UK Met Office - Projection of Temperature Rise to 2100

[david222444]

When did the Met office get into Science Fiction?

[itztomaiboi]

Global warming exists however, on earth there has been many periods which the earth has got hotter then colder (ice ages) we are currently coming out of the most recent ice age therefore there is no EXACT evidence, therefore proving all of this wrong. Global warming DOES exist, however, we have no proof that it is starting to cause all of these problems. But for a fact the earth is getting warmer, however at the same time we are unsure if we may enter another ice age WITHIN the next 25 years....

[RiderCore]

It's so scary but I think people from all of the Earth are now become more smarter and all this technologies what was and will be made to avoid that scary continuement of the Earth

[mikedressner]

I am very sorry but I strongly disagree, did you notice that the earth rapidly started getting warmer only when it got to 2010, but not anywhere up til when this video was made.... This is a faulty prediction... May this build of the application be demolished at once please

[hollymint]

we need to stop putting this co2 in our earth make people use bikes and trains like the mag train make solar power cars cheaper it will be a long steep but its worth the try we need our earth don't u want your grand kids to see the polar bears

[MrSampy22]

So this model shows the earth just continuing to get warmer & warmer through 2100. Other scientists say as we warm the glaciers will melt & through freshening will destroy the ocean's ability to flow & carry warm water north disrupting the cycle sending us into another ice age. I ask who is correct? Does this look like concensus which needs no further debate?

[ClimateChangeUK]

Once the ice melts, there will be no more.

Anyone with half a brain knows what impact that will have on the world.

Who would possibly say the MET OFFICE could be hoaxing us.

You're crazy.

[ArkDiscoverydotCOM]

WATCH A MOVIE CALLED " The Great Global Warming Swindle" on GOOGLE. Global Warming is a HOAX. Get over it already,

[lkjjjjjjjjjjujih7]

WTF!!!!!!!!!!

[MarkNobes]

By the way, this comment was originally posted by simplyeighties, but the anti-global warming gang keep removing it!

[starrdreams]

Maybe because it is looks like a spam. When you repeating the same message word-by-word, it is recognized as a spam.

[TheOriginalJoeBloggs]

OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL FRACKED! WHERE DO AI PAY MY CARBON TAXES TO STOP THIS??? PUT THE SUN OUT!!!!!! AND GET RID OF THE CLOUDS!!!! Oh yeagh these are not in these models

[gwellyn]

wow what some people will do for money

[magnusea]

Yep. Also Compo and Shardeshmukh (2008, "Oceanic influences on recent continental warming", in Climate Dynamics) shows that ~100% of the actual occured climate change on land has been due to sea temperature, so the back radiation isn't at all necessary to explain the changes in climate. Slso there is change in low level clouds in the 1990s which is absolutely crucial.

[magnusea]

Non of these causes (sea surface temperature and changes in low level cloud cover) are well included in climate models. CO2 very little affect climate and IPCC's positive feedback temperature enforcement (plus 2 to 5 degrees C in the models) do not occur in other complex dynamic natural system in balance. Most climate or atmosphere scientists don't seem to belive in that positive enforcement. Also lots of other things makes AGW a joke.

[arryhuk]

You might want to take a look at what Professor Chris Field and others are now saying on the subject.

I believe a recent article was published in the Washington Post regarding his findings.

If you google his name +Washington Post I am sure you will find the article,interesting read and right up to date.

[magnusea]

I'm sorry, but doesn't it bother you that Chris Field is a Professor in a semi-political area like "global ecology". Not close to real scientist or climate scientist.

I read every day journalists who say the wildfires in Australia is caused by man made globa... climate change, and that the fire prove we are beyond salvation from climate catastrophy. They put it that way,exactly! It's obvious you are a naive moron just like these journalists. Never check a "good crap"! ;-)

[sergejsh]

What scientists saying about all of this - those who says Global Warming is real?

[magnusea]

?

(I don't believe man can rise earth temperature more than 0.1 degree C or something like that.)

[sergejsh]

This is not about believeng or not believing.

[magnusea]

sergejsh: "This is not about believeng or not believing."

If it's not, do you mean it's about dogma -- which you believe in? I know several scientists who disagree with IPCC and the current AGW hypothesis.

Btw, you believe in scientists. I have made science myself, and I believe in scientists too. But what a person has to do, scientist or not, is to get himself an opinion on matters, even if it's scientific matters.

[sergejsh]

Not, it's all about scientific data.

[magnusea]

sergejsh: "Not, it's all about scientific data."

Eh? I got this in my mailbox, som this was obviously an answer to me. Can you clearify what you are comment? I have links to relevant data in comments, not disputed in scientific community. The editor in Independent, as in most media, lies about that we have less ice. The ice extent equals that of 1979, when the measurement began:

arctic.atmos.uiuc(DOT)edu/cryo­sphere/

What did you complain about and do you have other data???

[starrdreams]

What type of ice is extent? This is temporary ice.

[starrdreams]

Scientists can disagree, so what? One thing is to disagree, another is to prove that your point is right.

[Warhead3000]

@starrdreams What proof has been provided ?? Oh that's right they won't release the proof or the model data or the evidence

[ClamCrunchy]

@Warhead3000 The data is free to the public.

[magnusea]

You ask me what scientists say. That implicates there's only one opinion among them. Wrong! Almost every second climate scientist disagrees that most of climate change is due to humans. Also only 30 % believe computer models can predict future climate. See a Nature blog with link to peered report:

tinyurl(DOT)com/2g8xad

650 scintists, mostly in climate and atmosphere science, recently signed a list against the hoax science AGW. 32000 in the Oregon list.

[sergejsh]

There are different opinions. Question is only - which of them gives as complete as possible explanation to what is happening with the climate.

[magnusea]

sergejsh: "There are different opinions."

Many says we have an emergency and must impose large regulations on our society. That's politics.

In current preparation of Copenhagen in December only those who say we have emergency are allowed to participate. Other scientists/economists are labeled deniers. This is how politics treat those who point at non-disputed data theres no net ice loss since 1979. Low cloud decreased 93-01 by 5% which in papers explain temp rise. Alarm = politics.

[sergejsh]

Yes, there are politics, and are also greens, and whatever. There also the nature. So can we look outside of politics, greens and whatever, and just look at the nature? Simple question - is everything OK with the nature and climate? You don't need to be scientist to say that not everything is OK. I don't need politics or Gore, or scientists to see that or understand that.

[starrdreams]

Again - just empty disagreement means nothing. Every disagreement should be backed up by evidence.

[Warhead3000]

@starrdreams And agreement should be backed up iby data and evidence. Where is your refernce for concensus that all agree on AGW?? I want proff not hearsay give me the poll data of the majority of concensus. You can't because it doesn't exist.

[Warhead3000]

@starrdreams And just like agreement should be backed up by evidence and proof?? Please do provide us with the accurate poll of scientists (not a tiny sample) whom believe AGW of but you can't because it doesn't exist and neither does scientific concensus. All I ask is provide evidence