Does Science Reveal Truth?

@wildgrass said
I don't understand why 9 buoys (in your Holgate et al study) is better than 177 buoys (in other studies e.g. Hay et al.).

Too many boys and not enough girls?

@wildgrass said
When you post a paper, please read it first.

In my view, the more recent and more comprehensive study provides better evidence for sea level rise. I don't understand why 9 buoys (in your Holgate et al study) is better than 177 buoys (in other studies e.g. Hay et al.). I thought maybe you could shed some light on it but your dog ate your homework.

Show me excerpts from the two articles.

@humy said
Too many boys and not enough girls?

All the girls are models.

@metal-brain said
Show me excerpts from the two articles.

You need to read them yourself. I'm surprised you're able to derive such confident opinions without reading anything.

I already quoted the relevant excerpt from Holgate regarding the model they used for drawing their conclusions. What distinguishes Holgate et al. from other contradictory studies that were performed using more comprehensive sea level data? Maybe try to read the papers and then answer.

@wildgrass said
You need to read them yourself. I'm surprised you're able to derive such confident opinions without reading anything.

I already quoted the relevant excerpt from Holgate regarding the model they used for drawing their conclusions. What distinguishes Holgate et al. from other contradictory studies that were performed using more comprehensive sea level data? Maybe try to read the papers and then answer.

I'm surprised you think you can fool people into thinking you understand what you read. You are clearly making up crap as you go along. First you bring up a model that you cannot even prove is a standard climate model and now you are changing the subject to buoys out of nowhere.

All I know for sure is that you don't want to accept any article that you cannot counter with another article so you make crap up. Then you refuse to paste an excerpt. If you cannot explain it you don't understand it.

@metal-brain said
I'm surprised you think you can fool people into thinking you understand what you read. You are clearly making up crap as you go along. First you bring up a model that you cannot even prove is a standard climate model and now you are changing the subject to buoys out of nowhere.

All I know for sure is that you don't want to accept any article that you cannot counter wi ...[text shortened]... make crap up. Then you refuse to paste an excerpt. If you cannot explain it you don't understand it.

I know you know how to read. What distinguishes Holgate et al. from other contradictory studies that were performed using more comprehensive sea level data?

@wildgrass said
I know you know how to read. What distinguishes Holgate et al. from other contradictory studies that were performed using more comprehensive sea level data?

What other contradictory studies?

@metal-brain said
What other contradictory studies?

Read the one you posted first, and then we can compare to other studies.

@wildgrass said
Read the one you posted first, and then we can compare to other studies.

Copy and paste the relevant excerpts if they exist. I know from experience that those that refuse to post excerpts typically know they are wrong and simply want to waste my time out of spite for being proved wrong.

You know you are wrong. You are nitpicking at stuff you don't understand in a vain attempt to burden me with the research work merely in hopes you stumbled onto something relevant.

Prove it is relevant. I'm not going on your wild goose chase. Prove your own case.

@metal-brain said
Copy and paste the relevant excerpts if they exist. I know from experience that those that refuse to post excerpts typically know they are wrong and simply want to waste my time out of spite for being proved wrong.

You know you are wrong. You are nitpicking at stuff you don't understand in a vain attempt to burden me with the research work merely in hopes you stumbled ...[text shortened]... ing relevant.

Prove it is relevant. I'm not going on your wild goose chase. Prove your own case.

You've posted the link to the article, and now I've burdened you with the task of reading it? It's not a tough read, probably would take less time than we've already spent going back and forth about the importance of reading.

The relevant excerpt from Holgate et al. (which was your reference refuting the human impact of sea level rise) was pasted in on the page regarding your statement that the authors do not use modeling for their conclusions. Indeed it is evident they do use modeling, because of course they do, because how else are you going to make those conclusions?

@wildgrass said

how else are you going to make those conclusions?

Horoscope

@wildgrass said
You've posted the link to the article, and now I've burdened you with the task of reading it? It's not a tough read, probably would take less time than we've already spent going back and forth about the importance of reading.

The relevant excerpt from Holgate et al. (which was your reference refuting the human impact of sea level rise) was pasted in on the page regarding ...[text shortened]... o use modeling, because of course they do, because how else are you going to make those conclusions?

I said "climate model", not "model".
You don't even know if it is a climate model. Try establishing that first.

@metal-brain said
I said "climate model", not "model".
You don't even know if it is a climate model. Try establishing that first.

Yikes. Read the darn article already. You posted it after all.

@wildgrass said
Yikes. Read the darn article already. You posted it after all.

I know how to read and what not to read. It isn't even a climate model. You didn't even know what you were reading about. When you can tell me what kind of model it is let me know.

@metal-brain said
I know how to read and what not to read. It isn't even a climate model. You didn't even know what you were reading about. When you can tell me what kind of model it is let me know.

In the second of the two posts you referenced Holgate, the last post on page 7, which I reproduce here:

So biased guys like you attack what you don't like. That isn't surprising. I meant sea level rise though. Can you present another peer reviewed article saying sea level is rising at an alarming rate? Apparently not if you all are still resorting to attack the source even when it is a peer reviewed article from a respected science journal.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492

I do care where an article comes from. It must be a peer reviewed article from a respected science journal or something comparable. I will not accept gossip from hack websites known for lying.

wildgrass has already copied and pasted the highlighted sentence from paragraph 9 of the paper, which I reproduce here in full:

[9] Following the method described in HW04, consecutive, overlapping decadal mean rates were calculated for each sea level record. The advantage of calculating decadal rates in this way is that the tide gauge records can then be combined into a single mean sea level time series, despite the different gauges having different datums. Furthermore, decadal rates remove any minor data discontinuities and introduce an element of smoothing. The rates of change at each station are corrected for GIA using the ICE‐4G model of Peltier [2001] and for inverse barometer effects using the HadSLP2 air pressure data set [Allan and Ansell, 2006].

Holgate, SJ (2007), paragraph 9, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028492

GIA is an acronym for Glacial Isostatic Adjustment, which is a vertical land movement model. They use models which are not climate change models to understand their data. It may surprise you to here that not all models used in Sea Level Rise studies are full scale Climate models, and that when other posters refer to models they are not necessarily referring to a Climate model. Whether they are or not should be obvious from the context.

Now we get to paragraph 18 of the paper you've posted clearly without reading it first:

[18] All the stations in this study show a significant increase in sea level over the period 1904–2003 with an average increase of 174 mm during that time (Figure 4). This mean rate of 1.74 mm/yr is at the upper end of the range of estimates for the 20th century in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Third Assessment Report (IPCC TAR) [Church et al., 2001], and consistent with other recent estimates [Holgate and Woodworth, 2004; Church and White, 2006].

Holgate, SJ (2007), paragraph 18, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028492

The paper you referenced uses modeling for the interpretation of their data. It's conclusions do not support your argument.

Edit: Improved highlighting of quoted text.