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.
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?
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.
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:
http://i41.tinypic.com/xga5xc.jpg
But I’ve never seen anyone put the dimensions of those cartoons into perspective, like so:
http://i40.tinypic.com/1252u89.jpg
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
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.
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!
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.”
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..
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.
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.
Bob Tisdale
Thanks Bob, 🙂
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.
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.
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
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.]
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?
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.
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/
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’!!