Print Version is now available!!!

The print version is now live and will soon be available on Amazon and work through the distribution systems after that.  The book is being published through the Amazon company named Createspace.  The direct link to buy the print version right now is right here.   It can also be bought directly from Amazon.

The electronic version of the book is now available at the iBookstore for those with iPad’s.  It is pending approval for Barnes & Noble for the Nook.

I know there is lots of news going on and I will get to that soon, but getting all the book stuff out now has had priority.  I am starting to get some good feedback now from those that are reading it and I am especially pleased by comments I have been getting from engineers.

If you like the book, let people know.

Posted in The Book by inconvenientskeptic on November 22nd, 2011 at 3:56 pm.


This post has 22 comments

  1. Richard Sharpe Nov 25th 2011

    I ordered a print copy. Should get it next week! I look forward to reading it.

  2. Richard111 Nov 26th 2011

    Hardcover not available at Amazon UK as yet.

  3. Richard Sharpe Nov 26th 2011

    We need someone to review the book on WattsUpWithThat!

  4. I have been reading it for 2 days now.

    It is marvelous!

    Will post an honest review at Amazon soon.

  5. inconvenientskeptic Nov 27th 2011


    I really don’t know how the Amazon UK works with the real book distribution. I just looked and it still isn’t showing up there so it is possible that the they won’t put it there.

    I have a request in to figure it out because it should be available overseas, although I have noticed that they lag considerably, even on the eVersions.

  6. Richard111 Nov 28th 2011

    No problem. Family has been advised to keep a look out and buy it for me as a Christmas present. 🙂
    Have the Kindle version on my laptop. Just not convenient for a quick read. Have refused offer of a proper Kindle reader as they are too small. Had a look at one in the local supermarket and see the screen is about size of a standard postcard. No good for poor eyesight and arthritic fingers. 🙁
    p.s. noticed some editorial errors, breaks in text. Will try and start a record. (Thinks.. will add it to my chapters navigation text file.)

  7. inconvenientskeptic Nov 28th 2011


    There was a problem with the format with the initial Kindle version. It was re-converted and those problems were resolved. Amazon uses a non-standard format that is really, obnoxious.

    You should be able to re-download it with all of the proper formatting, chapters and such.

  8. Richard Sharpe Nov 28th 2011

    My copy is out for delivery today. It will be on my doorstep when I get home tonight! Yay!

  9. Richard Sharpe Nov 28th 2011

    It arrived. Yippee …

  10. I have no obvious place to post this.So I try here because it is connected to what you wrote in your fine book.

    In defense of Milankovitch by Gerard Roe

    It is from the Reference Frame.

    I own a copy of the book written by Professor Imbrie.That describes how they came to accept the Milankovitch theory.Also about past attempts to figure out the climate cycles with astronomical changes.

    They talked about their paper and about the friendly rivalry from the 1950’s onward in researching the Theories validity.

    The book is from the late 1970’s.A nice peek into the world of science research.

  11. Here is one more tidbit about Milankovitch curves.This one from Nigel Calder.Who wrote in 1974.That it has now been 5000 years into the next glacial age.

    “Extrapolation of the curve gives a first-order forecast (Fig. 2) for the ‘next’ ice age, which began 5,000 yr ago and will end 119,000 yr from now. Broecker and van Donk12 arrived at a broadly similar forecast by more general reasoning from the insolation predictions. This ice age looks like a relatively slow starter. The theory, though, is of widespread snow that fails to melt in the vicinity of 50 oN in summer, so that large areas of North America, northern Europe and the USSR will have to be encrusted with ice sheets during the next few thousand years, to fulfil the expectations of Fig. 2. ”

    From Calder’s Blog.With a lot of references:

    Not bad with a lot less ice core data than we now have.But awfully optimistic with only 50 degrees north level.

    I live at 46 degrees north in eastern Washington.I never see snow hang around past March 1st. in the lower elevations.

    He would have been better off with 65 degrees N. instead.

  12. inconvenientskeptic Nov 29th 2011

    It was clear to me from my research that the Milankovitch cycles are the key, but few people looked at the details of defining how each cycle is different from each other. Those differences explain a great deal, but not everything.

    So I kept digging and I kept finding more. I still keep finding more, but the book was long enough and already has more than enough information.

    Funny how hard climate scientists work to avoid detailed discussion of this topic….. It always comes back to CO2 which is at best a secondary effect of the glacial/interglacial cycle.

  13. Richard Sharpe Nov 29th 2011

    OK, I have started reading …

    The good. I like the writing style and you are presenting things in interesting ways that are easy to understand, although I have only gotten to the first scientific info section. The coffee-table format is great as well.

    The bad. The diagrams seem to be straight from the web, or at least the ones I have seen so far, and there are captions that refer to colors that are not there in the print version, and they are formatted for screen resolution, so they look like crap in a print version.

  14. inconvenientskeptic Nov 29th 2011


    Thanks for the good. 🙂

    The color is there, I promise. All the charts have legend so in B&W it is clear, but the cost of color would have made the book twice the price. Hopefully you can forgive me.

  15. Richard Sharpe Nov 29th 2011

    I understand the trade offs. I am sure that the content will outweigh the negatives. I will keep you posted.

  16. Richard Sharpe Nov 30th 2011

    Now up to Chapter 4.

    I think the approach of pointing out how variable the earth’s climate has been historically, and how geography (continental arrangements) drives that, is very good.

  17. Richard Sharpe Nov 30th 2011

    Hmmm, I don’t understand the text on page 49 and the graphic on page 50.

    You say “the earth is cooler now than it was 17,000 years into the interglacial,” however, the graphic seems to show that the temperature crossover occurred at about year 14,500 into the respective interglacials.

  18. inconvenientskeptic Nov 30th 2011

    I am comparing the Holocene (this summer) to the Eemian (last summer). When the two interglacials are compared, the current interglacial is cooler than the last one.

    It has been 17,000 years since the Earth’s temperature started to rise from the last glacial. By that measure the earth is cooler now than it was 17,000 years after the Eemian started to warm.

    I compare interglacials by first matching the rising insolation and then lining up temperatures to the insolation timing. Illustration 26 uses a timeline based on overlap of insolation shown in illustration 65. Comparing interglacials is a little tricky and the best way I found is based on first comparing the insolation between them.

    Hope this helps.

  19. Richard Sharpe Dec 1st 2011

    I agree that it has been cooler so far and has not reached the same temp (anomaly) that the previous one did. At least, looking at that diagram shows that.

    I will go back and reread it.

  20. Richard Sharpe Dec 3rd 2011

    One more comment. There are enough instances of dropped words, redundant words and cases where some extra disambiguation is needed, that some people would not persevere with the book.

    I would suggest that you get your wife to go over it to work on the writing.

    I am persevering because I am interested in the subject and I want to get a better understanding. I appreciate your efforts. Also, since I read a lot of blog entries these days, I am used to inserting the odd missed word here and there.

    I hope that you end up making some money from your effort.

  21. Richard Sharpe Dec 4th 2011

    OK, I am really enjoying this book (notwithstanding the fact that I am pointing out problems).

    So, on page 250 you say that if a doubling in CO2 resulted in an increase of the radiated energy of 7.5W/m^2.

    However, I am not getting exactly that number, so perhaps my calculation is off.

    Using the calculation on page 228, I get a difference of 197.7 vs 207.6.

    Hmmm, perhaps I should use the precise value of absolute zero, because that fourth power might make a difference.

  22. inconvenientskeptic Dec 6th 2011


    A double of CO2 would cause a forcing of 3.7 W/m^2.

    If that caused the Earth to warm 3 °C, then an Earth that was that much warmer would lose energy at a rate that was 7.5 W/m^2 higher than it is today.

    The higher rate of energy loss has nothing to do with CO2, but the actual change in the Earth’s temperature since heat loss is a function of actual temperature to the fourth power. Page 228 is unrelated to the statement of 250.

    Hope that helps. 🙂

Web Design & Dev by

Mazal Simantov Digital Creativity