UPDATE: 1/19/14 2;30 PM PST
There is an update to this post here:
Comments on this thread are now closed, continue there. – Anthony
While a journal is forced to self destruct by external pressure from “team climate science”, history and a new paper show us why due process would have been the right way to approach the issue. The phrase “using a sledgehammer to crack a nut” comes to mind.
This story by Jo Nova is making the rounds today:
Science paper doubts IPCC, so whole journal gets terminated!
While the shutdown of the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics that published a special edition on planetary tidal influence on climate is likely a bit of overkill, rebuttals would have been the right way to handle it rather than the Climategate style strong-arm gang tactics exhibited against journal editors as seen here from James Annan:
Kudos to Copernicus for the rapid and decisive way in which they dealt with this problem. The problems at the journal were was first brought to my attention by ThingsBreak just last night, I emailed various people to express my concerns and the journal (which was already under close scrutiny by the publisher) was closed down within 24h.
…I will say that some of the papers in that special journal edition really aren’t any better than curve fitting exercises. That said, I think they are entitled to the due process afforded any peer reviewed science publication. Certainly, we’ve seen some ridiculous examples of “team science” that should have never been published, such as RealClimate co-founder Eric Steig’s overhyped claim to a warming Antarctica that was dealt with effectively via the rebuttal process.
As many WUWT readers know, while years ago I expressed some interest in planetary tidal force effects on climate, I have long since been convinced that there’s zero planetary effect on climate for two reasons: 1) The gravitational effects at distance are simply too small to exert the forces neccessary, and 2) The methodology employed often results in hindcast curve fitting a theory to data, where the maxim “correlation is not causation” should have been considered before publishing the paper.
While the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics self-destructed rather than deal with rebuttal process (apparently at the direction of higher-ups), this paper just published in the journal Solar Physics shows that journal does in fact take the rebuttal process seriously.
Critical Analysis of a Hypothesis of the Planetary Tidal Influence on Solar Activity
DOI 10.1007/s11207-014-0475-0
S. Poluianov, I. Usoskin
Abstract
The present work is a critical revision of the hypothesis of the planetary tidal influence on solar activity published by Abreu et al. (Astron. Astro- phys. 548, A88, 2012; called A12 here). A12 describes the hypothesis that planets can have an impact on the solar tachocline and therefore on solar activity. We checked the procedure and results of A12, namely the algorithm of planetary tidal torque calculation and the wavelet coherence between torque and heliospheric modulation potential. We found that the claimed peaks in long-period range of the torque spectrum are artefacts caused by the calculation algorithm. Also the statistical significance of the results of the wavelet coherence is found to be overestimated by an incorrect choice of the background assumption of red noise. Using a more conservative non-parametric random-phase method, we found that the long-period coherence between planetary torque and heliospheric modulation potential becomes insignificant. Thus we conclude that the considered hypothesis of planetary tidal influence on solar activity is not based on a solid ground.
…
Conclusions
We analysed the procedure of planetary torque calculations from the paper by Abreu et al. (2012) and found that their results can be be affected by an effect of the aliasing distortion of the torque spectrum. We provided torque calculations with different sampling frequencies and found that the spectral peaks claimed by A12 are likely artefacts of the spectral distortion and do not have physical meaning. Then we repeated the analysis by A12 of the relation between heliospheric modulation potential and the planetary torque. We showed that the results of Abreu et al. (2012) are not statistically significant. Thus, the proposed hypothesis of planetary influence on solar activity is not based on solid empirical evidence.
The final draft of the paper can be read in entirety here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.3547.pdf
(h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard for the link)
================================================================
A rebuttal was also published in Solar Physics simultaneously, but it is entirely behind a paywall, so I can’t elaborate any further than providing a link to it: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-014-0473-2
But, unlike Copernicus, that decided to pull the entire journal rather than allow the rebuttal process of science occur, Solar Physics saw no need to self-terminate for having published the rebuttal by Abreu et al. authors, and the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics. continues to exist despite publishing the questionable and now shown to be flawed Abreu et al. paper http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2012/12/aa19997-12/aa19997-12.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The last part of the post seems to be malformed (at least for me)
Me too.
The extra code at the bottom of the post is a WordPress artifact that sometimes manifests itself when pasting from an MS-Word document. Fixed now.
Hmm, the hand of Leif seems strong in these parts, may the force be with you.
At least Jo Nova recognizes source, http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/breaking-pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed-by-copernicus/
Well, we’ve brought Jo Nova’s site to a near standstill, but meanwhile over at Roger’s (Tallbloke’sTalkshop) site, Wm. Connolley thinks the situation is funny.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/breaking-pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed-by-copernicus/comment-page-1/#comment-65871
Too many journals, not enough science.
There was a bit of knee-jerk reaction over at Jo’s. I withheld comment pending your response, since I’m not a big fan of wiggle-matching. On the other hand, wiggle-matching is a form of scientific observation, albeit with limited utility. The speed with which the Annan propaganda ministry (composed of “various people”) managed without debate to shut down Pattern Recognition in Physics is disturbing, regardless, and echoes the content of the leaked Climategate papers.
This is not equivalent to ‘burning books’. It is equivalent to burning the printing press, though…..
Fahrenheit 451: The Interweb Edition
Self-censorship is the worst kind of censorship when imposed by tyranny.
I take issue with their figure 1, where they show how aliasing is produced by sampling at frequencies lower than the Nyquist, but then they claim this to be the same as averaging the values before sampling.
It’s not at all the same thing.
Averaging the samples prior to digitizing would yield an amplitude value of zero when averaging the initial values over either 2 or 10 cycles.
The publisher stated the journal editors misrepresented their intent to the publisher when the journal was created. After assurances it wouldn’t be used exclusively as a forum for contrarian climate science views, that is what the editors made it. How, exactly, would a rebuttal process address that??
The publisher also expressed concerns about nepotism in the selection of referees.
This is about more than just creating some papers that disagreed with the main stream view.
Blimey. Good job my papers aren’t about a tidal theory then. In fact the majority of the papers in the special edition don’t espouse a tidal theory. Pity Anthony didn’t take the trouble to read before dismissing them. But never mind. Scientists are reading them, judging by the number of downloads.
Copernicus’ Martin Rasmussen’s statement about shutting down PRP on the homepage is now no longer accessible, as the page immediately redirects to the ‘issues’ page, where our special edition is still linked. All the papers are still available for open access free download. So interested WUWT readers can make up their own minds about our work.
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Our curve fitting model now successfully replicates 400 years of solar observations to R^2=0.91. The model shows good correspondence with 14C reconstruction back to the C11th.
But then again, if the method is unsound the conclusions are null. So, peer review was faulty.
I agree that a strong rebuttal would have advanced science, while self-destruction does not.
If you are a skeptic climate scientist, you get fired right after the whisper and email campaign by the enlightened starts. If you are a skeptic climate journal, you get to self-terminate (even the Terminator did not get to self-terminate).
Why would climate science stop at this level when they consistently get away with it time and time again. Like the Terminator, they can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, …
Leo Geiger, thanks for your clarity. I do not oppose the right of the editors to terminate a journal, it’s just that showing something is wrong advances the conversation, while shutting up does not; this terminates it. I rather read something was wrong than read nothing.
And nepotism? Yea, well-known method to assure pal-review. Very bad!
(I’ve seen it before)
Come on fellas. Who among us has dreamt of punching out the city editor, or burning down the newspaper?
Most of us are lucky enough not to be in the position to act on those fantasies, but in the rarified air of climate science all you need is the right amount of hutzpah, a phone call, and it’s “Off with their heads!” at Pattern Recognition.
I recognize that pattern when someone says 97% of climate scientists agree that man made climate change is real and spectacular.
You assume the publishers’ point is 100% correct. Nichola Scafetta, one of the authors from Duke University, begs to differ. He wrote in the comments on JoNova’s site:
There are two sides to this, and who knows if Rasmussen read the Nature article published on Wednesday this week.
Regarding Martin Rasmussen’s now invisible comments about “potential” problems with reviewing, I eagerly await the detailed accusations so we can rebut them. Until then it’s just innuendo and smear. Of course if he doesn’t substantiate his innuendo and smear then legal steps can be taken to remedy the defamation suffered by the authors. One of those authors has over 580 peer reviewed papers to his name. It could get expensive.
This is likely why Rasmussen’s statement has been bypassed by the redirect on PRP’s homepage.
I’ve had enough of being libeled by fools. The gloves are off and I’ll fight. Copernicus publishes in the EU, which is accessible to the enforcement of judgments made in British and Scandinavian courts.
Leo Geiger says:
January 17, 2014 at 3:56 pm
Your Majesty. Someone outside the castle has started a newspaper.
Anthony Watts writes: “While the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics self-destructed rather than deal with rebuttal process”
It hasn’t ‘self destructed’ Anthony. stop the unseemly hurry to diss our discoveries please. Copernicus announced it’s closure, and then didn’t close it. Then removed access to the statement saying it was closed. However the Chief Editor plans to move the journal elsewhere. Once it has a new home we will of course welcome and respond to comments on and rebuttals of our work, as this is part of the normal process and progress of science.
I rather hope it is part of a trend and not an anecdote. Journal seppuku is a brilliant script twist in this whole climadrama. Popcorn, please.
Let the free market work.
Ohboy, the redirect is gone, the homepage is back. Webcitation.org here we come.
If you think about it, all the climate model results are both wiggle-matching to the historic record, and have no predictive value at all since they have missed all the major climate indices.
Any journal that uses these should therefore be terminated.
Bill Illis says:
January 17, 2014 at 4:51 pm
all the climate model results are both wiggle-matching to the historic record, and have no predictive value
And worse still they make up the aerosol data and to get a wiggle match.
Our model uses the orbital periods of four planets plus some simple algorithms which simulate increasing and decreasing amplitudes and gets a 91% match with 400 years of solar data in its latest iteration and a 75% match with 1000 years of 14C proxy data. It’s substantially better than any solar internal dynamo model and because the future positions of the planets are known, it can make useful predictions.
Here’s the paper:
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/117/2013/prp-1-117-2013.pdf
to be honest, the CAGW debate is now strictly political/financial – where, whether or not the “science” is settled, doesn’t enter the manipulated equations:
Guardian’s POLITICAL Editor, Patrick Wintour, & fomer POLITICAL correspondent for UK Telegraph (now with Guardian), Rowena Mason:
18 Jan: Guardian: Patrick Wintour/Rowena Mason: Cut carbon emissions by 40% in 16 years, Ed Davey tells EU
Energy secretary calls on heads of state to back plan but says renewables target will not be binding
The Europen Commission is due to issue a paper next Wednesday that is likely propose a EU-wide renewables target in line with the wishes of Germany and France, but Davey, in a Guardian interview, claimed his call not to impose a binding renewables target was gaining traction.
He wants EU states to have flexibility to achieve greenhouse gas emissions through a mix of non-carbon technologies including nuclear, but denied his rejection of a binding renewables target revealed a loss of confidence in the British renewables industry…
***He said the aim was for the EU this year to back a 40% cut in greenhouse emissions, but to offer a 50% cut if a strong UN-wide deal can be struck in 2015.
That might be delivered not just by emissions in the EU but international credits, where Europe pays for action elsewhere particularly in developing countries.
He said: “We don’t need a binding renewables target in 2030. We need the most ambitious greenhouse gas emissions target that we can possibly achieve. That’s what you need for the climate change talks, that will drive investment in all low carbon.”…
He denied this betrayed a loss of confidence in renewables: “God no! Renewables in any context, any scenario, are going to boom in the 2020s.
“Offshore wind grew by 79% last year. We are easily the leader in offshore wind in the world, no one’s touching us, we’re miles ahead. One individual company might be reducing its investment but that’s not the story.”…
***He added a deal that did not contain a binding renewables target would help the Tories to fight off Ukip. He argued: “I’d be able to say I’ve got the most ambitious climate change package and we’ve led the whole way. We’ll be able to show, we’ve commissioned the research, showing the effect of the different targets on growth an the electricity industries. It shows you can be really ambitious and it hardly affects growth at all…
Conservatives committed to fighting climate change should think our approach is exactly the right one.
“Obviously Conservatives not committed to combating climate change won’t agree with any of it.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/17/cut-carbon-emissions-ed-davey-tells-eu
16 Jan: BusinessSpectator: Bloomberg: Backloading buoyancy: Carbon markets’ year in the sun
Under the measure approved last week, the EU will delay sales of 400 million permits in 2014 if backloading starts in the first quarter; or 300 million if it begins in the second quarter.
This decision is significant as it was the final major approval required for backloading to be implemented. The only question remaining is when in the next four months will the new regulation come into force, enabling auction cuts to begin…
***On a separate, but related note, the European Parliament’s environment and industry committees supported a call for the EU to adopt at least a 40 per cent carbon-reduction goal by 2030 in a non-binding resolution…
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/1/16/carbon-markets/backloading-buoyancy-carbon-markets-year-sun
“FIXING” THE CAGW MARKET HAS NEVER BEEN A SECRET:
15 Jan: Bloomberg BNA: Ewa Krukowska/Mathew Carr Cost of Carbon Emissions Poised to Rise As EU Member States Advance Market Fix
More Reform Needed
“The proposal on backloading is an important signal that the EU wants a strong emissions trading market that can support the transition to a green economy,” Danish Climate Minister Martin Lidegaard wrote in an e-mail. “But the proposal will not itself save the EU’s platform for trading CO2 allowances. Therefore we need a road map for a more permanent structural reform and tightening.”
Even at 11 euros a ton, the price of carbon won’t be high enough to “substantially” cut emissions at factories and utilities, according to Patrick Hummel, a Zurich-based analyst at UBS AG. Carbon needs to be about 50 euros ($68) a ton to make gas-fired power as profitable as coal, he said in a telephone interview Jan. 7…
http://www.bna.com/cost-carbon-emissions-n17179881358/
13 Jan: Marketwatch: Businesswire Press Release: Green Bond Principles
Created to Help Issuers and Investors Deploy Capital for Green Projects
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/correcting-and-replacing-green-bond-principles-created-to-help-issuers-and-investors-deploy-capital-for-green-projects-2014-01-13-8159210?reflink=MW_news_stmp