CF - If I have correctly followed, you would like somebody here to work through Nuccateli's paper and point out to you where it goes wrong.

The fact that you keep asking suggests that, not only that you don't have the time to work out whether what he says makes sense or not, but that also, perhaps, you don't have a background in hard science (physics, chemistry, maths, engineering) which would enable you to do so.

May I ask directly if you have a qualification in one of these subjects? If you don't, do you think that you could make sense of the answer if somebody worked through Nuccateli's paper and pointed out in terms of maths and physics where he goes wrong? Or would you still be left unsure of who was right and who was wrong?

Thanks TinyCo2. I guess it's not the "truth" per se I'm interested in here, but the process by which one goes about finding out about the thousands of truths. So the Nuccitelli point about the slowdown was an example. If someone just read that Guardian post, it would be difficult a) to realise that the paper which he refers to isn't terribly sound, b) to then work out whether or not it was, because there is so much contradictory noise in the bloggosphere and elsewhere.

Mike Jackson: maybe. There has been a range of responses, with Martin's and your's among the least welcoming. I'm not sure why that kind of "Eff off, we don't want your sort around here" is necessary, though, when it's clear that others have *some* interest.

Splitpin, no I don't have a background in these subjects, and I'm certain I wouldn't be able to understand the maths and physics. But there is a skill in being able to provide explanations without resorting technical terms. And I think that's something we could see more of.

Charlie,

As Missy said, it is a question of who you trust.

[A] The Government + The Met Office + The Guardian + The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change + 97% of climate scientists + Missy

or

[B] Some retired engineers and physicists (plus the odd physics/maths academic) who post on a blog, led by an Oxfordshire housewife?

It should be a no-brainer, especially if you ask a few questions about what aspects of climate science have been confirmed by actual physical observation and what predictions have turned out to match reality.

Charlie, but how does any amateur determine if a scientific looking paper is factual or just a pretty guess? The answer is you can’t. There isn’t even a reliable method for those people who can prove the flaws to get the paper withdrawn or their grievances aired. And THAT is the red flag. Here we have the most important issue of our time and the way they judge a good paper from a bad one is to pass it round their colleagues and friends who say ‘great it agrees with my theories, PASSED.’ They don’t even need access to the data or any computer software connected to make that judgment. Any kind of critique has to jump through impossible hoops and then can be rejected without even an explanation. Sceptic papers on the other hand have to run a gamut of aggressively negative and fussy judges who reject for the smallest of reasons. For a young climate scientist trying to research anything even hinting at scepticism would find it career limiting.

I can’t be bothered to look at Nuttuccelli’s theory about the warming halt because it comes after the fact. How much more convincing it would have been to predict the event before or even tell us accurately when it’s going to end. When measurements are very sparse you can invent all sorts of theories and the data can’t prove you right or wrong. When does a guess become science? When you write it up nicely and your friends just luuurve it. Look how easily Mann’s Hockey Stick reached fame. Do we think it really reflects medieval temperatures? No, not if you read the Bishop’s first book that explains how Steve M broke it. A book, a whole book to tell the story of one piece of shoddy science. And despite being bitch slapped, climate science is still trumpeting each Hockey Stick as it glides through pal review. THAT is another red flag.

How many times does climate science have to explain its mistakes before we realise that they haven’t got the answers? That doesn’t mean CAGW isn't real, it just means you shouldn’t give up what you’ve got before they start getting it right. A first step in the right direction would be to put something in place that does what peer review ought to but doesn’t.

I'm happy being a sceptic who can't rule out CAGW becuase if the other side are right, with them in charge of planning, were screwed any way.

TinyCO2

V interesting stuff.

"Charlie, but how does any amateur determine if a scientific looking paper is factual or just a pretty guess? The answer is you can’t."

I guess this touches on the point that has been raised before – about the lack of good unbiased journalism on this whole issue.

Firstly an impartial journalist could do the kind of interpretation that I'm interested in. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, those red flags you've pointed to are the areas that could be investigated by something like Channel 4's Dispatches. They're probably perceived as too niche for the Sunday Times or equivalent. It would also interesting to look into the extent to which scientific research broadly now relies on models and what effect that has on the kind of research that is being done, the conclusions that are made and the policy decisions that are subsequently taken. Not sure which broadcaster or publisher would want something like this, though.

Those red flags appear to be

I can see where Charlie's coming from, we'd all like AGW to be neatly explained one way or the other, there just isn't the time or the expertise to do it. It shouldn't be the internet that does this, it should be the authorities.

I do think that those who joined sceptisism pre Climategate have a deeper understanding of the climate science clique that might not be apparent to those who came looking after. We weren't shocked by the emails, it was just confirmation of what we'd already worked out. As such we're deeply distrustful of the whole bunch. Weirdly only a few of the reporters at the guardian went up in my estimation.

Martin

Thanks for the clarification. It's not that I was after someone to explain the fine detail, but to point out where in the chain the flaw lies: eg, "The research is flawed because they've used squid to collect their data and mouse-derived data is incomptabile with that collected by cats". But maybe it's not that simple in this case.

You're right about my ability to understand the details. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why the IPCC has been able to take this so far – because the politicians and general public can't understand it, so it comes down to who's got the best PR. But as I said in response to TinyC02, there's a lot of room for unbiased journalism here.

@Charlie

Unfortunately, journalists are lazy: in the main, they're happy to cut 'n' paste press releases from green pressure groups or (in the case of the Guardian) to hand their entire editorial policy in the field of climate change over to Skeptical Science, which is a partisan website run by people who are not themselves climate scientists.

That leaves a gap, which is filled by blogs like this one - but it still requires any interested non-specialist to do the legwork themselves.

Someone suggested I disregard the evidence of the Spencer plot. That isn't really true. My problem is that I don't understand it very well. And I also have a problem with its 'provenance', as Martin A calls it (seeing that it comes from a scientist who is on the Cornwall Alliance board of advisers and who apparently has pre-determined the outcome of his research - that God wont allow mankind to damage the climate).

Apart from the sources of real data and the nature of the model data, I find how the graph is plotted to be odd. This is what I understand, though it might well be wrong.

He (or someone) set 73 models running, presumably at a common start date, say 1960 (no idea, just guessing). By 1979 the modelled anomalies (based upon what baseline I don't know) have diverged somewhat and by 2025 a lot more. He then draws a _linear_ trend line through each model and shifts each model run vertically (on the graph) so that its trend line goes through zero in 1979. So any models whose trend line was above zero in 1979 has been shifted down and any whose trend line was below zero in 1979 has been shifted up. He then averages RSS and his own UAH (which I have read differ by a factor of 3) satellite data-sets (baseline?) and averages the balloon data-sets (baseline?) and plots those too.

We end up with the famous graph but I don't know whether it means anything. Are the baselines for the anomalies the same in all cases? Is all that shifting a valid thing to do? Are the linear trend lines a valid thing to use. It is all very unsatisfactory for a graph that can supposedly convince a doubter at 50 paces.

By the way I did search for "nuccitelli liar" but the result is not illuminating. Since you are so convinced of his knavery, please outline some of his best lies.

Missy, "Are the baselines for the anomalies the same in all cases?" yeah, reality. They have to agree with reality at some point or they're not really trying to be credible. Since there aren't many temperature stations to look at in the mid tropsphere you have to compare with balloons or satellite. There's only about 0.06 C between RSS and UAH. Dunno about balloons but I've only heard people dismiss the quality of the balloon records, never claim they disagree with satellite measurements. It's generally agreed that models can't predict individual rises and falls of annual temperature but that the overall trend is right.

I don't think anyone is now arguing that the hot spot is missing, we're into excuses about where it went. The favoured one is 'it blew away'.

The Great Heat in the Deep Oceans mystery has been round for a number of years now. Trenberth started by worrying where the heat was, it had to be somewhere;

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Not a man to be shaken by the data giving him the wrong answer Trenberth then suggested it was hiding in the deep oceans. I don't know if he suggested a mechanism for how they heat got there without being detected by the Argo buoys. But, like much in climate science, the hypothesis stands and the data are wrong. It could be that the heat escaped into outer space, which, to me at least, sounds a lot more plausible than it conspiring to go into the deep ocean for which there is, as far as I know, no physics that would explain that. However the CERES OLR measurements have shown a reduction in OLR over it's lifetime, so we have a real problem the heats not going out, the temperatures have not increased and the top of the ocean hasn't warmed. Is there something we don't know, some unknown unknown that gobbles up heat? Dunno, but the idea of the heat luring in the deep ocean stroking a white cat doesn't resonate with me.

Having said that I am the man who predicted Coronation Street would only last six episodes,

Having become aware of Spencer's religious ulterior motives, I wont give his graph another thought beyond noting that although I am new in this climate science world, even I realise that an 'anomaly' must be relative to something. So a statement that the baseline for the components of a graph plotting anomalies is 'reality' signals a certain lack of understanding to me.

I also see no reason why I should go looking for a graph to substitute for Spencer's. And note that searching for dirt on Nutticelli reveals nothing. All ok then I hope.

As for convection in sea water, the briefest research on ocean circulation tells me that the salinity of sea water is an important component of whether water rises or falls and that the circulation patterns of the oceans are far too complicated to be modelled by a domestic kettle.

@Missy "I also see no reason why I should go looking for a graph to substitute for Spencer's."

If you are genuinely interested, you could always look up the IPCC's projections (from their First Assessment Report onwards) and find out how they're comparing to reality.

(BTW: Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion describes the case of a successful petroleum geologist who was also a Young Earth Creationist, who ostensibly believed the Earth to be 6000 years old. Religious beliefs and scientific knowledge are not always logically coherent within the same person.)

Missy, it becomes obvious with every post that you are here not to find out anything (you steadfastly refuse to look anything up you don't like) but to present your polemic in such a way as to provoke anger, which you can then use to prop up your belief systems. We've seen it before.

It goes along the lines of: "I couldn't prove they were foolish, so I proved they were evil instead"

Do us all a favour, eh?

"Having become aware of Spencer's religious ulterior motives, I wont give his graph another thought..." so his religious beliefs mean that his replicable scientific work is wrong. What it is missy is what you don't want to see, if Charlie wanted an exercise in blind faith and denial of science from the alarmist side you've ;provided it for him.

Ever heard of the John Ray Initiative?

I politely asked "I don't have the time/energy/inclination to clean the grouting in my shower. Would a BH poster please come round and do it for me.".

The lack of response and willingness to do my work for me is very disappointing and unfriendly.

Ah, but Mosquito, we are all wary that having done the shower you'd ask us to do the bathroom. Then the downstairs loo, the kitchen, regrout the patio, clear the gutters, reputty the glazing, repoint the chimney stack, build the new south wing, dig the pool etc etc etc etc etc. ;-)

Mosquito.

I did splutter coffee all over my keyboard, does that help? There should be a warning symbol for funny comments so people can swallow before reading on.