Further to Poirot’s post above,

I notice her “analysis” did not:
1) Highlight the fact that at least one of her “researchers”
“Oppenheimer is a longtime participant in the IPCC”.
2) Nor, did she shine a spot-light on the huge wiggle room in the estimate of BETWEEN “1.5 –5 feet”.

So here’s a much more sober appraisal of sea level rises along the US east coast:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/29/cooling-that-east-coast-sea-level-hotspot/

However – if you are thinking heck SPQR, this IS Halloween we want to hear more “The end is nigh” stories --(and I can appreciate that, I’m no party pooper) then, here is more of what Poirot tried to feed you.
http://www.bookofrevelationonline.com/

And just quietly, I have heard that it may well be the source and inspiration of many of her posts:

Trick or treat!

SPQR,

When all is said and done, the best you can offer up is a link to WUWT.

(I didn't bother clicking on your second link)

: )

Poirot

And others who may be interested in real science.

This link may be of some interest.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-global-warming-happening-faster-than-expected&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_SP_20121029

It seems to me that global warming has become the new religion. On one hand we have the die-hard atheists; on the other we have the believers. Somewhere in the middle lie the agnostics; those who look around and see a very different planet from the one we used to know; who'd like to think there's a rational, scientific explanation for hotter summers and colder winters, for the burning sun and the flooding rain and for the irritating overuse of the terms La Nina and El Nino.

More irritating to us agnostics are the endless, roundabout, point-scoring, he-said/she-said arguments based on so-called facts provided by the ‘churches' of either side of science, both of which secretly worship at the pagan altars of politics and business, and neither of which actually gives a toss about the other 6.99 billion flotsam and jetsam we like to call human life. Like we’re something special.

For the truth is - a bit like that other religion involving a heavenly being in white flowing robes -I suspect none of us will be able to substantiate or disprove anthropomorphic AGW’s existence or influence until it is too late.

The possibility of increased frequency of natural disasters is not the issue. The issue is that, despite strutting the planet like some despotic overlord, inventing new ways to do this or make that, we are still susceptible to the vagaries and viciousness of nature. The aftermath of Hurricane Sandy proves, beyond a doubt, that no matter how ‘prepared’ we think we are, no matter what measures we take, no matter if we pray to the sun or to the moon or to our own navels, we'll never be able to prevent natural disasters. At most, we can survive them. Never (apart from fiscally of course!) will we learn from them.

In the end, it really won’t matter if events like Sandy happen once every millennium, century, decade or year. As we are nothing more than a carbon-based life form on an ever-evolving planet, we're as unimportant and as insignificant as the very soil on which we stand.

Amen.

Thank you, Steven,

A couple of brief articles that may be of interest:

http://climate.nasa.gov/eswSite/blogs/?FuseAction=ShowBlog&NewsID=46

http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin/reverse-tribalism-and-global-warming

I believe most "scientists" working in the climate field would encourage healthy skepticism and a degree of humility in regard to their search for evidence, and in the conclusions reached regarding climate change.

The contrast between that attitude and the braggadocio and swagger of the "skeptic" camp is notable.

Thanks Poirot.

I was especially fascinated by the GRACE piece. I had no idea the technology of gravimetrics had advanced to that point.

I find when talking to people it is better to ignore the "noise" from the so-called "sceptics" and focus on the real science.

Given:

--Some very basic physics

--What we know about air and ocean currents that that transport heat from the equatorial regions to the poles

--What we know about the earth's "radiation budget" – radiation in and radiation out

It would be truly astonishing if pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere did not cause the Earth to heat up. In fact it would be as bizarre as finding that things sometimes "fell" towards the ceiling rather than the floor.

Now having said that there are still some legitimate questions:

(1) Will the heating be significant? What exactly is the sensitivity of the Earth to various combinations of atmospheric greenhouse gases?

(2) Would a somewhat warmer Earth be such a bad thing? Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe there will be some positives.

The first question has largely been answered. There will be a measurable and significant increase in temperature.

The second is harder to answer. Based on what we know now it looks as if, barring a total catastrophe, there will be winners and losers. The countries around the North Pole such as Canada, Scandinavia and Russia could be big winners. China could be a loser. Parts of the US are already benefitting from a warmer climate while other parts seem to be suffering.

And what is the likelihood of a catastrophe that causes a great extinction as has happened before in Earth's history? There is no way of knowing.

All we can really say is that we, by which I mean humanity, are taking an enormous risk by continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

And as is nearly always the case we cannot have certainty. We are going to have to make decisions under uncertainty.

Cest la guerre.