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
Pamela Gray says:
September 10, 2013 at 1:28 pm
Pamela, my thanks for the explanation.
First, I do not see that this thread is “specific to a paper and a critique”. Where he went to publish his reasons for resigning is hardly an insignificant detail in the story. If I were to have a beef about how I’ve been treated because of my race, and I published it in the Klu Klux Klan Times, how is that not a significant part of the story? Where he chose to publish it is totally indicative of his mindset.
Second, in terms of research design, he says he was upset because the paper didn’t meet his standards, viz:
I have very rarely seen such an “auto-critique” in any published science of any global warming advocate … so he is retroactively claiming a hurdle that no other papers have had to pass. How you find this reasonable escapes me.
To me, he’s just grabbed the nearest thing the paper didn’t do, and claimed he rejected the paper because it didn’t do that … and that sounds reasonable to you, when no other paper has had to meet that standard? Really?
Pamela, if that were truly his objection, then where are his protests against the same thing in dozens of other papers?
You think that you have “blandly and without emotional bias” analysed the paper. It must be nice to be able to see yourself so clearly. From this side of the screen, however, I must tell you that your analysis seems shallow, over-narrow, and one-sided, and you appear as his apologist.
Which comes as a shock to me, I must admit, as in other matters I’ve seen no sign of any of that.
w.
You need a paper to describe the obvious? I guess so.
My own analysis suggests that even using satellite era data (UAH), there is no linear trend at all, just the underlying sine wave. Using a longer term approach, we reach similar conclusions. UAH suggests minimum by 2034, the longer dataset indicates leveling off, min at 2028, then continuation of the recovery from LIA.
http://naturalclimate.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/uah-global-trend-and-cyclical-analysis-as-of-july-2012-zero-trend/
Willis, an auto-critique is just another term for stating the weaknesses in your methods and limitations of any potential applications. Good papers always include this section.
And once again, I am only critiquing this paper in this journal and the reasons for the reviewer’s resignation, which you must admit is also the focus of the posted article. Why ask me about other papers in other journals? That would be off topic for me. Why ask me about him running to the other blog? I don’t care. Not interested. For me, it has nothing to do with the paper or his review and resignation. Had he posted it here after running to confession I would be saying exactly what I have been saying. Nevertheless, be as disappointed as you wish over me not being interested in side issues.
I am just focused on the article as posted, which shines a light on this paper in this journal and on this reviewer’s resignation. Shines a light on this paper in this journal and on this reviewer’s resignation. Shines a light on this paper in this journal….etc.
However, if others wish to talk amongst themselves about Brierly running off somewhere, don’t let me stop you. What thread is not populated with issues that tickle the emotional fancy?
Pamela Gray:
In your post addressed to Willis at September 11, 2013 at 7:40 am you excuse your attempts to deflect the thread onto discussion of Akasofu’s paper and conclude
SAY WHAT!?
The perversion of the peer review process by the Team is revealed in the Climategate emails. The issue goes to the heart of what is wrong with so-called ‘climate science’. And it is toxic to the entire practice of all science.
Yes, I am “emotional” about it. I am bloody angry about it!
This thread is about Brierly resigning from an Editorial Board because he was not allowed to veto consideration of whether a paper should be published. And he then ran to an alarmist propaganda blog to publicise what he had done.
The subject of this thread is much, much more important than anybody’s opinion of any paper.
Richard
You do not need my permission (tain’t my blog) to talk about something that is on your mind besides the paper, its critique and how it led to the resignation. Feel free. Dissect Brierly’s choice of food if you want. What pushes his buttons his buttons if you prefer. What pushes your buttons about him (in this case your likely choice). If you want to focus on the well done report above, feel free.
While I am on that subject, it is refreshing to see a post about a newsworthy item that reports it without adding “feelings”. That is not to say I don’t occasionally enjoy watching knicker twisting in the comment section or even as the main theme of a post. But I will have to say that knicker twisting and panty bunching can get old.
Pamela Gray says:
September 11, 2013 at 7:40 am
Thanks, Pamela. I agree with you 100% that good papers always include that section … my point was that very, very few climate science papers include that section. If you wish to claim that they do, please provide some examples.
As a result, Brierly is holding up a bogus standard, one that other climate science papers have not had to meet before being published. See e.g. the Steig paper on warming in the Antarctic for one of literally dozens and dozens of examples of papers which contain nothing of the sort, but were published in Nature, Science, and other big-time journals. The Steig paper made the cover of Nature … where is Brierly’s strong protest against that? Where is Brierly’s complaint about the Hockeystick paper not containing such a section?
He has pulled out a criterion which has rarely been applied to other papers in the field, and which has absolutely not been applied on a regular basis. Please address that issue, rather than trying to deflect the question to some theoretical planet where “good” papers have an auto-critique. Like it or not, we need to deal with the world as it is, not as it is in theory.
w.
Apples and oranges. We are talking about this new journal that he was a member of. The roll-out of the first issue isn’t one I would want my name associated with either. The papers you bring up were published in other journals. So write a post about him reviewing those papers and being upset.
Pamela Gray says:
September 11, 2013 at 7:40 am
You can ignore all of the related issues you wish to ignore, Pamela, more power to you … however, that doesn’t make them “side issues” just because you appear to desperately wish they weren’t around. That’s just your excuse for not lifting your nose from the page and looking around at what the rest of the scientific world contains.
You seem to think that the paper exists in some kind of vacuum, where all that counts is the paper itself. I hate to break the ugly news to you, but here in the real world, there are more issues that you seem to wish to deal with, and they are important issues.
So yes, I see you refuse to grapple with them. Am I disappointed? No … just saddened at the needle-thin, trivial focus that you bring to the question, and by your pathetic attempts to keep from discussing the issues in the larger context of climate science in 2013.
In case you haven’t noticed, there’s a hell of a lot more going on than just science in this particular story …
w.
Pamela Gray says:
September 11, 2013 at 7:40 am
Hogwash. I have pointed out several times that Brierly is claiming a criterion which is rarely used in the field. You have not touched that issue, you’ve dodged it (most adeptly, I must add in all fairness) when I’ve brought it up.
So I’m not buying that you are focused on the issues you list. You are running from my questions about those very issues.
Now, you are free to do that, you can ignore issues whether they are important or not, it’s up to you.
However, you’re not free to claim that any other issues are “side issues” just because you want to run away from them.
w.
Pamela Gray says:
September 11, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Hey, I wouldn’t want my name associated with it either … so what? You still haven’t dealt with the issue of him bringing up a bogus criterion, one which isn’t used in the field, as his reason for resigning.
And no, saying “apples and oranges” is not an answer to my questions, it’s a red herring.
w.
So let’s compare another paper on the LIA from a different journal, different authors. This one does include at least some evidence of auto-critique (I would have preferred more) of possible causes for resulting data analysis as can be seen in the last sentence of section 12. The entire paper is also well-referenced and includes original and new research.
On the other hand, neither paper in this first issue of this journal reported in this post includes auto-critique and neither have a well-defined methodology section. In my opinion, the other paper in this issue is actually worse than Akasofus’. So let me reiterate. I would have said see ya as well. If the back story is one in which Brierly struggled to bring some definable standards to bare and was unsuccessful, (here quite evident based on the two papers in this first issue) it would seem obvious to me to move on to some other more fruitful entity.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL050168.pdf
“[12] The PDF peak defining abrupt LIA cooling 1275–1300 AD coincides with an interval of four large stratospheric sulfur loadings from explosive volcanism following a multi-centennial warm interval, during which complete revegetation of deglaciated sites would have fully reset the radiocarbon clock (Figure 2c). The PDF peak between 1430 and 1455 AD corresponds with a large eruption in 1452 AD, although the ages of the three largest 5-year bins appear to precede the eruption date. In contrast to the earlier 13th Century peak, the second PDF peak occurs at the end of a 150-year interval of variable but falling snowline (Figure 2c), raising the possibility that the PDF peak plausibly reflects a brief natural episode of summer cold that preceded the large 1452 AD eruption. Alternatively, the apparent lead of kill dates with respect to the 1452 eruption may be a consequence of combined measurement and calibration uncertainties.”
I would add, to be sure Willis, I find many, if not most, of the current group of climate papers to be not well done. But there are standouts.
Pamela, the part that is amazing to me is that climate science in 2013 is not just the papers. It’s the papers, and the claims about the papers, and how the claims are presented, and the politics surrounding and distorting the papers, and the “science-by-press-release” surrounding the papers, and the ridiculous claims of “certainty” and “settled science”, and a dozen other things.
You seem to be convinced that all that anyone should consider in this current question is just the papers and nothing else. Not the obvious idiocy of having a man as a peer reviewer who thinks that the Hockeystick is the last hundred years of temperature data. Not the issue of a man running off to justify his position on race by publishing it in the Ku Klux Klan Times. Not the fact that his claimed reason for resigning is a criterion which is almost never used in the field.
Now, you are free to take that kind of a narrow, circumscribed view of what’s going on here. If you want to crawl into your shell and go Na-na-na, can’t hear you whenever anyone mentions anything but the papers, saying that you won’t discuss anything but certain very circumscribed aspects of the question, that’s your privilege.
But as they used to say on the cattle ranch where I grew up, “You can piss on my boots … but you can’t convince me it’s raining”. The idea that climate science doesn’t contain anything but the papers, that nothing is worth discussing but exactly what was said in the papers, is ridiculous in 2013.
If we adopted your cockamamie criteria, for example, we could never discuss e.g. the Climategate emails. I mean, by your lights the emails are not the papers that the scientists wrote, so they’re not worth discussing … do you see how nonsensical your position is, that only the paper itself is worthy of discussion?
w.
Pamela Gray says:
September 11, 2013 at 1:44 pm
That seems a bit simplistic.
To begin with, if I had accepted the post, I wouldn’t have done so without some idea of what kind of journal it was going to be, and what the criteria might be. If the damn auto-critique is so important to Brierly, as he falsely claims, then it was his responsibility to put that out in front, before the first paper hit the deck.
So there’s already one strike against him.
Next, if I felt that a paper truly was without enough merit to be published, I would do what I could to convince the other reviewers of that. In my less-than-extensive experience, if one reviewer is very strongly against a paper, that is usually enough to at least require the author to deal with that reviewer’s issues.
Finally, if I were unable to convince the other reviewers of the merits of my position and the journal decided to publish it anyway, I might say “Thanks, but no thanks”, and resign, and quietly go on to other things. Why does such a thing require a public trumpeting?
But no way would I go running to an anti-scientific blog to claim that I was the noble upholder of the scientific torch. As I said, that’s like publishing a claim in the Ku Klux Klan Times that you’re not a racist … the very location where the claim is published makes it highly unlikely to be true.
More to the point, that’s just bullshit grandstanding, and trying to put a thumb in the eye of people who happen to disagree with you.
No one ever heard of Brierly before this, and deservedly so.
So obviously it was done to bring him personal notoriety, because clearly it has done nothing to change anything else but his name recognition. Unfortunately it backfired on him—his name is now recognized, but only as a person who, when they disagree with you, wants to make a public spectacle and try to do you as much harm as he possible can. I doubt if that was his conscious intention, but it is the outcome.
And who would ever want him on their Board now? He’s proven beyond a doubt that he’ll try to publicly screw you if you disagree with him. Who wants someone like that around? (And how is that not a topic worthy of discussion, as you keep claiming?)
So defend him all you wish, Pamela … but I don’t think your protests and claims are having the effect you might desire. Because like Brierly, I fear your protests and your defense of his actions are harming rather than helping your cause …
w.
Willis, for heaven’s sake, write a post about the climategate emails. Write a post about how you don’t like Brierly’s personality. Write a post about the other blog. Continue your discussion here about those topics. As for me, they just doesn’t matter to me when critiquing this paper or this journal or the stated reason for the resignation being low standards. That doesn’t mean you are wrong to have feelings that go beyond this focus. Go right ahead and have them. Steer the thread in that direction if you want to.
I’ve already said numerous times I don’t care about the emotional issues surrounding this post. Others might. Be my guest and converse with them. I just don’t have anything important to say about them and I won’t fall on the floor and call Brierly a poopy head just to please you or anybody else.
For the record, since the discussion is obviously wanting to veer away from its stated focus in the original post, enjoy. Make it an emotional rant. Vent all you want. Study whether or not Brierly is a jerk or had darker motives. It’s just not my cup of tea regarding the Akasofus paper, the much worse other paper in this issue, and whether or not Brierly should have resigned.
Pamela Gray:
This is an honest statement which I feel sure is shared by many others, so you may want to explain.
I completely fail to understand why you state – and promote – a desire to focus on trivia instead of the serious issues of this thread.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
September 11, 2013 at 2:47 pm
Pamela Gray:
This is an honest statement which I feel sure is shared by many others, so you may want to explain.
I completely fail to understand why you state – and promote – a desire to focus on trivia instead of the serious issues of this thread.
Richard
=====================
The writing style seems wrong for Pamela ?
I think it might be aliens.
Maybe just the Irish blood 🙂
Pamela Gray says:
September 11, 2013 at 2:34 pm
“Call Brierly a poopy head”? This is your idea of a discussion of the issues you might not find important?
Pamela, you keep trying to trivialize important aspects of the discussion by calling them “emotional issues” or “side issues”, and fantasizing people wanting you to call Brierly childish names. None of that intersects with reality anywhere.
I say again, the fact that you don’t find them important is a) unique to you in this thread, as near as I can see, and b) in my opinion, just a poor attempt to try to limit the discussion to what Pamela thinks is important.
If you don’t want to discuss them, fine … but all that means is Pamela doesn’t want to touch those issues. It doesn’t mean that they are unimportant, or “emotional”, or “side issues”.
The majority of the folks here are not so stuck to the science itself that they are blind to the host of other issues that constantly swirl around the field. If we followed your prescription, for example, we could never, ever discuss the Climategate emails—they are off-topic, emotional side issues on your planet …
You remember the things the horses used to wear so that they couldn’t see to the side but only look straight ahead?
Well, this may surprise you, but although you recommend them highly, many of us refuse to wear them … we are interested, not just in the science, but in the larger world into which that science fits. We care about the emails. We care about bogus polls showing 97 percent agreement. We care about scientists subverting the IPCC process.
Crazy, huh?
So please, lay off the “poopy head” nonsense, give up the claims that these are “emotional issues” or “side issues”. If you don’t want to discuss them, don’t … but your attempts to denigrate them are a pathetic joke. If you don’t like the discussion, then simply leave, but don’t keep trying to convince us that we should put on your blinkers … ’cause that’s not gonna happen.
w.
I leave found two references on the peer review process and standards that might spur the conversation back on topic. Willis has said that the review was not done well. Okay. Valid conversation. I found two articles on peer review that might shed light on that issue.
As Willis has said, “You still haven’t dealt with the issue of him bringing up a bogus criterion, one which isn’t used in the field, as his reason for resigning.” Others have said there were no standards so how could Dr. Brierly dare come up with the PhD. dissertation standards. Also a valid concern. I wonder how Dr. Brierly’s use of PhD standards compare to what is out in the field of manuscript submission. Maybe he was being lenient. Maybe he was being unreasonably harsh. What do you say? Was his critique so outside the guidelines that are publicly available that we can detect bias? As for the open way in which this paper was reviewed, Willis, research is a blood sport. These days review can be very public and with blunt language. Heck, you are one of the “bluntest”. If a researcher can’t stand the heat of open source review (and this journal touts itself as open source), get out of research.
http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/files/scienceeditor/v25n2p046-048.pdf
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CG4QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F47534219_How_to_review_a_manuscript%2Ffile%2F3deec51595f748fd0c.pdf&ei=ZvAwUozwHY3ligKL1YGICw&usg=AFQjCNGKVBfcwMlFH7pHctkdvmHGz9OBQw&sig2=dD6IF4Z_BHc72AewC-s1eg&bvm=bv.52109249,d.cGE
Willis, the climategate emails are very important. But to this topic? That is a stretch and I think quite a bit off-topic.
Okay then. It’s your subtopic. Public review of open sourced papers is becoming more and more common, and even championed at WUWT as far as I can tell. So that can’t be it. If the standards he used are not an issue, (and I actually think he used a lower standard compared to what was in the links I provided), then here is my next question. What has Brierly’s critique and resignation have to do with climategate? Is he one of the players mentioned in the emails sent between that sordid clique? Has he authored warming research that crumbles under scrutiny? Has he stolen stuff in Peter-fashion? Is he talking outside his area of expertise aka train engineer-style? Apparently inquiring minds want answers (or maybe a good tar and feathering).
Now I’m sure of it.
Statements have become questions.
Since critiquing a paper has been shown to me to be trivial, thank you so much for that education. I will join the free for all. More importantly, has he made a spliced graph of something without labels? Turned data upside down and forgot to mention it? Paled around with Al? Copied and pasted a Nobel prize on his door? Has Mann on speed dial? I don’t know. But I am sure someone is looking for dirt if dirt can be found. Cuz I got nothin on the poo…jerk. Better? Yes, I think jerk is much better than poopy head. So much more adult in tone.
Wow! What an educational benefit this thread has been! I am so much better able to discern good science from bad! I should really look into that electrical universe stuff too. I bet I missed something very important there. Afterall, those folks hate global warmers too so they must be right. Right? Am I using the correct metric here?
A word comes to mind from “Everybody Loves Raymond”.
“A” word, not I word. Typed too fast.
[Fixed. -w.]
u.k.(us), recognize me now? LOL!
Pamela Gray says:
September 11, 2013 at 6:14 pm
u.k.(us), recognize me now? LOL!
=============
I’m not sure, it was very impressive the way you went toe-to-toe with Willis above.
You might have out-wrote him, thus the attacks ?
Not that I know what the argument was about, other than children taking their toys home after losing the game.