08 Nov '19 17:12>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.