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

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.]

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

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 20^thCentury 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.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

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 4^th Assessment Report (AR4). Those posts show how poorly those models simulated the rates at which global surface temperatures warmed and cooled when the 20^th 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

Part 2 1997/98 El Niño through 1998/99/00/01 La Niña Animations

This is part 2 of a two-part series that provides links to 8 gif animations of the 1997/98 El Niño through the 1998/99/00/01 La Niña events. Refer to the general description of the maps in part one here.

YOU MAY HAVE TO CLICK ON THE ANIMATIONS TO VIEW THEM.

CONTINUATION OF COMPARISON ANIMATIONS

Sea surface temperature anomalies are compared to Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures (not anomalies) in Animation 5. The sea surface temperature dataset is Reynolds OI.v2.

Animation 5

1997/98 El Niño through 1998/99/00/01 La Niña Animations

This two part series of posts provides links to 8 gif animations of the 1997/98 El Niño through the 1998/99/00/01 La Niña events. They are being provided solely as references.

YOU MAY HAVE TO CLICK ON THE ANIMATIONS TO VIEW THEM.

Animation 1 is one I’ve included in a number of posts. It illustrates the variations in global sea surface temperature anomalies before, during and after the 1997/98 El Niño and continues through the 1998/99/00/01 La Niña. The East Indian and West Pacific Oceans (60S-65N, 80E-180) are highlighted with a red box. The maps were created at the KNMI Climate Explorer, using Reynolds OI.v2 satellite-based sea surface temperature data. The animation also includes a graph that compares East Indian-West Pacific Ocean sea surface temperature anomalies to scaled NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies. The NINO3.4 data (an ENSO index) has been scaled by a factor of 0.13 and it has also been shifted down 0.05 deg C to better align the two datasets at the beginning of the animation. The base years for anomalies are 1982 to 2009. The data in the graph has been smoothed with a 12-month running-average filter to reduce the noise and minimize any seasonal component in the East Indian-West Pacific data. The 12-month data filter also aligns it with the map, since each map represents a 12-month average of sea surface temperature anomalies. Using the 12-month averages in the maps has the same effect as smoothing data in a graph: it reduces the weather noise and reduces any seasonal component. In the animation, the June 1996 to May 1997 map is followed by a map that shows the average for the next 12-month period, July 1996 to June 1997. The animation continues on in sequence until the final map that shows the average sea surface temperature anomalies for the period of August 2001 to July 2002.

Animation 1

January 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update

MONTHLY SST ANOMALY MAP

The following is a Global map of Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies for January 2012 downloaded from the NOMADS website. The contour levels are set at 0.5 deg C, and white is set at zero.

January 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies Map

(Global SST Anomaly = +0.044 deg C)

PRELIMINARY January 2012 SST Anomaly Update

Sorry for the delay. I got sidetracked by those having a hard time accepting that Ocean Heat Content uptake has slowed.

STANDARD OPENING PARAGRAPH

The January 2012 Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) data through the NOAA NOMADS website won’t be official until Monday, February 6th. Refer to the schedule on the NOAA Optimum Interpolation Sea Surface Temperature Analysis Frequently Asked Questionswebpage. The following are the preliminary Global and NINO3.4 SST anomalies for January 2012 that the NOMADS website prepares based on incomplete data for the month. I’ve also included the weekly data through the week centered on January 25, 2012, but I’ve shortened the span of the weekly data, starting it in January 2004, so that the variations can be seen.

PRELIMINARY MONTHLY DATA

Based on the preliminary data, Monthly NINO3.4 SST anomalies are at -1.03 deg C. Monthly NINO3.4 SST anomalies are still bouncing back and forth at the threshold of a moderate La Niña. One would expect them to start rebounding next month.

Monthly NINO3.4 SST Anomalies

The Comment of the Week

The following comment was posted by JJ at January 31, 2012 at 3:38 pm on the WattsUpWithThat cross post of Part 2 of Tamino Once Again Misleads His Disciples.The rest of JJ’s comments on that WUWT thread are also a good read.

His comment is a great end to this series of posts. I’m going back to work on my long-term project.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

JJsays:

January 31, 2012 at 3:38 pm

LazyTeenager says:

Tamino was making a point that it is not legitimate to exaggerate the difference between graph trends by introducing arbitrary vertical offsets or using reduced time ranges.

Tamino’s point is inapplicable. The vertical offset is not an issue, unless the absolute magnitude of the divergence is the topic that the graph is intended to illustrate. It wasn’t. Bob spoke only of the comparison of slopes. His graph is appropriate for that discussion. It is not misleading.

Tamino’s post is misleading. He presents graphs that are only relevant to the discussion of the absolute magnitude of the divergence. That was not Bob’s point. Bob’s point was the comparison of slopes, and Tamino did not present the relevant slopes in his post. Doing so would have made Bob’s point, and Tamino’s irrelevant red herring, quite clear.

Grant Foster is smart enough that he doesn’t need to erect strawmen to conquer. It must be the overall deficiency of his position that causes him to do such things, huh?

OHC for the last ten years is proceeing on a much flatter trajectory than previously. And flatter than the model runs predict. That was, and remains, Bob’s point. He is absolutely correct about that, as this post and the two previous demonstrate. His question was, and remains, how much longer can this divergence persist before the model worshippers come down from the hill and perform the virual equivalent of the “Great Disappointment” response? It is a good question. You guys should answer it, rather than trying to distract from it.

Because when you attempt to distract from it, as Tamino has done here, you end up doing two things: 1) You look desperate, grasping at straws from which to construct sparring partners, and 2) you end up forcing guys like Bob into examining things that don’t turn out well for you. In his original post, he was not talking about the absolute magnitude of the OHC divergence, only the slopes. Off topic complaints forced him to address the former, and look what he found: Fig 9 above shows that in addition to being way off predicted slope for the last 10 years, the absolute value of the OHC has been below model predicted values for the last 15 years.

Add that to Bob’s question above.

Part 2 of Tamino Once Again Misleads His Disciples

UPDATE:  I forgot to include the closing when I published this.  I’ve added it.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

This post is a continuation of my post Tamino Once Again Misleads His Followers, which was cross posted at WattsUpWithThat here. There Tamino’s disciples and his other followers, one a post author at SkepticalScience, have generally been repeating their same tired arguments.

The debate is about my short-term, ARGO-era graph of NODC Ocean Heat Content (OHC) data versus the GISS climate model projection. This discussion is nothing new. It began in with Tamino’s unjustified May 9, 2011 post here about my simple graph. My May 13, 2011 reply to Tamino is here, and it was cross posted at WUWT on the same day here. Lucia Liljegren of The Blackboard added to the discussion here.

A graph that’s similar to the one Tamino and his disciples think is fake is shown in Figure 1. It’s similar but different, sort of a short-term OHC model-data comparison Modoki. We’ll get back to it.

Figure 1

First, let’s discuss…

…THE BLATANTLY OBVIOUS ERROR IN TAMINO’S RECENT FAILED CRITIQUE