PM Carney considers Canada a 'leader in climate change’

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
The Greenhouse Effect is taught in high school yet you don't think its real.
for the 10th or 20th time i have never claimed the greenhouse gas theory is not real
being corrected for stating a falsehood is one level of stupidity , repeating the falsehood is reserved for the village idiot.


No sane person thinks the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are the result of Henry's Law.
no competent scientist will deny c02 solubility water decreases with temperature increase

That is an idiotic argument, so stupid that you had to use AI to find out what it is.
??
if it such an idiotic argument, why did AI confirm it as the truth.?

you define idiotic
you do not even think about the nonsense you post


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.
you do not pay attention
We are still emerging from an ice age
as oceans warm CO2 solubility decreases and the oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere

it is not anything a high school student could not understand
have you considered taking night school to try and get a high school diploma ?
it may alleviate some of your perpetual ignorance........ but i doubt it

the good news is CO2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex, non-linear, chaotic and dynamic climate system.

BTW
your climate models are flawed and your climate con is dead

1772861231821.jpeg
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
Do you know what albedo means?
Do you understand that the amount of solar energy absorbed or reflected back to space can change?
funny you should ask about that

John Clauser, a 2022 Nobel physics laureate, says the same thing
cloud formation can greatly impact the planets albedo and thus impact the ''amount of solar energy absorbed or reflected back to space''


unfortunately climate models can not properly model cloud formation

AI Overview
Clouds remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate projections due to their complexity and the fact that they form on scales much smaller than the grid size of global models


Key Challenges in Modeling Clouds:
  • Scale Mismatch: Climate models operate on grids of 50–100 km, whereas cloud processes occur at a millimeter-to-kilometer scale. Models must therefore use "parameterizations" (simplifications) to represent these small-scale processes.
  • "Too Few, Too Bright" Bias: Models often struggle with the balance of liquid water and ice, sometimes generating too many high-altitude ice clouds and not enough low-level liquid clouds.
  • Premature Precipitation: Models have a tendency to produce rain or drizzle too early in the cloud formation process.
  • Uncertainty in Aerosol Interaction: The interaction between clouds and small particles (aerosols) is a major, yet poorly understood, component of cloud formation, creating significant uncertainty.
  • Low-Level Cloud Struggles: Models struggle to accurately represent low-level marine clouds, which are crucial for climate sensitivity.
AI Overview
Clouds have a massive impact on Earth's albedo, accounting for approximately 50% of the planet's total reflectivity.
so now you agree albedo can change, don't you find it odd that climate models use a typical standardized value of 0.3 or 30% ?
AI Overview
The value of the average planetary albedo parameter used in the standard, simplified Earth climate model is typically
0.3 (or 30%).
that happens when there is a predetermined conclusion to falsely demonize anthropogenic CO2

oh well , just another flaw amongst many flaws of the climate models.

but thank you for asking


1772863222950.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaverickPunter

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,547
33,053
113
for the 10th or 20th time i have never claimed the greenhouse gas theory is not real
being corrected for stating a falsehood is one level of stupidity , repeating the falsehood is reserved for the village idiot.
You have repeatedly stated that you don't think CO2 is the 'control knob' of the climate.
You have endlessly stated that the greenhouse effect is not real.

20 years ago warming was projected to be 0.2ºC per decade.
Its now up to 0.35ºC.
That's RCP 8.5 or higher.


 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
]You have repeatedly stated that you don't think CO2 is the 'control knob' of the climate.
that's right, our climate is far too complex to be controlled by a trace gas with a saturated absorption spectrum

You have endlessly stated that the greenhouse effect is not real.
that is a lie and you have been told directly multiple times this not what i believe
Get some professional help to correct your pathological lying problem

do not misrepresent me

20 years ago warming was projected to be 0.2ºC per decade.
Its now up to 0.35ºC.
That's RCP 8.5 or higher.
yeah OK projections from flawed climate models
the climate models were flawed then and the climate models are still flawed

that happens when you are modelling a pre-determined false conclusion

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.
odd how they have a well known hot model problem and you say they have ramped up/ increased the model projections / alarmism

1772899761327.png
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,547
33,053
113
that's right, our climate is far too complex to be controlled by a trace gas with a saturated absorption spectrum
Back to denying the Greenhouse Effect is real.
That puts you in the most extreme of extreme science deniers.
Congrats.

And every time you say its too complex for you to understand is another admission that you have no right to declare you understand what's happening.


yeah OK projections from flawed climate models
the climate models were flawed then and the climate models are still flawed

that happens when you are modelling a pre-determined false conclusion
Right, you think the models are flawed and the measurements are flawed and the only true chart is the one 10 year old chart of faulty satellite data in the clouds and only in the tropics. The only one with the pre-determined conclusion here is you, where you think every single measurement and scientist is wrong because you are sure that you are right.

There are so many things you won't accept.
surface temperature readings
sea surface temps
satellite data from the last 10 years to today
glacial melt
sea levels
extreme weather events

You are stuck with one 10 year old chart and thats the only evidence you will accept.

While other major worries like the AMOC shutting down are just way beyond your comprehension.


 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
Back to denying the Greenhouse Effect is real.
no its real, as i have stated many times
why you think you can misrepresent me is strange, nobody believes you

what part of water vapour is the dominate green house gas is beyond your limited understanding ?

children who refuse to comprehend or are unable to comprehend what they have been repeatably told are the children required to repeat grades, twice if necessary
These children usually drop out of school at some point
This traumatic failure would explain your obvious inadequate education, your lack of common sense and your hostility to society / success


And every time you say its too complex for you to understand is another admission that you have no right to declare you understand what's happening.
no
our climate system is highly complex, non linear, chaotic and dynamic
far to complex for mankind to properly model

the experiment has been run
the models are flawed

1772953630657.png


get back to us when you have solved the Navier Stokes differential equation for turbulence. its worth a cool $1 MM to anyone who can solve it

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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.



Right, you think the models are flawed and the measurements are flawed
they are flawed
1772951741683.png



and the only true chart is the one 10 year old chart of faulty satellite data in the clouds and only in the tropics.
the models were flawed then and as confirmed by AI, they still have a Hot Model Problem and still can not model clouds properly.


The only one with the pre-determined conclusion here is you, where you think every single measurement and scientist is wrong because you are sure that you are right.
once again scientific truth is determined by experiment,
the models failed the experiment
1772951965261.png



There are so many things you won't accept.
surface temperature readings
they are incomplete, filled with errors, biased by the urban island heat effect and have been fiddle with
they are unacceptable

sea surface temps
this will be incomplete

satellite data from the last 10 years to today
if plotted against the fraudulent model forecasts reanalysis ..... sure


glacial melt
,
sure, we are emerging from an ice age
sea levels
sure, we are emerging from an ice age, they have been rising for a thousand years

extreme weather events
so glad you brought this up...... again
according to the IPCC

The IPCC has concluded that a signal of climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for the following phenomena:

  • River floods
  • Heavy precipitation and pluvial floods
  • Landslides
  • Drought (all types)
  • Severe wind storms
  • Tropical cyclones
  • Sand and dust storms
  • Heavy snowfall and ice storms
  • Hail
  • Snow avalanche
  • Coastal flooding
  • Marine heat waves
Furthermore, the emergence of a climate change signal is not expected under the extreme RCP8.5 scenario by 2100 for any of these phenomena, except heavy precipitation and pluvial floods and that with only medium confidence. Since we know that RCP8.5 is extreme and implausible, that means that there would even less confidence in emergence under a more plausible upper bound, like RCP4.5

You are stuck with one 10 year old chart and that's the only evidence you will accept.
why are you always wrong ?
do you think it traces back to the traumatic ordeal of having to repeat grade 3 because you could not comprehend the material ?

While other major worries like the AMOC shutting down are just way beyond your comprehension.
there are enough issues to be concerned with in life, we do not need you to invent new ones for propaganda purposes

grow up
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,547
33,053
113
no its real, as i have stated many times
why you think you can misrepresent me is strange, nobody believes you

what part of water vapour is the dominate green house gas is beyond your limited understanding ?
Now you say the Greenhouse Effect is real but you get it wrong and totally don't understand how it works.
No wonder you keep saying the climate is too hard for you to understand.

Water vapour is a feedback effect in the Greenhouse Effect.
CO2 is a forcing effect.

You don't understand the basics, buddy.

 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
Now you say the Greenhouse Effect is real but you get it wrong and totally don't understand how it works.
ridiculous ignorant slander is not scientific evidence


No wonder you keep saying the climate is too hard for you to understand.
no i say climate to far to complex for anyone to model properly

here are the experimental results
the climate models are flawed
1772995774672.png
Water vapour is a feedback effect in the Greenhouse Effect.
CO2 is a forcing effect.
No
water vapour is responsible for 90-95% of the absorption of Infrared radiation in the atmosphere
CO2 is responsible for a much much smaller and saturated proportion

So, the 90 to 95% gas is a '' feedback' to the miniscule gas in your strange world
So, does the cart push the oxen in your strange world ?
1772996434898.png

This is interesting
AI Overview

Radiative forcing was formally adopted and defined as a central metric for climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their first reports around 1990–1994.
a new scientific metric defined by the same folks seeking to prove / promote a pre-determined conclusion via a very selective literature review


You don't understand the basics, buddy.
you are not my buddy,
i need to be able to respect a buddy, and you just do not qualify
continually mispresenting me pretty much defines you as the complete opposite of a 'buddy'

as for the basics
  • they are called fundamentals in science
  • children propaganda videos do not cut it - it is well past the time for you to consider an educational upgrade
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,547
33,053
113
ridiculous ignorant slander is not scientific evidence

no i say climate to far to complex for anyone to model properly
You speak only for yourself, buddy.
Its very clear the science is way to hard for you to understand but that doesn't mean that smart people can't figure it out.


here are the experimental results
the climate models are flawed


View attachment 560356
That shitty chart was pulled apart 10 years ago when it was first posted.

This is a recent and accurate chart.



No
water vapour is responsible for 90-95% of the absorption of Infrared radiation in the atmosphere
CO2 is responsible for a much much smaller proportion
This is an admission that you don't understand the basic concepts of the Greenhouse effect.
You don't understand the difference between a feedback and forcing event.

You do not understand the science, that's what you just admitted, buddy.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
You speak only for yourself, buddy
Its very clear the science is way to hard for you to understand but that doesn't mean that smart people can't figure it out.
why are you always wrong
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:

  • Cloud Representation (The Biggest Uncertainty):
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.

  • Coarse Spatial Resolution:
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.

  • Computational Intensity and Data Bottlenecks:
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.

  • Incomplete Understanding of Feedbacks:
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.

  • "Right Answer for Wrong Reasons":
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.

  • Internal Variability:
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.

  • "Hot Model" Problem:
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.

  • Limited Observations for Validation:
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.

how long do you figure on claiming this intellectual supremacy over Artificial Intelligence ?


That shitty chart was pulled apart 10 years ago when it was first posted.
the climate models were flawed then and they are still flawed

the climate models failed the experiment

1772998078973.png






This is an admission that you don't understand the basic concepts of the Greenhouse effect.
You don't understand the difference between a feedback and forcing event.
So your cart does push the oxen in your strange world then
1772998348009.png
fascinating

You do not understand the science, that's what you just admitted, buddy.
no

get some professional help for your pathological lying problem
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,547
33,053
113
why are you always wrong



how long do you figure on claiming this intellectual supremacy over Artificial Intelligence ?




the climate models were flawed then and they are still flawed

the climate models failed the experiment

View attachment 560366








So your cart does push the oxen in your strange world?
View attachment 560368
fascinating


no

get some professional help for your pathological lying problem
I find it hilarious when you quote AI because its an admission that you don't know what you're talking about.
You can't even understand or explain what the AI said and whether those are real issues, larue.

epic failure.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
I find it hilarious when you quote AI because its an admission that you don't know what you're talking about.
You can't even understand or explain what the AI said and whether those are real issues, larue.

epic failure.
So, you find it hilarious when AI confirms what i post

odd, just a few posts ago you tried to forbid me from posting AI ( that was comical)
as you having trouble cancelling AI.
Artificial Intelligence cant be on Exxon's payroll and that left you with ........... nothing

you were also claiming intellectual superiority over AI
a high school drop out knows better than AI ?????? .... highly entertaining from a comical perspective , however in a word ..... NO

how long do you propose claiming intellectual superiority over Artificial Intelligence ?

BTW: the climate models failed the experiment and the climate models are flawed

1773018756830.png
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,547
33,053
113
So, you find it hilarious when AI confirms what i post
That's just it, larue.
AI did not confirm what you post.
You don't understand what the AI posted anymore than you can understand the science behind the Greenhouse Effect.

You don't understand what the energy imbalance means, nor can you understand the charts or science.
All you do is say its too complicated for you to understand.

 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
That's just it, larue.
AI did not confirm what you post.
it most certainly does.
it is not my fault you dropped out of high school and have no scientific understanding

You don't understand what the AI posted anymore than you can understand the science behind the Greenhouse Effect.
oh , i understand them
it is not my fault you dropped out of high school and think a propaganda video for children equips you with scientific understanding

You don't understand what the energy imbalance means,
already addressed
Total energy is conserved
Radiative energy is not conserved

and once again, it is not my fault you dropped out of high school and are unable to understand thermodynamics


nor can you understand the charts or science.
i sure do
this ''chart' displays the results of the climate model experiment
the climate models are flawed , as is all the climate propaganda produced from the flawed models

1773031736660.png



All you do is say its too complicated for you to understand.
if you stopped your perpetual lying routine and stopped misrepresenting me , you would know this actually what i stated

no
our climate system is highly complex, non linear, chaotic and dynamic
far to complex for mankind to properly model

the experiment has been run
the models are flawed

very different from saying too complex for me
yet you deliberately and intentional thought you could misrepresent me
and once again, it is not my fault you dropped out of high school and are unable to understand what honesty or misrepresentation are


Frankfooter, your climate con has failed
you are far too untrustworthy to fool anyone

it is time you stopped embarrassing yourself
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,547
33,053
113
it most certainly does.
it is not my fault you dropped out of high school and have no scientific understanding

oh , i understand them
it is not my fault you dropped out of high school and think a propaganda video for children equips you with scientific understanding
No, larue, you have no idea what you posted using AI.
Go ahead and summarize even one of the points and tell me what it proves and why you think its an issue.

Its like your total failure to understand the difference between forcing and feedback effects. That is incredibly basic and you can't even understand that.
Now you've had to outsource all your thinking to AI because you don't understand anything yourself.
That's sad.

 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
No, larue, you have no idea what you posted using AI.
Go ahead and summarize even one of the points and tell me what it proves and why you think its an issue.
i have multiple times
it is not my fault you dropped out of high school and have no scientific understanding


Its like your total failure to understand the difference between forcing and feedback effects. That is incredibly basic and you can't even understand that.
it is not my fault you dropped out of high school and have no scientific understanding

AI Overview
Feedbacks are a major challenge in climate models
because they introduce significant uncertainties. Key challenges include accurately simulating complex processes like cloud formation, carbon-cycle feedbacks (such as methane release from permafrost), and albedo changes from melting ice.
AI Overview

Positive feedback loops account for
a significant, often dominant, portion of the warming in climate models, generally acting to amplify the initial warming from greenhouse gases by a factor of 2 or more, with cloud feedbacks being a major source of uncertainty and amplification. The net effect of these feedbacks, combined with the initial radiative forcing, determines the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in models

AI Overview


In physical sciences,
feedback loops do tend to be negative because they promote stability and equilibrium within systems. Negative feedback acts as a self-regulating mechanism that counteracts or reduces the initial change or disturbance in a system.
Climate Alarmist had to invent non existent , non verifiable feedbacks in order to produce a propaganda worthy amount of warming by a factor of 2 or more
That is not science.
That is intentional and deliberate deceit

Now you've had to outsource all your thinking to AI because you don't understand anything yourself.
That's sad.
it is not my fault you cant cancel Artificial intelligence

you had better get use to Artificial intelligence exposing your lack of scientific understanding

what is sad is watching a pathological lair with zero scientific understanding misrepresent my posts and then pretend he has intellectual superiority over Artificial intelligence
it is pathetic to watch you disgrace yourself and revel your complete lack of honesty and integrity

why you have chosen to put your pathological lying on full display is a mystery
nobody believes a liar frankfooter
your climate con is dead

BTW the climate models are flawed
they failed the experiment
1773072084065.png
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,547
33,053
113
i have multiple times

Climate Alarmist had to invent non existent , non verifiable feedbacks in order to produce a propaganda worthy amount of warming by a factor of 2 or more
That is not science.
That is intentional and deliberate deceit
That's not what the AI said, larue.
You got it wrong again, but no surprise, you can't figure out the difference between feedback and forcing effects.

Why are you still arguing you are right when the temp has gone up for decades and you've been wrong every single year?

 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,796
5,054
113
That's not what the AI said, larue.

more pathological lying

here is the AI quote again
AI Overview

Positive feedback loops account for
a significant, often dominant, portion of the warming in climate models, generally acting to amplify the initial warming from greenhouse gases by a factor of 2 or more
non verifiable feedbacks in order to produce a propaganda worthy amount of warming by a factor of 2 or more

each time you post you illustrate why you failed out of high school

You got it wrong again, but no surprise, you can't figure out the difference between feedback and forcing effects.
sure i can
feedbacks occur in nature all the time
they made a Frenchman famous

AI Overview
Le Chatelier's Principle
Le Chatelier's Principle states that if a dynamic equilibrium is disturbed by changing conditions (concentration, pressure, or temperature), the system shifts its equilibrium position to counteract that change and restore balance.
Feedbacks in nature are generally negative due to Le Chatelier's Principle
odd how climate science needs a positive 2 X factor to produce the alarmism

as for radiative forcing, it was a term invented by climate science in the early1990s to plug a hole in their narrative

delta U = Q-w

Why are you still arguing you are right when the temp has gone up for decades and you've been wrong every single year?
i am right, i have verifiable science backing me up

you have trash internet propaganda you do not read nor understand

time after time you have proven you have no scientific understanding
and time after time you have proven you have no honesty or integrity

trying to intentionally deceive others is no way to go through life frankfooter

you are fooling no one other than frankfooter

BTW
The climate models are flawed and all your intentionally deceiving evil propaganda is flawed as well
1773113525184.png
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,547
33,053
113
more pathological lying

here is the AI quote again


non verifiable feedbacks in order to produce a propaganda worthy amount of warming by a factor of 2 or more

each time you post you illustrate why you failed out of high school
Your AI quote does not say its non verifiable, that's just your ignorance.
larue, you aren't smart enough to even know the difference between forcing and feedback effects.
You needed AI just have something to post but you don't understand what the AI says.

Give it up, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts