[QUOTE]and the US – which is not one of the warmer nations – uses more electricity to keep cool than all the other countries of the world combined[/QUOTE]
They never stop amazing me in their belief that they are the bellybutton of the Earth... I would advance a more realistic number, like 20% or so. Even less...

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/06/gaius-publius-clean-natural-gas-methane-lobby-help-write-epa-clean-power-plan.html] Gaius Publius: Did the “Clean Natural Gas” (Methane) Lobby Help Write the EPA “Clean Power Plan”?[/url]: [i]Obama’s energy plan ignores methane as a greenhouse gas. That reflects the Administration and EPA buying into Big Oil and “clean energy” propaganda so as to permit more fracking.[/i]
[quote][Quoting an analysis by Dr. Robert W. Howarth, Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology at Cornell University]
[i]Early in the Plan (page 19), the focus on carbon dioxide is justified by stating “CO2 is the primary GHG pollutant, accounting for nearly three-quarters of global GHG emissions[1] and 82 percent of U.S. GHG emissions.[2] [b]These statements do not accurately reflect the most recent and best science on this topic.[/b]

Footnote #1 refers to the [out of date] IPCC (2007) report and is based only on comparing methane emissions and carbon dioxide emissions on a 100-year time scale. In the more recent IPCC (2013) synthesis, the IPCC explicitly states that “[b]There is no scientific argument for selecting 100 years compared with other choices[/b],” and that “The choice of time horizon …. depends on the relative weight assigned to the effects at different times.”

Because the short-term dynamics of the climate system are far more responsive to methane than to carbon dioxide (UNEP/WMO 2011; Shindell et al. 2012), [b]comparing methane and carbon dioxide on shorter time scales is essential[/b] if we are to avoid warming the Earth to temperatures that greatly increase the risk of tipping points in the climate over the coming 15 to 35 years (see Howarth et al. 2014 and references therein).

At these shorter time scales, the IPCC (2013) states that the global emissions of methane are actually greater than (slightly, for the 10-year time frame) or 80% of (for the 20-year time frame) those of carbon dioxide in terms of their influence on global warming; [b]at both of these shorter time scales, carbon dioxide is responsible for less than half of global GHG emissions, not three-quarters.[/b]
[/i]
The Plan, Dr. Howarth concludes, is blind to methane and should be revised with methane in mind.[/quote]
Lots more good stuff in there on the EPA likely drastically underestimating methane emissions from various sources.

Whodathunkit? The near-exclusive focus by policymakers on CO2 until recently appears to have been seriously misplaced. And dramatically increasing CH4 emissions - as public policy embracing “Clean Natural Gas” will surely do - stands to increase AGW much more than simply continuing on the current upward trajectory of CO2 emissions/atmospheric-concentrations would, dire as the latter scenario is.

The whole methane situation gets really discouraging. The industry is a scary juggernaut here in Illinois. They are set on fracking and strip mining all they can get their claws on of the Southern Illinois, Shawnee National Forest area. Closer to Chicago, it seems that there is no stopping a fracking sand quarry right next door to Starved Rock State Park. Some of the most beautiful parts of the state are set to become sacrifice zones, like West Virginia.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;375551]< snip >

The near-exclusive focus by policymakers on CO2 until recently appears to have been seriously misplaced.[/QUOTE]No, not misplaced at all.

1) CO[sub]2[/sub] is present in the atmosphere in greater quantities than methane, by a greater ratio than the ratio of greenhouse effect per molecule of methane to that of CO[sub]2[/sub]. The same is true if restricted to only the anthropogenic emissions. Thus, the warming effect of anthropogenic CO[sub]2[/sub] exceeds that of anthropogenic methane.

2) Reduction of anthropogenic emissions of CO[sub]2[/sub] is a much bigger task than the corresponding reduction on anthropogenic methane. Devising and implementing methane emissions reduction policies should be a bit simpler after those for for CO[sub]2[/sub] are successfully in-place or on their way to be. Of course, there's no requirement not to proceed with both (and also other lesser-known greenhouse gases)

It's true that leakages from the recent surge in fracking have increased methane emissions by a greater ratio that CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions have increased over the same time period, and so methane now deserves urgent attention, but to say that previous focus on CO[sub]2[/sub] was "seriously misplaced" has no justification.

[quote]And dramatically increasing CH4 emissions - as public policy embracing “Clean Natural Gas” will surely do - stands to increase AGW much more than simply continuing on the current upward trajectory of CO2 emissions/atmospheric-concentrations would, dire as the latter scenario is.[/quote]Can you cite any scientific study or modeling results to quantify that "much more" contention?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;375641]No, not misplaced at all.

1) CO[sub]2[/sub] is present in the atmosphere in greater quantities than methane, by a greater ratio than the ratio of greenhouse effect per molecule of methane to that of CO[sub]2[/sub]. The same is true if restricted to only the anthropogenic emissions. Thus, the warming effect of anthropogenic CO[sub]2[/sub] exceeds that of anthropogenic methane.[/QUOTE]I am fairly sure you are right at present, though I haven't investigated in detail.

However something which concerns me greatly is that there is a large amount of near-surface methane which is kept out of the atmosphere primarily because it presently resides in cold areas. Methane clathrate at the bottom of cold and relatively shallow seas and methanogenesis in rotting tundra are the principal worries.

[b]If[/b] climate warming releases any significant amount of this methane we may be in for interesting times. Note that the Arctic appears to be warming faster than average at present.

[QUOTE=xilman;375647] However something which concerns me greatly is that there is a large amount of near-surface methane which is kept out of the atmosphere primarily because it presently resides in cold areas. Methane clathrate at the bottom of cold and relatively shallow seas and methanogenesis in rotting tundra are the principal worries.
[/QUOTE]Climatologists have been well aware of these dangerous feedbacks since the beginning of warnings about AGW effects. (Search skepticalscience.com or other AGW-scientific sites for 'tundra', 'clathrate' and "methanogenesis" for examples.) That's why it would be so valuable to keep the temperature rise as low as possible by taking measures to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions as effectively as possible, as soon as possible, and as much as possible.

Alarmism in the service of accurate realistic warning about a potential genuinely dangerous situation is no vice. :)

[url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/06/risky-business-climate-report-little-late-denialists.html]“Risky Business” Climate Report: Paulson, Bloomberg, Rubin, Schultz Late to Combat the Denialists[/url]
[quote]Those who have been involved in trying to raise awareness of the risks of global warming might have to repress a “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts” response to a [url=http://riskybusiness.org/uploads/files/RiskyBusiness_PrintedReport_FINAL_WEB_OPTIMIZED.pdf]new, accessible, and well written report on the probable impact of climate change on the US[/url]. The effort, called “Risky Business” has Hank Paulson, Michael Bloomberg, and Thomas Steyer, retired chairman of Farallon Capital, as co-chairs, with its other committee members including Bob Rubin, George Schultz, Henry Cisneros, Gregory Page (the executive chairman of Cargill), Donna Shalala, and Olympia Snowe. In other words, when Hank Paulson looks like the best of a bunch, there’s reason to be cautious.

Yet there is a lot to welcome about this development. This is a well-funded, hugely connected and respected bi-partisan group that intends to galvanize efforts to combat greenhouse gas emissions. It represents a long-overdue split in the elites. The Kochs and other denialists have succeeded in stymieing action by raising doubts about the origins and dynamics of climate change. The report is meant to demonstrate that the US is long past having the luxury of debating whether global warming is happening, and that a sober look at the seriousness of the outcomes says we need to do something, pronto.[/quote]

Crater in Siberia may have formed in a methane explosion
 

[url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/16/1314501/-Mysterious-Siberian-Crater-Found-at-End-of-the-World-May-Portend-Methane-Climate-Catastrophe#?[/url]
Excerpt:[QUOTE]Russian experts have ruled out speculation that meteorite impact might have caused the crater. The crater was certainly not caused by a meteorite because it has no central crater but instead has a deep hole. Meteorite impacts have far too much energy to leave an open hole. (Note: I studied meteoritics for my first year of graduate school.) Likewise any other extraterrestrial source would have far too much energy to leave an open hole. The impact site would be filled with ejecta. It doesn't appear to be a sink hole because the hole is surrounded by a rim of ejected material. Genarally, sink holes don't have elevated rims because they are produced by collapse of surface material into a preexisting covered hole. The ejecta appears to have been produced by an explosion. This crater formed in one of Siberia's largest natural gas producing regions. Permafrost in this area is melting in response to the rapid warming of the Arctic. The most likely cause of this crater is a methane explosion.[/QUOTE]

[url=http://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_26355983/emerging-solar-plants-scorch-birds-mid-air]Emerging solar plants scorch birds in mid-air[/url]:
[quote]IVANPAH DRY LAKE, Calif. (AP) — Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant’s concentrated sun rays — “streamers,” for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair

Federal wildlife investigators who visited the BrightSource Energy plant last year and watched as birds burned and fell, reporting an average of one “streamer” every two minutes, are urging California officials to halt the operator’s application to build a still-bigger version.[/quote]

Wind turbines are notorious bird killers, too.

(For that matter, so are housecats, but large wind+solar installations tend to impact higher-flyers, e.g. raptors and migratory birds.)

[QUOTE=ewmayer;380732][URL="http://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_26355983/emerging-solar-plants-scorch-birds-mid-air"]Emerging solar plants scorch birds in mid-air[/URL]:


Wind turbines are notorious bird killers, too.

(For that matter, so are housecats, but large wind+solar installations tend to impact higher-flyers, e.g. raptors and migratory birds.)[/QUOTE]

This might be an argument for parabolic trough collectors instead of tower designs.

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/09/oil-back-global-warming-president-presides-drill-baby-drill-america.html]Oil Is Back! A Global Warming President Presides Over a Drill-Baby-Drill America[/url]