Comment On James Annan’s Post “Klotzbach ad nauseam 2009”

There is a post by James Annan title Klotzbach ad nauseam 2009 which has a number of substantive errors, which I will respond to below. Interestingly, despite these errors and the statements that our paper if flawed, Annan actually confirms that there is a bias in the surface temperature trends if they are to be used to interpret tropospheric temperature changes through a deeper depth of the atmosphere!  He writes

“Gavin’s value knocks off half of the claimed discrepancy at a stroke.”

Thus, James is still admitting that a discrepancy remains.

On his factual errors, the surface and tropospheric temperature trends remain unreconciled as clearly seen in Kltozbach et al (2009) even without using any amplification.  Moreover, in the follow up with Ross McKitrick (see), an amplification remains.

On the recognition of Urs Neu on the error he found in my interpretation of the Lin et al (2007)  paper, he was acknowledged in a post titled Error Identified by Urs Neu in one of my Interpretations of the Results in Lin et al. 2007.  In the constructive e-mail exchange I had with Urs, Urs and I did agree the use of a temperature at one level to diagnose a  temperature trend through a deeper layer of the troposphere can introduce a bias. [it would be constructive if James would also adopt Urs’s constructive dialog approach].

In that post, with respect to our papers, I  also wrote

“In summary, the error in my interpretation of the Lin et al lapse rate trends does not alter the conclusions in Pielke and Matsui 2007 and Klotzbach et al. 2009. We present scientific evidence that 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, remains a robust finding based on boundary layer dynamics. “

James Annan, I note, ignored commenting on the science of this conclusion in his most recent post [probably because he did not want to repeat his presenting his lack of fundamental knowledge of  atmospheric boundary layer dynamics, as I documented in several posts earlier this Fall (e.g. see Remarkable Admission By James Annan On The Klotzbach Et Al (2009) Paper)].

Indeed, Annan has apparently decided that dissing research papers without scientific conclusions based on his own research is okay. Having worked with him on our survey (see), I am disappointed to see him assume this lack of scientific rigor.  After all, he still accepts that “half of the claimed discrepancy” remains, yet ignores following up on the significance of this finding. The Santer et al (2000) paper [see for the correct citation] remains a valid approach to investigate the issues we raised in our paper.

He has also ignored other evidence that supports the Klotzbach et al (2009) paper; e.g.

Further Support for Klotzbach et al. 2009 – Observational Evidence of a Change of Surface Radiative Forcing in a Paper: Philipona et al. 2004

Another Very Important Paper Which Illustrates Major Problems With Using Minimum Land Temperatures As Part Of The Diagnosis of Global Warming and Cooling: “Vertically Integrated Sensible-Heat Budgets For Stable Nocturnal Boundary Layers By Nakamura and Mahrt 2006

Support For Klotzbach Et Al (2009) In The 1997 Easterling Et Al Science Paper “Maximum And Minimum Temperature Trends For The Globe”

Illustration Of The Sensitivity In The Minimum Overnight Temperature To Even Small Changes In Land Surface Processes

As we invited Gavin Schmidt, James Annan is welcome to collaborate with us to address the issue of the descrepancy between the surface and tropospheric temperature data.  Alternatively, he could submit a Comment to JGR on our paper, which we would be pleased to Reply to.