Sea Level Rise From Global Warming

Are you a scientist? If yes... You should ask your fellow scientists. If no... Why do you think you know more than people who have studied and worked in the field for decades?
Let me guess... You are a Republican?

No need to answer... All your buzzwords betrayed you.

 

So you have nothing either ??

btw I'm a retired engineer with a BSChE and an MSMechE-Thermal Systems. I am a good technical judge of 'people pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining'.

 

So no... You are not a climate scientist. Well... Why exactly do you think you have stumbled upon something that thousands of scientists in the relevant fields have missed for over a century?
You might think you are a good judge... But I can guarantee you that you are not. Your posts betray both bias and an inability to actually inform yourself and believe people who work in the field.

So yes... You are a Republican. It is funny how the only country with a conservative party that rejects science is the US.

Here... I think you need this

[video=youtube;qZzwRwFDXw0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0&index=10&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP[/video]

 

I've "stumbled" upon the fact that it will take thousands of years to heat the entire mass of the globe's oceans by 1 deg C.

Resorting to personal attacks and insults indicates a very weak (or no) argument.

 

Personal attack? Calling you a Republican?
Why is hard for you to accept that scientists who publish their work in peer reviewed journals know more than you? People who have specialised in the field and who work in them?
Watch the whole Hadfield series on AGW. I think it will do you good.

It's the same armchair scientists we see on this forum day in day out questioning AGW. Not one is a climate scientist and not one works in the field or studies it.
We often hear people who have some degree or other as if that should give them gravitas to question real climate scientists. It is quite weird to me.
It is not that people are dumber today... I just think people are taught to think they can do everything and know everything. Unfortunately in an ever more complex world it is impossible. It takes years just to specialise in a limited field.

 

You know what you said.

My conclusion is based on the ability to do basic heat transfer analysis and calculation of temperature rise based on heat input flux and heat capacity of water.

Why would you conclude that I question anthropogenic global warming ?? And why would you conclude that I haven't looked at both sides of the issue ?? Engineers are trained/taught to be skeptical and do their homework. They do not believe what the "experts" tell them without verification. Your thought process seems to be based on belief without question of a certain subset of technically trained people whilst ignoring the entire set of technically trained people.

 

It's obvious. From the words you use and what you write.
I don't pretend to know better than the experts in a field I am not an expert in. Clearly you think differently. And so you keep searching for some way or some thing to discredit what is accepted science.

 

All Natural… Four New Scientific Publications Show No Detectable Sea Level Rise Signal! - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/01/...e-sea-level-rise-signal/#sthash.DH0dlACP.dpuf

 

It's obvious to you because your mind is closed except to those experts whom you choose to believe in. Which must mean you consider yourself an expert judge of experts, no ?? That's somewhat of a contradiction is it not ??

I'm an expert in heat transfer - why don't you believe me ??

If the science is settled then why the big range in the climate sensitivity to CO2 ?? Which experts are correct ??

 

so why wouldn't the greenhouse gases, as you point out, not absorb incoming infrared? Why would it only absorb IR from the surface?

 

so again, you have nothing as was already pointed out. And it is specialize. Learn how to use spell check.

 

so you just accept that they are correct, or do you do research and confirm their data? What is it you do? Educated folks do research, are you one? And if you are and believe what you believe, then perhaps you could post up the experiment that shows how CO2 influences temperatures.

 

Again it seems you pretend you know more than the people who studied and work in these fields. Why is that?
Try here;
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/earths-recent-history-key-to-predicting-global-temperatures

 

Of course I do. They do peer reviewed science. I feel no need nor interest in second guessing experts in their fields when I am no expert.
What I like to do is check the studies when possible.

 

No, I do my homework. And I am technically competent to judge both sides of the issue.

So no input on these questions ??

 

Why didn't the peer reviewers catch the blatant discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99 ?? Peer review by members of the hockey team means nothing.

 

The range is not very big as far as I could see from recent research. Get a subscription to Nature and read the study if you want.
You do your homework?
Both sides? There are no sides.

 

Are you kidding me ?? The IPCC has the range as 2.0 to 4.5 deg C. Anybody who claims to understand AGW should know that without having to look it up. It appears that you've been exposed.

Real world data indicates that the sensitivity is ~ 1 deg C.

 

They did. It was indeed because it was peer reviewed that these mistakes were noticed.
You see science as politics. As if there are two sided battling it out. It's weird and a defect of your political system I guess.
If you want an honest and objective account of the hockey stick;

[video=youtube;CY4Yecsx_-s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s&index=25&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP[/video]

 

The IPCC has already been corrected. You didn't read the article did you?

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/earths-recent-history-key-to-predicting-global-temperatures

Do you have subscriptions to science journals? Do you follow the research? I mean... It seems unlikely since you can't be bothered to look up information yourself nor read the link you are given.

 

Must be why they lowered the low range.

The IPCC AR4 conclusion on climate sensitivity is stated as:

“The equilibrium climate sensitivity. . . is likely to be in the range 2oC to 4.5oC with a best estimate of about 3oC and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5oC. Values higher than 4.5oC cannot be excluded. .”

The IPCC AR5 conclusion on climate sensitivity is stated as:

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)

 

Hoosier beat me to it. And yes the latest lower limit was lowered to 1.5 deg C. My mistake to leave it at 2.0 deg C. But the lowering is based on expert assessment of historical data and not models.

 

McKitrick and McIntyre found the errors after the papers were published. The peer reviewers found nothing.

If you want an honest assessment of the hockey stick read "The Hockey Stick Illusion". There is a bit more detail and supporting references and footnotes in the ~ 300 page book than a 20 minute video.

 

So... Science is working as it has always done. Getting better and more precise every year. Yet you seem to want to question experts that work and live this on a daily basis.
You have given no indication to why you would feel yourself superior to the scientists. Well... You claimed to understand something but clearly you don't even take the time to read what others post. So my feeling is that you are the type who doesn't care about science at all.. You have a preconceived idea and you are searching with frantically after something you can use to discredit over a century of science with.

 

An honest assessment was given in the video. That book is not honest nor objective.
Yes... Science can be wrong. That is why it is published in scientific journals where other scientists can fact check it even after it has been given green light to be published.
The things is... Even though they criticised the findings of tree rings nothing actually changed. The same pattern is there today even without the tree rings.
Watch from minute 3.