Reply to ‘‘Comments on ‘A Bias in the Midtropospheric Channel Warm Target Factor on the NOAA-9 Microwave Sounding Unit’’’

The main finding by Po-Chedley and Fu was that the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) microwave sounding unit (MSU) product has a bias in itsNOAA-9midtropospheric channel (TMT)warm target factor, which leads to a cold bias in the TMT trend. This reply demonstrates that the central arguments by Christy and Spencer to challenge Po-Chedley and Fu do not stand. This reply establishes that 1) Christy and Spencer found a similar, but insignificant, bias in the UAH target factor because their radiosonde data lack adequate sampling and measurement errors were considered twice; 2) the UAH individual satellite TMT difference between NOAA-9 and NOAA-6 reveals a bias of 0.082 6 0.011 in the UAH NOAA-9 target factor; 3) comparing the periods before and after NOAA-9 is not an adequate method to draw conclusions aboutNOAA-9 because of the influence of other satellites; 4) using the Christy and Spencer trend sensitivity value, UAHTMThas a cold bias of 0.035 K decade given a target factor bias of 0.082; 5) similar trends from UAH and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) for the lower tropospheric temperature product (TLT) do not indicate that the UAH TMT and TLT NOAA-9 target factor is unbiased; and 6) the NOAA-9 warm target temperature signal in UAH TMT indicates a problem with the UAH empirical algorithm to derive the target factor.