PM Carney considers Canada a 'leader in climate change’

Frankfooter · Mar 5, 2026

JohnLarue said:
not at all
Fact: the oceans exchange massive quantities of co2 with the atmosphere, way more than humans produce
Fact : Co2 solubility in water is inversely proportional to temperature
Fact: our climate system is complex, non-linear, chaotic and dynamic and is simply not driven by a trace inert gas

I have facts and scientific understanding

None of that backs up your claim that its actually happening and responsible for CO2 increases.
And your admission that the climate is too complex for you personally to understand just means you should stand back and leave it to the people who do understand it.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2029638587168194744

JohnLarue · Mar 5, 2026

Frankfooter said:
None of that backs up your claim that its actually happening and responsible for CO2 increases.

sure it does
the oceans are 2/3 of the planets surface area and are really deep
the oceans contain the vast majority of the planets CO2
the oceans exchange way more co2 with the atmosphere than the anthropogenic CO2 generated
the oceans (water) release more co2 with higher temperatures
All scientific facts consistent with the observed increased accumulation of atmospheric co2 and consistent with the observed results of the 2020 lock down experiment

the bigger issue for you is the anthropogenic CO2 narrative is certainly not consistent with the observed results of the 2020 lock down experiment

And your admission that the climate is too complex for you personally to understand just means you should stand back and leave it to the people who do understand it.

if they had understood the complexity of the climate , their climate models would not be flawed

and they would have claimed the $ 1MM Millennium Prize by solving the Navier-Stokes Existence and Smoothness problem for turbulent flow .
t is one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems established by the Clay Mathematics Institute in May 2000
26 years, $1 MM US up for grabs ....... No takers

you should consider learning
start by learning that some things are just complex to model

AI Overview

Systems that are "too complex to model" are generally defined as
complex adaptive systems, which are characterized by large numbers of interacting, non-linear components that learn, adapt, and evolve, making long-term prediction impossible. While we can create simulations of these systems, capturing their full behavior in a precise, predictive model is beyond current capabilities.

Here are key examples of systems that are notoriously difficult or impossible to model fully:

The Human Brain & Nervous System:

Click to expand...

With roughly 86 billion neurons and trillions of connections (synapses), modeling the brain at a functional, let alone consciousness-level, scale is arguably the most complex challenge in science.

Click to expand...
Ecosystems and the Biosphere:

Click to expand...

These systems involve countless species, environmental variables, and evolutionary adaptations. A complete model would need to account for unpredictable mutations and interactions, making it impossible to capture the entire system’s future state.

Click to expand...
Protein Folding (Full Molecular Dynamics):

Click to expand...

While we have made strides in predicting static structures (e.g., AlphaFold), simulating the full, real-time dynamic folding process of complex proteins in a cellular environment—including interactions with solvents—remains computationally intractable.

Click to expand...
The Weather/Climate:

Click to expand...

Due to extreme sensitivity to initial conditions (the "butterfly effect") and non-linear, coupled interactions between oceans, atmosphere, and land, weather forecasts are only accurate for a short time, and long-term climate modeling is subject to high uncertainty.

Click to expand...

your climate con is dead frankfooter

MaverickPunter · Mar 5, 2026

Frankfooter · Mar 6, 2026

JohnLarue said:
sure it does
the oceans are 2/3 of the planets surface area and are really deep

Its this kind of inspirational and expertise in science that really shines on this board, larue.
The oceans are deep. Amazing work.

the oceans contain the vast majority of the planets CO2
the oceans exchange way more co2 with the atmosphere than the anthropogenic CO2 generated
the oceans (water) release more co2 with higher temperatures

The question you can't answer to defend your theory is why now?
Why, 10,000 years after the end of the ice age, are oceans spontaneously releasing mass amounts of CO2?

Frankfooter · Mar 6, 2026

JohnLarue said:
if they had understood the complexity of the climate , their climate models would not be flawed

If the climate is too 'complex' for you to understand it then leave it to the scientists and experts.
The models have been very, very good.

JohnLarue · Mar 6, 2026

Frankfooter said:
Its this kind of inspirational and expertise in science that really shines on this board, larue.
The oceans are deep. Amazing work.

what a damn fool thing for you to say
Its your kind of ~~inspirational~~ stupidity and ~~expertise~~ ignorance in science that really stands out as a fool pretending he has scientific understanding

its not my fault you dropped out of high school
its not my fault you do not understand that the c02 solubility in water is measured in milligrams per litre i.e. weight per unit volume

so yes the immense depth of the oceans definably impacts the volume of water and the massive volume of CO2 interchanged with the atmosphere

what a damn fool thing for you to say

The question you can't answer to defend your theory is why now?
Why, 10,000 years after the end of the ice age, are oceans spontaneously releasing mass amounts of CO2?

1. likely the same reason we still have glaciers and 24,380,000 gigatonnes (24.38 trillion tons) of ice in the Antarctic
we are still emerging from an ice age
warmer oceans release more co2
and the amount dwarfs anthropogenic co2

not to worry , its good for the crop yield and the good news is Co2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex, non-linear, chaotic and dynamic climate system

2. well since you brought in proxy data lets have another view
co2 levels have been at much much higher levels in the past, so why not?
you will notice temperature and co2 concentration are not correlated throughout geological history

So........Why, after 600 million years of uncorrelated variation vs temperature does co2 spontaneously start controlling the planets temperature?
The physical laws of nature do not suddenly change to fit into your evil narrative

btw the climate models are deeply flawed

AI Overview

Systems that are "too complex to model" are generally defined as
complex adaptive systems, which are characterized by large numbers of interacting, non-linear components that learn, adapt, and evolve, making long-term prediction impossible. While we can create simulations of these systems, capturing their full behavior in a precise, predictive model is beyond current capabilities.

The Weather/Climate:

Click to expand...

Due to extreme sensitivity to initial conditions (the "butterfly effect") and non-linear, coupled interactions between oceans, atmosphere, and land, weather forecasts are only accurate for a short time, and long-term climate modeling is subject to high uncertainty.

Click to expand...

JohnLarue · Mar 6, 2026

Frankfooter said:
If the climate is too 'complex' for you to understand it then leave it to the scientists and experts.
The models have been very, very good.

oh boy

so much is wrong with frank footer's 250th ""chart""

1, source? (frankfooters excel program ??? Na that is well beyond his capabilities)
2 the observations ??? no reference, however lets assume they are from the surface temperature record data set which is not a true representation
a) incomplete
b) filled with errors
c) biased by the urban Island heat effect (measuring urbanization)
d) has been fiddled with

3. this ''chart'' starts in 1970 , likely one the coldest decades in the 20th century, a full nine years earlier than the Christy graph.
4. there are twelve models listed and what appears to be six models graphed. where are the rest ? the Christy graph lists 32 climate models. Threw out the real stinkers did ya ?

5. so your claiming the models started predicting temperature anomaly's in 1970 and and in 1970 predicted declines to occur in 1996-98, 2008, 2011, 2015 and one in 2019 ??
a climate model predicting declines in temperature anomaly's almost 50 years out into the future?
No that does not pass the smell test

meanwhile the average of the 32 climate models the Christy graph. shows only straight-line increases predicted from 1994 onwards as of 2017. Hmm.........
meanwhile no climate propaganda ever predicted a decline in any specific year, it has been nothing but predictions for higher and higher temperatures

it is pretty obvious the modellers are periodically tuning their models to fit the most recent flawed surface temperature data trends and then reforecasting outwards
see how accurate we are when we tune our models to match flawed historical surface temp anomaly's and then compare to the data we just used to tuned our models to match ?

the climate models are flawed

JohnLarue · Mar 6, 2026

MaverickPunter said:
View attachment 559494 View attachment 559495

yes that is an accurate representation

Frankfooter · Mar 6, 2026

JohnLarue said:
what a damn fool thing for you to say
Its your kind of ~~inspirational~~ stupidity and ~~expertise~~ ignorance in science that really stands out as a fool pretending he has scientific understanding

its not my fault you dropped out of high school
its not my fault you do not understand that the c02 solubility in water is measured in milligrams per litre i.e. weight per unit volume

so yes the immense depth of the oceans definably impacts the volume of water and the massive volume of CO2 interchanged with the atmosphere

what a damn fool thing for you to say

1. likely the same reason we still have glaciers and 24,380,000 gigatonnes (24.38 trillion tons) of ice in the Antarctic
we are still emerging from an ice age
warmer oceans release more co2
and the amount dwarfs anthropogenic co2

not to worry , its good for the crop yield and the good news is Co2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex, non-linear, chaotic and dynamic climate system

2. well since you brought in proxy data lets have another view
co2 levels have been at much much higher levels in the past, so why not?
you will notice temperature and co2 concentration are not correlated throughout geological history

View attachment 559538

So........Why, after 600 million years of uncorrelated variation vs temperature does co2 spontaneously start controlling the planets temperature?
The physical laws of nature do not suddenly change to fit into your evil narrative

btw the climate models are deeply flawed

View attachment 559539

So you have a feeling that oceans have started to massively release CO2 but have nothing to back it up.
And you have admitted CO2 levels are increasing but also have a feeling that the Greenhouse Effect isn't real.

You are a clown, larue.
Your posts make no sense and are based on idiotic contradictions.

Humanity heating planet faster than ever before, study finds

Researchers identify sharp rise to about 0.35C every decade, after excluding natural fluctuations such as El Niño

www.theguardian.com

The Last 10 Years of Climate Data Reveal Something Alarming

Global warming may be speeding up—scientists say the planet is heating nearly twice as fast as before, putting the 1.5°C limit at risk before 2030.

scitechdaily.com

Frankfooter · Mar 6, 2026

JohnLarue said:
oh boy

so much is wrong with frank footer's 250th ""chart""

1, source? (frankfooters excel program ??? Na that is well beyond his capabilities)
2 the observations ??? no reference, however lets assume they are from the surface temperature record data set which is not a true representation
a) incomplete
b) filled with errors
c) biased by the urban Island heat effect (measuring urbanization)
d) has been fiddled with

3. this ''chart'' starts in 1970 , likely one the coldest decades in the 20th century, a full nine years earlier than the Christy graph.
4. there are twelve models listed and what appears to be six models graphed. where are the rest ? the Christy graph lists 32 climate models. Threw out the real stinkers did ya ?

5. so your claiming the models started predicting temperature anomaly's in 1970 and and in 1970 predicted declines to occur in 1996-98, 2008, 2011, 2015 and one in 2019 ??
a climate model predicting declines in temperature anomaly's almost 50 years out into the future?
No that does not pass the smell test

meanwhile the average of the 32 climate models the Christy graph. shows only straight-line increases predicted from 1994 onwards as of 2017. Hmm.........
meanwhile no climate propaganda ever predicted a decline in any specific year, it has been nothing but predictions for higher and higher temperatures

it is pretty obvious the modellers are periodically tuning their models to fit the most recent flawed surface temperature data trends and then reforecasting outwards
see how accurate we are when we tune our models to match flawed historical surface temp anomaly's and then compare to the data we just used to tuned our models to match ?

the climate models are flawed

View attachment 559561

More feelings that what I posted is wrong with nothing to back it up.
Meanwhile you keep posting a 10 year old chart that has been repeatedly and very clearly debunked for using bad data that didn't account for orbital drift.
You are stuck with this one chart as all data from that source since is corrected and shows the warming in the tropics, in the clouds, as projected.

amazing

This year is likely to be an El Nino and we will likely be yet another record hot year.
You've been wrong for decades in a row and still think that maybe next year you'll be right.
Its the peanuts football kick endlessly.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2029875373576462780

richaceg · Mar 6, 2026

Frankfooter said:
So you have a feeling that oceans have started to massively release CO2 but have nothing to back it up.
And you have admitted CO2 levels are increasing but also have a feeling that the Greenhouse Effect isn't real.

You are a clown, larue.
Your posts make no sense and are based on idiotic contradictions.

Humanity heating planet faster than ever before, study finds

Researchers identify sharp rise to about 0.35C every decade, after excluding natural fluctuations such as El Niño

www.theguardian.com

The Last 10 Years of Climate Data Reveal Something Alarming

Global warming may be speeding up—scientists say the planet is heating nearly twice as fast as before, putting the 1.5°C limit at risk before 2030.

scitechdaily.com

You have championed every narrative that are destroying the society. maybe set an example by logging off and not using your pc that is made of plastic.

MaverickPunter · Mar 6, 2026

Frankfooter said:
More feelings that what I posted is wrong with nothing to back it up.
Meanwhile you keep posting a 10 year old chart that has been repeatedly and very clearly debunked for using bad data that didn't account for orbital drift.
You are stuck with this one chart as all data from that source since is corrected and shows the warming in the tropics, in the clouds, as projected.

amazing

This year is likely to be an El Nino and we will likely be yet another record hot year.
You've been wrong for decades in a row and still think that maybe next year you'll be right.
Its the peanuts football kick endlessly.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2029875373576462780

Comrade ... Continuous use of electronic devices raises global temperatures. Everyone must make sacrifices for the greater good.

JohnLarue · Mar 6, 2026

Frankfooter said:
So you have a feeling that oceans have started to massively release CO2 but have nothing to back it up.

just scientific facts and Henry's Law

AI Overview
Yes, the natural exchange of
between the atmosphere and the ocean is a significantly greater volume than the
produced by human activities (anthropogenic ).
While human activities emit roughly 36–40 gigatons of
per year, the natural exchange (the "breathing" of the ocean) involves roughly 549 billion tonnes (549 gigatons) of
moving between the atmosphere and the ocean annually.

that is back up and back up you cant cancel/ ''debunk''

frankfooter the scientific literate who thinks he can 'debunk' scientific facts

And you have admitted CO2 levels are increasing but also have a feeling that the Greenhouse Effect isn't real.

what is wrong with you ?
i have never claimed the Greenhouse Effect isn't real
water vapor is the dominate green house gas
99% of the long wave radiation from the earths surface is absorb within the first 10 meters, then 6 to 10 billion collusions per second per gas molecule convert the radiative energy into kinetic energy , resulting in massive air volume movements ie work done
what is wrong with you ?

You are a clown, larue.
Your posts make no sense and are based on idiotic contradictions.

it is not my fault scientific facts and the fundamental laws of nature make no sense to you

you dropped out of high school and are a scientific illiterate and yet you complain science makes no sense to you.... go figure

talk about defining ''idiotic''

btw . perhaps you have not heard the climate models are deeply flawed

JohnLarue · Mar 6, 2026

Frankfooter said:
More feelings that what I posted is wrong with nothing to back it up.

wrong again -why are you always wrong?

AI Overview

Yes, climate modellers do tune their models to match historical trends, a process often described as "tuning" or calibration
. This involves adjusting uncertain parameters—particularly those related to cloud formation, aerosols, and ocean mixing—so that the model's simulations of the past (hindcasts) align with observed climate data.

so i do have back up
back up you cant cancel

Meanwhile you keep posting a 10 year old chart that has been repeatedly and very clearly debunked for using bad data that didn't account for orbital drift.

this has been explained to you multiple times, yet you still repeat it (what is wrong with you?)
the orbital drift issue was resolved many years before Christy published the 2017 graphic

You are stuck with this one chart as all data from that source since is corrected and shows the warming in the tropics, in the clouds, as projected.

no it illustrates the climate models are flawed, grossly over predicting the modest warming occurring in the troposphere
the troposphere, exactly where the greenhouse gas theory predicts warming to occur

amazing

what is amazing is you think you can type ''debunked '' to cancel scientific evidence
what is wrong with you?

This year is likely to be an El Nino and we will likely be yet another record hot year.

so you expect a natural phenomenon to cause warming this year, yet you strangely refuse to acknowledge the existence of natural variability
and you will post non stop nonsense propaganda blaming man kind for what you currently expect mother nature to do

what is wrong with you ?

''record year' is a term abused by the climate alarmism nutters

the accurate satellite data record is only 40 years and the flawed surface temperature data sets are a mess that is not much longer

odd how the 'new record year'' completely ignores the Medieval Warm Period, which, if the IPPC Report 1990 is to be believed, was even warmer than our present warm period.

Figure 25: IPPC Report 1990 page 202, Medieval Warm Period,

Loading…

www.ipcc.ch

May 2021, Dr. rer. nat. Markus Ott

i find it very odd that despite odd how despite decades of propaganda claiming the planet is roasting, record high temperatures for us states are dominated by the 1930s

AI Mode
Yes, all-time record high temperatures for U.S. states are significantly concentrated in the 1930s. Of the 50 states, 24 currently hold record highs that were either set or tied during the "Dust Bowl" era (1930–1939).

but frankfooter wont let the truth get in the way of a good propaganda lie

You've been wrong for decades in a row and still think that maybe next year you'll be right.
Its the peanuts football kick endlessly.

the climate models have been flawed from the get go
that happens when you try to model a pre-determined outcome from a climate system far too complex to model
i do not need to wait to be right

the climate models are flawed

JohnLarue · Mar 6, 2026

richaceg said:
You have championed every narrative that are destroying the society. maybe set an example by logging off and not using your pc that is made of plastic.

yes Frankfooter's objective is massive societal change (socialism / communism) and he is willing to pervert science to achieve this evil objective

Frankfooter · Mar 6, 2026

JohnLarue said:
just scientific facts and Henry's Law

We are talking about excess CO2 from oceans, not how oceans 'breathe'.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, made a ridiculous claim and then went to AI to see if it was true.

You really can't make it more obvious that you are clueless.

I'll post this, but you won't even know what they are talking about or what 'energy imbalance' is.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921573316071944422

Frankfooter · Mar 6, 2026

JohnLarue said:
wrong again -why are you always wrong?

so i do have back up
back up you cant cancel

this has been explained to you multiple times, yet you still repeat it (what is wrong with you?)
the orbital drift issue was resolved many years before Christy published the 2017 graphic

no it illustrates the climate models are flawed, grossly over predicting the modest warming occurring in the troposphere
the troposphere, exactly where the greenhouse gas theory predicts warming to occur

what is amazing is you think you can type ''debunked '' to cancel scientific evidence
what is wrong with you?

so you expect a natural phenomenon to cause warming this year, yet you strangely refuse to acknowledge the existence of natural variability
and you will post non stop nonsense propaganda blaming man kind for what you currently expect mother nature to do

what is wrong with you ?

''record year' is a term abused by the climate alarmism nutters

the accurate satellite data record is only 40 years and the flawed surface temperature data sets are a mess that is not much longer

odd how the 'new record year'' completely ignores the Medieval Warm Period, which, if the IPPC Report 1990 is to be believed, was even warmer than our present warm period.
View attachment 559767
Figure 25: IPPC Report 1990 page 202, Medieval Warm Period,

Loading…

www.ipcc.ch

May 2021, Dr. rer. nat. Markus Ott

i find it very odd that despite odd how despite decades of propaganda claiming the planet is roasting, record high temperatures for us states are dominated by the 1930s

but frankfooter wont let the truth get in the way of a good propaganda lie

the climate models have been flawed from the get go
that happens when you try to model a pre-determined outcome from a climate system far too complex to model
i do not need to wait to be right

the climate models are flawed

View attachment 559764

You posted an AI description of how modelling works as if it proves they are fake.
You really have no idea how anything works.

For instance, I'll once again post about AMOC shutdown and you will have no idea what it is, what the chart says or what the danger is.
All you will do is declare it fake and go back to your 10 year old dodgy chart that you know is wrong.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1961082431374537094

JohnLarue · Mar 6, 2026

Frankfooter said:
We are talking about excess CO2 from oceans, not how oceans 'breathe'.

??? WTF??

that failed attempt to try and dumb down scientific laws and molecular gas solubility properties just highlights your scientific illiteracy.

You really have no idea what you are talking about

,

you are the one trying to fake scientific understanding

made a ridiculous claim and then went to AI to see if it was true.

i have known co2 solubility has an inverse temperature dependency for quite some time
it is taught in high school science class.
its not my fault you dropped out of high school

You really can't make it more obvious that you are clueless.

Click to expand...

I'll post this, but you won't even know what they are talking about or what 'energy imbalance' is.

Total energy is conserved
An application of the First Law of Thermodynamics
Delta U = Q-W
importantly radiative energy is not conserved

are you really going to try and fake your way through thermodynamics ??
fair warning: there is no children's video for thermodynamics and your self embarrassment routine has already gone way too far

you are posting propaganda from a Club of Rome activist Leon Simons again
Total energy is conserved
importantly radiative energy is not conserved

Frankfooter · Mar 6, 2026

JohnLarue said:
i have known co2 solubility has an inverse temperature dependency for quite some time
it is taught in high school science class.

The Greenhouse Effect is taught in high school yet you don't think its real.
No sane person thinks the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are the result of Henry's Law.
That is an idiotic argument, so stupid that you had to use AI to find out what it is.

You can't explain why you think Henry's law would explain sudden and massive global release of CO2.
No scientist backs this claim, its just a really stupid idea of yours.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2029925130097291401

Frankfooter · Mar 6, 2026

JohnLarue said:
Total energy is conserved
An application of the First Law of Thermodynamics
Delta U = Q-W
importantly radiative energy is not conserved

Do you know what albedo means?
Do you understand that the amount of solar energy absorbed or reflected back to space can change?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2024560570075111824

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2029952648682565971

PM Carney considers Canada a 'leader in climate change’

dangling member

Well-known member

Your stairway lies on the whispering wind

dangling member

dangling member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

dangling member

dangling member

Well-known member

Your stairway lies on the whispering wind

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

dangling member

dangling member

Well-known member

dangling member

dangling member