PM Carney considers Canada a 'leader in climate change’

Previous Thread Next Thread
J

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
Frankfooter said:
How many times do we have to go over this?
Click to expand...
as many times as it takes for your intentional misinformation / propaganda campaign to end


1) Your chart is 10 years old
Click to expand...
the laws of physics do not change, not in a decade, not ever
the models were flawed then and the models are flawed now

2) You won't use more recent charts because the data was corrected and shows the warming the IPCC projected.
Click to expand...
no
this has been explained to you multiple times and you just continue to recycle your propaganda
that ignorant obstinance does not work in fact based scientific debate

3) You can't use CO2 levels, sea temps, surface temps, extreme weather, ice melts or any other stat because they show you wrong.
Click to expand...
no
the satellite data is measuring exactly where the greenhouse gas theory predicts the warming should occur
the satellite data is verified by multiple sets of independent weather balloon data sets

if you had any scientific training / understanding you would know independent verification is unrefutably , undeniable rock solid experimental evidence
but alas, you do not have any scientific training / understanding.... so instead you just blither nonsense

4) You regularly post oil funded disinformation, but ancient shite.
Click to expand...
so NOAA must be oil funded in your nonsense world ??
too funny
more blithering nonsense from you

i post factual evidence
you post propaganda for children videos

now, answer these questions or shamefully run away


Fact: locking down 1/2 the worlds population in 2020 had no observable impact on the rising co2 trend
Fact: the oceans are by far the planets largest sink of CO2 interchanging massive quantities of CO2 with the atmosphere

Q1 so how much influence does man actual have on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?
Q2 what % of the worlds population would need to be locked down in order to make any impact on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?
Q3 what % of the worlds population would need to be liquidated in order to make any impact on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?
Q4. how long do you intend to claim intellectual superiority over AI ? (that is still so funny)

your climate con is dead frankfooter
the sooner it is buried the better as it is evil and it stinks

3) You can't use CO2 levels,
Click to expand...
sure i can

1772346800972.png

you really do not pay attention and you most certainly do not have a clue about climate or any other scientific subject matter
that is comically evident in your never ending cut and paste propaganda campaign
 
Last edited:
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,736
33,222
113
JohnLarue said:
as many times as it takes for your intentional misinformation / propaganda campaign to end




the laws of physics do not change, not in a decade, not ever
the models were flawed then and the models are flawed now


no
this has been explained to you multiple times and you just continue to recycle your propaganda
that ignorant obstinance does not work in fact based scientific debate


no
the satellite data is measuring exactly where the greenhouse gas theory predicts the warming should occur
the satellite data is verified by multiple sets of independent weather balloon data sets

if you had any scientific training / understanding you would know independent verification is unrefutably , undeniable rock solid experimental evidence
but alas, you do not have any scientific training / understanding.... so instead you just blither nonsense



so NOAA must be oil funded in your nonsense world ??
too funny
more blithering nonsense from you

i post factual evidence
you post propaganda for children videos

now, answer these questions or shamefully run away


Fact: locking down 1/2 the worlds population in 2020 had no observable impact on the rising co2 trend
Fact: the oceans are by far the planets largest sink of CO2 interchanging massive quantities of CO2 with the atmosphere

Q1 so how much influence does man actual have on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?
Q2 what % of the worlds population would need to be locked down in order to make any impact on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?
Q3 what % of the worlds population would need to be liquidated in order to make any impact on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?
Q4. how long do you intend to claim intellectual superiority over AI ? (that is still so funny)

your climate con is dead frankfooter
the sooner it is buried the better as it is evil and it stinks


sure i can

View attachment 557380

you really do not pay attention and you most certainly do not have a clue about climate or any other scientific subject matter
that is comically evident in your never ending cut and paste propaganda campaign
Click to expand...
Only a total ignoramus can declare global temperature increases are not happening and not related to the CO2 increases that admit are happening.




https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2027814235355357547
 
J

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
Frankfooter said:
Only a total ignoramus can declare global temperature increases are not happening and not related to the CO2 increases that admit are happening.
Click to expand...
speaking of a total ignoramus
CO2 increases that admit are happening
Click to expand...
???




Only a total ignoramus would think correlation defines their incorrect conclusion.



AI Overview
Click to expand...
The solubility of CO2 in water has an inverse relationship with temperature: as water temperature increases, the solubility of CO2
decreases, meaning colder water holds more dissolved CoO2 than warmer water. For example CO2 solubility drops from 1.10 mg/ ml at 0C to 0.31 mg/l at 40C
Click to expand...
  • We are still emerging from an ice age
  • Ice ages have multiple inter glacial periods of warming / cooling
  • As mother nature warms the oceans , the oceans release more Co2 into the atmosphere

This is entirely consistent with the experimental observations


Fact: locking down 1/2 the worlds population in 2020 had no observable impact on the rising co2 trend
Fact: the oceans are by far the planets largest sink of CO2 interchanging massive quantities of CO2 with the atmosphere


1772378508404.png


a real solid definition of a total ignoramus: someone who thinks he is a scientific expert despite his complete lack of scientific training / understanding.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,736
33,222
113
JohnLarue said:


Only a total ignoramus would think correlation defines their incorrect conclusion.
Click to expand...
Ok, larue.
Post your explanation on why global temperatures have increased 1.5ºC as CO2 levels have increased.
You say you are smart, so tell us exactly why the planet is warming.

And don't rely on bullshit 'end of ice age' crap.
Tell us the science and mechanism of why you think those two stats are not linked.
 
R

roddermac

Well-known member
Sep 17, 2023
2,622
2,152
113
J

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
Frankfooter said:
Ok, larue.
Post your explanation on why global temperatures have increased 1.5ºC as CO2 levels have increased.
You say you are smart, so tell us exactly why the planet is warming.
Click to expand...
you do not comprehend facts
the direct answer to your ignorant foolish question was provided in my post , which you quoted

Teacher: Now pay attention class, 2+3 =5
Frankfooter: Yeah Ok but what is 2+3 ?
The teacher looks at you in disbelief and then writes in his/ her notebook ' Frankfooter needs a ride on the short bus to the special school"

what is wrong with you ?

now pay attention

AI Overview
Click to expand...
The solubility of CO2 in water has an inverse relationship with temperature: as water temperature increases, the solubility of CO2
decreases, meaning colder water holds more dissolved CoO2 than warmer water. For example CO2 solubility drops from 1.10 mg/ ml at 0C to 0.31 mg/l at 40C
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
  • We are still emerging from an ice age
  • Ice ages have multiple inter glacial periods of warming / cooling
  • As mother nature warms the oceans , the oceans release more Co2 into the atmosphere

This is entirely consistent with the experimental observations


Fact: locking down 1/2 the worlds population in 2020 had no observable impact on the rising co2 trend
Fact: the oceans are by far the planets largest sink of CO2 interchanging massive quantities of CO2 with the atmosphere


1772410603096.png

And don't rely on bullshit 'end of ice age' crap.
Click to expand...
hmm...... so you think the multiple ice ages are fake news do you ?.... i see
just like you are intellectually superior to AI ?
just like you think propaganda videos targeting children lets you pretend that you understand scientific matters ?

BTW you do not get to dictate what scientific facts anybody can or can not use
the scientific method does not permit ideologically driven ignorance to exclude experimental observations that the failed ideology does not like
what is wrong with you ?

Tell us the science and mechanism of why you think those two stats are not linked.
Click to expand...


they are linked and the science and mechanism was provided
you got the cause and effect ass backward

AI Overview
The solubility of CO2 in water has an inverse relationship with temperature: as water temperature increases, the solubility of CO2
decreases, meaning colder water holds more dissolved CoO2 than warmer water. For example CO2 solubility drops from 1.10 mg/ ml at 0C to 0.31 mg/l at 40C
Click to expand...
  • We are still emerging from an ice age
  • Ice ages have multiple inter glacial periods of warming / cooling
  • As mother nature warms the oceans , the oceans release more Co2 into the atmosphere
what is wrong with you ?
 
Last edited:
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,736
33,222
113
JohnLarue said:
We are still emerging from an ice age
  • Ice ages have multiple inter glacial periods of warming / cooling
  • As mother nature warms the oceans , the oceans release more Co2 into the atmosphere
Click to expand...
This is your scientific theory?
And you think that's smart?

You can't explain why the temperature has gone up, you can't come up with one explanation, mechanism or change.
Its all 'the climate changes' statement of a total idiot who has no idea how the climate works.
All you've got is 'sometimes it gets hot and sometimes cold and I don't know why'.

The models were accurate.
Your deniers clueless and you even less.

 
J

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
Frankfooter said:
This is your scientific theory?
And you think that's smart?
Click to expand...
those are the facts, proven by scientific observations
now pay attention

AI Overview
Click to expand...
The solubility of CO2 in water has an inverse relationship with temperature: as water temperature increases, the solubility of CO2
decreases, meaning colder water holds more dissolved CoO2 than warmer water. For example CO2 solubility drops from 1.10 mg/ ml at 0C to 0.31 mg/l at 40C
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
  • We are still emerging from an ice age- this a fact
  • Ice ages have multiple inter glacial periods of warming / cooling this a fact
  • As mother nature warms the oceans , the oceans release more Co2 into the atmosphere this a fact

You can't explain why the temperature has gone up,
Click to expand...
sure i can
mother nature,

i am sure there is a children's video describing how unpredictable mother nature is, so educate yourself
natural variability if you want a more scientific sounding description

are you a denier of the fact climate and temperatures change ?
are you a denier of the fact co2 solubility in water has a inversely relationship to water temperature ?
are you a denier of the fact locking down 1/2 the worlds population in 2020 had no observable impact on the rising co2 trend
are you a denier of the fact the oceans are by far the planets largest sink of CO2 interchanging massive quantities of CO2 with the atmosphere



i noticed you wont touch this
you are terrified of it and steer well clear of it

boo!
locking down 1/2 the worlds population in 2020 had no observable impact on the rising co2 trend
1772434595921.png

you can't come up with one explanation, mechanism or change.
Click to expand...
sure i have
its not my fault if you can not understand geological history or the solubility of dissolved gases in water


Its all 'the climate changes' statement of a total idiot who has no idea how the climate works.
Click to expand...
you describe yourself well
normally I would advise you not to be so hard on yourself , however the shoe really fits you perfectly in this case
Frankfooterellea

All you've got is 'sometimes it gets hot and sometimes cold and I don't know why'.
Click to expand...
always has and very likely always will

again, look up multiple ice ages and interglacial periods and low and behold "sometimes it gets hot and sometimes cold"

You really to up your scientific understanding.
time for you to educate yourself.
The propaganda videos targeting children wont cut it.


We have an extremely complex , non linear, chaotic and dynamic climate system
you can not accurately model such a system
what mankind does not understand about climate likely exceeds what mankind does understand about climate

believing a trace gas measured in parts per billion is the control knob for such a complex, non linear, chaotic and dynamic climate system is absurd


The models were accurate.
Click to expand...
no the climate models are expensive junk and are not at all accurate

AI Overview


Modeling the climate is one of the most complex scientific endeavors due to the need to simulate the intricate, non-linear interactions of the Earth's atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere, and biosphere
. Despite advancements, climate models face significant challenges, ranging from computational limitations to gaps in physical understanding.
Key challenges in climate modeling include:
Click to expand...
Simulating cloud systems, which can both warm and cool the planet, is a major, long-standing challenge. Clouds are complex, depend on many variables, and often exist at scales too small to be directly simulated, leading to significant variations in how models predict climate sensitivity.
Click to expand...
Most global models divide the Earth into 100x100 km grid cells, which cannot resolve smaller-scale phenomena like thunderstorms, mountains, or urban heat islands. Subgrid processes, such as convection, must be parameterized, which can introduce errors.
Click to expand...
High-resolution models require immense computing power. As models become more detailed, managing and analyzing the massive data output creates significant bottlenecks, prompting researchers to seek faster, often less accurate, alternatives.
Click to expand...
The climate system has feedback loops that are not fully understood or accurately modeled, such as the release of methane from thawing permafrost or the precise impact of aerosols on clouds.
Click to expand...
Climate models may accurately predict surface temperature by having compensating errors—for instance, overestimating cloud cooling while underestimating greenhouse warming—which means they may not be accurate when conditions change in the future.
Click to expand...
Natural, random variations in the climate system, such as El Niño, can amplify or diminish climate change over short periods (1-30 years), making it difficult to project local, short-term trends.
Click to expand...
Some recent generation models (CMIP6) have predicted significantly higher warming (high climate sensitivity) than observational records suggest, a phenomenon researchers are actively trying to correct.
Click to expand...
Reliable observational data is often sparse, inhomogeneous, or spans too short a time, which limits the ability to train and validate models, especially regarding rare extreme events.
Click to expand...
So tell us frankfooter how long do you figure on claiming intellectual supremacy over Artificial Intelligence ?

do you not realize how you have painted yourself as incredibly foolish and untrustworthy ?

oops
I almost forgot your favourite 'Chart"

the climate models are flawed
10 years ago they were flawed and they are still flawed

1772435825295.png
 
Last edited:
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,736
33,222
113
JohnLarue said:
those are the facts, proven by scientific observations
now pay attention


  • We are still emerging from an ice age- this a fact
  • Ice ages have multiple inter glacial periods of warming / cooling this a fact
  • As mother nature warms the oceans , the oceans release more Co2 into the atmosphere this a fact
Click to expand...
oh my farking god.
You wrote the words 'this is a fact' as your proof.

I had no idea that you were that stupid.
Please, use AI so that there is a pretence of intelligence.

  • the ice age was 10,000 years ago, why the fuck would it suddenly warm the planet 1.5ºC right now?
  • ice ages usually change over thousands of years unless there is a massive event like mass volcanoes or giant asteroids
  • the oceans do not spontaneously warm and release CO2
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2028292658045874181
 
J

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
Frankfooter said:
]oh my farking god.
You wrote the words 'this is a fact' as your proof.
Click to expand...
its not my fault you do not understand what a fact is

I had no idea that you were that stupid.
Click to expand...
too funny
you have no idea period
you have the IQ of an earthworm

Please, use AI so that there is a pretence of intelligence.
Click to expand...
it an upgrade to your complete lack of intelligence


the ice age was 10,000 years ago, why the fuck would it suddenly warm the planet 1.5ºC right now?
Click to expand...
our climate system is complex, non linear, chaotic and dynamic
the real question is why would it not suddenly warm the planet ?

ice ages usually change over thousands of years unless there is a massive event like mass volcanoes or giant asteroids
Click to expand...
no

AI Overview

The Younger Dryas (circa 12,900 to 11,700 years ago) was an extremely fast, abrupt climate event
. It featured a rapid cooling of the Northern Hemisphere, with Greenland temperatures dropping by 10°C or more in just a few decades—or even a few years—plunging the region back into near-glacial conditions,
Click to expand...


the oceans do not spontaneously warm and release CO2
Click to expand...
yes they do

#1. Ice ages
#2.
AI Mode
Yes, the oceans both absorb and emit carbon dioxide as part of a continuous exchange with the atmosphere known as the carbon cycle.
Click to expand...
here are the facts of the matter
  • renewables are not going to displace any meaningful fraction of the growing fossil fuel consumption
  • net zero was always and always will be a completely illogical, ideologically driven fantasy


1772466742443.png

  • the flawed climate models are the basis for your scary propaganda


1772466868821.png

  • locking down 1/2 the world population had no observable impact on the rising co2 trend
    • so how much influence does man actual have on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?
  • FYI : the oceans are by far the planets largest sink of CO2 interchanging massive quantities of CO2 with the atmosphere
    • what % of the worlds population would need to be locked down in order to make any impact on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?

1772466893918.png [/QUOTE]
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,736
33,222
113
JohnLarue said:
its not my fault you do not understand what a fact is


too funny
you have no idea period
you have the IQ of an earthworm


it an upgrade to your complete lack of intelligence




our climate system is complex, non linear, chaotic and dynamic
the real question is why would it not suddenly warm the planet ?



no







yes they do

#1. Ice ages
#2.


here are the facts of the matter
  • renewables are not going to displace any meaningful fraction of the growing fossil fuel consumption
  • net zero was always and always will be a completely illogical, ideologically driven fantasy


View attachment 557791

  • the flawed climate models are the basis for your scary propaganda


View attachment 557793

  • locking down 1/2 the world population had no observable impact on the rising co2 trend
    • so how much influence does man actual have on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?
  • FYI : the oceans are by far the planets largest sink of CO2 interchanging massive quantities of CO2 with the atmosphere
    • what % of the worlds population would need to be locked down in order to make any impact on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?

View attachment 557794
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

There is nothing to reply to in that post, larue.
Just ignorant ranting and claiming that you are smarter than all of NASA again, even though you can't follow the most basic parts of the argument.

You've been wrong for a decade at least.
Every year you've been proven wrong and every year you declare you are smarter and the entire world is wrong.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2028490984741363777
 
J

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
Frankfooter said:
There is nothing to reply to in that post, larue.
Click to expand...
then why are you replying ?
is replying a condition for payment in your disinformation/ propaganda employment contract ?

you can not reply because the subject matter is too advanced for you
again move up from the propaganda videos for children

Just ignorant ranting and claiming that you are smarter than all of NASA again, even though you can't follow the most basic parts of the argument.
Click to expand...
i have never claimed I am smatter than all of NASSA
just a whole lot smarter than you , but that is nothing special to brag about

You've been wrong for a decade at least.
Every year you've been proven wrong and every year you declare you are smarter and the entire world is wrong.
Click to expand...
nope

here are the facts of the matter
  • renewables are not going to displace any meaningful fraction of the growing fossil fuel consumption
  • net zero was always and always will be a completely illogical, ideologically driven fantasy
1772493094820.png

  • the flawed climate models are the basis for your scary propaganda
1772493138800.png

AI Mode
Yes, the oceans both absorb and emit carbon dioxide as part of a continuous exchange with the atmosphere known as the carbon cycle.
  • locking down 1/2 the world population had no observable impact on the rising co2 trend
    • so how much influence does man actual have on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?
  • FYI : the oceans are by far the planets largest sink of CO2 interchanging massive quantities of CO2 with the atmosphere
    • what % of the worlds population would need to be locked down in order to make any impact on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?



1772493046691.png

if you have nothing intelligent to reply with, then don't reply

your climate con is dead frankfooter


1772493412082.jpeg
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,736
33,222
113
JohnLarue said:
then why are you replying ?
is replying a condition for payment in your disinformation/ propaganda employment contract ?

you can not reply because the subject matter is too advanced for you
again move up from the propaganda videos for children
i have never claimed I am smatter than all of NASSA
just a whole lot smarter than you , but that is nothing special to brag about
nope

here are the facts of the matter
  • renewables are not going to displace any meaningful fraction of the growing fossil fuel consumption
  • net zero was always and always will be a completely illogical, ideologically driven fantasy

  • the flawed climate models are the basis for your scary propaganda

AI Mode
Yes, the oceans both absorb and emit carbon dioxide as part of a continuous exchange with the atmosphere known as the carbon cycle.
  • locking down 1/2 the world population had no observable impact on the rising co2 trend
    • so how much influence does man actual have on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?
  • FYI : the oceans are by far the planets largest sink of CO2 interchanging massive quantities of CO2 with the atmosphere
    • what % of the worlds population would need to be locked down in order to make any impact on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?



if you have nothing intelligent to reply with, then don't reply
your climate con is dead frankfooter
Click to expand...
Its clear from your post that you have no clue about the science.
Why would you even ask AI about 'locking down half the population'?
WTF does that have to do with this discussion?

You don't understand the Greenhouse Effect.
Make claims you don't understand and can't back up.
And then declare you won.

Not only that, you can't even spell NASA.

Here you go larue, you say you aren't smarter than NASA, fine.
So then you are back to arguing that all of NASA is lying and as you have said before, pushing 'propaganda'.

Read this page and tell me what is propaganda.
Provide non AI descriptions of why you think its wrong.

We both know you can't do it.

science.nasa.gov

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of
science.nasa.gov science.nasa.gov
 
J

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
Frankfooter said:
Its clear from your post that you have no clue about the science.
Click to expand...
says the high school drop out who thinks he is learning science from children's propaganda videos


Why would you even ask AI about 'locking down half the population'?
WTF does that have to do with this discussion?
Click to expand...
just as i suspected
you are not capable of drawing the obvious conclusions


  • locking down 1/2 the world population had no observable impact on the rising co2 trend
    • so how much influence does man actual have on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?

Answer: evidentially mans activities have very little impact on the accumulation of atmospheric c02

half the worlds population was severely restricted in 2020 and yet it had no observable impact on the relentless upwards trend of atmospheric Co2 accumulation

The oceans are driving that upwards curve as warming oceans expel more CO2- fundamental chemistry
in addition, no amount of c02 sequestration, renewables, lunatics gluing their faces to the pavement or your evil propaganda is going to alter that trend
we tried the experiment in 2020 and there was no observable change in the relentless upwards trend of atmospheric Co2 accumulation- fundamental Calculus


the good news is thankfully, co2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex , non linear, chaotic and dynamic climate system.

perhaps if you had not dropped out of high school fundamental chemistry and fundamental Calculus would not confuse you


1772493046691.png



You don't understand the Greenhouse Effect.
Click to expand...
sure i do
i was able to show you where the greenhouse gas theory predicts the warming should occur
there is a reason millions of weather balloon were sent to the troposphere
1772515016723.png

Make claims you don't understand and can't back up.
And then declare you won.
Click to expand...
there is no question, i won this a long time ago

the only thing that your propaganda program has done is put your lack of ethics and lack of scientific understanding on full display

it is not my fault you chose to destroy your credibility long ago
I am curious. So what's the pay like for a social media propagandist ?
Do you get health care benefits?


Here you go larue, you say you aren't smarter than NASA, fine.
So then you are back to arguing that all of NASA is lying and as you have said before, pushing 'propaganda'.
Click to expand...
so you are not able to distinguish between ' being smart' and ''acting with integrity'

we will just have to assume since you are incapable of the former , you will never learn the importance of the later

Read this page and tell me what is propaganda.
Click to expand...
Provide non AI descriptions of why you think its wrong.
Click to expand...
WTF is wrong with you?

you tried cancelling me- that did not work
you tried cancelling skeptical scientists - that did not work
now you want to cancel AI to keep your climate con intact ???

:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

What in the world is wrong with you?
i do not take orders and certainly not from you


your request has been received evaluated and rejected

  • the flawed climate models are the basis for your scary propaganda


1772514321657.png


your climate con is dead frankfooter

1772514822197.png
 
Last edited:
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,736
33,222
113
JohnLarue said:
says the high school drop out who thinks he is learning science from children's propaganda videos
just as i suspected
you are not capable of drawing the obvious conclusions


  • locking down 1/2 the world population had no observable impact on the rising co2 trend
    • so how much influence does man actual have on the accumulation of atmospheric co2 ?

Answer: evidentially mans activities have very little impact on the accumulation of atmospheric c02
half the worlds population was severely restricted in 2020 and yet it had no observable impact on the relentless upwards trend of atmospheric Co2 accumulation
The oceans are driving that upwards curve as warming oceans expel more CO2- fundamental chemistry
in addition, no amount of c02 sequestration, renewables, lunatics gluing their faces to the pavement or your evil propaganda is going to alter that trend
we tried the experiment in 2020 and there was no observable change in the relentless upwards trend of atmospheric Co2 accumulation- fundamental Calculus
the good news is thankfully, co2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex , non linear, chaotic and dynamic climate system.
perhaps if you had not dropped out of high school fundamental chemistry and fundamental Calculus would not confuse you
sure i do
i was able to show you where the greenhouse gas theory predicts the warming should occur
there is a reason millions of weather balloon were sent to the troposphere
there is no question, i won this a long time ago
the only thing that your propaganda program has done is put your lack of ethics and lack of scientific understanding on full display
it is not my fault you chose to destroy your credibility long ago
I am curious. So what's the pay like for a social media propagandist ?
Do you get health care benefits?



so you are not able to distinguish between ' being smart' and ''acting with integrity'

we will just have to assume since you are incapable of the former , you will never learn the importance of the later




WTF is wrong with you?

you tried cancelling me- that did not work
you tried cancelling skeptical scientists - that did not work
now you want to cancel AI to keep your climate con intact ???

:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

What in the world is wrong with you?
i do not take orders and certainly not from you


your request has been received evaluated and rejected

Click to expand...
Wow, what total nonsense and ignorance.

1/2 the world lives in poverty and doesn't emit a ton of CO2, while the 1% emit thousands times more per person and you think that means humanity doesn't emit CO2.
Here, since you think AI is the authority now,

AI Overview



Human activities emit over 35 to 40 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (
1772544608790.gif
CO2
) annually, primarily from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) for energy, industrial processes like cement production, and land-use changes. These emissions have risen 182 times since 1850, causing atmospheric
1772544608799.gif
CO2
to reach its highest level in 15–20 million years.
NOAA (.gov) NOAA (.gov) +2
Key details regarding human-caused
1772544608819.gif
CO2
emissions:
  • Total Annual Emissions: In recent years, human activities have produced over 35 billion tonnes of
    1772544608826.gif
    CO2
    annually.
  • Primary Sources: The main contributors are energy (electricity/heat) at roughly 32.6%, followed by manufacturing/industry (22.3%), transportation (21.1%), and agriculture (17.7%).
  • Cumulative Impact: Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have added more than 2,000 billion metric tons of
    1772544608834.gif
    CO2
    to the atmosphere.
  • Natural vs. Human Emissions: While natural carbon cycles exchange roughly 750 gigatons of
    1772544608843.gif
    CO2
    annually, human emissions, though smaller, are cumulative and cannot be fully absorbed by the ocean and land, causing the net increase.
  • Per Capita Impact: Global average emissions are just below 5 tonnes per person annually, though this varies significantly by country.
    NOAA (.gov) NOAA (.gov) +4

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2028621517043503342
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,736
33,222
113
roddermac said:
There is nothing to reply to in that post, larue.
Just ignorant ranting and claiming that you are smarter than all of NASA again, even though you can't follow the most basic parts of the argument.

You've been wrong for a decade at least.
Every year you've been proven wrong and every year you declare you are smarter and the entire world is wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you agree with me about larue.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1974534342849577211
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom