08 Nov 19
2 edits
@metal-brain saidThat is the same article we discussed in depth in the other thread. Do you have any new insights?
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. ...[text shortened]... cience journal or something comparable. I will not accept gossip from hack websites known for lying.
To summarize, it's a highly cited modeling study that finds a steady increase in sea level over time, but no significant acceleration in sea level rise in the 20th century. It highlights many of the problems associated with the use of sea level to estimate human climate impact. Several follow up studies, which cite that work and build upon the findings, do not support the same conclusion (see below). It appears that the low sensitivity of the measurements (and the enormous number of complicated variables like thermal expansion, displacement changes in land mass height etc.) does not allow for any definitive conclusions at this time, other than the conclusion that sea levels are rising. Probably other measurements (like temperature) are better for assessing climate change impacts.
Other than bias, is there a reason why you would support the conclusions from Holgate et al (2007) but not the conclusion from Hay et al (2015) pasted below? Both use a similar climate model.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093
09 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidClimate models are BS and you know it. Wild guess' are not science.
That is the same article we discussed in depth in the other thread. Do you have any new insights?
To summarize, it's a highly cited modeling study that finds a steady increase in sea level over time, but no significant acceleration in sea level rise in the 20th century. It highlights many of the problems associated with the use of sea level to estimate human climate impa ...[text shortened]... 2015) pasted below? Both use a similar climate model.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093
09 Nov 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidNot climate models, sea level models. In this case the modeling is critical to the study you posted. Did you read it? How else are you supposed to understand sea level rise from a few buoys floating in the ocean?
Climate models are BS and you know it. Wild guess' are not science.
09 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidSea level models?
Not climate models, sea level models. In this case the modeling is critical to the study you posted. Did you read it? How else are you supposed to understand sea level rise from a few buoys floating in the ocean?
Never heard of it. Please explain.
09 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidIf you will not explain it why should I think it is relevant?
@Metal-Brain
You should read the paper you keep posting.
10 Nov 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidIs there a reason why you would support the conclusions from Holgate et al (2007) but not the conclusion from Hay et al (2015)? Both use a similar climate model.
Explain it then
10 Nov 19
2 edits
@wildgrass saidAnd that 'reason' has nothing to do with a desire to find the truth regardless of how inconvenient or unpleasant that truth might be but rather has everything to do with massive personal bias to support the belief in whatever wild fantasy one would personally wish to be true.
Is there a reason why you would support the conclusions from Holgate et al (2007) but not the conclusion from Hay et al (2015)? Both use a similar climate model.
Its so easy: Just cherry pick whatever words from scientific sources said by the experts that taken out of context just happen to appear to support one's personal chosen fantasy while conveniently ignoring and filtering out or just verbally trashing all the many more words from at least equally valid if not more valid scientific sources that contradict one's personal chosen fantasy; That's one way how a person who doesn't want to know the truth convinces himself of the more pleasant fairy land where all the warnings from scientists or science-experts backed up by real evidence must be all wrong and they must be all just "Liars" and "Morons" anyway for not agreeing with you chosen fantasy because you obviously know much more than the experts and are smarter than they are so why should you listen to the vast majority of them anyway?
11 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidWhat climate model? There is no need for a climate model to observe data. Why would it be necessary?
Is there a reason why you would support the conclusions from Holgate et al (2007) but not the conclusion from Hay et al (2015)? Both use a similar climate model.
11 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidSo that they can form their conclusions just like they did from their climate model.
What climate model? There is no need for a climate model to observe data. Why would it be necessary?
Nobody here denies the the raw data; That's your strawman.
11 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidIt is outlined in the paper you keep posting but didn't read. Data is collected and then interpreted to make meaningful conclusions. Modeling is essential. Otherwise all you'd know is the elevation of a buoy.
What climate model? There is no need for a climate model to observe data. Why would it be necessary?
12 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidWhy is modeling essential?
It is outlined in the paper you keep posting but didn't read. Data is collected and then interpreted to make meaningful conclusions. Modeling is essential. Otherwise all you'd know is the elevation of a buoy.
12 Nov 19
2 edits
@metal-brain saidTo reach a conclusion of what the data implies.
Why is modeling essential?
So you don't know even the first thing about how science works?
Let me help you with that;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
"..The scientific method is the process by which science is carried out.
...
...the use of scientific modelling and reliance on abstract typologies and theories.."