johnnyAU

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.

This isn't science, it's a collection of unfounded claims. What we have here is willful ignorance and driven by blind ideology and virtue signaling. You START off with references to the UNIPCC? The intergovernmental (it's in the name) panel on climate change is nothing more than a UN strong arm formed to influence and force policy. It's early stages were due to Margaret Thatcher's desire to kill the NUM and the coal industry to replace it with nuclear. The climate change myth (or GW at the time) was the perfect scapegoat to be used as a weapon. The money hasn't stopped flowing since, and neither has the propaganda.

Venus agrees that atmospheric thickness, density and pressure have more to do with it

I've read everything you could post on the subject. There isn't proof CO2 is the driver. BTW, crops have increased globally, not just locally. You and Homer are the ones who need to step outside of your echo chambers.

Show me proof the Earth is warming up too fast to adapt. Show me the proof that CO2 is the main cause. You can't do either. We are not in any sort of climate "catastrophe". In fact, what little warming we have undergone has been beneficial for growing crops. Of course, since cold kills many more living things than heat, a little less extreme cold might be welcomed by the ones that have been living in it.

No, it isn't

I follow actual, repeatable science rather than falling at the feet of the politically driven pseudoscience cult like yourself. Humanity has greatly benefitted from the availability, reliability and affordability of energy sources like oil, natural gas and nuclear. That has not only fostered the greatest era of technological advancements in history, but also all world and space exploration, leaps in large and small scale agriculture and medical care and believe it or not, forecasting and preparation for weather events. We are safer now from the Earth's climate than we have ever been in history. All great things not just for 1st world countries, but especially for developing countries. Thank you science, CO2 and fossil fuels.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a vital food for plant life, thus animal life. If it gets too low, there won't be life. It isn't now, nor has it ever been a "control knob" for the climate.

Our species is thriving better now, than at any other time in history. Thank you affordable, reliable and available fossil fuels. Like many other sheep, your head's been stuck up your blind, ideological ass for the majority of your life.

The world is not overpopulated. Culling the herd with famine, disease, energy, food and resource poverty, wars or genetic manipulation will not save the planet...because the planet isn't in danger. The constant doom and gloom propaganda from those who are trying for a global power grab under the guise of a global "common enemy" has become tiresome. Just wait until the WHO attains the power to mandate "climate lockdowns" because they have deemed it a "global health" emergency. If we owe our kids anything it's to fight back against willingly sliding into Oceania.

Yeah, things always stay the same historically right? They are just choosing to provide affordable, reliable and available energy sources to their population, rather than bend the knee to WEF and UN under the guise of CAGW. If anyone is fear mongering, it's you and the woke masses constantly peddling unfounded doom and gloom hyperbole. Fortunately, there have been decades of these types of garbage forecasts made, and none of them have come to fruition. Reality has a way of biting bad actor prognosticators in the rear end. The goal posts keep getting moved further and further, but folks have become tired of the rhetoric now. Building nuclear plants isn't doing nothing. It's doing the right thing. This idiotic push towards Net Zero will accomplish nothing with the climate, and neither will carbon taxes, 15 minute cites, ULEZ's, ESG or CBDC.

Perhaps China and India are the only ones correct about it, and move forward knowing CO2 isn't the "climate control knob" it's claimed to be. Certainly leading your country down the primrose path of getting rid of coal and natural gas before viable alternatives are readily available (or at least agreed upon) is a recipe for energy poverty and disaster. (See Germany, Australia, etc...) No, wind and solar are not now, and never will be viable alternatives to coal and natural gas. Nuclear is the only clear answer for the foreseeable future.

Neither water vapor nor CO2 trap heat. Heat isn't trapped. It's rate of release to space is somewhat slowed, but never trapped. Water vapor provides the vast majority of any greenhouse effect. CO2 at an atmospheric concentration of 4.2 molecules/10,000 (only 1.4 molecules/10,000 can possibly be attributed to mankind) isn't exactly a "thermal blanket". It's like an extremely sparse thermal spider web. It isn't altering the climate in any significant manner.

No, it requires science. Venus has 90+X the atmospheric pressure and density of Earth. Mercury has little or no atmosphere at all.