I'm in agreement here with you. I'm not a proponent of raping and pillaging the land.
I loved and respected nature since I was a little kid.
I am a proponent of a balanced approach to using it. And there's a way to use it without destroying it.
When it goes to far to the left... or to far to the right is when things go haywire. Just like politics.
I also think (for whatever that's worth), as your chart you posted here shows, that a lot of the issues have to do with cycles in the system itself. Nothing to do with us.
I have seen catastrophes in my life here on this earth. And after a few decades, it seems there's no more evidence left behind.
Again... not an excuse to dump on it or in it.
I remember an article in Outside magazine back in the early 80's. Some guy floated down the New River in the Mexico/ Imperial County area. One of the more polluted rivers in the U.S. He tested the water in increments of miles from the other side of the border to the Salton Sea. His findings... it was badly polluted at the start thanks to Mexico dumping pretty much what they felt like dumping into it. The closer he got to the Sea, the cleaner the water got. It was in decent shape by the time it got further away from the border. Natures little cleansers were doing their job.
I'm not in favor of dumping in a river, the air or the land. But this earth does a pretty good job of fixing itself. Despite us.
After all... we're still drinking the same water and breathing the same air that was here from the start.
I remember doing science projects in grade school with rocks, gravel and sand. Filtering dirty water through it and ending up with clean fresh water in the end.
The same basic principles applied in rivers and sewage treatment plants.
You and I probably come from a pretty similar mindset/background. My Dad was a deer culler in the 50s and loved the Great Outdoors and riding his Indian to get there, with his 303 slung over his shoulder and his dog riding on the petrol tank. He set up the local hiking club and was active in a shit ton of activities, SAR, radio ham, etc. etc. He wasn't a petrolhead but some of his mates were and he ended up working in an engineering shop for one his mates before he died far too young from colonic cancer, probably from eating too much venison while living in the wild.
Location: Really deep in the heart of South California Gender:
Posted:
May 5, 2024 - 5:25pm
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Reply to KurtfromLaQuinta from the volcano thread:
I would agree that the whole GW debate has become very polemicised and frequently too simplistic on both sides. What is clear, looking at past extinction events, is that some trend set in to stress environments before the extinction event happened. In other words many species were already having a tough time of it and the bolide impact or vulcanism or change in ocean currents or whatever else it was, basically finished them off.
From that I draw the conclusion that it is not a good idea to stress environments. Yet we are clearly doing that. Deforestation, habitat loss, pollution, over-fishing etc. etc. is making life very tough for many species out there.
Now, if you add a bolide impact or a super-eruption to such stressed environments, you could indeed finish the remaining species off that we haven't already driven to extinction. My take is we should be better stewards of the environment. True we are but ants taking the perspective of an individual's lifetime - but as a species we are no different to a swarm ravaging everything in its path and we are making life tough for most other species out there. As one biologist put it, "I've seen what happens when a culture reaches the edge of the Petri dish."
In terms of life itself, this is not a problem. Life will survive in some form or other, no matter what we throw at it. It would just be a shame if we killed off sentient life in the process (worst case) or reduced our own habitat (likely case).
So, on the one hand, you are right. We are currently living in paradise. The world and life itself has never had it so good (see the chart below).. and yes CO2 levels were way higher in the Cretaceous than they are today.
But that doesn't mean we should trash the world we live in. We need to be better stewards and not see everything just from our own species-centric perspective. We should be trying to protect the natural environment as best we can for its own sake. At the moment we subjecting it to massive and even worse, sudden, stress.
That's my take on it.
To put things in perspective, here's a great chart from the Natural History Museum of Stuttgart covering the Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quarternary (our little bit)
To explain the legend on the right hand side, from the top moving down:
Green shaded = biodiversity (number of marine invertebrates)
yellow line = sea surface temperature
light blue line = O2 concentration in the atmosphere
dark blue line = sea level
grey line = CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
salmon shaded = extinction rate of marine invertebrates
The skull and crossbones are the last two mass extinctions.
I'm in agreement here with you. I'm not a proponent of raping and pillaging the land.
I loved and respected nature since I was a little kid.
I am a proponent of a balanced approach to using it. And there's a way to use it without destroying it.
When it goes to far to the left... or to far to the right is when things go haywire. Just like politics.
I also think (for whatever that's worth), as your chart you posted here shows, that a lot of the issues have to do with cycles in the system itself. Nothing to do with us.
I have seen catastrophes in my life here on this earth. And after a few decades, it seems there's no more evidence left behind.
Again... not an excuse to dump on it or in it.
I remember an article in Outside magazine back in the early 80's. Some guy floated down the New River in the Mexico/ Imperial County area. One of the more polluted rivers in the U.S. He tested the water in increments of miles from the other side of the border to the Salton Sea. His findings... it was badly polluted at the start thanks to Mexico dumping pretty much what they felt like dumping into it. The closer he got to the Sea, the cleaner the water got. It was in decent shape by the time it got further away from the border. Natures little cleansers were doing their job.
I'm not in favor of dumping in a river, the air or the land. But this earth does a pretty good job of fixing itself. Despite us.
After all... we're still drinking the same water and breathing the same air that was here from the start.
I remember doing science projects in grade school with rocks, gravel and sand. Filtering dirty water through it and ending up with clean fresh water in the end.
The same basic principles applied in rivers and sewage treatment plants.
Reply to KurtfromLaQuinta from the volcano thread:
I would agree that the whole GW debate has become very polemicised and frequently too simplistic on both sides. What is clear, looking at past extinction events, is that some trend set in to stress environments before the extinction event happened. In other words many species were already having a tough time of it and the bolide impact or vulcanism or change in ocean currents or whatever else it was, basically finished them off.
From that I draw the conclusion that it is not a good idea to stress environments. Yet we are clearly doing that. Deforestation, habitat loss, pollution, over-fishing etc. etc. is making life very tough for many species out there.
Now, if you add a bolide impact or a super-eruption to such stressed environments, you could indeed finish the remaining species off that we haven't already driven to extinction. My take is we should be better stewards of the environment. True we are but ants taking the perspective of an individual's lifetime - but as a species we are no different to a swarm ravaging everything in its path and we are making life tough for most other species out there. As one biologist put it, "I've seen what happens when a culture reaches the edge of the Petri dish."
In terms of life itself, this is not a problem. Life will survive in some form or other, no matter what we throw at it. It would just be a shame if we killed off sentient life in the process (worst case) or reduced our own habitat (likely case).
So, on the one hand, you are right. We are currently living in paradise. The world and life itself has never had it so good (see the chart below).. and yes CO2 levels were way higher in the Cretaceous than they are today.
But that doesn't mean we should trash the world we live in. We need to be better stewards and not see everything just from our own species-centric perspective. We should be trying to protect the natural environment as best we can for its own sake. At the moment we subjecting it to massive and even worse, sudden, stress.
That's my take on it.
To put things in perspective, here's a great chart from the Natural History Museum of Stuttgart covering the Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quarternary (our little bit)
To explain the legend on the right hand side, from the top moving down:
Green shaded = biodiversity (number of marine invertebrates)
yellow line = sea surface temperature
light blue line = O2 concentration in the atmosphere
dark blue line = sea level
grey line = CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
salmon shaded = extinction rate of marine invertebrates
The skull and crossbones are the last two mass extinctions.
China and 23 other countries already engage in significant weather modification. China is setting up or has already set up a level of rain control across Tibet and other parts of China. Tens of thousands of fuel-burning chambers will be installed across the Tibetan mountains, with a view to boosting rainfall in the region by up to 10 billion tons of rain annually. In 2013, China was already producing 55 billion tons per year of artificially induced rain. China is expanding this to over 250 billion tons per year.
That article is wrong on a number of counts. Thankfully they link to the original Forbes article.
They are not "burners" churning out yet more carbon, the way it makes it sound, but modes of deploying classical silver iodide seeding - a practice that has been used for decades, albeit not on this scale.
"simulating a volcano" is by no means that easy and even if it could be done, the volcanoes that reduce global temperature are the ones that pump out megatons of sulfate aerosols. These are not necessarily the big ashy eruptions (ash drops out of the atmosphere quickly), but SO2 rich volcanoes with enough oomph to pump aerosols into the stratosphere to stay aloft a long while and reflect the sunlight, like Pinatubo. Other geo-engineering ideas might sound like great easy fixes but when it comes down to it, the easiest one of all is to stop burning carbon and start a massive reforestation program. Technically neither are that difficult. The biggest problem is political will and entrenched interests lobbying against global warming.
China and 23 other countries already engage in significant weather modification. China is setting up or has already set up a level of rain control across Tibet and other parts of China. Tens of thousands of fuel-burning chambers will be installed across the Tibetan mountains, with a view to boosting rainfall in the region by up to 10 billion tons of rain annually. In 2013, China was already producing 55 billion tons per year of artificially induced rain. China is expanding this to over 250 billion tons per year.
Yeah, I think you largely nailed it. I think there were some here who believed that kurtster was trying to use methane as a FUD-inducing distraction about global warming. He says no, he was just trying to point out that it's not all about CO2.
That is correct. It was the only real point I was trying to make.
Well I can't follow this dog's breakfast of whinging about who has or hasn't recognised the importance of various greenhouse gases, with tangents into whether pollution you can't see is a problem if there has been improvement in pollution you can see.
So my summary of a few of the important points
C02 is the most important greenhouse gas - not the most potent, but has concentrations increasing at rates high enough to cause the greatest effect in atmospheric warming.
Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas because emissions are increasing fast enough to increase warming in spite of its shorter atmospheric half life than CO2.
There is a feedback mechanism that concerns many scientists regarding methane because emissions are expected to increase due to release from melting permafrost
There is active research in changing the feedbase to reduce methane emissions from ruminants but my understanding is that is unlikely to stablise emissions. Eating kangaroo is greener than beef or lamb I'm just not that fond of the stuff. Being vegetarian is better still, but, at least in Australia, there is a lot of land not suited to much other than pasture and you get into all sorts of farm economics arguments.
There is significant methane emission from fossil fuel production - double whammy. Flaring it off is probably better than nothing but continues to release CO2 and contribute to the problem. Don't hold your breath for the US EPA to make much headway on this issue. Not that the Australian government is doing a very good job.
CO2 is the most siginificant greenhouse gas (yes I said it before). If you accept that methane is a greenhouse gas, then you have no basis for rejecting CO2 as one. Bonus point: If you don't accept that methane is a greenhouse gas, you have no basis for rejecting CO2 as one anyway.
Yeah, I think you largely nailed it. I think there were some here who believed that kurtster was trying to use methane as a FUD-inducing distraction about global warming. He says no, he was just trying to point out that it's not all about CO2.
Side-thought: my guess/hope is that the best way to reduce methane from domesticated meat-providing animals is to tissue-engineer meat in a lab. While we wait for that to happen, we should eat less meat.
Again, miamizsun provided this link to a great op-ed/interview in the New York Times about the number of ways we can attack global warming. Thought I'd re-post it to get the general conversation back on track.
Well I can't follow this dog's breakfast of whinging about who has or hasn't recognised the importance of various greenhouse gases, with tangents into whether pollution you can't see is a problem if there has been improvement in pollution you can see.
So my summary of a few of the important points
C02 is the most important greenhouse gas - not the most potent, but has concentrations increasing at rates high enough to cause the greatest effect in atmospheric warming.
Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas because emissions are increasing fast enough to increase warming in spite of its shorter atmospheric half life than CO2.
There is a feedback mechanism that concerns many scientists regarding methane because emissions are expected to increase due to release from melting permafrost
There is active research in changing the feedbase to reduce methane emissions from ruminants but my understanding is that is unlikely to stablise emissions. Eating kangaroo is greener than beef or lamb I'm just not that fond of the stuff. Being vegetarian is better still, but, at least in Australia, there is a lot of land not suited to much other than pasture and you get into all sorts of farm economics arguments.
There is significant methane emission from fossil fuel production - double whammy. Flaring it off is probably better than nothing but continues to release CO2 and contribute to the problem. Don't hold your breath for the US EPA to make much headway on this issue. Not that the Australian government is doing a very good job.
CO2 is the most siginificant greenhouse gas (yes I said it before). If you accept that methane is a greenhouse gas, then you have no basis for rejecting CO2 as one. Bonus point: If you don't accept that methane is a greenhouse gas, you have no basis for rejecting CO2 as one anyway.
I do more than just read things and have far more other sources than Fox.
For years here, long before you became a regular here, I have tried to bring up other things including methane besides CO2 regarding this subject. Every time, 100% of the time, I get beat down and told that only CO2 matters. Why do you think I barely get involved in this discussion ? Do you see me in these threads on any kind of regularity ?
Finally there is a very credible source that mentions things other than CO2 and I decide to get involved again and support the things brought up in the article and once again, I get beat down and told that only CO2 matters ... that is until you give me a modicum of support on this thought. And now you take it away.
And geo engineering has been going on for decades ... But that is another subject entirely. And I get beat up on that too. I even started a thread on it 9 years ago, using that term. But now you bring up the term. What exactly do you mean by or consider to be geo engineering since you brought it up ?
So back to non participation and let the CO2 alarmists continue on their path unchallenged, as usual.
You'll have to point me to your past posts where you warn about methane. I believe you but skimmed backwards to 2014 in this thread (for such a serious topic, there aren't all that many posts here) and I don't think I saw posts from you warning about methane. (more of a shrug than a think, but it's late and I have insomnia). I did see this from you back in 4/29/14—I vigorously disagree with it btw:
What bothers me the most is how we are distorting our entire economy to address this in money losing propositions. We cannot overcome the foreign outputs of China and India and other nations whose priorities do match ours. So in essence we are only chasing our tails and bankrupting ourselves financially and even morally in this futile endeavor. The moral example is that it is now ok to kill eagles and other birds when wind farms are doing the killing.
That's not to say that we do nothing. Just not what we are doing now. We should direct our energy towards finding ways to cope and adapt rather than try and reverse it.
Change is the only constant in life. All this time, energy and money being spent to try and prevent change (or put the genie back in the bottle) is downright foolish and futile. Politicians and there masters only make money when something goes wrong. They do not make any money when they fix things.
Companies are actually making profits from solar panels and wind mills (solar panels less so because of the glut and uncertain state of federal subsidies and overseas competition). The solar energy industry employs a multiple of the people that the coal industry employs. Energy from renewables is cost-competitive with energy from hydrocarbons—would be more than cost-competitive if we imposed a carbon tax on hydrocarbons to reflect the costs caused by their pollution. If you're so hep to change, you might want to change your opinion of renewables. Companies are profiting handsomely from them. The money-losing proposition you want to be worried about is the coal industry. You might want to let your buddy Donnie know that as well.
India and China are not going to rein in their use of coal if they don't see a commitment from the US to rein in its carbon emissions. As things stand, China has the largest installed capacity of solar, wind and hydro electricity generation in the world. Renewables provide around 24% of the country's electricity generation. Unfortunately, coal still accounts for most of the rest of China's energy production.
"We should direct our energy towards finding ways to cope and adapt rather than try and reverse it."
I have no idea what you mean or propose in concrete terms by this, but I'll tell you this. Steve Chu is a brilliant man—a Nobelist in physics, a former director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and former Secretary of Energy. Chu once said that given our hydrocarbon consumption patterns, he didn't see how the coastal cities in California could survive rising sea levels. Do you think that we should cope with the loss of Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, etc?
Not everyone gives a damn about our polar ice caps or rising sea levels or dramatically changing weather patterns. But the destruction of major cities makes them wake up a bit.
Wow, you really don't read much about global warming, do you?
I assure you that the EPA, the IPCC and just about every other organization involved with global environmental issues have long been aware of methane's role in global warming. I studied global warming at the graduate level back in the early 90s and everyone was well aware of methane's greater short-term ability to contribute to global warming when compared to carbon dioxide.
There is no "CO2 fantasy" as you put it. GWP is an attempt to figure out which greenhouse gases are doing the most to trap and hold radiated heat. I don't know the whole story behind GWP20 vs. GWP100 but I suspect that part of the reason the EPA has used GWP100 is that methane breaks down into CO2 and water vapor, so it's possible that the global warming effect of a unit of methane in the atmosphere continues after that unit of methane has broken down into carbon dioxide.
We need to limit emissions of both carbon dioxide and methane. The science of global warming and the contributing gases has long been established and accepted.
"The impatience in dealing with this is causing us to not consider the big picture and misdirecting us into wasting resources." Impatience?!?! Are you f$%#in' kidding me? We are on the edge of irretrievably damaging our global climate. We may have to engage in serious geo-engineering to save our collective ass. I urge to stop getting your knowledge about global warming from FOX News and other denialist organizations and become better informed.
I do more than just read things and have far more other sources than Fox.
For years here, long before you became a regular here, I have tried to bring up other things including methane besides CO2 regarding this subject. Every time, 100% of the time, I get beat down and told that only CO2 matters. Why do you think I barely get involved in this discussion ? Do you see me in these threads on any kind of regularity ?
Finally there is a very credible source that mentions things other than CO2 and I decide to get involved again and support the things brought up in the article and once again, I get beat down and told that only CO2 matters ... that is until you give me a modicum of support on this thought. And now you take it away.
And geo engineering has been going on for decades ... But that is another subject entirely. And I get beat up on that too. I even started a thread on it 9 years ago, using that term. But now you bring up the term. What exactly do you mean by or consider to be geo engineering since you brought it up ?
So back to non participation and let the CO2 alarmists continue on their path unchallenged, as usual.
It gave me real hope that for the first time, real numbers and math were being applied to help define what the actual problem(s) is(are) and the real priorities we should set up. Up until now, all attention has been focused on CO2, to the point of emotional insanity imho. I grew frustrated by the refusal to admit that there is a greater and more pressing problem to deal with than CO2. I did not dismiss CO2 as a concern, just attempted to get its proper place recognized.
Wow, you really don't read much about global warming, do you?
I assure you that the EPA, the IPCC and just about every other organization involved with global environmental issues have long been aware of methane's role in global warming. I studied global warming at the graduate level back in the early 90s and everyone was well aware of methane's greater short-term ability to contribute to global warming when compared to carbon dioxide.
There is no "CO2 fantasy" as you put it. GWP is an attempt to figure out which greenhouse gases are doing the most to trap and hold radiated heat. I don't know the whole story behind GWP20 vs. GWP100 but I suspect that part of the reason the EPA has used GWP100 is that methane breaks down into CO2 and water vapor, so it's possible that the global warming effect of a unit of methane in the atmosphere continues after that unit of methane has broken down into carbon dioxide.
We need to limit emissions of both carbon dioxide and methane. The science of global warming and the contributing gases has long been established and accepted.
"The impatience in dealing with this is causing us to not consider the big picture and misdirecting us into wasting resources." Impatience?!?! Are you f$%#in' kidding me? We are on the edge of irretrievably damaging our global climate. We may have to engage in serious geo-engineering to save our collective ass. I urge to stop getting your knowledge about global warming from FOX News and other denialist organizations and become better informed.
Any insanity comes from dealing with the denialists and their constantly shifting rationales on why we should do nothing. Just a little while back it was "solar cycles, nothing can be done, let's burn all the carbon!". Before that it was "scientists said global cooling in the 70's, can't trust them, nothing can be known, burn all the carbon!" I think there were a few other iterations along the way, but they all ended with "nothing can be done, burn all the carbon!". So yeah, people are getting a little tired of the game of "hey look, we moved the goal posts, let's restart the discussion while the oil industry plunders away".
So I can count you in as CO2 is still the most pressing issue.
We deniers are not moving the goal posts, its you alarmists who keep doing it.
I've lived through the CT of Peak Oil. This CO2 fantasy will also end up being another CT in the end as well.
The impatience in dealing with this is causing us to not consider the big picture and misdirecting us into wasting resources.
It gave me real hope that for the first time, real numbers and math were being applied to help define what the actual problem(s) is(are) and the real priorities we should set up. Up until now, all attention has been focused on CO2, to the point of emotional insanity imho. I grew frustrated by the refusal to admit that there is a greater and more pressing problem to deal with than CO2. I did not dismiss CO2 as a concern, just attempted to get its proper place recognized.
Any insanity comes from dealing with the denialists and their constantly shifting rationales on why we should do nothing. Just a little while back it was "solar cycles, nothing can be done, let's burn all the carbon!". Before that it was "scientists said global cooling in the 70's, can't trust them, nothing can be known, burn all the carbon!" I think there were a few other iterations along the way, but they all ended with "nothing can be done, burn all the carbon!". So yeah, people are getting a little tired of the game of "hey look, we moved the goal posts, let's restart the discussion while the oil industry plunders away".
I'm jumping in here, so I may be missing big chunks of this discussion, but kurtster sorta has a point even though his numbers are muddled. Climate scientists have calculated methane's greenhouse gas effect in a way that takes into account its greater greenhouse-gas potency andits briefer life in the atmosphere. However, the EPA and others may be stretching calculation of that impact over 100 years and that may be way too long.
This link to an EPA page has an explanation of Global Warming Potential (GWP), a measurement that takes into account several factors about different gases to compare them. GWP according to this page is based on 1. how much of the gases are in the atmosphere
2. how long they stay in the atmosphere and
3. how strongly do they affect the atmosphere.
Thank you. You didn't miss much that matters. The point I was trying to make was based on this wonderful article shown below:
It gave me real hope that for the first time, real numbers and math were being applied to help define what the actual problem(s) is(are) and the real priorities we should set up. Up until now, all attention has been focused on CO2, to the point of emotional insanity imho. I grew frustrated by the refusal to admit that there is a greater and more pressing problem to deal with than CO2. I did not dismiss CO2 as a concern, just attempted to get its proper place recognized.
I'll try this one more time using your chart which if I read it correctly is the current distribution of GHG. Right ?
So CO2 comprises 76% of the current total and the others account for 24%. Am I right so far ?
So, if we only used the number for methane to apply for the whole 24% ... So according to the article, methane is at least a minimum 28 times worse than CO2 in terms of its affect on global warming. So let's see how this works ...
I'm not sure exactly how to get the numbers correct but I think that the 24% becomes 60% ± and the CO2 76% becomes 40% ± or a 3 to 2 ratio. I'm sure that someone with higher math skills than I can figure it out exactly, but I think that I am pretty close. It might even be closer to a 4 to 1 ratio or even a 5 to 1 ratio when that 2% F gas is adjusted for its minimum 146 times greater impact. I would love to see someone do the actual math.
This is in the present. CO2 while still a problem, it is already the lesser of the current problems.
Your position still is that CO2 is the greatest problem in dealing with GHG. Is that correct ? If we are talking about the present, it doesn't matter how long these gases remain, because the impact is constant over time unless mitigated because your composition number percentages will remain constant.
and you say ?
I'm jumping in here, so I may be missing big chunks of this discussion, but kurtster sorta has a point even though his numbers are muddled. Climate scientists have calculated methane's greenhouse gas effect in a way that takes into account its greater greenhouse-gas potency and its briefer life in the atmosphere. However, the EPA and others may be stretching calculation of that impact over 100 years and that may be way too long.
This link to an EPA page has an explanation of Global Warming Potential (GWP), a measurement that takes into account several factors about different gases to compare them. GWP according to this page is based on 1. how much of the gases are in the atmosphere
The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period. The time period usually used for GWPs is 100 years. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG inventory), and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases.
CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period used, because it is the gas being used as the reference. CO2 remains in the climate system for a very long time: CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last thousands of years.
Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years (Learn why EPA's U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks uses a different value.). CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But CH4 also absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The CH4 GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, such as the fact that CH4 is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is itself a GHG.
While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75 ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 28% of the warming CO2 contributes.
It strikes me that scientists have already taken into account methane's far superior ability to capture radiation and its smaller amounts in the atmosphere when calculating methane's global warming potential.
HOWEVER: if you were reading the above closely, you may have noted an inconsistency: Global Warming Potential is measured over a 100-year period but methane lasts only 10 years in the atmosphere, not 100.
But policymakers typically ignore methane's warming potential over 20 years (GWP20) when assembling a nation's emissions inventory. Instead, they stretch out methane's warming impacts over a century, which makes the gas appear more benign than it is, experts said. The 100-year warming potential (GWP100) of methane is 34, according to the IPCC.
There is no scientific reason to prefer a 100-year time horizon over a 20-year time horizon; the choice of GWP100 is simply a matter of convention.
The 100-year GWP value underestimates the gas's negative impacts by almost five times, said Ilissa Ocko, a climate scientist at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund. The quick warming in the short run catalyzed by methane can affect environmental processes, such as the flowering of plants, she said at the American Geophysical Union meeting last week.
"The short-lived climate pollutants that we emit from human activities are basically controlling how fast the warming occurs," she said. "This is because they are very powerful at absorbing radiation."
...
EDF and some scientists are calling on the United Nations and policymakers to stop relying on GWP100. They would instead like experts to use GWP20 and GWP100 as a slashed pair.
Because all GWPs are calculated relative to CO2, GWPs based on a shorter timeframe will be larger for gases with lifetimes shorter than that of CO2, and smaller for gases with lifetimes longer than CO2. For example, for CH4, which has a short lifetime, the 100-year GWP of 28–36 is much less than the 20-year GWP of 84–87. For CF4, with a lifetime of 50,000 years, the 100-year GWP of 6630–7350 is larger than the 20-year GWP of 4880–4950.
(more of a shrug than a think, but it's late and I have insomnia). 
