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.
Hats of to Roger Pielke Sr. and his co-authors for their magnanimity and good nature.
For myself, I wouldn’t believe ANYTHING that Jones, or Mann and their ‘teams’ said, if they arranged for it to be blazoned across the sky in letters of golden fire.
They (and their cheerleaders like the Grauniad and the BBC) have absolutely and irretrievably forfeited any confidence that a scientifically literate layman like myself might have, in both their honesty and their competence.
If the Pielkes think this is an unjustified ad hominem attack then that’s a shame but I am totally unrepentant.
At least the Pielkes are not absolutely aware that their “scientific findings” are being used by political dimwits and big finance crooks to terrify schoolkids, to cause irreparable damage to the economies of the western democracies and to destroy hope in the third world.
stephen richards (11:35:20) :
No-one has yet published anywhere, AFAICT, an engineering quality description of solar – Earth climate interaction.
It needs some engineering quality funding behind the research.
Nir Shaviv, Nicola Scafetta and others are working on the problem of disentangling the solar signal in temperature form the rest of the internal climate noise.
See the scafetta paper.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.4319v1.pdf
It appears that Roger Pielke, Sr. is showing us, besides irony, that Jones is “something else”. He is an extreme nitpicker of even the most inconsequential. Therefore, anything that was issued under his aegis or review at CRU or IPPC, has met with his approval and is “error free”. Thus, all incorrect or biased or fraudulent data, calculations, statistical manipulations, or site selections are the result of his intent and approval. He won’t be able to claim innocence at his trial.
My! What a pretty snake.
In the legal profession unethical conduct results in disbarment. The individual is no longer allowed to practice law. Jones, Mann, Schmidt, Briffa, et al should be disbarred, disowned, from climate science.
I agree with Pielke calling for a fully independent assessment of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC.
B. Smith (12:25:17) :
‘AGW theory is firmly entrenched in the minds of most (not all) of the electorate, but nearly all of their representatives.’
Most of our representatives (it is not about the science) only believe in a new source of revenue (CO2 Cap and Tax or CO2 Tax) and the control it will bring to their party.
The last time that I heard of people saying that the science was ‘settled’ was in 1899, when it seemed it was just a matter of filling in a few details. Soon after Einstein came along and really screwed things up!
Science is never settled, just not disproved. AGW has made several predictions, all of which have failed, so in scientific terms AGW is a dead science.
I did see one comment suggesting that $50 billion had been spent on AGW climate research! Is this true?
If so : ‘$50 billion spent on research and all I get is one lousy graph!’
Anticlimactic (15:39:48) :
I did see one comment suggesting that $50 billion had been spent on AGW climate research! Is this true?
If so : ‘$50 billion spent on research and all I get is one lousy graph!’
To be fair…. monies spent did go for a great deal of important research. The issue however would be how much work, how many studies (which would otherwise be accurate) contain errors and are not accurate due to the activity of the little Jones / Mann group?
How much ‘science’ has to be redone (if any) and at what expense. Will CRU, Penn St. , NASA, etc reimburse / compensate those who have been so affected should that be the case ?
old construction worker (14:39:36) :
“Most of our representatives (it is not about the science) only believe in a new source of revenue (CO2 Cap and Tax or CO2 Tax) and the control it will bring to their party.”
It may be my California bias, surrounded as I am by New Age liberals, but off record conversations indicate too many politicians have bought into AGW theory itself. How much of that acceptance is fueled by the tax grab component still isn’t clearly defined. Regardless, I don’t buy the theory that tax grabs equate to more power for a given party; certainly not in the USA.
Historically, excessive taxation without a truly just cause invariably will cost the party responsible for the tax policies either their Congressional majority (often in both Houses) or the Presidency itself. That was the point I was making regarding winning over the electorate. AGW has been a just cause for a majority of the people, until now. The revelations from the CRU whistle blowing has caused voters to pause and reflect and that pause is the opening skeptical scientists must use to be heard above the noise.
So long as the majority of voters think AGW is a real danger, their elected representatives will stay the course on current environmental policies (the caps and taxes you mention). If the skeptics, by the weight of empirical proof and soundness of their science, can convince the majority of the voters that AGW theory is grossly overstated or even discredited, the voters can now remove (by not re-electing) those officials who do not represent their new views. AGW-fueled tax policies will no longer be viewed as justifiable, and voter backlash will certainly take place.
Lee Kington (16:13:05)
I do wonder, if historical raw data has been deleted, whether copies will be found to exist once the AGW edifice has crumbled. I can not believe all the researchers are truly loyal to AGW even if forced to be to get a job and may have taken clandestine copies. Not quite ‘Fahrenheit 451’, but it does come to mind.
Is any independent organisation trying to create a store of untainted data?
Also many researchers may be able to redo the science quickly one they are given the freedom to do so.
Don’t forget that the article itself says Jones agreed to the appearance here of his emails. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and I take Pielke, Sr at his word for the purpose of this article’s appearance here –reengaging on the science going forward.
Hey, look people, aside from all the lighting and thunder (and what Johnny Apple would have called “horserace reporting”), there are real differences held by very intelligent and highly trained/experienced people who believe passionately that they are correct and the other fellow is regrettably, but very seriously, mistaken.
Oh, and btw, should Phil Jones be reading this article, knowing that it would appear. . . .thank you Dr. Jones for allowing them to appear here, and I hope WUWT will see more of your participation, even if indirectly, in the future.
The past is the past, and those issues will work themselves out however they do. All any of us can do is try to make the future better.
From looking around the data bases used and talked about in the e-mails it would seem that the original DAILY data bases are still intact as is, because it would take too much work to redo the individual daily values. Due to laziness and the ease of shifting averages a few tenths to a whole degrees is easy to hide (until searched to confirm) in piles of numbers that vary all over the place.
It appears to me that what was “lost” was the “adjusted MONTHLY average” values they had in their cook books for future use then discarded before they could be found, by prying eyes through FOIA request.
If new monthly average values are needed they could be re-figured from the intact daily records. However I would suggest starting from scratch, to avoid falling into the trap or using any erroneous infilling values.
Let me see if I’ve got this right
Jim,Makiko and Reto released a paper in 2001 that stated 1998 was the warmest year(for the US)when in fact 1934 was.Jim being the brilliant scientist that he is cannot even remember the 2001 paper,and for some strange reason cannot just look it up,or is he telling Makiko and Reto that they made the mistake,and they’d better fix it(trying to guess why he states he doesn’t know what the 2001 paper stated)Very polite of him,not so polite when he talks about other scientists questioning his brilliance.Comes across as very incompetent,anything to do with his work should be available to him within 1 minute.I didn’t read all the e-mails.So hard to pick out who is talking to who with all the repeats,but this one from Jim held my interest.
Could you please clear this up?Other people keep saying the same thing as Demian does
that we previously claimed 1998 was warmer than 1934.
Is that right?
I am quite sure that our 2001 paper shows 1934 slightly warmer.
Did we once find 1998 as warmer?
End
As I said,very incompetent,glad he didn’t pick medicine for his career.
WAAAAAA..
Jones:
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.”
well, all you need to do is look no further than AR4 chapter 6. Jones and others pushed hard to get a paper from Amann and Wahl in that Chapter.
They did. too bad that paper has references to a paper that wasnt finished or accepted at the time. Jones suggestion? CHANGE THE PUBLICATION DATE.
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 noticed this as well. I thought Jones’ comments were rather condescending and arrogant, particularly in consideration that they were not addressed to a student, but rather an equal. Dr. Pielke should commended for his willingness to maintain a collegiality in such circumstances, but IMHO, he is “throwing pearls before swine”. Jones needs to be taken down a few pegs.