Thanks to HR for his adding a review. That’s much better than the first one that looked as though it was written by someone who had not read the book.
And thanks, HR, for the kind words.
When you get a chance, please stop by and take a few minutes to leave a review at the Kindle webpage for If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop their Deceptive Ads? I’m not looking for praise (though I would be happy to receive it);
I’m those wondering if they should buy it are looking for honest reviews.
The one review appears to have been written by someone who has not read the book, since he or she refers only to my blog posts. The author of the comment also suggests that time would be better spent reading and fact checking the IPCC reports themselves. That’s further confirmation that the person never read the book since it is a fact-checking exercise that compares model outputs to observed surface temperatures, with the models showing no skill at being able to simulate 20thCentury surface temperatures. The book also illustrates and discusses how and why the recent multidecadal bout of warming does have a natural explanation, which opposes the IPCC’s climate model-based opinion. Then he or she refers to Michael Mann and James Hansen, who are not mentioned in my book. It’s a very strange review.
I haven’t read your book either, but JustSomeGuy’s review is a totally misguided rant. I’ve seen enough of your posts to know that there’s no “name calling” going on. Ironically, his apparent heroes do exactly that.
I have seen your thanks for the link to your book at the Plaza Moyua blog.
So I have immediately bought it : ( ” If the IPCC was selling…” ) for my Kindle.
I am in the middle of another book, but I’ll leave that for later, and will start your book this very afternoon, and write a short critic at the Amazon Kindle place the moment I finish it.
This will be a first for me, being as I am, a bit shy, and not knowing for sure wether my critical opinions could be useful to anyone, ( I am only an old Spanish woman with no academic credentials , but with a lot of curiosity).
But I will do it anyway.
I find the fact that you ask not for favorable opinions but just for true ones, really heartening !
Thanks you, viejecita, for buying my book and for offering to provide your opinion.
Dear Mr Bob Tisdale
I have begun your book. I have read about 16% ( can not say the page number, as I have very big letters in my kindle, to ease my old eyes, and there are more pages in my copy as a result ).
Luckily, I am familiar with the charts you tell your readers about, as my kindle is black and white, and the charts are difficult to see properly, being so small, and with no colours.
If you had, here in your blog, a special section with the charts used in the different pages of the kindle edition of your book, one would read the text in the kindle, and have all the charts ready at hand, on their mac (or pc, or whatever).
When there is a highlightedHere, in the middle of a text in my kindle, and I try to click on it, it is a real bore: I lose the page I was in, have to turn the wireless on, etc etc. And you refer to many different charts, which will come later on in any given paragraph. So, I should have to be doing it constantly.
I am the kind of reader who goes forward and backwards all the time, so, when reading a book on kindle, I usually copy data, or family connections, etc, on a paper, to be able to refresh my memory whenever needed. But I can’t very well do the same with charts.
Well, this post is really about the format. I’ll go on reading now. I expect it will be easier for me once the general ideas about everything are explained, and your book centers on your thesis .
viejecita: I’m sorry, but the Kindle edition was intended for color versions of the Kindle reader. It should be possible for you to transfer it to your PC. There it should be larger and in color.
Never mind; I’ll find the charts in the internet, and print them, in color. And I’ll have them beside me when reading my kindle. The problem is not the color for me, it is the hassle of going forward and backwards while reading the kindle. I guess this type of book is better on paper, where you just earmark the pages with charts and maps, or with family trees, and go back and forth easily.
I don’t read long texts on my mac, because my eyes get tired fast, even if I put the contrast an the light at minimum value.
And besides, I am familiar with all those charts. I’ll go on reading
I want to be able to give an honest review, so I need some more time before I’ve read your book in enough detail to be able to review it. There’s so much in it (even if I know a lot of it from before from reading your blog).
Maybe you can you use this loess smoother for excel:
(watch out with the end points)
Ibrahim: Thanks for the link.
Bob, I have not read your book, but I have followed your blogs. I think you make good points, and I assume the book expands on those. However, I do want to point out that the first reviewer, while somewhat negative on your book (and they may have not read it), is not a supporter of the CAGW group. They ended their comment with: “I recommend the IPCC reports themselves and then fact check them, it will become clear that the UN and the IPCC are not telling you the truth, but instead cherry picking facts for their side of the argument. What you do when you figure out James Hansen and Michael Mann are making fools of their scientific colleagues is up to you”. I make this point just to be fair, as I think some did not get that.
Bob, I have read your book, and I have also recreated your figure 8-6 by following your instruction given in section 9.1 using KNMI Climate Explorer. I had previously used KNMI Climate Explorer, but I found your instructions and tips very helpful. It is important to compare the observations to the hindcasts of the climate models to determine if the models have any basis in reality. Your book clearly shows that the models have no basis in reality and should not be used for making policy decisions.
Your Figure 8-6 (or 9-1) using data from January 1982 to February 2011 shows the linear best fit trend of the East Pacific of 0.0192 C/decade. Your update graph of Figure 9-23 from November 1981 – January 2012 shows a lower trend of 0.007. (You used two months of 1981 that were not included in your Figure 8-6.) My graph using data from January 1982 to March 2012 gives a linear trend of the East Pacific of 0.0042 C/decade, which rounds to 0.00 C/decade.
Figure 2-6 shows that during the early warming period (1911 to 1944) the actual temperature trend from observations was 3.1 times the model mean hindcast trend. You say the model trend can be considered to be a forced component of the observation trend, so the unforced component is twice the forced trend. The forced trend from the models is only the direct forcing due to greenhouse gases multiplied three-fold by positive feedback from clouds and water vapour. But there is no evidence that these feedbacks are positive. There is much evidence that these feedbacks in total are negative. The component that you call “unforced” could be forced by a reduction in cloud cover. Also, 2/3 (if feedbacks are neutral) to 5/6 (if the feedback factor is 0.5) of the “forced” component could be forced by a reduction in cloud cover rather than the result of strong positive feedbacks. A change in cloud cover may be forced by solar magnetic effects, and unforced by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, for example.
Your comment “That means a 3- to 4-fold increase in anthropogenic forcings between the early and late warming periods had no impact on the rate at which surface temperatures actually rose for those periods.” at location 973 is very powerful.
Much of the book is about the process of ENSO. It is amazing that climate models do not account for this important process. The explanation of ENSO is very well done.
I don’t know if you can easily correct a few minor typos. If so, note the following:
The title of your figures 8-6 (and 9-1) show the wrong longitude of the East Pacific at 180 – 90W. You had defined the East Pacific in section 3.5, figure 3-13 as 180 – 80W, which is what you actually used to create your figure 8-6.
At location 655 of 3997, “But good is not a word that should not be used to describe the performance of the IPCC climate models …” Remove the second “not”.
At location 2680 of 3997, “Sometimes one of more ..”, change “of” to “or”.
Thanks for writing the book!
I use many of your graphs on our website http://www.friendsofscience.org
such as our December 2011 newsletter (Science News section)
Click to access 2011_December_Newsletter.pdf
and a summary of our work
Ken Gregory: Many thanks for the kind words. If you prepare a post about the book for your website, please let me know.
With respect to the slight variations in trends of the East Pacific, the trends will vary from year to year due to the magnitude of the ENSO-caused variations in that dataset. The trend dropped a little with the second of the back-to-back La Nina events and it will rise a little if we have an El Nino this year. Even if we had a super El Nino, the trend would still be relatively flat. I checked before I started posting that graph monthly with the SST updates.
With respect to the discussion of the forced component, I should have been clearer or should have added a disclaimer that that discussion assumed the models had a basis in reality—which I do not assume.
Thanks for noting the typos. I hate typos. And I proofread that book dozens of times. When I was able to read the draft of the Kindle version three times without a correction, I published. The error in the title block of the graph was a good find. They always elude me.