Does Science Reveal Truth?

@deepthought said
In the second of the two posts you referenced Holgate, the last post on page 7, which I reproduce here:[quote]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 sour ...[text shortened]... data. It's conclusions do not support your argument.

Edit: Improved highlighting of quoted text.

" It may surprise you to here that not all models used in Sea Level Rise studies are full scale Climate models"

NO!!!!
That is what I have been saying. Why should I be surprised you are confirming what I said?

"Now we get to paragraph 18 of the paper you've posted clearly without reading it first:[quote][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). [b]This mean rate of 1.74 mm/yr is at the upper end of the range of estimates for the 20th century"

Define "significant". That does NOT prove me wrong. I have always said there is sea level rise and that it is mostly natural. That statement only confirms what I have been saying all along.

It's conclusions do support my position.

@metal-brain said
" It may surprise you to here that not all models used in Sea Level Rise studies are full scale Climate models"

NO!!!!
That is what I have been saying. Why should I be surprised you are confirming what I said?

"Now we get to paragraph 18 of the paper you've posted clearly without reading it first:[quote][18] All the stations in this study show a significant ...[text shortened]... tement only confirms what I have been saying all along.

It's conclusions do support my position.

If you read Holgate et al. they provide a statistical definition for their use of the word "significant".

Way back on page 8 of this thread, I read Holgate et al. It's actually a good paper, they claim that you only need 9 buoys to generate quality data on sea level rise. However it doesn't conclude what you think it does. I also noted it's use of modeling to generate conclusions. You insisted once again that climate models are BS. I then wanted to get your thoughts on how their results differed from other studies that use more comprehensive data and similar modeling parameters (pasted again below for those interested in reading). Perhaps others might be interested. If you read it you'll find they use a ridiculous number of controls and comparisons of unmodeled vs. modeled data to document their rigorous analysis. They point out and try to correct many possible areas of bias in the data.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093

edit: While not specifically a model designed to mimic the climate, the reference to "ICE-4G" or "ICE-5G" as climate models or models depends. In this case, measuring sea level rise and accounting for deglaciation (both of which are related to climate change), you would call it a climate model.

@wildgrass said
If you read Holgate et al. they provide a statistical definition for their use of the word "significant".

Way back on page 8 of this thread, I read Holgate et al. It's actually a good paper, they claim that you only need 9 buoys to generate quality data on sea level rise. However it doesn't conclude what you think it does. I also noted it's use of modeling to generate co ...[text shortened]... g for deglaciation (both of which are related to climate change), you would call it a climate model.

Not a climate model. Stop claiming it is. Your BS is over the top.

@metal-brain said
Not a climate model. Stop claiming it is. Your BS is over the top.

what about the central question? What separates your study from others?

@wildgrass said
what about the central question? What separates your study from others?

What other study?

@metal-brain said
What other study?

Well, how about the Nature article wildgrass posted a link to:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093

which incidentally cites Holgate 2007, since wildgrass used the word "studies" you can take that to mean any Sea Level Rise study published in a respectable journal.

@deepthought said
Well, how about the Nature article wildgrass posted a link to:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093

which incidentally cites Holgate 2007, since wildgrass used the word "studies" you can take that to mean any Sea Level Rise study published in a respectable journal.

What about it? It says GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010. That is not that unusual. I could take GMSL between 1940 and 1960 and compare it to the increase in rate relative to the 1901–1940 trend and get a similar bump in GMSL rise.

What are you claiming the article proves? Anything?

@metal-brain said
What about it? It says GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010. That is not that unusual. I could take GMSL between 1940 and 1960 and compare it to the increase in rate relative to the 1901–1940 trend and get a similar bump in GMSL rise.

What are you claiming the article proves? Anything?

The question you are steadfastly refusing to answer is: "What do you think distinguishes Holgate (2007) [1] from other Sea Level Rise studies, such as Hay et al (2015) [2]?"

[1] On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century; S. J. Holgate; Geophysical Research Letters, 2007
https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028492

[2] Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise; Carling C. Hay, Eric Morrow, Robert E. Kopp & Jerry X. Mitrovica; Nature volume 517, pages 481–484(2015)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093

@deepthought said
[2] Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise; Carling C. Hay, Eric Morrow, Robert E. Kopp & Jerry X. Mitrovica; Nature volume 517, pages 481–484(2015)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093

That study of the data says:

"...twentieth-century global mean sea-level (GMSL) ...
...
and find a rate of GMSL rise from 1901 to 1990 of 1.2 ± 0.2 millimetres per year
...
...indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010,
..."

So it indicates that there is an apparently general trend of a recent increase rate of sea level rise.

So;
MetalBrain:
Do you accept the validity of the above data and what the above data appears to show?

@deepthought said
The question you are steadfastly refusing to answer is: "What do you think distinguishes Holgate (2007) [1] from other Sea Level Rise studies, such as Hay et al (2015) [2]?"

[1] On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century; S. J. Holgate; Geophysical Research Letters, 2007
https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028492

[2] Probabilistic ...[text shortened]... vica[/i]; Nature volume 517, pages 481–484(2015)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093

I could take GMSL between 1940 and 1960 and compare it to the increase in rate relative to the 1901–1940 trend and get a similar bump in GMSL rise.

You are making the mistake of "assuming" the recent acceleration in sea level rise is unusual and it is not unusual at all. Look at the long term graph from the NASA website. Accelerations and decelerations are cyclical with a 60-year oscillation and accelerations last roughly a little over 17 years. You are cherry picking an excerpt that you assumed meant something when it actually proves nothing. Do you think it is a coincidence that 1993-2010 is 17 years?

What do you think distinguishes Holgate (2007) [1] from other Sea Level Rise studies, such as Hay et al (2015) [2]?

@metal-brain said

You are making the mistake of "assuming" the recent acceleration in sea level rise is unusual

We do NOT assume it "unusual". We just might, not necessarily would, only assume it 'unusual' if we were to assume (which we don't) that CO2 does NOT cause any warming.
But, I take it from the your above word of "...THE recent acceleration...", at least at last, and contrary to your earlier claim, you now admit there IS a recent acceleration in sea level rise. That's a big start. That means you just admitted that the whole premise of you earlier 'argument' (if we can really call it that) against the (proven) theory that CO2 causes warming was simply false.

@metal-brain said
I could take GMSL between 1940 and 1960 and compare it to the increase in rate relative to the 1901–1940 trend and get a similar bump in GMSL rise.

You are making the mistake of "assuming" the recent acceleration in sea level rise is unusual and it is not unusual at all. Look at the long term graph from the NASA website. Accelerations and decelerations are cyclical wi ...[text shortened]... nk distinguishes Holgate (2007) [1] from other Sea Level Rise studies, such as Hay et al (2015) [2]?

I'm not assuming anything at all, I'm asking you a question. One repeatedly posed by wildgrass. What distinguished Holgate (2007) from other Sea Level Studies?

@deepthought said
from other Sea Level Studies?

yes, and a particular good example of one of those others is the one I just pointed out that said;

"...twentieth-century global mean sea-level (GMSL) ...
...
and find a rate of GMSL rise from 1901 to 1990 of 1.2 ± 0.2 millimetres per year
...
...indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010,
..."

@deepthought said
I'm not assuming anything at all, I'm asking you a question. One repeatedly posed by wildgrass. What distinguished Holgate (2007) from other Sea Level Studies?

I don't know. Every excerpt that has been posted is consistent with the data. I have not seen a contradiction so far, just bias based on cherry picked irrelevancies.

I'm asking you a question. What distinguished Holgate (2007) from other Sea Level Studies? You seem to be implying there is one, so you tell me.

@humy said
yes, and a particular good example of one of those others is the one I just pointed out that said;

"...twentieth-century global mean sea-level (GMSL) ...
...
and find a rate of GMSL rise from 1901 to 1990 of 1.2 ± 0.2 millimetres per year
...
...indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010,
..."

Now you have to prove that is unusual. What good is your argument if it is a normal cyclical pattern. You have proved nothing.