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
Judge them by their actions…
Nuff said.
Dr. Syun Akasofu’s paper is basically a summation of existing data. The combine existing dots into a recognizable trail/image and consider the implications. His graphics look rational and his statements don’t leave one floundering with “Where the $ell did he get proof for that concept from” questions. I was half expecting to see the chart extended back to the last maximum ice extent of glacier advance, but that is dreaming as the data Dr. Akasofu presents is not sourced the same as estimated data from paleo and geological sources. Splicing disparate data sources would not be appropriate.
Brierley? Whatever his rational for ‘resigning’ it bodes ill for the CAGW cause as his rant indicates insult to faith, not failure to perform science. As the AGW false rhetoric is spurned by ever greater legions of the public, there will fewer and fewer chances for such an anti science attitude to block not only genuine research papers from being published, but also from blocking or flunking students with open minds, solid intellect and scientific insight.
It does leave one wondering if B’s picture is part of the photo shop merged sks self abuse pics. If so this would identify Brierley as a confirmed sks member. Brierley’s inclusion in climategate emails would indicate similar membership with the acolytes of AGW doom and climate model worship.
As usual, the most interesting learning is done within the comments section. Being a skeptic is lucrative ?
RockyRoad says:
September 9, 2013 at 7:21 am
Does anybody here believe warming from the LIA with or without warming from anthropogenic CO2 can continue indefinitely?
===========
no, but it is possible it is part of a Bond cycle or similar, with a cycle length of 1-2 thousand years. The modern warming being similar to the medieval warming, the roman warming, the minoan warming, etc.
As such, the warming from the LIA is unlikely to continue indefinitely, but on the scale of human lifetimes it will appear to continue indefinitely.
human arrogance and ignorance tends to see all natural events as being caused by human activities. somehow we must have upset the gods and they are seeking to punish us through storms, flood, plagues, etc.
AGW is no different than the human sacrifices of old. Rather than the high priest, it is the taxman that wields the blade.
I think he stepped out of science with his childish behaviour.
He should also leave University College and make space for a real scientist.
The editors of ‘Climate Research’ resign over the Soon and Baliunas paper.
The editor-in-Chief of ‘Remote Sensing’ resigns over the Spencer and Braswell paper.
Now the editor of ‘Climate’ resigns over this paper by Syun Akasofu.
To refresh memories of the climategate emails: “In response to an article challenging global warming published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to “rid themselves of this troublesome editor – hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II’s knights”.
To which, Michael Mann replies: “I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” (from Real Clear Politics article published 11/24/2009)
Phil Jones email to Michael Mann: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report…Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is”
The first two papers have withstood the test of time (and I suspect this one likely will as well).
“Redefine the peer review literature” has come to mean ‘reject good research at all costs and publish only the garbage’.
There is nothing wrong with using a simple explanation that posits the opposite of consensus. If elegantly done, it holds weight. However, this was not elegantly done and detracts greatly from the reasonable hypothesis.
Had I been on the committee I would have sent him back to his room for more work on a paper that rode on the back of somebody else’s work just so he could make his own pretty graph. Actually I would have denied publication period. Horrible paper and as far as I can tell, there was no research done at all. I could go on and on about how bad this paper really is folks. I will be more specific as I read it more closely. But it won’t be pretty.
Let me get this straight here. The paper has not been reviewed yet, nor accepted for publication, but only accepted for review? And still this guy has very publicly resigned?
I don’t usually resort to this kind of insult in blog posts, but this guy is a jerk!
This is worse than most of the stuff in the Climategate emails about keeping things out publication. It is just appalling that a supposed academic would make such a public demonstration of their closed mind. I have reviewed crappy papers in the past (and given them a crappy review), but to jump out and do this prior to any review has to be the most crass behaviour I have witnessed in a supposed academic.
First the abstract.
1. He uses the term “suggested”. Weasel word. Is it or is it not a hypothesis? Use the word “posited” instead.
2. So what did you do [crickets chirping..slight breeze…rustle of leaves….more crickets…..a few bird sounds…………more crickets…………………..]?
3. Finally if you refer to a cause in the abstract, explain it thoroughly in your paper [crickets chirping..slight breeze…rustle of leaves….more crickets…..a few bird sounds…………more crickets…………………..].
Yuck and gag
In the ageless tradition of the samurai, Dr. Brierly has committed seppuku on his own career, choosing to die with honor now rather than wait until his Warlord has been defeated and be taken prisoner, to be executed in shame.
I did a calculation a few weeks ago that averaged HadSST3 for 5 years at the beginning of the last 60 PDO cycle and the end. The difference was .30C. When this is averaged over those 60 years you get a trend of .05C/decade. Yup, exactly what this paper shows.
It is almost the same as Dr. Curry’s computation of .28C for the full 60 year cycle.
Now, what has caused this trend and whether it will continue are debatable. However, The trend itself is a very simple calculation. Since my own personal belief is the likely cause is a simple regression to the mean based on solar energy content over the last 300+ years, it is unlikely this will continue in the straight line presented. Especially if the predictions of another Maunder Minimum come to pass.
It appears to have been published. I would have resigned as well.
From Brierley’s research page:
“I then performed a climate change experiment with CO2 increasing by 1% per year with the ensemble.”
Very telling that he refers to fiddling with a computer model as an EXPERIMENT. What is wrong with these people that they canot understand the difference between GIGO and an actual experiment and then go calling other people out for being unscientific? Brutal projection. Self Snip.
see more of his research here:
http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/about-the-department/people/academics/chris-brierley/dr-chris-brierley/#Hurricanes
Pamela Gray:
re your post at September 9, 2013 at 7:41 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/#comment-1412236
With respect, you have completely missed the point.
It is not relevant whether or not the paper is any good. Brierly resigned in complaint before it was considered.
As Rob Potter says at September 9, 2013 at 7:47 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/#comment-1412243
And for an explanation of why this matters please see my post at September 9, 2013 at 7:18 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/#comment-1412211
Richard
Tea cup, storm and an editor who goes directly to Cook’s kitchen… That’s not a good sign for the good doctor Brierly. As for the paper, not much either way.
Here is a very good paper that includes actual research on the Little Ice Age. Note the well developed sections. My critique stands. The current paper is a poor representation of peer reviewed work. There is scant evidence of research in this paper compared to most published work. Maybe a letter would have been better suited for what is essentially an improved graph published in a previous article.
http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-465.pdf
Richard, it appears to have been published. I am thinking the resignation occurred because the journal board voted to accept and review for the purpose of publishing it. I see why this editorial board member quit, who had obviously voted no. Yes one must read submitted work, but then decide if it is worth reviewing. I would have said it is not worth reviewing and would have been shocked that a journal board voted to go ahead anyway with such a weakly argued piece of work. I would sit on a board with higher standards. Obviously this board does not have very high standards.
Note that the University guidelines for a 90% research paper, which Brierly ostensibly reveres, i.e. “Excellent presentation with impeccable referencing and bibliography” appear to have been met by Asasofu; nowhere in his critique http://www.skepticalscience.com/brierly-resignation-climate-akasofu.html#commenthead does Brierly fault them. So much cannot be said for the numerous keystone works of the science he endorses, which have never provided their data or algorithms.
Well today I really like the contributions of Gary Pearse, Robert of Ottawa and C Monckton. Pamela Gray writes it for me: There is nothing wrong with using a simple explanation of something.
I had a (late) friend who taught mathematics to technical college students who did not know their Times Tables. He did so in such a manner that they were able to pass and get their diplomas to fix cars or whatever. It was an extreme teaching challenge. He had the ability to make simple explanations of things that had theretofore been opaque and impossible for those students.
I found Monckton’s tabletop experiment looking at for the Hot Spot to be similarly simple, brilliantly conceived and very effective in communicating the discovery of a ‘null’ as we call them in HAM radio. My mother VE3HUG called them ‘nothings’ and wondered why we spent time looking for them, delighted when they clearly manifested, as it were.
Sometimes when there is nothing to report other scientists get quite angry. Strange. In the case of this paper (above) there is ‘something’ to report and the Party Line has been ‘nothing’ to date, i.e. natural variation was ‘nothing’ to CO2’s ‘something’ so kicking the chair out from under CO2 means doing the same to alarmist AGW theory. How inconvenient.
Editors of journals who are not interested in the role of evidence (data) should not be there in the first place. Thankfully some understand and depart gracefully. Well, somewhat gracefully. That he is welcomed at SkS is further evidence (data) about birds of a feather.
“Despite my suspecting the paper’s conclusion about natural variability contributing to the hiatus to be true, I do not feel the evidence provided in the paper comes close to justifying it.” If that’s how he feels then he acted appropriately for himself. I have no problems with that.
“”””””……LastDemocrat says:
September 9, 2013 at 6:30 am
Regarding double-helix: I don’t think there was a prevailing hegemonic consensus on structure of DNA to be overturned…….””””””
Nor did they deem it necessary to give any credit to the woman whose X-ray crystallography showed it to be double helix; either in the paper or at the time of their Nobel..
I have read the current paper as well as the author’s previous one. I have also read Dr. Brierley’s critique. I agree entirely with it with the understanding that I lean towards natural variability intrinsic to our planet’s highly variable weather system parameters. This paper should have never seen the light of day. If the author truly is a respected researcher in polar auroras, he should be ashamed of this tangent into researching the causes of large scale weather pattern variation.
Which they more than likely stole from her. In this day and age, a criminal offense.
Bill you have got to be kidding. It does not meet the Phd 90% criteria. Not even close.
Pamela Gray:
Thankyou for your post at September 9, 2013 at 8:22 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/#comment-1412281
which replies to my post at September 9, 2013 at 8:06 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/#comment-1412272
that said to you and explained
I quote your response to that in full so others can know what I am answering without need to find it.
Sorry, but I do not agree.
If such a decision were reached then I would acknowledge that my judgement may be in error in this case (please note that I am a member of the Editorial Board of a journal). I would ask that my disagreement with the other Board Members should be recorded and then leave it at that.
Any other decision would be a demand that I had a right of veto on what could be published in the journal. Only the Editor has that right.
However, if my judgement were to tend to be ‘better than the average’ over time then my views on a submitted paper would gain credibility with other members of the Editorial Board so would be likely to affect their ‘votes’. And I can gain knowledge of my perceived judgement because Special Editions may be published when members of the Editorial Board may be appointed as Guest Editors for conduct of their publication. A person whose judgement is questionable would not be trusted to be a Guest Editor. (I have been appointed as a Guest Editor for two Special Editions.)
Brierly resigned upon suggestion that the paper be considered. That act demonstrates his arrogant belief in his own judgement makes him unfit to be a member of an Editorial Board. And the opinions of you, me or anybody else about the worth of that paper do not – and cannot affect that.
Richard