The paper is very lightweight (as contrarian papers can be). It argues that observed surface trends since 1979 actually exceed troposphere trends, as measured by the UAH and RSS indices, which CMIP etc modelling suggests that the troposphere should warm faster.
Now for global you can simply get those trends, and many more, with CIs from the Moyhu trend viewer. You might say, well, figuring out what the models said should be rated substantial. But they way oversimplified, were corrected at Real Climate (Gavin) and had to publish a corrigendum. There has been more discussion then and over the years. Here, for example, is a post at Climate Audit, with Gavin participating. But the audit didn't seem to pick up the CI issue, though other methods were discussed. Later a Klotzbach revisited WUWT post (my title echoes) two years ago; more on that from SKS here. And now another update.
But what no-one, AFAICS, has noticed is that the claims of statistical significance are just nuts. And significance is essential, because they have only one observation period. The claim originally, from the abstract, was:
"The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower-tropospheric satellite data sets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas."I've noticed that the authors are quieter on this recently, and it may be that someone has noticed. But without statistical significance, the claims are meaningless.
Update: I think that the CI's they are quoting may relate to a different calculation. They computed the trends in Table 1, with CI's, and in Table 2 the differences. They say in the abstract that these are differences of trends, but the heading of Table 2, which is not very clear, could mean that they are computing the trends of the differences (a new regression) and giving CI's for that. That is actually a reasonable thing to do, but they should make it clear. I have got reasonably close to their numbers for comparisons with UAH, but not with RSS; it may be that the RSS data has changed significantly since 2009.
I'll describe this in more detail below the jump.