Sea level rise almost entirely natural...

[mop]

according to a new study out in the Journal "Climate of the Past" the observed sea-level rise in recent years is well-within natural variation and an anthropogenic signature, if present, is "still hardly detectable."

In reply to:

---

---

 

[hornpharmd]

Mop I enjoy how you seem to ignore scientific evident of climate change and scientific consensus there but then you use other "scientific" studies or papers to make your points. And you aren't even a scientist or all that informed in these areas so what makes you so such a judge of what studies we should be paying attention to and which ones we shouldn't. I also enjoy how in some cases you need precise modern day measurements to give us data but you won't allow for extrapolation or other means to look in the past and compare our present data with the past. However in other instances you are ore than willing to do this for your own cause.

 

[mop]

so what do you think about this study hornpharmd? By the way, as you know, it is not the only one like it. In fact, multiple studies have come out to suggest that the rate of rise of the seas has actually slowed and not risen as predicted by AGW theory. Thoughts?

 

[Perham1]

That the current rise in sea levels is "within natural variation" in no way means that this increase is caused by those same "natural variations".

Therefore, I find the informational content of this study to be marginal; circumstantial at best.

 

[mop]

Perham, your response is a bit odd. If the oceans are rising, and they are, but they are rising at a slower rate despite AGW, then isn't it reasonable to question causation?

 

[Perham1]

You need more data to show causation.

 

[mop]

I wholeheartedly agree! So can you show more data to show anthropogenic causation or do we go with Occam's razor and assume that if the rate of rise is within natural variations, that it is most likely of natural causation?

 

[Perham1]

Sigh, please don't trot out Occam's razor here. You are grossly misapplying it.

You so want to reach a conclusion, it seems, that you extrapolate and go nuts on "confirmation bias".

 

[mop]

lets' try this. what do you think of the article? do you agree that the rate of rise of the oceans has slowed? Why do you think that is?

 

[Perham1]

I don't know if the rate of the increase has slowed. I don't know how pristine is the data. Even so, we don't know if the recent activity is an active part of a trend or is a merely an artifact of the data sample.

 

[mop]

the studies show that the rate has been slowing for decades now (as in 50 to 60 years) from what I understand.