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
Here is an alternative to the Syun Akasofu’s graph applied to the much longer CET data records
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm
Ya Pamela.
i would have resigned as well. The paper actually doesnt do any calculations. It assembles a series a charts from various sources and makes vague remarks about similarity.. “its generally perceived that we’ve warmed by 1C.” and other vague notions. there isnt a single test performed defending the choice of a linear model.
there is no trend in the data. no linear trend. data dont have trends. The data is the data. It doesnt “have” a trend. We dont observe trends. What we do is we HYPOTHESIZE that the underlying process is Linear. ( for example)
And then we fit this MODEL to the data and if the fit is good we say.. Assuming we are right about the underlying process being linear, the trend is X. We cant ever get away from this assumption about the underlying data generating process. But we do need to test our assumptions. This paper doesnt.
However, we do know one thing. We know the underlying process for the evolution of the climate cannot be linear, plugging in extreme values for x ( time) should show most folks why it cant be linear.
Untangling how much of the warming since the LIA is due to natural forcing ( changes in TSI, GCR) and how much is due to Anthropogenic forcing ( C02, methane, black carbon, land use changes, CFCs ) and how much is due to internal variations ( PDO, AMO, etc) and how much is due to random shocks (volcanoes ) and how much is due to changes in observation techniques ( UHI etc ) would be an extremely complex problem If you had MULTIPLE identical earths
where each of these variables were varied in a controlled manner. But we dont have that.
We dont have the data which would make this an extremely complicated problem.
We have one earth. We have one time series. And we have a giant parameter space, a giant list of factors that can drive the temperature one way for the other. in short, an empirical approach– just look at the data– is going to be vastly underdetermined. That means given a single short time series, given a plethora of possible causes, some only vaguely measured, an empirical approach–deduce the data generating process from the outputs- is guarranteed to give multiple conflicting answers. Many theories will explain the data because there is little data and a huge parameter space. put another way an empirical approach is bound to give us answers we like, depending on our ‘likes”. An empirical approach is an invitation to confirmation bias.
A controlled experiment approach is also out of the question. we cant vary the parameters in a controlled fashion– hey you, hold the sun constant while I vary land use so we can untangle them.. or you, you hold black carbon constant while I vary C02. we are doing an uncontrolled experiment on the planet.
That leaves one path for understanding the time series: build a physics model. Not pretty, and as the pause has shown, not entirely accurate.
Folks, gain a little perspective.
There is still a vigorous open marketplace for scientific ideas (inspite of the IPCC centric CG1 & CG2 ‘team’s’ effort to disable it). So, in that context, we get journal editors in hissy fit huffs of indignity resigning because they think some noble scientific ideal has been defiled. That is just an example of the normal process of freedom that everyone exercises every year of our lives.
So it is just another resignation.
What is the meaning in the Brierley resignation? It is only this. He wants to take his marbles and go home because the other kids don’t agree with his rules. And he thinks his marbles and rules should be allowed to restrict what gets presented in the open marketplace for scientific ideas. Yawn.
Even if you agree with Brierley, it doesn’t make those disagreeing with him any less meritorious participants in the open marketplace for scientific ideas .
Syun Akasofu, congratulations on your uniquely styled paper. Please keep contributing to the wonderfully vigorous and open marketplace for scientific ideas.
John
What is that magic “recovery from the Little Ice Age”? Is that a given and needs no explanation?
Pamela Gray says:
September 9, 2013 at 8:16 am
It may be that volcanic spasms always precede cold periods in the paleoclimate record, but I don’t think that observation is in evidence. What then accounts for the other cold periods in the Holocene before the LIA? The 8200 event is pretty well explained, IMO, but subsequent ones look at least quasi-cyclical to me:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01287656565a970c-pi
Chris Schoneveld says:
September 9, 2013 at 9:17 am
The recovery isn’t magic. It’s an observation.
Scientific journals are not arbiters of science.
It does not matter what their editor’s assessments are.
It does not take a journal to have the open marketplace of scientific ideas.
Just like it does not take MSM outlets to achieve a free marketplace of speech.
John
george e. smith says:
September 9, 2013 at 8:42 am
Franklin might well have been awarded the 1962 Physiology or Medicine Nobel instead of Wilkins, but tragically she died young in 1958. The Nobel doesn’t allow posthumous Prizes, & three recipients is the limit, in this case, Crick, Watson & Wilkins. That said, Watson did slight her contribution in his memoir.
Rob Potter says:
September 9, 2013 at 7:47 am
Yeah. My guess is that he got into a dispute with a reviewer or another member of the editorial board and it became heated or he is trying to rally the AGW troops. The latter is really unlikely for an academic.
There is nothing here worth fighting over. But the Alarmists might pick up Brierley’s fight and charge the cannons.
@ur momisugly Barry Woods 9th Sept 2013.
Thanks for the link. Read it. Full of the usual SkS straw men.
I agree with Mosh’s take on the paper (waits for lightning to strike me down! sry Mosh!) But to resign over his stated criticism and then write a letter at Cook’s site is such a massive disconnect!
Does Brierley not know anything about Cook and his “abuse of the scientific method?” It’s impossible to ascribe motives, but ignoring Cook’s academic shenanigans while talking about a poor paper published by his journal seems like crybaby showboating of the highest order.
Why the selective outrage Dr Brierley?
Following Richard Courtneys remarks about Sonja B-C, while the warmists have whined about their inability to communicate, in one area their communicating has had excellent results for them , in trashing the reputation of Sonja and E&E. Still, every moment of ‘the pause’ vindicates her and every other sceptic. Her reputation will recover as time passes, and her stand will be seen to have been not far short of heroic
Barry Woods says: “Dr Chris ran all the way to Skeptical Science…. to explain why he resigned…”
Maybe he can be on their editorial staff–among kindred spirits.
Mosher writes:
“Untangling how much of the warming since the LIA is due to natural forcing ( changes in TSI, GCR) and how much is due to Anthropogenic forcing ( C02, methane, black carbon, land use changes, CFCs ) and how much is due to internal variations ( PDO, AMO, etc) and how much is due to random shocks (volcanoes ) and how much is due to changes in observation techniques ( UHI etc ) would be an extremely complex problem…”
Is an “internal variation” such as the AMO treated differently than a “natural forcing” such as TSI or GCR? Why is that? My guess at your reasoning is that TSI and GCR fall within the “radiation-only” theory so beloved of Alarmists and the AMO, PDO, ENSO, and similar natural regularities do not.
“If you had MULTIPLE identical earths
where each of these variables were varied in a controlled manner. But we dont have that.”
If you must believe this atrocious fallacy, please do not advertise that fact. You do not have to have a second Earth to do climate change experiments. Svensmark does not have a second Cosmos yet he is doing cosmic ray experiments that could be the poster child for Scientific Method.
“We dont have the data which would make this an extremely complicated problem.
We have one earth. We have one time series.”
There has never been a genuine science that rests on time series analysis and there never will be. You might be doing something valuable in the realm of “Decision Making Under Uncertainty” but you are not doing science.
“And we have a giant parameter space, a giant list of factors that can drive the temperature one way for the other. in short, an empirical approach– just look at the data– is going to be vastly underdetermined.”
Again, if you are committed to this view of Empiricism, do not advertise it. David Hume, the best theorist of Empiricism, addressed the question “Can we make valid inferences from experience?” Notice that his topic includes the data and inferences from the data to physical hypotheses. Since his time, no serious thinker has held that Empiricism is restricted to the data alone. What makes Empiricism distinctive, and this is true of Scientific Method too, is that all hypotheses and theories must answer to the data through their predictions. David Hume cut metaphysics out of science. Metaphysics does not have to answer to the data, just like climate models.
Again: “And we have a giant parameter space, a giant list of factors that can drive the temperature one way for the other.”
Your science is not focused by a set of rigorously formulated hypotheses. Use Svensmark as your guide. Break down this giant list of factors into sublists that can be handled by more focused hypotheses. First thing is create a science of cloud behavior. Second thing is create a science of natural regularities in the ocean, a science of the AMO and similar natural regularities. That’s enough for now.
Thanks, Dr. Akasofu.
I have published the abstract from your paper in my climate pages (English and Spanish).
Theo Goodwin says:
September 9, 2013 at 9:50 am
There was never any rational basis for jumping to the CACA conclusion, & the situation has only gotten worse since 1988.
Warmunistas have never falsified the null hypothesis, ie that warming since c. 1945 (to the extent that it has genuinely been observed) cannot be explained by natural variation. Mann’s Hockey Stick was a blatantly bogus attempt belatedly to do so.
milodonharlani says:
September 9, 2013 at 9:19 am
“The recovery isn’t magic. It’s an observation.”
The “magic’ doesn’t question the observation, it refers to the fact that it needs an explanation. If Akasofu has an explanation for the small wiggles (the multidecadal oscillations) that are superposed on the linear warming trend – which is the more prominent feature- wouldn’t you at least expect him to explain the cause of the “recovery. A solar effect (which Leif will be strongly denied by Leif) or what?
Further, he projects the linear trend to continue until the end of this century. If you have no model for explaining the linear “recovery” what is his justification for assuming the trend will continue. He could just as well assume that the “recovery” has come to an end, for he has no clue what drives that magic recovery. The word recovery also implies that there is a preferred state in climate to which it will go back to. This is all to fuzzy for me.
Pamela Gray says:
September 9, 2013 at 7:41 am
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.
I agree that there is not much meat on Akasofu’s paper [but he is hardly unique is that respect – e.g. think Scafetta]. The Journal is free to publish what it sees fit. If too many bad or bland papers are published, the journal is hurt, so the process is self-limiting to an extent. Akasofu is a respected and good space/auroral physicist [full disclosure: I know him well, both personally and professionally – he rejected as a referee the very first paper I was trying to publish, but has since apologized].
Chris Schoneveld says:
September 9, 2013 at 10:03 am
A solar effect (which Leif will be strongly denied by Leif)
You have this wrong. I do not ‘deny’ anything, just comment that I’m not impressed by the meager ‘evidence’ presented as Gospel truth. Big difference.
reminds me of this little ditty (again).
I would love to see the warmers continue to resign in protest…..
I am a little confused as to Pamela Gray’s indignation at the ‘quality’ of this paper, and further by Mosher’s explanation at how bad it is with lack of calculation (paraphrasing).
I think, and of course, this is just speculation – that because the paper merely states the bleedin’ obvious – i.e. an explanation based on human brain analysis, and further is given in a fairly easy graphical manner (that most layfolk could grasp), – this is anachronistic to the normal climate science presentation!
The LIA is an accepted ‘event’ and it is also accepted that this period was an anomalously cool period. Therefore, logically, we have to accept that global temps must ‘rise’ as a recovery (back to normal) from this event….anyone who cannot grasp that is simply not worth talking too.
The paper merely illustrates that the underlying trend for this ‘recovery’ can be drawn and seen in the observed temperature data, and can also be seen even with/under the overlying of the ocean cycles. What is wrong with that?
What is worse, for the warmista, is that this also realistically confirms that the temp rise is unrelated to CO2 !!
Frankly, I think it is because it is so simple – that is perhaps considered by Brierley to be too dangerous to the ‘movement’, LOL (recall the Monty Python – worlds funniest joke sketch!)
No, I agree this is NOT new work per se, but it is a good description and presentation of an easy to grasp concept.
I( missed Lord Monckton’s comment above where he said: “The race is now on between the onset of the next el Nino, which will cause a transient resumption of the mild warming trend since 1750”.
He apparently assumes that the “warming trend since 1750” (i.e. not the multidecadal oscillations but Akasofu’s magic linear trend) is an El Nino effect and that is not what Akasofu is saying.
Ok Leif, I should have not used that charged word “deny”, but you know what I mean. You don’t see the evidence hence you don’t buy it as yet.