22 Nov 19
@deepthought saidYes. And that's just one of the several reasons why I was very careful to prefix the words "With all else being equal,..." to my earlier assertion; It was one of those "With all else being equal,...(assertion inserted here)..." things.
It was a matter of quality.
22 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidYes, I did. Did you read the one you posted?
Huh? Have you read the one you posted?
22 Nov 19
@humy saidI'm sure the data was available to all of them. Don't you think it is more likely that experience shows only 9 buoys are necessary to get the same result as all the buoys?
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.
You are unwittingly going out on a limb here by implying that at some point in the past sea level measurements were inaccurate. I must insist you specify when that was if you are going to take such an extreme position. If you reject portions of the data in the past say so.
22 Nov 19
9 edits
@metal-brain saidHow could the data be available to those of the earlier study from the extra buoys that had yet to exist back then because they only came to exist later AFTER that earlier study so they were only available to the LATER studies? You make no sense whatsoever.
I'm sure the data was available to all of them.
Don't you think it is more likely that experience shows only 9 buoys are necessary to get the same result as all the buoys?They did NOT get exactly the same result from using more buoys. The resulting estimates were slightly different. The links clearly showed this.
You are unwittingly going out on a limb here by implying that at some point in the past sea level measurements were inaccurate.No, the earlier ones gave estimates that were LESS accurate than the later ones, NOT necessarily "inaccurate" because whether they were "inaccurate" depends on how inaccurate you personally define "inaccurate" and thus is just subjective.
I must insist you specify when that wasOK, it was when they did that earlier study. Now, your point is...?
if you are going to take such an extreme positionWhat is "extreme" about an earlier study being less accurate than a later one because the later one had more or better data available? This very often happens in science; Nearly all the time in fact. That's because science doesn't stand still; It just keeps on improving on earlier results.
If you reject portions of the data in the past say so.I don't "reject" ANY data. I always accept data including that data. The earlier data was valid and merely gave by itself a less reliable estimate and at least partly because it was less data although the improvement in quality of later data, as well as improvements in its analysis to greatly reduce or prevent various kinds of accidental estimate bias (a very common problem), may also be a factor in that.
22 Nov 19
@metal-brain said"at some point in the past sea level measurements were inaccurate."
I'm sure the data was available to all of them. Don't you think it is more likely that experience shows only 9 buoys are necessary to get the same result as all the buoys?
You are unwittingly going out on a limb here by implying that at some point in the past sea level measurements were inaccurate. I must insist you specify when that was if you are going to take such an extreme position. If you reject portions of the data in the past say so.
Yes. See Holgate (2007).
23 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidRight, time for you to reveal the truth. We have provided a complete argument, you have not. It is time for you to convincingly argue that there is no acceleration of sea level rise and you have to base your arguments on peer reviewed papers in major scientific journals. Just to make it easier for you words such as "idiot" and "liar" will be prohibited to both sides.
I'm sure the data was available to all of them. Don't you think it is more likely that experience shows only 9 buoys are necessary to get the same result as all the buoys?
You are unwittingly going out on a limb here by implying that at some point in the past sea level measurements were inaccurate. I must insist you specify when that was if you are going to take such an extreme position. If you reject portions of the data in the past say so.
23 Nov 19
1 edit
@wildgrass saidShow me the excerpt that proves it. I don't have a subscription to nature.
"at some point in the past sea level measurements were inaccurate."
Yes. See Holgate (2007).
23 Nov 19
@humy saidNow you are claiming the buoys didn't exist? What are you complaining about then? Are they supposed to get into a time machine and travel to the future?
How could the data be available to those of the earlier study from the extra buoys that had yet to exist back then because they only came to exist later AFTER that earlier study so they were only available to the LATER studies? You make no sense whatsoever.
[quote] Don't you think it is more likely that experience shows only 9 buoys are necessary to get the same result as al ...[text shortened]... ent various kinds of accidental estimate bias (a very common problem), may also be a factor in that.
You are a moron!
23 Nov 19
@deepthought saidYou are a liar. I never claimed there was no acceleration. In fact, I said there was several of them and that it was not unusual. I pointed out that they were cyclical with accelerations that lasted roughly a little over 17 years in a 60 year oscillation. Furthermore, you have not provided a complete argument. That is also a lie.
Right, time for you to reveal the truth. We have provided a complete argument, you have not. It is time for you to convincingly argue that there is no acceleration of sea level rise and you have to base your arguments on peer reviewed papers in major scientific journals. Just to make it easier for you words such as "idiot" and "liar" will be prohibited to both sides.
It is time for you to stop lying. As long as you keep lying I will call you a liar. Stop being a cry baby.
23 Nov 19
Commenting on the original question - it can do, but like translating from a foreign language into English, data can be interpreted with a bias.
A good example of this can be seen in the UK during the Thatcher years when she was at war with the miners. She (thatcher) wanted to demonstrate that nuclear was the better power station option so put a bounty on the table for scientists to prove that CO2 caused global warming (which up until then was a pretty obscure concept).
So thatcher irrespective of what that truth may have been (I’m trying to avoid a global warming debate) wanted a special viewpoint proved, rather than asking an open question, as she wanted a weapon with which to reduce the influence that mining had on the uk economy.
23 Nov 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidNo.
Now you are claiming the buoys didn't exist?
I just said there was a time when some of those buoys didn't exist but they do exist now.
Can you comprehend the concept of "X exists now but the was a time in the past when X didn't exist"?
23 Nov 19
@humy saidObviously.
No.
I just said there was a time when some of those buoys didn't exist but they do exist now.
Can you comprehend the concept of "X exists now but the was a time in the past when X didn't exist"?
What is your point? Do you have one?
23 Nov 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidI was dismissing your assertion of "Now you are claiming the buoys didn't exist?", which is clearly false and now you have just implied it is indeed false by responding to what I just said with "Obviously.". That's my point.
Obviously.
What is your point?
23 Nov 19
@medullah saidDo you have a reference for that? It's entirely plausible, the Thatcher government had a clear policy of reducing the influence of the unions and the NUM in particular.
Commenting on the original question - it can do, but like translating from a foreign language into English, data can be interpreted with a bias.
A good example of this can be seen in the UK during the Thatcher years when she was at war with the miners. She (thatcher) wanted to demonstrate that nuclear was the better power station option so put a bounty on the table for s ...[text shortened]... estion, as she wanted a weapon with which to reduce the influence that mining had on the uk economy.