You’re likely thinking of Methan’s global warming equivalent over 100 years which is 27-34. (34) https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/gwp-star-better-way-measu

You’re likely thinking of Methan’s global warming equivalent over 100 years which is 27-34. (34) https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/gwp-star-better-way-measuring-methane-and-how-it-impacts-global-temperatures#:~:text=The%20most%20commonly%20used%20metric,per%20molecule%20compared%20to%20CO2 https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/gwp-star-better-way-mea.... (27-30) https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin... As to how you weigh each it’s worth remembering that climate change often causes harm due existing infrastructure being ill suited to the new situation. 1m higher sea level rise 10,000 years ago would be irrelevant to us today because people would have built buildings based on the way things where. 1m sea rise in the future therefore is problematic because it renders infrastructure useless not because what the final sea level ends up being. Obviously some impacts are inherently harmful, but many things can be adapted to.