Don't forget modeled. Many surface temperature data points do not even come from thermometers, but the data is fabricated, based on readings from nearby stations. There are no actual weather stations in Bolivia, for example. All the reported temperatures are based on a computer program.
Speaking of adjusting the raw data, sometimes "a very artificial correction" is needed. This is from the hacked e-mails.
Ground based thermometers measure the temperature directly at a site: satellite measure radiance from more than 500 miles away and use a complicated formula (which different groups disagree about) to convert that radiance into a temperature.
Which one do YOU think would be more accurate?
EDIT: You said "Peg I rather trust the data that doesn't have to be manipulated and adjusted to concoct information that fills in blanks." It still has to be "manipulated" you fool, and there are always "blanks".
Alph,
BEST was done by a person who was SO BIASED that he LIED and claimed he was a skeptic when he was no such thing. Further you are right the BEST results showed 50% more warming. Of course you are biased enough to see that as a victory for the warmers, when what it really means is that by changing how you "correct" the data, you can significantly change the results. That is why he downplayed the results in the temp and called them "consistent" with the other findings. He knew very well if he claimed 50% more warming then this would call into question the reliability of the ground records.
Edit:
THis is the difference between science and scare-mongering. There is warming, we need to start coming up with intelligent ways to reduce CO2 emission that do not involve taxation or preventing 3rd world countries from having power. But science is about understanding what we know and what we do not know. You warmers claim entirely too much certainty and entirely too much fear. When you pretend that you are certain of large temp changes and they don't occur, you hurt both environmentalism and science. How many times are people going to hear about the end of the world and see very little change and still want to help?
We have problems. Some of those include the burying of our trash. pollution in our oceans and water, smog in many countries, burning of rain forests, etc. The solution does NOT come by exaggeration or lying. That only makes people more wary.
right.. urban heat island affect temperature records, except that:
1. BEST discovered more warming in rural stations
2. most of the warming is in the arctic far away from cities.
even Roy Spencer with his satellites data shows warming. Maybe the satellites are poorly located or maybe he is making up the data.
They are more accurate The satellite readings are more for validating trends
Yes I agree, I prefer UAH though
In a word...NO!!
Why use obsolete poorly located and calibrated temperature monitoring stations when satellites cover more area and create a better resolution within a data set?
