> So if it is correct that methane needs about 10 years to convert a lot of methane into CO2 (see above mentioned article) and if the above mentioned image is right (where most methane looks like centered at the equator) and if this sentence is right (i.e. the methane gets distributed all over the globe within 2 months) then all three informations together look somewhat contradictory.
Perhaps the explanation could be that the image is for the troposphere whereas the 'rapid' mixing is for the stratosphere. This is just a guess.
> One should probably try to get a superwellknown artist to organize
About the art, I think it would perhaps be cool for artists to incorporate scientific themes in their work, but rather like this then the other way round.
With respect to
> that that scientific imagery would need to compete with perceptionally more direct accessible imagery, like young, naked women on sports cars
I think that there is simply a different public, and that such efforts are in vain. People interested in the latter will not become interested in science just because it would be accompanied by women. They may be interested in the women but then not more than that. (And this holds as well for women as for men)