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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ian Wilson says:
January 18, 2014 at 11:02 am
It is not hard to imagine how restricted an author is in suggesting names, particularly if there are only a hand-full of people who are qualified in their subject.
That may be true is highly technical and specialized subjects, but when it comes to curve fitting and the general hand waving that the papers in question are typical examples of, every physicist is qualified.
Thanks Leif,
I have downloaded the papers and I will have a read.
Ian Wilson:
At January 18, 2014 at 11:02 am you say to me
Yes, and the same is true of you.
That does not give you the right to try to smear me and/or the validity of my “view” by falsely proclaiming that I have an undisclosed conflict of interest.
Richard
lsvalgaard says:
January 18, 2014 at 10:43 am
What if the physical mechanism that is driving the long-term [millennial] variations in climate is the same as the physical mechanism that is driving the long-term changes in solar activity?
You are suggesting that the planets drive the climate and that the planets drive the sun. It seems hardly credible that the magnetic dynamo process deep in the solar convection zone is the same as that in the Earth’s atmosphere.
=================
that argument doesn’t follow. it assumes that convection regulates solar activity and earth’s climate.
only after someone can reliably predict solar activity and/or climate will we have a convincing answer as to the mechanism(s) behind either. Even then, the mechanism may still elude us, as we see with gravity. Until then it is speculation and belief. We reasoned, but that is not sufficient to render fact from belief.
ferdberple:
I write to support your post at January 18, 2014 at 11:05 am where you say
Peer review exists solely as an ‘insurance’ for a journal’s Editor.
It seems that the publisher ‘pulled’ the journal ‘Pattern Recognition in Physics’ when it discovered the Editor was by-passing that ‘insurance’ with risk of reputation loss which could harm every journal published by the publisher.
I explain your statements and my ‘insurance’ point in a post on WUWT in the thread on the excellent article by David M Hoffer about peer review. This link jumps to my explanation
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/29/peer-review-last-refuge-of-the-uninformed-troll/#comment-1522700
Richard
Ian Wilson says:
January 18, 2014 at 10:42 am
negrum said:
January 18, 2014 at 10:36 am
—-l
Do you feel that what charles the moderator says:
January 18, 2014 at 10:09 am
” ….A tainted editing and review process precedes any interest in the content of the papers. ”
is relevant? I don’t think you addressed that point fully.
I will judge whomsoever and whatsoever I please, unless the mods find me out of line. If you require the reasons for my judgement, I will be pleased to give them. If you convince me that I have misjudged, I will say so.
We are all equal here. Your talking down to people (perhaps unintentional) is not going over well, no matter how many degrees you might have, or how intelligent you consider yourself to be.
The fact that you do not support CAGW does not give you a free pass to circumvent peer review rules, which seems to be what happened.
You do not seem to understand that sarcasm is taken as a sign of losing a debate.
You don’t seem to appreciate the fact that the host of this blog criticised the severity with which the matter has been dealt with nor the explanation by poptech of why it is dangerous to allow the same kind of behaviour as that which the CAGW crowd is guilty of.
Your posing as persecuted underdogs is particularly repellant – I consider that one of the lowest forms of politics. You might do better in a less sceptical environment.
If you have a problem framing a reasonable and polite argument, I will be glad to assist you in whatever way you would find helpful. The quality of your work may or may not be good, but nothing you have said so far gives me much hope – you just sound petulant and you are not improving matters with your style.
ferdberple says:
January 18, 2014 at 11:22 am
“You are suggesting that the planets drive the climate and that the planets drive the sun. It seems hardly credible that the magnetic dynamo process deep in the solar convection zone is the same as that in the Earth’s atmosphere.”
=================
that argument doesn’t follow. it assumes that convection regulates solar activity and earth’s climate.
To remove your [unwarranted] assumption I should have made my comment idiot-proof and said:
“It seems hardly credible that the magnetic dynamo process generating solar activity in the solar convection zone is the same as whatever process regulates climate in the Earth’s atmosphere.”
Ian Wilson,
“I have given you the chance to remove your libelous statements”
I edited it for you 😉
BTW Ian, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I cited Noble Cause Corruption upthread.
Subsequently, your petulant lashing out at Richard Courtney has changed that.
Ismael Bullialdus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismael_Bullialdus
Richard Courtney was not personally attacking you. Ian, I believe your comment was completely uncalled for and petty as the “conflict of interest” charge was not a dishonest ad hominem like this but rather one that allows alarmist’s unnecessary ammunition of “pal-review”.
Why give alarmists ammunition like this? It makes no sense.
I just read Abreu et al’s response to Usoskin’s comment on their 2012 paper.
Lol. Some due diligence and full disclosure by Leif would have saved team WUWT yet another Doh! moment.
I’m surprised Poptech fell for the Rasmussen ruse. In his first email to the editors he said he was shutting down PRP because it had allowed sceptics to publish heresy about the IPCC dogma. Only later did he realise the own goal and cook up the unsubstantiated smears about “potential” issues with review.
tallbloke says:
January 18, 2014 at 12:31 pm
I just read Abreu et al’s response to Usoskin’s comment on their 2012 paper…Lol
Show it here so we can share in your laughter.
full disclosure by Leif
Full disclosure of what? Veiled, vague hints [or worse] don’t do it.
Yeah Tallbloke, clarify your crypto remarks, we all aren’t specialists at guessing patterns in random noise.
charles the moderator says: January 18, 2014 at 10:09 am
Quoting Nicky Scaffetta,
“Before questioning the review process you need to find errors in the papers.”
Buzzzzz…. wrong. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
*********
Sorry, Charles. You are quite confused on the issue.
You must demonstrate that the referees had “conflict of interest” which in this case means that for some economical advantage or other motivations they have acted “unprofessionally” to favor the publication of faulty scientific claims.
So, you first need to find relevant scientific errors in the papers which demonstrate the “unprofessional” behavior, then you can argue that the referees acted unprofessionally for some goal and need to identify the hidden goal.
But if you do not find relevant scientific errors in the paper first, you have no arguments.
Without finding factual errors, you can only conclude that the authors and the referee and the editors worked well.
Your argument denounced only your inability to find scientific errors in the published papers for your lack of scientific knowledge. So, you look only at the appearance of the rules.
Tallbloke,
Actually, Ian Wilson volunteered participating in these issues of scientific malpractice in this thread. Although he won’t agree with that interpretation.
Tallbloke, you do the anti-warmists no good with these sorts of shenanigans. This episode is an embarrassment.
Sorry Nicky, this is a thread about process, not a debate on your paper. So yeah, I focus on process. Richard Courtney summed it up well.
So Nicky, did other authors of the Special Edition review your papers? Did you review other papers in the Special Edition?
Nicola Scafetta:
At January 18, 2014 at 1:08 pm you say
Sorry, but No.
Your assertions display complete failure to understand the nature and purpose of peer review.
The peer review process itself was flawed in a manner which required that the Special Edition be withdrawn and the closure of the journal is understandable.
Please read my above comment at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/the-planetary-tidal-influence-on-climate-fiasco-strong-armed-science-tactics-are-overkill-due-process-would-work-better/#comment-1540406
and my additional explanation in its link.
Richard
Loehle and Scafetta 2011, penned in 2010, has successfully forecast global average temperature in the four years since they wrote it. Evidently hypothetical predictions being validated doesn’t count for much in post modern science, eh?
charles the moderator says:January 18, 2014 at 1:18 pm
Sorry Charles. Still you do not find errors in the papers.
Find the errors in the works and then you can talk about “pal-review”.
This is the definition of “pal-review”:
http://www.odlt.org/dcd/ballast/pal_review.html
“Peer review by colleagues who because they don’t want to rock the boat or hurt their careers — or because they are pursuing a similar political agenda — do not give the work the type of scrutiny that it would normally get in a properly conducted peer review.”
So, you need to demonstrate that the referees did not “give the work the type of scrutiny that it would normally get in a properly conducted peer review.”
To reach the above conclusion you need to find scientific errors in the papers that “a properly conducted peer review” would have found.
If you do not find systematic scientific errors in the papers, then you can only conclude that there was a properly conducted peer-review process conducted by people expert in the field.
Your accusations are like to accuse somebody of being a murderer without pointing to the killed person first. Think a little bit. You go to the police and say: “Tom is a murderer!” The police asks, “who has been killed?” You reply, “Nobody that I know, but Tom is a murderer!” At this point the police will put you, not Tom, in jail for defamation.
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 18, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Sorry Charles. Still you do not find errors in the papers.
I don’t think you know what an ‘error’ is. Find the errors in this nonsense-paper http://www.leif.org/research/Numerology-pdf R^2 is 0.999995
http://www.leif.org/research/Numerology.pdf
[snip – Nicola take your defamation claims elsewhere – you are acting like Mann. It’s an opinion. – Anthony]
Seriously Nicky, I don’t give a rat’s ass about your most recent wiggle matching paper. I’ve seen you challenged by people far more mathematically able than I am and all I’ve seen you do in response is evade, point to a stack of papers and say read my papers!
When asked for computer code for replication: “Read my papers”.
When asked specific questions on methods: “Read my papers”.
When people ask which paper or which part answers the question: “Read my papers”.
I have watched your inability to engage in any serious discussion of your work over more than five years so I’m not interested in trying.
In this case, you and your fellow wigglers got together, mislead a publisher into thinking they could trust you guys to launch a serious journal and then you had your little circle-jerk of pal review of each others’ work and you have the temerity to say: “Read my papers”