Actually, I’m concentrating on finishing my third book—working title Climate Models Are Crap! I’d like to have it published around the time that the IPCC releases the Summary for Policymakers of their 5th Assessment Report. Unfortunately, my recent pace of preparing about 19 posts per month (April to July) has left little time for the book.
I’ll continue to publish sea surface temperature updates, and I’ll try to respond to anything goofy that makes its way around the blogosphere.
Regards
Bob Tisdale - Climate Observations 
Good for you, Bob! Wise move. Take your time (and take some time to just r-e-l-a-x). We’ll be here when you get back.
We’ll leave the light on for you (the key is, well, you know where (smile)). If you get back when we’re not home, help yourself to anything you can find in the kitchen.
Take care.
Janice
Bob, that’s a provocative title. However, it will reduce the number of readers who might otherwise give the contents a fair evaluation. Your cover and title are the only chance you get at a first impression. Being sassy might feel good and appeal to those already in the skeptical camp, but it’s somewhat off-putting to neutral readers. And those are the folks that need to be engaged. You’re making such a tremendous effort, that it would be a pity to self-sabotage it.
Please take this as friendly advice. Maybe you can make the point with different wording. For example: “Why Climate Models Fail (and What the Modelers Won’t Tell You)”. Well, you probably can do better after some thought. Think up several and test them with people who are new to the subject.
Gary: Many thanks for the suggested title. I like it. People have been recommending titles for about 6 weeks and that’s close to the best. How about “Climate Models Fail! – An Illustrated Overview of Climate Model Incompetence”?
Draft Cover:
I agree that “Climate Models Are Crap!” would turn off many potential readers.
Hi Bob,
I attended a recent Climate Science Forum where a mainstream climate scientist cited Adler et al. (2008) “Relationships between global precipitation and surface temperature on interannual and longer timescales (1979–2006)”as validating the climate models simulation of a very low evaporative cooling response of only 2% to 3% per degree.
Adler et al. (2008) analysed the GPCP precipitation product and concluded that global precipitation (and hence global Evaporative Cooling) increased by around 2.3% per degree.
I found your recent updated analysis of the GPCP precipitation product from 1979 to 2006 on the WattsUpWithThat site.
I concluded from your charts that the very low 2.3% per degree increase in global precipitation found by Adler et al. (2008) is an artefact of the computer algorithms and other procedures used in producing the GPCP precipitation product.
Specifically, it appears that the computer algorithms and other procedures used to produce the GPCP precipitation product are biased to reduce the precipitation response to increasing surface temperature. During the period 1979 to 2006 when surface temperature and hence precipitation were increasing strongly this downward bias reduced the apparent increase in precipitation. However, with the surface temperature stable over the last 15-years this downward bias now manifests as an actual reduction in global precipitation.
An evaporative cooling response of around 7% per degree is deadly for the global warming scare campaign. Straightforward analysis of changes in surface energy flows shows that with a 7% increase in evaporative cooling per degree, a doubling of CO2 would cause a surface temperature increase of around half a degree.
This is explained here http://www.dannavale.com/page_36.html .
If it is not too much trouble, I would appreciate it if you could analyse the trend increase in Oceanic and Land precipitation for the periods 1979 to 1998 and 1998 to 2013 and either post it on your website or email the charts to me.
NB: Evaporative cooling is essential to cool planet earth as well as the surface. Only around 10% or 40 W/sqm of the upwards radiation from the earth’s surface travels directly into space, because it is mainly at wavelengths unaffected by the greenhouse gases. Doubling carbon dioxide would cause only a small reduction in the amount of radiation travelling from the surface directly into space.
The so called enhanced greenhouse effect, that is the result of adding carbon dioxide to the present atmosphere, is an increase in the back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface and this warms the surface. The enhanced greenhouse effect is not the result of more carbon dioxide blocking or trapping more upwards radiation from the surface that would otherwise have travelled directly into space. Similarly the increase in water vapour in the atmosphere following an increase in surface temperature increases back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface.
These increased flows of energy from the atmosphere to the surface create an energy deficit in the atmosphere, which reduces the amount of energy the atmosphere can radiate into space. The atmosphere is therefore reliant on evaporative cooling to make good this deficit and restore the ability of the atmosphere to radiate enough energy into space to balance the energy flows at the top of atmosphere and thus stabilise the overall temperature of planet earth.
Here is another title option:
“Climate Models Have Failed Us – Why and How”
The effort is appreciated, btw.
Bob, maybe it’s just me, but “Incompetence” still seems a bit provocative. People will suspect a rant rather than an explanation. Let them get into the book before you dial up the intensity.
And the cover has too much information. Covers are for pictures, not words and graphs (unless stylized), to create an impression. How about something a more subtle? Maybe Josh can whip up a drawing if a Rube Goldberg-like contraption to suggest that models are imprecise assemblages of mathematical formulae. Instead of equations, though, represent the math symbolically with buckets of water for oceans, happy clouds, fainting plants, space heaters, machinery, greenhouses, etc. Cartoons suggest something less than reality as well as implausible conditions (think Looney Tunes). And humor draws attention.
Or not. Depends on how well it’s done, of course, and what you’re comfortable with. I just know from a friend who self-publishes fiction that covers are important for sales and he gets professional help with them.