I apologise for the title but it is unfortunately typical of the standards used by Steven Goddard, which is all about Real Science - apparently.
This is what you get when there is some good news on climate change for once. It all comes from a piece that appeared on Real Climate called 'Much ado about methane'. This was mirrored in NYT's Dot Earth and also appears in a condensed form on Scientific American.
The good news is that it looks as if a catastrophic release of methane from the thawing Arctic is unlikely and that methane, though it is a more potent GHG than CO2 by some 72 times, will not be such a major player in future climate change.
The problem on Goddard's blog is that he claims he has been saying this for years, (and perhaps he has), by linking to one of his posts just 6 months ago, in the again imaginatively titled 'Methane Is BS'.
But what I don’t quite understand is why ‘skeptics’ accept this idea so readily when it is extensively based on modelling, yet reject the output from so much modelling as to have just proclaimed, ‘climate models have demonstrated no skill, and are nothing more than research projects’.
It wouldn’t simply be that this model tells them what they think they want to hear would it?