Is the mid-troposphere warming faster than the surface?

Is the mid-troposphere supposed to warm faster than the surface record? I know that's the case with the lower troposphere (but not by much). Warming trends are supposed to decrease with height in the troposphere. The mid-troposphere is supposed to warm faster in tropical locations compared with the surface record.

Measuring temperature trends in the atmosphere is much more complicated than measuring trends on the surface since it involves much more indirect measuring and processing. With surface measurements, scientists start with the basic thermometer and make a few adjustments for potential UHI and other factors. It's not error-free, but it's much less prone to error than satellite temperatures.

Jim Z states:

"Translation: if the data doesn't support our case, lets find someone that will manipulate it till it does."

Since Jim Z is a Roy Spencer fan, it's interesting to note that he thinks Roy Spencer dishonestly manipulates data to support his alarmist agenda.

“The net effect on this

change was to increase post-Oct 2005 temperatures slightly, and thus the global trend is increased by about 0.01 C/decade.”

“The new global trend from Dec 1978 to July 2005 is +0.123 C/decade,

or +0.035 C/decade warmer than v5.1. ”

“Preliminary results suggest trends could be very slightly warmer, but less than 0.02 C/decade different.”

“The net effect on the trend was

about 0.02 C/decade (more positive)”

“The net change in the overall trend was toward a more

positive value by +0.012 C/decade.”

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.0...

Actually, in Spencer's case, a better claim would be that he was caught red-handed trying to hide warming and relying too much on his fatally-flawed data.

"Spencer and co-author Dr. William Braswell of Nichols Research Corporation have great confidence in the quality of their satellite data. "We've concluded there isn't a problem with the measurements," Spencer explained."

"Instead, we believe the problem resides in the computer models and in our past assumptions that the atmosphere is so well behaved."

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd5feb...

Why does anyone still listen to Roy Spencer?

EDIT

"Note: First set up straw man that my answer has anything to do with Spencer and then attack Spencer. Hmmm."

It has nothing to do with a strawman. It has everything to do with your ad hominen against the scientists involved in the studies you're attacking. It's an attack without any basis I might add.

EDIT2

Eric C,

Things have changed a lot since 1997, particularly with the UAH dataset. See above.

First of all there are no problems with the data sets:

Abstract

Observations suggest that the earth’s surface has been warming relative to the troposphere for the last 25 years; this is not only difficult to explain but also contrary to the results of climate models. We provide new evidence that the disparity is real.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0407/0407075.p...

"In 1997, the Hadley Center of the United Kingdom's Meteorology Office did an analysis using data from 400 radiosonde sites around the world. There was extremely close agreement between that radiosonde data and the UAH dataset.

Additional studies comparing the satellite and radiosonde data have appeared in reports published by the IPCC and the National Research Council.

Another comparison was published in 2003 in the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. In each case, the satellite data and the radiosonde data show a high level of agreement."

http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php

From the same site as above:

"Global" surface thermometer networks show a warming trend of approximately 1.7 degrees Celsius per century — about 3° Fahrenheit.

The satellite data show a warming trend of 1.4 C or about 2.52° F per century. "

Where is NOAA getting these warming trends of 0,12 and 0.13 is beyond me. But as Jim said the only way you can get the data to prove your hypothesis is by manipulating the data.

Of course you are entitled to believe your sources, we are not since your sources are the only legitimate sources, and anyone who believes that the other sources are correct is living in denial and is a big liar, because we had been pointed out our errors and chose not to believe them.

Fairly decent question concerning adiabatic and environmental lapse rates. From my perspective historical daytime cloud coverage would be the major indicator as to stability. But there's limited information on the averages and monitoring techniques. That's one reason modeling hasn't had much success, it's rolled into averages and predictive values. Here's a decent link that list whats currently available. And some of the reasons it's not 100% accurate . Yes it is relative, and one simply can't base assumption on averages.

http://landsathandbook.gsfc.nasa.gov/handbook/hand...

who care what the air temperature is, the energy of the earth is in it's land and water temperatures. They will moderate the air temperatures. You just add fodder to an already over hype fad.

I think it is safe to say they are both warming. Different techniques will give different results but they both show the same trend. I don't think it matters all that much which is warming faster.

I second what Jimz said :)