Quote: 

<div>Radiosonde balloon data is not only very reliable but strongly correlates with satellite data (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/sate...ments.html). However, satellite data does not offer the resolution of radiosonde balloon data. One of your climate denier websites even agrees (http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/new-sat...-balloons/). They say:
 
"Satellites are not particularly good at finding the hot spot because it is a very thin layer over the tropics and satellites peering down from on high find it difficult to measure signals from 10km up and separate them from signals, say 8km up. Radiosondes are much better at resolving the different layers, which is really what matters — only the uppermost layer of water vapor counts, not the total column. Having said that, satellites are pretty handy over the oceans where not many weather balloons get released, and it would be good if we could use them."
 
You say it is "limited" but that is an inaccurate description.  Weather balloons work very well. 
</div>

Quote:What proof do you have of this? What data have they eliminated and adjusted (other than noise which is common in any research). Fudging data is a serious accusation. Where is your proof?

 

Here is an excerpt that describes exactly what these scientist did:

 

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes.
This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques—linear regression and Kriging.

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them
," said Prof Sherwood.

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">The results show that even though there has been a slowdown in the warming of the global average temperatures on the surface of the Earth, the warming has continued strongly throughout the troposphere except for a very thin layer at around 14-15km above the surface of the Earth where it has warmed slightly less.



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-sci...t.html#jCp

Quote: 

 

We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected

from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations.