Document 99537

Pattern Recogn. Phys., 2(2), 27–29, 2014.
c Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License.
Re-opening of Pattern Recognition in Physics
Nils-Axel Mörner1 (Co-Editor In Chief)
The scientific journal Pattern Recognition in Physics by Copernicus Publications had just began the printing of its second
volume and finished its Special Issue on Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts, when,
on January 17, Mr. Martin Rasmussen, managing director of Copernicus Publications, took the remarkable decision of
immediately closing down the entire journal. In the general conclusions of the special issue, 19 scientists had joined in a
conclusion that we – from a solar-planetary point of view – are on our way into a grand solar minimum, which “sheds serious
doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC.” In the mind of Rasmussen this
logical statement posed an intolerable criticism of the IPCC, and the journal was shut down. If anything in modern society
should not be tolerated, it is a censorship in conflict with ethics and scientific norms. This editorial reviews the situation, and
at the same time as it announces the happy re-opening of the journal under a new management.
Published: 07/Mar/2014
1 Paleogeophysics
& Geodynamics, Stockholm, Sweden.
Correspondence to: N.-A. Mörner ([email protected])
The journal of Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) of
Copernicus Publications (
was suddenly closed down for reasons that do not cope with
normal ethics and scientific norms. However, like a Phoenix
Bird, the journal re-appears today for a new and successful
might shed new light on connections, forcing functions and
origin of physical processes. In such an endeavour there can,
of course, be no limitations and taboos. Here science must be
totally free and unbound from any coercions.
2. The remarkable shut down of the
Copernicus’ PRP
What is “pattern recognition in
On the morning of January 17, 2014, the original PRP journal
of Copernicus was suddenly shut down right in the middle of
its printing of two new papers of its Volume 2. This action
was taken without any discussion with the editors; not even
Mr. Martin Rasmussen, managing director of Copernicus Publications, gave the reason for his remarkable action
(Figure 1): things had been published which questioned the
correctness of the global warming scenarios of the IPCC.
Our first question emerges naturally: how does such a
decision concur with the very basic concept of scientific freedom?
Mr. Rasmussen gave two reasons for the closing down of
the journal (Figure 1):
Through the hard scientific work during many centuries and
with step added to steps in the progress of science, we have
been able to formulate some basic physical laws. A few of
them may be so firm that we may consider them as “written
in stone.” Others are of more paradigmatic type where future
progress may imply additions, modifications and maybe even
Another way to approach progress and understanding in
physics is to record – i.e. recognize – patterns in physical processes and in documents of such processes. This is precisely
why the scientific journal Patterns Recognition in Physics was
first proposed by Professor Ouadfeul and then adopted by
Copernicus Publications.
This journal was to document any kind of “pattern” that
1. – he didn’t want “focus on climate-research27
N.-A. Mörner: Editorial: Re-opening of Pattern Recognition in Physics
Figure 1. The original termination-statement published on the website of the journal by Copernicus Publications in the
morning of January 17, 2014. Mr. Rasmussen provides two “reasons”: (1) focus must not be on climate-related topics (which it
certainly was not) and (2) the conclusion with respect to the climatic evolution from a solar point of view could not be tolerated
(despite signed by 19 prominent scientists as a logical outcome of 12 research papers in the Special Issue on planetary-solarterrestrial interaction). Furthermore, with respects to lines 2 and 3, it should be noted that the main Editor-in-Chief, Professor
Ouadfeul, has not written a single line on climate in his whole lifetime, and that all what I have written on sea level changes is
100% observational based facts from nature itself (contrary to the models, scenarios and corrections presented by the IPCC).
related topics,” and
2. – he stated “we were alarmed by the second implication” in the General Conclusions of
the Special Issue on Patter in solar variability,
their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts (PRP,
Vol.1, pp. 205-206, 2013) saying “this sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even
accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC.”
With respect to reason (1), it is just to look up the content of
the published PRP-volumes 1 and 2 (PRP, Vol.1, pp. 1-206,
2013; PRP, Vol.2, Number 1, pp. 1-206, 2013) to realize that
the agreed aims & scope was fulfilled, and that no special
focus on climate-research-related topics existed. The two
published volumes included 25 articles (21 research papers, 2
discussions plus the Preface and the General Conclusions of
the special issue). Only 3 of those papers can be held to focus
on climate-related issues.
A paper by Dr. Parker deals with pattern recognition in
global tide gauge records, and the author is able to identify a
60-year cycle, which invalidates linear rate approximations
especially of records as short as one or two decades. A paper by Dr. Scafetta studies mathematical pattern of complex
signal processing techniques applied to tide gauge station in
New York, solar and climate records. The third paper by Dr.
Suteanu deals with “characteristic change” (i.e. pattern) in
temperature over eastern Canada. All three papers provide
high-level analyses of patterns in natural physical processes.
If they are pro or con any IPCC scenario is totally irrelevant;
they all represent good science and that is what matters.
The second reason (2) is startling. In 12 separate research
papers (PRP, Special Issue 1, 2013-2014) ten authors dealt
with the central astrophysical problem of the planetary influence on solar variability and different terrestrial variables. In
the concluding paper, 19 scientists joined in concluding that,
indeed, “solar variability must emerge from gravitational and
inertial effects on the Sun from the planets and their satellites,”
and in their “implication 2” they stated:
Obviously, we are on our way into a new grand
solar minimum. This sheds serious doubts on the
issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming
as claimed by the IPCC project.
What can be wrong in such a statement, which follows logically upon the identification of solar cycles and repetition
of grand solar minima and maxima? All since first proposed
by Eddy (Science 192, pp. 1189-1202, 1976), there have
been numerous accounts on the relations between grand solar
minima and cold periods of Little Ice Age type.
Neither reason (1) nor reason (2) is good enough to justify
N.-A. Mörner: Editorial: Re-opening of Pattern Recognition in Physics
such a drastic act as to shut down a successful scientific journal. For Mr. Rasmussen and Copernicus Publications only
disgrace seemed to remain. In a mail to Mr. Rasmussen, I
expressed my opinion: In your decision, I think you violate
the freedom of science and freedom of speech. I can do nothing but condemn your decision as unjust, unethical and ulti
However, in the afternoon of January 17, 2014 an additional “reason” appeared on the online statement – as it
seems – in the act of diverging the attention of the public to
something else. In addition to points (1) and (2) above, Mr.
Rasmussen now stated: “the editors selected the referees on a
nepotistic basis.” We certainly do not recall any nomination
of reviewers on such a base: on the contrary, only specialists
on the issues in question were asked to review the papers.
Whatever, this reviewing accusation came to dominate
the debate on the net. This is sad because it is obvious that
the real reason for the closing down of old PRP was the fear
of having printed something that was not in full agreement
with the statements by the IPCC, and this reason is not good
enough a reason.
The act of closing down a scientific journal just because
of an inevitable conclusion, which “sheds serious doubts
on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as
claimed by the IPCC” will under all circumstances remains
most unscientific and unethical.
3. Re-opening of the journal
Professor S.-A. Ouadfeul, the original proposer of the journal,
has now managed to re-open the journal. The journal will
initially be run on private founding, later to be transformed
to a permanent publishing house. The new PRP journal will
commence where the old was stopped, viz. at volume 2, page
26, 2014.
With this as an introductorily Editorial, the new Journal
of Pattern Recognition in Physics starts at volume 2, number
2, page 27, 2014.
As co-editor, I want to express all our appreciation to what
Professor Ouadfeul has achieved by being able to re-launce
the journal. Ethics and scientific norms are re-established.
Personally, I wish Professor Ouadfeul and the New-PRP all
the best of luck & success.
Nils-Axel Mörner
[email protected]
Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, Sweden