Does Science Reveal Truth?

@metal-brain said
You'll have to read the papers without prejudice. Nothing you have pointed out is an unusual trend.

What are you talking about?

@wildgrass said
What are you talking about?

What are you talking about? Nothing you are saying makes any sense. You are merely nitpicking at stuff that doesn't matter. Why is the number of buoys relevant? How many fargin oceans are there? You have not made a convincing case at all.

@metal-brain said
Why is the number of buoys relevant?

OBVIOUSLY, with all else equal, the more buoys used, the better the estimate of sea level.

@metal-brain said
"More recent studies that built on their work have observed an acceleration."

What study is that? Assertions are worthless without an actual study to prove it. People make lots of assertions that are false.

You can cherry pick 17 year accelerations in sea level rise to falsely represent a trend, but when put in the correct context it is normal. What if I cherry pi ...[text shortened]... ok place? Would that be a fair representation?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Hay et al (2017).

@humy said
OBVIOUSLY, with all else equal, the more buoys used, the better the estimate of sea level.

Can you prove it makes a difference? If you cannot it is irrelevant.

@deepthought said
Hay et al (2017).

How is it a different conclusion? Does it contradict anything from the article I posted? Nothing you have posted so far has.

@metal-brain said
Can you prove it makes a difference?

With all else being equal, taking into account more measurements won't make the resulting estimations more accurate and reliable?
I don't need to "prove" the obvious to anyone who is willing to use more than one brain cell. Its not a matter of observation but deduction.

@metal-brain said
What are you talking about? Nothing you are saying makes any sense. You are merely nitpicking at stuff that doesn't matter. Why is the number of buoys relevant? How many fargin oceans are there? You have not made a convincing case at all.

I am talking about what you're talking about. How am I prejudice? The relevance of the number of buoys is discussed for two paragraphs in the paper you've posted, but you haven't read it.

@humy said
With all else being equal, taking into account more measurements won't make the resulting estimations more accurate and reliable?
I don't need to "prove" the obvious to anyone who is willing to use more than one brain cell. Its not a matter of observation but deduction.

Not in this case. If it made a big difference they would have included all the buoy measurements. Are you forgetting the earth is mostly covered with water? More buoys are fine if it is proven necessary. Are there more than 9 oceans? Why would it make a difference?

@wildgrass said
I am talking about what you're talking about. How am I prejudice? The relevance of the number of buoys is discussed for two paragraphs in the paper you've posted, but you haven't read it.

What relevance? Post the relevant excerpt. I have not seen one so far. All you do is imply it makes a difference without showing it does at all.
What in that article contradicts the one I posted? You have not even established they reached a different conclusion. As far as I know they are completely compatible. Why do you think it supports your position?

@metal-brain said
If it made a big difference they would have included all the buoy measurements.

No, because the first study may not had the data from more buoys available to them.
In any case, whatever the reason why they didn't use more buoys, my assertion is OBVIOUSLY correct and only a moron can think otherwise.

@humy said
No, because the first study may not had the data from more buoys available to them.
In any case, whatever the reason why they didn't use more buoys, my assertion is OBVIOUSLY correct and only a moron can think otherwise.

If the buoys were not available how could they use more? You are contradicting yourself.

@metal-brain said
What relevance? Post the relevant excerpt. I have not seen one so far. All you do is imply it makes a difference without showing it does at all.
What in that article contradicts the one I posted? You have not even established they reached a different conclusion. As far as I know they are completely compatible. Why do you think it supports your position?

Huh? Have you read the one you posted?

@metal-brain said
If the buoys were not available

Firstly, I didn't say that. I just said "because the first study may not had the data from more buoys available to them. ".
In the early years, the data collection process may have been crude and not have been so automated making it time consuming and expensive to collect the required data from them thus explaining why they may chose to collect data from only a few of them; the researchers may simply had not the money (funds) and time (schedule constraints) available to do otherwise, a common type of problem I am only all too painfully aware of from conduction my own science research (into AI; nothing to do with climate).

Secondly, many of those extra buoys available later may not have existed at the time of that earlier study but then came to exist years later and thus available for ONLY the (generally more reliable) LATER studies.

Do you deny the data and the resulting conclusions from the LATER studies that used MORE buoys, and, if so, WHY, ie. explain why you reject all the other later studies but not the earlier study that used less buoys...
I mean, with all else kept equal, how can collecting data from MORE data points make a study LESS reliable!? Its just so OBVIOUS that the exact opposite is the case.

@humy said
Firstly, I didn't say that. I just said "because the first study may not had the data from more buoys available to them. ".
In the early years, the data collection process may have been crude and not have been so automated making it time consuming and expensive to collect the required data from them thus explaining why they may chose to collect data from only a few of th ...[text shortened]... RE data points make a study LESS reliable!? Its just so OBVIOUS that the exact opposite is the case.

It was a matter of quality. In an earlier paper Holgate and Woodworth [1] had done a sea level analysis based on 177 buoys capable of measuring sea level. Holgate wished to investigate the effects of two possible difficulties. The first is that they are not distributed evenly throughout the world, with a preponderance near Europe and North America, this is a potential source of bias [2]. The second is that the data from a given buoy might not be that good due to local geographical properties, such as Earth quakes, or gaps in the records. By carefully selecting buoys he was able to eliminate potential sources of error. This is why the paper is important.

[1] Holgate, S. J., and P. L. Woodworth (2004), Evidence for enhanced coastal sea level rise during the 1990s, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L07305, doi:10.1029/2004GL019626.
[2] See paragraph 4 in On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, S. J. Holgate
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2006GL028492