Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    8064
    08 Nov '19 17:122 edits
    @metal-brain said
    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.
    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 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
  2. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14825
    09 Nov '19 01:30
    @wildgrass said
    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
    Climate models are BS and you know it. Wild guess' are not science.
  3. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    8064
    09 Nov '19 01:521 edit
    @metal-brain said
    Climate models are BS and you know it. Wild guess' are not science.
    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?
  4. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14825
    09 Nov '19 02:41
    @wildgrass said
    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?
    Sea level models?
    Never heard of it. Please explain.
  5. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    8064
    09 Nov '19 03:44
    @Metal-Brain

    You should read the paper you keep posting.
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14825
    09 Nov '19 03:46
    @wildgrass said
    @Metal-Brain

    You should read the paper you keep posting.
    If you will not explain it why should I think it is relevant?
  7. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    8064
    09 Nov '19 03:47
    @Metal-Brain

    ... because it uses modeling.
  8. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14825
    09 Nov '19 07:38
    @wildgrass said
    @Metal-Brain

    ... because it uses modeling.
    Explain it then
  9. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    8064
    10 Nov '19 16:521 edit
    @metal-brain said
    Explain it then
    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.
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    10 Nov '19 18:292 edits
    @wildgrass said
    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.
    And 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.

    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. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14825
    11 Nov '19 17:15
    @wildgrass said
    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.
    What climate model? There is no need for a climate model to observe data. Why would it be necessary?
  12. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    11 Nov '19 17:47
    @metal-brain said
    What climate model? There is no need for a climate model to observe data. Why would it be necessary?
    So that they can form their conclusions just like they did from their climate model.
    Nobody here denies the the raw data; That's your strawman.
  13. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    8064
    11 Nov '19 18:21
    @metal-brain said
    What climate model? There is no need for a climate model to observe data. Why would it be necessary?
    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.
  14. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14825
    12 Nov '19 05:47
    @wildgrass said
    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.
    Why is modeling essential?
  15. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    12 Nov '19 09:052 edits
    @metal-brain said
    Why is modeling essential?
    To reach a conclusion of what the data implies.
    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.."
Back to Top