ETA: I’ve revised the headline to reflect that this is still … still … still ongoing as we are waiting for Douglass et all to provide a peer-reviewed reply.
Yet another chapter in the continuing saga “As the Denialists Spin” for your reading enjoyment:
Here’s a copy of the Douglass and Christy et al article A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions.
ABSTRACT: We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright 2007 Royal Meteorological Society
ABSTRACT: A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identiﬁed a ‘potentially serious inconsistency’ between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate models consistently showed tropospheric ampliﬁcation of surface warming in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs). We revisit such comparisons here using new observational estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We ﬁnd that there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.
This emerging reconciliation of models and observations has two primary explanations. First, because of changes in the treatment of buoy and satellite information, new surface temperature datasets yield slightly reduced tropical warming relative to earlier versions. Second, recently developed satellite and radiosonde datasets show larger warming of the tropical lower troposphere. In the case of a new satellite dataset from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), enhanced warming is due to an improved procedure of adjusting for inter-satellite biases. When the RSS-derived tropospheric temperature trend is compared with four different observed estimates of surface temperature change, the surface warming is invariably ampliﬁed in the tropical troposphere, consistent with model results. Even if we use data from a second satellite dataset with smaller tropospheric warming than in RSS, observed tropical lapse rate trends are not signiﬁcantly different from those in all other model simulations.
Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical ‘consistency test’. Copyright 2008 Royal Meteorological Society.
Douglass and Christy, “A Climatological Conspiracy?”
The CRU e-mails have revealed how the normal conventions of the peer review process appear to have been compromised by a team* of global warming scientists, with the willing cooperation of the editor of the International Journal of Climatology (IJC), Glenn McGregor. The team spent nearly a year preparing and publishing a paper that attempted to rebut a previously published paper in IJC by Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer (DCPS). The DCPS paper, reviewed and accepted in the traditional manner, had shown that the IPCC models that predicted significant “global warming” in fact largely disagreed with the observational data.
A paper by D.H. Douglass, J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer, published online in the International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) in December 2007, contained a serious error in a statistical test.1 This error led Douglass et al. to make the incorrect claim that modeled and observed tropical temperature trends “disagree to a statistically significant extent”. These incorrect conclusions received considerable publicity. The nature of the statistical error is clearly explained in a paper my colleagues and I published in the online edition of the IJoC in October 2008.2 The statistical flaw is also explained in readily-understandable terms in the attached “fact sheet” (see Appendix A below).
Douglass and Christy have now focused on the selective interpretation of emails stolen from the U.K.‟s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Their suggestively titled article, “A Climatology Conspiracy?”, was recently published online in “American Thinker”.3
In “A Climatology Conspiracy?”, Douglass and Christy make a number of allegations against the primary authors of the 2008 Santer et al. IJoC paper and against the editor of the IJoC. The focus here is on addressing two of the most serious allegations. The first allegation is that there was a conspiracy to deny Douglass et al. the opportunity to respond to the Santer et al. IJoC paper. The second allegation is that there was collusion between the editor of the IJoC and some of the authors of the Santer et al. IJoC paper. Douglass and Christy suggest that the aim of this collusion was to subvert the normal, rigorous, peer-review process.
With regard to the first allegation, the authors of the 2008 Santer et al. IJoC paper performed a substantial amount of new and original scientific research. It was therefore entirely appropriate for the editor of the IJoC to treat the Santer et al. IJoC paper as an independent scientific contribution, and to publish Santer et al. as a „stand alone‟ paper rather than simply as a comment on the 2007 Douglass et al. IJoC paper. This editorial decision did not – as Douglass and Christy incorrectly allege – deny Douglass et al. the opportunity to respond to the scientific issues raised by the Santer et al. IJoC paper.
Douglass and Christy have had every opportunity to respond to scientific criticism of their 2007 IJoC paper, both in the pages of the IJoC and elsewhere. For example, they could have contributed a new scientific article to the IJoC, or submitted a comment on the Santer et al. IJoC paper. They have not done so. Nor has the Douglass and Christy “American Thinker” article adequately addressed concerns regarding the use of a seriously flawed statistical test in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper.
Just for the record.