Royal Spa

PM Carney considers Canada a 'leader in climate change’

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,797
5,055
113
Your AI quote does not say its non verifiable, that's just your ignorance.
you define ignorance
if they were verifiable there would not be a hot model problem

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.
you are repeating your blitherings / falsehoods

Give it up, you have no idea what you are talking about.
i have scientific understanding
you have none
it is not my fault you dropped out of high school

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

1773118879180.png
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,814
33,301
113
you define ignorance
if they were verifiable there would not be a hot model problem
Feedback and forcing effects are not a 'hot model problem'.
That's an idiotic statement that shows only your ignorance of the science.



 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,797
5,055
113
Feedback and forcing effects are not a 'hot model problem'.
sure they are

AI Overview
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.
The models run too hot
The ridiculous 2X feedbacks is an obvious driver of the excessive climate sensativity
and if you invent a term like "forcing" (as climate science did) and your models run too hot the theory embedded in the models is wrong.

That's an idiotic statement that shows only your ignorance of the science.
it is not my fault you dropped out of high school and have no scientific understanding

BTW the climate models are flawed

1773147819143.jpeg

the climate models failed the experiment

1773148023751.jpeg
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,814
33,301
113
sure they are



The models run too hot
The ridiculous 2X feedbacks is an obvious driver of the excessive climate sensativity
and if you invent a term like "forcing" (as climate science did) and your models run too hot the theory embedded in the models is wrong.
The models run too hot?
No, I keep showing you the readings that say warming is accelerating and we are hitting RCP 8.5.
They aren't 'too hot' they are accurate.

This science you deny has been known for 70 years now.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,797
5,055
113
The models run too hot?
No, I keep showing you the readings that say warming is accelerating and we are hitting RCP 8.5.
They aren't 'too hot' they are accurate.

no
AI has confirmed the models run too hot
AI has confirmed that RCP 8.5. is a not going to happen , improbableimpossible scenario


AI Overview

RCP8.5 is a high-emissions climate scenario representing the 90th percentile of no-policy, "business-as-usual" futures, projecting over

4 C of warming by 2100. Problems with RCP8.5 stem from its reliance on extreme, now-implausible assumptions—such as a 6.5-fold increase in coal use—making it an unlikely "worst-case" scenario. It is often misused as a likely, rather than extreme, projection.
misused by lying idiots


Major Problems and Criticisms of RCP8.5:
  • Implausible Assumptions: The scenario assumes a rapid rise in population with low economic growth and, critically, a massive increase in coal consumption. However, global coal use peaked around 2013, and the world has moved beyond such "business-as-usual" paths through technological innovation and policy.
  • Overestimated Emissions: Analyses show RCP8.5 overestimates near-term and long-term fossil fuel emissions, making it an "exceedingly unlikely" scenario rather than a realistic future.
  • Misuse as "Business-as-Usual": While originally designed to represent the 90th percentile of potential outcomes, it has been frequently mischaracterized as a likely "business-as-usual" scenario in media and some scientific literature.

it is not my fault you dropped out of high school and have no scientific understanding

BTW the climate models are flawed
1773149426545.png
 

Attachments

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,797
5,055
113
This science you deny has been known for 70 years now.

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


AI Overview
Yes, the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) has been widely identified by researchers and critics as having been misused or promoted as propaganda to exaggerate future climate risks
. While originally designed as a high-risk, low-probability scenario—representing a future with no climate policies and a massive increase in coal usage—it has frequently been mislabeled as a "business-as-usual" or "likely" scenario in media reports, policy discussions, and some academic studies.
  • Implausible Baseline
    Critics, including climate policy researchers, argue that RCP8.5 is essentially impossible, as it assumes coal consumption will increase by a factor of six by 2100, which contradicts current energy trends.
  • "Business as Usual" Misrepresentation:
    Despite studies showing that current and planned climate policies put the world on a much lower trajectory (closer to RCP4.5 or RCP6.0), the media and some scientists have frequently referred to RCP8.5 as the "business as usual" path.
  • Impact on Policy and Public Perception:
    By focusing on this extreme scenario, stakeholders may be creating undue fear, which has been described by some as "fear propaganda". It is argued that this misrepresentation is used to promote drastic "net-zero by 2050" policies.
  • Scientific Criticism:
    Even within the scientific community, there has been a push to move away from using RCP8.5 as a baseline in research, with experts noting that overstating the likelihood of extreme impacts can make actual mitigation efforts appear less effective
    .
  • Misuse in Media:
    Articles, such as those in The Mail on Sunday, have been identified as using this extreme scenario to create misleading stories about climate change.
just as i have stated

it is not my fault you dropped out of high school and have no scientific understanding

BTW the climate models are flawed
1773150031836.png
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,814
33,301
113
CO2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex , non linear, chaotic and dynamic climate system
Every day you admit that you don't understand the Greenhouse Effect and then declare the climate is too hard for you to understand.
Then claim you won the argument.

dunning kruger
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,797
5,055
113
Every day you admit that you don't understand the Greenhouse Effect and then declare the climate is too hard for you to understand.
everyday you misrepresent me and post nonsense

Then claim you won the argument.
i have won the argument

BTW the climate models, RCP8.5 and your climate propaganda are flawed
There is no climate crisis

1773152791229.png
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,814
33,301
113
no
AI is not my personal opinion, nor is it fantesy
1) You don't understand the science enough to put it in your own words.
2) You use AI because you don't understand
3) You post AI and don't understand that it doesn't say what you think it said

You are the poster boy for anti science idiots

Models showing warmer than expected is reflected in an increased rate of warming, which is putting us on the RCP 8.5 trajectory.
But you can't connect those ideas because you aren't smart enough.

 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,797
5,055
113
1) You don't understand the science enough to put it in your own words.
sure i can
its not my fault you cant cancel AI

2) You use AI because you don't understand
sure i do
its not my fault you cant cancel AI


3) You post AI and don't understand that it doesn't say what you think it said
no
AI confirms what I have been saying for many years
The green house gas theory predicts warming should occur in the Troposphere exactly where Dr John Cristy is taking satellite measurements
The climate models are flawed



You are the poster boy for anti science idiots
you are the poster boy for the deliberately deceitful spreading of climate alarmism propaganda


AI Overview
Pathological lying is destructive because
it erodes trust, ruins relationships, and isolates the liar, often creating a chaotic, "fake" reality that is mentally exhausting to maintain
that's not good

Models showing warmer than expected is reflected in an increased rate of warming, which is putting us on the RCP 8.5 trajectory.
But you can't connect those ideas because you aren't smart enough.
I am smart enough to recognize deliberately and intentionally spreading of bullshit propaganda

AI Overview
Misinformation and propaganda are destructive to society because they erode public trust, polarize communities, and hinder the ability to make informed decisions, often leading to real-world violence, health crises, and the destabilization of democratic processes
By distorting reality and exploiting emotional biases, these tools undermine the "common ground" of facts necessary for a functioning society

gee,
"" the destabilization of democratic processes"" now who would want to destabilize democratic processs ?
"undermine the "common ground" of facts necessary for a functioning society " now who would want to undermine a functioning society ?



you have been show many times that RCP8.5 is a not-going to happen scenario, yet you ignore reality and continue to deliberately and intentionally use RCP8.5 tospread misinformation and propaganda

AI Overview
Yes, the RCP8.5 climate scenario has been widely identified by climate scientists and researchers as being used to generate alarming or "worst-case" climate projections in media, activist campaigns, and some policy documents, despite being increasingly viewed as an unlikely or "implausible" scenario
I understand what the AI statements are and there is no question about what the AI statements mean

3) You post AI and don't understand that it doesn't say what you think it said
what is wrong with you?????


The climate models are flawed

1773245151867.png
.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,797
5,055
113
AI is less trustworthy than you and only slightly more trustworthy than the oil industry, buddy.
#1. A buddy is someone I respect
You are not my buddy

#2. How long do you intend on claiming your intellectual superiority over AI ?

#3 You are the least trustworthy individual I have ever encountered ....... by a massive margin

AI Overview
Pathological lying is destructive because
it erodes trust, ruins relationships, and isolates the liar, often creating a chaotic, "fake" reality that is mentally exhausting to maintain
AI Overview
Misinformation and propaganda are destructive to society because they erode public trust, polarize communities, and hinder the ability to make informed decisions, often leading to real-world violence, health crises, and the destabilization of democratic processes
By distorting reality and exploiting emotional biases, these tools undermine the "common ground" of facts necessary for a functioning society
gee,
"" the destabilization of democratic processes"" now who would want to destabilize democratic process ?
"undermine the "common ground" of facts necessary for a functioning society " now who would want to undermine a functioning society ?

Its such a shame you can't do your own thinking anymore, must suck to lose that much of your mind as you age.
no

you have no scientific understand, that is plainly and painfully obvious


it must suck for you that you cant cancel AI and try to destroy its credibility

Claim: Frank footer knows better than AI
Response:

:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
take a breath and wipe the tears of laughter away for a moment
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
catch a second breath and read the claim again
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
go watch a movie and then read frankfooters claim again
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

BTW way the climate models are not just flawed they are useless pieces of expensive junk

1773273982241.png

gee,
"" the destabilization of democratic processes"" now who would want to the destabilize democratic process Frankfooter ?
"undermine the "common ground" of facts necessary for a functioning society " now who would want to undermine a functioning society Frankfooter?

perhaps someone with 108,000 whining and complaining posts about western society ?

give it a rest frankfooter
your climate con is dead
nobody believes you
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,814
33,301
113
#1. A buddy is someone I respect
You are not my buddy

#2. How long do you intend on claiming your intellectual superiority over AI ?

#3 You are the least trustworthy individual I have ever encountered ....... by a massive margin
1) right back at you, buddy.
2) You don't understand how AI works or its issues either, do you?
3) You can't even say that I've said anything that is a lie, buddy, while you repeatedly post one 10 year old, fossil fuel funded chart of misinformation.

Its amazing that you think you are doing well here with your admission that you can't think of any arguments by yourself.
Your theory that things happen so climate change isn't real is idiotic.

 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,797
5,055
113
]1) right back at you, buddy.
a buddy is someone i respect
you are not my buddy


2) You don't understand how AI works or its issues either, do you?
it must suck for you that you cant cancel AI and try to destroy its credibility

so how long do you intend on claiming intellectual superiority over artificial intelligence??
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
3) You can't even say that I've said anything that is a lie, buddy,
no you have proven yourself untrustworthy
if you post it, it is pretty much assumed to be a lie
AI just confirms that it was a lie

why you chose to torch your credibility is anyone's guess

while you repeatedly post one 10 year old, fossil fuel funded chart of misinformation.
because it is experimental proof the climate models are flawed
the laws of physics do not change in a decade
it is not my fault you dropped out of high school and have no scientific understanding

Its amazing that you think you are doing well here with your admission that you can't think of any arguments by yourself.
no I have know for a long time the 15 micrometeor absorption wavelength was saturated and that Water vapour is the dominate greenhouse gas

Your theory that things happen so climate change isn't real is idiotic.
again you misrepresent me - What is wrong with you ?
BTW a buddy is someone I do not need to ask "What is wrong with you ? I have a strict zero buddy policy for ignorant idiots

i have never claimed climate change is not real
in fact i have told you many times
climate changes, always has and likely always will
you might consider you inability to comprehend what you have been told multiple times is almost assuredly tied to your decision to drop out of high school
again not my fault

but enough about me, lets focus on your lack of integrity, your lack of honesty and your lying problem


You are the least trustworthy individual I have ever encountered ....... by a massive margin

AI Overview
Pathological lying is destructive because
it erodes trust, ruins relationships, and isolates the liar, often creating a chaotic, "fake" reality that is mentally exhausting to maintain
AI Overview
Misinformation and propaganda are destructive to society because they erode public trust, polarize communities, and hinder the ability to make informed decisions, often leading to real-world violence, health crises, and the destabilization of democratic processes
By distorting reality and exploiting emotional biases, these tools undermine the "common ground" of facts necessary for a functioning society
golly gee, pretty nasty and repulsive behavioural issues
I sure am glad none of my buddies are that bent

"" the destabilization of democratic processes"" now who would want to destabilize democratic process ?
"undermine the "common ground" of facts necessary for a functioning society " now who would want to undermine a functioning society ?

BTW the climate models are flawed

1773291394226.png
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,814
33,301
113
no I have know for a long time the 15 micrometeor absorption wavelength was saturated and that Water vapour is the dominate greenhouse gas
Hey buddy, because you can't think for yourself and only respect the next word predictions of LLM's, I ran your theory on why climate change isn't happening through AI.Enjoy.
AI says its saturated but that has no effect on the Greenhouse Effect.
There goes another Nobel winning larue theory.

Yes, the 15-micrometer (
μ
m) absorption band, which corresponds to a fundamental vibrational mode of carbon dioxide (
CO2
), is considered saturated in the context of Earth's atmosphere. This means that nearly all of the infrared radiation (IR) in this specific, narrow wavelength band emitted by the Earth's surface is already being absorbed by the existing concentration of
CO2
.

Here are the key details regarding the saturation of the 15m band:


  • Peak Absorption: The 15
    μ
    m wavelength aligns with the peak emission spectrum of terrestrial longwave radiation (approx. 288K).
  • Atmospheric "Window" Impact: While it is a "notch" or band that is saturated, it is only one narrow window of the broader IR spectrum.
  • Effect of Increased
    CO2
    : While the center of this band is saturated, additional
    CO2
    can still increase the absorption on the wings of the 15
    μ
    m band (broadening the absorption), which contributes to further warming.
  • Water Vapor Contrast: The 15
    μ
    m range is relatively transparent for water vapor, meaning
    CO2
    is the primary agent for this specific absorption feature.
In summary, while the core absorption at 15 m is saturated, the atmospheric greenhouse effect continues to change through increased broadening of the band and effects from other greenhouse gases.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,814
33,301
113
i have never claimed climate change is not real
in fact i have told you many times
You've declared the Greenhouse Effect isn't real because you think CO2 is not the 'control knob' but then you say you believe the Greenhouse Effect is real. Which just means you don't understand it.

You've declared all science a fraud and that the planet isn't warming but now say you believe climate change is real. But that relates to your absolutely idiotic claim that the oceans are just spontaneously releasing a shit ton of CO2, despite industrial and anthropomorphic causes being incredibly well documented. This claim is based on your totally wacko idea that the massive rise in temperature on the planet is totally normal, natural and just what happens suddenly 10,000 years after the end of ice ages.

Now you accuse me of being dishonest yet you also can't name one single lie I've posted here.
You are a clown.

 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,797
5,055
113
Hey buddy,
A buddy is someone I respect
you are not my buddy

because you can't think for yourself and only respect the next word predictions of LLM's, I ran your theory on why climate change isn't happening through AI.Enjoy.
good for you

AI says its saturated but that has no effect on the Greenhouse Effect.
no it does not say that
i read your AI result and it defiantly does not say ''that has no effect on the Greenhouse Effect''
your AI result however does point out
nearly all of the infrared radiation (IR) in this specific, narrow wavelength band emitted by the Earth's surface is already being absorbed by the existing concentration of CO2
as i have been saying for a very long time
1773384477996.png




from your post

Yes, the 15-micrometer (
μ
m) absorption band, which corresponds to a fundamental vibrational mode of carbon dioxide (
CO2
), is considered saturated in the context of Earth's atmosphere. This means that nearly all of the infrared radiation (IR) in this specific, narrow wavelength band emitted by the Earth's surface is already being absorbed by the existing concentration of
CO2
.

Here are the key details regarding the saturation of the 15m band:
This is nothing new
  • Peak Absorption: The 15
    μ
    m wavelength aligns with the peak emission spectrum of terrestrial longwave radiation (approx. 288K).
    [*]Atmospheric "Window" Impact: While it is a "notch" or band that is saturated, it is only one narrow window of the broader IR spectrum.
    [*]Effect of Increased
    CO2
    : While the center of this band is saturated, additional
    CO2
    can still increase the absorption on the wings of the 15
    μ
    m band (broadening the absorption), which contributes to further warming.
sure with diminishing impacts due the logarithmic relationship between absorption and concentration

this part is wishy washy with a dubious 'relatively transparent

  • Water Vapor Contrast: The 15
    μ
    m range is relatively transparent for water vapor, meaning
    CO2
    is the primary agent for this specific absorption feature.
water vapour is clearly not transparent @ 15 μm
1773383621342.png

In summary, while the core absorption at 15 m is saturated, the atmospheric greenhouse effect continues to change through increased broadening of the band and effects from other greenhouse gases.

with diminishing amounts of incremental energy absorbed with increased concentration

H. Hug confirms Co2 absorption increased when mixed with other gases vs a pure sample of CO2 ,


1773381333238.png
1773381416853.png


its right in page 57 of Markus Otts paper so nothing new in your ''got ya' AI result

1773381540991.png

a fascinating paper
you should pick up a copy, right after completing a university degree in physics, chemistry , or maybe geology so you can try to understand
there is a lot of advanced physics, but nothing a university graduate in physics, chemistry , or maybe geology could not patiently follow along

sorry no children's videos available

your problem is CO2 has always been in mixture with other gases in the atmosphere, for a billion years or more
its a 78% N2 atmosphere and will be a 78% N2 atmosphere no matter how many PPM of CO2 are added

the nitrogen molecules collide with excited state Co2 molecules 9 billion times per second and rapidly thermalize the photons@ a ratio of 50,000 to one vs a re-emission

here are the absorption spectra
very little difference in absorption energy between 400 ppm and a doubling to 800 ppm Co2
Go ahead and use a magnifying glass to see the difference

1773372022324.png

the impact of incremental co2 vanishes away and becomes undetectable, with a thermometer
1773372454176.jpeg
that's the way logarithms work
its not my fault you dropped out of high school and do not have any scientific understanding

this has been explained to you multiple times

BTW, your climate models failed the experiment
the climate models are flawed

1773384132075.png

1773384220958.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Toronto Escorts