johnnyAU

Looks like most, if not all, of those ACE peaks are correlated with ENSO events, which makes sense.

She's an idiot, like many of the cultists

Coleman is a calm, highly intelligent voice of reason. We need more folks like him. Unfortunately, those traits have become an anomaly in our society.

No worries. I'm no MAGA, but I was technically referring to the Biden administration here. Although, in retrospect it could be applied to the whole of congress at this point and I expect the next administration, regardless of which candidate prevails.

You forgot incompetent...and in at least one case, incontinent.

Seal levels have been rising at an average of 2-3 mm/year since we began thawing from the ice age 11,000+ years ago. No amount of carbon taxes, political blustering or hyperbolic articles will do anything to slow it down.

It's like you're a child just discovering emojis. Perhaps you and Biden can go grab some ice cream together.

Well, of course you would. I'd expect nothing different from you. I'd choose the exact opposite. Anything is better than the circus in charge at the moment. We're walking the tightrope, and we're losing time at a break-neck pace. I'd MUCH rather have 2 very different options to choose from, but this is how far we've fallen. Three consecutive elections with ridiculous choices and no signs of improving.

BSME from Auburn University, PE, 30+ years in industry, partner in 2 companies, 1 science, 1 engineering, designed/installed instruments (and referenced by several scientific papers) at multiple universities/companies in US. And no, my name isn't "Johnny". What is your discipline?

That's 3 elections in a row with crap options. When will it end?

Biden is a puppet, and that was the intention from day one. If anyone seriously thinks he's in charge of anything, there's really no hope for you at this point.

Over-posting garbage is rhetoric of cultists. Spouting the same unscientific gibberish over and over isn't proof of anything, even if your belief in it is paramount. There isn't and never has been "consensus" on the magnitude of human influence on climate change because it is an unquantifiable measure. You have no legitimate science that backs up any direct correlation between emissions and climatic change. The mere existence of any attempt of trying to claim it without such proof is absolutely an indication of their own personal ignorance of the matter. To have any opinion, even though vetted through Nobel Prize winning scientists who happen to be leaders in the field of radiative physics, that is contrary to the overarching narrative brands you as a "denier" shows you exactly the mentality you are dealing with. Blind in scientific ignorance and ideology. Homer regurgitates but doesn't understand an iota of what he absorbs. It is the level of willing submission that we are faced with these days. Political science over real, quantifiable science...by any means necessary.

If anyone here is any more ideologically blind than you, I've not seen nor met them. The "studies" you have placed here are absolute garbage and they have been from the beginning from Cook and Orestes. The first was a paper by Oreskes claiming 75% of 1,000 or so papers she had reviewed agreed with the "consensus" favored by the IPCC. Klaus-Martin Schulte reviewed the paper and found that only 45% endorsed the "consensus". Then along came Cook who published his "97% consensus" BS. They "reviewed" 11,944 papers related to climate change. Their finding was "97.1% endorses the scientific consensus on climate change." In reality, 7,930 of those papers took no stance on the subject at all. Upon further review, it was found that Cook and his assistants marked only 64 papers of the 11,944 they had said they read as explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man made. 11,944 abstracts "reviewed" 7,930 gave no opinion 3,896 agree man causes "some" warming 64 agree man causes "most" of the warming 41 stated man caused "most" warming since 1950 0 were marked as endorsing man-made catastrophe So, around 33% agreed man causes "some" warming. Big deal, so do I. The disagreement is on how much and how severe. Less than 1% agree that man has caused "most" of the warming and nobody agreed we were in a "climate crisis". But, since that big ole "97%" number spouted off by Gore and later Obama resonated so much with apparently brain-dead sheep like you, well, they'll keep funding more of this garbage propaganda...because it apparently works.

I've already answered. There is no legitimate scientific consensus on AGW or that we are in any sort of "climate crisis". There is only consensus on whether or not humans have any affect on the climate. And on the latter I agree. We certainly have provided urban heat islands, deforested too much of the land, and certainly have not been as friendly to the environment or humanity as we should have. However, we have made significant technological strides on many fronts. We are safer from the environment and the climate than we have ever been. We'll continue to thrive as long as we don't do things as monumentally ignorant as continue to spray metallic aerosols in an attempt to reflect sunlight, shut down large farms to push lab grown meat and bugs, and prevent the use of affordable, reliable and available energy sources under the guise that it will have any significant impact on the climate.

You failed to answer the question. What will the ensuing atmospheric concentration of methane be after said release? How much higher will temperatures be due to this trace gas? The statements you quoted above are typical for cult followers to take as fact. "If", "could", etc... Quantify the effect. "Millions of cubic meters" is a useless metric when compared to the size of the atmosphere. You might as well provide its weight. It matters as little.

I know about the permafrost. Since neither you, nor any of your references have proven the amount of direct warming by the trace gas, pray tell exactly what will the concentration of methane atmosphere be after the release? It will still be a trace gas, and have an insignificant effect.

There is no real scientific consensus that either humans, CO2 or methane emissions are driving the Earth's climate or that any current warming is catastrophic.

Jesus Christ. Now open source Wikipedia is considered factual? 😂

Skeptical Science is the premiere source right? LOL Because they say so, and so does the political arm of the UN. 😉 Don't listen to those Nobel Prize winners tho. "Skeptical Science is considered an authoritative resource by the climate scientist community for rebutting climate misinformation, and is often listed by media sources alongside authoritative sources such as NASA and the IPCC."

Of course, you could listen outside of your echo chamber. Here are just a few with different takes on the subject: John Clauser, PhD Physicist, Nobel Prize, Wolf Prize William Happer, Professor Emeritus at Princeton, Davis-Germer Prize, Pioneer in field of optically polarized atoms and hyperpolarized gases Ivar Giaver, PhD Physicist, Nobel Prize, Oliver E. Buckley Prize Dyson Freeman, Physicist and Mathematician, Templeton Prize, Enrico Fermi Award, Matteucci Medal Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor of Meterology, MIT, Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, AMS Charney Award Steven Koonin, PhD Theoretical Physics, Judith Curry, PhD, Geophysical Sciences, Former Professor Emeritus and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech Of course there are many more. Start there. They sound really dumb. 🙄

LOL at referencing 2 government funded agencies. Methane is considered "more powerful" than CO2 on a per molecule basis. The problem is that there simply isn't enough of it in the atmosphere to do anything significant and its absorption bands are narrow and it is short lived. The total amount of methane may have doubled in a couple of hundred years, but then again it was a trace gas to begin with, and remains a trace gas today. Doubling nothing is still almost nothing. Here is the real reason methane is being demonized along with CO2. "For example, a key source of methane emissions in China is coal production, whereas Russia emits most of its methane from natural gas and oil systems. The largest sources of methane emissions from human activities in the United States are oil and gas systems, livestock enteric fermentation, and landfills." Yeah, attacking oil, gas coal and farms under the guise of climate change. The ultimate road to energy and food poverty. If these agencies really cared about the survival of humanity, they'd spend more of the money on mitigation efforts and providing developing nations with affordable, reliable and available energy sources. Having said that, I see nothing inherently wrong with capturing and harnessing methane and CO2 for use. However, claiming it will have an immediate effect on warming or the climate is not only folly, it's akin to tilting at windmills.

Methane, which exists at ppb concentration in the atmosphere does even less than CO2 and its entire absorption band is shared with and completely dwarfed by water vapor.

Ahh, it was only a matter of time until you fell back to the proverbial mythical consensus. Publishing baseless claims, conjectures and outputs from faulty and unsubstantiated computer simulations aren't proof, fact or necessarily convincing...but it is profitable if your funding relies upon it.

I didn't say it wasn't getting warmer. I said it isn't increasing too fast for humans to adapt. I also don't think it will continue to warm for the foreseeable future. We will hit another cooling cycle regardless if CO2 remains near 420 ppm or hits 500 or more.

No. It has an insignificant effect. Water vapor is increasing, but not due to CO2.