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.
@Shevva
I think that all papers should be treated equally, regardless of their political implications. I edit Energy Economics. You’re welcome to check the journal for political bias: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30413/description
You forgot option e) The editor shall resign.
I think the findings are interesting but not iron clad.
Indur Goklany recently had an article here that claimed that mortality rates from natural disasters had gone down on a global scale. Which maybe can be interpreted as better coping mechanisms due to more wealth or better government policy. I would be surprised if this does not also affect economic damage in a similar way. For example better quality buildings that are more resistant to tropical storm damage. Better flood control systems that reduce the effect on agriculture also come to mind.
Quantifying the contribution of each effect looks impossible to me.
I am not even sure monetary measures of impacts make sense on a world wide basis given the disparities in economies. For example a flood in one area might have little effect measured in dollars but it has a big effect since if leads to starvation.
So an objective measure of global cyclone impact looks like something worth having. However Tamino has just plotted the FEMA statistics and they show an upward trend for disasters in the USA. So it looks like there is some ways to go to resolve the contradictions.
TedK says:
September 27, 2011 at 3:12 am
Well said. Reviewers are helpful, serious people. They do not reject a paper without explaining what in the paper requires major revision. Editors are reviewers too and are always polite to their reviewers and authors. The treatment that Pielke received can only be called “high handed.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 27, 2011 at 5:51 am
Leif’s post is very helpful. Journals run this way. However, Pielke’s circumstances are not identical to Leif’s.
This is a little frustrating to me. I understand GRL used to have meaning and carried weight. It doesn’t any longer.
@ur momisugly Dr. Roger Pielke Jr……… please stop submitting to journals that publish political advocacy. It only feeds their inflated image of themselves and convinces them they have legitimacy. They do not, and any paper published in the journal must be viewed in such a light as to discern the taint of GRL’s biases.
In this particular instance, if you feel it necessary to establish common knowledge in a journal of some sorts, submit it to a economic journal, where I think it would belong to begin with.
Kindest regards and my best advice for those seeking to enhance man’s knowledge.
James Sexton
Roger Pielke Jr. says:
September 27, 2011 at 6:18 am
Leif (September 27, 2011 at 5:51 am), The process that you describe is much easier to engage in when your editor actually responds to your emails
He actually didn’t. I just resubmitted the same day and it went through the 2nd review with no further ado.
I am not sure why Roger Jr. can’t see what “major” revision is necessary. It’s quite simple. Run the data through an “adjustment” algorythm to show there is an exponential increase in frequency and intensity at the end of the 20th century (hockey stick) and Voila! Publication guaranteed and full protection from ever having to show your work.
Steve from rockwood says:
September 27, 2011 at 6:22 am
At what point in history was GRL run by a group of virgins dedicated to the advancement of science? And can someone point me in the direction of a journal that does not have it’s own internal mandate?
=========================================================
Then, don’t you think our scientists, and editors and reviewers (allegedly some the world’s greatest minds) would have the intellectual honesty to state as such? This has gotten to point of lunacy. Publish or perish? But forced to publish in some misanthropic journal or another? What ever…… we need to quit lending these organizations credence.
Richard Tol comments at Pielke’s blog:
“There are all sorts of reasons why the editor did not reply. For all we know, he may on a field trip in hospital, or working on a proposal.”
Nope, sorry, this does not wash. You do not offer an excuse for the editor but suggest that the editor is above excuses, that the editor has no duties in this matter, and is something like a god whose whims must be accepted. Surely, I do not have to explain that such a position is utter nonsense.
Most editors of high quality journals would have rejected a paper with such reviews. You can only accept so many papers and when many others have two clearly positive reviews you aren’t going to accept one with such tepid reviews.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 27, 2011 at 6:41 am
Leif, it looks to me that reviewer #2 went to bat for your paper, something that is not uncommon. Let’s not attribute to the GRL process the particular accidents that you encountered while navigating that process.
Theo Goodwin says:
September 27, 2011 at 6:30 am
Reviewers are helpful, serious people.
I’m a reviewer too [as are all of my colleagues]. Our work is done without compensation and often without credit. Authors often take a well-written review as a personal insult [Einstein once did]. Of course, the process is not perfect, but like Democracy the best we have got. It could be improved by publishing the reviews as well. For rejected papers, the authors can put them on their personal websites [which most have by now] together with the rejection letter and reviews. This works reasonably well and will tend to keep everybody honest. Half of my papers are rejected and the rest are always improved by going through the review process.
Ken Hall says:
September 27, 2011 at 2:35 am
1 More people live in the areas prone to flooding because they tend to be desirable riverside/sea side locatioons.
At one time farmers built their houses on the hillside and farmed the river bottom. The logic in this was self evident. Then over time as cities expanded this farmland was sold for housing and it became “fashionable” to have waterfront.
200 years ago people had the common sense to understand that waterfront property is at best “temporary” land. They would have told you in plain language it was a mistake to build there because of the risk of flooding. Now we actually have folks suggesting we de-industrialize the economy to try and protect stupid decisions to build in flood prone areas.
I have no problem with people building in flood plains, so long as we are not asked to help pay for their foolishness. However, when the floods come, as they will, the damage is somehow “man made” because we drive cars and we are all expected to pay. Well it is man made for sure, but it has nothing to do with CO2 and driving cars. The damage results from a decision to build in areas prone to flooding, rather than on the hillside above the flood line.
Leif Svaalgard (September 27, 2011 at 6:41 am) … thanks for that, we actually needed to hear back from the editor because he cited a need for major revisions but gave us no clue as to what they were (the reviewer ranks also suggests no need for major revisions — 1B and 3A). So we asked … and you see the rest of the story.
bwanajohn says:
September 27, 2011 at 6:42 am
I am not sure why Roger Jr. can’t see what “major” revision is necessary. It’s quite simple. Run the data through an “adjustment” algorythm to show there is an exponential increase in frequency and intensity at the end of the 20th century (hockey stick) and Voila! Publication guaranteed and full protection from ever having to show your work.
================
This formula has been shown to be 80% effective in getting published, while trying to publish articles contrary to the consensus is only 20% effective. The reason is simple, there is a risk in publishing something outside of mainstream beliefs, which the publishers don’t want to take.
Could anyone advise me. I’m thinking of submitting a paper to GRL, which do you think is more appropriate:
“A homogeneous database of corruption in the publication of global warming papers.”
or
“Towards a homogeneous database of corruption in the publication of global warming papers.“?
Review 2 is not negative, he recommended publication. He had serious about overstatements, but recommended publication. That is positive. You are wrong to suggest otherwise.
Overselling a paper or a claim is a common enough problem that it gets caught, corrected, and resubmitted without rejection. Rejection is (generally) an axe reserved for incomplete or improper analysis. In fact, when peer-review worked well, its best function was to catch the overselling of a result. Your issue here completely side-steps the problem where the both editors failed to address the simple question of, “What major revisions should i make to re-submit?” The behavior of both editors is quite bizarre in context with your implication that GRL was asking for Pielke to re-submit when there was no clarification given as to what major revisions were required for re-submittal. Their responses were cryptic and not helpful, yet you suggest that if Pielke had just made (as yet unknown) major changes and re-submitted all would be well. What confidence would you ever have that your next paper would be treated fairly when the editors responses are so useless for such an endeavor?
Also, if that exchange between Pielke and the editors is what qualifies as “picking a fight”, then I would imagine a tank battles use spring-loaded nerf weapons.
Fred Berple
I wish I could have a pound for every person who has expressed amazement at being flooded despite living in such locations as ‘flood lane’ and ‘tides reach’ 🙂
I don’t think people are as aware of their natural emvironment as they once were and expect that ‘they’ will sort things out if things go wrong. Which is not to say that I dont have every sympathy for people that have been flooded, just that we are increasingly putting ourselves into vulnerable situations..
tonyb
This situation reminds me very much of an experience I had several years ago trying to get a custom home design approved by an architectural review board in Reno. After submitting the first time the review came back a month later “unapproved”. No reason why and no hint at what I needed to do to get the plans approved. Was it a shutter location or two or did they want a single story home instead of a 2 story. No idea… and they weren’t responding to my letters or phone calls.
I re-submitted a couple times after that but to no avail and still with no feedback. After consulting with an architect familiar with that review board I learned that the problem was probably not my design but that I hadn’t used the architect who was buddies with the members of the board. I subsequently sold the lot rather than play that game. I commend Dr. Pielke for going to another journal rather than put up with their non-responsiveness.
The good news is that sometimes things work out for the best. The market subsequently crashed and I’d have lost hundreds of thousands had the review board worked with me. Life works in mysterious ways…
I currently have a courtesy subscription to Nature Climate Change. Every single article I have read contains a gross overselling of confidence in the results presented. Hansen’s writings provide the canonical examples of overselling a claim.
I propose a new definition for the following word-
hyperclimatism- overselling, overhyping or exaggerating the impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on weather extremes and climate.
Scottish Sceptic, skip the ‘towards’. Think Climategate emails.
Wasn’t Jones refering to GLR when he said:
“Kevin (Trenberth) and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ” ?
LazyTeenager says:
“Indur Goklany recently had an article here that claimed that mortality rates from natural disasters had gone down on a global scale. Which maybe can be interpreted as better coping mechanisms due to more wealth or better government policy. I would be surprised if this does not also affect economic damage in a similar way. For example better quality buildings that are more resistant to tropical storm damage. Better flood control systems that reduce the effect on agriculture also come to mind.”
More than offsetting those factors is the fact that the quantifying of global casualties missed a large portion of the world’s affected population in the past. As Lazy says: “Quantifying the contribution of each effect looks impossible to me.” So it’s at least a wash. Lazy continues:
“…a flood in one area might have little effect measured in dollars but it has a big effect since if leads to starvation.” Obviously, economics isn’t Lazy’s strong point. Finally, Lazy opines:
“…Tamino has just plotted the FEMA statistics and they show an upward trend for disasters in the USA. So it looks like there is some ways to go to resolve the contradictions.” The only contradiction is between FEMA’s self-serving bogus statistics and the real world in which, as Dr Goklany says, mortality rates are declining. It’s only the reporting of natural disasters that has gotten more accurate.
As for the ignorant Tamino… Pf-f-f-ft.
I’ve read through the exchange at RP’s blog and here and think I understand RP’s position. See: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/09/gatekeeping-at-grl-you-be-judge.html?showComment=1317131365111#c3404949375883628626
The 3A rating from reviewer #2 is contradictory with any claim that reviewer #2’s remarks suggest “major revision.” GRL fails to explain this inconsistency after repeated requests for clarification.