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
Agenda?
======
Sorry, that’s a bit abrupt. But please expand on the topic.
==============
Bernd Felsche:
At January 19, 2014 at 7:07 am you ask
I answer
It depends on whether or not you don’t mind being killed by e-coli.
That is why we have systems and enforcements to regulate factories and farms.
Richard
kim says:
January 19, 2014 at 7:49 am
Sorry, that’s a bit abrupt. But please expand on the topic.
Look up Confirmation Bias.
Conclusions
…..””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….””
Does this mean that from the, “different sampling frequencies” used, that there were more peaks and not necessarily at the time periods claimed? And that the peaks are artifacts of what?
Carla says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:04 am
Does this mean that from the, “different sampling frequencies” used, that there were more peaks and not necessarily at the time periods claimed?
Yes.
And that the peaks are artifacts of what?
Of the method used.
Here’s something interesting. The Sun has a rotation period of 25 days at it’s equator, and 34 days at it’s poles.
So it’s kind of like Saturn, with visible features rotating at different rates depending on latitude.
The slower rate at the poles roughly matches the rotation of the core, as postulated from radio emissions.
And get this, recently (between the Voyager visit and Cassini) the radio rotation rate has slowed down from 10:39 to 10:45. A quick check at the telescope confirms that this is just the radio rotation slowing down, not the planet itself.
The NASA believes these recent variations in the radio rotation are due to Enceladus’ geysers injecting charged particles into Saturn’s magnetic field.
Leif, I’m disappointed but not surprised. Any idea of what the agenda of the BBC is?
==========
kim says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:26 am
Any idea of what the agenda of the BBC is?
Perhaps a CYA ploy. From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/19/bbc-runs-6-excellent-minutes-on-quiet-sun-and-past-correlation-with-little-ice-age/
“The world we live in today is very different to the world that was inhabited during the Maunder Minimum. So we have human activity, we have the industrial revolution, all kinds of gases being pumped into the atmosphere, so on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate”
Kim: When the silver lining of a cloud burns bright, its memory lights the darkest night.
How is it that tiny Enceladus, with it’s even tinier geysers, and the tiniest (the portion of particles that reach escape velocity) can have such a profound effect on the magnetic field of a huge planet like Saturn, but the planets, which in relation to the Sun are much larger proportionally than Enceladus is in relation to Saturn, are deemed to have no effect on the Sun?
Not even worthy of critique?
Try again. That doesn’t wash.
Leif Svalgaard quotes:
“so on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate”
So much for the Sun not being able to muster more than 0.07C per decade as Leif has been telling us for the last decade, based on spurious IPCC ‘science’ of instantaneous TSI only forcing which takes no account of bigger multi-decadal swings in wavelengths which can have big effects in the upper atmosphere.
Leif Svalgaard quotes:
“so on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate”
So much for the Sun not being able to muster more than 0.07C per decade as Leif has been telling us for the last decade, based on spurious IPCC ‘science’ of instantaneous TSI only forcing which takes no account of bigger multi-decadal swings in wavelengths which can have big effects in the upper atmosphere.
Reading Lsvagaard saying PRP articles don’t rate a response, puts in mind someone trying to do the rectal cranium inversion, but discovering his head is much too big to fit.
richardscourtney said in part January 19, 2014 at 12:12 am
……“Peer review is not – and has never been intended to be – an indication of a paper’s quality.”……
I agree 100%, and with the link you provided to your previous post, which was excellent like most all your writing.
Perhaps you will agree however that the phrase “NOT Peer Reviewed” is not an indication of lack of quality, although it is very frequently used (often in the main-stream news) as a “Hammer” to pummel or belittle a report one finds inconvenient. When we start listing what something is NOT, we start on a very long list which is probably intended to prop up the virtues of the attributes that it does not possess.
richardscourtney says: @ur momisugly January 19, 2014 at 7:52 am
I answer
It depends on whether or not you don’t mind being killed by e-coli.
That is why we have systems and enforcements to regulate factories and farms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry Richard farms have nothing to do with e-coli because ALL livestock is infected. It is a slaughter problem not a farm problem.
The e-coli ‘scare’ is just as much of a ‘Manufactured crisis’ as Global warming is. In the USA the start was the change from actual inspection and testing to ‘Harmonizing’ with the international HACCP regs. HACCP’S Disconnect From Public Health Concerns also see John Munsell & A Trip To The Woodshed With The USDA
You have to remove the innards WITHOUT contaminating the rest of the meat with feces. Unfortunately here in the USA the USDA relaxed the standard on feces contamination via HACCP and even before that useless new standard was introduced in 1996.
National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals: “Based on a policy change in 1978 allowing “reprocessing,” the USDA decided that, instead of condemning contaminated carcasses, the industry can simply wash the contamination off with chlorinated water. “
.
This is really bad news.
Can you say OH FECES! What is to keep China from exporting their own chicken to the USA?
I know of a truck driver who has watched produce from Mexico get transfered into boxes saying “Product of the USA’ while the inspectors looked the other way. He said reporting it just got him a threat to have his commercial drivers license removed permanently.
In the USA the USDA and FDA are just as corrupt as the EPA. SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy
This is where my disgust with the American government started by the way.
papiertigre says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:33 am
How is it that tiny Enceladus, with it’s even tinier geysers, and the tiniest (the portion of particles that reach escape velocity) can have such a profound effect on the magnetic field of a huge planet like Saturn, but the planets, which in relation to the Sun are much larger proportionally than Enceladus is in relation to Saturn, are deemed to have no effect on the Sun?
The reason is very simple and well-understood: Enceladus is within Saturn’s magnetosphere and there are magnetic field lines connecting the atmosphere of Saturn with Enceladus, so particles can travel towards Saturn and cause aurorae with associated radio-effects [not changing the magnetic field of the planet]. For the Sun, the situation is very different as the outflowing solar wind prevents effects to travel upstream to reach the Sun.
tallbloke says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:39 am
which takes no account of bigger multi-decadal swings in wavelengths which can have big effects in the upper atmosphere.
The tail does not wag the dog: the upper atmosphere is much thinner [density goes down by a factor of 1000 for each 50 km you ascend] than the troposphere where we [and climate] live. Perhaps you should read up on atmospheric physics.
Leif, Mike Lockwood is pretty amusing in that BBC interview, all tied up in cognitive dissonance knots.
==============
Bernie Hutchins:
Thankyou for your kind words at January 19, 2014 at 8:41 am.
You ask me
Yes. And I said that (in strong terms) in my post which commented on the article by David M Hoffer.
I again commend the excellent article by David M Hoffer which concerns your point and is above my comment at the link. To help others who may want to know what we are talking about I again provide the link to my pertinent comment and people can scroll up from it to read the article by David M Hoffer.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/29/peer-review-last-refuge-of-the-uninformed-troll/#comment-1522700
Richard
Mickey Mann has described Judy Curry’s senate testimony as ‘anti-science’. He clarified this meant ‘ignorance’ rather than deliberate deception (presumably for legal reasons). Mann also admitted he hadn’t read Judy’s deposition.
We’re still at the “Your paper that I haven’t read isn’t worthy of rebuttal” stage with team WUWT too.
I hope Svalgaard and Watts stop to consider what having this trait in common with Micky Mann does for their rep amongst sceptics.
Gail Combs:
Sincere thanks for the correction of me which you provide at January 19, 2014 at 8:41 am
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-1541231
Expert knowledge is always appreciated, and your information is interesting (and worrying).
As those who read your correction will understand, your post does not alter my point except to strengthen it. And I will use your correct information if the faulty analogy is again presented. Thankyou.
Richard
tallbloke says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:00 am
We’re still at the “Your paper that I haven’t read isn’t worthy of rebuttal” stage with team WUWT too.
You are still shrinking away from and evading explaining in your own words [reflecting your understanding(?)] what the rebuttal is. Put up or shut up.
1. richardscourtney said in part January 19, 2014 at 1:26 am, replying to my post of January 18, 2014 at 9:46 pm
‘ 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”. ‘
What I actually said was:
“ This is a much larger issues than the one in just this current PRP backdrop/dustup.”
meaning that the pal-review issue was larger OUTSIDE the PRP dustup. (For example, not restricted to just letting your pals through, but keeping your “enemies” out.) I apologize as this was perhaps not clear enough.
lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:03 am
tallbloke says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:00 am
We’re still at the “Your paper that I haven’t read isn’t worthy of rebuttal” stage with team WUWT too.
You are still shrinking away from and evading explaining in your own words [reflecting your understanding(?)] what the rebuttal is. Put up or shut up.
I was referring to our special edition papers, not Abreu et al’s explanation of Usoskin’s mistakes in the methods he used to critique they’re 2012 paper.
Here they are:
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Still published, open access, free to download.
Anthony raised the subject of Abreu et al, not us. I’ve sent him the Abreu et al response to Usoskin. Get him to tell us in his own words what it says, now he no longer has the paywall excuse to hide behind.
Isvalgaard wrote –
” “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.”
Does anyone know what a ‘non sequitur’ is in terms of logic ?.
The only acceptable resolution for observed retrogrades is not a hypothetical observer on the Sun nor the stupid modeling that arose from that suggestion,the resolution for apparent retrogrades are they are an illusion seen from a moving Earth –
“7 . The apparent retrograde and direct motion of the planets arises not from their motion but from the earth’s. The motion of the earth alone, therefore, suffices to explain so many apparent inequalities in the heavens.” Copernicus
http://dbanach.com/copernicus-commentarilous.htm
This modeling mania is a direct result of the original agenda which began with Newton and his attempt to scale up experimental sciences to celestial structure and motion. It is why these clown have gone on an assertion binge at the expense of Western astronomy,its insights and methods.
Two words which are lethal to research enter the picture here with the assault on the great Western astronomical insight which set Earth spinning and orbiting the Sun. Those words are incompetence and fraud so that people who can’t or won’t accept the proper resolution for apparent retrogrades can decide which of those words apply to themselves.