The person behind "The Science of Doom" screen has just posted the fifth part of a very detailed treatsie on this topic.

http://scienceofdoom.com/

I don't know who the person behind the screen is, but I suspect that he/she teaches graduate courses in climate science.

Would it be kosher to reference specific posts on the Science of Doom website in "Further Readings" tabs to SkS articles?

Who is vouching for this material?

I have an interest in it, but I haven't had a chance to study it. I suspect I might have a few nits to pick on some conceptual points, on matters mentioned in the "trace gas" discussion.

I agree with your concern about who's "vouching" for what's posted on SOD. Perahps there is a way for John Cook to ferret out who is the person behind the screen. If he/she is well credentialed, that may be sufficient.

With respect to nit picking, isn't that part and parcel of the scientific process?

Like SkS, SoD provides a comment thread to each post, and, like SoD, lively discussions occur on those threads.

From my perspective, the SoD postings are akin to chapters in a textbook on climate science. Unlike printed textbooks, the materials posted on DoD are a curent and seem to be updated on a real time basis.   

It is a bit amusing that articles have to be vouched for and that a persons name is important.

I think the point of SoD is that it stands based on the defence of the argument and by discussing it.
He or she is publlshing something and it stands or falls based on the discussion.

It's a bit like a woman publishing a book in the past under a man's name (well not quite).

I don't actually bother about who it is. Really knowing who it is would detract from the science and discussion, because then politics and culture could potentially distract from what is written and being discussed.

Added: if you knew who it was, you would form an opinion based on that knowledge, eg. the issue would be polarised between camps, more than it is already.

My point is that when we reference this material for "further reading", we are recommending it.

If we haven't looked into it, why should we be recommending it? That would be a definite judgment.

It was just a personal view.

I think if I knew who it was my attitude towards the work would change.
Personally I don't see why the site shouldn't be recommended, but maybe not as a 'reference', more for those interested in a brain exercise. Like you might recommend someone to attend a lecture, but not to buy the lecturers book.

My 'discussion' was more about peoples prejudices and perceptions, rather than recommending it for a reason.
I just like analysing how people view something and question those perceptions. It often doesn't lead anywhere, but I think we should all take a step back occasionally and analyse why we think something is good, bad, appropriate etc.

The person behind "The Science of Doom" screen has just posted the sixth part of a very detailed treatsie on this topic.

Many blogs write about over-simplifications of the radiative effects in climate. Many of these blog articles review simple explanations of how it is possible for atmospheric radiative effects to increase the surface temperature - e.g. the "blackbody shell" model.

Here's his/her introduction to Part 6.

As a result many people are confused and imagine that climate science hasn't got past "first base" with how radiation interacts with atmospheric gases.

"In any field the "over-simplified analysis" is designed to help the beginner to gain conceptual understanding of the field. Not to present the complete field of scientific endeavor.

This article will try to "bridge the gap" between the over-simplified models and the very detailed theory.

Note - it isn't possible to cover the whole subject in one blog article and a decent treatment of radiative transfer consumes many chapters of a textbook.

There will be some maths. But I will also try to provide a non-mathematical explanation of "the maths" - or "the process".

If you find maths daunting or incomprehensible that is understandable, but there is a lot that can be learned by trying to grasp some of the basic concepts.

In my opinion, the materials posted on SoD can function as a logical extension of the baisc-intermediate-advanced continium of rebuttal articles posted on DkS. Synergies can be acheived by relating what is posted on SkS to what is posted on SoD. The easiest and quickest way to do so is for SkS authors to reference specific posts on the Science of Doom website in "Further Readings" tabs to SkS articles.

As a 67-year old retiree who is using the materials posted on SkS (and elsewhere) to educate himself about the science of climate change, I find the information posted in the "Further Readings" tab of a rebuttal article to be extremely helpful. Alas, many of the rebuttal articles do not incude a "Further Readings" tab. I therefore encourage all authors who haven't already done so to add a "Further Readings" tab to already posted articles. I also encourage all authors to automatically include the "Further Readings" tab in all new rebuttal articles.

Note: See Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect per SOD for my recommendation to add referrals to materials posted on the Science of Doom website.        

I actually think that some basic science articles along the lines of SoD but in more comprehensible language (and with plenty of diagrams!) is something that SkS should have a go at. We have at least 3 or 4 members of SkS with a solid physics background, I would have thought that along with other wider skills, we could all in cooperation come up with a unique series of articles that take the reader on a journey from near ignorance to a reasonable level of knowledge.

Education is a primary way of undermining those that try and mislead.

It's all very well writing rebuttals to denier/sceptic science memes, but it doesn't help those that try and understand the science.

I think the first step is to propose a series of titles/subjects for the series??

I understand where you are coming from, but I do believe there is a danger that John Cook and his merry band of science experts will spread themselves way too thin if they take on what you are proposing.

I also believe that SkS should continue to focus on its core mission of rebutting specific climate denier myths. SkS stands out in the sea of climate science websites because of its core mission.

Not to be trite, but there's no reason to "reinvent the wheel" if you don't have to.