On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:24:32 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and truly
****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.

please don't argue

there is also far more co2 than methane involved

what is 'run away gw?

It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.

...there will always be an equilibrium
point...

Prove it.


all numbers are meaningless without context

one equilibrium possibility is no humans


look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methanes effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if the
planets
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway global
warming,
the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the greenhouse
effect.

Remember that the first threat, with rising sea temperatures, is the
expansion of the water (and the oceans have lots of water). A 10 metre rise
in sea levels is going to inundate every coastal city on the planet and much
of the fertile crop growing lands.

Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the pedantic) into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which are both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not last more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be there much
longer.

a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

See above.