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 hunch is that there is a back story about the board and the decisions they have made. That back story may flesh out the entire reason for a resignation.
I have resigned from positions due to ethical issues. It is never done lightly. But that is the way of public institutions. And if employed by such an entity on a voluntary or paid basis, professional ethics requires that a stand for principles must be made when a line is crossed or else we lead the world back into the dark ages.
I will say again that this current paper should have been in the form of a letter to the journal, not touted as research. The author will likely regret this particular piece of published opinion (sorry, just can’t bring myself to call it research) much like actors regret some roles they have played in the public arena of entertainment.
After reading both of Dr. Akasofu’s papers, I see the current one as a short update to the rather longer previous paper. Some folks complain about the lack of math but I believe that Dr. Akasofu is merely positing a falsifiable hypothesis, which is good science. It has been 4 years since he published the first paper which looked to be started several years before that. So an update would be appropriate. Observation and time trump models and math any day of the week; besides he is a Geophysicist and physics is not math but a mental discipline for explaining how the world works.
v/r,
David Riser
<blockquote<
Pamela Gray on September 9, 2013 at 4:21 pm
My hunch is that there is a back story about the board and the decisions they have made. That back story may flesh out the entire reason for a resignation.
I have resigned from positions due to ethical issues. It is never done lightly. But that is the way of public institutions. And if employed by such an entity on a voluntary or paid basis, professional ethics requires that a stand for principles must be made when a line is crossed or else we lead the world back into the dark ages.
I will say again that this current paper should have been in the form of a letter to the journal, not touted as research. The author will likely regret this particular piece of published opinion (sorry, just can’t bring myself to call it research) much like actors regret some roles they have played in the public arena of entertainment.
– – – – – – –
Pamela Gray,
Why the backhanded pejorative about Akasofu?
Simply address him directly. Personally, I suggest that would fit better with my long term image of Pamela Gray that I have of had here at WUWT.
It is in intellectual success that we are most challenged intellectually . . . and you have been successful.
John
I’ve never visited “Skeptical Science” before, and they list these “Most Used Climate Myths” on the left of the blog….
Climate’s changed before
It’s the sun
It’s not bad
There is no consensus
It’s cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn’t warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
======
From where I’m sitting, most of them seem to be true and verifiable. What are these folks smoking?
John Whitman says:
September 9, 2013 at 4:44 pm
Pamela Gray on September 9, 2013 at 4:21 pm said
My hunch is that there is a back story
Since this is new journal [volume 1, issue 1, page 4] I have a feeling that the Journal solicited the Akasofu paper. I often get such solicitations form new journals [I mostly turn them down as the journals are just fishing and the particular fish I might provide usual does not fit with the area the journal seeks to cover]. The paper was Received: 28 January 2012; in revised form: 15 April 2013. How would Akasofu back in Jan. 2012 even know about this new journal? And why the long time until April 2013? It looks to me, the journal was collecting solicited papers for a while.
ATheoK says:
September 9, 2013 at 12:19 pm
“To me it comes across as incredible hubris that the CAGW crowd not only expect to easily build a reliable and accurate computer model of earth’s atmosphere and then to push the models as proof of disaster.”
Yes. This is the root problem for someone like Mosher who is not an enviro-scammer and has not fallen ill from Noble Cause disease. His imagination always runs to the One Great Model of Earth’s Atmosphere. He cannot get his mind around the difficulties along the way.
I see nothing wrong with the paper. Basically the author rehashed something he wrote 4 or 5 years ago, and updated it to show that the prediction still matches observations.
without having to adjust the past.
– – – – – – –
CRS, DrPH,
They are on mind altering ‘a priori’ instead of mind altering chemicals.
John
Maybe Dr. Akasofu could submit his paper to a bunch of other journals. If enough climate priests step down, the journals might gain a better reputation.
– – – – – – –
Leif,
I see no reason to think this Akasofu paper is inconsistent with the scientific merits of his previous previous work.
So again I wonder at the pejorative implication by Pamela. I wonder at many things. : )
John
John Whitman says:
September 9, 2013 at 5:32 pm
I see no reason to think this Akasofu paper is inconsistent with the scientific merits of his previous work.
Neither do I, but I will agree with Pamela that the paper is a bit ‘thin’, but then, not much has happened since the last paper. It would have been nice if Akasofu had actually predicted the ‘pause’ in his previous paper. Did he? I don’t remember off hand.
Gail Combs says: September 9, 2013 at 3:10 pm
…
🙂 You have inadvertently made a very strong point !
Pamela Gray said:
“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.”
But see, that’s why they call it a “board”. It is a committee, and the majority rules. Leaving in a huff because the majority disagrees defeats the purpose of having a board in the first place.
Besides, what did he lose? Not much, if you ask me. He will be in with the ‘in crowd’; their petty hero du jour. He will probably generate a net gain out of his tantrum.
Now, if Brierly quit his paying job over his principles, I would be suitably impressed…
…but let’s get real.
I pity Brierley’s students. Any MSc theses that don’t toe the dogmatic line can expect harsh treatment and failing grades. A rational student who has not yet drunk the kool aid would be best advised to RUN and not walk from the program that he heads.
– – – – – – – –
Leif,
It seems to me a fat body of scientific work that is updated to a modern situation is just that, not ‘thin’. : )
John
There was talk about natural variation and the forbidden, yet real, 60 year cycle. Blasphemy! Of course he resigned.
On a serious note, I think there is another longer cycle as well, likely induced by the Sun. I wonder what he would have done if the Sun’s natural variation were included as well. He’d likely need counseling. Could you imagine the trauma?
John Whitman says:
“It would have been nice if Akasofu had actually predicted the ‘pause’ in his previous paper. Did he? I don’t remember off hand.”
It looks like he did, John. Check out the graph in the article.
John Whitman says:
September 9, 2013 at 6:27 pm
It seems to me a fat body of scientific work that is updated to a modern situation is just that, not ‘thin’. : )
I can only judge from my own standard. If I had written an update of previous work, I would not have been satisfied by just adding some numbers at the end. Rather, I would have used the opportunity to do further science, to do something with the extra data. A good example are the following two papers:
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
where the latter is the update of the former. The update discusses the new data in the context of work by other scientists, points out some discrepancies that have to be resolved, and suggests further research.
But, as Willis says, ‘that is just me’ 🙂
dbstealey says:
September 9, 2013 at 6:31 pm
It looks like he did, Leif [was my remark]. Check out the graph in the article.
A graph is one thing [leaving the interpretation to the eye of the beholder]. Much better would have been a statement like: ‘based on my whatever I predict a distinct pause or hiatus of the warming’. Did he?
He predicted a continuation of the pause. The pause was already showing up when he wrote his first paper. I did not say his premise lacks merit (rebound from the LIA with a natural oceanic/atmospheric oscillation weaving through it). It does. He just presented it very poorly in this work and provided no new research to expand on his initial paper. All he did folks was to re-configure his graph. Not worth a research article. In addition, Leif’s comment about timing may explain why he fails to mention recent research on the LIA in terms of causes.
wrote. Jeez Pam
[Fixed. -w.]
“Dr. Brierley cites computer models and insufficient evidence in the paper as his reason for rejecting Dr. Akasofu’s submission…”
That’s great in practice, but it’ll never work in theory!
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 9, 2013 at 6:42 pm
Much better would have been a statement like: ‘based on my whatever I predict a distinct pause or hiatus of the warming’. Did he?
Yes, he did [in 2010]: “it is predicted that the temperature change will be flat or in a slightly declining trend during the next 30 years or so”
Good for him.
Common theme here.
— If the climate doesn’t meet my personal expectations, then the climate is wrong.
— If the ballot results don’t meet my personal expectations, then democracy is wrong.
If only climate scientists could quit the climate in protest.
Ric Werme says, “Perhaps Brierley thinks Akasofu should be presenting a model that supports his interpretation. That might be nice, that could be a project far beyond the scope of this paper or even the papers the IPCC reports are drawn from.”
Actually, Akasofu does have a model. It’s T2 = T1 +/- 0.2 degrees per 50-60 years + 0.5 degrees per 100 years. Just because it’s not formalized in a computer output format doesn’t mean it’s not a model. Of course, just because the CAGW crowd has a model formalized into computer output format that doesn’t mean that their model has any validity or usefulness.