1. As you are new to the section, be advised that half of the posters on the top ten list of most "best answers" in the global warming category of Yahoo Answers are hard core anti-science deniers. They and their wannabe emulators are all over nearly every question here, sabotaging discussions, dumping loads of copy pastes of copy pastes of 20year old fossil fuel industry myths, giving each other best answers for endless torrents of phony questions, making a terrific nuisance of themselves and putting Yahoo to shame for allowing such rampant dishonesty and idiocy. Most do not cheat, but some do and aggressively. Most, but not all, are readily identifiable by their inability to grasp basic high school math, grammar, or simple logic, and a deep mistrust of science and almost anything intellectual.

2. The Nature article to which you refer was also summarized in the NY Times. I don't think it tells us much we didn't already know.

3. Computer models play a key role in climate science, but they are by no means the "only way" to get a "handle" on the basic features of AGW. Nor, contrary to popular belief (and to many newspaper headline writers), have they ever provided, or likely ever will, more than extremely rough forecasts of future climates. The fundamental conclusions of climate science do not depend on these computer models at all. They depend on the well-observed and documented heat-trapping properties of greenhouse gases, the carbon cycle, the global economy's heavy reliance on fossil fuels, and the sensitive dependence of the global ecosystem (and thereby the global economy) -from rainfall patterns, to ocean temperatures, to wildlife habitats, etc.- upon the global average temperature.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...

http://realclimate.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eaarth

Jim Hansens from the 1980s did not come true Parts of

NYC are still above water .

Global Warming is a doomsday religon like the Mayan 2012

end of worlders .

I think it will just be added to the list of threatened disasters. Have you seen the list?

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.ht...

Notice all the contradictory ones like "Antarctic ice grows" and "Antarctic ice shrinks".

Global Warming must be the easist thing in the world to measure because not only can all those animals and plants detect it but it also provides us with a huge number of proxies to use.

A summary of some comments about the paper is listed below:

Climate Depot's Marc Morano said, "Global warming activists have finally committed to a Mayan calendar like deadline for the planet's doom. Kudos to the warmists for finally shaming Nostradamus. He never allowed his prognostications to get this specific."



Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That asked, "Has Harold Camping approved the date yet?"



Real Science's Steve Goddard answered, "Ehrlich will be angry. He finished off Earth 30 years ago, and this study just isn't taking his past work seriously."



Dr. Tim Ball added, "If the accuracy equals Phil Jones estimate of global temperature in the 2001 IPCC Report the accuracy will be ±33 percent."



But the best line in my view came from University of Alabama-Huntsville's Roy Spencer who offered this gem: "I'm gonna plan for 2046, just in case they are off by a year."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...

Maybe you should consider your source. CO2 does not drive temperatures. It only helps to maintain a steady temperature.

Guess who doesn't get a paycheck if CO2 is proven to be a very minor influence on temperature?

Climate science has to show "Global Warming". Where else will they get a $100,000.00 a year salary?

it does have merit. Human history is filled with civilizations that could not adapt to environmental changes. We've already seen huge migration of refugees from the sub-Sahara as their climate got drier. With 7 billion people, most desirable places on the planet are already occupied, so we're going to see more conflict.

This study relies entirely on predictions from computer climate models.

Climate models have not been able to predict Earths temperature, and 97.6% of them failed to predict the pause in temperature rise, it is very poor science, to base a study on a failed premise.

Or Read about it?

It makes some scary predictions

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/mora/PublicationsCopyRighted/Mora%20038.pdf

And here is an overview:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/dc-climate-will-shift-in-2047-researchers-say-tropics-will-feel-unprecedented-change-first/2013/10/09/f581b25e-3062-11e3-bbed-a8a60c601153_allComments.html?ctab=all_&

Apologies if this has been covered before. Am new to this section.