If what you claim is true then post a link to where your model has been used and a paper published in a credible scientific journal. Diplomas by the way are a long way from a degree and certainly a very long way from a masters or doctorate (which are about the bare minimum qualifications of any climate scientists). Maybe you could provide some links to the journals with papers which show that methane is much more important than CO2? As I said I am happy to discuss the science but it would be nice if one of you deniers actually posted links to the scientific papers that you are making your conclusions from. As you would know if you really are involved in science, as you claim, the qualifications of an author of a paper are extremely important as is the process of being published in credible scientific journals. If you are unable to verify the qualifications of an author and where they received those qualifications and they have only published their paper on the internet without any peer review then it should be viewed with extreme scepticism. So many of the supposed 'scientific' papers on the internet are anything but and are often posted by 'scientists' who received their qualifications from some fundamentalist christian institution in the deep south of the US. Would you trust such qualifications?

Where did you get your diploma from? As the following article attests it's really not hard to get a diploma or degree that requires little, if any, academic application. ;)

diploma mill - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

(I know it's just an opinion piece but it makes some very good points)

Methane is without doubt another important greenhouse gas and some of the largest contributors are the gas and coal industries. Efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will also flow on to help reduce methane emissions. One of the biggest emitters of methane though are wetlands. And recent warming in Siberia is turning what was once permafrost into swamps and wetlands. More warming will see more methane released which will excacerbate the greenhouse warming which will also liberate more CO2 from the oceans which will excacerbate warming. It is this scenario of runaway warming that is feared. The warming will continue until the ice caps are gone and our sea levels will inundate most of the worlds' major cities and vasts amounts of what is currently excellent agricultural land and causing the movement of billions of people. Plus major variations in the climate in what are currently the worlds' main food producing areas. This would obviously be catastrophic would it not? We know the earth can be a lot warmer than it is currently. Maybe some even want it to be warmer. What's important though is how quickly it changes. If it is reasonably gradual then we'll adapt a lot better than if it is rapid. We know the climate can change quite rapidly.

I have never claimed that I know everything because of some sheet of paper I have. More importantly I think is that I don't claim to know better than the most respected scientists in the world on this subject. It's people who do that, especially those that don't have any specific knowledge or qualifications in the subject, that I get tired of.

I would gladly give away any info you would need, if it wasn't for a small clause which I agreed upon at age 16, when we began the research under the military supervision (they had the only supercomputer in my country able to manage the massive amount of data for the model), so about 41 years left until it will become public.
What I can say are just hints, can't give any real data, but most of it can be found scattered on the net, mass per cubic meter of methane vs CO2, heat retention degree of methane, quantity of methane produced by one animal per day, and for this animals we changed the landscape which also has a pretty big part of it (for every square km of forest cut for agriculture fields, there is an increase/decrease of ~ 0.5 to 1 degree -per half year - in ~10 to 15 square km area*).

The speed of climate changes, we can't change it unfortunately anymore, just decrease the acceleration of it. Maybe we could have done it if we got onto that topic when the industrial era began.

*any increase/decrease influences atm pressure, which in turn creates winds, which in turn moves the water for cool down in other areas...

PS: Sorry, it was better if I would have said Olympic medal (even though it wasn't a physical one), instead of Diploma?

As I say if you want to debate some part of the science please post a link to a credible scientific paper that argues your point. We all know what the concensus is amongst the most eminent climate scientists in the world. To just tell me that what you believe is just from 'hints scattered' on the internet doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about the credibility of the imformation. Now I may have a science degree with a major in meteorology but I would be the first to admit this doesn't make me any sort of expert. I would only claim that maybe if I had gone on and received a PHD and then went on to work or do research within that field of science. I didn't so I am no expert but like any person who is not an expert in something I seek my knowledge on the subject from the experts. I mean I could easily write up something that looked scientific making all sorts of claims and post it on the internet and I could guarantee that there'd be some fools out there who'd quote what I wrote to back up their arguments somewhere. That isn't science. It's why knowing exactly what sites you are getting your 'hints' from is important and why I am asking you to provide links to the science you are making your conclusions from. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true or even remotely credible you know? ;)

Don't strain yourself with people who don't understand only the language of material, they worship the material , and they think that everything produced by the mind is right and is the absolute truth, even though they ignore that the mind misses a lot and succeed a little bit. a little bit.
Since you are separated religion from science you do not understand anything about religion.
How do you explain the presence of senior scientists from the Christians and muslims ?
Heavenly religion is a paper written by God , about the method of use of the human being and how you can use the mind and the heart and how to deal with the world.
Completely if a person buys a new machine must read manual to use.
The myths you are talking about is the " Earth" religion that have been invented by humans like worship stones .
Please don't talk about something you don't know .

Gonative; A Volcano pumps out more CO2 in a day than the industrialized earth does in a year. There are currently more than a dozen active volcanos right now. Each one is like a giant smoke stack straight from the earth's core.
I'm not against being a responsible owner of earth, but I'm not going to be bullied into tradeing in my car, changeing my damn light bulbs or keeping my thermostat set to 60.

The earth warms and cools, it has for eons and there's NOTHING mankind can do about it. I do agree that mankind can create local micro climates but good ol mother earth beats us hands down when it comes to macro climate.

Fr3sh; Your country was used and a abused..So? My ancestors were swiss, they were enslaved by the Austrians, abused and misused..same thing. They broke free and made something of themselves, I also have scottish and Irish ancestors, both were horribly mistreated by the British, some of them immigrated to the US. My great grandfather was a coal miner and was nearly crushed to death in a mine cave in. I joined the army to pay for school, was active dureing Desert Storm. The West didn't just "steal everything" we worked our asses off.

Yet your Excuse is "evil west polutes, steals and enslaves..whoa is me"? The only person who can fix your predictament is you. You can't expect anyone else to because they will want payment for services rendered.

Ryzorian please show me a link to your assertion a volcano puts out more CO2 in a day than all of industrialised earth. I have already posted a link to a very recent study which found that just last year mankind produced 135 times the CO2 than all the volcanic output on the earth (you obviously didn't read it). I mean it's easy enough to say just about anything on a forum like this but it seems you denialists have great difficulty substantiating your claims by posting any links to the 'science' that has informed your opinion. Please show me what makes you believe that one volcano can release more CO2 in a day than all of mankinds contribution in a year. It's difficult to discuss that further if I have no idea of how you have come to that conclusion. Or do you not want to discuss it? Like to treat your 'science' like religion? You just believe in things without any proof whatsoever? ;)

Any volcan web site shows this, a volcano can pump out millions of tons of CO2, amoung other greenhouse gases. In Fact, Venus wich is highly volcanic, is a massive greenhouse BECAUSE of those volcanos. This is common knowledge. Remember those massive die off's in Africa by those old volcanic lakes, a few years ago? A land slide disturbed the deeper part of the lake and released massive quantities of Co2 into the local enviroment...SO much CO2 that it litterally killed hundreds of people.

The eruption in Peru has put out so much debris and pollution it's shut down air traffic in the region. Penatubo in the Philipenes, when it erupted spewed out so much dust and gas that it actually droped earths mean tempature by a dagree over the next year..This is recorded information, go check it yourself.

Check out the timbora eruption back in the late 1700 to early 1800's..it was a caldara eruption..a super volcano. It was such a massive eruption it actually negated summer for a year. It's reguarded as the "year with out summer".

Man doesn't hold a candle to earth.

It's obvious that you aren't big on knowledge in this field of science and the fact you cant actually point me towards any study that supports your points is pretty telling. It's seeming like these points are just your opinions based on nothing but your ignorance.

Anyway if you would actually like to learn something about CO2 from volcanic and anthropogenic sources I really do encourage you to read the following

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

As you probably won't read it because ignorance appears to be something you consider a strength let me quote a couple of paragraphs

As I say if you would actually like to learn something about climate science (the real science) I'm happy to help lead you in the right direction. Because damn you seem rather lost at the moment. Not a clue at all.

Here's an interesting look at the psychology of climate change denial. I could link a whole lot of schololarly articles on it but I doubt you'd read them. This one has video which I'm going to assume may keep your interest slightly longer. May help to understand why you are the way you are.

Climate Change Denial

Either can be used as long as you put anthropogenic at the start. There is currently global warming going on and the climate is always changing. The point in the current debate is where mankind is enhancing and affecting the rate of climate change or warming. You need to specify anthropogenic to distinguish from natural cycles.

Have Co2 levels been higher in the past than they are today? And, what is the saturation point at which the "greenhouse" effect of Co2 abates?

As for methane gas, it really hasn't been increasing at all, has it? In reality, the level of methane in the atmosphere is declining.

Can you name a single one of the numerous UN climate models over the past two decades which has shown to be accurate?

There are numerous scientists and Nobel Prize winners who are skeptical of climate change are there not? Many of these scientists are climatologists and meteorologists, are they not? One is even the former head of the American National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, right?

Climate change is not "settled science".

Why would I go read psuedo science such as you suggested Gonative? Those same brilliant scientists thought Negroes were "gentically inferior" useing "Science" in decades past..

Everything I told you about those eruptions I learned watching Discovery, Science and Learning channle. I suppose they weren't "real scientist's right? That none of the measurements they took mattered cause it didn't add up to what your "scientists" data did.

That massive CO2 eruption in Africa by that lake REALLY happened, it factually killed hundreds of people. Timbora still caused a year with out summer, go visit the graves of the thousands who died of starvation that year. Penatubo still caused the earth's mean tempature to drop a dagree. Venus is still a massive volcanically induced greenhouse. These are facts you can't get away from Gonative, these events happened...and in the case of Venus are still happening as we speak.

The only thing man can do is enhance the natural global warming effect as it happens, we aren't "causeing it". It's like pushing a boulder down a mountain..gravity has more effect than your pushing does.

Based on what science? I can't discuss science with you if you can only make totally unsourced, baseless statements like above.

The biggest problem with your statement above is that from all we have learned about climate most of the natural factors that affect it are currently have a cooling effect. But we have still seen warming continue and last year was the equal warmest on record. Something like 9 of the top 10 warmest years on record were recorded since 2000. If anything it looks like the natural climate factors have helped to reduce slightly the rapid warming that is currently going on caused by us not that we are only enhancing an already warming climate as you claim.

If we aren't causing it then what is? Fine you believe there is some natural factor driving the current warming. What is that natural factor?

Many of the top listed years are also from the 1930's. Dureing the dustbowl. Besides, so what if several of the hottest years on record are in the 2000's?...Geee, how long we been keeping records?..less than 200 years? On a planet that is supposedly over 3 and a half billion years old you can't acurately reflect wether those climatical trends are normal or abnormal. At best, you have an hypothosis.

Again, The "who's scientist's are more correct" debate doesn't matter anyway. I'm not going to stop driveing the type of car I want, or use ac when I want or have the type of lightbulbs I want, or turn on my heater to 76 if I want.

You all can say the sky is falling all you like, I'm not going to get overly concerned about it.

And here we have you actually being a little honest for once. You really don't know anythng about the science. You've made some terrible attempts to use some 'science' to back up your arguments but we can all see how lame they are and how they have nothing to do with climate science at all. What it is all about for you is selfish greed. Regardless of what the science says you aren't going to change the way you live. That's what it comes down to. I love how supposed christians can be so incredibly selfish.

You see you are not a climate science sceptic. You are a denialist because you are not prepared to accept changes to your privaledged first world lifestyle. Your are terribly selfish as you don't care what will happen to others as long as your life is basically unaffected.

Your science is wacko science, I'm no more inclined to believe that than evidence that points to "little green men from Mars". Wich has as much credibility as yours does. Greed? Because I work for a liveing? I pay for everything I have. I have a right to enjoy life as I wish, same as anyone, who are YOU to enforce some code on me? Don't come over to my place telling me how I should live....isn't that what angers everyone else about the USA? Stange how it only applies to the USA, but not to any one else.

The highest temperatures for who?? Not my city. There were record low temperatures for that winter for my city.

We went from Global warming to eltrical planets that exspand?

Nippom I hope you realise that the link you have posted there is not a link to anything that could be viewed as credible science today. Ted Holden is a catastrophist which was a branch of scientific thinking in the early 19th century. It was something that evolved from the religious dogma of the 18th century, especially the tale of the great flood in the bible. It is opposed to the idea of evolution and supposes more of a succession of periods of fauna and flora on the planet that were wiped out by massive catastrophes. Although some great catastrophes have been identified in the history of the planet the theory as a whole does not stand up against how our understanding of the planet has developed since the early 19th century (our scientific understanding has moved on a bit since then!). It is a convenient theory for those of more religious backgrounds who can't (or won't) accept concepts like evolution but it is not a theory that is credible scientifically.

Where religion comes into it is from the very beginnings of the catastrophist philiosophy. Science in it's modern form where it is freely done without influence from religion really is only a relatively recent thing. Scientists (or philosophers as they were known) used to be persecuted, arrested and executed by the church. A lot of them were very religious themselves and attempted to find evidence that supported a more religious view of the world. Catastrophism is a failed line of science along these lines.

It's actually hard to find any scientific responses to Holden's claims, I think mainly because he is considered such a kook that it would only lower the integrity of actual scientists for them to get involved in debate with him.

Holden did once claim that he had found human skeletal fossil remains in carboniferous rock. He sent samples to the University of Calgary for testing and you can see a discussion of the results at the following link

Carboniferous human bones -- an evaluation

Of course Holden never admitted he got it wrong and probably still claims he has evidence of humans during the time of the dinosaurs. He is a creationist who has twisted science and resurrected an old branch of science that no longer has any validiy (a bit like say alchemy).

Basically there is nothing that Holden has written that you should take even slightly seriously.

If you want to read a relatively recent scientific paper on sauropods have a go at this

Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs: the evolution of gigantism - Sander - 2010 - Biological Reviews - Wiley Online Library

Technically earths magnetic field gets weaker ever year..if you add what it looses each year back to it and go back 4.5 billion years...the earths magnetic field would crush to death anything around today.

Gonative, there are many relgious scientists...particularly in the physics and astro physics side of things...They see cosmic design in much of the cosmos.

Omg this is such BS. The magnetic field would have crushed to death anything around today 4.5 million years ago??? LOL

Please, oh please show me the link to the awesome science that backs this up. I can't wait to see it!!!! LOL

At first I thought you were just another religious nutter Ryzorian but really you are taking things to a new level of crazy than I'm used to. Good for a laugh if nothing else!!! LOL

look up Lafayette, Louisiana in the USA 2010...Also there was a pond in florida that completey froze.

Record Low Temps | KATC.com | Acadiana-Lafayette, Louisiana

Record Cold | KATC.com | Acadiana-Lafayette, Louisiana

This is weather not climate. Weather extremes have been predicted to get more extreme (both hot and cold) due to changing climate. Beyond that it has little to do with the discussion here.
Global warming looks at average temps globally. Does global warming predict that warming will be evenly distributed throughout all parts of the planet all at the same time? No. Can some places experience cooling whilst the planet as a whole experiences warming? Yes. As climate patterns shift weather will also change. Some places that were dry may become wet and vica versa.

Yes, I know the poles shift every so often, the earth's manetic field is gradually getting weaker as well, we are gradually looseing atmosphere every year too, the moon is gradually getting farther away. Honestly, don't you know this? No wonder we can't communicate.

Whew!

The only thing that I could say is that, these are the effects of the people's neglect and burden of mother nature! It is all human's fault. I admit I belong to the human ofcourse. But as God's stewards of his creation, we must show and prove our care for the earth. We don't have to ruin it.

I strongly suspect that all of us are wrong and that life will continue reguardless.