The other is marked on the body of the measure. The one I was just using reads 3 1/8 inch/79 mm. It is the amount you have to adjust if you measure with the body butting up against something.
In the model, his data and surface measurements did not agree.
The model for how surface measurements and satellite measurements is pretty good: they should match well.
If data argues with predictions, it's probably the model that is wrong in some way.
This is not ad hoc. This is careful work, conducted openly and subject to peer review.
And every time things don't match in some way, they're examined. These errors are not failures. They are actually what drives progress.
Scientists are the pros at proving other scientists wrong. Not random net dudes spouting agitprop from the Heartland Institute of Tobacco and Climate Deniaql.
If you are not considering ALL of these together, you are cherry picking.
There are multiple models approaching this in different ways. But collectively, they, and the understanding behind them, are "our model".
The uncertainties are laid out in detail in scientific papers and cataloged in the IPCC reports.
And given the consequences, we can't afford to be optimistic.
Don't gamble what you can't afford to lose.
/END