Good csteele, you are reading the literature; now, next step is to understand it; and not selectively quote; very naughty..

Fu and Manabe 2011 is indeed an important paper; and like you, many pro-AGW readers have seen it as a confirmation of the THS, which, I repeat, is a faster warming rate in the Troposphere than the surface.

Fu and Manabe 2011 say this:

"The trends of T24-T2LT from both observations and models are all positive (Figure 2, below), indicating that the tropical upper‐middle troposphere is warming faster than lower middle troposphere [Fu and Johanson, 2005]. But the positive trends are only about 0.014 ± 0.017 K/decade from RSS and 0.005 ± 0.016 K/decade from UAH, which are not significantly different from zero. In contrast, the T24-T2LT trend from multi-model ensemble mean is 0.051 ± 0.007 K/decade, which is significantly larger than zero. The trends from observations and multi-model ensemble mean do not fall within each other’s 95% confidence intervals…"

The lower middle troposphere includes the surface; so, as you claim, there it is, proof from Fu and Manabe that there is a THS; yippee.

Read further csteele, what you didn’t include in your quote, the fine print which makes Fu and Manabe standouts in the AGW science circus; the trend difference is “not significantly different from zero”; and the coup de grace; The trends from observations and multi‐model ensemble mean do not fall within each other’s 95% confidence intervals.

The difference between the observations [and Fu and Manabe used satellites] and the models is so great their trends are not even within their standard confidence levels!

Now, as bonmot’s links shows, since Fu and Manabe’s study, with more satellite data available, the trend in the Troposphere is now below the surface trend:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/files/2011/12/T2LT.png

The models have greatly exaggerated the rate of trend which a THS would have; Fu finds the barest suggestion of a greater trend but that trend reverses when more, up to date data is added.

ERGO, the prediction of a THS has failed.

Dear cohenite,

I'm trying to reconcile this;

“AND IT ISN’T HAPPENING; in any language: the moist lapse rate is NOT decreasing; according to AGW it should be and there should be a THS; there isn’t; seriously, are you unable to understand that basic flaw in AGW theory?”

and this; “what I am showing you is incontrovertible evidence that a THS is not happening!”

and this; “The THS is ESSENTIAL for AGW, yet it has been disproved; where does that leave AGW?”

and this; “the THS, is NOT happening. And Fu DOES confirm this.”

with this;

“The lower middle troposphere includes the surface; so, as you claim, there it is, proof from Fu and Manabe that there is a THS; yippee.”

Well I suppose it is progress.

I'm afraid,

“It is shown that T24 & T2LT trends from both RSS and UAH
are significantly smaller than those from AR4 GCMs. This
indicates possible common errors among GCMs although
we cannot exclude the possibility that the discrepancy
between models and observations is partly caused by biases
in satellite data.”

and

“While strong observational evidence
indicates that tropical deep layer troposphere warms
faster than surface, this study suggests that the AR4 GCMs
may exaggerate the increase in static stability between
tropical middle and upper troposphere in the last three
decades.”

hardly leaves you with a coup de anything.

I repeat:

"But the positive trends are only about 0.014 ± 0.017 K/decade from RSS and 0.005 ± 0.016 K/decade from UAH, which are not significantly different from zero. In contrast, the T24-T2LT trend from multi-model ensemble mean is 0.051 ± 0.007 K/decade, which is significantly larger than zero. The trends from observations and multi-model ensemble mean do not fall within each other’s 95% confidence intervals…"

"which are not significantly different from zero."

"not significantly different"

"from zero"

Don't try to argue like a lawyer to a lawyer csteele!

The only paper, outside the Santer paper, which has been shown to be flawed, which 'shows' a THS, Fu and Manabe, finds a THS which has a rate of warming with no, that is zero, statistical difference in rate from the surface.

That aside, I'm sure you'll agree, at the very least, Fu finds the models have grossly exaggerated the rate of warming in the THS

Dear cohenite,

You write;

“That aside, I'm sure you'll agree, at the very least, Fu finds the models have grossly exaggerated the rate of warming in the THS”

I think I have already acknowledged a version of that when I said;

“I think the best you can hope for from the papers you have given me is that I recognise the modelling has overestimated the THS effect and I will be happy to do so given the evidence thus far.”

I should actually clarify by saying 'an aggregate of the models have overestimated the THS effect'.

I note that our own CSIRO's MK 3.0 model was pretty well an exact fit to the real world RSS data. It would be interesting to know what changes were made in the MK 3.5 that produced the shift in projections.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf (fig 2)

I also note that those models which allowed for volcanic activity on top of stratospheric ozone depletion seemed to end up with trends above those just sticking with the latter.

Be that as it may to call Fu et al a definitive refuting of 'the climate models' remains totally unsupported.

But I now want to offer my congratulations, You've committed to a paper, been appraised of a conflict with your position and have gone with the science, something I was admittedly unsure you were capable of. That puts you ahead of the Leo Lane's of this world.

Adopting the tactic of attempting to 'blind with science' is neither instructive nor constructive when debating here on OLO. It is an especially fraught tool anywhere without at least a science PhD to back it up.

Clearly stated positions and rationale can be of great service to advancing the debate and we should all be making every attempt should be made to deliver them.