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.

Comments Off on Klotzbach Et Al 2009 Corrigendum Published – Contribution To The Correction By Phil Jones

Filed under Climate Change Metrics, Research Papers

Comments are closed.