The Open Atmospheric Society takes a new approach to atmospheric science, becoming the first international society of its kind to be a cloud-based online organization
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 16, 2014 – The Open Atmospheric Society, known as “The OAS” for short, announces its formation, and readiness to accept charter members. The purpose of The OAS is to provide a paperless and entirely online professional organization that will represent individuals who have been unrepresented by existing professional organizations that have become more activist than science based in their outlook. It also aims to provide a professional peer reviewed publication platform to produce an online journal with a unique and important requirement placed up-front for any paper submitted; it must be replicable, with all data, software, formulas, and methods submitted with the paper. Without those elements, the paper will be rejected. This focus on replicability up front is not found in other similar organizations that publish scientific results.
John Coleman, Founder of The Weather Channel had this to say
It is very gratifying to hear of the formation of The Open Atmospheric Society. A new Meteorological organization and scientific publication have been greatly needed for more than a decade. It is unfortunate that the American Meteorological Society has become totally politicized and conducts itself in total violation of the basic scientific principle of open debate; encouraging competing points of view to be presented and published.
I allowed my Professional Membership in the AMS expire many years ago after being an active member, attending National Conferences and reading The Bulletin of the AMS for many years. Several events occurred that made it clear to me that the society was in the control of people who were using it to complete their personal agendas and the Society would was becoming closed and dogmatic. I look forward to membership in the OAS.
Joseph D’Aleo AMS Fellow, and Certified Consulting Meteorologist adds:
The AMS, AGU and other professional society editors have slow-walked and thrown up obstacles to papers that challenge the “consensus” position, usually forcing authors to go elsewhere to publish their work. They have fast tracked other papers when issues arose that threatened that position. The AMS had policy advocacy as one of the top organizational goals. A professional scientific society should only advocate for good science and leave the policymaking to those elected to determine the policies based on the very best science.
The OAS, whose motto: verum in luce means “truth in the light”, offers not only a place for a free exchange of ideas, but a unique Internet cloud-based journal publishing platform providing emphasis on open review and reproducibility requirements up-front. Here are a few points of interest:
- Open membership— Associate members, anyone who has an interest in atmospheric science, can join at a basic rate, providing interdisciplinary membership. Professional full voting members, will require a degree in atmospheric sciences or related earth or physical science disciplines, or three published papers in these subjects. Student members get a reduced rate, similar to associate members with option to full member elevation. More details at The OAS Charter.
- Open journal— The Journal of the OAS will be free to read by the public. Open science— a transparent online peer review process
- No other journal asks this upfront: strict OAS Journal submission requirements—technical submissions to the Journal by members must include all source data, software/code, procedures, and documentation to ensure reproducibility of the paper’s experiment or analysis by external reviewers.
- Author account—each author and co-author will have accounts for collaboration, submitting papers, making edits, and responding to reviewers.
- Emphasis on reasonable publication turnaround, 3 months or less.
- DOI’s will be assigned and provided with each publication.
- The OAS will offer press releases and web video assistance for authors to explain papers clearly and effectively to the general public. It will also occasionally offer statements and positions regarding atmospheric science as it relates to current news.
- Organizational activity will be conducted entirely online – This means no costly brick and mortar infrastructure, no costly postal mailings journals, and no need for warehousing paper files and publications.
The formation of The OAS represents a new way of conducting the scientific method, and welcomes those who feel their professional interests are not being served with the current collection of professional societies who focus on meteorology and climatology. The upcoming Journal of the Open Atmospheric Society has been assigned an official ISSN publication number by the Library of Congress (ISSN 2373-5953) and is registered with CrossRef, the world’s leading scientific publication identifier providing Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) for publications.
If you would like more information about this new society, please e-mail us at contact (at) theoas dot org or visit online at http://theoas.org to learn more or to become a member.
# # #
Follow The OAS on Twitter, here: https://twitter.com/The_OAS
Personal Note:
This is a project that has been two years in the making and was borne out of feedback in this WUWT poll in May 2012:
Many, many, people have provided input that helped shape the concept, and a full launch had been planned for June of this year, but as Murphy’s Law would have it, the Annotum publishing platform used for the Journal became non-functional due to a major software upgrade introduced by WordPress in May. We had to wait for the issue to sort itself out, and now that it has, we have the final green light for the official launch. Here is what the workflow looks like:
Dr. Roy Spencer once said to me that trying to organize climate skeptics would be like “trying to herd cats”. While this Society is not trying to “herd” anyone, nor is it specifically focused on climate skepticism, it will serve to represent a group of people and ideas that up until now has been essentially ostracized because the ideas and viewpoints are counter to “consensus”. Until now, there has not been an organization that represented those people who feel that the other organizations have lost their way. Now, there is.
Feedback from members is going to be our most important asset. Participation will be the engine that drives change. Asking for replication up front will also drive change. While a replication requirement by itself does not guarantee that a scientific paper will be unfalsifiable (all the math and data could be valid, but the premise and/or conclusion can still be wrong), it is a step in the right direction that other atmospheric science journals have yet to demand. Imagine if Cook’s 97% paper or Mann’s Hockey sticks had replicability requirements before publishing.
Further announcements, calls for papers, and organizational notices will be posted in the coming days and weeks. In the meantime, you can get familiar with the charter, the goals, and the publishing platform.
Right now, membership is the most important goal. I encourage everyone who reads WUWT to become a member, or an associate member . Like any organization, it starts out small with an idea, and grows as momentum builds. As the momentum builds, so will the organization. My role is to put all the pieces in place, and help it grow.
For the inevitable naysayers, here is one of my favorite quotes from Winston Churchill:
“You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.” ― Winston Churchill
Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony Watts
Anthony, will Kenji be taking out membership?
Didn’t you read the links? He’s the president !
get a life jerk! And use your full name.
Dear Gentlemen all,
I heartily endorse your efforts at creating a counterculture professional organization butting heads with the current madness concerning AGW. My best wishes to all of you who are arguing on the right side of the scientific and philosophical fence. However, even though I am but a simple meteorological technician, a work-a-day forecaster, out here in the hinterlands of the Desert Southwest, I can see that many of you for whom I have great respect have missed a (if not THE) basic tenant of the whole AWG regulatory push. At least I don’t see it written about much. Please consider that this whole kerfuffle is NOT about controlling climate chemistries for the benefit of mankind, it IS about controlling the actions of whole populations on a global scale for the benefit of those would be our dictatorial overlords. One government controlling all of humanity is their goal – with them in control. AWG is just one of the current vehicles designed to carry these individuals forward toward their goals of 1) setting enforcable global law precedent, 2) enriching those who are foisting, controlling and providing future management of these regulations, and 3) maintaining these individuals in positions of power because, of course, they are the solitary holders of the wisdom to know what is best for all the rest of us. IMHO, for them, scientific truth is irrelevant and in actuality an obstacle toward their intended ends. Dare I suggest that we are in a political power war, not a scientific opinion debate? However, scientific truth is gradually providing ammunition against these Napoleon Complex power brokers, so please keep up the good work.
On second thought, belay the last. Didn’t see it in context at first. Implicit in your efforts is the obvious recognition of a malignancy that you are fighting. I’m really glad for it. WR
…basic TENET…
Call me Associate RWhite! Also don’t forget those Facebook likes guys, social media is a big part of growth.
Congratulations! Well launched.
This restores and goes beyond the original Royal Society intent and Motto:
No, it means “never put anything in writing”. ( You may get FOI’ed ).
When the RS were asked to confirm whether or not they had , in fact, helped formulate the questions for the whitewash investigation at CRU as Lord Oxburgh had claimed, they replies ‘Nullius in verba’ .
Greg
We still need to uphold the foundations of the scientific method. TheOIA requirements will set the standard, calling to the level of scientific integrity detailed by Richard Feynman to Caltech in his commencement address 1974 Cargo Cult Science:
See What is FOIA
For organizations – there has to be a court case with discovery. That is part of the reason Mark Steyn countersuing Michael Mann.
Congrats, I was truly gobsmacked after reading the recent AMS Climate Status Report, in which hundreds of authors had been fooled into putting their contributions and names into the most blatant piece of CAGW propaganda EVER RECORDED.
Why do you assume that they were fooled?
They may have been fools long before or could have been willingly going along in the most noble and corrupt fashion.
Congratulations!
The full data / methods / code requirement is really the bright point.
Just to nitpick: while “verum” may be used as a noun, “truth” is usually rendered in Latin as “Veritas”, and “verum” is more commonly used as an adjective (nominative neuter singular). Seems to me “Veritas in Luce” would be a more “usual” Latin rendering of “Truth in Light”. Any specific reason to use “verum” as a noun? It reads more easily as “True In Light”.
(See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/verum, inter alia 😉 )
I prefer “We’re open. We don’t need no steenkin’ FOIA!”
I concur.
OAS has a typo in their side bar for Join Now: “you be given…”
Cool, “truth in the light” more radiometry, fewer models.
I think the third bullet in the charter is the Touchstone. Godspeed!
I am sure that there are a lot of people who are fed up with the “Global Warming meme” and have said something along the lines of “Wish there was something I could do to stop the insanity.” The OAS appears to be poised to bring into the light that which the proponents of CAGW would prefer to remain hidden. Either joining OAS or supporting OAS through donations will allow each person, in some small way, to join those who wish to stop some of that CAGW insanity. While I am not qualified to write a paper that would help enlighten those who seek scientific knowledge, being able to support those who can, is an honor I can not pass up.
Weather experts:
Take a look at current Sat. , GOES west, shows the hurricain moving northeast, then below that on the west coast of Mexico another new huge thunder storm complex.
Where is it headed and is it feeding mostiure to the strom above.
??
Once again Anthony, I stand in awe of the amount of time you put in on all these varied projects.
Does this mean you can get NGO status at the next IPCC confab?
science based should be hyphenated.
Congratulations to all that helped set this up. Might I offer a few suggestions for reviews and editing, as well as the data archival part of the cloud site?
o – For each paper submitted, there should exist a separate thread for minor grammar and spelling corrections to keep this kind of thing out of the discussion flow for major logic, methodology or other serious review items.
o – For papers that need data archival, try to set up a meta store for raw data, and then each paper that uses adjustments to this raw data must recalculate and reapply the fully documented adjustments to get a temporary store for replication. In this way, all adjustments can be analyzed for their particular effects on the experiment or as part of future experiments.
o – A hierarchy or framework (tree structure?) showing how each paper fits into the larger field would be very helpful. For example, the hierarchy might have Earth Sciences at a high level, Climate down one level, Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences down one level from that. Not sure how this could be maintained for multi-discipline studies, but Modeling might have a category under Climate for coupled land/ocean models, and a separate model category for strictly gaseous or Atmospheric models
o – Each paper should have two mandatory associated items: an abstract saying what the paper is and what is purports to study, with the hypothesis clearly stated, how the methodology tests the hypothesis, and a simple English explanation of results; and it should have a minority report that shows the main weaknesses, arguments against, potential sources of refutation or opposition and areas for further study. This minority report is the place where people could suggest better ways of testing the question at hand. And these two elements should be delivered in Willis Eschenbach elevator speech statements, with common English, no statistics, more like a closing argument.
Free advice, and worth every penny.
This is an interesting development. Part of my doctoral dissertation was in the use of computer modeling based on spectroscopy data. That’s how I came to be interested in this whole issue of AGW as distinct from the simple ‘it bleeds it leads’ notions of the popular press. I wanted to do some independent research, and as a first stop, I wanted to see the raw temperature data. I was rather amazed that the simple act of having the temerity to ask to see the data (any data, not just the raw data) was met with me being accused of being in the ‘earth is flat’ camp. Just for asking….
It reminds me a little of the HIV scare of the 1980s. I was citing the actual scientific data on seroconversion rates in discordant couples as a means of measurement of apparent risk of unprotected vaginal intercourse. When I would cite the peer-reviewed stats, I was invariably met with a response of “why is your data so different than the accepted scientific data? why are you trying to get people killed with your lies?” Then I would have to carefully explain to them that what is was quoting *IS* the accepted scientific data. Their uncritical perception was biased so much by media reports that they weren’t even in the ballpark in their understanding of relative risk.
As I kept digging into the AGW data issue, it became apparent that not only are they massaging the numbers, but that they are massaging the numbers in every way and form possible. And then finally they just came out and said “we corrected the data and threw the original away”. Game over for that data set. Impossibly, irretrievably and intractably corrupt. The (non-satellite) data that survives serves no scientific purpose at this point. I’ve watched 1998 be revised down over and over and over. The only hockey stick I see is in the comparison of the raw vs. corrected as a function of year.
I will be happy to see temperature and other climate data treated in a WHOLLY UNBIASED AND TRANSPARENT WAY, let the truth shine, and let the chips fall where they may.
And those who don’t accept the atmospheric radiative GHE theory, can they join, or will they be spitefully blocked?
Low expectations will cause thinking of spitefully being blocked.
This is good. Herding cats? Maybe. If whatever is considered “the head” keeps honest, then the herd will move in the right direction.
By that I mean that if the “science” says 2+2=4 but one says 2+2=5, then a slap-down is in order and should be received…with the applicable math rather than ideology. Keep the goal the reality whether “pleasant” or not
Leave no room for manipulation for any reason in any way, shape or form.
PS It might take some time to establish credibility (recognition?). But look what you’re up against. That shouldn’t take much time. I think even TWC pays attention to a Coleman or a D’Aleo forecast.
(Sorry if I butchered “D’Aleo”.)
Just get it right.
It will be interesting to observe the terror campaign that will no doubt be started to discredit OAS. The acronym is unfortunate. The AS bit in particular.
Oh, I don’t know. Up their….. 😎
There will be pointed questions about the funding, as there have been about the GWPF’s–and the questioners will reject any innocent answers.
The transition for the adults won’t be that hard. From cloud cuckoo land that the AMS, AGU et al have become to the cloud.
Hopefully this will be a template for other migrations.
May we assume that this topic will be a “sticky” for a few days?
Maybe somebody in authority should elaborate on why the membership joining process is subdomained to http://theoas.wildapricot.org/ The domain is owned by a Russian in Toronto and one in Moscow. (not that I’m suggesting anything – just wary…)
Curious.
I saw that too and it was enough to stop me from completing the form. I’m wary by profession. It is a shame the internet has come to this.
It is there because that is the membership engine. Rather than try to create/manage membership ourselves (and the security risks such things entail) we opted to use this service to manage it. They are well established and based In Toronto. See: http://www.wildapricot.com/wildapricotcontact
Your objections to the domain name are akin to not trusting Steve McIntyre because he’s in Toronto.
We had originally contracted with a company called Non Profit Easy in Santa Rosa, CA, but they botched the execution of the process, wasting months of time, and could not provide some basic features we felt were needed without “customizing” the code. We didn’t want to risk that, so went with this well established membership system instead.
A very good and healthy development. The degeneration of some learned societies and journals under a political onslaught has been a source of great dismay to me. It is good to see a positive response, an ambitious effort to raise scientific and moral as well as intellectual standards back to higher levels in climate science.
After divesting myself of membership of about half a dozen professional and learned organisations, finally there is one I feel like supporting 🙂 I’ll give it a boost on my LinkedIn page.