“GROWING up as your daughter, you have always taught me to live with an open mind, and to seek out facts before I choose a side of the fence whether it be agreeing or disagreeing with your own.”
This comment from Caroline Marohasy represents to me the essence of being a sceptic: A sceptic considers alternatives before making a decision. An opinion will eventually form, but first there will be some reasoning.
A modern education may provide skills in writing and reading, even mathematics, but not necessarily in the ability to reason – especially if the education is value laden.
*********
Notes and Links
The comment from Caroline Marohasy can be found at ‘A Progressive Environmentalist’, http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2005/04/a-progressive-environmentalist/#comments . The photograph shows Ms Marohasy modeling in Brisbane in 2006. More in this series, and also ‘Defining the Greens’ can be found at http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/tag/philosophy/ – scroll down.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I don’t know what influence I have on my children as I never actively tried to impart my view point. I guess some of it rubbed of. I have never seen my skepticism as a virtue but more of who I am. Of course when I went to school there weren’t any activist groups that I knew of. I am glad Caroline felt confident enough to confront WWF it sounds quite courageous. Did she have any support from Her peers? Modern education seems to descending into bigotry and narrow mindness.
She’s got your eyes 🙂
Of my 4 kids all are sceptics yet they are all lefties politically, like their parents.
“essence of being a sceptic: A sceptic considers alternatives before making a decision. An opinion will eventually form, but first there will be some reasoning.”
Sorry, it is only – there may be some reasoning sometimes. If Caroline saw a mouse she would in all probability have to let her less rational more primitive brain domimate. So humans are not sceptics because they are busy looking at alternatives – they mostly just dont bother. We dont have open minds. That is just a trite saying. We normally just keep on surviving with our baggage of beliefs and prejudices until we are excited enough to check out new information. I am highly sceptical of any generalisations about sceptics. We are all sceptics to some extent. If you want to define sceptics it could only be in relation to a particular issue and how much homework they have done. And there is so much new information that we have barriers in place to how much effort we want to put in to looking at alternatives. But exceptional claims need exceptional evidence.
So bring it on.
It is so sad and shameless that the spins of the mother should be visited on the daughter.
All sceptics should read
1. http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/19/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming/
and
2. http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf
for David Evans’ persuasive expert views.
Bazza,
How would you expect Caroline to respond to a mouse?
How would you expect Caroline to respond to a mouse?
Is the mouse running towards her, or away?
I can not abide an uppity mouse that thinks it has the run of my personal space.
The passive aggressive mice get on my nerve a bit too. You know the ones. They shuffle around in the paper until you turn on the light, then hold still when you send for the cat.
I appreciate the mouse who knows his place in the world, and retreats out of the room after making a brief eye contact with the king of the food chain.
That’s just me. What say you Bazza?
“for David Evans’ persuasive expert views.”
He is not an expert, he is not even a scientist, by his own admission.
Wasn’t a mouse. Wasn’t a mouse. Wasn’t a mouse. There are plenty of other explanations. Could have been cosmic rays on the optic nerve that made it seem like a mouse. Frankly the sheer existence of mice is doubtful. Mice are a neo-marxist fabrication. And if mice did exist it wouldn’t matter anyway.
Little Will “He is not an expert, he is not even a scientist, by his own admission.”
Are you trying to say he nothing about models an modelling?
“Are you trying to say he nothing about models an modelling?”
I’m commenting on his climate expertise. He is not a climate scientist, he is a software engineer.
Little Will, “’m commenting on his climate expertise. He is not a climate scientist, he is a software engineer.”
That’s how I was classified at Lucent, doesn’t mean I was one, and one of my friends a PhD in physics was a ‘software engineer’ there too. What do you think it all means aye. Yes we did cut code. Now I do believe David’s particular area of expertise is with modelling and most alarming warming “evidence” comes from models does it not?
“I’m commenting on his climate expertise.”
SJT, we’ve been down this road. Based on this criteria, Hansen and all your gods wouldn’t get to first base.
“Now I do believe David’s particular area of expertise is with modelling and most alarming warming “evidence” comes from models does it not?”
He worked on models for the carbon cycle and carbon trading, nothing to do with modelling the climate.
We must all keep reminding ourselves that people like Bazza and SJT are sceptics.
They both said so.
Thanks for the admission that the carbon cycle has nothing to do with climate will.
“He worked on models for the carbon cycle and carbon trading, nothing to do with modelling the climate.”
Game set and match to Jan.
Jennifer,
Let me wish your daughter the best of luck with her modelling career and i think you have mentioned in other parts of this blog that she has also been acting so good luck with such a hard path and from the photo thankfully she doesn’t look like those anodyne models you see cluttering up fashion. And of cousre it will be interesting for you as to how her thinking develops over the coming years so good luck to her on that as well.
As to education being value laden, yeah, I have to agree with you on that own from my experience. I received my secondary schooling at one of Sydney’s top private schools. It was soooooooo value laden and to this day I still feel slightly guilty at my parent wasting their money (plus look at the evidence of how bad my grammar and spelling are/is). At least I realised how value laden that education was and if I had children I think the public education system in Australia would give them a better chance of developing a more independent mindset.
“SJT, we’ve been down this road. Based on this criteria, Hansen and all your gods wouldn’t get to first base.”
hansen is not a god, or anything like it. There are thousands of scientists working on research that is used by the IPCC to make it’s reports.
SJT
What are your job prospects once the myth of AGW is finally acknowledged to be false?
David.
For any Pom expats who are interested in the search for truth :
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CRUSourceCodes/
SJT: your
I’m commenting on his climate expertise. He is not a climate scientist, he is a software engineer.
G. Schmidt and James Hanson of NASA, are also “software engineers”.
Pachauri, head of the IPCC, is basically a rail road engineer.
Yvo de Boer, head of the UNFCCC, has a technical degree in social work.
Do you question their qualifications?
Its interesting that people will say that computer modelers, statisticians or economists have no expertise in climate.
Unless, of course, they are named Hanson or Stern.
Neil the source plus lots of information for the GISS ModelE is available at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
if you are interested.
now that’s game set and match Cohenite :):)
“SJT
What are your job prospects once the myth of AGW is finally acknowledged to be false?
David. ”
I suppose he could become a software engineer.
“Its interesting that people will say that computer modelers, statisticians or economists have no expertise in climate.
Unless, of course, they are named Hanson or Stern.”
Evans training made him eligable to be a scientist, even a climate scientist, if he chose that career. He chose a different career path.
“SJT
What are your job prospects once the myth of AGW is finally acknowledged to be false?
David.”
It is no myth. You must have missed the recent report from Copenhagen, it looks like it is going to be towards the worse ends of the specutrum. My job prospects have nothing to do with AGW directly, I have no idea why you would think it was so. Its general effects on the economy will affect everyone.
SJT: your
I’m commenting on his climate expertise. He is not a climate scientist, he is a software engineer.
G. Schmidt and James Hanson of NASA, are also “software engineers”. Hanson is an astronomer by training.
Pachauri, head of the IPCC, is basically a rail road engineer.
Yvo de Boer, head of the UNFCCC, has a technical degree in social work.
Do you question their qualifications?
cleaned up:
SJT: your
I’m commenting on his climate expertise. He is not a climate scientist, he is a software engineer.
G. Schmidt and James Hanson of NASA, are also “software engineers”. Hanson is an astronomer by training.
Pachauri, head of the IPCC, is basically a rail road engineer.
Yvo de Boer, head of the UNFCCC, has a technical degree in social work.
Do you question their qualifications?
The word sceptic, which comes from the Greek word skepsis — meaning “to look; to enquire; to aim” (obliquely related to the word scope) — has its origins in the philosophy of an Ancient Greek named Pyrrho (360-270 BC), who held that there are never adequate grounds to conclude certainty. Thus, said Pyrrho — or, rather, said his sceptical followers, since none of Pyrrho’s actual writings survive — all knowledge is impossible.
Indeed, to this day the term Pyrrhonist is synonymous with the term sceptic, which is also synonymous with the term agnostic (a meaning “without”; gnosis meaning “knowledge”). It’s perhaps worth pointing out as well, since he came up in Part 1 of Doctor Marohasy’s excellent series here, that the word agnostic in this sceptical context was, according to Oxford English Dictionary, coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, in the spring of 1869, at a party, in which there was reportedly “much licking and sucking.” According to R. H. Hutton, who was there: “Huxley took it from St. Paul’s mention of the altar to ‘the Unknown God.'”
In truth, however, the word agnostic was actually first used by a woman named Isabel Arundell in a letter to Huxley. Huxley took it and gave her no credit. He scored and split, in essence. (Still, she thought he was fabulous.)
The Oxford English Dictionary (Unabridged, 2004) lists four meanings of the term sceptic, which, in order of primary usage, 1 being the most common, are as follows:
1. one who, like Pyrrho and his followers in Greek antiquity, doubts the possibility of real knowledge of any kind; one who holds that there are no adequate grounds for certainty. Example: “I am apt to think there never yet has really been such a monster in the world as a sceptic” (Tucker, 1768).
2. one who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge … popularly, one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to some particular question or statement; one who is habitually inclined to doubt rather than to believe any assertion or apparent fact that comes before him. Example: “If every sceptic in Theology may teach his follies, there can be no religion” (Samuel Johnson, 1779).
3. one who doubts without absolutely denying the truth of the Christian religion or important party of it; loosely, an unbeliever in Christianity. Example: “In listening to the arguments of a sceptic, you are breathing a poisonous air” (R.B. Girdlestone, 1863).
The last entry is the least common of the four meanings; yet it’s the one that the anthropogenic global warming (non) issue has made paramount:
4. occasionally, from its etymological sense: a truth seeker; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions. Example: “A sceptic, then, is one who shades his eyes in order to look steadfastly at a thing.” (M.D. Conway, 1870).
Many purists, who know the philosophical roots of the word scepticism, do not care to use it in this latter context — mainly because it’s so totally at odds with the actual philosophical meaning of the term. Scepticism, in other words, has many, many centuries of ugly baggage. And though I do firmly believe that language is a living, breathing organism that will and should properly evolve, I still, for the nonce, prefer evidentialist to sceptic in this context. Evidentialism is more precise, less laden, if I may borrow Doctor Marohasy’s excellent term.
True scepticism — which is to say, agnosticism, which is to say, Pyrrhonism — rejects the possibility of all knowledge, and yet that is precisely the thing that the scientist seeks, and finds: knowledge. What is knowledge? Knowledge is truth, and truth is the accurate identification of reality. Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus. Truth is the equation of thing and intellect. When, for example, the child grasps that 1 unit combined with 2 other units makes a total of 3 units, that child has discoverd a truth. She has gained knowledge. The philosophical sceptic rejects this elementary fact.
The philosophical sceptic is defined by three words: “I don’t know.”
(Note: in philosophy, there is a practical context for the word sceptic, but scepticism is not primarily a moral or practical term; it’s epistemological. In fact, it’s been said that the difference between the sceptic and the cynic is the difference between brain and body: The cynic rejects goodness; the sceptic rejects knowledge. Cynicism is a moral concept, not epistemologic. Cynicism, which is sometimes used synonymously with scepticism, originated with a Greek fellow by the name of Antisthenes — not to be confused with Antihistamines, which are something else — who was once a student of Socrates. Antisthenes had a notorious contempt for human merit and human pleasure, and that is why to this day the word cynic denotes a sneer.)
Well if he doesn’t, I do. More then just their qualifications regarding climate, I question they’re moral qualifications as scientists.
They aren’t exactly truth seekers, by anybodies stretch.
On June 14th, 2009, at 11:45 pm, in Part 1 of this series, which I just read and which appears now to be an abandoned thread, SJT flabbergasted me when he wrote: > Who are you [Jennifer] to define me as a Green, and yourself as a Skeptic, and who gave you the right to define the debate in those terms?
Who gave her the right, SJT? Are you kidding? That’s like asking, who gave you the right to think on your own and form your own convictions?
Nobody gives you that right, because rights aren’t given. Rights are immanent. They are an inherent part of the human faculty of conceptualization — specifically, the capacity of choice. As such, rights are neither granted nor revoked — by definition: they are either recognized, or they are not. And if they are not, they don’t cease to exist. Rather, they are trammeled, and an injustice has thereby been perpetrated.
The word right in this context is related to the Roman word jus, which is also, not coincidentally, related to the word justice.
According to historian J. Stuart Jackson, jus “is wider than that of positive law laid down by authority” (i.e. exactly what you’re calling for, SJT, in asking who gave Jennifer the right to define herself as a sceptic and you as a green) “and denotes an order morally binding.”
In the Roman sense of the word, “right” meant “what is just.”
Rights entitle holders to certain freedoms — specifically, the freedom to act in a certain way. Jennifer’s right to define herself as a sceptic derives not from you or any other person, or authority, but from the fact that she is a human being with a rational faculty, and as such she possesses the inalienable freedom to think, to form convictions, and to act in any manner she sees fit, provided she does not infringe upon the exact same rights in others.
Neil,
Good one. Just emailed link to a few I know.
Thanks Neil for an excellent on topic post. I class myself as a skeptic for want of a better term. For me knowledge is a working framework to deal with what I currently perceive as reality. Both that knowledge and reality is only good while I see consistancy. I learnt long ago that absolute fact even about the simplest of things is difficult (if not impossible) to come by. I particularly object to those that falsely claim skepticism. They state that since for them the logic cannot be understand it is correct to accept the authority of the person who proposes the hypothesis. The alternative is to accept that they don’t know and it is not to be accepted as worth believing.
SJT,
You call yourself a skeptic, yet you quote stuff from the Copenhagen sales piece as if it were a serious document.
It is as circular a piece of writing as any infomercial sales pitch.
Look up the number of, and time line for, ‘global warming worse than predicted’.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles using that term, going back something like a decade.
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=global+warming+worse+than+expected&btnG=Google+Search
If it has been ‘worse than predicted’ for that long, and we are where we are, then what are the powers of the prediction?
And just how bad is ‘much worse’, then?
I think the “Doom Song” just about sums up AGW perfectly:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/717889/invader_zim_the_doom_song/
AGW is a fear based social movement using a veneer of science to keep the credulous in fearful faith.
Ray; good posts; don’t be too upset with SJT, or as we know him, little will; he can be didactic but I’m sure when the time of incarceration comes he will be a hard but fair guard to all us sceptics; incidentally I readily accept the 4th category of meaning; the English language is nothing if not dynamic and the modern usuage should supersede the interesting historical ones; with that in mind we all look forward to that time when AGW is mentioned in the same breath as Y2, Edsel and Gore ethics.
“Rights entitle holders to certain freedoms — specifically, the freedom to act in a certain way. Jennifer’s right to define herself as a sceptic derives not from you or any other person, or authority, but from the fact that she is a human being with a rational faculty, and as such she possesses the inalienable freedom to think, to form convictions, and to act in any manner she sees fit, provided she does not infringe upon the exact same rights in others.”
You have skirted the issue. Jennifer is defining this as a battle of “Greens” vs “Skeptics”. The “Skeptics” are those who don’t accept AGW as valid science. Therefore, I must be a “Green”. She has commited at the least the logical fallacy of false dichotomhy. She also declares herself to be a Skeptic, but cannot defend Miskolczi’s paper, which is not at all a valid piece of science. I am not asking for a physics level understanding of the paper, but at least a description of why she thinks it is valid, in her own words. Otherwise what she is exercising is not Skepticism.
She has the right to say what ever she thinks, I am not denying her that, she does not have the right to define the debate in terms the describe me as something that I am not. This is not a case of “Jennifer=Skeptic” vs “SJT=Green”. By framing the debate in such a way, she is debasing it.
Westfield aren’t sceptics
http://www.vexnews.com/news/4422/take-from-the-poor-give-to-the-rich-hippies-westfield-reserves-parking-for-hybrid-vehicles/
Well SD, I know where I’ll be parking when I next shop at Westfield.
SJT wrote: > She has the right to say what ever she thinks
Yes.
SJT wrote: > I am not denying her that
No. You can’t. You don’t possess that sort of power.
SJT wrote: > she does not have the right to define the debate in terms the describe me as something that I am not.
Actually, she does. It’s her blog. It’s called the right of free speech. (Slander, libel, and defamation is another issue, for another time, and doesn’t apply here — I trust you don’t disagree with that obvious fact.) That you would deny her her right of free speech, if you could (which you can’t), tells us a great deal about you, little will (hat tip cohenite). And guess what? You have the right to refute her — in your own publication or medium. (They used to call this method of polemics “pamphleteering”, and it produced some brilliant results, both literarily and polemically.) From my observation, though, the dynamic Doctor Marohasy is so easy-going and so committed to the spirit of open debate and discourse that she will grant you permission (the opposite of a right) to refute, or attempt to refute, her here, on her very own property. In fact, she already has granted you that permission. I can recall on a number of different occasions reading your hostile and sullen comments to her, all of them, almost without exception, devoid of even the most perfunctory civility or sense of humor. You see, friend, since it’s her property, she has the right to delete every single one of your comments, as well as mine, and there’s not a damn thing you or I can do about it (if you doubt me, just ask your boys at Real Climate; I can virtually promise you they’ll confirm my recapitulation). Here’s the good news: you do possess the right to not comment here at all.
SJT wrote: > You have skirted the issue
The raven chides its own blackness.
“I can recall on a number of different occasions reading your hostile and sullen comments to her, all of them, almost without exception, devoid of even the most perfunctory civility or sense of humor.”
I lost my sense of humour here after about the 100th time Louis, Cohenite, Jan, or Mottsy decided to treat me like dirt. That’s OK, just as long as I know the rules, I’ll play by them. It’s a pit brawl. Don’t think that makes it an open debate.
I have always been courteous towards you little will; it is a characteristic of being a sceptic.
“I have always been courteous towards you little will; it is a characteristic of being a sceptic.”
Using a disparaging reference, which you have explained, is not courtesy. Every time you call me “little will”, you are taking a derogatory stance. I don’t care personally, but I don’t care who else gets caught up in the general atmosphere of the tone of this place, either. The places I visit, I play by the rules.
One of the the things extremists of all stripes give up early is their sense of humor.
It is clear that AGW true believers are no exception and have opted for humorectomies in massive numbers.
It helps them to pretend their arrogance is justified, and to dismiss any challenges to their faith.
I think Caroline is a very beautiful young lady , Jen is beautiful too…but as a Swede I’m not impressed by beautiful faces as Traveler’s Digest pointed out the most beautiful women in the world live in Stockholm, beating both Beverly Hills and Buenos Aires:)))
” Time waits for no one a woman face ….” sings Mick Jagger or ” Sally can’t dance nomore , she is losing her face” sings Lou Reed.
So what will be remembered for the after world are the deeds done. My favorite heroines are Jane Goddall and Brigitte Bardot…..
” Every time you call me “little will”, you are taking a derogatory stance.”
Then why don’t you just assume the pseudonym “Will” if you want to remain anonymous. I think that might partially solve the problem. I only started calling you that because cohenite had discovered your real name by the time I discovered it wasn’t it had stuck.
Go on show us hunter is wrong and that you do still have a sense of humour.
“Go on show us hunter is wrong and that you do still have a sense of humour.”
I’ve got a sense of humour, I just leave it at the door when I enter here.
I am wondering why I am so important. Have you people no science or skepticism to discuss?
Hunter – come on – don’t demonise and generalise what SJT is like. You don’t know what he’s like. Some how I don’t think he’s hell-bent on dominating the planet with his opinions nor is he a threat to you. Have you ever considered that for people of milder points of view giving some credibility to a reasonable hypothesis of AGW – that the tone of sceptics on here is totally caustic. Learned behaviour is what SJT and myself represent, we simply learn to become what you fear the most and learn to put shit back on you guys. Insults are returned.
So instead of investigating what the other guy might think – or getting hold of papers that aren’t easy to come by – learning something even if you don’t agree – you guys are flat out trying to punch SJT out.
This thread is about the nature of scepticism – SJT is calling Jen as to her fair dinkumness on being a true sceptic. Yep he’s simply asserting she’s an activist not a sceptic. Nothing wrong with being an activist if you’re explicit.
I’ll give you an example – I have an acquaintance who’s probably got something tying lunar cycles up with climate changes.
Now this guy is a sceptic.
SJT would have no problem talking to him. Why – coz he’ll stick to the science – you’ll hear nothing about Hansen, Gore, marxists etc.
SJT – as for science – why do you not see little publicised point of view like this on here?
Is the climate warming or cooling?
David R. Easterling
National Climatic Data Center, NOAA, Asheville, North Carolina, USA
Michael F. Wehner
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA
Numerous websites, blogs and articles in the media have claimed that the climate is no longer warming, and is now cooling. Here we show that periods of no trend or even cooling of the globally averaged surface air temperature are found in the last 34 years of the observed record, and in climate model simulations of the 20th and 21st century forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer‐term warming.
Received 18 February 2009; accepted 30 March 2009; published 25 April 2009.
Citation: Easterling, D. R., and M. F. Wehner (2009), Is the climate warming or cooling?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L08706, doi:10.1029/2009GL037810.
Well ok luke, stick with the science; I have posted this before; SJT says he is a nutter, you ignore it but the science is sound;
http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html
SJT; you’re a winger; everytime I venture to Deltoid I get abused non-stop; do you hear me winge about that? Every-time you get some science thrown at you the IPCC is invoked as a blanket rebuttal; and you expect to be taken seriously.
Well ok luke, stick with the science; I have posted this before; SJT says he is a nutter, you ignore it but the science is sound;
http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html
SJT; you’re a whinger; everytime I venture to Deltoid I get abused non-stop; do you hear me whinge about that? You can’t expect to be taken seriously when you insult every bit of science which doesn’t come from the IPCC.
Will “I am wondering why I am so important.”
You’re not. At least no more than anyone else here (host excepted without whom we would not be here).
“Have you people no science or skepticism to discuss?”
At the moment? No.
Easterling; no 7 here;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/more-worst-agw-papers/
“SJT; you’re a whinger; everytime I venture to Deltoid I get abused non-stop; do you hear me whinge about that? You can’t expect to be taken seriously when you insult every bit of science which doesn’t come from the IPCC.”
I didn’t bring this up, someone else did. Can’t you read? I’m just responding to the claim that I’m to blame for all this.
I insult ever bit of non-science. There is precious little in the way of science introduced here.
OK Coho – on Biocarb
My activist antennae – start twitching as soon as I hear “AGW proponents who have criticized my paper have resorted to pseudoscientific arguments”
Any decent review would erase all this emotional stuff (and it goes on) from the paper. If you write science any serious peer review will all that personal b/s from any manuscript. McLean and Carter are classics for this – they’re writing political prose not science.
But on we go …
A theoretical piece – I jump to the conclusion – and I ponder why then does one measure backradiation during cloud free nights at values theory would suggest. hmmmm…
Do I want to plough through the rest of it?
Coho – with respect – I have to giggle at your rebuttal. Say what?
And you ten worst papers stuff really is utter rot. A pretentious try-on purely for effect.
The points of Easterling and Wehner is exactly what faux sceptics would like keep hidden – and indeed is shown by the very excellent updated Hadley analysis you have as a Powerpoint.
The warming is unambigous – decadal cooling periods have occurred before in this warming background, and furthermore the the models – their averages and individual ensemble members show this behaviour already. Faux sceptics like to pretend this is not happening.
Hands over ears – lalalalalalalah I’m listening.
Earlier Hadley PC published here http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008411.shtml
Luke ‘and I ponder why then does one measure backradiation during cloud free nights at values theory would suggest.”
Where does he say the atmosphere stops radiating IR at night?
That is what you are implying isn’t it?
“I explain also how the photon streams from oceans, ground and subsurface materials of ground overwhelm the emission of photons from the atmosphere to the ground during both daytime and nighttime.”
Is there some kind of war supposed to be going on between the photons from the sky and the photons from the surface such that the photons from the sky get turned around?
I think biocab should defer to that noted Skeptic, Roy Spencer’s knowledge on the subject.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
SJT: So where do you think this:
contradicts anything here?
Jan – ever considered any other position than being smug and making quips
Luke “Jan – ever considered any other position than being smug and making quips”
Don’t you notice when you are being asked a question?
Do you think you can answer them?
A reminder:
Where does he say the atmosphere stops radiating IR at night?
That is what you are implying isn’t it?
So now there are four.
SJT: still waiting:
your
I’m commenting on his climate expertise. He is not a climate scientist, he is a software engineer.
G. Schmidt and James Hanson of NASA, are also “software engineers”. Hanson is an astronomer by training.
Pachauri, head of the IPCC, is basically a rail road engineer.
Yvo de Boer, head of the UNFCCC, has a technical degree in social work.
Do you question their climate qualifications? A simple “yes” or “no” would suffice.
Take it from the man himself.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/19/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming/
“contradicts anything here?”
Biocab seems to find it hard to say anything outright, but what he seems to be saying when I read it is that backradiation is inconsequential, while Spencer is saying it is significant.
SJT: still waiting:
your
I’m commenting on his climate expertise. He is not a climate scientist, he is a software engineer.
G. Schmidt and James Hanson of NASA, are also “software engineers”. Hanson is an astronomer by training.
Pachauri, head of the IPCC, is basically a rail road engineer.
Yvo de Boer, head of the UNFCCC, has a technical degree in social work.
Do you question their climate qualifications? A simple “yes” or “no” would suffice.
luke; Easterling have a fundamental flaw in their ‘analysis’; they assume one cause for temperature trend, increasing greenhouse gases [p6]; their subsiduary hypothesis is that natural variability [which they don’t specify] will occasionally produce cooling periods “embedded within the longer-term warming produced in” the GCM simulations.
What they don’t do is factor in that natural variability causes warming as well as cooling.
Their second error, a ubiquitous one amongst GCMs, is that they assert in any designated period which is not cherry-picked the longer-term warming trend due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing will be manifest; thus their analysis of the 20thC produces 3 warming trends compared to one cooling trend. This perception is based on a least squares fit to the data and to the simulations; it ignores the possibility that within the warming and cool periods there is no trend and that the overall trend is determined by step-ups at the point of the phase changes; that is a rapid transition from a -ve PDO to a +ve PDO will produce all the temperature trend. An OLS analysis will not reveal this.
With the Nahle paper; you are not reading this correctly; he treats the issue of night and day downward radiation and he counters the isotropic basis of the Philipona effect; SJT’s war analogy is ridiculous because the difference is explained in the comparison between Spontaneous Emission and Induced Emission; these are real and verified radiative effects and processes yet you guys dismiss them.
SJT “Take it from the man himself.”
Jo Nova is the man himself? I don’t think so. About now you should be getting a glimmer of understanding why we find it so difficult to take your remarks here seriously.
So you are saying their agreement, never mind the difference in language, is the contradiction. This does not make sense.
“Throughout the last decade, supporters of the idea of an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or the impact of an anthropogenic “greenhouse” effect on climate (IAGEC) have been insisting on an erroneous concept of the emission of energy from the atmosphere towards the surface. The AGW-IAGEC assumption states that 50% of the energy absorbed by atmospheric gases, especially carbon dioxide, is reemitted back towards the surface heating it up.
This solitary AGW-IAGEC assumption is fallacious when considered in light of real natural processes. AGW-IAGEC states that if the atmosphere absorbs 240 W/m^2 of energy, 50% of that energy is emitted towards deep space and 50% is emitted back to the surface. However, the proponents of AGW-IAGEC are neglecting other processes which take place in every atmospheric radiative heat transfer event.”
What part of that don’t you understand. Biocab wants to be the next G&T, and prove to the world that backradiation is inconsequential. Spencer says quite clearly that it is. I have no idea where you get the idea that Spencer and Biocab are in agreement.
Silly Coho – really really silly
(1) the current climate system produces short periods of cooling in a long period of overall warming
(2) GCMs do the same
(3) Folland’s PCA analysis sees off your own cherry-picked PDO bogosity
(4) when it warms again you guys will be gooooonneee forever. You’ve now bet the bank.
That’s it !
The only reason I like Philipona et al is that they have measured some numbers – in what is usually a theoretical wanky debate. You guys love theory here but eschew measurement.
On biocarb – well Jan could take the time to engage but if he’s only up to quipping – why be here?
SJT: still waiting:
your
I’m commenting on his climate expertise. He is not a climate scientist, he is a software engineer.
G. Schmidt and James Hanson of NASA, are also “software engineers”. Hanson is an astronomer by training.
Pachauri, head of the IPCC, is basically a rail road engineer.
Yvo de Boer, head of the UNFCCC, has a technical degree in social work.
Do you question their climate qualifications? A simple “yes” or “no” would suffice.
You’ve commented on David Evan’s expertise. Now please comment on Schmidt, Hanson, Pachauri and de Boer’s climate expertise, especially as it relates to their training.
From Traveler’s Digest ( the world’s biggest traveler and adventure magazine):
” “Stockholm is a city filled with the best looking women in the world, women so good looking that when you walk in to a 7-11 you will swear that you have just walked into a reality TV set, What Happens When Supermodels Work at A Convenience Store?”
The women of Stockholm were given credit not only for their striking good looks but also for the fact that they are “extremely educated” and for having a clipped British accent to their English. “
“SJT: still waiting:”
You already have your answer. It is the career path he chose, what he describes himself as. All were eligible to be scientists, or engineers, or whatever career path they chose on graduating. The results can be seen in their published papers.
SJT: Not an answer, so I am still waiting:
your
I’m commenting on his climate expertise. He is not a climate scientist, he is a software engineer.
G. Schmidt and James Hanson of NASA, are also “software engineers”. Hanson is an astronomer by training.
Pachauri, head of the IPCC, is basically a rail road engineer.
Yvo de Boer, head of the UNFCCC, has a technical degree in social work.
Do you question their climate qualifications? A simple “yes” or “no” would suffice.
You’ve commented on David Evan’s expertise.
Now please comment on Schmidt, Hanson, Pachauri and de Boer’s climate expertise, especially as it relates to their training.
How is this different than David Evans?
Luke,
Those ‘brief’ periods of heating, and cooling are called weather during normal climate.
AGW has turned weather into a nice money machine.
Tools like you help keep the money machine well lubricated.
SJT:
Thank you for again making my point.
“Thank you for again making my point.”
No, thank you for making my point.
The head of the IPCC is a manager, not a scientist. He does no research.
You have no argument with Evans description of himself. Good.
You cannot read. I said Evans could well have become a climate scientist with his tertiary education, there was nothing stopping him, his background is similar to Schmidt’s. He chose a different career path.
I will no doubt be called on to repeat myself a tenth time.
SJT: LOL Thank you for showing your lack of of comprehension of even your own words:
now while you are at it kindly explain the difference between
“consequential” and “significant” I’ll give some help.
If you look here you can see the green trace which is the back radiation is significant but the black trace which is the blackbody upward radiation shows why it is inconsequential. So you see there is no contradiction between Nahle and Spencer. You do understand the two jar analogy of Spencer’s don’t you?
Fixed typo on the anchor
SJT: LOL Thank you for showing your lack of of comprehension of even your own words:
now while you are at it kindly explain the difference between
“consequential” and “significant” I’ll give some help.
If you look here you can see the green trace which is the back radiation is significant but the black trace which is the blackbody upward radiation shows why it is inconsequential. So you see there is no contradiction between Nahle and Spencer. You do understand the two jar analogy of Spencer’s don’t you?
I seem to have understood it longer than you did.
“I seem to have understood it longer than you did.”
Obviously not.
I’m having trouble with your link; could you e-mail it? The other issue with Nahle of course is A_A = E_D; however if A_A is from the LW component of F and not S_U then consistency with Nahle is achieved?
Done!
HARTCODE, apart from identifying radiation from layers above and below it calculates layer by layer an line by line integrated over up and down looking hemispheres according to the temperature and absorber concentration profiles does not know what the source of the heat being absorbed is. Aa is just energy absorbed that is coming from the surface and and Ed what is being sent back (whatever the source).
To get the Aa [Su*(1-Ta0)] trace I multiply the Planck function for the surface by the line by line absorptivity calculated by HARTCODE. What can be directly verified is Ed which is calculated from the temperature/absorber profile mentioned earlier and verified by comparison with up looking Michelson interferometer and has been shown by several studies to agree well.
Given that HARTCODE works with energy already stored in the atmosphere I don’t see any disagreement in the different approaches taken.
“On this particular point, one said: ”The overall concluding statement that ‘the existence of a stable climate requires a unique surface upward flux density and a unique optical depth of 1.841’ makes absolutely no sense at all. An atmosphere can be in stable radiative equilibrium for any LW optical depth, but the equilibrium surface temperature will monotonically depend on the value of the optical depth….””
SJT: “makes absolutely no sense at all”
Perhaps not to you but really it is for much the same reason a marble if let loose in a round bottomed bowl will head straight for the lowest point rather than spiralling down the side. It’s just Hamilton’s principle of least action.
“Perhaps not to you but really it is for much the same reason a marble if let loose in a round bottomed bowl will head straight for the lowest point rather than spiralling down the side. It’s just Hamilton’s principle of least action.”
The idea that you can seriously try to correlate a piece of fantasy by Miskolczi with a piece of irrevelvance by Biocab doesn’t strike you as being in the slightest bit absurd?
SJT What I find absurd is a person who by the look of things has not set fot in a physics lab since high school referring to the the work of a physicist with a Phd in Atmospheric physics and more than 30 years experience “a piece of fantasy”.
“SJT What I find absurd is a person who by the look of things has not set fot in a physics lab since high school referring to the the work of a physicist with a Phd in Atmospheric physics and more than 30 years experience “a piece of fantasy”.”
I know, it’s weird how he could come up with such a worthless paper. He should have listened to his NASA colleagues.
SJT: “Still nothing substantive I notice”
You are forgiven though we know that you are not capable. I do think he did the right thing I notice one of those colleagues got arrested. A new Joan of Arc perhaps?
“You are forgiven though we know that you are not capable. I do think he did the right thing I notice one of those colleagues got arrested. A new Joan of Arc perhaps?”
The difference between us is I know my limits. Watching you and Cohenite spending hours on your equations is like watching children playing tea parties with plastic cups full of water. It keeps you entertained, but the it’s only dress ups. There’s nothing of substance happening.
SJT: “The difference between us is I know my limits.”
The evidence is to the contrary.
You thought this indicated disagreement between the two articles:
Then you agreed there wasn’t:
With Spencer agreeing it is inconsequential. Which is actually more accurate as his analogy of the two jars shows:
Emphasis added.
There is every indication that you comprehend neither article and you cannot construct an argument.
Do you still wonder why no one can take you seriously? The best that you ever manage is the personal attack and insult, but then maybe that is your limitation.
“and prove to the world that backradiation is inconsequential. Spencer says quite clearly that it is.”
My bad, ambiguous wording, it means exactly what I meant each time. Why would I completely change my mind like that? (waits for meaningless smart*** response).
Spencer’s analogy of the jars is exactly what the greenhouse gas has been claimed to be all along, and what my understanding of the greenhouse effect has been all along. The earth is warmer because it cools more slowly, as it is continually heated by the sun. At some point, there is an equilibrium reached, at which the incoming energy equals the out going, that is the temperature it would be without an atmosphere, plus the energy caused by the slower cooling rate created by the greenhouse effect. Add more greenhouse gas, that equilibrium will change. Michael Hammer agrees with all that, Crichton agreed with all that, Spencer agrees with it. The only argument is the amount of warming that will result from more CO2 being added.
SJT “My bad, ambiguous wording, it means exactly what I meant each time.”
Good it took you a while though.
Now what makes you think Nahle says anything different from Hammer, Crichton, Spencer and Miskolczi? All Miskolczi says on that issue is that the back radiation, which as Luke keeps saying can be measured, is a good measure, on the average, of what is being absorbed by GHG and actually shows that it is so (Fig 2 M2007).
“Good it took you a while though. ”
I did not consider you would waste so much time on a nitpick.
SJT: You still have not commented on the climate qualifications of Schmidt, Hanson, Pachauri or de Boer.
You felt you could comment on David Evans qualifications. Now please apply the same criteria you used to evaluate Evans, to the 4 men I named.
Based on training and occupation, do these 4 have climate expertise?
Yes or no, please.
Les, you can’t read. I have answered the question already.
You have NOT answered the question. You’ve dodged the question, albeit poorly.
You’ve judged Evans as not having any climate expertise, due to his vocation.
I ask you to judge Hanson, Schmidt, Pachauri and de Boer, based on their training.
Yes or no? Does their training and education give them climate expertise?
Take your time. I’m patient.
You have NOT answered the question. You’ve dodged the question, albeit poorly.
You’ve judged Evans as not having any climate expertise, due to his vocation.
I ask you to judge Hanson, Schmidt, Pachauri and de Boer, based on their training.
Yes or no? Does their training and education give them climate expertise?
Take your time. I’m patient.
“You have NOT answered the question. You’ve dodged the question, albeit poorly.
You’ve judged Evans as not having any climate expertise, due to his vocation.
I ask you to judge Hanson, Schmidt, Pachauri and de Boer, based on their training.
Yes or no? Does their training and education give them climate expertise?
Take your time. I’m patient.”
I will repeat myself, I must be more patient than you.
They all had training that was suitable to pursue a career in climate science. Evans chose not to, the others did. If you still do not understand that, I will type it in bold and caps next time to help you.
sjt: your
They all had training that was suitable to pursue a career in climate science. Evans chose not to, the others did. If you still do not understand that, I will type it in bold and caps next time to help you.
so, let me get this straight. According to you, Evans working in computer modeling does NOT give him climate expertise.
Hanson and Schmidt, who ALSO work in modeling, do have climate expertise?
Pauchuari’s railroad experience gives him climate expertise?
de Boer’s diploma in social work, gives him climate expertise?
Again, a simple “yes” or “no”. Bold and caps optional.
“so, let me get this straight. According to you, Evans working in computer modeling does NOT give him climate expertise.
Hanson and Schmidt, who ALSO work in modeling, do have climate expertise? ”
Evans working in computer modeling that has nothing to do with climate modeling does not give him climate expertise, Hanson and Schmidt who have worked with climate and climate modeling for many years, professionaly, have acquired climate expertise. Pauchuari is a chair of a committee creating a report, not a climate expert. The chairman of large enterprises, such as the IPCC, often do not know the details of the work they are supervising. SOP. Evans lack of understanding of the state of the science of AGW is readily apparent from reading his claims on the topic.
Really?
“For six years from 1999, he says he worked on carbon accounting, building models for the Commonwealth’s Australian Greenhouse Office (now part of the Office of Climate Change).”
tell me again how Evans does not have expertise. No, wait, he must have expertise, by your definition:
Hanson and Schmidt who have worked with climate and climate modeling for many years, professionaly (sic), have acquired climate expertise.
so which is it? He has expertise, or he doesn’t? By which criteria do you make this judgment? After all, Evans works in the same field (modeling), and has worked within an official climate office.
I agree that Pachuari is not an expert. Nor is de Boer. Which means we can safely ignore their opinions, correct?
““For six years from 1999, he says he worked on carbon accounting, building models for the Commonwealth’s Australian Greenhouse Office (now part of the Office of Climate Change).””
His Carbon Accounting model is not climate modeling.