Fine. This we can take as an admission that the method described in #384 is not wrong at all. Not bad. It looks like iceaura has at least read the paper, and identified the trap behind my description of #384. It is, in fact, a well-established method, named , and, even more, this was the method used in the Berdugo et al paper: Feel free to support this claim with quotes either from Berdugo et al. 2020 or from other peer-reviewed papers. Until you do it, this is only an alarmist fantasy. I have explained many times the relation between the boundaries one sees in space and the thresholds. The thresholds are involved, they provide the causal explanation for the boundaries. This relation exists in the mountains as well as in the arid regions. I'm dealing with it all the time, using with the method described in #384 essentially the same space-for-time substitution method used in the article too. Which you commented in this way: As long as the change of the ecosystems follows the changing boundaries on the ground, most ecosystems will be destroyed only locally, they simply shift their location. And if there appear some natural borders like high mountains or the sea, human can help them. As explained many times, methane does not survive long time in the atmosphere. So, most of the "methane bomb" horror story is alarmism. What increases methane in the long range are permanent sources of new methane. Reassuring? No, it is simply funny. Such extreme alarmist fantasies are nothing but laughable. No. Every change will lead also to some losses. And to even more dangers of losses. And it is, of course, one of the aims of science to identify such dangers so that one can prevent them without losing something important. But neither civilization nor agriculture nor wilderness is under serious threat by the warming we experience now.