Editorial board member pissed off over a paper on “the pause”
Story submitted by WUWT reader Duane Oldsen
WUWT readers may remember Dr. Syun Akasofu as the source of a graph tracking the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation with sine wave shifts in global temperature up and down. 
Dr. Akasofu’s recent submission to the first issue of the new journal “Climate,” a submission in this same vein of analysis, provoked one of the journal’s editorial board to resign in protest.
Dr. Asasofu’s submission was entitled “On the present halting of global warming,” and Dr. Chris Brierley of University College London declared the work to be of such insufficient quality for publication that his resignation in protest was requisite.
Dr. Brierley cites computer models and insufficient evidence in the paper as his reason for rejecting Dr. Akasofu’s submission to ‘Climate’ and thus provoking his resignation from the journal’s editorial board, despite crediting Dr. Akasofu’s hypothesis as valid and reputation as “deserved.”
Dr. Brierley specifically cites a lack of testing of Dr. Akasofu’s assertions in the submitted paper, which Dr. Brierley presents as an extreme abuse of the scientific method.
Dr. Brierley lists extensive critiques of the quality (i.e. lack thereof) of Dr. Akasofu’s work in the submitted paper. If accurate, this would be an effective indictment of Dr. Akasofu’s previous work as well. So both Dr. Akasofu’s source article and Dr. Brierley’s critique deserve attention.
===============================================================
Here is the paper:
On the Present Halting of Global Warming
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA
Received: 28 January 2013; in revised form: 15 April 2013 / Accepted: 15 April 2013 / Published: 3 May 2013
Download PDF Full-Text [810 KB, uploaded 3 May 2013 14:45 CEST]
Abstract:
The rise in global average temperature over the last century has halted since roughly the year 2000, despite the fact that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere is still increasing. It is suggested here that this interruption has been caused by the suspension of the near linear (+ 0.5 °C/100 years or 0.05 °C/10 years) temperature increase over the last two centuries, due to recovery from the Little Ice Age, by a superposed multi-decadal oscillation of a 0.2 °C amplitude and a 50~60 year period, which reached its positive peak in about the year 2000—a halting similar to those that occurred around 1880 and 1940. Because both the near linear change and the multi-decadal oscillation are likely to be natural changes (the recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) and an oscillation related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), respectively), they must be carefully subtracted from temperature data before estimating the effects of CO2
My thoughts on the first paper
1. His first paper was an attempt to, “…synthesize results from a great variety of subjects for the purpose of examining the recent climate change.” It was not original research. At best it is a reasoned opinion of climate change based on the work of others, but nothing more. And I find the reasons wholly lacking in mechanism, not that they don’t exist.
2. He clearly posits a solar connection and states that variable irradiance is a possible driver without quantifying its potential to drive Earth’s temperature up or down in measurable ways, thus calling into question whether or not it is plausible.
Likewise:
3. His multidecadal calculation is unexamined in terms of hind casting and therefore calls into question its validity as well as reliability in terms of predictive power. Besides, given all the variables around the multi-decadal oscillation and its short term data base, the hypothesis does not meet the substantial f factor in terms of research error in such a proposal.
Willis Eschenbach says:….
ROTFLMAO Brierly would die of an apoplectic fit if he ever read that.
Gary Pearse says: @ur momisugly September 10, 2013 at 6:31 am
…..Maybe another year or two if the red dot continued on its downward path would have been timely for an update.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think he wanted it out now because the IPCC report is due shortly and The 19th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC and the 9th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol will take place from 11 to 22 November. The conference will be held at the National Stadium in Warsaw, Poland.
Pamela Gray:
At September 10, 2013 at 7:53 am you ask me
I am not saying, implying or suggesting – and I have not said, implied, or suggested – either of the statements in your questions.
At September 9, 2013 at 8:50 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/#comment-1412319
I said and explained to you
I STAND BY THAT.
I have also objected to spurious assertions about the paper. They deflect from the subject of the thread.
Whether or not the was worthy of publication is a matter of judgement. Personally, if I had been asked to peer review it then I would have suggested it be rejected for publication unless additional information were included. But so what? My (or your) opinion of the paper is not relevant to this discussion.
Richard
I am still in agreement with Dr. Brierly. This paper should not have appeared in its current form. At best it belongs in a letter. I wouldn’t even include it in a book on climate change as it is opinion without demonstrated plausibility. I wonder if this work appears because of this author’s obvious expertise and respected research ability in other areas. If that is the case, it is a warning to others who would also seek to rest on their own laurels. If you attempt to speak publicly and implicitly show yourself as an expert on matters outside your recognized area of expertise, tread very, very carefully.
A critique of the papers is entirely germane to this thread. It illuminates the reasons why a board member might resign. And I will say again that my experience of resignations does not usually come with one incident but comes as a result of a pattern of behavior that is in substantial disagreement between the two parties. Could it be that this is just the straw that broke the camel’s back? What other papers were included in this issue and what are they like?
And Richard I am being quite unemotionally reasonable in this debate. Please do likewise. I do have my moments, but this is not one of them.
Pamela Gray:
re your post at September 10, 2013 at 9:05 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/#comment-1413367
It is clear you do not ‘get it’.
The subject of this thread is NOT your opinion and/or the opinion of Brierly about Akasofu’s paper.
This thread is about Brierly going off in a ‘hissy fit’ because he was not allowed to veto consideration of a paper for publication. By that act he demonstrated his unfitness as a member of an Editorial Board.
Indeed, it may be suspected that Brierly’s resignation encouraged the remaining members of the Board to publish the paper. They had decided it be considered and they would be averse to implying their decision lacked merit following Brierly’s ‘taking his ball home’.
Also, and contrary to your implication, the only beneficiary of this is Akasofu. Few would have heard of his paper if Brierly had not resigned.
Richard
Just read the other article (there were only two plus the editorial in this first issue).
http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/1/12
I would have resigned based on the accepted design of the other article!
Rigorous this journal is not!
Richard, I question that bringing attention to his paper is beneficial to him. And I question whether or not a “hissy fit” was engaged in. I find Dr. Brierly’s post well reasoned and unemotional.
As was mentioned by Richard M, RSS went down to 0.167 last month. As a result, the pause on RSS is now 202 months from November 1996. Furthermore, there is a rise to 2005 and a drop since then so his sine curve is still holding up and we are on the down slope now as shown here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.8/plot/rss/from:1996.8/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend
Pamela Gray:
In your post at September 10, 2013 at 9:44 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/#comment-1413409
you say to me
Clearly, we disagree on the meaning of “well reasoned”.
Greg Goodman quotes Brierly’s post and provides a cogent demolition of that “well reasoned and unemotional” nonsense. His quotation and analysis are at September 9, 2013 at 7:30 am and this is a link to it to aid anybody who wants to read it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/#comment-1412226
Richard
Reading Mr. Goodman’s comment is a good idea. I will leave it up to the readers here to determine whether or not it is a cogent demolition. It would not be my opinion. It is certainly a negative opinion but I don’t think it rises to a cogent demolition of Dr. Brierly’s critique of the paper which forms at least part of his reason for resigning. Indeed, I find that Dr. Brierly’s list of concerns are very close to those types of concerns we all need to bring to bare when reading published research.
I would love to read his critique of the other paper in this first volume, especially the methods section. And whether or not the results of this particular piece of social science research can be independently verified.
Pamela Gray says:
September 10, 2013 at 9:44 am
Richard, I question that bringing attention to his paper is beneficial to him. And I question whether or not a “hissy fit” was engaged in. I find Dr. Brierly’s post well reasoned and unemotional.
——————————————————–
I find it very much the pot calling the kettle black considering what regularly gets published in climate science.. Indeed the paper in my thought process, being mainly based on observations, is light years ahead of the many model based papers in climate science, (which continue despite those models being spectacularly far from observations). both those related to attribution affects, and those related to primary climate cause. I see this paper as not trying to point out deep advances in climate understanding, but as a general support of the null. As such, why nothing special, it points to a growing disconnect between the many CAGW papers claiming CO2 as the primary driver. .
It is useful to this thread to include here the postdoctoral dissertation standards quoted by Dr. Brierly, standards I am quite familiar with as well.
“Originality displayed in construction of main research aims and questions and interpretation of evidence presented. Impressive critical ability and deep understanding of subject area. Substantial original fieldwork or other independent research. High ability in the application of appropriate research techniques and critical commentary on research design and methodology. Extensive reading and thorough understanding of literature consulted. Logical, coherent structure and clear, cogent and persuasive writing style. Excellent presentation with impeccable referencing and bibliography. No or only very minor errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.”
These are the standards used in his critique. A broadly accepted set of standards (in one form or another) used by a doctoral committee when presenting your dissertation, which I did at the Masters level (I did not reach the greater than 90% standard, but I did reach the greater than 80% standard). He goes on to present his critique within each standard. A well-reasoned, cogent, critique.
Pamela Gray says:
September 10, 2013 at 10:42 am
Thanks, Pamela. Those standards may indeed be applied at the PhD level. However, you and Dr. Brierly are claiming that they are also the relevant standards used by the journals … and if you truly believe that, you’re not reading the same journals that the rest of us read.
If we were to fail the journal papers that didn’t pass that standard, we’d see maybe two papers on climate science per year.
So while you may be right about those standards regarding PhD work (although inter alia Michael Mann’s PhD makes that seem highly unlikely), calling on them only when it suits Dr. Brierly’s fancy, and ignoring them completely for most climate science papers, is something you need to discuss as well. Without including that gaping hole, your objection is woefully incomplete.
It also makes Brierly’s critique neither “well-reasoned” nor “cogent”, but that’s another question. In any case, the guy thinks that the climate of the last 100 years is called “the Hockey Stick” … cogent? I don’t think so, regarding the climate he’s barely conscious.
w.
My dear wandering, wondering Willis, I also would place the other paper included in the first issue of a new on-line journal in the rejected bin. Though not targeted on climate trend cause/effect, it was equally ill defined in terms of the standards Brierly used. Which is why I read it and briefly commented above on it. I am color blind when it comes to good research. I don’t care which side of the fence it is on. And yes, I agree with you that much of what passes through to publication is …awful.
Good question about the standards.
The editorial included in the opening issue states that
“…quantifying uncertainty and separating the anthropogenic and natural climate signals are important. The challenges of climate impacts and the large range of climate scales require the development of new methods to use unconventional data (e.g. satellite remote sensing) for climate-model evaluation and/or improvement or climate analysis, as well as new statistical methods for analysis of climatology. Climate will publish special issues dedicated to various aspects of the climate. Several special issues are already planned that will help define Climate. The breadth of the expertise of the members serving on the editorial board guarantees the assignment of expert reviewers and hence high quality articles. All articles are subject to a rigorous peer-review process before published online. The editorial board and production office strive to achieve the shortest possible turnaround. This pledge, and the fact that Climate is an open access journal, allow quick access to the newest findings in climate sciences to a wide readership and will help humankind to face the challenges of, and adapt to, climate changes. The editorial board, production office and I foresee that Climate will become a first-class, go-to journal for multidisciplinary climate research worldwide that advances the understanding of climate and helps facing climate challenges for the better of the world. We are looking forward to receiving your contributions.”
I am assuming, from the overall characterization of how they want to build a reputation, they are looking for “first-class, go-to” volumes to build such a “first-class, go-to” journal. Okay fine. What is already out there that attempts to quantify “first-class” research presentations. Brierly used just such a well-known standard, as he should have done. His critique appears to be based on a valid and reliable scale. Which begs the question, what did the other reviewers use? A few lower standards come to mind.
Willis, I would agree that Brierly missed the mark about the hockey stick. It is Mann’s faulty deletion of the Medieval Warming Period that makes it a hockey “stick”, not the rise at the end. That does not negate the reasoned method Brierly used to critique the Akasofus paper.
But our disagreements here still don’t tell the whole story. In my opinion, this first issue, in its entirety, of a “first-class, go-to” journal wannabe is decidedly less than that. On all counts, not just this one paper, I wouldn’t want to be on the board either. The opening bell rang, the gates are down, but this horse is still standing in its starting chute…and no amount of spurring or whipping is going to get that horse to budge.
Pamela Gray:
At September 10, 2013 at 12:33 pm you say to Willis,
NO! Either you have not read what Brierly wrote or you are as ignorant of the subject as Brierly who wrote
The Hockey Stick pertains to proxy reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the last millenium or last 400 years.
The recent increase in global mean temperature pertains to the determinations of global temperature since ~1880.
They are different subjects.
Richard
Pamela Gray says:
September 10, 2013 at 12:33 pm
That is not “missing the mark”, Pamela. That is not understanding even the very fundamentals of the subject under discussion. Why are you being his apologist?
I agree with that. And the real joke is that they would choose Brierly, whose views on climate are beyond ludicrous, as I showed above, as an “expert” reviewer.
Also, I said to start with that the Akasufo paper was very weak.
However, running off to SkS, which is the most anti-scientific blog I can think of, to whinge and wimper about how people are not following scientific protocol?
Sorry, that’s not a “reasoned method”. That’s a sick joke, it’s the action of a spoiled egotistical child trying to justify his actions. He disagreed with the others, and despite that he thought his view should carry the day. Would you want such a clueless infant on the board?
So no, I’m not defending the journal, nor Akasufo, nor Brierly. They all came out looking very poorly … however, your spirited defense of Brierly’s running to the most anti-scientific of media to whimper about bad science has made me seriously reconsider my judgement of your judgement.
Even if he had a decent point in his presentation, the mere fact that he went to SkS to foist it on the public speaks volumes … at least to those of us who are listening. He’s trying to parlay his personal choice to resign into a public issue, and has ended up looking like an idiot to many of us.
You really sure you want to defend that kind of behavior? Because it has cost him heavily. Many people who otherwise would never have heard of him now know he’s a jerk … is that the “reasoned method” you speak of above?
w.
While I would hardly call it spirited, I reiterate my straightforward opinion of Brierly’s critique. It is my focused opinion, nothing more. I do not use his political or otherwise affiliations, nor his appearance at the “other” blog, to color my opinion of his critique of this paper and his decision to resign from a journal board.
Your warning falls on deaf “ears” when it comes to this particular thread, which is specific to a paper and a critique. Why? I don’t care if he ran to the Vatican or the john. The body of his critique publicly posted rang true for me in terms of research design and write-up of this particular paper. As to your warning, It costs me nothing, indeed it cannot, to blandly and without emotional bias, determine the strength or weakness of an argument, be it made by the devil or Jesus.
Am I this unbiased all the time? Hardly. Am I this bland all the time? A redhead? Riffing about witches dying due to causing climate change is an example and when the mood strikes me, I will sometimes gallop off into the sunset laughing my a** off. This is not one of those delicious moments. So I guess it could be said that I can be mercurial.
Richard, my understanding is that the hockey stick, Mannian style, is a poorly labeled spliced combination of long term proxy and short term temperature sensor data, with the selection of proxy data highly suspect. However, it’s been a while since that topic graced this blog so please correct me if I am wrong. I do agree with you that it is most definitely not a 100 year graph, but also that the “stick” part is relatively flat because of his selective use of treemometer proxies going way past 100 years. Brierly should know that graph forwards and backwards. Poor choice of words on his part and poor reference to the blade as the defining feature.
See. I can also critique Brierly. It’s all good. Or in this case, some of it is bad and some of it is good. On both sides of the fence. But in this particular case, the critique appears more reasonable to me than the design of the paper submitted by Akasofus.
Pamela Gray:
re your post addressed to me at September 10, 2013 at 1:40 pm.
Yeeah, whatever.
But I am astonished that you still fail to understand the issue under discussion and you somehow think it involves the quality (be it good or bad) of Akasofu’s paper: it doesn’t.
Richard
Richard,
I quote from the article posted above titled: “Syun Akasofus Work Provokes Journal Resignation” is written about the apparent primary circumstances (though I still suspect a back story of some degree) surrounding the resignation:
“Dr. Brierley [sic] lists extensive critiques of the quality (i.e. lack thereof) of Dr. Akasofu’s work in the submitted paper. If accurate, this would be an effective indictment of Dr. Akasofu’s previous work as well. So both Dr. Akasofu’s source article and Dr. Brierley’s critique deserve attention.”
I could be wrong, but it appears to me that the article encourages focus on both the paper, the source paper, and the critique. I believe I have adhered to that suggestion. It matters little to me where or how the critique was published, and in fact that little bit of information was not disclosed in the post.
Perhaps it is you who is off course?
Pamela Gray:
re your post addressed to me at September 10, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Yeeah, whatever.
Richard