I’ve dished out plenty of criticisms here for bad behavior on the part of government scientists, and I’d be remiss if I didn’t carry this criticism from Retraction Watch:
U.S. gov’t researchers withdraw climate paper after using pseudonyms
Climate scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture have withdrawn a study they wrote under eyebrow-raising pseudonyms.
The withdrawn paper, about predicting surface temperatures of planets, appeared inAdvances in Space Research in August, 2015, and is authored by Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez.
Normally, a withdrawal wouldn’t raise our eyebrows, but climate scientist Gavin Schmidt pointed out on Twitter that the authors’ names are eerily similar to another pair who have published climate papers together: Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller. Yes, that’s correct — Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez are Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller spelled backwards. Nikolov and Zeller are currently listed as a physical scientist and a meteorologist, respectively, at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The notice doesn’t state the reason for withdrawal, and Pascal Willis, editor-in-chief of Advances in Space Research from the Earth Physics Institute in Paris, France, referred us to the study’s authors for more information. Elsevier, which publishes Advances in Space Research, confirmed that the paper was retracted due to an “authorship issue” — namely, that the authors had used pseudonyms.
We used the contact information listed on the paper for “Den Volokin,” and got this response:
The paper went through a normal blind peer-review and was accepted based on its scientific value. I might be able to discuss the actual reasons for the withdrawal at a later time with you, but not at the moment.
The notice for “Emergent model for predicting the average surface temperature of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres,” which was issued before the paper could be published in print, reads:
This article has been withdrawn upon common agreement between the authors and the editors and not related to the scientific merit of the study. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.
Volokin and ReLlez are listed as based at Tso Consulting; one version of the retracted paper includes an address in Salt Lake City. When we searched for the address, we found an apartment unit on realtor.com.
Volokin noted that the paper is now under consideration at “another major journal.”
Schmidt, who is a climatologist at NASA, told us he came across the now-retracted paper because it cites another paper co-authored by Volokin and ReLlez, “On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect,” published in 2014 in SpringerPlus. (A side note:SpringerPlus stopped accepting papers earlier this year.)
Top tip for climate contrarians: When you submit nonsense papers to journals, spell your name backwards so no-one knows who you are.
— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) September 12, 2016
More here: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/13/u-s-govt-researchers-withdraw-climate-paper-after-using-pseudonyms/
Submitting a paper with your names reversed? I’m sorry… This. is. just. stupid. And I agree with Gavin, the paper itself is nonsense. Their work has been the same sort of “pressure rules the temperature of planetary atmospheres” nonsense that the irascible Doug Cotton pushes…under multiple fake names to try to get attention, here and elsewhere. Now they seem to have followed his lead.
I’ve had experience with these two people, Nikolov and Zeller before….and it has not been a good experience. There’s some behind the scenes ugliness they presented in email that I don’t plan to talk about. That’s why I don’t carry their views anymore and never will again, that’s doubly true now after this sad move with the fake names.
Here’s an interview with Nikolov
Here are some blog bosts at WUWT discussing their claims:
(added) Travelling through other dimensions where Willis Eschebach takes on this paper with the reversed names directly.(h/t to Nick Stokes for the reminder)
N&Z reply to Willis at Tallbloke’s
And this is what got it all started, a poster that I now wish I never paid attention to:
The recent London Climate Conference put together by Nils Axel Morner featured their work:
A New Planetary Temperature Model and Its Implications for the Greenhouse Theory
Source: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/london-conference-volume.pdf
When I saw that, plus the paper from Oliver Manuel, I knew then I would not attend this conference, even if invited.
Stunts like this gives fodder to critics. Had they just published their paper under regular names, it would have succeeded or failed on its own merits, that’s how science is supposed to work. Instead, the stunt has become the issue, not the science.
==========================================================
[UPDATE] I trust that Anthony won’t mind if I add a bit of backstory which even he doesn’t know. This is that I was the one who wrote to the Editor of the paper and notified them of the imposture. I couldn’t find an email address, so I sent it by their web contact form:
| Sujet : | FW: Feedback form submission |
|---|---|
| Date : | Tue, 8 Sep 2015 08:56:55 +0000 |
| De : | Stewart, Rosie (ELS-EXE) <r.stewart@elsevier.com> |
| Pour : | pascal.willis@ign.fr <pascal.willis@ign.fr> |
| Copie à : | Stoop, Jose (ELS-AMS) <J.Stoop@elsevier.com> |
| Name: | Willis Eschenbach |
| Comments: | Your support and contact page contains no contact information, so I am sending this information to you. If you’d be so kind, could you pass it on to the relevant editor(s) of Advances in Space Research. I write to officially inform you that the authors of the following manuscript are not who they claim to be: Advances in Space Research Available online 18 August 2015 In Press, Corrected Proof — Note to users “Emergent model for predicting the average surface temperature of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres” Den Volokin, Lark ReLlez http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117715005712 In fact, they are not scientists named Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez. They are two people named Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller. You can confirm this in two ways. First, simply reverse the letters of the names. Or, you could take a look at at the post called “A Unified Theory of Climate”, by Nikolov and Zeller, at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/ There you will find a similar (but not identical) claim that a multi-parameter model fitted to a small number of data points reveals climate relationships heretofore unknown to science. I have no idea why Nikolov and Zeller have chosen to perpetrate this deception. From the outside, it appears to be an attempt to validate their theory by making it seem like two independent scientists have discovered the same thing that they previously wrote about. But regardless of their motives, I find publishing original work in a scientific journal under false names to be a truly bizarre action on their part. I hope and trust that this was not known to you, and that you will take the appropriate steps to end their charade. Best regards, Willis Eschenbach |
| Email: |
The Editor replied:
Dear Eschenbach,
thanks for your email.
I am investigating this problem and should be able to come back to you soon.
Best regards
Pascal Willis, Ph.D.-habil.
And now, we have the denouement … so yes, folks, one person can indeed make a difference in this world, the web makes giants of us all.
Regards to everyone,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is quite conceivable that today is no warmer than it was in the late 1930s/1940.
I say that since:
(i) If one considers the thermometer record say 20 years ago, it showed significant cooling post 1940. Of course it has since been adjusted to do away with this period of cooling.
(ii) In the late 1970s, NASA was claiming that temperatures had fallen by up to about 0.5degC between 1940 and mid 1970s.
(iii) The tree ring data does not suggest that there is any significant warming since the 1950s and that is why Michael M@ann had to disregard the tree ring data post this date, and splice on the adjusted thermometer record when performing his ‘nature trick.’
(iv) the Satellite data suggests that there may have been about 0.4degC warming since 1979 (the bulk of which is a one off warming coincident with the Super El Nino of 1997/98).
(v) The raw data for the USA suggests that there has been no warming since the 1930s/1940s. Indeed, it would appear slight cooling.
(vi) Greenland raw data also suggests that there has been no warming since the 1930s/1940s.
The upshot of this is that it may well be the case that between 1940 and 1975, the planet cooled by about 0.4 to 0.5degC and since 1975 it has warmed by about 0.4degC. IF that is the correct position then there has been no significant warming during the entire period when manmade CO2 emissions became significant.
This would put Climate Sensitivity to CO2 as zero or close thereto
When the cAGW conjecture collapses, it is likely that there will be a re-evaluation of the science. I envisage that this will include revisiting the GHE. One reason why Climate Sensitivity could be low is because the GHE is not as large as claimed, and the figure of 33degC claimed for this effect is wrong.
“It is quite conceivable that today is no warmer than it was in the late 1930s/1940.”
I think the rising sea level over last century continued beyond 1950s.
Or had about 8″ rise over last century, and had about 4″ since 1950s.
And of the 8″ rise, 2 to 3″ is due to warming of the ocean or about 1″ rise due to warming
ocean since 1950. So would say this evidence of global warming since 1950s.
But regionally I believe the US was a bit warmer in the earlier part of 20th century.
“This would put Climate Sensitivity to CO2 as zero or close thereto”
I think a doubling of CO2 at most will cause 1 C of global warming- I don’t think greenhouse gases
could do much warming. Nor could much higher levels of CO2 prevent earth from returning to something like the Little Ice Age and/or returning to glacial period. And generally rises in greenhouse gases follow warming and will not stop global cooling. And think this could proven in next couple decades, as cooler conditions could lower or at least reduce increase in global CO2 concentration- despite China’s mad yearly increase in CO2 emissions.
gbaikie
September 15, 2016 at 8:58 pm: It is easy to forget that past sea level deglaciation rises have left vast areas of ice formed on the dry land eg Antarctica to be washed by seawater and thus steadily melted underneath. This is your rise now, and when it stops again, we do have a problem for a change. But maybe not soon.
Personally, I consider that the various data sets are not ft for purpose; they do not withstand the ordinary rigours of scientific inquiry and that is why we are left debating the issue.
I do not dispute that sea level has risen from the 1940s, although there is contradictory evidence on this and I am familiar from my experience with shipping as to the difficulties inherent in ascertaining sea level/draft measurements that render question marks over the claimed accuracy of the various data sets..
The material point is that there has been no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise since the 1880s, and there is a not insignificant argument that the rise that we are measuring today is the aftermath of the melting that took place as the world came out of the LIA.
I stand by the statement that it is far from clear that there has been any measurable warming post the late 1930s/1940s (possible sea level rise notwithstanding).
IF and this is only an if, that is really the case then Climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or close thereto.
IF Climate Sensitivity is truly close to zero, then the claimed GHE of 33 degC is open to question.
I am a sceptic which means that I am sceptical of almost all arguments in favour of AGW, and almost all arguments against AGW. Because of the poor quality of the data sets, I am not arguing that Climate sensitivity is about zero, but rather that one can not discount that possibility, and in which case the entire game is up for grabs.
— Brett Keane
September 16, 2016 at 1:48 am
gbaikie
September 15, 2016 at 8:58 pm: It is easy to forget that past sea level deglaciation rises have left vast areas of ice formed on the dry land eg Antarctica to be washed by seawater and thus steadily melted underneath. This is your rise now, and when it stops again, we do have a problem for a change. But maybe not soon.—
Not sure what you saying, but measuring sea level is complicated and has “noise” in the measurement.
But despite this I am fairly confident that a portion of rise in sea level measured, indicates earth surface [and/or ocean is most of earth surface] is still warming. Now during the Little Ice Age sea levels [as best that can be measured- which could revised if one has better measurement] did lower rather than rise.
I would explain that lowering and some significant part of the ocean cooling- but not go as far as saying the entire ocean cooled [mainly because this takes a very long time to do]. Or I would say generally speaking over the long period of our interglacial period [10,000 years] the entire ocean has been warming
and up and down of global average temperature, LIA, present period, Medieval warm, and ect has been warming or cooling a signifcant part of the ocean, but entire ocean is warming, and that generally during glacial periods, the entire ocean is cooling- though significant parts of ocean can warm or cool during shorter time periods of centuries.
Some people above make an analogy with a tyre and claim that once the tyre has been filled with air, the air in the tyre is warm but quickly loses its heat. I do not disagree with that proposition as long as no work is done on the tyre and as long as the side walls of the tyre are not being flexed.
However, if you immediately take the bike out for a ride the air in the tyre will remain hot since the tyre is constantly being slightly flexed as you ride over an uneven surface or as your body weight slightly shifts.
This flexing in the side wall of a tyre is only small but sufficient to keep the air temperature in the tyre hot.
This of course is well known in racing. Heat is got into the tyre by cornering. On the way to the grid, drivers move the steering wheel side to side causing the side wall to flex and thereby generate compression and thereby keep the pre-heated tyre warm.
As I noted above, our planets atmosphere is constantly being compressed. The globe is spinning and has an uneven surface (Everest is approximately 40,000 feet high). Tides ebb and flow. All of this causes the atmosphere to constantly be displaced 24/7 some 365 days of the year. The atmosphere is also being pulled by the moon (and sun).
This continued flexing of the atmosphere is all quite small but may be it is sufficient to keep a warm atmosphere warm just like very small flexing of the side wall of a tyre can keep the air in the tyre warm.
I am not saying this work is sufficient, I am just mooting the possibility.
“As I noted above, our planets atmosphere is constantly being compressed. The globe is spinning and has an uneven surface (Everest is approximately 40,000 feet high). Tides ebb and flow. All of this causes the atmosphere to constantly be displaced 24/7 some 365 days of the year. The atmosphere is also being pulled by the moon (and sun).”
It is under compression but it is NOT oscillating to/fro 0 bar and 1 bar. Even if it was ( hypothetically) – it is a zero-sum game. Any atmosphere will lose the same energy it gained during the cycle (neglecting LH effects).
Yes, there are small tidal effects but they are tiny and are far outweighed by dynamical forcings.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/wea.857/asset/857_ftp.pdf?v=1&t=it4k5by0&s=89092c00987e7578c800bf1d075ecbd70f1c53c1
I am in no way suggesting that the atmosphere is oscillating between 0 and 1 bar.
1 am suggesting that work is done, and whenever work is done, heat is an inevitable by product. In the practical world in which we live, whenever work is done we are not in a zero sum environ. If we were perpetual motion would be a possibility. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
It is tyre wall (sidewall) flexing that generates heat, not friction. See the comment made by Cristoph Knoche, the Racing Manager for Pirelli Tire North America’s Motorcycle Division. at http://www.sportrider.com/how-to-properly-warm-your-tires
my emphasis.
Huge sums of money go into motor racing and tyre development, and it is analysed in acute detail. Pirelli have for a very longh time beem the Formula 1 tyre supplier, I am confident that they know how heat is generated within their tyres.
The heating of the tire on the bike and F1 tires is due to friction, not the gas being compressed. The flexing of the side walls will compressed very a bit which heats it a bit but will also expanded the gas a bit when the side wall flexes the other way cooling it. The gas compression/expansion adds no energy (heat) to the system. Only the friction does.
This is the same as Toneb describes in his reply to your comment richard verney,
I addressed your point in my comment above.
A lot of research has gone into this issue, and the view is that it is flexing of the sidewall that generates the heat, not friction between tyre surface and race track/road.
“Acceleration and braking forces impart far more flex to the tire carcass, which is what generates the heat that then transfers to the tread compound as well”
Yes this is true and it is caused by friction of the rubber/steel/cord molecules in the side walls rubbing against each other. It has nothing to do with the compression/decompression of the air in the tire.
Thanks for the reply.
Richard you are being obtuse.
Of course tyres heat via flexing.
The ONLY point here is that a confined space (Earth) when it has its atmosphere compressed via gravity will exhibit the effect of that atmosphere heating. Yes?
Then the work is DONE. Yes?
SO it’s internal energy due to that work then radiates to space.
It does not remain.
Hence gravity does not create a LR of itself.
Matter heats up when it falls into a gravity well. Where does the energy come from?
The bigger the star or planet, the hotter its interior. The temperature eventually cools off and is lost to space let’s say (but it take an exceedingly long time to escape. The Earth’s interior has cooled by something like 0.000003C per year.) Why does it take so long? It should cool off very fast yet it takes billions or trillions of years to do so.
There is physics here that has not been explored by science thoroughly enough.
The earth’s core is radioactive. That’s where the heat is coming form. That’s been known for decades.
Matter does not heat up when it falls into a gravity well.
A falling object converts potential energy to kinetic energy as it falls. A comet that passes between the earth and the moon then goes out again, will gain energy (speed) as it falls into the gravity well, then lose that energy again as it climbs back out the other side. At no time does it’s temperature change.
If that falling object then hits something, some of the kinetic energy gets converted to thermal energy.
It is not radioactivity. This accounts for less than half of the heat in the Earth’s core. What about stars made up of hydrogen and helium only (ie no radioactivity) yet the cores heat up to 10 million C before fusion starts to take place.
How does potential energy get converted into actual molecular temperature energy. Where does the energy come from?
“It is not radioactivity. This accounts for less than half of the heat in the Earth’s core. What about stars made up of hydrogen and helium only (ie no radioactivity) yet the cores heat up to 10 million C before fusion starts to take place.”
It is via compression.
In this case gas in a cloud is compressed under gravity into a sphere. It heats. Most at it’s centre. If the gas cloud is big enough then that heat starts of fusion … And the star lights up. The force of gravity balancing the thermonuclear energy trying to explode to the surface.
How about the moon? It interior is not hot at all at 1/4 the size of the earth, As MarkW says it is the radioactivity that heats the earth core, not pressure.
I check and I was wrong, the moons core is warm. It appears the core of the moon is about1,270K~1,800K (molten Iron). The heating seem to be mostly form tidal forces keeping the moon from cooling down all the way.
The Moon’s interior is hot, and Moon is 1/80th of Earth’s mass.
There is heating caused by radioactivity, but it a portion of the source of the heat. And with gas giants
it would very small portion of the heat.
Toneb
September 15, 2016 at 10:53 am: Yes, we just have to open our minds a little to add the appropriate lapse rate per km to the final radius of any sun, starting at say 3K. Look at that figure, and understand. Maxwell and Feynman et al were not fools.
Got lads, the craziness here, some anyway, air molecules are hottest at the top of earth’s atmosphere.
If air was the same temp at ground level, we’d be incinerated in no time. Temperature and density folks.
I can have a sauna at 100c, but up the pressure, which means up the density of air too, and I’d be cooked in that same sauna.
Unfortunately, matters are not just that simple because the atmosphere is thin at altitude.
true my man very true
Note the amount of precipitable water controls how long you can be in the 100C sauna. At RH 100% 1 atm usually no time at all, while a dry sauna can be tolerable at 100C.
The reason is your skin which condenses at a high RH and that will boil you, but without the dangerous dihydrogenium monoxide, you’ll be ok.
my hydration level controls how long I can be in the Sauna mate, within a reasonable range.
Moisture also a factor, but if I throw water on the stones (i use beer) then obviously that moisture is transferred to the air in the Sauna and that increases density of the atmosphere in the Sauna increasing the heat transfer to my body.
I work with servers, liquid cooled and air cooled, obviously liquid cooling, the density is greater and so is the heat transport capacity, in fact 25 times greater.
The more energy you want to transport away per “whatever metric measure of medium you use” increases as you increase density of that medium.
For example liquid cooling using heavy mist with fans, will be better than air alone and not as good as liquid, simply because the liquid is more dense and so increased convection.
Also, at the top of the atmosphere, air molecules are well in excess of 100c. That is literally the hottest place in the atmosphere, because of the sun. The density is low, as I said, a molecule might have to travel kms to meet another one, so relatively it would be bloody cold, but increase the number of molecules and you will increase the relative temperature. Density
Sorry anthony, dunno what garbage I typed into my username.
Nick Stokes September 14, 2016 at 10:54 pm
“using the same principles/Ideal Gas Law as N&Z”
Well, the matterial at the bottom of the Venus atmosphere certainly isn’t an ideal gas. It’s normally reckoned to be supercritical. But you don’t say where or how you got the density measurement there.
As to the lower plot, as Willis said, getting a regression to pass through four points is easy if you have parameters to twiddle, and can choose a model likely to fit. And that is accepting Triton as a valid data point. Who claims to have measured atmospheric pressure at the surface of Triton?
Nick Stokes September 15, 2016 at 12:51 am
I see too that Willis wrote directly on this paper when it appeared Travelling through other dimensions, just over a year ago. He was not impressed. I see also that the author’s true identity was deduced in comments there.
As Nick points out Willis worked out who these guys were a year ago!
He also gave a very good critique of the ‘paper’.
It was even worse than he thought though. The fit was to only 5 bodies, however two of them had zero pressure which meant that the exponential terms were equal to 1, so that none of the four free parameters were involved. So the remaining three bodies were fitted using four parameters! Mars and Earth are effectively determined by the first exponential term whereas the second term is used to fit Venus.
It’s a junk paper and should have been rejected on those grounds, the pseudonyms are just a side show.
I find myself in agreement with Willis, Nick, and Phil.
Mark this rare moment in time. It may never come again
Perhaps Juno when it is crashed into Jupiter will shed a bit more light on this (although I am not holding my breath; Jupiter is no planet Earth).
I agree that one cannot read anything into the claimed fit of bodies where atmospheric pressure is close to zero.
Glad to see Nikolov and Zeller getting some publicity.
And of the right sort. Negative, exposing their nonsense.
Anthony,
‘Climate Skeptics Behaving Badly’
What the fruck is a climate skeptic?
” “Hurricane researcher-turned-climate denier” Really? Did Dr. Gray deny climate? Climate change? A human influence on climate?
Or did he just disagree with the human influence as the predominant climate forcing (still an open question), and that anthropogenic warming is a negative and potentially catastrophic one at that? …
Dear SP: Choose a better title or tell your editor that even a Monday is no excuse to denigrate a true scientist in the title of an obituary.”
That’s you speaking, Anthony, in an article I was loathe to speak up on, of course, but now I ask; Really? Are you skeptical of climate? Climate change? A human influence on climate?
Or do you just disagree with the human influence as the predominant climate forcing (still an open question), and that anthropogenic warming is a negative and potentially catastrophic one at that? …
Dear AW: Choose a better title or tell your editor that even a Thursday is no excuse to denigrate yourself and many others here . . again.
John Knight,
No, that is NOT ME SPEAKING about Dr. Gray. Read this article, where I reported his death and you’ll see it was Greenwire. My article pointed provided an excerpt from Robert Bradley where he questioned whether or not that was hate speech.
Jeez, learn to read correctly before you hurl wild accusations.
And I stand by the title ‘Climate Skeptics Behaving Badly’. Feel free to be as upset about it as you wish because honestly, when somebody puts up a fake name to a journal, they deserve to be called out on it.
Are you skeptical of climate, sir?
Wild accusations? . .
No sir, I say perfectly understandable pleas to stop using a label that if accurately applied, would render those it was applied to essentially morons.
Fully agree: there is no excuse for fake names.
That said, I consider that it is unfortunate that this site, which is the most important site regarding global warming, seeks to curtail debate. If their ‘science’ is wrong, it should be set out, debated, and exposed as right or wrong.
In due course, history will judge.
richard verney September 16, 2016 at 8:19 am
That said, I consider that it is unfortunate that this site, which is the most important site regarding global warming, seeks to curtail debate. If their ‘science’ is wrong, it should be set out, debated, and exposed as right or wrong.
It’s been done on here for each of their papers and again in this thread.
This previous post shows how bogus their ‘curve fitting’ is!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/14/climate-skeptics-behaving-badly/#comment-2300439
Their analysis is clearly wrong, what else is there to set out?
Mr. Knight of course I’m skeptical of climate, I’m also skeptical of fools that try to push through their science under fake names.
As for Mr. Verney’s concerns, we DID give Nikolov and Zeller a chance…per your “If their ‘science’ is wrong, it should be set out, debated, and exposed as right or wrong.”.
See the links in the body of the post where their science was debated.
We debated it here, it failed on its merits, miserably, and they failed to listen to that debate. Instead, they pushed it through a journal under fake names. That’s not science, it’s zealotry. We don’t do zealotry here.
I’m not concerned about how history will judge this, no not one bit.
Nikolov and Zeller have done good work while under heavy bombardment in a war zone. My only problem with them is first, the unnecessary deception and second, that they fail to adequately discuss radiation as the last step to space for energy thermalized by our planet. Radiation goes as the fourth power of temperature and thus furnishes a powerful negative feedback on any perturbation to our climate. Gravity controls the vertical distribution of gasses in the atmosphere, and following the laws of thermodynamics also controls the temperature profile of the troposphere through convective overturning. A complete theory requires proper consideration of both of these aspects. The existence of life on this planet stretching back billions of years, shows without question that life is resilient to whatever nature or mankind can throw at it, including that essential gas CO2 for which the plant life on this planet is always ravenously hungry.
pochas94 September 17, 2016 at 10:49 am
I’m awfully sorry to hear about the bombardment. Was it as heavy as the bombardment that Hillary landed under in Bosnia?
Seriously, pochas, what you call “heavy bombardment” is mostly the honest expression of people’s scientific problems with the Volokin and ReLlez parameter-fitting exercise.
And I object strongly to the characterization that scientific opposition is “bombardment”. People here, myself included, pointed out a large variety of large problems with their work. That’s not bombardment, THAT’S SCIENCE.
Finally, what kind of wimp finds it is hard to work in the face of some words written on the computer screen? That’s your excuse, that people wrote mean things about them?
Boohoo.
Man, if I found it hard to work because people disagreed with my science, I’d have stopped writing long ago. Just like Volokin and ReLlez, I’ve been putting forwards a new theory in the face of considerable opposition … so what? Seriously, what did they expect us to do, blow in their ears and whisper sweet nothings?
If they don’t have the moxie to push through scientific opposition, shame on them.
w.
[snip – off topic, appears to be denigration -mod]
@jon goldern
September 15, 2016 at 7:23 pm: OT, literally under the belt, foolishly casting the first stone like a good little troll.
Interesting article in Washington Post today about the subject of this post. Nikolov says they used false names because otherwise googling would lead to negative reviews in sceptic blogs (presumably Willis at WUWT):
Worrying news here:
” about this post”
I mean about the subject of this post.
Fixed. WordPress’s lack of a “Preview” function is a drag, but I do my best to fill the gap.
w.
All of this is interesting, and fun to read, but how do the authors explain rising world temperature? If the greenhouse gas entrapment theory is not correct, Is gravity increasing? That will play hell with my diet goals….
NZ results are for 30-year global mean planetary surface temperatures, warmer and colder wiggles from that ‘backbone’ stable value are due to changes in global cloud cover and solar activity. Their results do imply that past Earth atmosphere has varied greatly and not been fixed as assumed by most researchers.
@Cliff Forgaizer
September 22, 2016 at 11:09 am: The NZ temp record (7 Stations) was confessed to be faked by the ex-CRU types when real scientists took them to Court. So, we no longer have an ‘Official Record’. But, no idea how that might affect your posting.
Their claim below reflects a total misunderstanding of the scientific process:
Say what? Suppose the reviewers read my analysis of the V&R (Volokin and ReLlez) previous work. Surely, the reviewers would have the technical ability to read through my analysis and determine if they agreed with it or not. And if the reviewers agreed with V&R that my analysis was flawed, which V&R certainly argued on that thread, then it would increase the chance of the reviewers recommending publication. So what are V&R scared of?
From memory it was Freeman Dyson (and the beauty of this site is I’ll be informed if I’m wrong, and very soon) who said that in any scientific study you need to provide an assessment of all of the negative or opposing evidence that appears to contradict your theory. You need to bring up and discuss ideas and concepts that could indicate that you are wrong.
And V&R were certainly free to do that in their study. They could have said something like “It has been argued that there are too many free parameters, but we reject that argument on the basis of …”, and gone on to deal with the objections one by one in a similar manner.
But instead of following Dyson by acknowledging and dealing with the opposition to their ideas and the many valid objections to their work raised here at WUWT … they decided instead to hide the opposition to their work entirely. Not only that, but they’ve said that’s why they hid it—in order to prevent the reviewers from knowing that V&R’s ideas have a plethora of scientifically-based objections of a variety of types.
Regarding their attempt to hide the opposition to their ideas, I live my life in large measure by rules of thumb which have proven over time to serve me well. One of them is …
When you see a man hiding something … it’s because he has something to hide.
Like I said … a total misunderstanding of the scientific process.
w.
lNot having read this through yet, I’ll leave it for folks to digest: lhttps://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/ned-nikolov-in-science-new-messages-mean-more-than-the-messengers-names/#more-29088
So, Willis “went to town” on this paper and succeeded.
What is the next step, “redefining what the scientific literature is” ?
Deja vu 2009.
All scientific paper rewievs should be double blind.
CEH September 26, 2016 at 10:32 am
Regarding double blind, I have advocated that for a long time.
However, you seem to misunderstand my position in all of this. It appears that you think that when I realized that they had submitted the paper under false names I should have said nothing. Stayed quiet. Looked the other way. Stuck my head in the sand.
I fear I’m not built like that. If I say nothing, it makes me a co-conspirator, another participant in their deception of the Editor. I have no interest in being affiliated with anyone in deceiving the Editor of a scientific journal. It’s a game I’m unwilling to play.
In addition, I am absolutely opposed to participating in said deception in order to allow the publishing of their bozo-simple multi-parameter fit as though it were some scientific discovery. They are using more tunable parameters than the number of planetary bodies fitted to, with free choice of equations to connect the two. If they couldn’t fit those few points under those conditions, they should be fired.
Because given free choice of equations with that many tunable parameters and that few points to fit, in short order any half-competent researcher could produce three different equations that would do the job just as well as their equation does … and I’m damn sure I could do it.
So I told the truth to the editors, and left it up to them to decide what to do.
I see that you think I did the wrong thing. From my perspective, however, my choices were:
1. Participate in the deception of the Editor of a scientific journal in order to further the publication of a paper that is only a parameter-fitting exercise, or
2. Tell the truth.
From my perspective, that’s an easy choice. And since the worst you can possibly accuse me of is telling the truth, I stand by my choice. And while I agree with you that all peer-reviews should be double-blind … lying to the Editor is not the way to get there.
Best regards,
w.