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
Kim –
No Kidding. The best work gets done with your associates, not as “yes-men”, but holding feet to fire. A couple of professors, research staff, a half dozen grad students (to explain things to the professors), all standing around a blackboard or e-mailing, and things can get done right for the good of the participants individually, for the good of the research group, for the institution, for the field of research, and for science. Back and forth. Everyone learning and keeping egg off of each other’s faces. Everyone cares. This works. When it is done right, it is far more important than ordinary peer review, which may be largely superfluous at that point.
Conventional anonymous reviewers – not so much.
lsvalgaard says:
January 18, 2014 at 7:01 pm
“And that is also propaganda, as [solar] scientists are not ‘baffled’. The low activity was predicted a decade ago and has recurred several times at about every hundred years.”
———————————————————————————————————————————
It’s the BBC reporting on climate, so of course it’s propaganda! That was entirely my point….
My previous post was not claiming a mechanism for solar cycles influencing climate. It was more of a “Heads up! Incoming!”
The farrago of lies that is Global Warming is imploding. The fellow travellers want out. The sudden seeding of news reports with solar information (which, as you correctly point out, is years old) indicates they have clearly chosen “it’s the sun” as their exit strategy. Every fellow traveller in the AGW hoax will now be charging towards the only exit they can see, the solar influence gate. Mouths foaming, hooves flailing, eyes rolling and flanks steaming. Like a panicked herd of stampeding wildebeest. They want out and they want out now.
It appears the Patten Recognition journal just got trampled, but that is no cause for celebration, that just means they are now heading YOUR way. Every state broadcaster in the western world, every activist NGO, the UN, the EU parliament, the lot. These people don’t care about science and they’ve proved they will stop at nothing.
Poptech said January 18, 2014 at 11:04 pm
“WTF, we now have multiple people defending “Pal-Review” as acceptable? Likely the same people who would argue peer-review is meaningless. 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.”
Good for you – you got it – not sure of your intended tone, but I agree completely with all three sentences. Welcome to the future. Of course, you do have to do it right. It’s called conscientious performance.
Poptech, read what I’ve said again. First you have to demonstrate the papers wrong before you can decry the pal review which allowed the wrongness. There is a knee jerk reflex going on here; engage the central nervous system.
============
Does WUWT have the right not to publish comments that don’t meet their standards?
And that is rhetorical.
Friends:
For all those who have ‘lost sight of the ball’ I remind that
peer review is solely for the protection of a journal Editor
and pal-review removes that protection.
Peer review is not – and has never been intended to be – an indication of a paper’s quality.
Please refocus. To aid that, I remind of my post 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 comment to which it links.
Richard
Isvalgaard wrote in response to Newton’s failure to appreciate retrogrades –
” “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
And Newton was absolutely correct about this.”
The greatest innovation is Western science is,of course, the emergence of cause and effect which resulted from the arguments of Copernicus for the daily and annual motions of the Earth and central to this is the proper resolution of apparent retrograde motions where the planets move in one direction against the background stars,then periodically reverse direction and then return once more to the same direction –
“Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times, and stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that is why they are called “planets” [wanderers]. ” Copernicus
There are two types of apparent retrogrades requiring two different resolutions but always with the view from the Earth sandwiched between the inner and outer planets and this alone was the approach of the major astronomers from Copernicus through Galileo. The more familiar apparent retrograde motions of the outer planets is easily explained and the contemporary website does that more than adequately –
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
It is the separate cause of the inner planetary retrogrades that is equally as fascinating and I admit that it takes a little more effort yet contemporary imaging and graphics makes it so easy for students. The hamfisted hypothetical observer on the Sun assertion that Sir Isaac conjured out of thin air so he could attempt modeling via absolute/relative time,space and motion is from the same group that now try to make sense of planetary climate with the exact same disruptive results and the fact is that when Newton’s followers can so easily interrupt the main arguments for the Earth’s motions without so much as an objection then nothing but severe consequences can be expected.
Gkell1 says:
January 18, 2014 at 6:06 pm
“…What do you lot know of the works of Copernicus and Galileo ?, just enough to create havoc..”
—-l
This might not be the best blog for you to post on, unless your aim is to be the one providing the comic relief 🙂
Funny how Svalgaard attacked the quality of Usoskin’s Oulu data last year when it didn’t suit his argument, but defends Isoskin’s flawed analysis of Abreu et al this year when it does. Poor Ilya must be feeling dirty.
Anthony, get your hand in your pocket and pay for a copy of Abreu et al’s rebuttal of Usoskin’s comment. Given the gravity of the smears you are supporting here, you owe it to your readers as due diligance.
And they are just smears. We’re still awaiting some kind of specific accusations from Martin Rasmussen we can defend ourselves against.
Negrum
When shown exactly what retrogrades represent in terms of the orbital motion of the planet,and it is entirely a visual exercise, you still follow a vapid approach which centers around Sir Isaac’s absolute/relative time,space and motion and his hypothetical observer on the Sun.This was the beginning of the modeling mania we see so much of today but the fact is that none of you have a clue what Newton was trying to do with his Earth view representing relative space and motion and his hypothetical view representing absolute space and motion and he even tells you that —
“That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.” Newton
You wanted to see hype and novelties and now you have it at the most important juncture in astronomy and terrestrial sciences. If you need help with the explanation for apparent retrograde motion of the inner planets then just let me know,the explanation is even more magnificent that the resolution for the outer planets but none of it requires a imaginary perspective from anywhere other than a moving Earth.
kim says:
January 18, 2014 at 10:50 pm
“Ya, velly intellesting, Konrad. The Cheshire Cat sunspots wink at us”
—————————————————————————————–
All the Internet’s a studio,
The bloggers in it merely extras.
Entrances? Exits?
In time all players fade, if not their issue, until only grinning skulls remain.
In flesh we are but three generations deep. In mind, a thousand.
Make your contribution where you will.
(yours is appreciated.)
Bernie Hutchins says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:46 pm
Best post in the thread so far.
Bernie Hutchins:
Your post at January 18, 2014 at 9:46 pm is somewhat naive and is self-contradictory.
Perhaps, the original stated reason for stopping PRP was as you say,
The ONLY issue for us here? Certainly not, if only because you also say
If “nepotism” in peer review is a “much larger issue” then that refutes your previous assertion that another issue “should have been the only issue for us here”.
Importantly, when people correct an error for which they are responsible they often pretend the reason for the correction is other than it is. Their responsibility is an embarrassment. But if their pretended excuse for correcting the error becomes a greater embarrassment than their responsibility then they usually ‘own up’. And that seems to be what has happened in this case.
Richard
lsvalgaard says:
January 18, 2014 at 7:01 pm
Konrad says:
January 18, 2014 at 5:19 pm
“The Sun’s activity has plummeted to a century low, baffling scientists
And that is also propaganda, as [solar] scientists are not ‘baffled’. The low activity was predicted a decade ago and has recurred several times at about every hundred years.
Shouldn’t that read ” as SOME [solar] scientists are not ‘baffled’, or do you not consider NASA as having Solar Scientists?
They have had to revise their estimate for Cycle 24 downwards by quite a large amount a few times in the past decade.
This is not a criticism of your Cycle 24 prediction
richardscourtney says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:26 am
I don’t think it naive at all, there should be 3 separate threads arguing each point instead of them being conflated.
richardscourtney says:
January 19, 2014 at 12:12 am
Friends:
For all those who have ‘lost sight of the ball’ I remind that
peer review is solely for the protection of a journal Editor
and pal-review removes that protection.
Peer review is not – and has never been intended to be – an indication of a paper’s quality.
Agreed Richard. But I would add that peer review by peers of integrity; especially those with the most intimate knowledge of the field of enquiry, is the best way to ensure it.
This hullaballoo of smears whipped up by Rasmussen, Mosher, Svalgaard, Trotter and Anthony Watts is just a smokescreen diverting attention from the science. Mama nature is vindicating our observations and dynamic harmonic model output going forwards.
Man supposes, nature disposes. Time will tell.
Richard, please email me. I have something rather shocking to discuss with you in private.
Although this has been a most interesting thread and I have learned a lot, it gives me little pleasure to see those whose opinions and scientific theories I respect (on both sides) fighting like ferrets in a sack.
Whilst the likes of Connolley & Rabett dance puerile little jigs for glee. (“Ha ha ha, you’re a bunch of nutters paying to publish your junk and pretend that its peer reviewed. Didn’t take long for you to be rumbled.”) Doubtless soon to be joined by Bob Ward, Abramson, John Cook, Joe Romm & Peter Gleick. A team who individually or collectively couldn’t put together a sentence, on any topic, that I would find credible.
Although all the science stuff is fascinating and (as an old engineer) I would hesitate to judge whether the PRP papers have merit or not; it seems to me that the great majority of comments on here miss perhaps the two most important points (in my eyes).
The first point is that this has been a big own goal on our side (and I mean by that, the sceptical side of the AGW debate). By giving the appearance of ‘Pal-Review’, (rightly or wrongly), we will have this episode thrown in our faces every time we point out how unfit-for- purpose is the endemic Pal-Review process in all the Alarmist / Activist journals. And if the likes of Connolley isn’t embarrassed to make that accusation, no-one else will be.
So this is a tactical blunder in the same league as Heartland’s ‘Unibomber’ billboards. An advertising campaign that would have been effective using Mugabe or Chavez or Ahmedinejad failed. this was because no-one cares what Unibomber believes about anything, whilst there is evidence (in the form of recorded standing ovations) of the AGW team supporting the other ‘presidential’ clowns.
The second point is that this incident is almost certainly one where Copernicus Publications and Martin Rasmussen have been severely leant on, behind the scenes, by the Alarmists. Obvious shades of Climategate behaviour.
But unfortunately neither Anthony nor the other commenters on here (with a few exceptions) have picked up on this. And the alarmists will happily keep discussion very well away from this topic!
Ripper:
No, the post at January 18, 2014 at 9:46 pm from Bernie Hutchins is “somewhat naive” because – like you – it fails to recognise the point which I stated to be
You say
Absolutely not!
Failure to address the two “conflated” points would completely distort the issue: partial information is distorted information.
Richard
A C Osborn says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:32 am
Shouldn’t that read ” as SOME [solar] scientists are not ‘baffled’, or do you not consider NASA as having Solar Scientists? They have had to revise their estimate for Cycle 24 downwards by quite a large amount a few times in the past decade.
But that does not mean that they are ‘baffled’, just that their prediction was wrong. This is good science as wrong predictions rule out wrong models.
tallbloke says:
January 19, 2014 at 12:29 am
Funny how Svalgaard attacked the quality of Usoskin’s Oulu data last year when it didn’t suit his argument, but defends Usoskin’s flawed analysis of Abreu et al this year when it does. Poor Ilya must be feeling dirty.
Good for Ilya to now get the science right. To demonstrate that you have understood something perhaps you could here summarize for us the rebuttal argument in your own words.
If you’re judging the quality of a sausage, do you first inspect the factory and farms that contributed to making the sausage or do you taste the sausage and then decide if the factory needs inspection?
Please don’t become obsessed with process. Millions/Billions of people waste their daily lives on process and it usually doesn’t improve the product.
Look at the product. The papers. If they are flawed, point out the errors.
Please!
Otherwise you’ve fallen into the trap of wasting your time, bickering about minutiae while the catastrophists scramble to regain credibility.
Be examplary. Read the papers. tear them to shreds if you can. If you can’t, then it proves that Rasmussen’s accusations are without tangible merit.
You have noticed, haven’t you, that NOT ONE of the papers published in PRP has as yet been critiqued by the warmists? Papers that’ve only gone through pal-review are, as we’ve seen in the past, are soft targets.
Bernd Felsche says:
January 19, 2014 at 7:07 am
You have noticed, haven’t you, that NOT ONE of the papers published in PRP has as yet been critiqued by the warmists?
A paper has to merit critique.
Sunday morning coming down.
=======================
Leif, years ago when you first introduced me to Livingston and Penn we went thoroughly through why the invisibility of the sunspots didn’t necessarily produce cold weather. Now we see the cold being explained to hoi polloi by those enigmatic spots. Funny that, eh?
============================
Konrad says: January 18, 2014 at 11:44 pm
_____________________________________
A good assessment of the BBC looking for an exit strategy. I too have noticed the BBC beginning to mention the Sun and questioning what we know about AGW.
Take the Daily Politics show. Greenie says UK floods caused by warming. Interviewer says the IPCC says it is not. Greenie says all the people on a train she was on, thought it was. Interviewer incredulous, bordering in incandescent: “your answer to the science is a train going to London!??! Co-interviewee, a politician, trying vainly to cover his mirth. This was a huge AGW own-goal, with a very influential BBC political interviewer.
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
kim says:
January 19, 2014 at 7:34 am
Now we see the cold being explained to hoi polloi by those enigmatic spots.
People will grasp at any straws that might lend support to their agenda…