The 'planetary tidal influence on climate' fiasco: strong armed science tactics are overkill, due process would work better

Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut - an example of overkill

Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut – an example of overkill

UPDATE: 1/19/14 2;30 PM PST

There is an update to this post here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/19/the-copernicus-prp-fiasco-predictable-and-preventable/

Comments on this thread are now closed, continue there. – Anthony

While a journal is forced to self destruct by external pressure from “team climate science”, history and a new paper show us why due process would have been the right way to approach the issue. The phrase “using a sledgehammer to crack a nut” comes to mind.

This story by Jo Nova is making the rounds today:

Science paper doubts IPCC, so whole journal gets terminated!

While the shutdown of the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics that published a special edition on planetary tidal influence on climate is likely a bit of overkill, rebuttals would have been the right way to handle it rather than the Climategate style strong-arm gang tactics exhibited against journal editors as seen here from James Annan:

Kudos to Copernicus for the rapid and decisive way in which they dealt with this problem. The problems at the journal were was first brought to my attention by ThingsBreak just last night, I emailed various people to express my concerns and the journal (which was already under close scrutiny by the publisher) was closed down within 24h.

…I will say that some of the papers in that special journal edition really aren’t any better than curve fitting exercises. That said, I think they are entitled to the due process afforded any peer reviewed science publication. Certainly, we’ve seen some ridiculous examples of “team science” that should have never been published, such as RealClimate co-founder Eric Steig’s overhyped claim to a warming Antarctica that was dealt with effectively via the rebuttal process.

As many WUWT readers know, while years ago I expressed some interest in planetary tidal force effects on climate, I have long since been convinced that there’s zero planetary effect on climate for two reasons: 1) The gravitational effects at distance are simply too small to exert the forces neccessary, and 2) The methodology employed often results in hindcast curve fitting a theory to data, where the maxim “correlation is not causation” should have been considered before publishing the paper.

While the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics self-destructed rather than deal with rebuttal process (apparently at the direction of higher-ups),  this paper just published in the journal Solar Physics shows that journal does in fact take the rebuttal process seriously.

Critical Analysis of a Hypothesis of the Planetary Tidal Influence on Solar Activity

DOI 10.1007/s11207-014-0475-0

S. Poluianov,  I. Usoskin

Abstract

The present work is a critical revision of the hypothesis of the planetary tidal influence on solar activity published by Abreu et al. (Astron. Astro- phys. 548, A88, 2012; called A12 here). A12 describes the hypothesis that planets can have an impact on the solar tachocline and therefore on solar activity. We checked the procedure and results of A12, namely the algorithm of planetary tidal torque calculation and the wavelet coherence between torque and heliospheric modulation potential. We found that the claimed peaks in long-period range of the torque spectrum are artefacts caused by the calculation algorithm. Also the statistical significance of the results of the wavelet coherence is found to be overestimated by an incorrect choice of the background assumption of red noise. Using a more conservative non-parametric random-phase method, we found that the long-period coherence between planetary torque and heliospheric modulation potential becomes insignificant. Thus we conclude that the considered hypothesis of planetary tidal influence on solar activity is not based on a solid ground.

Conclusions

We analysed the procedure of planetary torque calculations from the paper by Abreu et al. (2012) and found that their results can be be affected by an effect of the aliasing distortion of the torque spectrum. We provided torque calculations with different sampling frequencies and found that the spectral peaks claimed by A12 are likely artefacts of the spectral distortion and do not have physical meaning. Then we repeated the analysis by A12 of the relation between heliospheric modulation potential and the planetary torque. We showed that the results of Abreu et al. (2012) are not statistically significant. Thus, the proposed hypothesis of planetary influence on solar activity is not based on solid empirical evidence.

The final draft of the paper can be read in entirety here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.3547.pdf

(h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard for the link)

================================================================

A rebuttal was also published in Solar Physics simultaneously, but it is entirely behind a paywall, so I can’t elaborate any further than providing a link to it: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-014-0473-2

But, unlike Copernicus, that decided to pull the entire journal rather than allow the rebuttal process of science occur, Solar Physics saw no need to self-terminate for having published the rebuttal by Abreu et al. authors, and the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics. continues to exist despite publishing the questionable and now shown to be flawed Abreu et al. paper http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2012/12/aa19997-12/aa19997-12.html

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jeroen B.

The last part of the post seems to be malformed (at least for me)

bernie1815

Me too.

Hmm, the hand of Leif seems strong in these parts, may the force be with you.
At least Jo Nova recognizes source, http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/breaking-pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed-by-copernicus/

Alan Robertson

Well, we’ve brought Jo Nova’s site to a near standstill, but meanwhile over at Roger’s (Tallbloke’sTalkshop) site, Wm. Connolley thinks the situation is funny.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/breaking-pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed-by-copernicus/comment-page-1/#comment-65871

Steve from Rockwood

Too many journals, not enough science.

jorgekafkazar

There was a bit of knee-jerk reaction over at Jo’s. I withheld comment pending your response, since I’m not a big fan of wiggle-matching. On the other hand, wiggle-matching is a form of scientific observation, albeit with limited utility. The speed with which the Annan propaganda ministry (composed of “various people”) managed without debate to shut down Pattern Recognition in Physics is disturbing, regardless, and echoes the content of the leaked Climategate papers.

Mac the Knife

This is not equivalent to ‘burning books’. It is equivalent to burning the printing press, though…..
Fahrenheit 451: The Interweb Edition

Self-censorship is the worst kind of censorship when imposed by tyranny.

GlynnMhor

I take issue with their figure 1, where they show how aliasing is produced by sampling at frequencies lower than the Nyquist, but then they claim this to be the same as averaging the values before sampling.
It’s not at all the same thing.
Averaging the samples prior to digitizing would yield an amplitude value of zero when averaging the initial values over either 2 or 10 cycles.

Leo Geiger

The publisher stated the journal editors misrepresented their intent to the publisher when the journal was created. After assurances it wouldn’t be used exclusively as a forum for contrarian climate science views, that is what the editors made it. How, exactly, would a rebuttal process address that??
The publisher also expressed concerns about nepotism in the selection of referees.
This is about more than just creating some papers that disagreed with the main stream view.

Blimey. Good job my papers aren’t about a tidal theory then. In fact the majority of the papers in the special edition don’t espouse a tidal theory. Pity Anthony didn’t take the trouble to read before dismissing them. But never mind. Scientists are reading them, judging by the number of downloads.
Copernicus’ Martin Rasmussen’s statement about shutting down PRP on the homepage is now no longer accessible, as the page immediately redirects to the ‘issues’ page, where our special edition is still linked. All the papers are still available for open access free download. So interested WUWT readers can make up their own minds about our work.
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Our curve fitting model now successfully replicates 400 years of solar observations to R^2=0.91. The model shows good correspondence with 14C reconstruction back to the C11th.

But then again, if the method is unsound the conclusions are null. So, peer review was faulty.
I agree that a strong rebuttal would have advanced science, while self-destruction does not.

Bill Illis

If you are a skeptic climate scientist, you get fired right after the whisper and email campaign by the enlightened starts. If you are a skeptic climate journal, you get to self-terminate (even the Terminator did not get to self-terminate).
Why would climate science stop at this level when they consistently get away with it time and time again. Like the Terminator, they can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, …

Leo Geiger, thanks for your clarity. I do not oppose the right of the editors to terminate a journal, it’s just that showing something is wrong advances the conversation, while shutting up does not; this terminates it. I rather read something was wrong than read nothing.
And nepotism? Yea, well-known method to assure pal-review. Very bad!
(I’ve seen it before)

papiertigre

Come on fellas. Who among us has dreamt of punching out the city editor, or burning down the newspaper?
Most of us are lucky enough not to be in the position to act on those fantasies, but in the rarified air of climate science all you need is the right amount of hutzpah, a phone call, and it’s “Off with their heads!” at Pattern Recognition.
I recognize that pattern when someone says 97% of climate scientists agree that man made climate change is real and spectacular.

Policycritic

Leo Geiger says:
January 17, 2014 at 3:56 pm
The publisher stated the journal editors misrepresented their intent to the publisher when the journal was created. After assurances it wouldn’t be used exclusively as a forum for contrarian climate science views, that is what the editors made it. How, exactly, would a rebuttal process address that??

You assume the publishers’ point is 100% correct. Nichola Scafetta, one of the authors from Duke University, begs to differ. He wrote in the comments on JoNova’s site:

First he [Editor Martin Rasmussen] label[s] the editor as “climate skeptic”. This first accusation demonstrates the political aspect of the decision because the label “climate skeptic” is political, and not scientific.
Second he accused the editors to have published papers focusing only on “climate science” while the scope of the journal was multidisciplinary.
I need to say that only one paper [Suteanu (2013)] focuses on climate science. All the other papers focus on solar science, astrophysics, geophysics, network science and ocean science and mathematical data analysis methods. A very few papers have addressed climate related issues only in one short section.
Then he accuses the editors of having added this sentence that he evidently disliked: “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project”.
However, on this recent article on Nature:
“Climate change: The case of the missing heat. Sixteen years into the
mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an
explanation.” by Jeff Tollefson
[…]
In the Nature article one can read this clear sentence:
“On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.”
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

There are two sides to this, and who knows if Rasmussen read the Nature article published on Wednesday this week.

Regarding Martin Rasmussen’s now invisible comments about “potential” problems with reviewing, I eagerly await the detailed accusations so we can rebut them. Until then it’s just innuendo and smear. Of course if he doesn’t substantiate his innuendo and smear then legal steps can be taken to remedy the defamation suffered by the authors. One of those authors has over 580 peer reviewed papers to his name. It could get expensive.
This is likely why Rasmussen’s statement has been bypassed by the redirect on PRP’s homepage.
I’ve had enough of being libeled by fools. The gloves are off and I’ll fight. Copernicus publishes in the EU, which is accessible to the enforcement of judgments made in British and Scandinavian courts.

Steve from Rockwood

Leo Geiger says:
January 17, 2014 at 3:56 pm

The publisher stated the journal editors misrepresented their intent to the publisher when the journal was created. After assurances it wouldn’t be used exclusively as a forum for contrarian climate science views, that is what the editors made it. How, exactly, would a rebuttal process address that??
The publisher also expressed concerns about nepotism in the selection of referees.
This is about more than just creating some papers that disagreed with the main stream view.

Your Majesty. Someone outside the castle has started a newspaper.

Anthony Watts writes: “While the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics self-destructed rather than deal with rebuttal process”
It hasn’t ‘self destructed’ Anthony. stop the unseemly hurry to diss our discoveries please. Copernicus announced it’s closure, and then didn’t close it. Then removed access to the statement saying it was closed. However the Chief Editor plans to move the journal elsewhere. Once it has a new home we will of course welcome and respond to comments on and rebuttals of our work, as this is part of the normal process and progress of science.

Txomin

I rather hope it is part of a trend and not an anecdote. Journal seppuku is a brilliant script twist in this whole climadrama. Popcorn, please.

Let the free market work.

Ohboy, the redirect is gone, the homepage is back. Webcitation.org here we come.

Bill Illis

If you think about it, all the climate model results are both wiggle-matching to the historic record, and have no predictive value at all since they have missed all the major climate indices.
Any journal that uses these should therefore be terminated.

Bill Illis says:
January 17, 2014 at 4:51 pm
all the climate model results are both wiggle-matching to the historic record, and have no predictive value

And worse still they make up the aerosol data and to get a wiggle match.
Our model uses the orbital periods of four planets plus some simple algorithms which simulate increasing and decreasing amplitudes and gets a 91% match with 400 years of solar data in its latest iteration and a 75% match with 1000 years of 14C proxy data. It’s substantially better than any solar internal dynamo model and because the future positions of the planets are known, it can make useful predictions.
Here’s the paper:
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/117/2013/prp-1-117-2013.pdf

pat

to be honest, the CAGW debate is now strictly political/financial – where, whether or not the “science” is settled, doesn’t enter the manipulated equations:
Guardian’s POLITICAL Editor, Patrick Wintour, & fomer POLITICAL correspondent for UK Telegraph (now with Guardian), Rowena Mason:
18 Jan: Guardian: Patrick Wintour/Rowena Mason: Cut carbon emissions by 40% in 16 years, Ed Davey tells EU
Energy secretary calls on heads of state to back plan but says renewables target will not be binding
The Europen Commission is due to issue a paper next Wednesday that is likely propose a EU-wide renewables target in line with the wishes of Germany and France, but Davey, in a Guardian interview, claimed his call not to impose a binding renewables target was gaining traction.
He wants EU states to have flexibility to achieve greenhouse gas emissions through a mix of non-carbon technologies including nuclear, but denied his rejection of a binding renewables target revealed a loss of confidence in the British renewables industry…
***He said the aim was for the EU this year to back a 40% cut in greenhouse emissions, but to offer a 50% cut if a strong UN-wide deal can be struck in 2015.
That might be delivered not just by emissions in the EU but international credits, where Europe pays for action elsewhere particularly in developing countries.
He said: “We don’t need a binding renewables target in 2030. We need the most ambitious greenhouse gas emissions target that we can possibly achieve. That’s what you need for the climate change talks, that will drive investment in all low carbon.”…
He denied this betrayed a loss of confidence in renewables: “God no! Renewables in any context, any scenario, are going to boom in the 2020s.
“Offshore wind grew by 79% last year. We are easily the leader in offshore wind in the world, no one’s touching us, we’re miles ahead. One individual company might be reducing its investment but that’s not the story.”…
***He added a deal that did not contain a binding renewables target would help the Tories to fight off Ukip. He argued: “I’d be able to say I’ve got the most ambitious climate change package and we’ve led the whole way. We’ll be able to show, we’ve commissioned the research, showing the effect of the different targets on growth an the electricity industries. It shows you can be really ambitious and it hardly affects growth at all…
Conservatives committed to fighting climate change should think our approach is exactly the right one.
“Obviously Conservatives not committed to combating climate change won’t agree with any of it.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/17/cut-carbon-emissions-ed-davey-tells-eu
16 Jan: BusinessSpectator: Bloomberg: Backloading buoyancy: Carbon markets’ year in the sun
Under the measure approved last week, the EU will delay sales of 400 million permits in 2014 if backloading starts in the first quarter; or 300 million if it begins in the second quarter.
This decision is significant as it was the final major approval required for backloading to be implemented. The only question remaining is when in the next four months will the new regulation come into force, enabling auction cuts to begin…
***On a separate, but related note, the European Parliament’s environment and industry committees supported a call for the EU to adopt at least a 40 per cent carbon-reduction goal by 2030 in a non-binding resolution…
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/1/16/carbon-markets/backloading-buoyancy-carbon-markets-year-sun
“FIXING” THE CAGW MARKET HAS NEVER BEEN A SECRET:
15 Jan: Bloomberg BNA: Ewa Krukowska/Mathew Carr Cost of Carbon Emissions Poised to Rise As EU Member States Advance Market Fix
More Reform Needed
“The proposal on backloading is an important signal that the EU wants a strong emissions trading market that can support the transition to a green economy,” Danish Climate Minister Martin Lidegaard wrote in an e-mail. “But the proposal will not itself save the EU’s platform for trading CO2 allowances. Therefore we need a road map for a more permanent structural reform and tightening.”
Even at 11 euros a ton, the price of carbon won’t be high enough to “substantially” cut emissions at factories and utilities, according to Patrick Hummel, a Zurich-based analyst at UBS AG. Carbon needs to be about 50 euros ($68) a ton to make gas-fired power as profitable as coal, he said in a telephone interview Jan. 7…
http://www.bna.com/cost-carbon-emissions-n17179881358/
13 Jan: Marketwatch: Businesswire Press Release: Green Bond Principles
Created to Help Issuers and Investors Deploy Capital for Green Projects
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/correcting-and-replacing-green-bond-principles-created-to-help-issuers-and-investors-deploy-capital-for-green-projects-2014-01-13-8159210?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Leo Geiger

Nichola Scafetta, one of the authors from Duke University, begs to differ…
“I need to say that only one paper [Suteanu (2013)] focuses on climate science…”

This is the abstract to their final general conclusions “paper” in the special edition:

“In a collection of research papers devoted to the problem of solar variability and its origin in planetary beat, it is demonstrated that the forcing function originates from gravitational and inertial effects on the Sun from the planets and their satellites. This conclusion is shared by nineteen co-authors”

And later they write

“Several papers have addressed the question about the evolution of climate during the 21st century. Obviously, we are on our way into a new grand solar minimum. This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.”

It is going to be difficult to square that with a claim now that “only one paper” focuses on climate.

Alarmists were having an orgy over at Tallblokes even after he asked for civility. So he had to bounce William Connolley. And Wiki still allows him to edit???

Alan Robertson

tallbloke says:
January 17, 2014 at 4:46 pm
Ohboy, the redirect is gone, the homepage is back. Webcitation.org here we come.
________________________
Roger, at this point, I’m really confused about what is going on. I see your latest posts and the working link. Did public outcry cause a course reversal?
(BTW- good move tossing that tosser W.C.- he was just stinkin’ up the Talkshop.)

phodges

If wriggle matching shows correlation it should inspire someone to look for why, even if they disagree with the wriggle matchers explanation(s).
That’s how you get from God dying at the Solstice and being reborn at the equinox, to Ptolemy, then Copernicus, then Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc….
And Roger, you ought to be kinder with Anthony, who is covering this even though he disagrees with you.

Leo Geiger

Nichola Scafetta, one of the authors from Duke University, begs to differ…
“I need to say that only one paper [Suteanu (2013)] focuses on climate science…”

One should note that the publisher’s concerns were with the special issue, but the reference to Suteanu (2013) appears to mean Scafetta is instead talking about the other volume, which the publisher did not express concerns about.

Ulric Lyons

Anthony writes:
“As many WUWT readers know, while years ago I expressed some interest in planetary tidal force effects on climate, I have long since been convinced that there’s zero planetary effect on climate..”
That can change with the right quality and quantity of material evidence. There’s a big difference between identifying consistent functions at different scales, and theoretical curve fitting that doesn’t even suggest any mechanisms.

Ian Wilson

Unfortunately, Anthony has jumped the gun again!
Another paper by the Abreu group is about to come out in Solar physics which will leave it beyond doubt that planetary processes [most likely a spin-orbit coupling model] play a critical role in modulating the level of solar activity on the Sun.
While we wait here is 100 years of Solar data that matched the VEJ Tidal-Torquing model.
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/further-confirmation-of-vej-tidal.html
REPLY: Meh, we’ll see. – Anthony

pat

be even slightly sceptical of CAGW, expect the Inquisition. another example from Rowena:
6 Jan: Guardian: Rowena Mason: Environment secretary may be blind to rising flood risks, says Labour
Maria Eagle says Tory Owen Paterson has questions to answer over his scepticism about climate change science
Paterson, a strong opponent of onshore wind farms, does not deny that climate change is happening but has made several controversial remarks on the subject.
This year he suggested there could be benefits for Britain from climate change, and previously he has said he is sceptical about some of the measures taken to counteract its effects.
“People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries,” he said at the Conservative party conference in October. “I think the relief of this latest report is that it shows a really quite modest increase, half of which has already happened. They are talking one to two-and-a-half degrees.
“Remember that for humans, the biggest cause of death is cold in winter, far bigger than heat in summer. It would also lead to longer growing seasons and you could extend growing a little further north into some of the colder areas. I actually see this report as something we need to take seriously but I am rather relieved that it is not as catastrophic in its forecast as we had been led to believe early on and what it is saying is something we can adapt to over time and we are very good as a race at adapting.”
Shortly after taking the post of environment secretary in September 2012, he told the Farmers’ Guardian: “It is perfectly obvious climate change is there, and there is a human contribution, but I want to be sure the measures we are taking to ameliorate the problem don’t create other problems. So that’s why I am sceptical.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/05/environment-secretary-blind-flood-risks-labour
18 Jan: Bloomberg: Mathew Carr/Ewa Krukowska: Carbon Posts Biggest Weekly Gain in 4 Months on EU Reform Plan
“The key upside for prices depends on how ambitious is the EU proposal for a structural reform of the carbon market, to be presented Jan. 22,” Dario Carradori, an analyst at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., said today in an e-mailed report.
Reserve Mechanism
The commission is seeking to introduce a reserve mechanism in 2021 that will automatically withdraw or add permits sold at auction, depending on the number of allowances in circulation, according to a draft proposal obtained by Bloomberg News. It also wants an amendment to the bloc’s emissions-trading law to enable sales of some carbon permits in 2020 to be carried over in the following two years.
The commission will next week present proposals for future climate and energy targets for consideration by the bloc’s leaders at a summit in March.
Oversupply will keep carbon prices under pressure until after 2025, Carradori said…
“We believe the most bullish scenario for carbon prices and utilities would be a single target for carbon emissions reduction, as this would indicate that the EU plans to achieve emissions cuts through a higher carbon price rather than through renewables growth,” he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-17/eu-carbon-has-biggest-weekly-gain-since-september-on-reform-plan.html
17 Jan: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Climate Protection May Cut World GDP 4% by 2030, UN Says
The second and third parts, to be published in March and April, are still subject to line-by-line revision by governments. A final document synthesizing the three is scheduled for completion in October…
Containing the concentration to 480 ppm “would entail global consumption losses” of 1 percent to 4 percent in 2030. That range would rise to 2 percent to 6 percent in 2050 and then to as much as 12 percent in 2100 when compared with scenarios that don’t involve fighting climate change, according to the document…
At the upper end of those ranges, the cost of fighting climate change could outstrip the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change, according to data in the draft of the second installment of the UN report, which hasn’t yet been finalized.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-16/climate-protection-may-cost-4-of-world-gdp-by-2030.html

Carla

tallbloke says:
January 17, 2014 at 5:17 pm
..Our model uses the orbital periods of four planets plus some simple algorithms which simulate increasing and decreasing amplitudes and gets a 91% match with 400 years of solar data in its latest iteration and a 75% match with 1000 years of 14C proxy data. It’s substantially better than any solar internal dynamo model and because the future positions of the planets are known, it can make useful predictions.
Here’s the paper:
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/117/2013/prp-1-117-2013.pdf
——————————
aliasing distortion of the torque? What exactly does this mean?
“”””We analysed the procedure of planetary torque calculations from the paper by Abreu et al. (2012) and found that their results can be be affected by an effect of the aliasing distortion of the torque spectrum. We provided torque calculations with different sampling frequencies and found that the spectral peaks claimed by A12 are likely artefacts of the spectral distortion and do not have physical meaning.””””
I’m looking for orbital anomalies, you know perturbations in the orbits of the planets that might represent physical changes in the solar system free falling in a vortex like motion. The system works together on this. So perturbations in the rings (vortex) would have significance in that the background is changing.

wayne

While today the BBC begins to speak of very possible decades of cold to come:
(never thought it of the beeb)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510
The AGWers engine is beginning to knock, backfire.

Carla

Just a note, some astrospheres are more elliptical in shape than others, very much so in fact, that I’m thinking that might have an effect on torques and on solar cycle like evolution.

The problem is obvious, the papers list in many cases one of the reviewers as an author in the same edition and in some cases a known skeptic with another anonymous reviewer. While this is no different than what the alarmists do all the time, skeptics will be held to a much higher standard and should not allow themselves to fall into these traps. Who’s idiotic idea was it to list the reviewers on the papers and thought this would not be a problem?
The best method to use is a double-blind peer-review system. If I was the editor, I would only select reviewers who had no remote affiliation in any way with the author to protect against such easy criticisms.
The problem in the end could of been easily solved by changing editors, review methods and allowing time for the publishing of rebuttals.

Carla

One more note, they describe the heliosphere in terms like comet shaped, with a long heliotail. I’m thinking that in the last two solar cycles, the heliosphere, became more ‘elliptical’ in shape. And if solar cycle 25 is even less solar activity than 24, the heliosphere will become more ‘elliptical in shape.
New article ..
Configuration of the local interstellar magnetic field
Frisch, Priscilla C.; Andersson, B.; Berdhyugin, A.; Funsten, H. O.; DeMajistre, R.; Magalhaes, A.; McComas, D.; Piirola, V.; Schwadron, N.; Seriacopi, D.; Slavin, J. D.; Wiktorowicz, S.; IBEX Team
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AAS…22345420F
American Astronomical Society, AAS Meeting #223, #454.20
The discovery of the Ribbon of energetic neutral atoms by the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) provides a new and unexpected diagnostic of the direction of the local interstellar magnetic field (ISMF). The IBEX Ribbon forms where the interstellar magnetic field draping over the heliosphere is perpendicular to the sightline. We have shown that the direction of the interstellar magnetic field close to the Sun, obtained from starlight polarized in the interstellar medium (ISM), is consistent with the ISMF direction that is traced by the IBEX Ribbon. In this presentation we show that new optical polarization data indicate that the local ISMF has a smoothly varying component stretching from the first to the third galactic quadrant. Both the ISMF direction and the kinematics of local interstellar gas within tens of parsecs support an interpretation where the local interstellar clouds are a fragment of the expanding Loop I superbubble.

I think that Anthony get a little bit too excited. This is a blatant case of censorship.
As Anthony states, proper rebuttals of the issues addressed in the papers would have been the right scientific way to do this. But this option was evidently dismissed. Too dangerous to write rebuttals that are then soundly rebutted by a proper reply.
As the things are now, only one paper published in PRP has been fully rebutted. I will talk about this below.
About the papers of the special issue that only briefly address the climate issue (I have published two papers in the special issue and only one section in one of the two addresses the interpretation of climate change), none has been rebutted. So, contrary to Anthony statement there was no “planetary theory fiasco” but only a political decision by the publisher to terminate the publications of this journal that evidently do not fit his scientific views that clearly opposes having as editors of a journal people that he defined as “climate skeptics”. He was very clear. In brief, “climate skeptics” cannot serve as editors of a science journal belonging to Copernicus.
However, all papers are free and can be downloaded from the web-site of the journal
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/issue1.html
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/issue1.html
The special issue is here
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
My papers are here to everybody to read:
1) Multiscale comparative spectral analysis of satellite total solar irradiance measurements from 2003 to 2013 reveals a planetary modulation of solar activity and its nonlinear dependence on the 11 yr solar cycle
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/123/2013/prp-1-123-2013.pdf
2) The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/1/2014/prp-2-1-2014.pdf
Ironically, paper number 2 is a review of multisecular literature that starts with Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium of 1543. Poor Copernicus! He is revolting in his tomb. The paper can be hardly rebutted without rejecting also Copernicus, Kepler and so on up to modern times. Please read it, it is quite informative.
About Anthony’s bias based on his two points, my reply are the following:
“1) The gravitational effects at distance are simply too small to exert the forces neccessary,”
This issue is extensively discussed in my publication:
Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/ATP3610.pdf
Moreover, if Anthony had read my papers, he would know that also an electromagnetic influence may be possible. This is made of electric current connections between the planets and the sun, which do not depend on the distance.
“2) The methodology employed often results in hindcast curve fitting a theory to data, where the maxim “correlation is not causation” should have been considered before publishing the paper.”
This again is erroneous. The methodology employed at least in my papers is equivalent to the methodology used for predicting the ocean tides on Earth. Here harmonic models that use astronomical harmonics are used to reconstruct the solar and climate patterns. At least my models are tested on their hindcasting forecasting capability and are successful for centuries, and are supported by several physical arguments.
See here for the correct forecast of the temperature I made in 2010:
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model_1
Anthony simply does not understand the tidal ocean model by Kelvin et al.
But now lets go back to the main point. Above I said “As the things are now, Only one paper published by PRP has been fully rebutted. I will talk about this below.” Which paper am I talking about?
Well, it was a paper by Benestad:
Comment on “Discussions on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming” by Scafetta (2013).
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/91/2013/prp-1-91-2013.pdf
Here Benestad tries to rebut my paper:
Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/37/2013/prp-1-37-2013.pdf
Benestad’s comment was soundly rebutted in my reply:
Reply to Benestad’s comment on “Discussions on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming” by Scafetta (2013)
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/105/2013/prp-1-105-2013.pdf
The issue discussed here was the fragrant mathematical errors made in a paper by Benestad and Schmidt (2009) on JGR that was extensively discussed also on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/scafetta-benestad-and-schmidt%E2%80%99s-calculations-are-%E2%80%9Crobustly%E2%80%9D-flawed/
Thus, I think that Anthony got it wrong. This journal, PRP, was terminated simply because it was too dangerous to allow a scientific dialectic of rebuttals and replies. To do that one needs editors that publish the rebuttals but not the reply which would not have happened with the current editors. So, the publisher decided to close the journal. But no paper published there has been rebutted, only Benestad’s one was. So, those papers stand as they are.
Anthony, it would be nice if you start reading these papers.
REPLY: I’ve read your papers in the past, and decided they were junk. I don’t expect these to be any better, but I’ll have a look. – Anthony

Eli Rabett says:
Let the free market work.

Halpern, I agree with we should get rid of all government funding of science and universities.
http://www.coas.howard.edu/chem/jhalpern/

REPLY: I’ve read your papers in the past, and decided they were junk. I don’t expect these to be any better, but I’ll have a look. – Anthony
********
Anthony, thank you for promising to give a look.
Of course I think that you did not understand those papers that you read in the past. You just believed in Leif that has been soundly rebutted paper after paper.
It can happen. Just keep an open mind and understand that this is frontier science as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo Newton etc was at their time.
Remember that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton etc science was considered “Junk” at the beginning also by smart people. But then things changed in time as people understood things better.
Important is to keep an open mind.
By the way, I have a new just published paper:
ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite validation versus TSI proxy models
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10509-013-1775-9

Regardless, the only good news is, it looks like the papers are not going anywhere,
“Following best practice in scholarly publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards.”

rogerknights

The issue discussed here was the fragrant mathematical errors made in a paper by Benestad and Schmidt (2009)

???

roger, clearly a typo and should of been “flagrant”.

Why are all my posts being moderated?

rogerknights says:The issue discussed here was the fragrant mathematical errors made in a paper by Benestad and Schmidt (2009)
rogerknights. I do not write in English but in Italian translated into English. Found out in Italian/Spanish/Latin what “fragrante ” means. In English may be “blazing” “blatant” etc.

Ok it was “flagrante” my error

kim

Ah, c’mon, ‘fragrant’ is wonderful.
===========

Ian Wilson

Anthony’s REPLY to my post at:
January 17, 2014 at 6:20 pm
Meh, we’ll see. – Anthony
Anthony,
I respectfully ask you to go to
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/further-confirmation-of-vej-tidal.html
And look at the figure in the blog post.
While you are doing this think of the young student looking at
the respective coastlines of South America and Africa and
wondering if they were at one time in contact.