between other “points” – a point on the Sun and another point on the surface is irrelevant. The Second Law must apply between any two points.

  21. Robert Brown says:
    February 15, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    “To give your post the serious answer that it deserves, there are two reasons.”

    When I first read your introduction, I was very happy to receive your serious answer.

    But then, you wrote, “First of all, your post begins with a straw man. “Skeptics think AGW is a hoax.””

    Actually, my post doesn’t contain “Skeptics think AGW is a hoax.” In my 10:09 am post I wrote only, “If AGW theory is a hoax …”, with no assertion about who thinks that. Then, since I don’t really intend to focus on the “hoax” aspect, in my second post, at 11:36 am, I phrased it as “… if AGW theory is not correct”

    Therefore, your demolition of “Skeptics think AGW is a hoax” doesn’t interest me.

    Later, you asserted, “However, in your post you left out the critical ‘C’. Most of the skeptics on this list don’t believe in Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming,”

    No, I “left out” nothing. I never intended to refer to “Catastrophic” anthropogenic global warming. I wanted to refer only to the “anthropogenic global warming” theory. So, again you erected a straw man of something to which I neither made, nor intended to imply, any reference. Your disparagement of the “missing ‘C’” doesn’t interest me.

    Your subsequent discussion about “this paper is looking at the wrong end of the pipe” mostly doesn’t interest me because I was asking about what _is_ in the paper, not what isn’t in the paper. However, I did fail to specify that originally, so let me now clarify that by “explain the Evans and Puckrin 2006 results” and “explain the Evans 2006 measurements”, I wanted explanations of what _is_ in the paper — what it _is_ looking at — not what isn’t in the paper.

    But I do thank you for the comments you wrote that refer to what is actually in the Evans and Puckrin 2006 paper.

    I welcome any response which deals only with what I actually posted at 10:09 am or 11:36 am, without attributing anything else to me, and with what actually is in the Evans and Puckrin 2006 paper, not what isn’t there.

    Sincerely,
    Richard B. Woods

  22. Richard B. Woods
    “If AGW theory is a hoax …”, with no assertion about who thinks that.
    ========================
    So positing a fallacious argument is OK so long as you don’t attribute it to anyone? Did that even work for you in junior high? Keep digging Richard.

  23. Richard B. Woods says:
    February 15, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    So, you’ve been given several arguments that refute a paper that claims it is doing empirical work by using a model (that alone is hilarious) and you are worried about the exact wording. Excuse me if I laugh myself silly. I suggest going back and rereading Professor Brown’s response several dozen times. Hopefully, you will learn enough to apologize for your ridiculous response.

  24. Well Lew ‘Big Oil’ Skannen just made a donation.
    Let’s see Anthony try and explain that one away!

  25. RGB
    I do appreciate your comments. You have helped clarify my understanding of the physics and issues related to our environment. Always more to learn.

  26. Richard B. Woods: February 15, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    “……. Your disparagement of the “missing ‘C’” doesn’t interest me……”

    heh heh … for someone who didn’t care, you amazingly devoted 80% of your reply to this issue! :-)

  27. Nerd says: February 15, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Not sure where Vitamin D fits in but you’d be surprise how many chronic diseases you’d fix by taking vitamin D at the right dosage (no difference than fixing vitamin D deficiency). Thankfully, the latest studies are flowing in showing that we may have needed much more vitamin D than previously thought…

    PLEASE BE CAREFUL…
    Vitamin D is one of the vitamins that can be toxic (or even fatal) in large dosages. Consult your physician before starting a Vitamin D regimen.

  28. wermet;
    BS. The only 2 documented cases of Vitamin D toxicity resulted from about a year’s use of mis-formulated supplement pills, containing over 1,000,000 IU ea. When their use was discontinued, a few weeks sufficed to clear the mild symptoms.

    The liver quite efficiently disposes of excess amounts over about 40,000 IU/day, which is readily reached by a half hour or so in direct sun for us paleskins.

  29. Richard B. Woods says:
    February 15, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    Richard..please stop now..your making the team look bad if this is the best response they have.
    You obviously dont know what just happened to you.. :)
    Never bring a pop gun to a gun fight I say.

  30. wermet says:
    February 15, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    Vitamin D is one of the vitamins that can be toxic (or even fatal) in large dosages. Consult your physician before starting a Vitamin D regimen.
    _____________________________________________________

    I have – I take 5,000 IU / day and my physician takes more. See my site

    http://slower-aging.com

  31. mike williams says:
    February 15, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    “Richard..please stop now..your making the team look bad if this is the best response they have.”

    I was just trying to get a straight answer to a straight question.

    “You obviously dont know what just happened to you.. :)”

    Will you please explain what you mean by “what just happened to” me?

  32. Bob – I am very interested in purchasing your book and presenting it as a gift to Richard B Woods. Unfortunately, your current edition is an ‘illustrated book’ and apparently I would need this in a books for the blind version. Or, if some prefer, a can’t-see-the-forest-for-the-trees version. Is that something that might become available (hopefully, the sooner the better)?

    @Robert Brown says:
    February 15, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Impressive scientific knowledge equally balanced with good common sense. No whining here…thank you for teaching this old dog new tricks. Who recently made up the fable that Cagw skeptics are interested in; “dissuading teachers from teaching science”? BTW – Is your above on-line course/post accredited?

  33. Richard B. Woods
    “what actually is in the Evans and Puckrin 2006 paper”

    Well, the paper states: “The greenhouse radiation is typically about 150 W/m2;” conveniently without citation.

    The abstract states: “The earth’s climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping)” , also conveniently without citation.

    It concludes: “The greenhouse radiation has increased by approximately 3.52 W/m2 since pre-industrial times.”

    Not that I’m agreeing with these numbers but just for the sake of argument:
    3.52/150×100=2.35%; 35×2.35%=0.8 C as an approximation (not taking S-B into account).

    So what the paper states is that the sensitivity to 2xCO2 = 0.8/3.52×3.7= 0.84 C!
    (3.7 W/m2 is the IPCC “standard” estimated direct increase of GHE from doubling CO2 (2XCO2))

    Pretty much what us skeptics have been saying; climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 is less than 1 C.

    According to Trenberth et al (2009) the GHE = 333 W/m2. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf

    Readjusting for the more recent finding:
    3.52/333×100=1.06%; 35×1.06%=0.37 C; 0.37/3.52×3.7= 0.39 C sensitivity to 2XCO2.

    So, to answer your question, the paper is actually saying the “AGW claim” that there’s a positive water feedback that supposedly increases climate sensitivity to 3 C for 2XCO2 is indeed not confirmed but refuted by their analysis; which means that the claim in laymen’s terms is a “HOAX”.

  34. To Bob Tisdale:
    I certainly intend to purchase and download your book. But could you briefly address a concern that I (and perhaps others) have, one prompted by something you said in the post above: “I have tried [to] take myself out og the technical-writer mode to make the book reader-friendly, [T]his . . . will help those without technical backgrounds understand . . . .” While I do not have a “technical background” in the respects you likely have in mind, I have always found your posts well written and understandable. So my concern: With your remarks I quoted, were you hinting that the material in the new book is, er (what word or phrase to use here?), simplified or somewhat dumbed-down? Or certainly better, only that the content in the book is better organized than the previous posts taken collectively, and that the exposition and explanations are simply made as clear as possible without loss of technical substance? I hope the latter is the case, but in any event will purchse the book. I think your work is very important and have been thinking how nice it would be if you pulled it all together.
    Lastly, I have a request. If you do not address this in the book, could you at some point do a post (or refer me to a previous post) that addresses what would likely have to occur, in terms of trade winds, warm pools, clouds, decadal oscillations, for the stepwise ramp up in global mean surface temperatures (explained by your account) to reverse and trend down. For example, would more be required than a sustained shift in the AMO to a colder regime? Or would such a shift even be necessary?

  35. wermet says:
    February 15, 2012 at 9:10 pm
    Nerd says: February 15, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Not sure where Vitamin D fits in but you’d be surprise how many chronic diseases you’d fix by taking vitamin D at the right dosage (no difference than fixing vitamin D deficiency). Thankfully, the latest studies are flowing in showing that we may have needed much more vitamin D than previously thought…

    PLEASE BE CAREFUL…
    Vitamin D is one of the vitamins that can be toxic (or even fatal) in large dosages. Consult your physician before starting a Vitamin D regimen.
    ========

    :) Here’s the hard part …. provide papers to prove that. You will not find anything definitive. Even vitamin D researchers asked for it when confronted by the very same flawed information you just provided and no one came up with anything to prove toxicity at 5,000 IU. Even up to 10,000 IU! You fell into same trap that warmists set up over CO2.

    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/what-is-vitamin-d/vitamin-d-toxicity/

    http://grassrootshealth.net/

    5000 IU a day is nothing for adults. I personally prefer to go by weight based at the rate of 1000 IU for every 25lbs of bodyweight for healthy people and double the rate for people with health problems brought on chronic vitamin D deficiency which isn’t much difference than treating vitamin D deficiency. The conventional treatment for vitamin D deficiency is 50,000 IU a week (over 7,000 IU a day)for 2-3 months but most medical doctors still have poor understanding in vitamin D because of what is taught in school in the past. It probably will be another 10 years before we see big update. Anyway for adults, 5000 IU a day for several months is enough just to get to 40-50 ng/ml which is at the bottom of optimal range (50-80 ng/ml). No big deal.

  36. Leigh B. Kelley: With respect to your concerns about my taking myself out of technical-writer mode: early in my career I was taught to write technical papers in the third person. Many of my early posts were written that way, but I’m trying to minimize it, make them easier to read, more conversational. Also, in looking back at what I’ve written in my posts, I also find myself describing a process that should go from “a” to “b” to “c”, etc., but stopping to clarify point “b” without notifying the reader that I’m doing so. I’ve tried to do notify the reader in the book when I’m clarifying or rephrasing.

    I also went into a little more detail than normal to further clarify some of the basic illustrations. Example: There are lots of cartoons around the internet that are used to explain the three modes of ENSO. They’re very similar to this:

    But I’ve never seen anyone put the dimensions of those cartoons into perspective, like so:

    The difference in sea surface height between the east and west equatorial Pacific, the depth of the warm water in the west Pacific Warm Pool, and the breadth of the tropical Pacific are all important to discussions of ENSO. Yet most descriptions of the cartoons take it for granted that the readers understand that. I haven’t.

    So I would choose the second of your thoughts, which was that “…the content in the book is better organized than the previous posts taken collectively, and that the exposition and explanations are simply made as clear as possible without loss of technical substance.”

    With respect to your closing request, I have the outline of a post that explains how temperatures would decrease during a multidecadal period when the frequency and magnitude of La Nina events exceed those of El Nino events. I just haven’t had the chance to illustrate and write it. Hopefully soon, though.

    Regards

  37. I’ve added an update to the cross post at my blog:

    UPDATE 1 (February 16, 2012): Many thanks to the multitude of visitors here and at the cross post at WattsUpWithThat who have purchased a copy of the book in the past day. Sales have exceeded my wildest dreams. It occurred to me as I was replying to a comment on this thread that I never prepared a synopsis. Here it is:

    If the IPCC was Selling Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop Their Deceptive Ads? is intended for readers interested in anthropogenic global warming/climate change who have limited technical or science backgrounds, to show and explain how:

    1. the IPCC has exaggerated the capabilities of the climate models they employ to make projections of future climate,

    2. the comparisons of the surface temperature data and the IPCC’s climate model simulations for the 20thCentury actually contradict the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming,

    3. there is a very logical and natural explanation for most of the warming that has taken place over the past 30 years. Since the El Niño-Southern Oscillation is responsible for that warming, the book includes a very basic but very detailed explanation of that natural phenomenon. And,

    4. the data they need to research the subject on their own, if they desire, is available to them in an easy-to-use format.

  38. To Bob Tisdale:
    Thank you for the response (to the point and clear), and most of all, thank you for your work. The warming simply has not occurred as the CAGW hypothesis requires: monotonic, gradual increase in surface ans lower-mid tropospheric temperatures. John Christy, Richard Lindzen and others have convincingly argued this point. Soon, the CAGW types will be reduced to arguing that, “Well, Ch4, Co2,etc., are greenhouse gases, GREENHOUSE GASES!! don’t you know? Therefore, everything we say follows as night the day!

  39. I just made my purchase and the download went fine.

    Looks good!
    —————————

    As for the comments about vitamin D, I take 5,000 IU a day. Considering going a wee bit higher.
    I think you would have to take absurd levels to do serious harm.

    Aha…..from the Vitamin D Council link provide earlier.

    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/what-is-vitamin-d/vitamin-d-toxicity/

    “What exactly constitutes a toxic dose of vitamin D has yet to be determined, though it is possible this amount may vary with the individual.

    Published cases of toxicity, for which serum levels and dose are known, all involve intake of ≥ 40000 IU (1000 mcg) per day. 1 Two different cases involved intake of over 2,000,000 IU per day – both men survived.”

  40. John West says:
    February 16, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    “It concludes: ‘The greenhouse radiation has increased by approximately 3.52 W/m2 since pre-industrial times.’
    . . .
    So what the paper states is that the sensitivity to 2xCO2 = 0.8/3.52×3.7= 0.84 C!
    . . .
    3.52/333×100=1.06%; 35×1.06%=0.37 C; 0.37/3.52×3.7= 0.39 C sensitivity to 2XCO2.”

    But you’ve applied the DLR increase _since pre-industrial times_ to the sensitivity for a _doubling of CO2_. Since pre-industrial times, CO2 has increased only from abut 280 ppm to 392 ppm — not a doubling — and that 280-to-392 increase is what the 3.52 W/m2 is concurrent with..

  41. StudioBronze says:February 15, 2012 at 10:14 am
    Well stated.

    Thank you so much to Bob T, Anthony and Josh.
    Download was no problem as a guest at PayPal.
    Look forward to reading the work.

  42. Brian H says:February 15, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    Yes I reckon BS also.
    The government employed have to find some way to justify their monopoly of purchase of green field and brown field hectares (acres). Socialised public health has long been protected and subsidised to find any excuse for their tampering in the free market of property. And uses thereof.

  43. The problem here is that most of the people promoting this ideology think they are doing a good thing. Many see daily indications of environmental degradation in their local environment and project this on to the planet as a whole.

    I believe that many scientists honestly believe that the planet is being irreparably damaged by the consequences of human industry and it is their mission to expose this danger to the world. Therefore, they give the benefit of the doubt to any indication that can arguably be purported to prove their belief. As a result, it seems we now have many otherwise respected scientists promoting what appears to be a modern scientific urban legend–catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

  44. Richard B. Woods says:
    “abut 280 ppm to 392 ppm — not a doubling — and that 280-to-392 increase is what the 3.52 W/m2 is concurrent with..

    You’re right, my bad.

    Recalculating (in Tom Tom voice):
    0.39 / 0.4 = 0.975 C sensitivity to 2XCO2, still less than 1. No where near 3.
    Or if you prefer:
    0.84 / 0.4 = 2.1 C sensitivity to 2XCO2 if taking their un-cited “typical” GHE of 150 W/m2 seriously and assuming that’s the only variable (lol). Higher than 1 but still not 3.

  45. Discussing UV and Vitamin D elsewhere I’d found these:

    http://www.rense.com/general48/sunlight1.htm

    How Sunlight Can Save Your Life
    Part 1
    By Oliver Gillie
    The Independent – UK
    1-27-4

    “It’s the great cancer cover-up. Panicked into avoiding sunlight by health experts, we are now dying in our thousands from diseases linked to deficiencies of vitamin D. But still the exaggerated warnings come. Oliver Gillie reveals how sunbathing can save your life… ”

    http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4.htm on Skin Colour Adaptation

  46. I’ve added a second update at the cross post at my website.

    UPDATE 2 (February 17, 2012): This will be the update for typographical errors. Sorry to say, a few have been found:

    Page 56, line 11 includes a wrong NINO3.4 coordinate. 120S should be 120W.

    Page 66, line 8 should read, “…does not look as though the…”

    [Thanks, Kevin Hearle.]

  47. John West says:
    February 17, 2012 at 8:22 am

    “0.39 / 0.4 = 0.975 C sensitivity to 2XCO2, still less than 1. No where near 3.
    Or if you prefer:
    0.84 / 0.4 = 2.1 C sensitivity to 2XCO2 if taking their un-cited “typical” GHE of 150 W/m2 seriously and assuming that’s the only variable (lol). Higher than 1 but still not 3.”

    As I understand it, there’s a difference between the “prompt sensitivity” that would apply to the temperature rise we’ve seen so far, and the “equilibrium sensitivity”. The latter would apply to the temperature rise after enough time has elapsed for the imbalance between the incoming and outgoing radiation to have fully gone back to balance because the global temperature has risen enough to raise outgoing radiation to match incoming radiation. (Note: the equilibrium sensitivity is for an extrapolated future in which GHG concentrations are frozen at current (“prompt”) levels. It does not take into account any further rise in GHGs.)

    The IPCC sensitivity of 3 that you’ve quoted is for the equilibrium sensitivity (again, as I understand it), but your calculation (0.975, or alternatively 2.1) appears to be for the prompt sensitivity. Is that a correct interpretation of your calculation? If so, what would your calculated equilibrium sensitivity be?

  48. I said, in my February 16, 2012 at 8:47 pm posting:

    “But you’ve applied the DLR increase _since pre-industrial times_ to the sensitivity for a _doubling of CO2_. Since pre-industrial times, CO2 has increased only from abut 280 ppm to 392 ppm – not a doubling – and that 280-to-392 increase is what the 3.52 W/m2 is concurrent with..”

    I had forgotten that the 392 ppm (112 ppm above the pre-industrial level) figure was for 2011, but the Evans 2006 results were based on measurements taken during 2004-2006 (See the extended abstract at ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf).

    The average CO2 atmospheric concentration for 2004-2006 was about 380 ppm (100 ppm above the pre-industrial level).

    John West says:
    February 17, 2012 at 8:22 am

    “Recalculating (in Tom Tom voice):
    0.39 / 0.4 = 0.975 C sensitivity to 2XCO2, still less than 1. No where near 3.
    Or if you prefer:
    0.84 / 0.4 = 2.1 C sensitivity to 2XCO2 if taking their un-cited “typical” GHE of 150 W/m2 seriously and assuming that’s the only variable (lol). Higher than 1 but still not 3.”

    John West’s constant 0.4 used in his calculations came from (392-280)/280 = 0.4, the fractional increase in CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times, but that would have been correct only for measurements made in 2011. For the Evans 2006 measurements, the proper constant is (380-280)/280 = 0.36, about 10% less. Substituting the proper 0.36 constant for the 0.4 constant in West’s calculations makes the calculated sensitivity figures about 10% larger.

    0.39 / 0.36 = 1.1 C sensitivity to 2XCO2

    or the alternative calculation (I’m not sure whether this is related to the prompt sensitivity vs. equilibrium sensitivity question that I asked; I await West’s answer on that.)

    0.84 / 0.36 = 2.3 C sensitivity to 2XCO2

    Both corrections to West’s original calculations have been in the direction of better agreement with the IPCC figures. If it turns out that West’s “alternative” calculation of 2.3 is indeed intended to be the equilibrium sensitivity, his 2.3 figure is within the lower range of some of the mainstream sensitivity studies that were averaged to produce the IPCC sensitivity figure of 3.

  49. Doubling the CO2 content from 280 PPM would yield a value of 560 PPM. The MODTRAN utility tool provided by the University of Chicago seems to indicate the raw effect, not including climatic feedback factors, of this increase would be less than one degree kelvin. In one sense, we are now about half-way there with a one-half doubling, or square root of two factor increase.

    In his “The Fate of All Carbon” article, David Archibald has estimated that the burn of all remaining flammable forms of carbon on the Earth’s surface will only increase the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere to a maximum of 522 PPM by 2130. This would suggest that anthropogenic carbon dioxide will not be a problem in the future unless we do something like using nuclear energy to create transportation fuels from limestone. (I believe that thorium nuclear energy is the most promising replacement energy source after natural carbon fuels run out.)

    REF: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/13/the-fate-of-all-carbon/

  50. BobT

    Bought the booklet and read it. A masterly exposition – many thanks for the falsifying of the AGW concept, beauitifully simple explanation. I had concluded the same from the CET trace which shows many other similar episodes since 1750, but your explanation is globally appliccable. And many thanks too for taking the time and trouble to elucidate the complexities of ENSO, and why that similarly hurts the AGW cause as well. And all that is done with the data sets, even after being breathed on by the cabal of ‘climate science’!!

Comments are closed.