Watt about Bob’s book?

I notice that Bob Tisdale has a post on Watts Up With That (WUWT) introducing his new book called Climate Models Fail. My, rather mean, first thought was that he should have included a colon between the words Models and Fail to indicate how he would likely perform on a course about Climate Models. Now I haven’t read the book and I certainly don’t intend to spend $9.99 for the priviledge of doing so. So, this shouldn’t be regarded as a review of the book as I clearly can’t do so if I haven’t read it. Instead, I thought I would just highlight some of my older posts about Bob’s ideas so that those who might consider buying the book can make an informed decision.

Watt about Bob?

Watt is Bob doing?

A challenge from Bob.

A couple of basic questions for Bob Tisdale.

Anyway, I hope this allows you to make an informed choice as to whether or not to spend $9.99 of your hard-earned money on a book about Climate Models written by Bob Tisdale (and in which, I assume, he is arguing that they have failed). As usual, if you find any errors or mistakes in my earlier posts, feel free to point them out.

This entry was posted in Anthony Watts, Bob Tisdale, Climate change, ENSO, Global warming, IPCC, Watts Up With That and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Watt about Bob’s book?

  1. Rachel says:

    Myles Allen is quoted in the Guardian this week as saying:

    We have examined the forecasts made by climate scientists over the past three decades and they have been absolutely spot on in terms of predicting subsequent levels of global warming,” he said. “Our climate models are robust and working well.

    (source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/21/climate-change-ipcc-fossil-temperature?CMP=twt_gu)

    Personally, I’d rather get my information about climate change from Myles Allen rather than from Bob Tisdale.

  2. Indeed. In fact the whole “climate models have failed” theme must be extremely frustrating for climate scientists. If they try to argue that they haven’t, they get accused of ignoring reality. If they accept the issues, then they’re expected to accept that it indicates that there are major problems with our understanding of AGW. It’s a very difficult balancing act that they seem to need to follow.

  3. Steve Bloom says:

    But they have failed on the most important thing we need them to do, i.e. the transition from current to Pliocene-like or even Eemian-like climate states. If they can’t do that how can we rely on them to predict climate in 2100?

  4. The focus on climate models is ‘interesting’.

    In reality, we don’t need models to show that the planet is warming rapidly, that we lose half a trillion tonnes of ice per year (including 80% of Arctic sea ice since 1979), that plants and animals are rapidly migrating towards the poles, that our oceans are acidifying, that extreme heat events, which used to affect less than 1% of the Earth’s landmass in a given year now affect up to 10% of the landmass annually – or a thousand other ‘proofs’ of AGW.

    Models may continue to be useful tools, but we really don’t need them to prove AGW anymore. We now have empirical evidence to do that.

  5. Indeed, I agree. The evidence is quite overwhelming that we are warming. The models are simply one aspect of the evidence and (as far as I’m aware) get an awful lot “right”. People focus on the difference between the predicted and observed surface warming and ignore everything else.

    As an aside, ‘ve seen comments from people – who I would expect to know better – that switching from surface warming to overall warming means that we’re redefining the terms and hence that it’s wrong to do so. Well, I don’t really care what we define global warming as (surface or overall) what I care about is what is actually happening. Deciding that Pluto was no longer a planet, didn’t change what it was. Deciding on a definition for the term “global warming” doesn’t change what’s actually occurring in our climate system.

  6. KR says:

    There has been a lot of emphasis on overall warming, in particular the continuing warming of the oceans – and it’s primarily been because ‘skeptics’ have been cherry-picking recent and too short for statistical significance periods to (wrongly) claim that warming has halted.

    WRT Tisdale’s book – don’t waste your money, don’t waste your time. His approach can be paraphrased as “ENSO causes step changes, as shown by these 500 bad graphs of 3-10 year periods” (no explanation for violating conservation of energy, mind you) and cherry picking tiny areas of ocean surface temps (not volume temperatures) matching his preconceptions, which in his very own words can be described as follows [WARNING: put the coffee _down_ first!]:


    By looking at a dataset on a global basis, one can only assume greenhouse gases play a role in the warming. As I’ve noted in numerous previous posts, dividing the dataset into smaller subsets allows the data to present how it truly warmed.”

    Cherry-picking at its finest. Nothing more needs to be said…

  7. Yes, there has been a lot of discussion of overall warming for the very reasons you suggest. It just doesn’t get through to some people. I had a discussion yesterday with someone who concluded that the ocean heat content data couldn’t be trusted (how can you measure such a tiny temperature change and the ARGO floats have only been operational for 10 years) and that the reduction in Arctic sea ice was no big deal. Today I appear to have enountered someone who thinks the instrumental temperature record is wrong. So, even if you present more and more data to people, some will still find reasons why AGW is wrong.

    As I said I haven’t read Bob’s book and don’t plan to. What you describe is pretty much what I have discovered when reading Bob’s ideas. Amongst other reasons, it clearly does not conserve energy which – as far as I’m aware – is a fairly fundamental issue.

  8. Indeed, that does sound crucial 🙂

Comments are closed.