Wow...
I mentioned the IPCC. Have you ever turned to a single chapter of the AR4?
Here is one such chapter:
2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potentials
When I introduced my graph, I explained in effect, this part. Here is part of the linked material:
Look at this carefully: RF is 0.01413 W m–2 ppm–1. This means at the 378 ppm starting point, adding 1 ppm, will increase radiative forcing by 0.1413 watts per square meter. However, the chart below, and what the radiative efficiency has become is ppb. An increase in one molecule per billion rather than one molecule per million. The chart in the link has CO2 at 1.4 x 10[sup]-5[/sup] of increased forcing for the added 1 ppb. Please notice CO2 is the first line under "Radiative Efficiency (W m–2 ppb–1)." CH4 (methane) is next, at 3.7 x 10[sup]–4[/sup]. Now, if we divide 3.7 x 10[sup]–4[/sup] by 1.4 x 10[sup]-5[/sup], we get 26.4.
Oooops....
Looks like I'm wrong. It's more than 20 times greater, not more than 30. Closer to 30 than 20 though... Looking at molecule per molecule at starting levels.
Now look at my graph again. Please note how closely the IPCC numbers are to mine. My slope of 0.3664 on a ppm scale is 0.0003664 (3.664 x 10[sup]–4[/sup]) on the ppb scale. Very damn close to the IPCC number... My CO2 number is very close as well. 0.0141, or 0.0000141 on the ppb scale, (1.41 x 10[sup]-5[/sup].)
You have never provided a link, as many times as I have asked.
I think it's all in your head.
This audience is well aware of methane.
You haven't posted any links to support you contentions.
Is this a play to you?
I would like to add.
CO2 from preindustrial periods have increased by 36.3%, and CH2 has increased by 145.7%. Yet... the IPCC and other experts claim for this period, 1.66 W/m^2 of warming for CO2, and 0.48 W/m^2 for CH4.
Explain that... with the assumption CH4 is stronger than CO2.