Leif Svalgaard writes in comments:
We plan to submit tomorrow to JGR the following…
http://www.leif.org/research/IDV09.pdf (preprint)
…showing the run of the heliospheric magnetic field since 1835 [not a typo]. I plan to discuss the whole peer-review process here on WUWT, complete with nasty comments by the reviewers and our responses. This will be an illustration of the peer-review process as it unfolds. Should be interesting.
I’ll say. I’ve taken some of the most interesting graphics and put them up for WUWT readers, along with the abstract.
IDV09 and Heliospheric Magnetic field 1835-2009
Leif Svalgaard1 and Edward W. Cliver2
Stanford University, HEPL, Cedar Hall, Via Ortega, Stanford, CA 94305-4085
Space Vehicles Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-3010
Abstract.
We use recently acquired archival data to substantiate and extend the IDV index of long-term geomagnetic activity, particularly for years from 1872-1902 for which the initial version of the index (IDV05) was based on observations from very few stations. The new IDV series (IDV09) now includes the interval from 1835-2009, vs. 1872-2004 for IDV05. The HMF strength derived from IDV09 agrees closely with that based on IDV05 over the period of overlap. Comparison of the IDV09-based HMF strength with other recent reconstructions of solar wind B yields a strong consensus between the series based on geomagnetic data, but significant lack of support for a series based on the 10Be cosmic ray radionuclide.
The reconstructed data in the graphic below, from the paper, is quite interesting. Currently, we appear to be at the lowest point in the record.
Click for larger images.
Here’s the comparison with the Be10 isotope record:
Geoff Sharp (10:14:16) :
I cant believe the costs incurred by your last paper. This is not how science should work
Considering that the total cost in producing the paper in north of US$200,000, the publication cost is still but a minor portion. The real problem is that the journal then puts the paper behind a pay-wall [although AGU is more reasonable ($9) than most others (~~$35)]. THIS is not conducive to educating and informing the public, and is an abomination. There is a ‘pay-up-front’ option where the journal will remove the pay-wall, if the authors pay up-front an extra considerable sum – comparable to the page charges.
When we first wrote about ‘the doubling of the sun’s magnetic field’ six years ago, our letter to Nature was effectively rejected. You can follow the exchanges between us and referees here:
http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Doubling%20of%20Open%20Flux.pdf
In the end, Nature pulled a trick on us. There is a limit of 4 pages for a ‘Letter’. Nature suggested that we shorten the paper to a ‘short contribution’. This has a page limit of ONE page, and it is impossible to get our point across in such a short space, so we gave up. Our paper was eventually published in JGR four years later, after numerous revisions and rejections and resubmissions. During all of this Lockwood was a constant reviewer and consistently recommended rejection, until he saw the light in 2007 and admitted [with Rouillard] that the aa-index was wrong. He even tried to take credit for discovering this. From his latest 2009 paper: “Lockwood et al. (2009b) derived a corrected aa index, aac”, or from his 2007 paper: “the aa index has been corrected to allow for intercalibration errors [Lockwood et al., 2007]” without credit to us for pointing this out; something he strenuously opposed for several years. You see, personal behavior and failings can have important impact on scientific endeavor.
Don’t I know it. My research career was not short enough in my opinion. It was the most embittering experience I never want to repeat again. The only good thing that came out of the ordeal was that I learned, there can be found a researcher here or there who is worth a damn. Call me a quitter, but I didn’t want to stick around long enough to find out if I would be one of them. The environment was just too toxic.
Leif Svalgaard (10:58:50) :
Leif Svalgaard (13:11:01) :
During all of this Lockwood was a constant reviewer and consistently recommended rejection, until he saw the light in 2007 and admitted [with Rouillard] that the aa-index was wrong. He even tried to take credit for discovering this. From his latest 2009 paper: “Lockwood et al. (2009b) derived a corrected aa index, aac”, or from his 2007 paper: “the aa index has been corrected to allow for intercalibration errors [Lockwood et al., 2007]” without credit to us for pointing this out; something he strenuously opposed for several years. You see, personal behavior and failings can have important impact on scientific endeavor.
Your last two comments were disheartening there Leif.
Your earlier comment on the financial aspect.
First thoughts in my head, “Greedy *expletive* Capitalists.”
But this takes the cake.
Quote LS “We examined this carefully. Figure 4 of our “long” paper (that none of the participants were given)”…
Looks as though you were deliberately put off or prolonged. huh
Now that you are older and wiser, what do you feel his (Lockwood) motivation for doing this was?
Carla (16:25:47) :
Now that you are older and wiser, what do you feel his (Lockwood) motivation for doing this was?
Not much older, and not much wiser.
The behavior [by L] is just normal human reaction. I criticized something he was immensely proud of and my criticism might have had funding consequences, so his reaction was perhaps understandable. However, science corrects itself and wrong results are eventually buried and forgotten. Now, Lockwood deserves great credit for bringing this issue to the fore. Although I had remarked on this 20+ years before, my remarks had no effect then. The importance of a scientists work does not rest on him/her being right, but on how much other research it motivates and initiates, and Lockwood scores high on that.
Geoff Sharp (06:12:16) “I had trouble matching up the sunspot records on your graph, the peaks and troughs didnt seem to line up with the actual count….is there a reason?”
Sure – and I’ll reiterate that it is the phase (not amplitude) discrepancies which are most interesting (at this stage). [For example, you know there will be a discrepancy around 1800 – what will interest me is its shape relative to earlier & later phase-difference patterns.] As W.S. Cleveland points out, models are tools. (When someone calls me a “tool”, I don’t take it as a compliment.) My experience has been that Nature reveals further truth when we are patient. I don’t see it as a priority to investigate this further at this time, but if insight dawns upon me when I’m out for a walk on the mountain, I won’t resist it.
–
Geoff Sharp (06:12:16) “But whoever finally works out the 11 yr cycle will have bronze statues erected in their honor.”
Persecution is more likely if the timing of the announcement is off.
Continuing with the theme of incrementalism – and since this thread is about “review” – I invite you to review the draft I posted:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/DRAFT_VaughanPL2009CO_TPM_SSD_LNC.htm
– –
Pamela Gray (13:26:42) “The environment was just too toxic.”
I could quibble over the word “too”, but I otherwise agree wholeheartedly (wrt to my own experiences).
Leif Svalgaard (09:30:24) : “… but the publisher can now claim copyright because of the ‘creative’ work of making the paper readable by putting things together where they belong.”
And in a later post: “… without credit to us for pointing this out; something he strenuously opposed for several years. You see, personal behavior and failings can have important impact on scientific endeavor.”
Carla (16:25:47) uses the word: “disheartening” which goes some small way to encapsulating my feelings… but only a small way. Words like despair and anger follow. I am fighting resignation with some success, mostly because Leif has shown that rejecting that option has, in the end, the greater value; but it is a close call for me even at my very small end of the rainbow.
Roger Carr (20:08:15) :
I am fighting resignation with some success, mostly because Leif has shown that rejecting that option has, in the end, the greater value
The human condition applies to scientists and science too. Dealing with jerks is the same no matter what the situation is. It may take a lifetime to learn to do this gracefully.
Leif Svalgaard (15:49:18) :
(vukcevic)…….Perhaps I should just submit your writing to Ap.J. tonight and see what say about it.”
No, tanks a bunch.
vukcevic (02:58:12) :
No, thanks a bunch
It would give you much needed credibility…
Moving through the process:
Stage Start Date
Contacting Potential Reviewers 2009-10-12 11:20:11
Waiting for Reviewer Assignment 2009-10-08 13:38:40
Initial Quality Control Complete 2009-10-08 13:38:40
Initial Quality Control Started 2009-10-07 23:04:41
Author Approved Converted Files 2009-10-07 23:04:40
Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted 2009-10-07 21:59:05
Leif Svalgaard (12:48:46) :
It would give you much needed credibility…
As good as a jump from the Golden Gate bridge.
vukcevic (13:04:39) :
As good as a jump from the Golden Gate bridge.
I guess you are the closest judge of your own work…
Pardon me for slipping in just so I can check the “Notify me” box so I do not miss the next episode.
ditto
Leif Svalgaard (09:30:24) :
http://www.leif.org/research/IDV09-Submitted.pdf
It is made hard to read, by the requirement that the text and the Figures, and [most distractingly] the Figure captions be separated into different sections of the paper. This means that the reader does not see where the Figure goes in the text, and cannot interpret the Figure without having to hunt down its caption somewhere else. All in all, it is an enormous pain and extra burden on the reviewer, but the publisher can now claim copyright because of the ‘creative’ work of making the paper readable by putting things together where they belong.
Reading this and your other comment about paywalls and public access to knowledge, I’m firmly of the opinion that scientists should form a committee of agreement, and assert copyright over their own material, and publish it on a website for all to see. Then if the journals want to print it so they have something to put between the covers of their publications, they pay for the priviledge.
They have had a free ride for too long.
tallbloke (23:53:15) : “Reading this and your (Leif) other comment about paywalls and public access to knowledge, …
Wholly agree with this comment, but can see how it will take time to get the hard glue in this pot fluid again so it can be re-poured into the mold the 21st century will demand. The steps Shorty sets out in his comments sound like a good beginning.
An example of resistance to change has poked its head up these past few weeks. Books for e-readers which could be purchased over the web from anywhere are suddenly being locked into territories. This book cannot be purchased from Australia or this country or that. Turf wars… but I figure that in this, as in the scientific area noted above, the dinosaurs will, albeit reluctantly, finally retire into history.
tallbloke (23:53:15) :
scientists should […] publish it on a website for all to see.
I’m doing my bit…
Leif Svalgaard (08:39:17) : “I’m doing my bit…”
Thought about the fact that you already do publish on your own website as I was responding to tallbloke, Leif. I believe that your doing this demonstrates an understanding of the potential of the web; and the demands which will be increasingly made for scholarship to be open and available for comment, modification and expansion in something close to real time… a daunting thought in many ways, and sure to create its own unique problems, but, nevertheless, the way it will be.
Pre-publication of “Reconstructing The Heliospheric Magnetic Field Since 1835” here has demonstrated the capacity of the web to attract comment, tap the knowledge (and lack of knowledge) of others, and generally disseminate scholarship at a speed undreamed of until now.
Liberating for the open mind. Dangerous for the closed. Posing more questions… but, despite this, the way it will be short of shutting down the web.
On Tips & Notes… today, this theme is picked up in a comment by AnonyMoose (11:30:10) : Bloggers are reviewing peer-reviewed research for the Ardi fossil. Let’s see how quickly that science changes.
Or, put another way, the web is a disruptive technology.
“Christensen demonstrates how it is not unusual for a big corporation to dismiss the value of a disruptive technology because it does not reinforce current company goals, only to be blindsided as the technology matures, gains a larger audience and marketshare, and threatens the status quo.
Hello What’s Up With That,
I am sending a news release regarding Earth’s magnetic field that you can use on your blog. Please consider using it. You can find images on my website.
Dennis
CRAM SCHOOL
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Dennis Brooks
Phone: 1-808-566-0654
Email: dennisbroo@gmail.com
Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Produced By An External Dynamo System, Not An Internal Dynamo.
Researcher finds that Earth’s magnetic field is not produced by an internal dynamo. Nor is it produced by ocean current. The dynamo is outside the Planet! New findings by independent researcher, Dennis Brooks, show that Earth’s magnetic field and the planet itself are components of a complex dynamo system, which surrounds the planet. The planet and its magnetic field are part of the dynamo.
According to this new theory, no internal dynamo or ocean current helps in producing or maintaining the magnetic field because other planets with magnetic fields do not have ocean currents or iron cores.
Image by NASA
Each planet does not have a unique way of producing its magnetic field. The magnetic field of each planet is produced by a planetary dynamo system and its ring current.
For many years researchers thought that a similar dynamo system was within the planet and that this internal dynamo generated the magnetic field. However, we know now that it is too hot inside the planet to produce and maintain a magnetic field there.
The planetary dynamo system is composed of a magnetosphere, the planet, the magnetic field, radiation belts, ring current, and charged particles from the solar wind. The planet is the central component of the system and its rotation plays an important part in operating the dynamo and generating ring current. The magnetic field is generated by the system’s ring current, which is made up of charged particles. The magnetic field captures even more charged particles and brings them into the dynamo system as fuel. Everything works together.
Earth’s inner and outer core simply cannot provide the fuel a dynamo system needs. If earth’s dynamo had to depend on energy from the planet for fuel, the entire planet would have been completely consumed many years ago.
To learn more about Earth’s magnetic field, Visit
http://sites.google.com/site/earthsmagneticfield/
Dennis Brooks (10:56:35) :
because other planets with magnetic fields do not have ocean currents or iron cores.
It is correct that the oceans have nothing to do with it, but an iron core isn’t necessary. It is enough that there is circulation in metallic hydrogen, e.g. in Jupiter and Saturn, or just circulation is the conducting plasma as in the Sun.
However, we know now that it is too hot inside the planet to produce and maintain a magnetic field there.
It is the hot conditions and the enormous pressure that create the conductivity necessary to support the dynamo.
The magnetic field is generated by the system’s ring current, which is made up of charged particles.
These particles drift in the Earth’s magnetic field and are ultimately controlled by the Sun, but has nothing to do with maintaining the dynamo.
So, in all, your new theory is not viable. To be told that, is always a let-down [I know, because some of my ideas have also in the past been shut down], but continue your study of our cosmos and derive joy from learning about this wondrous place.