Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Old 09-02-11, 10:10 PM
  #251  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
I thought this was an interesting development.


http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf
Am I reading this right? Is one of the primary complaints against thus article that the review process happened to include three skeptic leaning researchers? This is almost too funny to be true.

I'll be expecting the resignations of many journal editors shortly now that it's been established that there is bias in the review process of GW research...
Old 09-02-11, 11:05 PM
  #252  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
I thought this was an interesting development.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf
Comment from climate scientist Roger Pielke, Sr (links available on my link; I'm too lazy tonight to linkify):

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...braswell-2011/

September 2, 2011 · 2:29 pm
Comment On The Resignation of Wolfgang Wagner As Editor-In-Chief Of The Journal “Remote Sensing” In Response To The Publication Of Spencer And Braswell (2011)
Roger Pielke, Sr

I was informed today about the resignation of Wolfgang Warner as Editor-in-Chief of the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing. This resignation has been already communicated on several Weblogs; e.g.
BREAKING: Editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing resigns over Spencer & Braswell paper

Update on the Spencer & Braswell paper
The media are already picking up on this resignation; e.g. see
[indentEditor resigns over climate paper in the BBC

Journal editor resigns over ‘flawed’ paper co-authored by climate ‎ in the Guardian[/indent]
He resigned as a result of the publication of the paper
Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.
as he reports in the article
Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” by Spencer and Braswell, Remote Sens. 2011, 3(8), 1603-1613.
Extracts from his resignation read [highlight added]
“The managing editor of selected three senior scientists from renowned US universities, each of them having an impressive publication record.Their reviews had an apparently good technical standard and suggested one “major revision”, one “minor revision” and one “accept as is”. The authors revised their paper according to the comments made by the reviewers and, consequently, the editorial board member who handled this paper accepted the paper (and could in fact not have done otherwise). Therefore, from a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors. This selection by itself does not mean that the review process for this paper was wrong. In science, diversity and controversy are essential to progress and therefore it is important that different opinions are heard and openly discussed. Therefore editors should take special care that minority views are not suppressed, meaning that it certainly would not be correct to reject all controversial papers already during the review process. If a paper presents interesting scientific arguments, even if controversial, it should be published and responded to in the open literature.”
My Comment: By resigning as Editor, rather than soliciting a Comment/Reply exchange between Spencer and Braswell and the critics of their paper, he has achieved the opposite of his stated goal to have “different opinions … heard and openly discussed”. Wagner also writes“three reviewers ….. probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors”. First, he fails to define what is a “climate sceptic“? If this litmus test was required of all referees (that they have to be “correct” in their views of climate science), then the review process itself has failed.

Wolfgang Wagner continues
“So why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.”
My Comment: Wagner is not an expert on the subject of the Spencer and Braswell paper, so he must have relied on input from individuals who were critical of their paper. He cites one reference (in addition to weblogs)
Trenberth, K.E., Fasullo, J.T., O’Dell, C., Wong, T. Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2010, 37, L03702
but presents no specific scientific information as to how that paper refutes Spencer and Braswell. Moreover, if there is a fundamental flaw in their work, than publishing a Comment in Remote Sensing would have resolved the issue. That is how science is supposed to work. As it is, Wagner has further politicized climate science.

Also, if Spencer and Braswell “essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents”, they would be clearly (and easily) refuted in a Comment in Remote Sensing. This would be an embarrassment to Spencer and Braswell, but that is how the scientific method works.

I have read the Spencer and Braswell paper in detail, and while I agree that some of the media exposure has been exaggerated and misplaced, the science in their paper appears robust. I certainly can be wrong, but I do not see a fatal flaw in what they did (i.e. an error such that the paper should have been rejected).

If their analysis is robust (even if minor technical errors exist), it is going to make Wolfgang Wagner look very biased. The ultimate arbitrator of the Spencer and Braswell analysis and conclusions will be in the peer-reviewed literature not on weblogs, or whether or not the Chief Editor of a journal decides to resign over a paper.

Having served as a Chief Editors for the Journal of Atmospheric Science and the Monthly Weather Review this very unusual behavior. The place to refute a published paper is in peer-reviewed papers, not in blogs (or the media). If the paper is not robust, it appropriately should be responded to by paper, not by the resignation of the Editor. In my view, he made a poor decision which has further damaged the scientific process of vetting new research results.
Pielke's entry in Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke
Old 09-03-11, 12:57 AM
  #253  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

From, Spencer:"Instead, it appears the IPCC gatekeepers have once again put pressure on a journal for daring to publish anything that might hurt the IPCC’s politically immovable position that climate change is almost entirely human-caused. I can see no other explanation for an editor resigning in such a situation."

Sadly...yet another conspiracy. I already went over a few of the paper's flaws pages ago... “forcing” and “feedback killed it, not rabid media putting political pressure on the journal. And for the record, I Googled the paper for several days while I read up on its science. The side that gave it the rabid "media focus" was the conservative side and the skeptic/denier community patting themselves on the back.

I feel really bad for the editor, almost every point he made was spot on. I understand why he felt he had to fall on his sword... it just sucks.
Old 09-03-11, 05:04 AM
  #254  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
From, Spencer:"Instead, it appears the IPCC gatekeepers have once again put pressure on a journal for daring to publish anything that might hurt the IPCC’s politically immovable position that climate change is almost entirely human-caused. I can see no other explanation for an editor resigning in such a situation."

Sadly...yet another conspiracy. I already went over a few of the paper's flaws pages ago... “forcing” and “feedback killed it, not rabid media putting political pressure on the journal. And for the record, I Googled the paper for several days while I read up on its science. The side that gave it the rabid "media focus" was the conservative side and the skeptic/denier community patting themselves on the back.

I feel really bad for the editor, almost every point he made was spot on. I understand why he felt he had to fall on his sword... it just sucks.
I read his resignation as more as a whiny copout. Pielke is right, if the article is that flawed, let the process of good science tear it apart. Resigning the way he did serves no one but himself and does not advance the science one bit. Sadly this is not the first time we have seen a scientist cave to pressure ( on either side). There is clear trend in this area of science that is very concerning. Any dissension or expressed doubt is met with high levels of hostility, derision, and pressure...it has happened time and time again. Take a look at how Judith Curry has been treated for a good lesson on it....
Old 09-03-11, 09:01 AM
  #255  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Back on "consensus" for a bit... I did a search and didn't see anyone bring this up. Note the giant leap in results from those with PhD in relevant science from just the general public.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...lobal-warming/

Lawrence Solomon: 75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming
Lawrence Solomon Dec 30, 2010 – 2:35 PM ET | Last Updated: Dec 30, 2010 8:52 PM ET

How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.

To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently. [Not to mention that among those 2500 scientists are hundreds of economists, politicians, grad students, representatives of environmental advocacy groups etc. and many comments by "experts" had nothing to do with the science. See http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view...le=7553&page=0 and http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot....limate_28.html - m]

The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The questions were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims that the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think that humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming – quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say that human are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.

Surprisingly, just 90% of those who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen – I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.

As for the second question, 82% of the earth scientists replied that that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe that human activity been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a 10% or 15% or 35% increase to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.

In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus – almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for subsets that would yield a higher percentage. They found it – almost — in those whose recent published peer-reviewed research fell primarily in the climate change field. But the percentage still fell short of the researchers’ ideal. So they made another cut, allowing only the research conducted by those earth scientists who identified themselves as climate scientists.

Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers were then satisfied with their findings. Are you?
So the researchers first excluded the scientists most likely to disagree with them. Then they asked only two simplistic, vague questions. Then less than 1/3 self selected receivers of the survey responded. Then they made further cuts until they got what they wanted. Then the MSM and alarmist blogs had a number they could tout. All good.

Heck, I could very possibly answer the second question in the affirmative. I think the climate sensitivity is about 1 degree C for a doubling of CO2. I think that's mitigated to about .5 degrees C by negative feedbacks. Since the response to CO2 increases is logarithmic, the greater part of that doubling comes in the earlier stages of such an increase. CO2 has increased about 40% in the last 100 years or so when human CO2 emissions started to become significant (the survey question doesn't even give a time period for the second question but I think that's fair). That should account for about (I think; I haven't done the precise logarithmic calculations which I probably could have done when I was pretty good in math in high school) 60% of the increase in temperature for a doubling which by my calculations would be about .3 degrees C. Most people would probably say that is a significant percentage of the temperature increase of .6 -.8 degrees C (the numbers most frequently given) in that period. Add in more for land use changes as referenced in the above article. (Dr Pielke, for example, thinks land use changes are a significant factor and that has been the focus of much of his recent work. He could no doubt answer "yes" to question #2 without being a CAGW alarmist.)

Holy shit, I'm a CAGW alarmist and I didn't even know it.

But wait. I'm not. Such temperature changes are not catastrophic (the key). And the logarithmic nature of CO2 increases (a 100% uncontroversial position) guarantees that each added molecule has less warming effect than the one before. I also think there are other factors affecting temperature (such as the sun/cosmic rays/clouds and sun/ocean circulation cycles; and remember, we are not talking about established facts but about personal beliefs given the present state of our knowledge; that goes for me and for those answering the survey) which are far larger than CO2.

So while I could easily answer both survey questions in the affirmative I can also firmly maintain that I am a skeptic of CAGW.

[Finally, I'm pretty sure I brought this up when this survey hit (although not with the self-analysis I did here).]
Old 09-03-11, 03:54 PM
  #256  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

It amazes me how you can do a great job correctly of dissecting the flaws in a survey (most of what you mentioned is chapter 1 in research methods) but when you bring up a significantly more flawed approach like the petitionproject.org did there is nothing.

Temperature changes being catastrophic or not was not part of the survey.
Old 09-03-11, 04:29 PM
  #257  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Temperature changes being catastrophic or not was not part of the survey.
Which sort of makes it pointless, does it not?

I think the most shocking thing about that research was the fact that more of the scientists didn't answer question number 1 in the affirmative. I mean, I know the is a lot to debate around this topic, but the increase in temp during that time period was one thing that I thought was pretty well understood...
Old 09-03-11, 06:37 PM
  #258  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
It amazes me how you can do a great job correctly of dissecting the flaws in a survey (most of what you mentioned is chapter 1 in research methods) but when you bring up a significantly more flawed approach like the petitionproject.org did there is nothing.

Temperature changes being catastrophic or not was not part of the survey.
That's the way it has been used. But the questions that were asked makes it useless, except as an alarmist propaganda soundbite for the press, politicians and the less honest alarmist scientist (if there are any such persons).

The Petition Project's statement is far more clear than the questions in that survey. The only purpose throughout the entirety of the PP's existence is to show that there are a lot of scientists who disagree with the so-called consensus. In that, I think it succeeded.

Oh yeah, Scientific American checked about 1/10 of one percent of the names (no verification) and claimed to have found some problems. "11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages." The only relevant ones would be the six who said they wouldn't sign it today and the three who "didn't remember." The reason for signing is irrelevant. SA did not prove that a single one of them didn't sign. The PP says it removes names upon request and one doesn't know if any such requests were made.

The PP claims only that those who sign are scientists (within the meaning of the term, below, which they are completely upfront about - it's on the website), not that they are all climate scientists. The PP has been criticized for having engineers and MDs on the list. Yet it requires only that signatories have the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science degree. I don't think being an engineer or MD is mutually exclusive with that. Still, there are over 9000 PhDs. Let's forget that entities such as the IPCC (The Gold Standard of climate science, as Pachauri claims) counts hundreds of economists, lowly grad students and environmental advocates, many of whom are not exactly scientifically literate, from green organizations among the supposed 2500 top climate scientists it claims.

The PP lists the name of every signatory. You could check them. I don't expect you to, it would be a monumental task. But I wonder why no one has checked more than 30 or so (who remain anonymous). Or have they not published because they didn't get the results they were looking for? Has the 97%-98% survey published the names? Particularly the thousand or so who didn't make the final cut?

I don't think the PP proved anything about climate science. But it never claimed to. Its very modest goals were met.
Old 09-03-11, 06:39 PM
  #259  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
Which sort of makes it pointless, does it not?

I think the most shocking thing about that research was the fact that more of the scientists didn't answer question number 1 in the affirmative. I mean, I know the is a lot to debate around this topic, but the increase in temp during that time period was one thing that I thought was pretty well understood...
That is amazing. Probably those people should have been cut.
Old 09-04-11, 06:01 AM
  #260  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
I read his resignation as more as a whiny copout. Pielke is right, if the article is that flawed, let the process of good science tear it apart. Resigning the way he did serves no one but himself and does not advance the science one bit. Sadly this is not the first time we have seen a scientist cave to pressure ( on either side). There is clear trend in this area of science that is very concerning. Any dissension or expressed doubt is met with high levels of hostility, derision, and pressure...it has happened time and time again. Take a look at how Judith Curry has been treated for a good lesson on it....
Back to this point since I've heard it echoed on other boards. Remote Sensing is a Open Access journal which is a "open" styles and not "closed" like you would see on a older traditional journal. Had it been published in a traditional journal, the editor would likely not have resigned over this. Open Access journals have a really shaky academic reputation; many professionals would like nothing better then point to these sort of article failures as proof the "open" style is worthless.

He resigned because it was his job to assign the peer reviewers and make sure that they were neither incompetent nor liars. Letting the article get through makes them either of those two things... both of which are not good. Yes, there is a third option of it being great and the conspiracy killed it, but since it had fundamental flaws in it, that option not likely. I can try going over it again if anyone really cares what the scientific objection was.

As for the article remaining there and not being removed; many open journals do not have the physical plumbing to do that sort of thing (or are ideologically opposed to it). Or, there might be some sort of scientific merit to it. So if nothing else, it is there to be further considered by climate scientists.
Old 09-04-11, 10:43 AM
  #261  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Back to this point since I've heard it echoed on other boards. Remote Sensing is a Open Access journal which is a "open" styles and not "closed" like you would see on a older traditional journal. Had it been published in a traditional journal, the editor would likely not have resigned over this. Open Access journals have a really shaky academic reputation; many professionals would like nothing better then point to these sort of article failures as proof the "open" style is worthless.

He resigned because it was his job to assign the peer reviewers and make sure that they were neither incompetent nor liars. Letting the article get through makes them either of those two things... both of which are not good. Yes, there is a third option of it being great and the conspiracy killed it, but since it had fundamental flaws in it, that option not likely. I can try going over it again if anyone really cares what the scientific objection was.

As for the article remaining there and not being removed; many open journals do not have the physical plumbing to do that sort of thing (or are ideologically opposed to it). Or, there might be some sort of scientific merit to it. So if nothing else, it is there to be further considered by climate scientists.
I havent been reading any blogs on this topic, so these points may well be covered better by others, but....I'm sorry, while there may be other journal politics at play, this behavior is still antithetical to how science is supposed to work. The assignment of these peer reviewers is not the false dichotomy of either incompetent or liars as you set up. While the article may be flawed, there is still a lot of debate around those flaws (which is a very healthy thing). Let further research tear it to shreds, if it can be done, in this or other journals. That is how it is supposed to work. Saying it didn't work like that is not saying there is some grand conspiracy either. At least that is not what I am saying. But these reviewers may not be incompetent and they may not be liars. They may simply be human. Like all reviewers they make mistakes, they have biases (hopefully more unconscious ones). If we need to rule out any journal articles with potential methodological flaws and reviewers that are biased, than we are ruling out 99% of all pro-GW research. Something tells me we won't have a major run on resignations from other journals.

This article being published was hardly a representation of gross misconduct. The gross misconduct came from the way the media and the blogs represented the article. That is neither the author's nor the journal's fault. Yet, this is why the editor resigned, not based on the actual science in the article (at least not wholly based on the science). As you said yourself, he has a a strong interest in not allowing this type of journal become embroiled in a blogospherer controversy. So he resigns with a grand mea culpa, meanwhile shutting down any actual avenues for the advancement of the actual science. No chance for rebuttals, no chance for further research. That is crap, not science. I can't think of any other area of science ( at least ones that I have followed) where this type of behavior would be acceptable.
Old 09-04-11, 10:51 AM
  #262  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

One more thing, than I have to go for a bit so I can enjoy my stay in Vegas

Are there any examples where a a pro-GW article with significant methodological flaws is published and then the editor resigns in such a fashion? Certainly there are plenty of very poor and fundamentally flawed such articles, where are the grand gestures of resigning in those instances?
Old 09-04-11, 11:10 AM
  #263  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Brief interview with Henrik Svensmark regarding CERN CLOUD experiment.

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observato...h-reality.html

Henrik Svensmark: The Cosmic-Ray/Cloud Seeding Hypothesis Is Converging With Reality
Friday, 02 September 2011 14:54 Dr. David Whitehouse

Dr Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Centre in Copenhagen has pioneered the study of the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation. The GWPF put a series of questions to him concerning the recent results from CERN’s CLOUD experiment.

How significant are the CERN results?
I welcome the CLOUD results. They basically confirm our own experimental results since 2006, and does so within a larger variation of parameters. It seems to say that ions are fundamental for the nucleation of new aerosols.
Some in the media have said that the fact that CERN’s produced clusters that were too small spells the demise of the cosmic ray-cloud theory. What is your reaction?
Our group has closely studied the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation, e.g. in our 2009 paper. Here the obvious question is what the implications are for clouds and the Earth’s clouds and radiative balance, which is indirectly posed at the end of the CLOUD paper, when it wonders what fraction of the small aerosols grow to cloud-seeding size.

This was also the question we asked following our own experiments. It turns out that this question can be answered with what one can call “natural experiments” where solar explosions (Coronal Mass Ejections) send out plasma clouds that shield the Earth and cause the cosmic ray flux to decrease within half a day. The largest events cause the cosmic ray ionization to decrease by about 10-15 %.

So obviously one should look for an impact on the Earth's aerosols and cloud cover. Our results published in GRL 2009 (reference below) show clear effects in the aerosols and in various cloud parameters. In essence the whole chain from solar activity to cosmic rays ionization to aerosol production to cloud properties can be seen. The effect is quite large -- nearly 6% loss in cloud liquid water averaged over the 5 strongest events.

There have been a few papers on this subject which disagrees with our results, but they are in fact in agreement when looking more closely in accordance with our results.
[Comment: Svensmark and Shaviv have both rebutted those critics. See:

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/...ort_3_2007.pdf

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/ni...-frohlich.html

http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL038429.shtml (This is the paper mentioned by Svensmark and referenced below) - m]
There is plenty of sulphur from the phytoplankton. Over the oceans, cloud formation is limited by the cosmic ray influx, not by the sulphur supply. As for ammonia, the huge effect discovered by CLOUD is very interesting. But as they need only one ammonia molecule in 30 billion in the air, and as emissions from the oceans include an estimated at 8 Gigatonnes of ammonia, I see no constraint there. (Ammonia emissions from the land are much higher.)

(PS. The clusters made by CLOUD will in nearly all cases grow to CCN (Cloud Condensation Nucleation) size, see for example Proceedings of IPAC'10, Kyota, Japan (pages 4474-4478) where particles in the CLOUD chamber are grown to 70 nm which are CCN size. Our experiment could grow particles to 40 nm which is very close to CCN ~50 nm)
What is the changing flux of CR's at the Earth correlated with?
The correlations that have been found so far are on long time scales star formation rates (million of years). On shorter time scales solar modulation of cosmic rays. Numerous proxies of climate seems to be correlated with changes in cosmic rays (14C or 10Be for example) – stalagmites, ice-rafted debris, tree-rings, corals etc.
What does the present low level of solar activity mean?
When the Sun became quiet, after its intensification of activity during the 20th Century, global warming stopped/paused about 10-15 years ago, and sub-surface ocean temperatures seem to be declining. In some sense the Sun will show by itself how important lack of high solar activity is in the near future.
What is the next step forward?
The above all in all implies that ions are of fundamental importance in the formation of new aerosols and for cloud properties in the Earth’s atmosphere. Of course there are many things to explore, but I think the cosmic-ray/cloud seeding hypothesis is converging with reality.

For example more experiments involving larger parameter range. Study satellite observations of cloud properties. Search for additional impact of a cosmic rays/climate link.
References
"Natural experiment" reference:

H. Svensmark, T. Bondo and J. Svensmark, ‘Cosmic Ray Decreases Affect Atmospheric Aerosols and Clouds’, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol: 36, pp. L15101 ff., 2009

Our lab experiment references:

H. Svensmark, J. O. Pepke Pedersen, N. Marsh, M. Enghoff and U. Uggerhøj, ‘Experimental Evidence for the Role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions’, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Vol. 463, pp. 385–96, 2007 (online release 2006)

M. A. B. Enghoff; J. O. Pepke Pedersen; T. Bondo, M. S. Johnson, S. Paling and H. Svensmark, ‘Evidence for the Role of Ions in Aerosol Nucleation’, Journal of Physical Chemistry A, Vol: 112, pp. 10305-10309, 2008

M.B. Enghoff, J. O. Pepke Pedersen, U. I. Uggerhøj, S. M. Paling, and H. Svensmark, 'Aerosol nucleation induced by a high energy particle beam,' Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L09805, 2011
So the "missing link" mentioned in the CERN paper is how and how many of the tiny 1-2 nm size CCNs grow to sufficient size (50nm) to form clouds.

I think Svensmark's work coupled with the CERN CLOUD experiment are well on their way to answering these questions. Supplement this with the historical (about a billion years) supporting work of Shaviv and Veizer I think CERN's restrained approach and their eschewing of hype (admittedly not always adhered to by some blogs) to these still unanswered questions is admirably scientific. But I will now be surprised if there isn't something (possibly a very big something) to the cosmic ray theory.

Last edited by movielib; 09-04-11 at 03:31 PM.
Old 09-04-11, 02:46 PM
  #264  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
I havent been reading any blogs on this topic, so these points may well be covered better by others, but....I'm sorry, while there may be other journal politics at play, this behavior is still antithetical to how science is supposed to work. The assignment of these peer reviewers is not the false dichotomy of either incompetent or liars as you set up. While the article may be flawed, there is still a lot of debate around those flaws (which is a very healthy thing). Let further research tear it to shreds, if it can be done, in this or other journals. That is how it is supposed to work. Saying it didn't work like that is not saying there is some grand conspiracy either. At least that is not what I am saying. But these reviewers may not be incompetent and they may not be liars. They may simply be human. Like all reviewers they make mistakes, they have biases (hopefully more unconscious ones). If we need to rule out any journal articles with potential methodological flaws and reviewers that are biased, than we are ruling out 99% of all pro-GW research. Something tells me we won't have a major run on resignations from other journals.

This article being published was hardly a representation of gross misconduct. The gross misconduct came from the way the media and the blogs represented the article. That is neither the author's nor the journal's fault. Yet, this is why the editor resigned, not based on the actual science in the article (at least not wholly based on the science). As you said yourself, he has a a strong interest in not allowing this type of journal become embroiled in a blogospherer controversy. So he resigns with a grand mea culpa, meanwhile shutting down any actual avenues for the advancement of the actual science. No chance for rebuttals, no chance for further research. That is crap, not science. I can't think of any other area of science ( at least ones that I have followed) where this type of behavior would be acceptable.
I think you are missing a key point. It's not like the guy was missing a decimal point here. A controversial article would need to both not have previously been debunked (as his last one was) and be fundamentally sound now; he failed at both. He should be arguing something new... not just arguing the same thing in a new space.

Spencer and Braswell are arguing that climate scientists use a fundamentally flawed model of atmospheric heat & radiation from the surface of the climate system into space. Spencer had previously argued that variations in our climate system (heat and water vapor) do not follow traditional models where certain things can "force" changes, but rather, changes occur around a chaotic equilibrium.

Now most climate scientists agree that Spencer's natural variations in cloud cover model could work over a short time, but our best research shows that key forcing factors such as greenhouse gasses, solar radiation, or dust basically largely unimportant. Spencer himself admitted this after previous criticism... and then went ahead and did the same thing.

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/...lunder-part-1/

Spencer clearly understood enough climate science to know what he was suggesting was simply wrong. Journals are not the correct place to post studies that are wrong; that is why they are peer reviewed before they are posted with the journal name forever attached to it. This is the same argument Creationists use, the "why not teach both theories and let people decide which is better?" is not how science works. Had Spencer shown he work to an unlike-minded researcher (or unlike-minded peer reviewers) he would have likely been told its errors. Why not print an incorrect study and let people learn from it? You can't easily know whether a published study has been subsequently corrected or disputed.

In most journals "article retractions" are done by the author itself, when I said before that this journal likely does not have the mechanics in place to do it themselves I literally meant it. Unless Spence does it, it will forever be proof at skeptics/deniers can point to as proof for their cause. In an open access journal, especially, an editor has to be doubly certain what is being published is true because the author of the article actually pays the journal to publish it.

It it a very different thing to publish a sound observation & theory that is later proven wrong as new information comes forward, then it is to publish something is is wrong at its onset with the hope that it passes this time. A researcher must look to previous research and see if his work about to be published has already been contradicted or not, and if they are contradicted he must note that in his paper. If the author does not it is considered a flaw of either the highest order, or an intent of fraud.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fa...010etalGRL.pdf
Old 09-04-11, 05:22 PM
  #265  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I have seen lots of poorly constructed studies in my field of study. Some of which bordered on negligent. But I can't recall a single time that there has been a public resignation such as this. If this journal is unable to print rebuttals, than other journals will. This is not a "creationist" show all sides situation. It's an allegedly flawed study that was published through the normal peer review process. It happens everyday. If you think that the politics of pressure did not have anything to do with this, than I'm not sure there's much else to discuss. Read through emails where the pro-GW scientists threaten to boycott journals for merely printing studies they disagree with. That is childish behavior and does not belong in science. I can think of many pro-GW articles that were at least as flawed as this one, I can think of many instances of pro-GW reviewers demonstrating a clear bias, but I can't hunk of a single instance of one of these editors resigning in this fashion (not even with the original hockey stick study!). And I'm glad they don't, as I'd rather see articles tried and judged through the proper channels.
Old 09-04-11, 10:41 PM
  #266  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Oh, I'm not saying there wasn't pressure; it is a open access journal only two years old. There is tons of pressure there. But I don't think it was a conspiracy of political and media pressure as much as it was embarrassment. I'm not sure how much background you have in the different types of journals since you seem to only respond as if "closed" and "open" were the same thing when they are clearly not. I'll try and say this clearly.

This journal is new. This journal has zero respect among all the other journals that matter (think of it like an early online university trying to get to the same level as traditional universities). Spencer paid this journal to print his article (one big way this journal differs from ones you are familiar with). Open journals are constantly fighting for relevancy but are constantly slapped down because... well, any crank can technically publish there if they have a $1,000.

Spencer has 5 people he can suggest either read (or not read) his article for peer review. This is typically done when the author knows of an enemy on the board or, knows enough of the experts on the board that he can suggest the best fit. This is done when the journal itself does not specialize in the article that is being published. It is the editors job to pick the best three reviewers within their talent pool. The editor can go with, or go against, Spencer's recommendations because ultimately the buck stops with him.

If, the editor does not adequately picks the reviewers it is his failure. If his reviewers are biased, incompetent, or fraudulent it makes his publication look bad because it his job to pick them. But, even without going to his reviewers, he should have done some research on if Spencer's paper had already been debunked. He should have not strayed off his journals core topic (rookie mistake) and stayed within its comfort zone. A journal specifically dealing with climate change would have been better equipped to offer input (and a wider selection of peer reviewers). He made enough mistakes that him still being there will make the rest of those people there look bad. Much like how an executive will quit when his company screws up.

Added: Him resigning in no way kills another person from publishing a rebuttal, I'm not sure why the two are being talked about as being mutually exclusive. I suspect, unless Spencer himself removes it, it will sit there. As for other editors resigning after something embarrassing happens under their watch, that also isn't all that unheard of. Th Open Information Science Journal editor did the same thing when they published an article clearly a hoax. It has happened before with 9/11 deniers and HIV deniers. I expect this is where my background in more traditional skepticism comes in handy.

Last edited by Navinabob; 09-04-11 at 11:43 PM.
Old 09-05-11, 09:48 AM
  #267  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Fascinating video on the CERN CLOUD experiments from The Economist (which has been solidly behind CAGW).

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Fk0_1falHE?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Fk0_1falHE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>
Old 09-05-11, 03:55 PM
  #268  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
Fascinating video on the CERN CLOUD experiments from The Economist (which has been solidly behind CAGW).

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Fk0_1falHE?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Fk0_1falHE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>
This research is fantastic, really exciting stuff. But what does it mean? It means we have a really good look at what might be the first step at seeing how cosmic rays may influence cloud formation. It is showing that we do find increased aerosol nucleation under increased ionization (cosmic rays) in the midtroposphere, but the effect is smaller at warmer, lower levels where the skeptics/deniers claim it has the significant climatic effect. Kirkby, the guy at CERN who did the research, states particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds:

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"


These results provide some confirmation of the potential mechanics of cosmic rays and how they might induce cloud nucleation, they are not showing yet any real world results or doing anything to promote the idea that cosmic rays are significantly responsible for climatic change.

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011...smic-rays.html

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/...cle/news/46965

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...to-cosmic-rays

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/brea...limate-models/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14637647

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...climate-models

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...y-interesting/

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1108...2011.504.html/

The guys at RealClimate add:

We were clear in the 2006 post that establishing a significant GCR/cloud/climate link would require the following steps (given that we have known that ionisation plays a role in nucleation for decades). One would need to demonstrate:

1 … that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
2 … and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
3 … and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
4 … and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.

Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been


I'm adding the body of the Scientific American article above for those who hate clicking links:

Spoiler:
Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays

Experiment probes connection between climate change and radiation bombarding the atmosphere.

It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.

The findings, published today in Nature, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.

For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.

The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.

Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.


Polarizing lens
"People are far too polarized, and in my opinion there are huge, important areas where our understanding is poor at the moment," says Jasper Kirkby, a physicist at CERN. In particular, he says, little controlled research has been done on exactly what effect cosmic rays can have on atmospheric chemistry.

To find out, Kirkby and his team are bringing the atmosphere down to Earth in an experiment called Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD). The team fills a custom-built chamber with ultrapure air and chemicals believed to seed clouds: water vapour, sulphur dioxide, ozone and ammonia. They then bombard the chamber with protons from the same accelerator that feeds the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful particle smasher. As the synthetic cosmic rays stream in, the group carefully samples the artificial atmosphere to see what effect the rays are having.

Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says.

Scientists on both sides of the debate welcome the findings, although they draw differing conclusions. "Of course there are many things to explore, but I think the cosmic-ray/cloud-seeding hypothesis is converging with reality," says Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Technical University of Denmark in Copenhagen, who claims a link between climate change and cosmic rays.

Others disagree. The CLOUD experiment is "not firming up the connection", counters Mike Lockwood, a space and environmental physicist at the University of Reading, UK, who is sceptical. Lockwood says that the small particles may not grow fast enough or large enough to be important in comparison with other cloud-forming processes in the atmosphere.

"I think it's an incredibly worthwhile and overdue experiment," says Piers Forster, a climatologist at the University of Leeds, UK, who studied the link between cosmic rays and climate for the latest scientific assessment by the International Panel on Climate Change. But for now at least, he says that the experiment "probably raises more questions than it answers".

Kirkby hopes that the experiment will eventually answer the cosmic-ray question. In the coming years, he says, his group is planning experiments with larger particles in the chamber, and they hope eventually to generate artificial clouds for study. "There is a series of measurements that we will have to do that will take at least five years," he says. "But at the end of it, we want to settle it one way or the other."
Old 09-05-11, 04:35 PM
  #269  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Juliar Gillard (a standard nickname for her now), PM of Australia, who campaigned on a promise that there would be no carbon tax and then turned around and has tried to impose one, and whose minority party government holds a one vote majority with the help of the Greens, has fallen even more in the polls with yet more unpopular positions.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/new...a+%28JoNova%29

Newspoll — New record low for Gillard

We all knew a fall was coming after the debacle with the Malaysian swap of asylum seekers for refugees.
After a devastating decision in the High Court last week wiped out the Prime Minister’s Malaysia Solution for asylum-seekers, Labor’s primary vote has stuck at a record low of 27 per cent.

The Coalition’s has risen to 50 per cent – the highest since John Howard was prime minister at the time of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.
The Greens dropped from 14 to 12.
Based on preference flows at the last election, the Coalition has an all-time high two-party-preferred vote of 59 per cent compared with Labor’s 41 per cent. Such a result at an election would reduce Labor to a rump of a party, wiping out dozens of Labor MPs including many ministers.
The ALP need to more than just replace Gillard: they must dump the deadly policies, clean up the union corruption, and worse, lose the political correctness at their core.

If they implicitly admit they were wrong by picking up the Coalition policies on asylum seekers, the public will remember they mucked up but it won’t be an issue if the boats stop coming. They need to delay the Carbon Scheme for the forseeable future — they have the perfect excuse, of current world economic “uncertainty”: “We’ll take action when China, Russia and the US do”. They need to stop complaining indignantly about mining super profits: the miners pay 42% of those profits in tax already. While these are bumper years for mining, the mining industry spends much of the business cycle in the doldrums and needs these bumper years to justify the leans times and the huge amounts of capital required. If mining was more profitable than other industries over the whole cycle, it would attract a greater share of capital and shareholders.

If the rest of us want to get mining profits, we have to take risks and put the money up front — sometimes waiting years for results. Changing the rules to take profits post hoc is theft.

The most astonishing thing is that somehow 23% of Australians* still think Julia Gillard is doing a satisfactory job. What would qualify as unsatisfactory?
The carbon tax lie dropped the Gillard government to historical lows. It's even lower now. I'm not all that literate about their parliamentary system but I know Gillard's term runs about another two years but she can call an election and I think the opposition may have some way to force one.

Perhaps about the only world leader who would envy Gillard's numbers is Muammar Gaddafi.
Old 09-05-11, 06:06 PM
  #270  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Oh, I'm not saying there wasn't pressure; it is a open access journal only two years old. There is tons of pressure there. But I don't think it was a conspiracy of political and media pressure as much as it was embarrassment. I'm not sure how much background you have in the different types of journals since you seem to only respond as if "closed" and "open" were the same thing when they are clearly not. I'll try and say this clearly.

This journal is new. This journal has zero respect among all the other journals that matter (think of it like an early online university trying to get to the same level as traditional universities). Spencer paid this journal to print his article (one big way this journal differs from ones you are familiar with). Open journals are constantly fighting for relevancy but are constantly slapped down because... well, any crank can technically publish there if they have a $1,000.

Spencer has 5 people he can suggest either read (or not read) his article for peer review. This is typically done when the author knows of an enemy on the board or, knows enough of the experts on the board that he can suggest the best fit. This is done when the journal itself does not specialize in the article that is being published. It is the editors job to pick the best three reviewers within their talent pool. The editor can go with, or go against, Spencer's recommendations because ultimately the buck stops with him.

If, the editor does not adequately picks the reviewers it is his failure. If his reviewers are biased, incompetent, or fraudulent it makes his publication look bad because it his job to pick them. But, even without going to his reviewers, he should have done some research on if Spencer's paper had already been debunked. He should have not strayed off his journals core topic (rookie mistake) and stayed within its comfort zone. A journal specifically dealing with climate change would have been better equipped to offer input (and a wider selection of peer reviewers). He made enough mistakes that him still being there will make the rest of those people there look bad. Much like how an executive will quit when his company screws up.

Added: Him resigning in no way kills another person from publishing a rebuttal, I'm not sure why the two are being talked about as being mutually exclusive. I suspect, unless Spencer himself removes it, it will sit there. As for other editors resigning after something embarrassing happens under their watch, that also isn't all that unheard of. Th Open Information Science Journal editor did the same thing when they published an article clearly a hoax. It has happened before with 9/11 deniers and HIV deniers. I expect this is where my background in more traditional skepticism comes in handy.
Yes, I understand what an open access journal is (I must have missed that Remote Sensing is open access, but in my defense I am in Vegas right now, so my ability to read through a thread thoroughly might be a bit compromised). However, I think your characterization of what open access journals are is inaccurate. They are not simply pay to play, and many of them have peer review processes that are just as stringent as closed access journals. To be truthful, I don't have much familiarity with any open access journals that are not peer reviewed. While I'm sure there are some out there that will publish anything that is submitted, I am not aware of them, and I would think they are in the minority (but I don't know that for certain, as i can't say I read many lower tiered journals).

Back to the article in question...you talk about it as if there is no debate. It is fundamentally flawed, these attacks on the authors and the journal are completely justified, and it has been thoroughly debunked. This is simply not true. I get the feeling that you are reading only from one side of this issue. There is indeed a vigorous debate occurring, with esteemed scientists on both sides, and Dr. Spencer is actively defending himself (and making some great points IMO). If you haven't come across the opposing view, that this article was not fundamentally flawed, wattsupwiththat has a very good page of links to some scientific defenses of the article in question.

I am not saying they are right and the paper is not flawed (and even fundamentally flawed), but I am saying things are not as black and white as you make them seem. I am still sifting through all of the evidence, and I expect to have some more time when I return home, so I have not yet decided which group of scientists is closer to the truth....
Old 09-05-11, 09:35 PM
  #271  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
Yes, I understand what an open access journal is (I must have missed that Remote Sensing is open access, but in my defense I am in Vegas right now, so my ability to read through a thread thoroughly might be a bit compromised). However, I think your characterization of what open access journals are is inaccurate. They are not simply pay to play, and many of them have peer review processes that are just as stringent as closed access journals. To be truthful, I don't have much familiarity with any open access journals that are not peer reviewed. While I'm sure there are some out there that will publish anything that is submitted, I am not aware of them, and I would think they are in the minority (but I don't know that for certain, as i can't say I read many lower tiered journals).

Back to the article in question...you talk about it as if there is no debate. It is fundamentally flawed, these attacks on the authors and the journal are completely justified, and it has been thoroughly debunked. This is simply not true. I get the feeling that you are reading only from one side of this issue. There is indeed a vigorous debate occurring, with esteemed scientists on both sides, and Dr. Spencer is actively defending himself (and making some great points IMO). If you haven't come across the opposing view, that this article was not fundamentally flawed, wattsupwiththat has a very good page of links to some scientific defenses of the article in question.

I am not saying they are right and the paper is not flawed (and even fundamentally flawed), but I am saying things are not as black and white as you make them seem. I am still sifting through all of the evidence, and I expect to have some more time when I return home, so I have not yet decided which group of scientists is closer to the truth....
There are plenty of defenses of Spencer and they do not depend on whether he is right or wrong. They are arguing that what is being done to him is shameful (which it is). Here is Spencer's defense:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/...ver-our-paper/

Here are many others (and there are more):

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4311

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/how...eur-for-honor/

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/20...80192481529019

http://www.australianclimatemadness....d-be-appalled/

http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/05/up...swell-part-ii/ (Sorry, made a mistake with this link. I linked a comment rather than JC's blog. Now corrected)

http://www.real-science.com/uncatego...=Google+Reader

http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/...on-of-science/

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...-peter-gleick/

I really am beyond caring about the rightness of his arguments in this particular paper (although I do think there is a far better case for low climate sensitivity than for high). There can be no doubt Wagner was battered and pressured (it's happened before and the alarmists admit to doing so in the Climategate emails; why should we think they've changed?). The tactics are despicable, though, unfortunately, effective with the MSM and some others. Period. I am not going to continue to argue about it.

Last edited by movielib; 09-06-11 at 04:06 PM.
Old 09-05-11, 10:09 PM
  #272  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
Yes, I understand what an open access journal is (I must have missed that Remote Sensing is open access, but in my defense I am in Vegas right now, so my ability to read through a thread thoroughly might be a bit compromised). However, I think your characterization of what open access journals are is inaccurate. They are not simply pay to play, and many of them have peer review processes that are just as stringent as closed access journals. To be truthful, I don't have much familiarity with any open access journals that are not peer reviewed. While I'm sure there are some out there that will publish anything that is submitted, I am not aware of them, and I would think they are in the minority (but I don't know that for certain, as i can't say I read many lower tiered journals).

Back to the article in question...you talk about it as if there is no debate. It is fundamentally flawed, these attacks on the authors and the journal are completely justified, and it has been thoroughly debunked. This is simply not true. I get the feeling that you are reading only from one side of this issue. There is indeed a vigorous debate occurring, with esteemed scientists on both sides, and Dr. Spencer is actively defending himself (and making some great points IMO). If you haven't come across the opposing view, that this article was not fundamentally flawed, wattsupwiththat has a very good page of links to some scientific defenses of the article in question.

I am not saying they are right and the paper is not flawed (and even fundamentally flawed), but I am saying things are not as black and white as you make them seem. I am still sifting through all of the evidence, and I expect to have some more time when I return home, so I have not yet decided which group of scientists is closer to the truth....
Fair enough. Have a great time in Vegas and give the research a good read when you come back. I've read the account Watts gave and it was lacking in any sort of real meat (he was basically outraged over the unprofessional media and the regular gang of scientists keeping the truth hidden); I must have missed anything he posted that didn't directly link back to Spencer. I expected Peilke to offer up something, but he just went on about how mean people were sounding towards Spencer and said "mistakes happen in science". Spencer explains again why he is correct in a "primer", and offers his own past studies as proof. If the science you conduct, is only observed by you and only you seem to be able to replicate it, there is a fundamental disconnect there.

When the only real explanation you have left that you can go back to regularly is that there is a conspiracy, you have a major issue going on if no such conspiracy exists. I find it also funny that everyone yelling conspiracy has never looked at the comment section of Spencer's blogs. Note how the name few names keep showing up... and how those same few names always introduce each other as "experts" whenever they mention them... and how they always show each other's studies as proof.

Conspiracies are easy to spot. Crappy science is a bit harder. Dessler has a paper coming out next week; as expected it is already being added to the conspiracy tapestry since it has such a short turn around time. Never mind the fact that I imagine all the points needed to be made already exist in blog-form (complete with citations), Spencer mostly built on his 2010 research that has already has a large pile of counter-research, and no new research is actually needed to be conducted. The only way this will get published is a conspiracy.

But I stand my wording on Open Access. I love Open Access journals, I think they are the future of science. I understand that most are peer reviewed and much of the research coming out from them is stellar. My point was this:

They have a lot to prove within the science community and each time a Creationist or big-foot hunter publishes a crappy study in one they "all get a black eye." That was the pressure the editor felt that made him resign.
Old 09-06-11, 04:41 AM
  #273  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
There are plenty of defenses of Spencer and they do not depend on whether he is right or wrong. They are arguing that what is being done to him is shameful (which it is). Here is Spencer's defense:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/...ver-our-paper/

Here are many others (and there are more):

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4311

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/how...eur-for-honor/

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/20...80192481529019

http://www.australianclimatemadness....d-be-appalled/

http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/05/up...comment-108630

http://www.real-science.com/uncatego...=Google+Reader

http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/...on-of-science/

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...-peter-gleick/

I really am beyond caring about the rightness of his arguments in this particular paper (although I do think there is a far better case for low climate sensitivity than for high). There can be no doubt Wagner was battered and pressured (it's happened before and the alarmists admit to doing so in the Climategate emails; why should we think they've changed?). The tactics are despicable, though, unfortunately, effective with the MSM and some others. Period. I am not going to continue to argue about it.
I'm not sure you read any of those links closely. Go back and see how many of those authors addressed any defense of Spencer's research. They all showed outrage, they all yelled about the travesty of justice, the weakness of the pitiful editor... but only one mentioned the science. Of the links you provided, only William Briggs tried to summarize the research, and he basically said it was a small study in a smaller journal that made a modest claim that just happened to be overstated. No big deal.

The funny thing is, I recall Spencer himself seeing the wildfire grow when the conservative media started heralding it has the smoking gun that would shatter the global warming myth and he started to distance himself from it and not overstate its claims. I didn't see Spencer do anything at the time to feed the climate skeptic blog monster... I think it just ran away from him.

I read that recently Spencer was posting links to the media-buzz on his site (complete with wildly overstated titles), but I didn't see those myself. My one big gripe with Spencer's self reporting is the constant "if the paper is so bad why didn't they revoke it?" line. He is aware that only the author can revoke it right? I saw that on 4 of the other links provided. Briggs even said that since it wasn't revoked, it must be true! What a mess.
Old 09-06-11, 05:49 PM
  #274  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Many people were wondering why Kevin Trenberth (co-author of arguably the most vicious attack on Roy Spencer) got a personal apology from Wolfgang Wagner. Many found the resignation itself most odd.

Many have also been picking up on the following Wagner/Trenberth link.

http://www.smos.zmaw.de/en/links/

International Soil Moisture Network http://www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at/insitu/(...n.ac.at/insitu)

is now officially online!

At this moment it contains the in-situ soil moisture measurements of three operational networks: OzNet (AUS), REMEDHUS (Spain) and SMOSMANIA (France). The International Soil Moisture Network was initiated by the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) in cooperation with the Group of Earth Observation (GEO) and the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS). ESA, through the SMOS mission, is providing the initial funding for this initiative. Data hosting, maintenance and web-based distribution will initially be performed by the Vienna University of Technology (TU Wien). The long term perspective foresees the development from a centralized archive to a distributed archive and a transfer of the tasks of TU Wien to operational organisations active in this field.
http://www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at/insitu/

This international initiative is coordinated by the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) in cooperation with the Group of Earth Observation (GEO) and the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS). The International Soil Moisture Network has been made possible through the voluntary contributions of scientists and networks from around the world. The International Soil Moisture Network is operated in cooperation with the Global Soil Moisture Databank of the Rutgers University.
From The International Soil Moisture Network about us:

http://www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at/insitu/i.../about-us.html

Two organizations that are part of the International Soil Moisture Network:

Organisation: Committee on Earth Observation Satellites
Group: Land Product Validation team for soil moisture
Contact: Tom Jackson and Wolfgang Wagner
Website: http://lpvs.gsfc.nasa.gov
Task: Coordination of global validation activities and development of best practice guidelines for soil moisture validation

...

Organisation: Vienna University of Technology
Unit: Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
Contact: Wouter Dorigo and Wolfgang Wagner
Website: http://www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at
Task: Development and maintenance of data hosting facility and website
GEWEX:

Who is chair of the Scientific Steering Group at GEWEX?

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/...s_ssgchair.pdf

GEWEX Scientific Steering Group

Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth, Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, succeeded Dr. Thomas Ackerman as Chairman of the GEWEX Scientific Steering Group (SSG).

(Several paragraphs of how wonderful Dr Trenberth is follow)
It seems the International Soil Moisture Network is somewhat dependent on the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX)

Now does that mean that Trenberth put any pressure on Wagner? Or that any of this has anything to do with Wagner writing a personal apology to Trenberth (and no one else)?

http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-new...faulty-science

(From the anti-Spencer article by Trenberth, Abraham and Gleick)

Friday that truth became apparent. Kevin Trenberth received a personal note of apology from both the editor-in-chief and the publisher of Remote Sensing. Wagner took this unusual and admirable step after becoming aware of the paper's serious flaws. By resigning publicly in an editorial posted online, Wagner hopes that at least some of this damage can be undone.
I'll just say that if anyone is trying to avoid having the appearance of shenanigans of some sort, this is probably not the way to do it.
Old 09-06-11, 06:18 PM
  #275  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I'm currently picking through the Soon and Baliunas controversy, and while my historical knowledge on climate research is limited, I'm a bit surprised why nobody on any climate skeptic/denier website has brought this up the hundreds I've times I've heard that editors resigning from journals was unheard of. I suppose it could be because the circumstances were not identical, but Von Storch and half the editors resigning can easily be called "very similar" easily.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...947078538.html

Regarding the Remote Sensing, incident I'm seeing another disconnect from skeptics (yep, I'm reading through pages and pages of comments even). Wagner indicated that the core issue was the failure of peer review:

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/

He says the study should have been published, but it should have noted the existing articles that refute contradicted his arguments. Spencer even says on his rebuttal on his webpage in his first paragraph that the entire purpose of the paper was to refute data already out there that is part of the collected "consensus". If that is true, then why where these articles not referenced and refuted inside it? Dave indicated publishing research himself... would that be something that would normally slip from an accomplished researcher who has published many article? My modest state-university adviser wouldn't have let me get away with something like that because it is underhanded and fundamental wrong.

When a scientific paper, or established concept, that is disagreed with is a new scientific paper, you must cite the first paper(s) and demonstrates how and why it is wrong. Publishing something and ignoring literature that refutes it comes off underhanded. I'm amazed all the fans of "science" and "academic process" who are outraged over the spineless editor have not bothered to look and see if Spencer came into the fight with clean hands or not.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.