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
Gkell1 says:
January 19, 2014 at 12:52 pm
You can neither show me citations nor observational proof other than ‘Newton was right’
Nobody today doubts that Newton was right as nobody today doubts that the Earth is round.
On second thoughts,not a single reader expressed an interest in how the great astronomers thought, not even with the advantage of the internet and imaging., and how they went about their business,normally a topic which is easily discussed among men.
The modeling ‘cult’ that Newton spawned has its origins in defacing the antecedent astronomical
works and for no good reason other than intellectual greed. and that aggressive empiricism has now spread to terrestrial sciences . Only the rarest of people can
It is not possible to make people interested in reasoning that they can’t find interesting even if the historical and technical details only allow for one approach to retrogrades and their solution seen from a moving Earth even if the outer and inner planets are partitioned in terms of cause. It just happens that this forum is outside appreciation of the one that is already known hence it would be a pointless exercise to present the solution for the apparent retrogrades of the inner planets.
Thank you for your reply.
Wow!
But that source (http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf = Kopp and Lean, 2010 “A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance” adds the significant sentence to this discussion : The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during
the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m^2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the
canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m^2 established in the 1990s, which energy balance calculations and climate models currently use.
1) If the 1360.8 value was measured in 2008 for this 2010 paper being discussed today in 2014, what is it’s current value? If not 1360.8 of course? (Noting that the paper corrects the widely used 1365.4 “established in the 1990’s” – or a correction of over 4.6 watts in only 13 years (2008 – 1995).)
2) More interestly, figure 1 of that paper shows fairly significant differences between measured values of TSI between all of the satellites since 1979: The all of the earlier satellites are higher than any of the later runs over the liofe of the satellite for solar cycle minimums at 1986, 1997, and 2008:
NIMBUS 7
1979 - 1986 - ........ 1993
1375 - 1372 - ........ 1374
SMM/ACRIM
.1980 - 1987 - 1985
.1369 - 1367 - 1368
NOAA + ERBS + SOVA2 + SOHO/VIRGO + ACRIMSAT + UARS/ACRIM2
1985 through 2010 all ~ 1361
Then today's SORCE/TIM ............. 2004 - 2010
..................................... 1362 - 1361
Seems like the community has decided that “The solar constant will be constant, and all changes that we measure in the solar constant have been created by earlier inaccurate instruments.”
Should we not go back to the earliest instrument configurations and calibrations and see if we really are measuring “instrument” changes and not “solar changes”?
After all, water still boils at 100.0 C at the same elevation and air pressure, despite changes in thermometers, but if one is determined to keep it’s boiling temperature at 100.0 C, but each generation of lab studies requires we must continually change the instruments to keep recording 100.0 C …. something else may be changing (the altitude of the laboratory or purity of the water being testing for example), and not the instruments.
Isvalgaard wrote –
“Nobody today doubts that Newton was right as nobody today doubts that the Earth is round.”
A cult mind is dismal,dour and dull hence the time lapse footage in tandem with the original texts of Galileo,Copernicus and Kepler fail to penetrate minds that have long since lost the ability to reason so if you find ‘Newton is correct’ with the following statement, you are at variance with the astronomers who came to their discoveries via the motion of the Earth –
“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct,…” Newton
All it tells me is that you haven’t a clue what he was doing with absolute/relative time,space and motion even though he tells you –
“It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion. For instance, if two globes, kept at a given distance one from the other by means of a cord that connects them…” Newton
You are like children lost in a labyrinth Sir Isaac created for you and fair dues,mathematicians have been getting away with it for so long that the world was driven into submission via voodoo and bluffing a long time ago. But this is now and 21st century innovations expose Sir Isaac’s agenda as worthless junk unless you are an assertion junkie.
Gkell1 says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:11 pm
it would be a pointless exercise to present the solution for the apparent retrogrades of the inner planets.
As pointless as your other mutterings.
RACookPE1978 says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:14 pm
1) If the 1360.8 value was measured in 2008 for this 2010 paper being discussed today in 2014, what is it’s current value?
the last value before a battery gave out [SORCE is almost dead now] was 1361.3
correction of over 4.6 watts in only 13 years (2008 – 1995).)
No, that is no what has happened. The change is ‘discontinuous’. The older values were simply wrong by that amount.
Seems like the community has decided that “The solar constant will be constant, and all changes that we measure in the solar constant have been created by earlier inaccurate instruments.”
Yes, that is the situation. And we have found out why, so that is good.
Gkell1 says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:20 pm
But this is now and 21st century innovations expose Sir Isaac’s agenda as worthless junk unless you are an assertion junkie.
This you assert.
Isvalgaard wrote –
“Gkell1 says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:20 pm
But this is now and 21st century innovations expose Sir Isaac’s agenda as worthless junk unless you are an assertion junkie.
This you assert.”
If you cannot interpret the generalized imaging of orbital motions which shows how a moving Earth accounts for the apparent periodic backward motions of the planets then there isn’t a chance you can interpret the the specifics of orbital motion of an individual planet which is crucial for discerning why temperatures fluctuate in two ways due to the daily cycle and the orbital cycle.
Here is the solution for the inner planetary retrogrades but I am leaving the written explanation aside apart from the fact that Venus and Mercury travel in the opposite direction to the background stars when moving behind the Sun and in the direction of the background stars when orbiting in front of the Sun. This is all new as it partitions retrogrades of the outer planets from the inner. the ‘Newton is right’ bunch and their idiosyncratic rubbish wouldn’t get it.
http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/SWI/UV%20montage%20flat.jpg
Gkell1 says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:39 pm
how a moving Earth accounts for the apparent periodic backward motions of the planets
Just as Newton said: you can see that best if you observe from the sun, namely that all planets move in direct orbits. But, you did not keep your promise of sparing us further nonsense.
lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 7:41 am
“People will grasp at any straws that might lend support to their agenda…”
—————————————–
Still fighting sceptics?
It’s the carbon propagandists who are grasping at the solar influence straws now. The BBC. They have the money. They have the megaphone. They have glossy SDO images and the public have wide screen TVs. What’s going to happen here?
The BBC don’t care about science, they just care about saving their own hides.
Do you really believe attacking Tallbloke and Nicola is any use? These are the last people the BBC want to talk to. The BBC need this to be “new science” for their escape plan to work.
You are shooting in the wrong direction and the WikiWeasel and Bunny Boi are crowing.
Isvalgaard wrote –
“Just as Newton said: you can see that best if you observe from the sun, namely that all planets move in direct orbits. But, you did not keep your promise of sparing us further nonsense.”
Copernicus didn’t fear Church censure,what he did fear are those people who couldn’t handle the arguments for the Earth’s motions as you are doing now as a drone of Newton –
“Therefore I debated with myself for a long time whether to publish the volume which I wrote to prove the earth’s motion or rather to follow the example of the Pythagoreans and certain others, who used to transmit philosophy’s secrets only to kinsmen and friends, not in writing but by word of mouth, as is shown by Lysis’ letter to Hipparchus. And they did so, it seems to me, not, as some suppose,because they were in some way jealous about their teachings, which would be spread around; on the contrary, they wanted the very beautiful thoughts attained by great men of deep devotion not to be ridiculed by those who are reluctant to exert themselves vigorously in any literary pursuit unless it is lucrative; or if they are stimulated to the nonacquisitive study of philosophy by the exhortation and example of others, yet because of their dullness of mind they play the same part among philosophers as drones among bees. When I weighed these
considerations, the scorn which I had reason to fear on account of the novelty and unconventionality of my opinion almost induced me to abandon completely the work which I had undertaken.” Copernicus in letter to the Pope
The modeling mania comes from a late 17th century modeling cult and you have just discovered its roots in Newton’s foolish attempt to tamper with the greatest Western achievements in astronomy.
All the doctorates here,when it comes to astronomy and its links to terrestrial sciences you make the grade of witch doctors by virtue that it is not the models that are wrong,it is modeling by conjuring assertions out of thin air,that is what Newton did and most of you do day in and day out.
You just got a historical and technical education but I am sure the ‘Newton is right’ dullness that swamps your brain is presently unable to absorb that education.
papiertigre says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:21 am
The NASA believes these recent variations in the radio rotation are due to Enceladus’ geysers injecting charged particles into Saturn’s magnetic field.
Sounds about as likely as swamp gas refracting the light from Venus. That’s a pitch for ‘more funds needed’ IMO.
Konrad says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:01 pm
It’s the carbon propagandists who are grasping at the solar influence straws now. The BBC.
That is what I said. But there are other people, too, grasping at other straws. What are yours?
Do you really believe attacking Tallbloke and Nicola is any use?
No, that is totally useless as they are so far out on the fringe that they are beyond reach.
No, I don’t have to do any such thing but show the blatantly obvious which includes a confession of one of the authors here that these papers were effectively “Pal-Reviewed”. Why are you condoning this hypocritical behavior?
ralfellis says:
January 19, 2014 at 7:37 am
“The BBC is looking for a way out. However, knowing the power and influence of the BBC, it might be wise to be magnanimous, and let them depart without hurling too much abuse as they struggle through the exit.”
———————————————–
Ralph,
we all want the climate wars to be over, but letting the BBC off the hook for years of shameless CO2 propaganda is short term gain for long term pain.
If they get away with this exit strategy, sure the global warming thing will end. But then it’s on to the next scam. If they don’t learn, they will just keep trying. We don’t need another one of these confected crises.
Will it be bio-crisis with bio-debt to be collected and redistributed under a framework of UN global governance?
Perhaps and extended season of “sense and sustainability” by the same sorry players?
Most likely “global fresh water crisis” is the next move. Welcome back Dr. Gleick!
Do we need that?
Gkell1 says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:08 pm
The modeling mania comes from a late 17th century modeling cult and you have just discovered its roots in Newton’s foolish attempt to tamper with the greatest Western achievements in astronomy.
As Newton himself agreed with the notion that all planets have direct motion and that retrograde motions were just a result of the Earth’s motion and hence would be observed by an observer on the Sun you seem to have a serious hole in your education here. anf you are digging it deeper and deeper.
tallbloke says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:10 pm
Sounds about as likely as swamp gas refracting the light from Venus.
Sounds like a quote from one of your papers or from a contributor to your talkshop. Which is it?
lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:16 pm
hence would NOT be observed by an observer on the Sun
The future were science has no filter at all to weed out scientifically baseless claims? Back to the middle-ages? I’ll pass.
Gkell1 says:
“Here is the solution for the inner planetary retrogrades but I am leaving the written explanation aside apart from the fact that Venus and Mercury travel in the opposite direction to the background stars when moving behind the Sun and in the direction of the background stars when orbiting in front of the Sun.”
Venus and Mercury can only be in retrograde when they are in front of the Sun.
Isvalgaard wrote –
“Just as Newton said: you can see that best if you observe from the sun, namely that all planets move in direct orbits. But, you did not keep your promise of sparing us further nonsense.”
A car on a roundabout in an inner lane overtaking a slower moving car in an outer lane will see the slower moving car fall behind in view – that is apparent retrograde motion and bump it up to a planetary scale. A child could do it so the whole point of the ‘retrograde’ exercise is why the planets fall behind in view and that my indoctrinated man is due to the orbital motion of the Earth.
The inner retrogrades are different in reality and in analogy as it is like a grandstand view of the inner planets as they swing out to their furthest point from behind the Sun and then swing in hence the forward backward motion against the stellar background is accounted for that way .
http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/SWI/UV%20montage%20flat.jpg
No wonder the world lives in an era where the ‘sky is falling’,people who fabricate technical and historical details on an industrial scale have the dubious distinction of saying anything and everything.
I was looking for those readers who have enough common sense and a pride in human achievement to see that far from being hindred to the great astronomers,you look like vandals running amok with delicate reasoning. You
Ulric wrote –
“Venus and Mercury can only be in retrograde when they are in front of the Sun.”
At least you learn to distinguish between outer planetary retrogrades and inner planetary retrogrades and that is a remarkable achievement,if you have any difficulties go to the ‘grandstand’ view for inner planetary orbital motion and ‘on the track’ view for outer planetary retrogrades,other than that the animated graphic I provided will more than suffice.
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.