Does Science Reveal Truth?

@humy said
No. And that's clearly NOT what I just said and you know it.
Yet ANOTHER of your MANY straw mans you constantly making all the time.
You resorting to making even more that usual; a sign you know you have lost the argument.

Then the 9 buoys are just fine and you are making up crap again. I'm done with you.

@metal-brain said
Then the 9 buoys are just fine

Yes, they are "fine", but still not as good as more buoys. That's what I have been saying all the long. As I repeatedly told you many times before, I do not reject any data from any buoys. That's just your straw man.

@humy said
-but still not as good as more buoys. That's what I have been saying all the long.

Still good enough. That's what I have been saying all along.

How much of a difference does it make? It could be negligible for all you know. Find out the difference instead of making assumptions. Better yet, admit you are making up crap as you go along and don't know what you are talking about. That is already obvious anyway. It is amazing that you think people are stupid enough to believe your BS.

@humy said
Yes, they are "fine", but still not as good as more buoys. That's what I have been saying all the long. As I repeatedly told you many times before, I do not reject any data from any buoys. That's just your straw man.

If they are fine then there is not enough difference to change the conclusion, which you have never established. How is the article I posted contradicted by the one you posted? I have not seen any contradiction so far.

@metal-brain said
If they are fine then there is not enough difference to change the conclusion,

False inference; "they are fine" doesn't imply "not enough difference to change the conclusion".

How is the article I posted contradicted by the one you posted? I have not seen any contradiction so far.

Let me help you with that; yours concluded there is no clear evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise while ONE I referenced (which actually was first posted by Deepthought, not me) concluded there is.

@humy said
False inference; "they are fine" doesn't imply "not enough difference to change the conclusion".

What is the specific difference?

@metal-brain said
What is the specific difference?

more buoys

@metal-brain said
Once again, compare that 17 years to the other 17 year accelerations. Look at the NASA long term graph I have post countless times as you know. 1940 -1957 is one of them. How much of a difference is there?

Answer that question and I will explain why it is a mistake. I'm sure you will realize it on your own though.

The current rate of sea level change is 3.3 mm/yr, according to the NASA data. The rate from 1901 to 1990 was 1.2 mm/yr. The latter figure is a long term mean. My exact words were: "Which gives an increase of rate of over 100%.". This implies an acceleration, but I did not use the word acceleration.

The word rate here is analogous to the word "speed" when we're talking about a car. Suppose a vehicle was traveling for 3 hours at an average speed of 35mph, and then joins a motorway and completes it's journey at 70mph in 1 hour. Then it is perfectly reasonable to say that the average speed increased by 100%. So there's nothing wrong with what I said.

Going on about 17 year accelerations won't help you. You're confounding rate with acceleration, which is the rate of change of the rate.

@humy said
more buoys

No, the sea level difference.

@deepthought said
Do 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.

The original post appears to have been taken down on youtube - however ........

I do have a copy of the soundtrack and happy to forward the Lawson interview to you and anyone else who wants to hear it.

PM me and I'll sort it out with you

Pete

@metal-brain said
No, the sea level difference.

Don't be lazy. Just look at the latest relevant studies to look it up for yourself. The data is there for all to see.

@deepthought said
The current rate of sea level change is 3.3 mm/yr, according to the NASA data. The rate from 1901 to 1990 was 1.2 mm/yr. The latter figure is a long term mean. My exact words were: "Which gives an increase of rate of over 100%.". This implies an acceleration, but I did not use the word acceleration.

The word rate here is analogous to the word " ...[text shortened]... elp you. You're confounding rate with acceleration, which is the rate of change of the rate.

Accelerations are normal and cyclical. Is is stupid to conclude an acceleration is proof of anything unless you compare it to other accelerations in the past when there was less CO2 in the atmosphere. If there is not much difference then it is not an unusual acceleration and therefore not proof of AGW more than 50%.

Nature is still the main cause of GW today.

@humy said
False inference; "they are fine" doesn't imply "not enough difference to change the conclusion".

How is the article I posted contradicted by the one you posted? I have not seen any contradiction so far.

Let me help you with that; yours concluded there is no clear evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise while ONE I referenced (which actually was first posted by Deepthought, not me) concluded there is.

Actually it was wildgrass, assuming you're talking about the Nature article, Hay et al (2015) [1]. The one that metalbrain posted was Holgate (2007) [2]. I've reproduced the links to save you searching back for them.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093
[2] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2006GL028492

@humy said
Don't be lazy. Just look at the later studies to look it up for yourself.

In other words I was right, you were making up crap as you went along and had no idea what you were talking about. Moron!

@metal-brain said
In other words I was right, you were making up crap as you went along

we have already shown you the later studies complete with data thus we are not making it up as we go along.
Do you now deny we showed you here all those many links of those later studies?

Just one example;


Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise; Carling C. Hay, Eric Morrow, Robert E. Kopp & Jerry X. Mitrovica; Nature volume 517, pages 481–484(2015)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093
"...twentieth-century global mean sea-level (GMSL) ...
...
and find a rate of GMSL rise from 1901 to 1990 of 1.2 ± 0.2 millimetres per year
...
...indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010,
..."

So it indicates that there is an apparently general trend of a recent increase rate of sea level rise.

How is THAT me (and us science experts) "making up crap"?
You should not keep shouting "moron" to anyone here just because they show the evidence you don't like.