The paper is 11 years old, the data only goes to 1999, and the paper doesn't support the claims you made in your previous post that the satellite data are in agreement with the radiosonde data.
You also need to read what the authors wrote, not just rely on eyeballing a graph. "The global mean time series from the (CARDS-based) unadjusted LKS and IGRA for the 85 stations used in this work differ most notably before 1965 (Figure 1). Although IGRA is an improvement over CARDS, we do not have LKS adjustments based on IGRA. Because of the careful scrutiny used by the LKS team to create the adjusted LKS data, LKS is likely to be more reliable than a data set derived by applying the FD method to the IGRA data before 1995. (In 1996 and 1997, the LKS adjustments are less reliable than for earlier periods because of the small number of data points present after the adjustments. For these years, the FD result is likely to be equally valid.) We therefore use LKS instead of IGRA before 1995 to reap the substantial benefits of the LKS homogeneity adjustments. However, because of the differences between the data sets before 1965, RATPAC data from that period should be viewed with caution."
850mb is at about 5000 ft so why would you expect it to show the same warming as at the surface about 6 ft off the ground?
You're claim that models don't model the surface data is just flat wrong. You also don't seem to have a clue about why anomalies are used instead of absolute temperatures. Jesus. Yet another climate truther who never bothers to do something even as simple as reading the FAQ from the GISS website. I have no doubt it's been pointed out to you a number of times, including by Mithrae just a few days ago. Do you just totally ignore anything that might contradict what you want to hear? :shock:
Data.GISS: GISTEMP -- Frequently Asked Questions
I noticed you totally ignored the 2015 Po-Chedley paper I posted.
