Now playing at a museum near you, the "Day After Tomorrow Map"

Here’s the view of the future in a new science museum according to the Telegraph. No mention if NYC’s West Side Highway will be underwater or not. They call it the “Day after tomorrow map”.

Mmmm. TOASTY! - Click for a larger image

The article by Louise Gray says:

The apocalyptic map was launched by Government ministers at the opening of a new exhibition at the Science Museum.

‘Prove it – everything you need to know to believe in climate change’ is aimed at educating the public about the dangers of uncontrollable global warming.

The ‘Day After Tomorrow’ map shows what the world will look like if temperatures rise beyond four degrees C (7 degrees F). It was produced by the Met Office, that predicts temperature rises may reach the dangerous tipping point by 2060 unless more is done to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The map is designed to get the public behind a global deal on climate change to be agreed in Copenhagen this December. It will also be used by the Foreign Office to persuade other countries to sign up to a deal that will see all major economies forced to cut their emissions.

It shows the threat of global warming around the world. In the UK temperatures could rise above 40 degrees C (104 degrees F) in the summer, droughts will threaten crops in the South East, sea levels rises will affect coastal areas and floods will be commonplace in the winter.

The Government has recently been criticised for “scaremongering” the public in a £6 million advertising campaign that warns man-made climate change will risk the future of our children unless action is taken.

Read the complete article here

Readers are welcome to submit their own names for this map.

Advertisements

77 thoughts on “Now playing at a museum near you, the "Day After Tomorrow Map"

  1. I already sent my comment in:
    Anderson et al 2003 states that:
    “unfortunately, virtually all climate model studies that have included anthropogenic aerosol forcing as a driver of climate change have used only aerosol forcing values that are consistent with the inverse approach.”
    In other words, the modelers have picked the forward calculation results (and observations) that match the inverse method results (which consist of circular reasoning, deducing the aerosol values from the variance of the co2 driven model from reality) and omitted those that don’t.
    This known in the trade as cherry picking, and egregious examples of it can be found all over the AGW peer reviewed literature.
    Example: Paleodendroclimatology.
    Michael Mann and Keith Briffa selectively use tree ring core series which confirm their bias, claiming their ‘treemometers’ are ‘teleconnected’ to world climate even when the local temperature series negate their findings. Briffa then refuses to reveal the original data even to his colleagues for nearly ten years. They nevertheless re-use the series in further peer reviewed studies, and the journals refuse to force the release of the data because the papers under review are not the originators of the data.
    When the original author is finally forced to reveal the data by the British Royal Society, he prevaricates for another year, then it turns out Briffa bases the modern part of his temperature reconstruction on only eleven trees selected for their good match to global temperature. This goes against his own stated methodology for sample size using the RCS normalization technique he has developed.
    In Mann’s case, contradictory results from the same tree location found by PHD student Abebnah get swept under the carpet, and Mann persists in promoting his hockey stick graph even after the NAS tell him it’s rubbish.
    Briffa goes on to use his hockey stick paper in the IPCC chapter he is the lead author of, effectively blocking all criticism and being his own peer reviewer.
    This is not how science should be done, and it leads to incorrect information being fed to public and policy makers.
    Good luck with your return to sanity

  2. It is mind boggling that this type of propaganda can continue with soooooooooo many FACTS disputing the AGW disaster bogy monster !!
    YIKES !!!

  3. A suggest they put another map up along side of it that says that this was the world 20,000 years ago and show the extent of the glaciers.

  4. When you get politicians (Milliband) and Propagandists (the UK Met Office) in cahoots you get this sort of scare tactic, obviously targetted at raising the stakes in the run up to Copenhagen. I would have hoped that the Science Museum, with its distinguished pedigree, would insist on a more balanced presentation of the science – all of it – but they are obviously in the racket too…

  5. “droughts will threaten crops in the South East, sea levels rises will affect coastal”
    I wonder, if we create massive desalinization plants around the world would that relieve both problems?

  6. The map is correct: uncontrollable warming would be a disaster. I don’t know why you can’t all see this.

  7. See also http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx. Amusingly it has a “count me out” button. (Don’t click it unless you know what it does. Whatever it does do, I bet it doesn’t count your dissenting vote!)
    I already complained to the advertising standards agency about the Action on CO2 TV ad that gave activist parents permission to abuse their children with apocalyptic bedtime stories, now I have to write another one, but to whom this time? My MP?

  8. Explaining this era to my great-grandkids is going to be difficult. Possibly as embarrassing as having them find old pictures of me from the 70’s with my long hair and polyester suit, or old pictures of their parents – who will be middle-aged by then – with their pants half-down all the time. 🙂
    Day after tomorrow they’ll be learning about this era in their history & sociology classes, which they’ll have to squeeze in between their Chinese, Russian, and Brazilian Portuguese language classes if they want to find a job in the world’s dominant economies.

  9. Robinson (08:58:49) :-))
    How on Earth can that map be correct. 1) It’s based on computer models at best, or Milliband with his new set of multi-shade of brown crayons at worst,
    2) It hasn’t happened yet, so it’s a prediction, not proof. Crystal ball gazing again.
    3) Name me one disaster predicted in the past to happen causing the end of the world that actually happened in the past! We err… are still here. So is this definitely the one then? Last time I heard the end of the world was due it was written fore & aft on a sandwich board in December 1999!

  10. Robinson (08:58:49) :
    The map is correct: uncontrollable warming would be a disaster. I don’t know why you can’t all see this.

    While uncontrollable warming would be a disaster, there has not to date been any credible evidence that it is either possible or imminent.
    Computer models that are predicated on false assumptions that do not equate with evidence. They are called scenarios for a reason and are an artifact of the assumptions that are used in their construction.
    There are real problems that humanity faces that are demonstrated by observable facts. The global warming industry is based entirely upon conjecture and half truths being passed off as settled science and facts.

  11. Oh I forgot to add, I note on the map (Mercator has a lot to answer for) that London will have temperatures of up to 40°C in summer months! I presume that this is all down to Dr Vicki Pope UHI effects, the thing Prof John Brignell notes were not significant enough to affect the “proof” of global warming, but conveniently are significant to cause thousands to die as a result of global warming! HYCAEI.

  12. So. I noticed we’ve now progressed from Global Warming, thru Climate Change, and now to “Climate Destabilization”. Since when has the climate ever been “stable”? Pretty colors tho.

  13. This 6 million quid of taxpayer’s wedge was spent to convince whom exactly? Do I get to vote in Copenhagen?
    Anyway, the average British punter is pretty cynical and the more hysterical the claims, the less impressed the people become.

  14. UGH. even with all this supposed AGW already going on, the Southeast US (and I think a few other places around the world) is actually cooler over the last 100 years. Yet they are so sure that over the next however long this map is supposed to represent that no place in the world will have lower tempuratures? What a joke. Fearmongering at it’s worst.

  15. @Dan Lee (09:09:44)
    You’re a hoot! But . . I hope you’re correct that your great grandchildren will be reading about this insanity years from now. That’s assuming that the inmates will no longer be running the asylum. Time will tell. Fingers crossed.

  16. Robinson (08:58:49) :
    The map is correct: uncontrollable warming would be a disaster. I don’t know why you can’t all see this

    Oh, I can see the effect of uncontrollable warming. But the empirical data says it’s not happening and won’t.

  17. We see in the museum Briffa’s tree next to Piltdown mann, but the question is if congress continues to buy into AGW we will be required to say what a truly correct map it is. Your food and carbon credits will depend on your admiration.

  18. Did they also run the commerical, as they had planned, of the dad reading to his little girl, the one showing the puppy drowning?
    Any one considering running a piece like that on national TV is truly disturbed and borders on the macabre. The movies come with a rating, and you’re not supposed to take little children to see stuff that will trouble thier childhood.

  19. Wonderful “ifs”
    Text with my caps follows:
    The ‘Day After Tomorrow’ map shows what the world will look like if [IF] temperatures rise beyond four degrees C (7 degrees F). It was produced by the Met Office, that predicts temperature rises may [MAY] reach the dangerous tipping point by 2060 unless more is done to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
    Except for the “unless” phrase their statement is defendable, even if off the wall.
    IanM

  20. Article says:
    ” Professor Chris Rapley, Director of the Science Museum, said the museum has a duty to inform the public.
    “Climate change is real, driven by humans and potentially threatening – to our food and water supplies, to our health and to world security.” ”
    What’s to stop the politicians when the museum director (and professor) is so entusiastically supporting it. This is a sad, sad, sad time for ‘Science’.

  21. To continue on my Destabilization comment: Looked up the definition of “stability” in Merriam Webster, one of the definitions is: 2 : residence for life in one monastery . Seems fitting doesn’t it? 🙂

  22. So sea level will rise dramatically which will lead to water shortage and drought. Pass me those drugs, I like the sound of that reality distortion!

  23. It’s 100% vicious propaganda and someone should start a legal procedure to revoke it.
    As I said before, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot would turn red from envy if would have known about this scheme.

  24. I don’t see any warming happening for the foreseeable future. I’m diappointed that the once respected Science Museum should publish such one-sided propaganda about the climate debate. Perhaps public funding should now be withdrawn?

  25. Sorry to say, but UK is world leader in this silliness now. Why it happened, after its rich history of scientific inventors, polar scientists, mountain climbers?

  26. Ah yes, a big Science Museum push just in time for the schools’ half-term holiday. Imperial War Museum anyone? At least the latter shows the realities of living under fuel and food rationing.

  27. As long as publicly funded entities continue to put their stamp on this CRAP, the more the public (and politicians) will quit questioning it. Until we start seeing more scientists and heads of public science institutes come out of the closet as skeptics, we are going to see more and more of this crap. As much as some here think the tide is turning, I see us losing the battle. Unfortunately we continue to get pushed off into a corner and painted as wackos. Sorry to sound so pessimistic, but I’m starting to lose confidence that the majority of our politicians will see things our way. This regardless of the fact that the general public has a healthy skepticism. Sorry to rant, but I feel a bit better now.

  28. An expat Yank[Massachusetts],I’ve been living in the UK since 1981.My interest in the warming debate began several years ago with wind turbines, at first assuming the technology to be a viable energy source based upon what I read in the MSM.An article in The Sunday Telegraph by Christopher Booker presented a different view thus I began looking on The Web for alternative sources of information finding,among others,WUWT.Aside from C.Booker,the Telegraph features Louise Gray and Geoffrey Lean as environmental commentators both of whom could, judging from the content of their articles, be job sharing with George Monbiot of The Guardian.Finding a rational view of climate science in the British media would appear to as difficult as in that of the US.

  29. Sorry to say, but UK is world leader in this silliness now. Why it happened, after its rich history of scientific inventors, polar scientists, mountain climbers?

    Of course it is. We’ve got a guy with the title, “Minister for Climate Change”, or something equally idiotic. He has to justify the existence of his position with pointless motion. Typically for New Labour, he’s got bugger all experience in the world outside of politics, including business. For balance, we need a “Minister for Doubting Climate Change”, also in the Cabinet, who can counter the silliness. If the silliness continues, I’m afraid I’m going to have to think about emigrating to the US. Oh… wait……..

  30. Alan the Brit
    “Name one prediction that proved to be correct”
    Didn’t you notice the world ended on the stroke of midnight as the new millenium came in.
    Did you miss the hundreds of thousands that died of mad cow disease.
    What about all those reservoirs that would never again be full in southern England.
    Oh, weren’t you obliterated by nuclear holocaust in the 60s.
    Didn’t you hear Tony Blair tell you things can only get better.
    You must have missed Gordon Brown abolishing boom and bust and extolling the virtues of prudence
    Juraj V
    The UK also has a history of glorious failures, and Eddy the Eagle is perhaps the silliest and Pen Hadow a close second.

  31. Where are the traditional British skeptics? It seems that people who virtually invented skepticism (and passed on to North Americans) have been brainwashed out of existence.

  32. The chart makers should brush up on their English for knowing the difference between “affects” ( a verb) and “effects” (both a noun and a verb). The chart should read “Effects on the UK”.

  33. Wonder if they will put up a map depicting the drop in temperatures as predicted by Dr. Landscheidt? His prediction before his death was that we are at the beginning of a cooling trend that won’t hit bottom until 2030.
    “We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast of the next deep Gleissberg minimum is correct. A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development. The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago. As to temperature, only El Niño periods should interrupt the downward trend, but even El Niños should become less frequent and strong. ”
    So far the good doctor has been pretty spot on: Weak Solar cycle 24, weaker than expected El Nino, just to name two.

  34. tallbloke (08:44:28) :
    Made my comment yesterday. I used Soden & Held who basically said models are bollocks & they’re warmers far as I can tell.
    DaveE.

  35. Peter Plail (10:42:44) :

    The UK also has a history of glorious failures, and Eddy the Eagle is perhaps the silliest and Pen Hadow a close second.

    Hey, leave Eddie alone, least he didn’t nearly earn a Darwin!
    DaveE.

  36. @Curiousgeorge We have already hit De Stableization. We are up to our knees in what you find in stables. I.e. horseshit from the global whacko division.

  37. Well: I tried clicking the “Count Me Out” button. I got the message “To be counted out, just tell us who you are*. We’ll pass the results on to the government to let them know where you stand.”. OK, I’m game. I put in my name and e-mail address, but was told that I could not be counted as the e-mail addrees isn’t valid. I wish I’d known that as I have been using it for the past 6 years.

  38. RoyJ (12:28:48) :
    Well: I tried clicking the “Count Me Out” button. I got the message “To be counted out, just tell us who you are*. We’ll pass the results on to the government to let them know where you stand.”. OK, I’m game. I put in my name and e-mail address, but was told that I could not be counted as the e-mail addrees isn’t valid. I wish I’d known that as I have been using it for the past 6 years.

    Well RoyJ, since you’ve posted on the wrong thread, one can only assume you actually clicked the “out” button. We here on WUWT
    will recall that your heart was in the right place.

  39. The pastel orange tints are lovely and quite suggestive this time of year. I propose:
    Chucky’s Halloween Scary Climate Map (Whoo Whoo)

  40. AGW in the UK
    This is a link to a presentation given today by Professor Bill McGuire at the Chartered Insurance Institute in London. You do not need the voiceover – the last slide says it all.
    Btw we are now climate change deniers. Usual ad hominen. Many gems but to pick one, SLR at 4 to 5 mm per year accoring to his version of Topex/Jason
    Absolute refusal to debate. All part of the roll up to Copenhagen.
    http://www.fwdmarketing.co.uk/climate-change.html

  41. Ron de Haan (09:45:54) :
    As I said before, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot would turn red from envy if would have known about this scheme.

    hahaha Indeed, I wonder who’s getting the blame when all this fairytale ends.

  42. This Science Museum support for human based global warming has no basis in fact. all four world temperature tracking outlets, (hadley UK, Nasa Goddard Instiute space Studies, University of alabama-huntsville and Santa Rosa California sensing Systems ) data all show 2007 to have shown a temperature drop of 0.65C to 0.75C enough to wipe out theentire global warming over the last 100 years! The earth has been cooling since 1998 thus proving that human CO2 cannot be the cause of previous global warming. The US has been blanketed with snow last week, with the last two winters showing minus 60C! The Alfred Wenger Institute for Polar Research radar expedition results show polar ice in the Arctic is thickening! Also this is confirmed by US Army buoys showing a thickening of second and third year ice in the Arctic. The North West Passage has been crossed many times in the past. This whole theory of man made global warming has no scientific proof. It is a total fraud

  43. Even their own colleagues protest on occasions:
    In 2007, Professor Lenny Smith, a statistician at the London School of Economics, warned about the “naïve realism” of current climate modelling.
    “Our models are being over-interpreted and misinterpreted,” he said. Over-interpretation of models is already leading to poor financial decision-making, Smith says. “We need to drop the pretence that they are nearly perfect.”
    He singled out for criticism the British government’s UK Climate Impacts Programme and Met Office. He accused both of making detailed climate projections for regions of the UK when global climate models disagree strongly about how climate change will affect the British Isles. (New Scientist magazine, 16 August 2007.)
    The UK scares have ramped up considerably lately. The problem is that the government have covered all bases. The only “experts” that MP’s talk to about climate are from the Hadley Centre and the Tyndall Centre, who are the source of the scares in the first place, especially the socially reconstructive Tyndall Centre. Messages have become more extreme since former IPCC chairman Bob Watson took charge of strategy and it was he who started this 4 degree nonsense last year.
    We now have the Climate Change Committee set up as a statutory body that can tell the government what CO2 emission targets to adopt. They are drawn from Lord Stern’s colleagues at the Grantham Institutes at the London School of Economics and Imperial College, funded by US hedge fund billionaire, Jeremy Grantham, with WWF and Environmental Defense on the Management board.
    Lord Stern also works for a company called Ideacarbon, whose CEO is a member of the LSE Grantham Institute and the Climate Change Committee
    http://www.ideacarbon.com/strategic/index.html.
    They are marketing a carbon trading consultancy called CARBONfirst, which offers a “premier strategic advice service …. created to give senior decision makers tailored intelligence about key developments in climate change policy and the evolution of the carbon markets.”
    The CARBONfirst network includes, and I quote:
    “Lord Stern, Advisor, IDEAGlobal and author of the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change”
    The UK Opposition is in thrall to WWF, Greenpeace and FoE, several of their team are involved with subsidised “green” technologies, so there is no political opposition, they are all trying to outgreen each other.
    Al Gore is very pleased with the UK, he wrote this on his blog a couple of years ago: http://blog.algore.com/2007/03/
    “Chancellor Brown has introduced a package of binding CO2 reductions in the United Kingdom that represent real leadership. The same day I met with the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, and 80 of his fellow Tory Members of Parliament.
    They were unanimous in their determination to propose meaningful solutions to the climate crisis. There has been a revolution in British politics, with the two largest parties now wholeheartedly committed to CO2 reductions and international leadership to solve the climate crisis.”
    The UK at the moment appears to be a hopeless basket case, lets hope the US doesn’t go much further down the same road than it already has.

  44. If this is the “Day after Tomorrow Map”, where is all the SNOW? I mean I saw the movie. Global Warmers can’t have it both ways – or can they?
    However if Rudd, Obama and Brown, get their way at Copenhagen then just like the movie, the citizens of the USA may have to move to Mexico to raise their standard of living, here in Aust we could move to Papua/New Guinea. Not sure about where the Brits can move to as Europe will be stuffed.

  45. The modern equivalent of the “burning of the witches” has already started. One major pointer is that dissent is not met with reasoned argument but with no toleration of an opposing point of view. What is worrying is, “What is the next fad” ?

  46. My Dear Trevor
    If various nonsenses continue, including AGW and a number of off-topic foolishnesses, Europe will indeed be stuffed.

  47. I’ve never bought into conspiracy theories – incompetence and stupidity have always been enough for me – but it’s getting hard to avoid the conclusion that this is one. Thanks for the internet.

  48. @ Robinson. I would wish I could write things like that – that are not in line with the general line of the blog – on sites like Realclimate or Climate progress. Unfortunately I get moderated out even if I only recall some cold figures that are not in line with the particular blog entry. Think about that and about at which place you will have a chance to get closer to the truth through honest debate…

  49. If I understand these comments correctly (be patient with me; I’m not a scientist), then AGW is a heap of hooey. I’m good with that, as my world view tells me that I can do anything to the planet without recourse (it’s an effin big place after all!!).
    But I do stress about the polar bears… not because they’ve gone missing (never seen any around here!) but because I hear that they taste real good!! Is that right??? Am I evil??? And do I care!!!???

  50. This would be funny except that our children are being taught this stuff in school as fact and science without a contrary point of view. And it must be right because teachers know everything whilst parents don’t. My son’s weekly school newsletter was highlighting the dangerous carbon footprint of some popular lunch snacks and suggesting we buy local produce or grow our own food to lessen the impact.
    Never underestimate the power of propaganda. Dare I mention where scaremongering about WMD’s has led us? There was “proof” and “evidence” there too and we took swift and decisive action! History shows that it works and politics today shows the power it carries. AGW has gone beyond a cult – it really does look like its drifting into a new dictatorship with all the trappings of self interested parties including the MSM collaborating. To quote the Vogon in Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy – “Resistance is Useless” endlessly repeated! As compared to “The Science is Settled” repeated endlessly.
    This is not conspiracy theory – its just ignorant or willing compliance by people who ask the simple question “does it affect me”? When the answer is “not really”, the result is ignore it and move on.
    The backlash will come when people see that their lives will be radically affected. I wouldn’t want to be a climate scientist when that happens. They will be the whipping boys sacrificed to the baying crowd by the very people who exploit them. So Gavin, James, Keith and Phil – don’t say you weren’t warned

  51. How do they estimate rice yields will fall by 30% in Asia and maize/wheat 40% in Africa? With increased CO2, most published studies on increased CO2 crop yield enhancement would be closer to raising yields by similar figures. No, thats not the right message. Plants dont understand whats good for them. We do, for we are government ministers in the science museum, where all the children go to look round at the exhibits and take notes and leaflets back to school. And they have to know why they will pay dearly for their parents wanton fecklessness.

  52. “Met Office, that predicts temperature rises may reach the dangerous tipping point by 2060”
    What happened to tipping points being so close we have to act in 50 days according to the British PM?

  53. Computer models may be useful for gaining some insight into the climate system, but they should never be used for policy decisions, at least not in their present state.
    Meanwhile here is an interesting paper on 50,000 years of climate in British Columbia, Canada as deduced by pollen and chironomid studies. The actual data indicate a very interesting picture of climate change over this huge slice of time. Our present climate does not appear special, but seems downright warm compared to where we were. Also if interest is that it seems to have been cooling overall for the last 4000 years.
    http://www.biodiversitybc.org/assets/Default/BBC Biodiversity and Geological History.pdf

  54. There is no climate model that predicts +4.0C globally or +16.0C for the Arctic by 2060.
    They are even exagerating their exagerated climate models now.
    What scientists would allow this / help this to be produced? We already have one poster thinking it is accurate. That must be the only reason to distort things by so much.

  55. If the British Government were to stop all monies being wasted on “Green” projects we would be on our way to recovery. That and suspending any Carbon Offset/Claptrap trading.
    May there be much real snow in Copenhagen in December and little political “Snow”.

  56. Gary Pearse (10:57:12) :
    We’re still alive & kicking. Sadly tho’ the msm & influential elements within society, Met Office, Royal Society, have all been infiltrated by the green left sefl-serving intellectual elite. You know the sort of people, do as I say not as I do. A highly efficient piece of corporate take over. Hopefully over time the tide will once again return to reason, logic, science, oh & that most useful of tools, common sense!


  57. Peter Plail (10:42:44) :
    The UK also has a history of glorious failures, and Eddy the Eagle is perhaps the silliest and Pen Hadow a close second.
    Hey, leave Eddie alone, least he didn’t nearly earn a Darwin!
    DaveE.

    Yes they both did their things because they believed in it, although one was more delusional than the other and was close to earning a Darwin Award. Whereas Eddie is the best ski jumper in the United Kingdom, setting a British record of 73.5m in one of his Calgary jumps in 1988 (wich still stands and is unlikely of ever being broken) and ended up with a degree in law at De Montfort University in Leicester after/during civil actions against his trustees.

  58. The trouble with the Science Museum these days is it is directed by Professor Chris Rapley. I first met him at British Antartic Survey (BAS) some 12 years ago when he became BAS Director.
    His first act was to shut down all areas that were not willing or able to show science that supported Global Warming.
    He is no longer a scientist, but a political opportunist- as this “display” shows

  59. Well,Louise Gray does have a certain approach to her ‘reporting’.Why does the Telegraph persist with a Guardian view?Any comments from other UK folk?

  60. I was very interested in what Don Keiller had to say about Professor Chris Rapley. How dreadful. I have just read Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth. A great read. I also read the 46 page criticism of the book by Prof Ian Enting, and then discovered that Ian Enting was one of the lead writers of the IPCC report on Climate Change, so of course he would be bitchy about Plimer, who deserves some kind of Nobel Prize for courage in the face of overwhelming propaganda.

Comments are closed.