Does Science Reveal Truth?

-continued-
If scientists didn't ever form a model of reality i.e. do modelling, I guess there would be very little if any science because then all there would be would be just a record of the raw data but with no explanation or theory or interpretation of that raw data, and that would make the 'science' pretty useless. What kind of science doesn't ever come up with a theory?

@humy said
-continued-
If scientists didn't ever form a model of reality i.e. do modelling, I guess there would be very little if any science because then all there would be would be just a record of the raw data but with no explanation or theory or interpretation of that raw data, and that would make the 'science' pretty useless. What kind of science doesn't ever come up with a theory?

Modeling isn't needed to see sea level rise has been relatively steady and hasn't accelerated much more than normal natural causes. You have not explained why it is needed. Lose the jargon. You are not fooling anyone.

@metal-brain said
Modeling isn't needed to see sea level rise

Right, but IS needed, as they DID in your link, to interpret what it means.
They used a model to make an interpretation thus they did modelling.
And that link you showed judged temperature rise NOT by the actual temperature measurements but rather by sea level measurements and they used the now proven faulty part of their model that ASSUMES sea level is an accurate measure of temperature (part of their model) and then concluded that showed the rate of temperature increase 'probably' didn't go up in the last half of that century but THEN that model was later proven false because the ACTUAL temperature measurements which I showed you in my link clearly proved that the rate of temperature increase DID go up in the last half of that century hence proving not only their conclusion wrong but part of their model they based that conclusion on was also wrong thus they inadvertently used a false premise that lead them to that false conclusion.

I already previously explained that latter part of the above (but using completely different words) to you but I guess you either cannot read or are just hoping nobody here would notice so you can pretend not to have been already proven wrong and science right.
Here is just part of what I said in that post;

"....if you look at the TEMPERATURE data, not to be confused with sea level rise, you will see that the rate of increase in warming of the oceans has itself been increasing in the last half of that same time period. Just look at the actual TEMPERATURE data here;

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
..."

And, if you just LOOK at that ACTUAL temperature data displayed on those graphs, it is clearly that, contrary to what you and your link implied, the rate of temperature increase DID go up in the last half of that century hence proving the premise of your (and their) conclusion that CO2 doesn't cause warming, simply false.

I don't deny the sea level data and NEVER HAVE DONE. Do you deny the temperature data? If not, than, given the temparture data CLEARLY seems to show that rate of temperature increase going up, how does that temperature data NOT show that rate of temperature increase going up? If it proves the rate of temperature increase IS going up, how does that NOT prove their (and thus your) whole premise wrong?

@metal-brain said
Why is modeling essential?

Modeling is essential for their conclusion. I think you are missing the distinction between an observation and a conclusion. A conclusion, naturally, requires a judgement based on an observation or a series of observations. Typically a judgement must include consideration of other relevant variables. In this case, other variables are controlled for using modeling, since their values cannot be known absolutely at all relevant time points. It's all in the paper you won't read for some reason.

[a simple analogy for the importance of models: You observe that the sun rises and sets at regular time intervals. We know the solar system model is true based on many other observations, but with only the one series of observations there are many possible conclusions that could be drawn. The model accounts for other observations and allows for more definitive conclusions.]

Getting back to the question, why do you choose to trust the results of this modeling study but not other more comprehensive studies that use more buoys and more contemporary data? It seems like you've chosen it randomly. Any new insights?

@wildgrass said
Modeling is essential for their conclusion. I think you are missing the distinction between an observation and a conclusion. A conclusion, naturally, requires a judgement based on an observation or a series of observations. Typically a judgement must include consideration of other relevant variables. In this case, other variables are controlled for using modeling, since the ...[text shortened]... se more buoys and more contemporary data? It seems like you've chosen it randomly. Any new insights?

Why is modeling essential? You have not answered that question. You are resorting to jargon that you know does not explain anything. Humy is doing the same thing, just putting forth a bunch of jargon in order to avoid explaining what he doesn't understand.

Why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are talking about? You have no idea why a model is needed. You are just making up crap to avoid admitting the obvious, you don't know what you are talking about.

@metal-brain said
Why is modeling essential? You have not answered that question.

Wildgrass just said;

"Modeling is essential for their conclusion"

Which answers your question and is the correct answer. And that's also, via different words, the answer I gave you.

You are resorting to jargon

Please tell us all; which word or part in ""Modeling is essential for their conclusion" is just "jargon" to you? "Modeling"? "is essential"? "for their conclusion"? Or Just "conclusion"? Which bit do you need us to elaborate on for you because you don't understand it?

@wildgrass said
Modeling is essential for their conclusion. I think you are missing the distinction between an observation and a conclusion. A conclusion, naturally, requires a judgement based on an observation or a series of observations. Typically a judgement must include consideration of other relevant variables. In this case, other variables are controlled for using modeling, since the ...[text shortened]... se more buoys and more contemporary data? It seems like you've chosen it randomly. Any new insights?

What modeling? I never read anything in that article about a climate model. You still have not explained why it would be necessary at all. You just keep bringing up unrelated stuff that doesn't explain anything either.

You need to admit you don't know what you are talking about. It is obvious.

@metal-brain said
What modeling? I never read anything in that article about a climate model.

Most science articles wouldn't mention the fact a model was used to reach a conclusion because most don't assume the reader to be so stupid and ignorant as to not know that already. Vertually all if not all science studies must use some kind of definable model to reach any conclusion; That's just how science works. That's why no 'model' was mentioned there. So, yes, they used a model which means modelling was involved.

In addition, your question of "Why is modeling essential? " to Wildgrass is NOT asking DID they do modeling but rather, in effect, why is it needed. Thus when you followed that with the claim of "You have not answered that question." you lied because Wildgrass had just said "Modeling is essential for their conclusion" just BEFORE your question of "Why is modeling essential? " thus he clearly HAD already answered that question of yours.

You still have not explained why it would be necessary at all.

False.
He just said;
"Modeling is essential for their conclusion"
Which means his explanation of why, which is the correct explanation, is that its necessary for them to be able to reach their conclusion.
So he already HAS explained why.

You need to admit you don't know what you are talking about.

No, he doesn't. You need to stop lying about what he did and didn't say.

@metal-brain said
What modeling? I never read anything in that article about a climate model. You still have not explained why it would be necessary at all. You just keep bringing up unrelated stuff that doesn't explain anything either.

You need to admit you don't know what you are talking about. It is obvious.

I explained why. There's no way you read the paper you are citing, which is problematic since you are unable to defend the value of this study vs. others. Do the authors even talk about climate? Why would you bring up the need for a climate model?
Here is one relevant instance from Holgate et al (2007) that I think highlights my point:

The rates of change at each station are corrected for GIA using the ICE‐4G model of Peltier [2001] and for inverse barometer effects using the HadSLP2 air pressure data set [Allan and Ansell, 2006].

Keep in mind the authors are using observations from a few buoys floating in the ocean to make conclusions about global mean sea level over time. Modeling is needed to make this conclusion, since variables other than global sea level could be affecting the height of that buoy at that particular time. I'm sure you can think of a few.

Authors' conclusions contradict earlier and later studies which use the same models. They claim that their analysis is better because they use fewer buoys (9) and "carefully select" their data from prior, much larger, data sets that include 177 buoys. Does that make sense to you?

My interpretation is that this is a very good study that properly emphasized the importance of rigorous data analysis and the inaccuracy of some gauges due to confounding variables. However their conclusion that sea level has not accelerated has been supplanted by more comprehensive datasets (e.g. Hay et al. 2015). It seems like you may have another interpretation but you haven't articulated it. Why is Holgate et al. more convincing to you than Hay et al.?

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093

@wildgrass said
I explained why. There's no way you read the paper you are citing, which is problematic since you are unable to defend the value of this study vs. others. Do the authors even talk about climate? Why would you bring up the need for a climate model?
Here is one relevant instance from Holgate et al (2007) that I think highlights my point: [quote]The rates of change at each st ...[text shortened]... olgate et al. more convincing to you than Hay et al.?

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093

"ICE‐4G model of Peltier"

I googled it and found nothing to confirm your claim it is a climate model. What is your source of information?

Furthermore, you are posting a link different from the one I posted. What kind of BS are you pulling?

@metal-brain said
"ICE‐4G model of Peltier"

I googled it and found nothing to confirm your claim it is a climate model. What is your source of information?

Furthermore, you are posting a link different from the one I posted. What kind of BS are you pulling?

It's a model used to reconstruct global sea levels based on prior deglaciation events. Peltier is the lead author of the article they are referencing for the model, so maybe that's why google is failing you. It'd be a lot more obvious if you read the paper you are citing. Why is Holgate et al. more convincing to you than Hay et al.?

@wildgrass said
It's a model used to reconstruct global sea levels based on prior deglaciation events. Peltier is the lead author of the article they are referencing for the model, so maybe that's why google is failing you. It'd be a lot more obvious if you read the paper you are citing. Why is Holgate et al. more convincing to you than Hay et al.?

Prior deglaciation events? That just brings up more questions than it answers. What prior deglaciation events and how was that measured?

@metal-brain said
Prior deglaciation events? That just brings up more questions than it answers. What prior deglaciation events and how was that measured?

did you read the paper? What distinguishes it from other contradictory studies that were performed using more comprehensive sea level data?

@wildgrass said
did you read the paper? What distinguishes it from other contradictory studies that were performed using more comprehensive sea level data?

You tell me. If you read it you can tell me the difference if you really know what you are talking about. It doesn't say climate model. It just says model. I have no idea what it is and neither do you.

You are merely pretending to understand something you don't. I'm calling your bluff.

@metal-brain said
You tell me. If you read it you can tell me the difference if you really know what you are talking about. It doesn't say climate model. It just says model. I have no idea what it is and neither do you.

You are merely pretending to understand something you don't. I'm calling your bluff.

When you post a paper, please read it first.

In my view, the more recent and more comprehensive study provides better evidence for sea level rise. I don't understand why 9 buoys (in your Holgate et al study) is better than 177 buoys (in other studies e.g. Hay et al.). I thought maybe you could shed some light on it but your dog ate your homework.