The units are irrelevant; the bottom line is that the IPCC's conclusions about water vapor feedback would be grossly incorrect if
the old radiosonde data were correct.
In the upper - air field, this difference of approach has been very obvious, and great efforts have been expended to produce corrections to
the older radiosonde data sets.
When upper atmosphere drying trends this large (see Figure 3, 4, 10) are seen in
older radiosonde data, I can understand how Miskolczi could have calculated a relatively constant tau from similar data.
Not exact matches
But satellite
data, both RSS and UAH, still stubbornly refuse to show greenhouse fingerprint, in accordance with
old, «incorrect»
radiosonde data.
The more
data from
old radiosondes, ships» logs and small meteorological stations is included, the better our picture of how things were 80 or more years ago will be.
They have gone through a number of types of
radiosondes and the satellite
data would indicate the measurement change with the new device since the new
radiosondes wouldn't match the satellite
data and the
old radiosondes would This is the same problem — mandatory objective environmental test standards would give historic continuity.
Four fifty - year -
old independent
radiosonde data sets measuring atmospheric pressure, temperature, wind speed and direction in those latitudes show no tropospheric hot spot where there should be one according to AGW gospel.
Here is a comparison of new and
old RSS vs RICH
radiosonde data (If you are tired with RATPAC and want an alternative).
There may be perfectly good reasons why the
radiosonde data used in this paper is reliable while
older radiosondes making (easier?)