> You're missing a teensy little point here: the S+C MSU *was* wrong, in
> multiple ways. As were the lapse rates.
S+C had made a teensy little error with the MSU. So Gavin and crew
used that as an excuse not only to fix the MSU data, but they also
revised the radiosonde data.
But that wasn't really satisfactory so they have now published another
paper where they have averaged the their MSU data with their
radiosonde data and got the result they want, approximately. Of
course this means that both their MSU and radiosonde fixes are giving
the wrong results!
Cheers, Alastair.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
