Can anyone give me a realistic projection of the effects of climate change in the next 100 years based on peer reviewed...

>huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/global-cooling_b_4413833.html
I... don't even know what to say.
It's been a long while since I've seen a journalist be that direct when lying about science. Usually they just embellish things a bit, or add some weight to a fringe groups But this guy just made shit up wholesale.
Jesus Fuck.

I'll never understand why outlets like that choose to hurt their reputation by publishing opinion pieces

>huffpo
>reputation

70 million years ago the earth was 10 C hotter than now. With human impact on top who knows, but it is probably not as bad as (((Al Gore))) wants you to believe.

well all i know is that it's the fault of wealthy western countries, and the only solution is that those wealthy western countries give A LOT of money to some suited guys on a committee, and keep doing so. its the only way.

...

>but it is probably not as bad as (((Al Gore))) wants you to believe.
Why are you deniers so obsessed with Al Gore?
It really harms your credibility If all you can say about a subject is how much you dislike a particular individual who happened to take the opposite view.

His view is alarmism, which bears no objective reasoning.

>and there are the ones that climate is mostly affected by the sun because temperatures have been increasing at a steady rate for about 100 years despite the concentration of CO2 increasing significantly since then.
Literally no climatologist believes that. This sounds like something you would find on /pol/ or some quack's blog.

>His view is alarmism, which bears no objective reasoning.
"Alarmisim" is a perfectly reasonable position if there is grounds to be alarmed. It's like you read "The boy who cried Wolf", and thought the moral of the story was "don't cry wolf ever".

So you have the ability to predict the global temperature and differentiate the impact from all natural impacts along with human? Because that is what your model has to hold up to. It has to accurately predict the temperature, and so far no model have been very accurate. So there must be something we don't completely understand yet.

>70 million years ago the earth was 10 C hotter than now.
And humans did not exist, avid the ecosystem we evolved to live in did not exist. And North America was almost entirely under water. I can't wait for that.

Plus you're ignoring that the reason climate change is so harmful is not simply the temperature but the rapid rate of change which does not allow the ecosystem to adapt.

>So you have the ability to predict the global temperature and differentiate the impact from all natural impacts along with human?
Yes. Climatologists have been accurately predicting the global surface temperature for decades. And we know how much is caused by man because we can directly measure the source of incoming heat via radiative spectroscopy, and we know how much greenhouse gases we emit. Now why exactly do you think we don't know that? Have you tried researching climatology? Or do you just not want it to be true?

>It has to accurately predict the temperature, and so far no model have been very accurate. So there must be something we don't completely understand yet.
How accurate is accurate enough for you to admit that greenhouse gases warm the planet? Because you don't need to predict anything to prove that.

>So you have the ability to predict the global temperature and differentiate the impact from all natural impacts along with human?
Yes. It might be a good idea of you to have a go at reading some of the IPCC reports - they do a good job of describing what we know and how.

>It has to accurately predict the temperature, and so far no model have been very accurate.
They're pretty accurate, if you ignore year-to-year noise.

>So there must be something we don't completely understand yet.
There's lots. But it's generally small stuff, or things they can make multiple models to account for.

i make a point of observing it
this is common
very well funded
and worse than you think

I don't believe in NASA or IPCC results as they clearly hold skewed political views. Surely there must be sources that support your claim outside of these organizations.

Sorry there isn't a bullshit Brietbart version of NASA. Maybe try Creation Museum and learn some real science!

>Demands evidence
>Won't accept the evidence
Gee it's almost like your conclusion is already chosen...

>Surely there must be sources that support your claim outside of these organizations.
I can't name organisations faster than you can assert (without evidence) that they're biased.

Global data has been manipulated to show upward trends. This has happened multiple times.

There has been no successful model that incorporates emissions to warming. The ipcc says that warming and emissions are 1 to 1. Right in the fucking paper. Everyone else has been using that model for over 10 years, and guess what, it doesn't work. We had an exponential increase in emissions followed by a pretty steep reduction and yet the earth is still getting warmer supposedly. There is literally no predictive power so you can't even call it a science. Also, Al gore said last month the fish were swimming in the streets of Florida and hawaii, which is a blatant lie. Why does he lie? Because he stands to make billions off of the carbon tax company he founded. Give me a real model that says x emissions produces y warming and then show data that fits the model and I'll buy into it. Until then, I'll just laugh at how cucked you are by your own political agenda.

>Global data has been manipulated to show upward trends. This has happened multiple times.
It's been asserted to have happened multiple times. There's no evidence it's actually happened, despite many investigations.

>There has been no successful model that incorporates emissions to warming.
Yes there is.

>The ipcc says that warming and emissions are 1 to 1. Right in the fucking paper.
Where?

>Also, Al gore said...
OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
Please shut up about Al Gore already. No-one but you cares. Really.

>Give me a real model that says x emissions produces y warming
The models we have work fine. They're not great, but they're good enough for this.

>I'll just laugh at how cucked you are by your own political agenda.
You're the one who's put your political fears ahead of the results of actual scientific study.

I mean, eventually we will, just on the order of ~100k years instead of 100.

The north hemisphere will increase in temperature 1 to 2 degrees.

>Global data has been manipulated to show upward trends. This has happened multiple times.
No, it's the opposite. The adjustments have actually decreased the trend. Now why exactly would scientists do that if they are trying to exaggerate the warming?

>There has been no successful model that incorporates emissions to warming. The ipcc says that warming and emissions are 1 to 1. Right in the fucking paper. Everyone else has been using that model for over 10 years, and guess what, it doesn't work.
The models are very successful. All you have to do is compare observations to the predictions: climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/

>We had an exponential increase in emissions followed by a pretty steep reduction and yet the earth is still getting warmer supposedly.
What are you talking about? GHGs are still rising exponentially.

You're just woefully misinformed on the basic facts. You should be embarassed.

...

There was a report last week claiming that there was a bias in research grours to adjust recent data upwards and old data downwards.

Those models are not successful. Not a single one in your paper produced predictions that matched observation. When you make 50+ simulations that go +- the max expected warming, of course you're going to see data within those bounds.

Theres a difference in total emissions and relative emissions. Just like how Obama said he cut spending but still spent more than all previous presidents combined. Point is that it's supposed to be 1 to 1. In the appendix, it's outlined. Emissions increased exponentially from the 1900s through the 50s yet warming was linear.

At the end of the day, you think you know about climate change because you eyeball pictures and say of course it makes sense. In reality, it's one of the poorest models in all of science, riddled with bad statistics, false data and carried on by those who stand to profit from it.

I won't say anything else about it, but I hope you remember how zealous you were in this moment and regret not actually using your brain to see what a scam this all is.

tl;dr

I work in a research lab at my school in a completely different field, but run into climate scientists all the time in the same lab. From my casual conversations with them my personal anecdote is also: nobody knows.

Nobody even knows if climate change is even happening, let alone if climate change is caused by humans, or what will happen in 100 years. That's why they are doing research.

>There was a report last week claiming that there was a bias in research grours to adjust recent data upwards and old data downwards.
A report by who? And based on what?
"Someone said scientists are liars" is only convincing to utter morons.

>Those models are not successful.
They are successful.
realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

>When you make 50+ simulations that go +- the max expected warming, of course you're going to see data within those bounds.
I don't think you understand what climate models are. Individual runs are basically worthless, it's only the combination that matter.

>Point is that it's supposed to be 1 to 1.
No it isn't. Please stop lying.

>At the end of the day, you think you know about climate change because you eyeball pictures and say of course it makes sense. In reality, it's one of the poorest models in all of science, riddled with bad statistics, false data and carried on by those who stand to profit from it.
You've still provided zero evidence for any of your claims of corruption. This clearly isn't ignorance, you're just making this shit up.
Stop fucking lying already.

Climate change Al gore shills btfo

youtube.com/watch?v=DOFoJo6zwEU

Non existent,its all smoke and mirrors for someone to pocket money for something that is natural occurrence.
Please dont waste time and though on it instead go and get something done.

The models are clearly not successful.

Watch related

Billions of starving, desperate 70-IQ mud people climbing over the gates of civilization. Haven't you ever wondered why zombies have become so popular? Our subconscious is screaming in terror because it knows what's coming. Expect every neighborhood this side of Hell to be indistinguishable from a Brazilian favela in 50 years.

...

I mean, Sao Paulo, a city built in a rain forest climate, has no water because the reservoirs are at a negative level, requiring energy to pump what little water there is out.

>Citing Heartland & Cato
Really? You realize they're literally propaganda groups, right?
They're the same wonderful people who brought you "cigarettes don't cause cancer" and "fire retardants don't accumulate".

As for the talk itself, it's regular old denier bullshit. There's graphs that have been torn apart here a hundred times, the bizarre focus on the satellite record, misunderstandings about actual predictions, "co2 is good for plants", and the vague, unsubstantiated claims of conspiracy.

It's all exactly what you would expect to hear if you listened to a bullshit artist.

Why would it matter if Cato and Heartland are think tanks, if they invite professors, and credible people? I know about economics, not climate change, I'll admit, and most of the times, when it comes to economics, Cato presents, most of the time, accurate data and opinions, which aren't unreasonable.

And in this talk, the guy has a PhD, so he's not just some ''shill''. And if his graphs are wrong, despite them being in line with the data, why are they wrong? Can you explain it to me? I'd just like to point out, I'm not an expert on the subject, and I'm not shilling for the guy, he could be wrong, but I'll admit that the evidence he shows is more convincing than Al gore and the likes.

Co2 is good for plants, I looked it up : and other websites (like CNN, Guardian, etc.) relay the same information.

And what claims of conspiracy?

>contract scientists whose work you could conceivably warp to your think tank's desired outcomes and pay them to produce your propaganda
You see no problem with that, and further, you prefer it over actual peer-reviewed science?

The source or cause as to why something is done doesn't affect the truth value of that thing. For example, a math professor could discover a theorem to impress a young lady and date her, but that doesn't make the truth of the theorem any more or less true.

In the case of the talk, the professor shows data which has been peer-reviewed (he shows some of his publications in peer-review journals), and data which has not, yes, but it is still data. It's not like he made up data. If his data are wrong, then why is it wrong? Care to explain?

>I'll admit that the evidence he shows is more convincing than Al gore and the likes.
For fuck's sake. Al Gore isn't a climatologist.

>Why would it matter if Cato and Heartland are think tanks, if they invite professors, and credible people?
My point was that they DIDN'T invite a credible scientist. They invited a PR spokesman, who works for a think-tank and whose paychecks come from oil companies. You can't have a conflict of interest that large and then pretend to be objective.

>And if his graphs are wrong, despite them being in line with the data, why are they wrong?
Depends on the graph.
I'm not going to go blow-by-blow through the whole video, because it's more than an hour long. However:
The biggest issue is that most of his graphs are just WAY too short term. Climate change is something that happens over many decades, if not hundreds of years. But the graphs he's showing off are really shot term. At one point he makes a really big deal out of a twenty year period (in the UAH data, which significantly underestimates the trend).
He drags up the "missing tropical hot spot" nonsense; completely ignoring that a) It was never a prediction of AGW, and b) later studies have found it anyway.
He talks about the lack of a rise in the number of Tornadoes. I'm not actually aware of any consensus that tornado numbers will rise.

>Co2 is good for plants, I looked it up : and other websites (like CNN, Guardian, etc.) relay the same information.
Yes, plants need CO2. But adding more of it will only help them grow if that's the limiting factor in the environment the plants are in. In a greenhouse, where everything is controlled and ideal, adding more CO2 will increase growth rates. But in large-scale agriculture it's almost never the limiting factor, so the predicted increase in crop growth from CO2 is really small.

The whole video is just a mixture of half-truths and deliberate misinformation. This is the work of a PR group, not a presentation of climatology.