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
In keeping with the predictions of Dr. Syun Akasofu the latest RSS data has come in at .167 for August, down from .222. The pause marches on …
Maybe Brierley could do the British taxpayers a favour and go the whole hog – resign his bullsh!t academic position and get a real job (if there are any).
Revenge is a dish best served cold. I have heard that many times. I believe the PDO will serve cold over the next several years. Will Dr. Chris Brierly view future with cool dispassionate logic or see his resignation as a really really bad decision. Will his beliefs be modelled by true believers or science.
Who can predict the weather?
Manniac says 5:24 am
“Nobody expects the East Anglian Inquisition”
Got to love it. And the three weapons of which four are named — love that Monty Python skit.
Eugene WR Gallun
Hmmmm, I read a version of this paper several years ago. Its nice to see it updated with some more recent references and see that the model is performing exactly as predicted several years ago.
By contrast the fingerprinting of global warming put on the world stage in 2000 has not been updated. Instead there are those who would prefer to consider it as the established science and instead while away time criticizing all challengers. That ignores the fact that the strongest response would be updating the fingerprinting exercise. But we know thats not going to work as observations are supporting the old assumptions. The supporters of the statistical fingerprinting exercise are in disarray searching for answers for model failure.
Yep that’s something to resign over for sure, when you dare not answer the bell for the next round.
Instead just grab your crotch and scream foul.
Leif,
Right as usual. That’s why I never argue with you.
~ D.B.S.
Tony the Bastard says:
September 9, 2013 at 5:09 am
Heresy – burn him at the stake!
😀
As you will. My interest is honest science, regardless of factional allegiance. If Akasofu’s work is deserving of indictment, that deserves to be explored as much so as the Team’s misdeeds.
Tho I didn’t quite expect the initial text I submitted to be accepted as final product. It was accurate a descriptive, but briefer and more clipped than a for-publication article should be.
Oops. Like many, you have it b-ackwards. That would be the falsification; the Null is that the warming can be explained by natural variation, and is the “default” hypothesis, to which one falls back when none other can do a better job.
typo falsification
[Fixed. -w.]
Pamela Gray says:
September 9, 2013 at 6:46 pm
That sounds like a slight backtrack to me? Do you still feel you would have to resign over such relatively minor considerations?
I certainly don’t think such reasoning is a valid ’cause’ for resignation ! On the contrary, it suggests that a responsible board member would want to stay around to try to improve the future situation?
just my view
Brian H says:
September 10, 2013 at 12:11 am
That’s what I meant.
Let’s face it, Dr Brierley probably resigned as a statement because he couldn’t be seen on the board of a journal that allows heretical dissenting views, the ‘scientific brotherhood’ and his SkS mates wouldn’t like it.
No, who can blame him not wanting to face the “East Anglian Inquisition” as @Manniac aptly called it!
In ‘Brethren Brother and sister’ parlance it’s called “taking one for the team”.
I read Dr. Chris Brierly’s explanations and am familiar with the workings of editorial boards. Dr. Chris Brierly makes unsubstantiated scientific claims and states as facts a number of hypotheses in order to support his case. In short, Dr. Chris Brierly behaves as if the “rules” he claims to uphold apply to others but not to him. Thus he demonstrates he isn’t qualified to do the work and, to his credit, he has quit. Good riddance. The journal, prospective authors, and the readership have benefited immensely from Dr. Chris Brierly actions.
So I went to Brierly’s page at the UCL … it contains links to his work on various things, listed as “(more)” below:
The hilarious part is that not one of the links goes anywhere, they just leave you on the same page. However, there is an active link to Dr. Brierly’s summary of the NERC Challenge. It’s even funnier. Check out this inanity:
Ummm … Dr. B. … that’s actually NOT what is called the “Hockey Stick”, and if you don’t know that, go sit in the back of the class.
I gotta say, the fact that this clueless clown was specifically selected to review climate papers explains a lot to me about how ludicrously bad papers pass through the peer review filter …
Here’s more of his pathetic prose:
There is no “established set of climate monitoring principles”, that’s one of the problems in the field. And the blather continues:
Right … no uncertainty at all regarding whether GHGs are the secret control knob for the climate. And then there’s this howler:
The politically-driven conclusions of the IPCC are the “best evidence” of the consensus? Umm … Dr. Brierly, if that’s your “best evidence”, there’s bad news … let me close with this inane claim from the good Doctor:
Man, that’s precious. IPCC reports reflect the controversy? What planet is this joker inhabiting where that has ever been true? The ruthless suppression of contrary views is one of the IPCC’s greatest failings, and this dweeb claims that it is one of their good points?
And he wants to bust Dr. Akasufo for bad science?
Thank goodness he resigned, is all I can say … now he just has one more post from which to resign, and the job is done.
w.
Tsk, tsk, even Brierley’s grammar needs upgrading. Quoted by: Willis Eschenbach says:
September 10, 2013 at 3:36 am:
“…The lack of complete understanding about some aspects of the climate system does not mean that there is uncertainty in whether there will be increase in global temperature caused by greenhouse gases.”
This should properly read: The complete lack of understanding about some aspects…..
Honestly, the problem here is that someone who resigns over their scientific integrity shouldn’t then go to a blog that’s responsible for the 97% lie (yes, lie) and the medicalization of dissent paper from Lew.
Brierly is clearly a hypocrite.
As such he is of feeble persuasiveness – of course he was ignored on the editorial board. They will know he as he has not bothered to be subtle about his inconsistency even when he is resigning.
He is clearly inept.
But good… I refer to what ferd berple says at September 9, 2013 at 7:14 am
As Queen sang, “duh, duh, duh. Another on bites the dust.”
And I an inept also. Spot where the missing “is” should be in my last post.
I miss the preview function.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 10, 2013 at 3:36 am
Sigh, once upon a time I thought one of the most important parts of the hockey stick was that it showed no Medieval Warm Period. Apparently I didn’t read the X-axis closely enough. 🙂
(I eventually figured out I was right about the MWP, it’s one of the simpler signs that the Hockey Stick Graph is wrong.)
Okay, I wasn’t going to bother reading the paper being content to comment on Brierley’s resignation and his unwitting list of things actually wrong with CAGW science. Akasofu’s ‘work’ was a little too light a reading for a scientific paper that purports to negate the 30 year hype science of CAGW. Even rationalizing that it is an update. I believe he missed an opportunity to make the update compelling with updated analysis and increased probability of the supremacy of natural variation – it is the big thing weighing on the despairing hearts of the CAGW crowd and is the motive for all the new hysterical pronouncements of high certainty of man-made blah blah blah from IPCC and supporters. The mediocrity of this dusted off and half-hearted repeat just offers grist for the wounded warriors to vent and, yes, resign – the resignation essentially eclipsing Akasofu’s show. This is no time for laziness and complacence. If you have something compelling to say, say it forcefully. If not, wait until you do have. Maybe another year or two if the red dot continued on its downward path would have been timely for an update.
I also see that UAH is out with their August numbers at .158. ‘The pause’ that refreshes …
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 10, 2013 at 3:36 am
Thanks for doing the homework that I should have done. You are correct, Sir. This fellow painted himself into an Alarmist corner and is quite happy there.
Gary Pearse:
Your post at September 10, 2013 at 6:31 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/#comment-1413238
provides a novel take on this affair.
You say
Of course the paper was too “light” to “negate the 30 year hype science of CAGW” but nobody claims it “purports” to do that. Your suggestion is a ‘straw man’.
And you say
But if the papers “mediocrity” is so clear then there is no reason for anyone to do anything that is “essentially eclipsing Akasofu’s show”. If the paper is merely a mediocre ” dusted off and half-hearted repeat” then it could not make a “show” to be eclipsed.
Then you conclude saying
So, according to you, scientific work needs to be said “forcefully” and certainly not reported now.
I offer some advice.
When attempting damage limitation it is best not to make yourself look stupid.
Richard
Richard, are you saying the paper is a worthy review of research conducted by the author? Or are you saying that it wasn’t worth resigning over due to it being accepting for publication?
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217
With respect to Syun Akasofu’s work as an auroral scientist and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, I have issues with his original paper as well.
In reply to:
“..Dr. Brierley presents as an extreme abuse of the scientific method…”
William:
Abuse of the ‘scientific method’? This statement must be climate speak. In climate speak words have a different meaning.
There has been 16 years of no warming. There is observational evidence of the start of cooling, certainly no evidence to support the start of warming.
Brierley’s paper correctly notes the planet cooled for some reason to cause the Little Ice Age and then warmed for some reason. The Little Ice Age cooling and the initial Little Ice Age warming were not due to a change in atmospheric CO2 levels. A unknown significant forcing mechanism caused the LIA cooling and initial warming.
Brierley’s paper considers the obvious alternative hypothesis (as opposed to the warmists’ mantra which is that any warming and all extreme weather events are due to the increase in atmospheric CO2) which is that the majority of the warming in the last 100 years was due to something else besides the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Climate science is the only field of science where people resign in moral outrage on the pretense of defending the scientific method to stop the scientific method. As we have read the climategate emails it is obvious that there is a hard core group of warmists activists poising as climate scientists
.http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become
politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns….
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and
reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of
Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).