New Book by Bob Tisdale: “Climate Models Fail”

THANK YOU

Many thanks to everyone who has purchased a copy of Climate Models Fail — and to those who are considering it.  And thank you, Anthony, for posting this here at WUWT!

I’ve added an update to the end of the post, linking the other websites promoting it.

# # #

With politicians from around the globe meeting in Stockholm this week to negotiate the content of the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report, this seemed like a good time to release my new book.

Climate Models Fail is now available for sale.

?????????????????????????????????????????????

A full-sized cover is available here.

The Free Preview of Climate Models Fail [pdf] includes the Introduction, Table of Contents, and the Closing. The Closing is also included later in this post. As you’ll note from the Table of Contents, the book includes many of the model-data comparisons I published as blog posts over the past year. The text accompanying them has been rewritten, expanded and edited for readability in this book. And you’ll note there are brand new presentations.

# # #

THE SYNOPSIS OF CLIMATE MODELS FAIL (from the Amazon Kindle webpage):

Climate Models Fail exposes the disturbing fact that climate models being used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report have very little practical value because they cannot simulate critical variables of interest to the public and policymakers. Using easy-to-read graphs, this book compares data (surface temperature, precipitation, and sea ice area) with the computer model simulations. It is very easy to see that the model outputs bear little relationship to the data. In other words, climate models create imaginary climates in virtual worlds that exhibit no similarities to the climate of the world in which we live.

This book was prepared for readers without scientific backgrounds. The terms used by scientists are explained and non-technical “translations” are provided. Introductory sections present basics. There are also numerous hyperlinks to additional background information. The book is well illustrated, with more than 250 color-coded graphs and maps. It is an excellent introduction to global warming and climate change for people who are not well-versed yet want to learn more.

Climate scientists created computer models to determine whether anthropogenic greenhouse gases and other manmade factors could have caused the slight global warming of the past 150 years. In their virtual worlds, the answer is yes — anthropogenic greenhouse gases were the primary cause of the warming in those digital worlds. But, because the modeled worlds differ greatly from Earth, and because the models cannot simulate the natural ocean-atmosphere processes that cause or stop global warming, climate models cannot be used to attribute global warming to human-induced factors.

To support this, numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies are very critical of the climate models. They point to a multitude of failings: improper simulations of temperature, precipitation, volcanic eruptions, sea ice, and natural ocean-atmosphere processes like associated with El Niños, La Niñas and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. An entire chapter discusses examples of those peer-reviewed papers. They expose climate model failures to accurately simulate (hindcast) the processes and metrics crucial to understanding past climate change…and they suggest (some clearly state) that climate models have no value for telling us anything about how climate may change in the future.

Model-data comparisons make up the bulk of this book. Surface temperature, precipitation, and sea ice area data are available to the public in easy-to-use formats via the web, as are the climate model outputs. Climate models show no skill at being able to simulate global surface temperatures since 1880. In recent decades, they drastically overestimated the warming on two continents, and they have extreme difficulty with regional temperatures. Climate models show no skill at being able to simulate sea surface temperatures or coupled-ocean atmosphere processes. Climate models can’t simulate precipitation, and they totally miss the mark with sea ice. At the ends of many model-data comparison chapters, the research papers that are critical of climate models are once again referenced. This supports the model-data presentations and allows readers to refer to the graphs so that they will have a better understanding of the importance of the model failings discussed in the papers.

Interest in global warming was renewed with the cessation of warming. This book includes sections showing how the surface temperatures of ocean basins and regional land areas are behaving during this warming plateau — and which two ocean basins are responsible for it.

Climate Models Fail clearly shows that climate models have little value for the public and policymakers because their number-crunched virtual worlds do not come close to simulating the real world we inhabit.

# # #

PURCHASE OPTIONS

Climate Models Fail is available in:

  • Amazon Kindle format (IMPORTANT: For persons with black & white Kindle Readers, keep in mind the illustrations are in color. )

Price: U.S.$9.99. Please buy a copy.

PDF EDITION NOTES

For the .pdf edition, purchase transactions are processed by PayPal. If you do not have PayPal account, simply scroll down past where they ask you to open one. After the transaction is complete, PayPal returns you to the download website, SendOwl, which takes a few seconds. (I know. I bought the first copy.) Or check your email for a link from SendOwl. If you have any problems, please don’t get excited; please leave me a comment at my website Climate Observations. Problems with the pdf edition purchases are easy to remedy.

DON’T FORGET TO SAVE IT TO YOUR HARD DRIVE.

Also note that the illustrations in the pdf edition have been rearranged in the text slightly to reduce the amount of blank space on pages.

If you’d prefer not to purchase through PayPal, the other option is to download the Kindle Reader to your computer or handheld device and purchase Climate Models Fail in Kindle format.

# # #

THE CLOSING FROM CLIMATE MODELS FAIL

Closing – When Will Climate Models Be Credible Tools?

Climate Models Fail illustrated and discussed the many flaws inherent in climate models. These included the fact that they do not properly simulate surface temperatures, precipitation, and sea ice area.

You may be asking yourself, “If the models perform so poorly, how can there be hundreds, if not thousands, of climate studies which show models performing well?

First, not all climate model-based studies include the model runs stored in the archives that are used by the IPCC. Some papers are based on special model runs that are tuned specifically for a given study, so they are different than the simulations used for the IPCC hindcasts and projections. Second, the CMIP archives include the model outputs from dozens of modeling groups, and some of the modeling groups submit more than one type of model to the CMIP archives. Each model performs some functions well in specific regions — with some models performing better than others. But, that does not mean any of the models simulate all metrics well in all regions…or globally. The modelers understand the strong points of individual models. So, for any particular climate study, they pick and choose from a smorgasbord of climate models and runs. One study about metric “a” in location “a” may include 3 different models, the next study of metric “b” in location “a” may utilize 2 other models, while yet another study of metric “b” in location “b” may be based on a completely different model that wasn’t presented in the other two studies. The climate modeling groups are obviously only going to present their models in favorable lights.

Thankfully, there are scientific research papers that expose climate models’ serious flaws. As presented in Climate Models Fail, those studies found that current climate models (CMIP5) are not able to properly simulate:

  • The coupled ocean-atmosphere processes of El Niño and La Niña, the largest contributors to natural variations in global temperature and precipitation on annual, multiyear, and decadal timescales.
  • Responses to volcanic eruptions, which can be so powerful that they can even counteract the effects of strong El Niño events.
  • Precipitation — globally or regionally — including monsoons.
  • Cloud cover.
  • Sea surface temperatures.
  • Global surface temperatures.
  • Sea ice extent.
  • Teleconnections, the mechanisms by which a change in a variable in one region of the globe causes a change in another region, even though those regions may be separated by thousands of kilometers.
  • Blocking, which is associated with heat waves.
  • The influence of El Niños on hurricanes.
  • The coupled ocean-atmosphere processes associated with decadal and multidecadal variations in sea surface temperatures, which strongly impact land surface temperatures and precipitation on those same timescales.

According to one of the papers, the current generation of climate models (CMIP5) are worse at simulating past global climate than the previous generation of models (CMIP3); i.e., the models are making giant leaps, but in the wrong direction.

Additionally, I showed quite clearly that the models cannot accurately simulate:

  • Polar Amplification.
  • Daily maximum and minimum temperatures and the diurnal temperature range.

And I illustrated and discussed why it is of paramount importance for models to accurately simulate the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that express themselves as:

  • Multidecadal variations in the sea surface temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere.
  • El Niño and La Niña events — and the multidecadal variations in the dominance of those phases.

I also prepared a blog post that presents step-by-step instructions for creating a model-data comparison graph. That post is linked within Climate Models Fail. Using those instructions, anyone can verify the results presented in this book. [See the post here.]

Climate models have a number of tremendous hurdles to overcome, and the highest are coupled ocean-atmosphere processes. Satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature data reveals that two ocean basins are responsible for the cessation of global warming: the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica and the largest ocean basin on Earth, the Pacific. The fundamental coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that are driving the warming plateau are associated with ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation). Yet, it is well-known that climate models cannot simulate ENSO.

Because El Niño and La Niña processes are the primary causes of the variations in surface temperature and precipitation on annual, multiyear, decadal, and multidecadal bases, and because the instrument temperature record shows that sunlight-fueled El Niño and La Niña processes are the primary causes of the long-term warming of the oceans, ENSO should be an area of intense modeling efforts.

The coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that drive multidecadal variations in sea surface temperatures will be more of a problem. The sea surface temperature record is globally complete only during the satellite era — the last 30 years. Further, the subsurface temperature and salinity records of the oceans are globally complete for only the past decade or so; moreover, the subsurface data are riddled with problems. It will be decades before the climate science community can hope to begin to have a data-based understanding of subsurface ocean “weather” and its interactions with ocean-atmosphere processes.

Growth in climate science has been stunted by the IPCC’s politically-driven addiction to conjectures about anthropogenic climate change. Decades after it began, climate science is still in its infancy. Yet, it is portrayed as a well-established, noble, bastion of solid research, the flawless jewel of Earth sciences that can do no wrong. Worse, climate science has been ruthlessly exploited by environmental groups and politicians and even by many of the scientists themselves.

The primary obstacles for the climate science community in the years and decades to come are: (1) the expectations of government funding agencies, which are obviously tied to political agendas; and (2) the anchoring effect of the fanatical beliefs of those members whose careers and funding skyrocketed as a result of their drum beating for the IPCC.

The people of the world rely on the findings of the climate science community, and in order for climate science to move forward, that community will have to be honest within itself and with the public. Hopefully, that will occur in my lifetime, but I’m not holding my breath.

# # #

YOUTUBE INTRODUCTION

I’ve updated the YouTube “Introduction to Climate Models Fail” to reflect that the book is now for sale. At the same time, I also replaced the word “employed” with “used” (as suggested by many viewers) and corrected one of the years discussed in the video.

# # #

My sincerest thanks to the person who proofread and edited Climate Models Fail. She made it much easier to read. If there are any residual typos, they are my doing.

And my thanks to Josh of Cartoons by Josh for the “Report Card” cover art with all of those bright-red F’s.

# # #

UPDATES

Roger Pielke, Sr. gave Climate Models Fail a tweet (Thanks, Roger):

# # #

Bishop Hill also has a quick introduction the failure of the climate models (Thanks, Andrew).

About these ads

60 thoughts on “New Book by Bob Tisdale: “Climate Models Fail”

  1. The climate models are based on the UNFCCC. And they are producing the policy based results that are conform to the political established UNFCCC.
    The problem here reality and the real World?

  2. wishing you success with the book, Bob Tisdale.

    could you send a copy to Will Steffen?

    24 Sept: SMH: Will Steffen: Shooting the climate change messenger won’t make problems go away
    Understanding science is no longer an optional extra for Australian society. In 21st century democracies, knowledge is an essential currency for wise decision-making, whether it be the risks associated with nuclear energy, the latest ethical implications of medical research, or the role of human activities in changing the Earth’s climate. Those societies whose populations have the best scientific understanding often make the wisest decisions…
    Because of the complexity of much of modern science – and climate science is the quintessential example – it is easy to misinterpret, either deliberately or unwittingly, what the scientists are carefully and accurately saying, in their own, somewhat obscure way…
    Some straightforward mathematics, based on the fundamental physics of the climate system, show unequivocally that most of the world’s fossil fuel reserves will have to stay in the ground if we are to stabilise the climate for our children and grandchildren.
    But even in the here-and-now, communication of climate science has a critical role to play. Extreme events are already changing as a result of a warmer and wetter atmosphere, and to deny that simple fact unnecessarily increases the challenge that our health system, emergency management authorities and urban and regional planners face in dealing with weather extremes…
    The demise of the Climate Commission is not a good sign for the future of our democracy. In the long term, shooting the messenger never works. The overwhelming support for the Commission’s work from the Australian public shows that the need for clear, authoritative, nonbiased information on climate change is stronger than ever.

    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/shooting-the-climate-change-messenger-wont-make-problems-go-away-20130924-2uasb.html

    ——————————————————————————–

  3. Bob,

    Thanks.

    And in any spare time find yourself a copy of “Desertification: Exploding the Myth” by DSG Thomas and NJ Middleton (Wiley, 1994) and see if this doesn’t strike you as a test run for CAGW.

  4. Slightly OT but, since Bob raised the point in the first sentence of this post, does anyone else see the glaring problem here?

    “[...] politicians from around the globe meeting in Stockholm this week to negotiate the content of the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report [...]”

    So the politicians (the policy makers of the world) are meeting to negotiate what advice they’d like to see in the independant scientific summary that will advise them what the science is saying.

    The wheels on my (fossil fuel powered) car are less circular than that!

  5. @pat
    “The demise of the Climate Commission is not a good sign for the future of our democracy. ”

    You are wrong! It is democracy in action. Your description of the state of the world is also absolutely wrong!

  6. John Whitman says: “I bought the kindle version.”

    Thanks. I was happy with how the color graphs and maps looked on the Kindle Reader software I have on my desktop.

  7. Bob Tisdale, your tireless efforts to increase the knowledge and to clear up the misconceptions of and about Climate Science have single-handedly helped me to understand more about the Earth’s climate system than the entire body of IPCC-related scientists combined.

    For this you have my eternal gratitude. I will buy your book.

  8. Bob Tisdale on September 25, 2013 at 3:10 am

    John Whitman says: “I bought the kindle version.”

    Thanks. I was happy with how the color graphs and maps looked on the Kindle Reader software I have on my desktop.j

    – – – – – – –

    Bob Tisdale,

    It works well even on my iPhone. I stopped loading books on my iPad because its size is inconvenient for my constantly on the go situation. The iPhone kindle works the best for me since I always have it with me 24/7/365, I can fit in a half dozen pages of reading while waiting in Starbucks for a triple venti cappuccino or waiting in line at the grocery store . . .

    As to your new book, it is well done so far . . . Since I am fairly familiar with your past work here on WUWT, it is better than those because it has more overall integration of the subject matter.

    Anyway, congratulations. I am happy for you.

    John

  9. I especially enjoyed the “cover”, showing all the “F”s.

    How about “Gets along well with others”—“F”!

    Hope you sell 10 million copies.

  10. bom says:
    September 25, 2013 at 2:51 am
    @pat
    “The demise of the Climate Commission is not a good sign for the future of our democracy. ”

    You are wrong! It is democracy in action. Your description of the state of the world is also absolutely wrong!

    Pat was quoting (and disparaging) newspaper columnist Will Steffen of the Sydney Morning Herald.

  11. Bob Tisdale,

    While continuing with reading your new book ‘Climate Models Fail’ a subtitle occurred to me.

    My suggestion of a subtitle for ‘Climate Models Fail’ is ‘ The Climate Model Quest – a tragedy in 5 acts assessments’

    {FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4 & AR5}

    John

  12. Magnus Olert says: “Will there be a paper version of the book?”

    There are no plans for one. I checked on that when people were asking about a hard edition of “Who Turned on the Heat?” With all of the color illustrations, the printing costs at a vanity press were over U.S. $100. And I can’t see many people buying it at those prices.

  13. I have a dear friend who is a retired teacher, she loved sending papers home with low grades, comments and signed with her initials, BS. Would have worked on Josh’s report card cover.

  14. Another Ian says:
    September 25, 2013 at 1:09 am
    “Desertification: Exploding the Myth” by DSG Thomas and NJ Middleton (Wiley, 1994)
    =============
    There are many similarities between the Desertification and AGW. Desertification caused by humans was a narrative. An idea that took hold because it made sense logically, but ultimately turned out to be false. In the meantime it was exploited for political and economic gain.

    The IPCC seized on Desertification as one of the great harms caused by AGW. The driving force behind this was the industrialized nations. While the poorest nations, those suffering the most from desertification saw the cause as quite different.

    What has made the problem so difficult is the persistence of the “narrative” , which in earlier times would have been called a myth or legend. A story with some basis in fact, but in the end largely made up. It is widely recognized by those directly involved in solving the problems of desertification that AGW is not the cause.

    Changes in land management have been shown conclusively to reverse the trend in Desertification. Yet climate scientists continue to perpetual the myth, spreading ignorance in the name of science, doing great harm in the process.

  15. Just downloaded the Kindle version and will be the next on the reading list after I have finished “Into the Dustbin”. Keep up the good work Bob

  16. Will order it tonight, Bob. My only thought is one that I have “voiced” many times on this website, is that many politicians do not want the truth to be revealed, because:
    a) They will look gullible
    b) They cannot tax us based upon our collective guilt at “damaging” the planet and our collective penance at paying these taxes to continue to fly and drive powerful motor cars.
    c) Governments like “crises” so they can deflect scrutiny of their other failings to govern properly.

  17. Just bought it. The cover art is outstanding, and as I already know, the content is too.
    Thank you, Bob. Great work.

  18. Is it still the case that the Assessment report, after it is written and approved by politicians, can never be altered, but the supporting “scientific” report can/must be amended to accord with and support the Assessment report .?
    That’s the way to do it !!

  19. This book shows that climate models are nothing more than models of the CAGW hypothesis, and as such cannot be used to test the hypothesis at all. All they are useful for is explaining, by demonstrating the CAGW hypothesis running as a model that they only produce a prediction of the CAGW hypothesis. Models are not useless, but their sole scientific use is that they can generate data which MUST then be scientifically tested against reality.

    The model derived predictions are NOT evidence in support of the hypothesis, for they are a demonstration of the hypothesis itself. It is scientific fraud to suggest that by running a model of the hypothesis, that this is a suitable or valid test of the hypothesis or that they are generating real data that proves that mankind is heating the planet.

    These models are ONLY generating test data which then needs to be tested against real data as and when that real world data slowly becomes available through patient empirical measurement of the real world.

    The rules of science dictate that the output from CAGW hypothesis based models, be compared with real-world empirically measured data and it is ONLY in that comparisson that we can determine the validity, or falsification, of the CAGW hypothesis.

    As this book very ably demonstrates, the CAGW hypothesis, as demonstrated by many models, failed to predict the real response of the climate to a near doubling of atmospheric CO2. Science further mandates that if the data does not match the hypothesis, then it is the hypothesis, which must be rejected… NOT the data.

    Sadly, far too many so-called scientists are clinging onto the hypothesis, and rejecting or (dare I say it, ) denying the data, like their very careers (and mortgages and income) depend upon it. sarc> I cannot imagine why. </sarc

  20. Bob I am intrigued by La Nada, Neutral, and El Nado conditions in terms of recharge and heat release capabilities during prolonged “Neutral” conditions split into these three categories, subtracting La Nina and El Nino conditions. Given the resulting data string thusly divided, I wonder about possible lagged affects on land surface weather pattern variation trends. I say this because sometimes what we are looking for is not going to be found where we are looking. How would you go about studying prolonged “neutral” ENSO conditions and mechanisms in terms of predictive potential? In terms of La Nina and El Nino, you have looked behind door number 1 and 3. I wonder what is behind door number 2 inbetween?

  21. Bob

    I bought it around 5.20p.m. (UK daylight saving time) via amazon.co.uk for my Kindle Fire. First one in UK/Europe??

  22. David Jones: I have no way of knowing who purchased the first Kindle edition in the UK/Europe. But I do know who purchased the first pdf edition…after my test to make sure it worked.

  23. Pamela Gray says: “How would you go about studying prolonged “neutral” ENSO conditions and mechanisms in terms of predictive potential? In terms of La Nina and El Nino, you have looked behind door number 1 and 3. I wonder what is behind door number 2 inbetween?”

    Me too. This summer we’ve seen ENSO-neutral condition in the Central Tropical Pacific, but medium to strong La Nina conditions in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, so is using the one ENSO index (NINO3.4 in the central equatorial Pacific) really telling us what’s going on? Last year, we had moderate but short-lived El Nino conditions during the summer, but that leftover warm water had to go somewhere.

  24. I ordered my pdf at 17:05 UK time. II’m looking forward to reading it on holiday next week. Might buy the Kindle edition as well as an additional thanks to Bob Tisdale for all the work he’s put in on behalf of the good guys. Unfortunately I don’t think I’ll be able to persuade my highly intelligent but SkS reading son to borrow it.

  25. Maybe this is a bit OT, but has anybody compared the predictive accuracy of climate models to “The Farmers’ Almanac”? Any bets on who wins?

  26. Thanks Bob, purchased UK Kindle edition and the graphs etc look fine on my Nexus 7. Look forward to reading it over the next day or so.

  27. “I don’t think I’ll be able to persuade my highly intelligent but SkS reading son to borrow it.” [Bob MacLean]

    Tell him he could never understand it; that the science is for experts only. Heh, heh, heh.

    Keep just the right level tone with the barest hint of condescension, and I’ll bet it will work.

    Do report back to WUWT!

  28. Gunga Din says:
    September 25, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    And, on cue, one of the comments from the Farmer’s Almanac:

    ‘To clarify one key point for a few people on here. Global warming is definitely having an impact on weather and temperatures. As temperatures get lower, oceans are creating more moisture in the air which in turn brings larger and more powerful storms. As temperatures drop in the northern hemisphere (winter time), oceans bring in larger more moisture filled clouds and storms from the south causing us to have more precipitation. Storms are going to get stronger and stronger year after year…..Please bring on the electric cars!’

    The stupid is strong. ‘Moisture filled clouds’? As opposed to? The war is not yet won…

  29. Sigh. Well, Jorge Kafkazar can add Farmers Almanac to his list (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/the-wuwt-hotsheet-for-wednesday-sept-25th/#comment-1426397). Benjamin Franklin would be so proud (NOT!).

    Thanks, Fabi, for keeping us informed. Not surprising, actually. Farmer’s Almanac was already largely an astrology-based bunch of junk (esp. re: their using the classic fortune-telling technique of using vague language which the reader then fleshes out with history or common sense and… voila! a prediction). Delving into Fantasy Science Cultism was an easy next step, no doubt.

  30. Not that Benjamin Franklin founded “Farmers Almanac,” (his was “Poor Richard’s”), just that he would be disgusted at the depths to which almanac writing has sunk.

  31. Uh, Mike Smith?

    I watched all 4 minutes and 30 seconds of this video and, ……. I can’t figure out what Ben and Bill and their buffers have to do with any other post on this thread. Help! (please)

    “Bust my buffers!” cried Bill.

    ???

  32. Thank you for insisting to the publisher that a kindle version be available. Handling the previous books – which had only pdf on-line available formats – was very difficult to get on-screen.

    Now, I have both color and a black-and-white kindle’s in the house. From your top comment, do the graphs need to be read in color to make best sense of their information?

  33. So Bob, I wonder about that cold tongue that teases us as it laps along the eastern Pacific, wanting to stretch across the La Nina track but never quite making it. Is that cold tongue from the circumpolar current? I know a piece of that current ends up in the Pacific and crawls along the western edge of South America.

  34. Hi Bob, just purchased your book but sadly no time to read it right now. But I’ll have it in reserve and am buying it now so there is no ‘out of sight out of mind’ going on.

    Thanks for sharing all your insights over the years here at WUWT. You’ve definitely progressed in your ability to explain things to non-experts like me and in developing strong arguments from your data. I’ve learned a lot and appreciate all your work.

  35. R. A. Cook, (yes, yes, I know you weren’t talking to me — just in case an opinion from me would help you as you wait for Bob T. to reply) from what I’ve seen of that book, color is essential.

  36. From the official IPCC soundtrack …

    R. Pachauri: “I so totally love this song, i play it ten times a day and i get a toner everytime…”

  37. @Bob Tisdale:
    Just purchased my copy, I now have two electronic books. The first one was “Who Turned On The Heat?”
    Mario

  38. Well good luck on the book Bob; it sounds like you are filling a niche that was in need of repairs. I’ll just have to imagine what you put in it, if there is no paper edition.

    I’m already losing my sight due to the hours I work on my computers, so I’m not into e-books.

    Maybe an audio book ; but I don’t know how to hear detailed graphs.

    So I guess your Kindling wood help light a fire under the IPCC dummies.

  39. george e. smith says:
    September 27, 2013 at 5:43 pm
    Well good luck on the book Bob; it sounds like you are filling a niche that was in need of repairs. I’ll just have to imagine what you put in it, if there is no paper edition.

    I’m already losing my sight due to the hours I work on my computers, so I’m not into e-books.

    Maybe an audio book ; but I don’t know how to hear detailed graphs.

    So I guess your Kindling wood help light a fire under the IPCC dummies.
    +++++++++++
    Hi George, I am a sales engineer at heart, so may I suggest:

    Buy the PDF version, and print yourself a copy. I imagine you can get it done for less than a few bucks and have a 9×11 sized soft paper copy to enjoy. The words and graphs will be easy on the eye at that size too!

Comments are closed.