Chile launches climate change observatory 

Y Argentina? Good or bad?

@@comronroodsari742 Argentina is corrupt af. Without the corruption it would be great 😍

Said Donald Trump.

Some past climate models proved to be quite accurate.

@@hosnimubarak8869 OF all the models that use co2, the only one that is close to accurate is the Russian that uses a .5°c sensitivity. Anything greater than a 1°c is wrong by minimum of a quarter of a degree already. ANYTHING that is less than 2°c sensitivity can not show a threat to anything on this planet.

@@roberthicks1612 One of the first projections of future warming came from John Sawyer at the UK’s Met Office in 1973. In a paper published in Nature in 1973, he hypothesised that the world would warm 0.6C between 1969 and 2000, and that atmospheric CO2 would increase by 25%. Sawyer argued for a climate sensitivity - how much long-term warming will occur per doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels - of 2.4C, which is not too far off the best estimate of 3C used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today.

@@hosnimubarak8869 Yet the entire warming has only been .8 for the last century. Not likely that it would have done almost all of that in 31 years (it didnt by the way). Also, the entire increase from the 1600's on is only 140 ppm. Man made did increase by 25% in that time, but not atmospheric co2. So once again, he has failed. satellite data shows that since the first satellites the temperature has risen much less than model projections. Balloon data goes even farther back and that proves the co2 and temperature are not in sync either.

@@roberthicks1612 "satellite data shows that since the first satellites the temperature has risen much less than model projections. Balloon data goes even farther back and that proves the co2 and temperature are not in sync either" [citation needed]

There is a big misunderstanding at the base of your logic. Scientists do not have "key data" to predict exactly what will happen in the future, but it doesn't mean in any way that climate science is wrong about everything. I would compare climate science with a doctor evaluating a patient about cancer risks. The doctor can't tell you: " in 3 years you will have cancer". He can however tell you: "if you continue doing this (smoking cigarettes for example), then you will most likely have a cancer in the future". For the climate, science can tell that if we continue burning tons of fossil fuel, then Earth will experience a lot more extreme weather, which will impact humans and nature in overall on many aspects. They can't tell exactly when, but we can already see some of its effects, so it might come sooner than we think...