There's even a query about That! Nothing in this is simple.. too many equations.

Zachary Smith says:
7 Aug 2014 at 12:58 PM
“‘We’re F’d’: Methane Plumes Seep From Frozen Ocean Floors”

vs

“An Arctic methane worst-case scenario”

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/an-arctic-methane-worst-case-scenario/comment-page-1/#comments

I’ll confess I can’t quite reconcile these two versions of Arctic methane releases.

He refers to this 2012 Gedanken-experiment:
An Arctic methane worst-case scenario.

It does seem wiser to extract some power, thus converting to CO₂ and exploring any remotely-promising New-means of attacking that/sequestering etc.

But the black-umbrella atop this most-intractable Problem ever, remains: The fatal defect of an entire Personal-Greed-driven mob of billions: already skilled in la-la-la intransigence, all fueled by ignorance even of what 'science' means. Combine the perpetual delaying-tactics, honed to perfection by Lawyers, the sole-focus of Finance: More-for-me/Fuck You..

Methinks it Will take a monumental-Class Horrific next event, ever to waken the sleepwalkers into some (stlll-confused twilight-state) ... maybe sufficient to counter all of the above forces united-in-Stupidity.
We seem to have to Hope for This! ... as the prerequisite for the damping of the ceaseless yammerers.. for long enough to introduce, for the first-time ever: Full/complete Int'l cooperation combined with a (reluctant) WIllingness of millions to personally cooperate. This, despite the profit-driven Waste-making engrams which Vulture-C has inculcated in everyone who Buys Things.

(Finance will simply sell short: yet More $$. Marianas Trench fodder should we ever become Serious.)

I go Pogo.

Wikipedia:

The contribution of each gas to the greenhouse effect is affected by the characteristics of that gas, its abundance, and any indirect effects it may cause. For example, the direct radiative effect of a mass of methane is about 72 times stronger than the same mass of carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total direct radiative effect is smaller, in part due to its shorter atmospheric lifetime. On the other hand, in addition to its direct radiative impact, methane has a large, indirect radiative effect because it contributes to ozone formation. Shindell et al. (2005) argue that the contribution to climate change from methane is at least double previous estimates as a result of this effect.

Methane is worse than I thought.

Welcome to IWETHEY!