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:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
David Jones: It should still be available for download. Click on the link again and see if it’s available to you now. If not leave me a comment at my website:
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Well Lew ‘Big Oil’ Skannen just made a donation.
Let’s see Anthony try and explain that one away!
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.
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! 🙂
Nerd says: February 15, 2012 at 12:52 pm
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.
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.
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.
Thanks Mr Tisdale. Bought a copy and thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
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
I also just bought a copy, and will look forward to reading it over the next few days.
Thanks Bob, copy downloaded. Very easy to do and now as a shortcut on my desktop.
I just bought it. Thank you, Bob.
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?
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?
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”.
I’d like to download the E book, but it just doesn’t work for me. Very annoying