I found an interesting lie propagated by the Global Warming community, included the God-like IPCC. Let me explain, then could someone please tell me if I'm wrong.

Simply put, the IPCC says that Methane (CH4)is a stronger Greenhouse Gas than Carbon Dioxide (CO2). They are wrong. CO2 is a stronger greenhouse gas than
(CH4) by approximately 5.4 times. N2O is also stronger by an approximate factor of 3.4. Let me explain.

The IPCC claims from 1750 to 2005, that CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 379 ppm making a 1.66 ± 0.17 watt increase in radiative forcing for their graph. The numbers for (CH4) are from 730 ppb to 1774 ppb with a radiative forcing increase of 0.48 ± 0.05 watts. N2O values changed from about 260 ppb to 319 ppb with a radiative forcing of 0.16 ± 0.2 watts. Now when these are plotted properly with their logarithmic curve, the graphs for the three gasses are as follows:







Now the three graphs have no relative scale by themselves. Please note that I changed ppb (parts per billion) to ppm (parts per million) by dividing 1000. Here is what they look like on the same scale:



Source for IPCC numbers, 2007 AR4 WG1 Technical Summary

Now I think I know the "trick" they are using. If I take the radiative change vs. the change in gas concentration, I get the following, when incorrectly implementing a linear relationship:

CO2, a slope of 0.0168 watts per ppm

CH4, a slope of 0.460 watts per ppm (27.4 times CO2)

N2O, a slope of 2.71 watts per ppm (162 times CO2)

That's the nature of non-linear graphs when you dupe the unwitting public with "tricks."

Have I made any egregious mistakes? Anyone?