Is This a Verifiable Claim?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I looked at the links you posted and none of them had a graph that went back more than 1960. That is an incomplete look at the history. I once found a graph that went back much farther and had both CO2 and Temperatures on that graph. That would be the best look at the whole picture. I also need to have verification of your info other than wikipedia. It ...[text shortened]... 4 links is excessive, especially since none of them was particularly useful in proving anything.

The Keeling curve is a graph of carbon dioxide concentration against time as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Since the observatory started operating in 1958 that is as far back as that particular data set goes. Below is a link to the observatories homepage where the Wikipedia page editor got his copy of the graph.

The difficulty with a graph of the type you are talking about is that it would be a synthesis of data from several sources.

When I post links I do not expect you to follow the links (actually link 1 and link 3 were the same due to an oversight). All it does is reference where I got the statistic from in case you dispute the particular number.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Methane is a fuel and when it is released into the atmosphere it is a waste of good fuel that could be burned.

That isn't where all the man made emissions of methane in the atmosphere comes from but rather only one of several and not the main source at that for it is beaten by landfill.
https://arizonaenergy.org/Data/where_does_methane_come_from.htm
"...Methane is emitted from a variety of both human-related (anthropogenic) and natural sources. Human-related activities include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (enteric fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of methane to the atmosphere. It is estimated that 60% of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities (IPCC, 2001c). ..."

And if you look at the graphs below that you see landfills produces about 80% more methane emissions than that from Natural Gas Systems.
And that isn't even to mention the amount from all the other man made sources of methane listed there.

The problem is not that it is burned, it is that it is not burned. It is hard to tax something that is not burned.

Why can't the suppliers of natural gas be taxed for the leaks they allow?

Originally posted by @humy
That isn't where all the man made emissions of methane in the atmosphere comes from but rather only one of several and not the main source at that for it is beaten by landfill.
https://arizonaenergy.org/Data/where_does_methane_come_from.htm
"...Methane is emitted from a variety of both human-related (anthropogenic) and natural sources. Human-related activiti ...[text shortened]... not burned. [/quote]
Why can't the suppliers of natural gas be taxed for the leaks they allow?

It is very difficult if not impossible to measure leaks.

Originally posted by @deepthought
The Keeling curve is a graph of carbon dioxide concentration against time as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Since the observatory started operating in 1958 that is as far back as that particular data set goes. Below is a link to the observatories homepage where the Wikipedia page editor got his copy of the graph.

The difficulty wi ...[text shortened]... istic from in case you dispute the particular number.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/

Here is a link with a graph of the entire 20th century. It takes a little getting used to the graph going farther in the past at the right instead of left but you can adjust to it.
Notice the part before 1940, that shows a warming, or the part after 1940, that shows a cooling? See the dilemma?


https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_100_yrs.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/#11caa5b42a4c

Originally posted by @metal-brain
It is very difficult if not impossible to measure leaks.

Although it is very difficult to measure and then estimate the amount of methane released by leaks, it is at least possible; one way is to just compare the exact figures for the amount of gas going into the gas pipelines with that used by consumers collectively according to their accurate gas meters. This is still very difficult but still doable.

How do you think the very precise figure of exactly 5,588 Gg of gas leaks from
https://arizonaenergy.org/Data/where_does_methane_come_from.htm
and many other independent sources for year 2001 was estimated? Do you think they just fabricated an exact but completely arbitrary and baseless figure? Obviously they based it on real measurements/data.

My link says;
"The U.S. inventory report provides a detailed description on methane emissions from natural gas and petroleum systems and how they are estimated "

and then see
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-natural-gas-leaks/
"Scientists have proposed other ways of estimating methane emissions from distribution systems...Cornell University researcher Robert Howarth and others have suggested using a number the government collects from every gas distribution company in the country. This metric is called "lost and unaccounted for" gas. The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration defines it as the difference between what the gas company sends out through its pipeline system and what gets metered at the receiving end."

So no special reason in theory why gas suppliers can't be taxed for that although I bet it would be very problematic to arrange; so much so not sure if it be worth it.

But, as I said, methane from landfills is a greater source. For that, recycling of organic waste (for biofuel and/or compost) may be the answer.

Originally posted by @humy
Although it is very difficult to measure and then estimate the amount of methane released by leaks, it is at least possible; one way is to just compare the exact figures for the amount of gas going into the gas pipelines with that used by consumers collectively according to their accurate gas meters. This is still very difficult but still doable.

How do you ...[text shortened]... ter source. For that, recycling of organic waste (for biofuel and/or compost) may be the answer.

Could they calculate that leakage by direct measure of the amount of methane in the atmosphere and subtracting what is a known source?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Could they calculate that leakage by direct measure of the amount of methane in the atmosphere and subtracting what is a known source?

I think that is possible (and has been done) but there are some difficulties;
Once a leak has being going on for some time before it is detected, much gas may have already escaped and dispersed over a vast area downwind for many miles making it then impractical to measure and quantify about how much has already escaped via direct atmospheric measurements. You would need to have billions of sensors literally all over the place ready and waiting for the next leak which could happen anywhere over the vast area where there is gas pipes.
But I know you aren't suggesting we estimate the amount collectively leaked from direct measurements of only the individual leaks.
Another problem is knowing how much methane is really accounted for by other known sources when the amount from some of those sources is only very roughly estimated.

Originally posted by @humy
Although it is very difficult to measure and then estimate the amount of methane released by leaks, it is at least possible; one way is to just compare the exact figures for the amount of gas going into the gas pipelines with that used by consumers collectively according to their accurate gas meters. This is still very difficult but still doable.

How do you ...[text shortened]... ter source. For that, recycling of organic waste (for biofuel and/or compost) may be the answer.

Funny how you can always justify a tax as the solution.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Funny how you can always justify a tax as the solution.

I don't. I merely implied the tax can be done, not that it should be. I have no personal opinion on whether it should be done as I think this is a very complex issue difficult to decide on rationally as, depending on the exact details of how it is done, there could be several unwanted and difficult to model economic side effects of such a tax that might unintentionally hit some of the poor people. Also, would the gas suppliers take action to significantly reduce leaks in response to such a tax? If not, there's less point in it. Either way, renewables (+perhaps some nuclear) is still the main solution, not tax.

Originally posted by @humy
I don't. I merely implied the tax can be done, not that it should be. I have no personal opinion on whether it should be done as I think this is a very complex issue difficult to decide on rationally as, depending on the exact details of how it is done, there could be several unwanted and difficult to model economic side effects of such a tax that might uninte ...[text shortened]... point in it. Either way, renewables (+perhaps some nuclear) is still the main solution, not tax.

I should have called it a fine, not a tax. It is not practical. Are you going to send people to measure manure piles and fine the farmers? Then raise the price of fuel needed for their tractors? Then you will have to pay more for food unless you want them to go broke. Many farmers have guns you know.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Are you going to send people to measure manure piles and fine the farmers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I was obviously talking about taxing gas leaks, not manure. And, even then, for that (gas, not manure) I just said "I merely implied the tax can be done, not that it should be". I am not promoting any kind of tax here. Please stop being dishonest.
I guess you couldn't find anything wrong with my assertions so you in desperation resorted to dishonest straw man by making them out to be something different from what I said.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I should have called it a fine, not a tax. It is not practical. Are you going to send people to measure manure piles and fine the farmers? Then raise the price of fuel needed for their tractors? Then you will have to pay more for food unless you want them to go broke. Many farmers have guns you know.

Satellites are doing the measurement now:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-satellites-that-can-pinpoint-methane-and-carbon-dioxide-leaks/

No need to physically go to some farm to measure methane from cow poop.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Here is a link with a graph of the entire 20th century. It takes a little getting used to the graph going farther in the past at the right instead of left but you can adjust to it.
Notice the part before 1940, that shows a warming, or the part after 1940, that shows a cooling? See the dilemma?


https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_100_yrs.html ...[text shortened]... ew-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/#11caa5b42a4c

"Temperatures have increased by about 0.5° C over the last 100 years. Most of these increases occurred in the first 50 years of this time period."

This statement (the first sentence of the webpage) does not appear to be correct based on the authors' own data. I didn't read the rest. Is the above statement correct?

https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_100_yrs.html

Originally posted by @humy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I was obviously talking about taxing gas leaks, not manure. And, even then, for that (gas, not manure) I just said "I merely implied the tax can be done, not that it should be". I am not promoting any kind of tax here. Please stop being dishonest.
I guess you couldn't find anything wrong with my assertions so you in ...[text shortened]... n resorted to dishonest straw man by making them out to be something different from what I said.

Gas leaks cannot be measured accurately either. It is a leak. Duh.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Satellites are doing the measurement now:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-satellites-that-can-pinpoint-methane-and-carbon-dioxide-leaks/

No need to physically go to some farm to measure methane from cow poop.

Measurements or mere detection? Get your facts straight.