Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. recently submitted this paper to Geophysical Research Letters (GRL):
A homogeneous database of global landfalling tropical cyclones
Jessica Weinkle* and Roger Pielke, Jr.
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, 1333 Grandview Ave, Campus Box 488, Boulder, Colorado 80309
Abstract
In recent decades, economic damage from tropical cyclones (TCs) around the world has increased dramatically. Scientific literature published to date is strongly suggestive that the increase in losses can be explained entirely by increasing wealth in locations prone to tropical cyclone landfalls. However, no homogenized dataset of tropical cyclone landfalls has been created. We have constructed such a homogenized global landfall TC database. We find no long-term global trends in the frequency or intensity of landfalling TCs for the period with reliable data, providing very strong support for the conclusion that increasing damage around the world over the period(s) of record can be explained entirely by increasing wealth in locations prone to TC landfalls, and adding confidence in the fidelity of economic normalization analyses.
Seems straightforward enough. It came back with two reviews, both with some corrections, one reviewer suggesting publication without major caveats, the other grudgingly suggesting publication to the editor, Noah Diffenbaugh, and asking for revisions. So far so good (you’d think). But it starts getting weird from here. Pielke Jr. asks this set of questions:
As the editor what would you do?
A) Provisionally accept the paper pending a revision that meets the editor’s judgment of responsiveness
B) Provisionally accept the paper pending re-review by the two reviewers
C) Reject the paper
D) Reject the paper and tell the authors that any reconsideration of the paper would have to be accompanied by a detailed response to the two reviewers followed by selection of new reviewers and a restart of the review process
If you picked (D) then you too can be an editor at GRL.
Read the whole bizarre peer review story here.
Dear Kev has won another battle against science. AR5 looking more and more like a pile of inconsequential rubbish.
Dr Pielke jr said
“In recent decades, economic damage from tropical cyclones (TCs) around the world has increased dramatically. Scientific literature published to date is strongly suggestive that the increase in losses can be explained entirely by increasing wealth in locations prone to tropical cyclone landfalls.”.
There are close comparisons in other industries that back up this statement. For instance, in the UK, flood damage and claims can be traced to a number of factors other than the severity of the flood incident.;
1 More people live in the areas prone to flooding because they tend to be desirable riverside/sea side locatioons.
2 People are generally less tolerant of flooding and want certain protection by means of a physical wall rather than mitigate the effects by say placing their electrical outlets above flood levels.
3 Claims are generally higher because of increased wealth which reflects itself in the cost of repairing homes and replacing goods.
tonyb
See my comments on Pielke’s blog.
The decision for major revision was justified as the original paper oversold its results.
Instead of revising the paper, Pielke Jr decided to pick a fight and was told to FO.
Too spelings
…publication without major *caeats*, the other *grudingly* suggesting publication…
Might I enquire who was/is the GRL editor for the recent Dessler response awaiting galley proof revision major rewrite?
Pending a response, would it be appropriate to suggest that Diffenbaugh would appear to have more justification for professional Seppuku than Wagner
Richard Tol
Can’t see your comments on Roger Pielke’s blog unless you were reviewer 2. I was hoping to read his response.
Richard Tol,
I went to Pielke’s blog (Jr not Sr) and could not find any comments under your handle (unless you used a different one). At no point did Pielke Jr “pick a fight” as you put it. He wanted clarification and got prompt but puzzling responses.
Re: Richard Tol
There are 20 comments on Dr. Roger Pielke Jr blog entry. None of then are authored by anybody called “Richard”, “Rich”, “Dick”, “Dickie”, “Dicky”, “RT”, “R.T”, “RTol”, “Tol” or any other possible combination of your name I can think of.
There is only one comment that seems to imply a major revision was called for and that was by someone calling themselves “Jacob B”. Is that you?
Could you please point out which reviewer makes this claim and cite the part of the review that claims this. Alternatively, could you cite where in the email exchanges it claims the paper oversold its results.
None of the reviewers call for any changes in the results of the paper which implies they did not have a problem with the results.
@ur momisugly Richard Tol
I went straight to the Pielke site to read your comments (and Pielke’s eventual replies), but could find no trace of either.
The process of peer review has completely lost its function.
Peer review today, is a flawed process, and regretfully, intellectual giants are too often audited, scrutinised and controlled by intellectual pygmees, who are refusing everything that they don’t understand or what is deemed politically incorrect.
The increasing centralisation of scientific research has allowed powerful, but mediocre scientists, to supress any idea that would undermine their own prestige, since any new theory by definition, is lowering the prestige of the already “established” scientists.
If the GRL correspondence was sent out for peer review, it would be rejected as meaningless and without merit.
Different reviewers required? Do the first pair share some “notions” with Dr. Pielke?
Considering that this is “the greatest threat facing mankind”, seems strange that this work hasn’t already been done, no?
I’m not in the academic publish or perish world (specifically avoided it, actually) – but I can tell you without doubt that in a highly technical field, corporate setting, for someone to send back a piece of work saying revisions are needed, but I’m not gonna tell you what they are, you have to GUESS – very clearly means that you are dealing with a p*ss poor manager/reviewer who may never be satisfied or who has a hidden agenda.
As to Richard Tol’s comment that a ‘major revision’ designation was warranted because the work was ‘oversold’ and a single word addition to the title is needed to tone it down… I’m sorry, but a single word addition for a title change – which is acceptable to the authors – can hardly be called a ‘major revision’ in much of anyone’s book. When all comments, none of which significantly alter the meaning or impact of the work, can be addressed in a matter of a few hours – a day – on a substantial piece of work, well, that’s hardly ‘major.’ All of this is virtually by definition ‘minor.’
It still rolls back around to the editor returning it with a few minor easily addressed comments providing well specified requirements, along with a whopping big utterly unspecified ‘major revision’ requirement, which, in order to meet, the author must try to read the editors mind or randomly guess at what might meet the ambiguous requirement. It’s just silly, and that’s putting it nicely (silly, of course, is not quite the impact or reputation a supposedly solid science journal wants).
Richard Tol, GRL claim this paper need ‘major revisions’ but simply cannot explain what they are beyond a word change , which is hardly ‘major’ in anyone’s language . If there major in nature why are they so hard to describe in practice? And that is not the reviewers opinions but the editors who has refused to give feedback , instead his boss as made this claim.
So the paper is blocked on grounds that are unclear, by a person that refuses to say why, buts its not based the reviewers . You can see why people amuse there has been been some ‘Team’ work at play given the lack of clarity especial after the nonsensical resigning of Wagner .
These findings cannot be emphasized enough – the economic damage is PRECISELY due to the ‘increased wealth’ of the victims – NOT, as gets bandied about by the ‘warmists’, due to an increase in the number or severity of Cylones etc.
“There are close comparisons in other industries that back up this statement. For instance, in the UK, flood damage and claims can be traced to a number of factors other than the severity of the flood incident.;
1 More people live in the areas prone to flooding because they tend to be desirable riverside/sea side locatioons.
2 People are generally less tolerant of flooding and want certain protection by means of a physical wall rather than mitigate the effects by say placing their electrical outlets above flood levels.
3 Claims are generally higher because of increased wealth which reflects itself in the cost of repairing homes and replacing goods.
tonyb”
Additionally, the flood defences which have been erected in many areas which block or prevent minor floods which relieve normal flooding pressure, but which also ensure that larger floods spread further and are far worse than would otherwise be the case. Additionally flood ditches which farmers do not maintain on their land, which have caused some recent floods to be worse than would otherwise be the case.
As for this article, it is more evidence of the perversion of peer-review in climate research. The likelihood of publication is less dependent on the solidity of the scientific research, rather than the political leaning of the conclusion as to whether it supports the ‘agenda’ or not.
My comments on Pielke’s site await approval. It’s early still in Colorado.
The only suggestion the editor could make as a “major revision” was adding the word “toward” to the title. You directly state that the original paper oversold it’s results. Just what word in the title oversells the submitted paper results?
Adding the word “toward” into the title does not change the title itself other than to imply a diminutive. A very curious suggestion by anyone as it means they acknowledge the validity of the original title, but they desire to set an undefined tropical cyclone database standard that somewhere sometime somebody else might achieve.
The least a professional (editor, reviewer, whatever) should have done is explained their peculiar notions of database standards and just why the word “toward” improves this particular paper so that it not only merits, (as the reviewers stated) but is allowed publication.
Basically Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.’s paper was rejected because of an undefined mysterious standard that the editors will not divulge. A truly bizarre approach for editors, unless the editors in question just want to prevent publication, just because; so there (imagined with their tongues outand “the team’s” official lollipops in hand, of course)… Sillier and sillier are the machinations used to obfuscate the real science.
It kinda explains how can GRL have so short acceptance times – you either succeed or start from scratch.
“After consulting again with my editor for Climate,…”
No one need look any further than this comment from Calais. In 8 simple words he managed to destroy the credibility of a journal.and its peer review process.
The damning detail isn’t that they rejected the paper, but their inability to explain why (and Diffenbaugh’s refusal to answer emails subsequently) .
That’s what breaks the trust. Therefore discussions about the merits of the paper or Pielke Jr’s reactions are besides the point.
I thought they planned to ‘redefine’ the peer review process, not leave it undefined
Re: Richard Tol
Then you should have either waited for them to appear on Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.’s site or posted them here.
The whole business of poor, politically motivated peer review in the climate change area, is becoming incredibly dangerous. It is so worrying that policy makers are deliberately starved of any scientific findings that fail to toe the established warmists line. As a retired experimental physicist I despair at the miserably low level of behaviour of editors of learned journals. If papers such as the one in question are suppressed, then Gore will be free to continue spouting his personally profitable, pseudo scientific claptrap.
I’m interested in knowing what role Richard Tol is playing in the upcoming AR5.