From Roger Pielke Sr.’s website:
Klotzbach Et Al 2009 Corrigendum Published – Contribution To The Correction By Phil Jones
The Corrigendum to our paper
Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841.
has been published. It is
Klotzbach, P. J., R. A. Pielke, Sr., R. A. Pielke, Jr., J. R. Christy, and R. T. McNider (2010), Correction to “An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere”, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D01107, doi:10.1029/2009JD013655
As we report in our correction, none of the changes affected our conclusion that there is a significant warm bias in the multi-decadal global average surface temperature trends.
With the permission of Phil Jones, I have reproduced below e-mails in November 2009 from Phil and one from me that led to one of our corrections. I am posting to illustrate that despite the disparaging comments about me and some of my colleagues, as well as several other issues in a number of the released CRU e-mails, there was (and is) an interest to constructively interact by Phil Jones. While we still significantly disagree on the findings in our research, the posting of the e-mails below shows that this collegiality is still alive. We need to nurture this interaction.
We should build on these positive interactions to discuss the climate science issues which remain incompletely understood. In Phil’s e-mail from yesterday, this positive interaction was illustrated in that he let us know of a typographical error in the second to last line of the first paragraph in that we wrote “CSU TS 3.0″ instead of “CRU TS 3.0″.
***************************************NOVEMBER 2009 E-MAILS**********************************************
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:21:45 +0000
From: Phil Jones xxxxx
To: Phil Klotzbach xxxxx santer xxxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley xxxxx Gavin Schmidt xxxxx
“Parker, David (Met Office)” xxxxx
Thomas C Peterson xxxxx
Thomas R Karl xxxxx
“Thorne, Peter” xxxxx
“Roger Pielke, Jr.” xxxxx
Roger A Pielke Sr xxxxx
john.christy xxxxx, mcnider xxxxx
Subject: Your JGR paper
Dear Dr Klotzbach,
There is another mistake in your recent JGR paper.
In Paragraph 35, the paper starts to talk about Tx and Tn data. Para 36 says you have examined the CRUTEM3v Tx and Tn data from the 1979-2005 period. CRUTEM3v doesn’t produce Tx and Tn series – see Brohan et al (2006). Para 25 is slightly wrong as HadCRUT3v combines CRUTEM3v with a variance adjusted version of HadSST2 (HadSST2v) – see Brohan et al (2006).
Table 4 also refers to CRUTEM3v as having Tx and Tn data which is wrong. The data you’ve used have come from the KNMI Explorer site where it is clear that they come from a different dataset than Brohan et al. (2006). You say CRUTEM3v does not have data south of 60S but CRUTEM3v does have data south of 60S. Another CRU dataset (CRU TS 3.0) doesn’t. So your Tx and Tn data probably come from CRU TS 3.0, which has been available on the KNMI site for a while, but we’ve yet to fully write up this update.
CRU TS 3.0 is a completely different dataset than CRUTEM3v. It is clear on the KNMI site that it is different as it has a different
name! CRUTEM3v is on a 5 deg lat/long grid and is not infilled, but CRU TS 3.0 is on a 0.5 by 0.5 degree grid and is infilled. KNMI appear to have aggregated CRU TS 3.0 to slightly coarser resolutions of 1.0 by 1.0 and 2.5 by 2.5.
The CRU TS datasets are globally complete for all land areas north of 60S. They use a different set of stations than used in CRUTEM3v. For Tx and Tn they use the GHCN archive and some extra data we’ve added. The original purpose of the CRU TS datasets (see the New et al 1999,2000 references in Mitchell and Jones, 2005) was not climate monitoring but a globally complete dataset for driving vegetation models. As said they are also spatially infilled for all 0.5 by 0.5 degree boxes that are land.
CRU TS 3.0 is an updated version of CRU TS 2.1 (Mitchell and Jones, 2005).
Also just noticed that Table 4 says the entire globe – it isn’t as para 36 said it was only north of 60S.
Sincerely
Phil Jones
Mitchell, T.D. and Jones, P.D., 2005: An improved method of
constructing a database of monthly climate observations and
associated high-resolution grids. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 693-712.
****************************************************************************
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:27:00 -0700 (MST)
From: Roger A Pielke Sr xxxxx To: Phil Jones xxxxx
Cc: Phil Klotzbach xxxxxxxxxx,
Tom Wigley xxxxx Gavin Schmidt xxxxx
“Parker, David (Met Office)” xxxxx
Thomas C Peterson xxxxx
Thomas R Karl xxxxx
“Thorne, Peter” xxxxx
“Roger Pielke, Jr.” xxxxx john.christy xxxxx,
Dick McNider xxxxx
Subject: Re: Your JGR paper
Dear Phil
We will look at the issues you raised. However, you did not mention whether any of this materially affects the conclusions of our paper. The “mistakes” you refer to in our paper were just typographical errors and the need to properly cite the source of the GISS data (from Gavin Schmidt) that Ross McKitrick used. The issue with respect to amplification remains disputed, despite Gavin Schmidt’s claim to the contrary, and, in any case, is not central to our findings.
What would also be useful is your input on our finding that, with respect to the relationship of temperature trends in a deeper layer of the lower troposphere, any effect which reduces the slope of the vertical temperature profile within a stably stratified surface boundary layer will introduce a warm bias, while any process that increases the magnitude of the slope of the vertical temperature profile in a stably stratified surface boundary layer will introduce a cool bias.
Sincerely
Roger Sr.
*********************************************************************************
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:34:18 +0000
From: Phil Jones xxxxx
To: Roger A Pielke Sr xxxxx
Cc: Phil Klotzbach xxxxx, santer xxxxx,
Tom Wigley xxxxx Gavin Schmidt xxxxx
“Parker, David (Met Office)” xxxxx
Thomas C Peterson xxxxx
Thomas R Karl xxxxx
“Thorne, Peter” xxxxx
“Roger Pielke, Jr.” xxxxx john.christy xxxxx,
Dick McNider xxxxx
Subject: Re: Your JGR paper
Roger,
Your mistakes are more than typographical errors! If I had reviewed the paper I would have told you to go back and read Brohan et al (2006). I have just had a meeting with one of my PhD students. He is writing a paper and I suggested he refer to a certain paper. He said he’s been unable to locate a copy of the paper, which I have to admit is a bit obscure. He then recalled that when he started 2 years ago I told him it was essential to read through all the papers he was ever intending to refer to. I don’t recall giving him this sound advice, but I guess I must have. I do recall getting the same advice in the 1970s. I still try to follow the advice I got.
Over the years I’ve reviewed countless papers. I have no evidence except my history of reviewing, but I’ve noticed that authors who make mistakes referring to the literature or to datasets or not apparently knowing which datasets they have used, have invariably made mistakes elsewhere.
Presumably all the authors on your paper read through a draft or two. Also the reviewers which are acknowledged for improving the manuscript presumably read it. It seems that none of the authors or the reviewers are aware of what Brohan et al (2006) actually says. I urge you to read it – there is a lot in it.
For example, the hadobs web site has error estimates for CRUTEM3v. With these you will be able to work out the correct confidence intervals for your linear trends in Table 4, but only mean temperature. Your ranges are just based on regression, so exclude the fact that the annual zonal averages also have errors. Ch 3 of the 2007 IPCC Report included this component of the errors into the uncertainty range.
It is quite easy to check whether any of this makes any difference to any of your paper. You need to do some work though. You need to compare the time series of CRU TS 3.0 for Tmean with those from CRUTEM3v. My guess is that you will find differences. Based on the infilling in CRU TS 3.0 I’d expect the 60-90N band to show more warming in the infilled dataset than in CRUTEM3v. You can see this is roughly the case from your Tables. The CRUTEM3v global trend for 79-08 is 0.22 but for CRU TS 3.0 (in Table 4 for 79-05) is 0.31. The 3 extra years is a factor, but there is also the infilling.
Sincerely
Phil
***********************************************************************************
FINAL COMMENT JANUARY 14 2010: I recommend that we move forward with an inclusive assessment of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC. We need to focus on the science issues. This necessarily should involve all research investigators who are working on this topic, with formal assessments chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.
Tropo VERY high! http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002
FINAL COMMENT JANUARY 14 2010:
….mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.
Errrrrr, and just who might that be? Since, AFIK, all are funded by one side of AGW or the other, it’s going to be hard to find a CLIMATE SCIENTIST with no vested interest.
just sayin’
Just because temperatures go down it doesn’t mean global warming isn’t true
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527436.100-errors-and-lies-thrive-in-cold-weather.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
O/T
via newsbusters:
According to the conservative think tank the National Center for Public Policy Research, Mann received $541,184 in economic stimulus funds last June to conduct climate change research.
With this in mind, NCPPR issued a press release Thursday asking for these funds to be returned:
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/14/climategate-scientist-received-economic-stimulus-funds-media-mum#ixzz0cbeF3W4I
“…climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”
Is that species critically endangered or already extinct in the wild?
This presents an interesting projective test as to the overall dispositions of Phil Jones and Roger Pielke (and other readers!). That Roger sees this as a collegial interaction says a lot about Roger. I hope Roger’s optimism and openness leads to results. Personally I would be a bit more cynical.
Maybe it’s just me, but Jones’ comments sound rather more like patronising point-scoring than collegiality with an equal.
And I’m British too, so it’s not a cultural misunderstanding.
The final comment is curious. Who out there in the climate science universe does NOT have a vested interest in the outcome of a review of the temperature data?
I would think the best review would be one that would involve data and statistical experts from outside of the climate science community to augment a balanced selection of climate scientists that included the whole spectrum of opinions.
It might be messier than a room full of the usual climate science crowd, but I think it would be viewed by those outside the field as being balanced and give more credence to its work.
It’s a travesty.
The ghost of Big Jim Cooley (08:44:33) :
Tropo VERY high! http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002
Indeed according to that site it’s been above the 20 year record for the whole of this year!
Big Jim
But the warmer temp keeps going upward past the troposphere; at 118,000, the readings stop and the temp is still .25 degree warmer than the reference.
Seems like heat radiating outward — am I missing something?
Sorry Roger, I’m not buyin’ it.
I read the email that said something to the effect that ‘Pielke shouldn’t find out about this…’
Jones’ emails reveal him to be of suspicious character at best. Roger may be honorable, but Jones is not, and this has all the appearances of Jones simply doing a CYA. He’s already shown his dishonesty with Roger…..
“artwest (09:00:58) :
Maybe it’s just me, but Jones’ comments sound rather more like patronising point-scoring than collegiality with an equal.
And I’m British too, so it’s not a cultural misunderstanding.”
I think artwest has hit the nail on the head. Jones is telling Pielke Sr what he tells to his PhD students. Can you get any more patronising that that?
Bernie (08:55:57) : “ a bit more cynica.”
I had the same thought but there is no rule that these folks have to like each other to exchange useful ideas.
These kind of interactions will almost inevitably be nit-picky for the simple reason that that is one of the purposes of having them in the first place.
I feel a great deal of affection and respect for Pielke, Sr right now in holding out the hand of collegiality to a colleague “on the other side” of the science debate who has certainly been roughly used (generally fairly, IMO, but nonetheless) on a very wide and very public scale the last few months.
This is the very opposite of “piling on”, and kudos to Pielke, Sr for it. Hopefully it will have positive follow-on effects, and not just with Jones.
In the end, we have to get the scientists back to doing science rather than poring over old emails, and that requires that the lines of communication between the camps function.
Save our Planet (08:46:40) :
Just because a particular hypothesis blinds itself to all other factors in a climate system does not mean that it’s decision to declare C02 the sole primary driver of a warming event is evidence of anthropogenic forcing, or that C02 is the primary driver of warming/cooling.
When was the last time you saw definative work to account for the factors at play in the climate and assign them thier relative strengths backed up by reproducilble tests?
Models themselves are not proof and the predictions they put forth for the present time all failed. The oceans have not risen and the climate has shown them false.
The tests are what the climate has done and the ocean levels displayed.
That means that by the Scientific Method global warming is not overwhelmingly attributable to modeled anthropogenic forcings.
The AGW models have failed.
Get a new hypothesis.
How do we respond to Jones’s correspondence without stooping to his level of ad hominem abuse? Yet again he is arrogant, disrespectful, and given the quality of the data he uses, entirely without any capacity for self-reflection.
Save our Planet (08:46:40) said:
Errors and lies thrive in warm weather.
Save our Planet (08:46:40) :
“Just because temperatures go down it doesn’t mean global warming isn’t true”
And just because temperatures go up it doesn’t mean anthropogenic global warming is true.
Somewhat related, an interesting new paper by Dr Scafetta published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (71) and titled:
“Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change”
Available at http://eprintweb.org/s/article/physics/0912.4319 in PDF format.
If you are really concerned about the Planet, disengage from the Agenda that proposes to use Malthusian means to alter the climate. I.E. – don’t get on the flight that you know is piloted by hypocrites. They can surely get airborne, any idiot can hit the throttle and lower the flaps. It takes a pilot who knows how the system functions to land it safely.
Referece to a Twilight Zone episode: It’s a cookbook written on cooked books.
Throwing gas on the fire that is the problems on Planet Earth won’t put the fire out.
I agree with Artwest. Having spent much of my career reviewing papers, reading the reviews of others as an editor as well as reading those on my own papers Jones’ reviews are anything but collegiate. They are arrogant and offensive. Not a nice person, unless, of course, you’re part of the team.
I think everyone should remember that an inclination toward professional “collegiality”, as Pielke describes it, is what lured dissenting scientists into a professional and public relations trap from which they are only recently emerging. The party who smiles and shakes your hand at the big conference while simultaneously blocking your papers from being published and poisoning your public relationships through planted news articles is a snake in the grass who has not earned the high-minded status of “colleague”.
While revenge is a wasteful endeavor, cavorting with snakes that have already bit you is just plain foolish.
CH
To “Save Our Planet”: Just because global temperatures rise doesn’t mean AGW is true. As Climate Cultists say, “If it’s cool, it’s weather; if it’s warm, it’s climate.” Meantime, Lorenz’s Chaos Theory (1964) demonstrates that linear extrapolations of complex dynamic systems (those with three or more interacting variables) is mathematically impossible, while basic physics’ thermodynamic Conservation Laws require that heat disspipates from open (planetary atmospheric) systems, while closed systems subside to thermal equilibrium via cooling by convective heat-exchange. Otherwise, perpetual motion would generate heat-energy from nothing… Gore’s fatuous “flat earth” pejoratives are nothing compared to pseudo-scientific Warmists’ sophomoric naivite and willful ignorance.
Since heat is a form of energy, and energy can only be transformed (neither created nor destroyed), a cumulative global “greenhouse effect” due to ozone layers, solar irradiance, CO2 emissions or whatever, violates fundamental natural law. But since when have Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. –the Green Gang, aka The Team– ever had any self-respecting use for truly “settled” math or science? Garbage in, garbage out: Hey, even peculating scamsters have to eat.
..I think Pielke Sr is being ironic….it would be odd that his sons nice satire was not also inbred in the father. So I think we are meant to smirk.