Open Thread – travel day

Do I understand correctly that the warmist criticism of the temperature-monitoring satellites is that the satellite temperatures might be accurate for the bulk of the atmosphere, but for whatever reason, they are not accurate right at the surface where AGW is a concern, unlike ground-based temperature monitors that are supposedly accurate?
I understand that the satellite temperatures have been calibrated using accurate balloon temperatures. If these balloons are brought to ground level, do the balloon temperatures agree with the satellites or do they agree with the ground-based temp monitors?
Are the ground-based and satellite-derived ground temperatures identical in places other than where a heat bubble effect might be a factor? Are the satellites agreeing with the temperatures from ground-based monitors in places where the heat bubble effect may be in play?
Or is there a better way to characterize the controversy between ground and satellite-based temperature monitors?

In the recent article in Climate Etc, defending the Karl et. al revision of SSTs, the authors state: “As an aside, the decision to adjust buoys up to ERIs or ERIs down to buoys should nominally be trend neutral. Indeed, in their work on HadSST3 Kennedy and colleagues explicitly tested this, and found ‘no appreciable difference’ on trends.”
The obvious question should be, “If there is no difference, then why did Karl et. al adopt the unusual procedure of adjusting state-of-the-art buoy temperatures up to align with older data with a known hot-bias when they should have known it would be controversial? Might it have been so that they could claim that the actual temperatures (versus anomalies) were still increasing?

Speaking of unthreaded
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-20-its-not-co2-so-what-is-the-main-cause-of-global-warming/#comment-1765837
Over recent weeks I have been going through my VHS tapes while I still have a functioning Player, then digitising my collection of purchased tapes as well as some programs I’ve recorded myself. This morning I came across a Beyond 2000 special, “Climate in Crises” that aired in 1989, 26 years ago. Below are a few notes I jotted down. I have uploaded the video to youtube here. If interested watch it now just in case somebody has it pulled because of copyright.
“ At the eight minute mark our host states, as the greenhouse heats the planet, the oceans will warm and as they warm they will expand, it means that in maybe just 40 years time the see level will be (spreading her arms) about this much higher. That’s about a meter than it is today, now it might not seem like much but it will cause tens of millions of people in Bangladesh in Egypt and in other low lying countries to lose their homes and their farmland, it will mean that some countries will disappear entirely”. We are now twenty six years into that forty year time span, by now if her prediction had any legs we should already seen a rise of seventy five centimeters.
She then goes on to state Han Island in Papua is already being inundated by rising seas, then contradicts herself by explaining that Han’s inundation is caused by changing currents and not climate change, hoping that the vision of affected shore line will carry more wait than her true statement of the cause.
About seventeen and a half minutes or so in our old friend David Attenborough speaks of the possible loss of Kirtland’s Warbler due to the probable loss of the Jack Pine forest in Michigan, all this was supposed to happened already, “the models said so”. A quick google search finds that the warbler is making a comeback and the State Forestry runs guided Kirtland’s Warbler tours . So much for that doom and gloom story.
At about the thirty minute mark they actually admit that CO2 acts as a plant fertiliser, but claim it is the major green house gas, did no one tell them of the greenhouse properties of water vapor. Later they admit renewable energy can’t compete, not because it is expensive but because fossil energy is unrealistically low.
In closing remarks they say “The United Nations believes we have just ten years left to stop the planet from spiralling into a catastrophic green house effect, just ten years left to put the greenhouse solutions into action” We are now sixteen years past the U.N.’s deadline and all seems well to me.
It’s interesting to watch now with the benefit of hindsight.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/11/26/ap-fact-check-on-climate-science-most-gop-candidates-fail/21273556/
Supposedly this was a test of knowledge of climate science. “Scientists” evaluated statements on climate made by candidates, and found Hilary scored a 94 with Sanders close behind, and Cruz a 6. We need to see the statements and evaluate them ourselves.. A list of the “scientists” would be nice too.