UPDATE: 1/19/14 2;30 PM PST
There is an update to this post here:
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
lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:30 am
Across the many thousands of “web pages” of various accuracy listing the sun’s output, I find (almost) as many different values for the solar constant as there are web pages: But most claim 1367 watts/m^2 at the top of atmosphere at the average of earth’s orbit, many citing the 1367 value on Fröhlich and Brusa, 1981, and Iqbal, 1983. Several, but not all, then go on to claim that “earlier values” of TSI such as 1352 were ‘lower” but were incorrect for various reasons.
MS In Energy Systems
(northeastern.edu http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.html ) is such an example.
http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~cronin/Solar/References/Irradiance%20Models%20and%20Data/WOC01.pdf is another, saying ASHRAE used as low a value as 1322 watts/m^2 in 1999 . (Odd, that is about the minimum for the year.)
About two years ago, you said here an adequate equation for the sun’s actual received radiation at TOA over the year was 1362 watts/m^2: a maximum of 1409 on Jan 3, and a minimum of 1315 about July 4.
1362*(1+0.0342*(COS(2*3.141*((A3-3)/365))))
Thus, with the TSI value changing 3.42% over the period of a year due to the earth’s orbit and tilt, about 1% due to the 11 year solar cycle, and (perhaps) a longer cycle as seen by the “old” measured values changing from 1352 up to 1367 and now down to 1362 (or lower) …
What do you believe will be the correct value to use for the next 22 or 33 years? From now – the peak of solar cycle 24, to the next low point after solar cycle 25?
RACookPE1978 says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:18 am
Thus, with the TSI value changing 3.42% over the period of a year due to the earth’s orbit and tilt, about 1% due to the 11 year solar cycle, and (perhaps) a longer cycle as seen by the “old” measured values changing from 1352 up to 1367 and now down to 1362 (or lower) …
All the ‘old’ values have systematic errors (scattered light, darkening [of] entrance apertures, degradation problems, etc). All this is now well-understood, and the values around 1361 W/m2 should be preferred: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf
What do you believe will be the correct value to use for the next 33 years? From now – the peak of solar cycle 24, to the next low point after solar cycle 25?
Then we have to add a solar cycle variation of about 1 W/m2 on top of the above quiet value.
Poptech says:
January 18, 2014 at 11:04 pm
” So in which case why go through the trouble to have the papers appear to come from a peer-reviewed journal, just have your colleagues review them and throw them up on your website.”
Isn’t this one of the problems in todays’ electronic world? Perhaps if there were still hefty publishing fees involved (such as the cost of printing hundreds of copies in hard bound editions along with the cost of distribution) authors would more likely be sure their work was subject to real peer review. Who would go through all that expense if they were not positive they would not have to eat the cost of reprint and redistribution due to seemingly flawed review.
While Eli is dancing puerile little jigs for glee, perhaps the Rabett might try and explain what Leif and Copernicus are pointing out. Time is short, journals and articles are plentiful. One must choose. If something is nonsense the useful response is to simply mutter so and not devote serious time to providing written detailed refutations. In the past it was only when there was underlying value that papers were replied to.
Word spreads. If a publisher publishes too much nonsense they don’t get library and personal subscriptions, although they try to can give it away and charge the authors.
tallbloke says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:53 am
I was referring to our special edition papers
Your papers are of such low quality that they do not merit serious consideration.
Get him to tell us in his own words what it says
you are still evading the issue. It is your own words that are important, not his.
Gkell1 says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:54 am
The only acceptable resolution for observed retrogrades is not a hypothetical observer on the Sun
You are going off several tangents here. Newton was perfectly correct in his explanation. The proper observer for seeing the real motions would be on the sun. The retrograde motions observed from the Earth are of course a consequence of the Earth’s movement with respect to the planets. There are no problems or subtleties here.
lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:06 am
——————
Thank you Dr. S. for the reply.
Isvalgaard wrote
“You are going off several tangents here. Newton was perfectly correct in his explanation. ”
There are two resolutions for apparent retrogrades and neither of them are based on a hypothetical observer on the Sun so no,Newton’s idiosyncratic version of retrograde resolution is not only incompetent but identifiable as such whereas his followers,you included,fail to recognize his version as it appears as absolute/relative time,space and motion.
You cannot launch an assault on the astronomical heritage which posits only one solution for retrogrades and not escape severe damage to the principles which govern cause and effect.
Now I strongly suggest you read Copernicus,Kepler or Galileo very,very carefully before you sidled up to them with Newton and his disruptive agenda.
“In the Ptolemaic hypotheses there are the diseases, and the Copernican their cure. . . . With Ptolemy it is necessary to assign to the celestial bodies contrary movements, and make everything move from east to west and at the same time from west to east, whereas with Copernicus all celestial revolutions are in one direction, from west to east. And what are we to say of the apparent movement of a planet, so uneven that it not only goes fast at one time and slow at another, but sometimes stops entirely and even goes backward a long way after doing so? To save these appearances, Ptolemy introduces vast epicycles, adapting them one by one to each planet, with certain rules about incongruous motions — all of which can be done away with by one very simple motion of the Earth.” Galileo
Modelers have no respect whatsoever for
Gkell1 says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:57 am
You cannot launch an assault on the astronomical heritage which posits only one solution for retrogrades and not escape severe damage to the principles which govern cause and effect.
To be blunt [but I believe, correct] your missives are total nonsense.
Isvalgaard wrote –
“The retrograde motions observed from the Earth are of course a consequence of the Earth’s movement with respect to the planets. ”
That works for the outer planets but not the inner ones so before you announce to the forum of the veracity of Newton’s silly attempt to slip in modeling via an absolute/relative space and motion based on a hypothetical observer on the Sun,I suggest you learn the difference between inner and outer apparent retrogrades and their separate causes.
If you want me to explain visually how the inner retrogrades work then ask and I will,of course oblige. Now, the vandalism which constitutes Newton’s hamfisted attempt to model a clockwork solar system using a rotating celestial sphere framework may be fine for modelers but it denies the students and interested adults the true value of the works of the great astronomers. The silence or indifference on this highly important technical and historical matter can be shocking sometimes. so before you all run to Galileo and Copernicus,be sure you concur with their views and not flawed alternative ones.
Gkell1 says:
January 19, 2014 at 11:14 am
the veracity of Newton’s silly attempt to slip in modeling via an absolute/relative space and motion based on a hypothetical observer on the Sun
As I said before, Newton was absolutely correct and whatever you are trying to say sounds like [and is] complete nonsense.
Isvalgaard
There is no shame in the inability to discern the reason why the outer planets appear to temporarily move backwards against the background stars as the solution is based on the simple acceptance that the motion isn’t occurring in those planets but is rather a consequence of a faster moving Earth overtaking them.It has nothing to do with what you see from the Sun but from a moving Earth and people with common sense would recognize it straight away –
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
Now,the inner planets are a different story hence the partitioning between solutions for apparent planetary retrogrades either side of the Earth. Stick with your flaky hypothetical observer on the Sun assertion ala Newton but it will always be an act of vandalism to adopt that view.
Gkell1 says:
January 19, 2014 at 11:25 am
Stick with your flaky hypothetical observer on the Sun assertion ala Newton but it will always be an act of vandalism to adopt that view.
Newton was absolutely correct that all the planets move in direct orbits around the sun as could be verified by an observer on the sun who would never see retrograde movement. What is observed from a planet [any planet] would, of course, depend on the orbit of that planet relative to the other planets as everybody has agreed with for at least 300 years. It is complete nonsense to try [as you do] to introduce a different view on this.
Is it safe to comment here yet? /jk
Isvalgaard wrote –
“As I said before, Newton was absolutely correct and whatever you are trying to say sounds like [and is] complete nonsense”
Are you completely sure that you don’t want the explanation for inner planetary retrogrades as those planets move slower than the Earth as they reverse direction against the background stars. As you have difficulties with the outer planets then it is highly unlikely you could appreciate,even with actual imaging and graphics,why the inner planets move the way they do as seen from Earth.
Newton’s view is pure junk but it does expose that his followers never understood what he was doing,once mathematicians would admit it but not nowadays –
“The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical, but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at his results”, Rouse Ball 1907
Well Isvalgaard,you are in a unique position of not only missing out on the true explanations which form the basis of the planet’s orbital dynamics but also being unable to understand what Sir Isaac was trying to do with his absolute/relative space and motion.Perhaps only Leibniz came close –
“I don’t find in the eighth definition of Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Nature,or in the note attached to it,anything that proves or could prove the reality of space in itself. I do agree that an absolute genuine motion of a body is different from a mere change of its location in relation to another body. When the immediate cause of the change is in body x,that body is truly in
motion, and in that case the locations of other bodies in relation to x will be changed as a result, though the cause of that change is not in them” Leibniz
Don’t try to compete,if you want me to explain the solution for the inner planetary retrogrades which are just as spectacular as the solution for the outer retrogrades then just ask.
Isavlgaard –
“Newton was absolutely correct that all the planets move in direct orbits around the sun as could be verified by an observer on the sun who would never see retrograde movement. ”
You won’t be able to cite neither Copernicus,Kepler nor Galileo on a hypothetical observer on the Sun but what you will see are those wonderful citations based on what we see from Earth .
“Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils leading the individual planets into their respective orbits quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the ‘garlands’ [corollas] you see looped towards the center,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times ” Astronomia Nova 1609 Kepler
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg
What the world is seeing of ‘climate modeling’ is really a symptom that spread from astronomy when Sir Isaac tried to fit orbital dynamics into timekeeping averages or the clockwork solar system as they came to call it.It was and remains the single greatest act of vandalism on the great works of the astronomers and boy is the world paying dearly for it.
Gkell1 says:
January 19, 2014 at 11:45 am
What the world is seeing of ‘climate modeling’ is really a symptom that spread from astronomy when Sir Isaac tried to fit orbital dynamics into timekeeping averages or the clockwork solar system as they came to call it.It was and remains the single greatest act of vandalism on the great works of the astronomers and boy is the world paying dearly for it.
This is total nuts. We send spacecraft to inner and outer planets based on Sir Isaac Newton’s clockwork solar system and the world is not paying dearly for that. Are you a flat-earther perhaps?
Isvalgaard wrote –
“This is total nuts. We send spacecraft to inner and outer planets based on Sir Isaac Newton’s clockwork solar system and the world is not paying dearly for that. Are you a flat-earther perhaps?”
I have seen this reaction many times but is a digression. I have shown you citations from Galileo,Copernicus and Kepler testifying that retrograde resolutions are an illusion seen from Earth including the solution for the outer planets as the faster Earth overtakes them. I have withheld the solution for the apparent retrogrades of the inner planets.
Astronomy and terrestrial sciences are linked by interpretation of causes and effects and you are not doing too well with the main argument which Copernicus provided for the Earth’s orbital motion between Venus and Mars.
If you believe a hypothetical observer on the Sun is the proper solution that puts you outside the astronomical heritage and that also puts you outside appreciation of terrestrial sciences.
“And though some disparate astronomical hypotheses may provide exactly the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to Lord Tycho of his own mutation of the Copernican system,nevertheless there is often a difference between the conclusions because of some physical consideration….But practitioners are not always in the habit of taking account of that diversity in physical matters, . . ” Kepler
Are you sure you don’t want the apparent retrograde motion of the inner planets explained for you ?,then again,you are having no luck with the texts of Galileo ,Copernicus and Kepler even with modern time lapse footage supplied.
Gkell1 says:
January 19, 2014 at 11:58 am
I have seen this reaction many times but is a digression. I have shown you citations from Galileo,Copernicus and Kepler
Who gives a hoot. Newton explained the motions quantitatively enabling us to calculate rather precisely past and future positions of the planets. To get the correct perspective of the solar system you, obviously, have to look at it from the Sun as Newton said applying the correct model of the system.
Isvalgaard wrote –
“Who gives a hoot. Newton explained the motions quantitatively enabling us to calculate rather precisely past and future positions of the planets.”
Not a single citation from the main astronomers and with good reason,you haven’t a clue what Newton did and how he did it in his attempt to scale up experimental sciences to celestial structure and motion.
This is why today followers of Newton insist on a mismatch of 24 hour days and the number of rotations even though every temperature graph on the planet tracks the rotation of the planet through the temperature rises and fall with a 24 hour period –
http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/dallas/hourly
Newton built his ‘predictive’ agenda on the equatorial coordinate system which uses the calendar framework hence his relative space and motion (observations seen from Earth) and absolute space and motion (seen from the Sun).
Are you perfectly sure you don’t want the solution for inner planetary retrogrades explained to you ?.The solution is unique and quite different to the more familiar outer retrograde solution but then again you need interesting people who find interest in these exercises which are visual and within reach of high school students.
Newton’s view is complete and utter junk so get used to it.
Gkell1 says:
January 19, 2014 at 12:20 pm
Not a single citation from the main astronomers and with good reason,you haven’t a clue what Newton did and how he did it in his attempt to scale up experimental sciences to celestial structure and motion.
I have in my hand Newton’s Principia where he clearly lays out the clockwork solar system that we have found experimentally to work exceedingly well. So what more does one need?
The rest of your post sounds like complete nonsense, but here on WUWT we are used to such, so you don’t stand out in any serious manner.
Isvalgaard wrote –
“To get the correct perspective of the solar system you, obviously, have to look at it from the Sun as Newton said applying the correct model of the system.”
Yet you unfortunate people can’t ascertain what the orbital behavior of the Earth looks like from the Sun as the polar coordinates will be seen to turn in a circle parallel to the ecliptic equator just as Uranus is seen to do –
http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/12/17/01/2682951/10/628×471.jpg
The conclusion here is that aside from and in addition to daily rotation,all locations on the Earth’s surface turn once to the central Sun as a consequence of the orbital behavior of the Earth.
The reason none of you can do it is that in creating the rotating celestial sphere framework on which to build a fictitious ‘solar vs sidereal time’,those fools in the late 17th century tried to bundle daily and orbital motions off a common axis and truly repulsive notion of 24 hour noon coincident with the return of the Sun to the meridian,the equally repulsive 1465 rotations in 1461 days and all the other nonsense squeezed into Newton’s clockwork solar system –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sidereal_Time_en.PNG
Purveyors of voodoo and bluff for the last 3 centuries and now modelers moved in on terrestrial sciences where they are now running amok.
Gkell1 says:
January 19, 2014 at 12:35 pm
Purveyors of voodoo and bluff for the last 3 centuries and now modelers moved in on terrestrial sciences where they are now running amok.
Nothing of what you say makes any sense at all, but it seems that you some ulterior motive for displaying your ignorance and that you are impervious to correction, so spare us the rest.
After over 5½ hours (since my comment at 5:03am), the respective teams of ferrets are at it still, hammer and tongs, in the sack.
And the only person who appears to have noticed my comment is Eli Rabett. (10:27am)
How dispiriting is that?
Oh well, it could have been Connolley, I suppose.
Meanwhile, whilst you all are arguing the toss about the PRP papers (whilst very largely ignoring the science – or anti-science, if that’s what you think), the Climate Psyentists are getting away with yet another coup, pressurising publishers to deny publication of any sceptical viewpoint.
Isvalgaard wrote –
“Nothing of what you say makes any sense at all, but it seems that you some ulterior motive for displaying your ignorance and that you are impervious to correction, so spare us the rest.”
I can show you what the great astronomers went about their business, I can also show you how their texts match modern imaging in verifying what they discovered and how they did it. You can neither show me citations nor observational proof other than ‘Newton was right’ but a casual
assertion that observations of retrogrades (which puzzled astronomers for thousands of years ) is resolved by a exceptionally ignorant and idiosyncratic view at variance with the thinking of the great astronomers is anything but vandalism supported by vandals.
I will post the solution for the inner planetary retrogrades as a parting gift just as the separate outer retrogrades are resolved by the faster moving Earth –
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1208/Ma2011-2Tezel.jpg
I suggest readers here be sure to read
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/18/from-jewish-science-to-denier-science-copernicus-charade-is-latest-example-of-german-intolerance-to-alternative-climate-science-explanations/
which (whether or not you agree with the PRP papers) seems to put some much needed perspective into the discussions.
REPLY: I disagree, the whole”jewish” connection is not only unnecessary, but ugly too. – Anthony