Continuation Global warming discussion V

[BrooklynBaby]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Looks like someone's going to have to explain the difference between 'climate' and 'weather'.
Again.

No, we hear that all the time, while the left pretends like every extreme weather event is the result of global warming. You know, like they are doing right now with the fires in Australia:

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...edented-fires/

Here's the left's favorite source for the truth about everything -- Politifact:

"Those claims about nearly 200 arrested for arson in the Australia bushfires are wrong"


https://www.politifact.com/facebook-...d-arson-austr/

[BrooklynBaby]

One more from the father of global warming, Al Gore:


This article is more than 8 years old

Al Gore: clear proof that climate change causes extreme weather


https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-change

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

Here's the left's favorite source for the truth about everything -- Politifact:

"Those claims about nearly 200 arrested for arson in the Australia bushfires are wrong"


https://www.politifact.com/facebook-...d-arson-austr/

Brilliant. Undermine your own argument.

Also, in an old book God promised he would lay off the calamities after he killed everyone once, save a few souls who got busy with incest, and a lot of people think the world is going to end soon anyway, because of their interpretation of the same book, so no worries, God's got it covered.

Now this *is* off topic, but it's hard to separate the strands when people trash Greta, and when told Greta listens to science, they trash science, then when people say the science is solid they go back to trashing Greta.

I just look at graphs showing atmospheric CO2 and the rise of CO2 emissions and wonder why people think that radically altering the atmosphere we've evolved with in a very short period of time can't possibly have any effect on the climate or on people's well being.

There's one way to find out and Greta stands a better chance of experiencing the outcome than I do.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

One more from the father of global warming, Al Gore:


This article is more than 8 years old.

And?

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Person 1: I know it’s not healthy to weight 800 lbs, but no one can tell me what I can do about it.
Person 2: Stop eating, start running. Ten miles a day. Begin immediately.
Person 1: If I do that, I will destroy my knees and probably have a heart attack. If I'm lucky, I'll live long enough to starve to death. Do you have a better plan?
Person 2: So you're denying that you need to lose some weight?

It reminds me of a post on Quora I made a while back regarding denialism.
I used this comedy show as an analogy:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Except of course I changed "eat less, move more" to "emit less, sequester more".

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Fair call but personally think a tax cut carrot to turn solar and find other alternatives beats the stick that will just end up hitting consumers.

Generally speaking, subsidies and/or externalities that effectively subsidise a product are not good things. They distorted the market away from it’s most efficient point and create deadweight loss which lowers overall productivity. You can sometimes justify them for social and fairness reasons but from a purely economics standpoint they reduce the total value of goods/services being produced.


Exposing consumers to the real cost of the products they buy though carbon pricing would be a much better way to change the type of products people buy.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

No, we hear that all the time, while the left pretends like every extreme weather event is the result of global warming.

The math says what it says, in this case it says many of these events are specifically caused by global warming.

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

You know, like they are doing right now with the fires in Australia:

“Arson” is just the latest conspiracy theory the right wing media is throwing out there to keep the sheep in line. Without global warming, even a deliberate large-scale arson campaign (which certainly doe not exist) could not do a tiny fraction of the damage the current fires are causing.

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Without global warming, even a deliberate large-scale arson campaign (which certainly doe not exist) could not do a tiny fraction of the damage the current fires are causing.

Obviously, the conspiracy has commandeered the same orbital energy weapons that were used to destroy the World Trade Center.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Exposing consumers to the real cost of the products they buy though carbon pricing would be a much better way to change the type of products people buy.

Maybe in theory...but I ran a rather unscientific "poll" on what people might be willing to pay to offset their carbon footprint.

The answer is overwhelmingly zero zero nada zip nothing 0.0.

Very angry zeros in fact.

This from people quite willing to pay 35$ a month or more on trash/garbage pick-up.

Carbon sequestration in the soil could be done much cheaper than that.....

So until public mood changes, you are just beating a dead horse. They won't do it unless forced right now. There is no convincing them at the moment.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

More strawmen? ...

Wrong - published science that shows Alan Savory is abysmally ignorant about climate:
Alan Savory's article is ignorant about the cause of global warming (it is CO2 not his fantasy of farm management).
A farmer/ecologist and his agricultural institute is a bad source of climate science and there is his obvious ignorance and no published papers!
Savory's idea of a reversal of global warming to pre-industrial levels is debunked in a Skeptical Sceince climate myth article which cites many papers including Nordborg, M. (2016).

You did not remember what you actually cited You cited 1 paper by Dr Christine Jones with no "MEASURED case studies AVERAGING 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr"!. It is an opinion piece about the "liquid carbon cycle" (carbon in fungi) with an unnamed "in appropriate circumstances" annual carbon sequestration number with no citation.

You are still cherry picking irrelevant papers and ignoring the papers that say that Holistic Management ^tm is not better than other methods in sequestering carbon. No published paper that states Savory's debated idea can reverse (that is the deluded part of his idea) global warming.

P24.40: Mitigating livestock greenhouse gas balance through carbon sequestration in grasslands (PDF) is a conference poster, not a published paper.

You still do not understand 'Nordborg, M. (2016). Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method' (PDF), described at Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. Section "3. Scientific studies of holistic grazing" is 8 pages starting with 11 published papers selected by the Savory Institute and studies they omitted. The conclusion is

Quote:

Based on the material reviewed here, there is only indicative evidence for the general superiority of holistic grazing over other grazing systems or no grazing.

Then Nordborg looked at Savory's idea that HM can "atmospheric carbon dioxide levels can drop to pre-industrial levels in a few decades" which was already dubious - see Briske et al. (2013;2014) and Carter et al. (2014).

Conant et al. (2010) found an average carbon sequestration rate for 'improved grazing' that was 7 time smaller than the Savory Institute values. That published science debunks the claim of the Savory Institute !

No one disagrees that improved farming techniques can play a role in mitigating global warming. What the scientific literature states is that this is a small mitigation. Carbon sequestration - Agriculture

Quote:

Modification of agricultural practices is a recognized method of carbon sequestration as soil can act as an effective carbon sink offsetting as much as 20% of 2010 carbon dioxide emissions annually.[30] (See No-till). Restoration of organic farming and earthworms may entirely offset CO2 annual carbon excess of 4 Gt per year and drawdown the residual atmospheric excess.[31] (See Compost).

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Maybe in theory...but I ran a rather unscientific "poll" on what people might be willing to pay to offset their carbon footprint.

You asked people if they want free stuff and they said yes? I’m shocked, never in my life have I heard of people wanting free stuff.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

----snipped massive denialist logic fails by RC----

Quote:

"These sources report the sequestration of extra C from
regenerative management of between –2 and –4 t C ha–1 y–1 (–0.89 and –1.78 tn C ac–1 yr–1) compared to current management alternatives so we calculate GHG emission mitigation by regenerative, conservation grazing and cropping at –3 t C ha–1 y–1 (–1.2 tn C ac–1 yr–1; figures 1 and 2)"

Source:
The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America W.R. Teague, S. Apfelbaum, R. Lal, U.P. Kreuter, J. Rowntree, C.A. Davies, R. Conser, M. Rasmussen, J. Hatfield, T. Wang, F. Wang, and P. Byck JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION MARCH/APRIL 2016 —VOL. 71, NO. 2

oops, published results trump your hocus pocus assumptions once again. Nordborg, Briske, and all the rest of the denialists who base their conclusions on assumptions and estimates and whoever "Seb V" is over at skeptical science (I suspect a Vegan with a chip on their shoulder)are all FALSIFIED by measured results.

See that's the great thing about science. The whole falsification of hypothesis thing. Learn to love it, not hate it.

It's been done, it's been measured, it's been peer reviewed and published. Now any assumptions estimates and hypotheses that claimed it was impossible are all falsified...hard. Time to make a new hypothesis.

You don't get to go back. Neither do your other denialists you list.

It's kinda like controlled flight after the Wright Brothers. Once they did it, none of the people who said it couldn't be done matter any more. The only thing left after that is to try and determine exactly how far it can be taken.

So once again, take your denialism and shove it. I am really tired of repeating this over and over to you.

You want to reverse AGW? reduce emissions and sequester more.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

No, we hear that all the time, while the left pretends like every extreme weather event is the result of global warming. You know, like they are doing right now with the fires in Australia:

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...edented-fires/

Your links actually disprove your point:

Quote:

“Extreme fire weather days have increased at 24 out of 38 Australian sites from 1973-2010, due to warmer and drier conditions … [forest fire danger index] increase across southeast Australia is characterised by an extension of the fire season further into spring and autumn … partly driven by temperature increases that are attributable to climate change.”

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

Here's the left's favorite source for the truth about everything -- Politifact:

"Those claims about nearly 200 arrested for arson in the Australia bushfires are wrong"


https://www.politifact.com/facebook-...d-arson-austr/

Same again here:

Quote:

Climate change is "not the cause of bushfires, but scientists have long warned that a hotter, drier climate would contribute to Australia's fires becoming more frequent and more intense."

Was this your intention, or are you just not very good at constructing strawmen?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

...

More of the same cherry picking and a "massive denialist logic fails by RC" lie.
Published scientific papers deny Savory's unpublished claims and I agree with the scientific evidence that they present.
Savory's idea of a reversal of global warming to pre-industrial levels is debunked in a Skeptical Sceince climate myth article which cites many papers including Nordborg, M. (2016).

Savory is blatantly ignorant about climate science and a bad source of climate science:
Alan Savory's article is ignorant about the cause of global warming (it is CO2 not his fantasy of farm management).
A farmer/ecologist and his agricultural institute is a bad source of climate science and there is his obvious ignorance and no published papers!

I have cited the scientific evidence on agricultural carbon sequestration mitigating (not reversing) global warming.

The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America by Teague, et. al (2016) does not say there will be "reversal of global warming to pre-industrial levels" which is Savory's claim. Teague, et. al (2016) cites current sequestration rates of up to 4 tonnes of C per ha year in the sources and uses 3 tonnes of C per ha year. Nordborg, M. (2016) starts with 3.8 tonnes of C per ha and year before HM is introduced and does a calculation over the next 100 years including the known fact that the soil carbon sequestration rate decreases to get 0.76 tonnes of C per ha year (less than 10% of current annual emissions). Teague et.al. (2016) debunks Savory's claim which needs ~8 tonnes of C per ha year just to remove current CO2 emissions!

[Reality Check]

Savory's idea is that converting a billion hectares to his HM will cause reversal of global warming by sequestering C in soil and reducing atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels.

Skeptical Sceince article with many references: Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change

Quote:

Multiple scientific studies from climate scientists and agricultural specialists show little or no significant gain in carbon sequestration on soils managed holistically to those with other grazing techniques. Even under the most favourable conditions, Holistic Management (HM) alone can only slow climate change by a small percentage, over a limited period, and certainly cannot reverse climate change.

The "little or no significant " is a bit exaggerated. It should be "not enough to support Savory's claim".

Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method by Nordborg, M. (2016). (PDF), described at Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method.

The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America by Teague, et. al (2016) has 3 tonnes of C per ha year sequesters which debunks Savory's claim which needs ~8 tonnes of C per ha year just to remove current CO2 emissions!

Nordborg, M. (2016) also makes the point that it is invalid to not account for emissions of methane from cattle. It is well established that the increasing concentration of methane in the atmosphere can largely be attributed
to the world’s increasing livestock population. This is something the Savory Institute tries to deny.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Savory's idea is that converting a billion hectares to his HM will cause reversal of global warming by sequestering C in soil and reducing atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels.

Skeptical Sceince article with many references: Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change

That article by Seb V over at skeptical science is wrong. Now you have continued to repeat the error.

I already explained it to you where the mistake was made.
So stop being so pig headed please. The article claims the Savory thinks only some sort of grazing changes would reverse AGW. This is false, and indicates a profound lack of understanding of holistic management. Savory has never claimed that ONLY grazing could reverse global warming. NEVER

Savory claims the eight tools for managing natural resources are money/labor, human creativity, grazing, animal impact, fire, rest, living organisms and science/technology. To be successful you need to use all these tools to the best of your ability.

So both you and Seb v made the same error in assuming when Savory claims only a holistic management using all the tools available to us can reverse global warming, he is talking about the broader holistic management, rather than the subset of holistic planned grazing. HM is not the same as or HPG.

More proof that his claims are very different that what some critics have proclaimed in their ignorance is found here.

A Global Strategy for Addressing Global Climate Change by Allan Savory

That is his actual plan, not the strawman found many places including over at skeptical science.

For any one who can actually read it is obvious.
A Two-Path Strategy is Essential for Combating Combat Climate Change

1) High Technology Path. "This path, based on mainstream reductionist science, is urgent and vital to the development of alternative energy sources to reduce or halt future emissions.
2) Low Technology Path. This path based on the emerging relationship science or holistic world view is vital for resolving the problem of grassland biomass burning, desertification and the safe storage of CO2, (legacy load) of heat trapping gases that already exist in the atmosphere."

Not just restoring desertified land we destroyed with poor agricultural management practises, but rather BOTH reducing emissions AND restoring the desertified land back to productivity.

You repeat that strawman again, after I explained it to you in terms even a 3 years old child can understand, and all it proves is you are telling lies.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The "little or no significant " is a bit exaggerated. It should be "not enough to support Savory's claim".

Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method by Nordborg, M. (2016). (PDF), described at Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method.

The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America by Teague, et. al (2016) has 3 tonnes of C per ha year sequesters which debunks Savory's claim which needs ~8 tonnes of C per ha year just to remove current CO2 emissions!

You made a simple math error here RC. You forgot to convert C to CO2.

8 tonnes CO2e is the magic number, not 8 tonnes C.

3 t C /ha/yr X 44 t CO2 / 12 t C = 11 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr on average. and yes this is big enough to offset your 8 Tonnes CO2e.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Nordborg, M. (2016) also makes the point that it is invalid to not account for emissions of methane from cattle. It is well established that the increasing concentration of methane in the atmosphere can largely be attributed to the world’s increasing livestock population. This is something the Savory Institute tries to deny.

This is completely false. There is less biomass in animals than ever. We are in a dangerously low level worldwide of animals. Livestock do not even come close to making up for the lost herds of deer bison buffalo antelope birds and yes even insect number are dropping off the charts low as the Mass extinction that is the Anthropocene continues.

It is even false that increasing methane can be largely attributed to livestock. Only a very small % can even be attributed to livestock, much smaller than gas leaks and other sources like paddy rice production.

Furthermore if the cattle were raised on properly managed grasslands, they would be balanced by methanotroph activity, giving a net negative result.

Soil Microorganisms as Controllers of Atmospheric Trace Gases

All you are doing is repeating bad science RC. The very slight increase in methane from animal husbandry is caused by removing those animals from the land. Something absolutely different than Savory advises. In fact he has STRONGLY stated the opposite.

Quote:

“The number one public enemy is the cow. But the number one tool that can save mankind is the cow. We need every cow we can get back out on the range. It is almost criminal to have them in feedlots which are inhumane, antisocial, and environmentally and economically unsound.” Allan Savory

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

That article by Seb V over at skeptical science is wrong. .....

Usual errors about Science showing that Savory's global warming reversal by his HM is wrong.

Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change

1. Is about Savory's claim that HM alone can reverse global warming as stated by Savory in his TED talk in March 2013.
   Not in an undated, opinion article in a PDF on his web site by someone who has displayed ignorance of climate.
2. Has a "What is Holistic Management?" section that explicitly covers only basic HM. i.e. your "grazing changes".

A "forgot to convert C to CO2" error. Savory's claim needs ~8 tonnes of C per ha year sequestered on 1 billion hectares just to remove current CO2 emissions. Teague, et. al (2016) has 3 tonnes of C per ha year. Convert both numbers to CO2 and Savory is still debunked.
ETA: Savory's original claim was the fantasy of converting 5 billion hectares (a third of the world's land - I guess we can say goodbye to the Amazon rain forest !) to his HM. The Savory Institute has a more reasonable 1 billion ha goal.

Ignorance about methane from cattle which is not "biomass in animals". Cattle fart and burp methane. A cow burps and farts between 160 to 320 litres of methane per day.

Ignorance about past numbers of ruminants compared to present numbers.
Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method by Nordborg, M. (2016).

Quote:

The idea that ruminant populations have historically been ‘very large’ appears to be pure speculation. Available estimate indicate that the global population of wild ruminants has decreased during the past 500 years, but if both domestic and wild ruminants are considered (cattle, buffaloes, horses and wild ruminants), the population has increased by more than a factor 6 during the past 500 years. During the same period, the number of cattle alone increased by more than a factor of 20. For more information, see Appendix 8.

Currently: Greater than 3.8 billion domestic animals.
About 1500: Domestic cattle, buffaloes and horses (no sheep or goat data) estimated to be 130 million animals with another 165 million wild ruminants.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Usual errors about Science showing that Savory's global warming reversal by his HM is wrong.

Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change

1. Is about Savory's claim that HM alone can reverse global warming as stated by Savory in his TED talk in March 2013.
   Not in an undated, opinion article in a PDF on his web site by someone who has displayed ignorance of climate.
2. Has a "What is Holistic Management?" section that explicitly covers only basic HM. i.e. your "grazing changes".

A "forgot to convert C to CO2" error. Savory's claim needs ~8 tonnes of C per ha year sequestered on 1 billion hectares just to remove current CO2 emissions. Teague, et. al (2016) has 3 tonnes of C per ha year. Convert both numbers to CO2 and Savory is still debunked.
ETA: Savory's original claim was the fantasy of converting 5 billion hectares (a third of the world's land - I guess we can say goodbye to the Amazon rain forest !) to his HM. The Savory Institute has a more reasonable 1 billion ha goal.

Ignorance about methane from cattle which is not "biomass in animals". Cattle fart and burp methane. A cow burps and farts between 160 to 320 litres of methane per day.

Ignorance about past numbers of ruminants compared to present numbers.
Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method by Nordborg, M. (2016).

Currently: Greater than 3.8 billion domestic animals.
About 1500: Domestic cattle, buffaloes and horses (no sheep or goat data) estimated to be 130 million animals with another 165 million wild ruminants.

just another denialist talking point RC. Tell me please how much in those calculations of methane emissions did Nordborg include for methanotroph activity?

What was his calculation of net emissions?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

...

Usual errors and ignorance about Science showing that Savory's global warming reversal by his HM is wrong.
Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method by Nordborg, M. (2016) debunked Savory's global warming reversal idea by analyzing his and his institute's scenario. But thanks for the reminder about Savory's deep ignorance of the subject. I will add it.

[Reality Check]

Savory is blatantly ignorant about climate science and a bad source of climate science.
Alan Savory's article is ignorant about the cause of global warming (it is CO2 not his fantasy of farm management).
A farmer/ecologist and his agricultural institute is a bad source of climate science and there is his obvious ignorance and no published papers!

Savory and his institute tried to deny the established correlation between ruminants, their emitted methane and global warming to justify his neglect of methane produced by his HM. Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method by Nordborg, M. (2016)
The science is that there is an correlation between ruminants, their emitted methane and global warming.

Savory and his institute have the error of past 'large" number of ruminants when the evidence is that numbers of ruminants have increased 6 fold over the last 500 years. That is an amazing bit of ignorance or error for an agricultural specialist!

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Usual errors and ignorance about Science showing that Savory's global warming reversal by his HM is wrong.
Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method by Nordborg, M. (2016) debunked Savory's global warming reversal idea by analyzing his and his institute's scenario. But thanks for the reminder about Savory's deep ignorance of the subject. I will add it.

the point of course is that Savory's plan is not what Nordborg claims it is. Since it is actually his plan, then I am going with what Savory says his plan is, rather that some Junk pseudo-science Nordborg came up with based on his own unfounded biases.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Savory is blatantly ignorant about climate science and a bad source of climate science.
Alan Savory's article is ignorant about the cause of global warming (it is CO2 not his fantasy of farm management).
A farmer/ecologist and his agricultural institute is a bad source of climate science and there is his obvious ignorance and no published papers!

Savory and his institute tried to deny the established correlation between ruminants, their emitted methane and global warming to justify his neglect of methane produced by his HM. Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method by Nordborg, M. (2016)
The science is that there is an correlation between ruminants, their emitted methane and global warming.

Savory and his institute have the error of past 'large" number of ruminants when the evidence is that numbers of ruminants have increased 6 fold over the last 500 years. That is an amazing bit of ignorance or error for an agricultural specialist!

Absolutely untrue that grazing ruminents increase methane in the atmosphere, since that biome is the only biotic net sink on the planet.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

...

Usual errors and ignorance about Science showing that Savory's global warming reversal by his HM is wrong.
Persists with errors and ignorance about Nordborg (2016) and climate science so that needs recording.
Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method by Nordborg, M. (2016) debunks Savory's global warming reversal by his HM by showing that his plan cannot even stop global warming.

1. Maria Nordborg uses Savory's plan as stated by Savory and his institute.
   His plan was to implement his HM. The details of what HM is does not matter. A billion hectares using HM is a billion hectares using HM!
   His institute has a target of 1 billion hectares (by 2050?) so Nordborg used that plan.
2. A "Absolutely untrue that grazing ruminants increase methane in the atmosphere, since that biome is the only biotic net sink on the planet" lie.
   As the numbers of ruminants have increased, the amount of methane in the atmosphere has increased. This is a known correlation in climate science described in Nordborg (2016)
   
   Quote:

   Lack of correlation between emissions of methane from cattle, and the (rising) atmospheric concentration of methane is completely at odds with the available scientific knowledge. Of the total greenhouse gas emissions from the global livestock sector, methane from enteric fermentation of ruminants account for 39% - of which cattle account for three-quarters (Gerber et al., 2013). Lassey (2007) showed that the increasing concentration of methane in the atmosphere can largely be attributed to the world’s increasing livestock population. For more information, see Appendix 7
   "since that biome is the only biotic net sink on the planet" is a fantasy that grasslands being methane sinks magically removes all of the methane from ruminants. He can remove the fantasy/magic by citing the scientific literature.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Usual errors and ignorance about Science showing that Savory's global warming reversal by his HM is wrong.
Persists with errors and ignorance about Nordborg (2016) and climate science so that needs recording.
Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method by Nordborg, M. (2016) debunks Savory's global warming reversal by his HM by showing that his plan cannot even stop global warming.

1. Maria Nordborg uses Savory's plan as stated by Savory and his institute.
   His plan was to implement his HM. The details of what HM is does not matter. A billion hectares using HM is a billion hectares using HM!
   His institute has a target of 1 billion hectares (by 2050?) so Nordborg used that plan.
2. A "Absolutely untrue that grazing ruminants increase methane in the atmosphere, since that biome is the only biotic net sink on the planet" lie.
   As the numbers of ruminants have increased, the amount of methane in the atmosphere has increased. This is a known correlation in climate science described in Nordborg (2016)
   
   "since that biome is the only biotic net sink on the planet" is a fantasy that grasslands being methane sinks magically removes all of the methane from ruminants. He can remove the fantasy/magic by citing the scientific literature.

In fact that is not magic, it is the function of methanotrophs in the soil, clearly you never bothered to read my former link I posted for you proving net REDUCTIONS in methane over grassland soils. As those soils went under the plow and the methanotrophs numbers exterminated from the soil, that function decreased, which is another correlation...but also a correlation with a valid causation...unlike your poor pseudoscience quoted from Nordborg. Hell he couldn't even properly get Savory's plan correct, and that's in writing! What makes you think that trash is capable of explaining something as complex as the biotic methane cycle?

And how do I know for certain that Nordborg (and you BTW) is completely clueless on this subject? You have no number what so ever for methanotroph activity at all. In fact you are simply taking one tiny portion of the emissions and pretending it is all on Cows. In fact even on the emissions side cows are a relatively minor player. Termites are bigger emitters than all mammals combined! Rice production is a far greater net source. But all these pale in comparison to the main anthropogenic source, Natural Gas leaks.

[Red Baron Farms]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Even more people doing the impossible.

Better go get Nordborg to tell them they can't do that!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

In fact that is not magic....

Just listing soil science is magic when you wish it to remove the correlation between grazing ruminants and methane in the atmosphere which is established climate science.

Persists with errors and ignorance about Nordborg (2016) and climate science
3. Deep ignorance about Savory's idea which does not account for methanotroph activity.
Thus Nordborg (2016) which analyzes Savory's idea also ignores methanotroph activity
What Savory and his institute did was state some ignorance. Norberg (2016), "4.4 The Savory Institute’s view on emissions of methane from cattle", page 30.

But just in case Maria Nordborg missed what you imply Savory did:
27 January 2019 Red Baron Farms: Cite the analysis that Alan Savory did on methanotroph activity to show that his idea will revers global warming.
Ditto for termites and rice production.
Otherwise methanotroph activity is irrelevant to a critique of Savory's idea.

Also a probable "my former link I posted for you proving net REDUCTIONS in methane over grassland soils" error since I read no such link .
27 January 2019 Red Baron Farms: Please repeat your link to the scientific literature showing net reductions of methane over grasslands with ruminants.
Grasslands by themselves seem to be a methane sink. Ruminants are a methane source. You need scientific papers showing that the methane sink is greater than the methane source. The scientific evidence is that ruminants are responsible for a good % of global warming.

Soil Microorganisms as Controllers of Atmospheric Trace Gases is only about soil. Table 1 has CH4 as a net source (60 source, 5 sink). Table 2 splite soil types into Upland/Wetland soils. There are only 3 out of 602 references with grassland in the title and they are not part of any table.

FYI: You wrote "It is even false that increasing methane can be largely attributed to livestock." and "Absolutely untrue that grazing ruminents increase methane in the atmosphere, since that biome is the only biotic net sink on the planet." which is ruminants (a source) + the grasslands they graze (a sink).

4. Argument by irrelevant YouTube video!
A derail of Terraton: Join the Global Movement who are not doing the impossible - they are a 2019 agricultural startup promising the impossible. Basically an advertisement for people with a "back to pre-Industrial Revolution levels" scheme. Their "science" is a web page with a broken "The Math of Terraton" link. The Terraton Initiative itself is a good idea. Change crop-producing farmland to methods including as no-till (which can sequester up to 20% of current CO2 emissions).

[Red Baron Farms]

A "grassland biome" is all the plants animals insects fungi etc.... in a grassland habitat. I said upland because it requires oxic soil (not marshes or anaerobic compacted soils) for the methanotroph populations to be high enough to make the whole biome a net sink. It is improper to divide out "livestock" from the biome and pretend any wild plant animal insect fungi on that land is part of the net sink, but livestock isn't. ... unless the animals themselves were physically removed from that biome and locked up in feedlots instead, changing their production from being part of a net sink, into a net source. It's the same logic fail as when denialists from the merchants of doubt declare that fossil fuel CO2 cant be a greenhouse gas causing AGW because it is tiny compared to the CO2 emitted by everything that breathes. They improperly disconnected the opposite side of a living system. (the breath out combined with the plants intake and conversion of CO2 into O2 and sugars largely cancel, only the net matters)

If you were wise enough to attack the particular harmful way livestock has become to be raised as a type of land use change contributing to AGW.... then of course you would have a leg to stand on. Unfortunately you are so biased against Allan Savory for whatever reason (and/or livestock), you have let it cloud your thinking. The type of AGW mitigation Savory has accomplished in his proof of concept, and in the many who have repeated his methods , is exactly the opposite as you suggest, since he advocates the opposite.

Quote:

“The number one public enemy is the cow. But the number one tool that can save mankind is the cow. We need every cow we can get back out on the range. It is almost criminal to have them in feedlots which are inhumane, antisocial, and environmentally and economically unsound.” Allan Savory

As for my citation Soil Microorganisms as Controllers of Atmospheric Trace Gases, good on you for looking at it enough to try and find a table, but you missed the key important part. "The subsurface location of methanotrophs means that energy requirements for maintenance and growth are obtained from CH4 concentrations that are lower than atmospheric." What this means is that if you have oxic or well aerated soils, that the lower concentration below the ground causes a net negative flux from the atmosphere into the soil. But remove the parts of the biome creating this habitat for the microbes (like livestock), and they lose this function.

IMPACT OF METHANOTROPH ECOLOGY ON UPLAND METHANE BIOGEOCHEMISTRY IN GRASSLAND SOILS

Environmental impacts on the diversity of methane-cycling microbes and their resultant function


The above is a management dependent factor holistic management does indeed include for the rancher/farmer to monitor. So your criticism of Savory on the particular point is simply false, as is your ignorance of the grassland biome's ecosystem functions in general.

That youtube video wasn't an argument, it was a power point presentation by someone far superior in critical thinking skills than you, who was able to clearly describe how holistic managers are doing what you and the merchant of doubt Nordborg call impossible. He has figured out a business model to try and monetize the idea. I wish him luck in his business model. The business may or may not work, but for certain the biophysical activity in the soil he (and Savory) describes is completely valid.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Fair call but personally think a tax cut carrot to turn solar and find other alternatives beats the stick that will just end up hitting consumers.

Consumers get hit either way. Food prices have just shot up here.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

A "grassland biome" .....

More derailing into science and fantasies irrelevant to Savory's debunked idea.

Next item of ignorance or error:
5. A "so biased against Allan Savory for whatever reason" lie when I have been stating the reasons. He is an unreliable source of climate science and his idea is wrong.
16 January 2020: Why Savory and his institute is a bad source of climate science] (abysmal ignorance from an agriculturist touting his debated system with a 2013 TED talk and documents on his web site).
22 January 2020: Science showing that Savory's global reversal by his HM is wrong

6. Ignorance about Soil Microorganisms as Controllers of Atmospheric Trace Gases) when it states that is soil in general is a net methane source. Table 1: 60 source, 5 sink. The numbers state soil is a net source of methane.

Quote:

The ecology of methanotrophic bacteria has recently been reviewed (223, 280, 281). The subsurface location of methanotrophs means that energy requirements for maintenance and growth are obtained from CH4 concentrations that are lower than atmospheric. Goulding et al. (208) have hypothesized that methanotrophic populations may persist only at soil sites that are adjacent to methanogenic microniches. However, this hypothesis is not supported by the vertical CH4 profiles that have so far been reported in soil.

This is that methanotrophs are under the surface and so get their energy from the CH4 concentrations in soil that is lower than the CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere.

27 January 2019 Red Baron Farms: Cite the analysis that Alan Savory did on methanotroph activity to show that his idea will revers global warming.

27 January 2019 Red Baron Farms: Please repeat your link to the scientific literature showing net reductions of methane over grasslands with ruminants (Savory's idea includes ruminants !).

IMPACT OF METHANOTROPH ECOLOGY ON UPLAND METHANE BIOGEOCHEMISTRY IN GRASSLAND SOILS

Quote:

Introduction
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, with 26 times greater radiative forcing than CO2 (Lelieveld et al. 1993), but due to its lower atmospheric concentration it is second to CO2 in actual radiative forcing (Forster et al. 2007). Upland (i.e., well-drained, oxic) soils are a net sink for atmospheric methane; as methane diffuses from the atmosphere into these soils, methane consuming (i.e., methanotrophic) bacteria oxidize it. At a global scale, soil uptake is the most important biological sink of atmospheric methane, offsetting emissions by about 30 Tg y-1 (Denman et al. 2007). Without this sink, Ojima et al. (1993) estimated that atmospheric methane through the 1990‘s would have increased at 1.5x its observed rate.

My emphasis added. This agrees with my impression - some soils are methane sinks , others are sources and the overall effect is a methane source.

Environmental impacts on the diversity of methane-cycling microbes and their resultant function has nothing about Savory or his errors about methane.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Environmental impacts on the diversity of methane-cycling microbes and their resultant function has nothing about Savory or his errors about methane.

Correct Nothing. Not a thing, on Savory. Savory is not a microbiologist and makes no claims other than all living biomes produce methane emissions. And grasslands will produce methane whether a cow eats it, or a termite, or fire or anything really. Even living plants produce methane while still alive! And ruminants are a part of the natural methane cycle going back millions of years. These are of course nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.

That is a citation showing that YOU are wrong. And possibly showing that you are so ignorant of the subject you are not even capable of understanding how incredibly silly your argument. It's kind of like the reverse of the more you know, the more you realize you don't know. Only in your case.....

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Correct Nothing. Not a thing, on Savory......

Which why it is irrelevant to Savory's idea when Savory apparently disregards methane from all sources including methanotrophs in soil.

Yet another error:
7. A "That is a citation showing that YOU are wrong" lie.
I am still right that you have not supported your (irrelevant to Savory's debunked claim) assertion of "Absolutely untrue that grazing ruminents increase methane in the atmosphere, since that biome is the only biotic net sink on the planet". That is an assertion about grazing ruminants + soil. You have been citing papers on only soil which supports what I already knew (being a methane source or sink depends on the soil type).

The climate science is that grazing ruminants do increase methane in the atmosphere because their numbers are correlated with the increase in atmospheric methane. The obvious consolation from this empirical correlation is that any methane sink from the grasslands the ruminants are grazing is not enough to offset their emissions.
Nordberg (2016) 'Appendix 7. Anthropogenic emissions of methane' cites the IPCC and many sources.

16 January 2020: Why Savory and his institute is a bad source of climate science] (CO2 and CH4 ignorance from an agriculturist touting his debated system with a 2013 TED talk and documents on his web site).
22 January 2020: Science showing that Savory's global reversal by his HM is wrong

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Which why it is irrelevant to Savory's idea when Savory apparently disregards methane from all sources including methanotrophs in soil.

Yet another error:
7. A "That is a citation showing that YOU are wrong" lie.
I am still right that you have not supported your irrelevant to Savory's debunked claim assertion which was of "Absolutely untrue that grazing ruminents increase methane in the atmosphere, since that biome is the only biotic net sink on the planet". That is an assertion abut grazing ruminants + soil. You have been citing papers on only soil which supports what I already knew (being a methane source or sink depends on the soil type).

The climate science is that grazing ruminants do increase methane in the atmosphere because their numbers are correlated with the increase in atmospheric methane.

16 January 2020: Why Savory and his institute is a bad source of climate science] (abysmal ignorance from an agriculturist touting his debated system with a 2013 TED talk and documents on his web site).
22 January 2020: Science showing that Savory's global reversal by his HM is wrong

BS That's crap I already told you why that is pseudo science, you repeating it over and over again does not magically elevate it to something meaningful at all.

Completely falsified estimates and assumptions. Quit repeating such denialist drivel here please. If you have something new that actually investigates results, rather than you pseudoscience drivel...go ahead and post it. Other wise just take it to some conspiracy theory thread. Maybe your BS fits better beside estimated assumed bigfoot number threads?

However, this is the science forum here. And here we follow the actual evidence.

Global atmospheric methane
Number of cattle worldwide from 2012 to 2019 (in million head)

As you can easily see, methane has been rising a long time, but cattle numbers are flat.....and actually when the acceleration of methane started, the livestock numbers were slightly decreasing.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

...

Calls published climate science that shows how ignorant Alan Savory is and debunks his claim, "pseudo science". Savory does not know that CO2 is the cause of global warming. Savory denies the role of methane emissions from ruminants and even the historical numbers of ruminants. Implies that the published climate science I have cited is a conspiracy theory !

16 January 2020: Why Savory and his institute is a bad source of climate science] (CO2 and CH4 ignorance from an agriculturist touting his debated system with a 2013 TED talk and documents on his web site).
22 January 2020: Science showing that Savory's global reversal by his HM is wrong

Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method by Nordborg, M. (2016) was published for the "Centre for Organic Food & Farming" so not strictly speaking climate science. It is a researcher in agricultural science analyzing the claims of Alan Savory as stated in Savory's sources - his TED talk, documents at his institute and his papers on HM (13 references for Savory in her paper). She take a scenario of "holistic grazing is introduced on 1 billion ha worldwide, in line with the goal of the Savory Institute" and makes some generous assumptions based on published scientific literature. The result is "less than 10% of current annual emissions" per year. 26.5 billion tonnes of C over 100 years agreeing with values published in scientific studies which is "less than 5% of the total emissions of carbon since the beginning of the industrial revolution". Savory is wrong by a factor of 20 for current data .

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Calls published climate science that shows how ignorant Alan Savory is and debunks his claim, "pseudo science". Savory does not know that CO2 is the cause of global warming. Savory denies the role of methane emissions from ruminants and even the historical numbers of ruminants.

You are telling lies. I am actually following the evidence
Global atmospheric methane
Number of cattle worldwide from 2012 to 2019 (in million head)

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

...

Oh dear - the ignorance that global warming has only existed since 2000!
Global atmospheric methane from 2000
Number of cattle (not all ruminants) worldwide from 2012 to 2019 (in million head) - not even from 2000!

Persists with errors and ignorance about Nordborg (2016) and climate science, etc.

1. Maria Nordborg uses Savory's plan as stated by Savory and his institute.
2. A "Absolutely untrue that grazing ruminants increase methane in the atmosphere, since that biome is the only biotic net sink on the planet" fantasy when there is a published correlation between increasing ruminants and methane.
3. Ignorance about Savory's idea which does not account for methanotroph activity.
   So of course Nordborg (2016) does not look\s at an nonexistent part of Savory's idea!
4. Argument by irrelevant YouTube video!
   A different unsupported claim by the Terraton Initiative.
5. A "so biased against Allan Savory for whatever reason" lie when I have been stating the reasons. He is an unreliable source of climate science and his idea has been shown to be wrong.
6. Ignorance about Soil Microorganisms as Controllers of Atmospheric Trace Gases) when it states that is soil on general is a net methane source.
7. A "That is a citation showing that YOU are wrong" lie.
   I asked for support for his assertion about grazing ruminants + soil and he only cites paper on soil.
8. Close to a weather is climate error!
   Gives the number of cattle (where are the sheep and goats?) from 2012 but climate is weather on scales of decades (the standard is 30 years).

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Oh dear - the ignorance that global warming has only existed since 2000!
Global atmospheric methane from 2000
Number of cattle (not all ruminants) worldwide from 2012 to 2019 (in million head) - not even from 2000!

You can follow it back as far as you want. The point is that Livestock is not your culprit. Unless you think a cow can somehow hold its farts in a few years!

The only livestock numbers that follow the same general curve as the methane concentrations is chickens, not even a ruminant.

Meat and Dairy production

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

You can follow it back as far as you want. ...

Persists with errors and ignorance about Nordborg (2016) and climate science, etc.
9. Still ignorant about Nordborg (2016) and her citation of a paper following "it" (the correlation between ruminants and methane) back!

For others: Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method by Nordborg, M. (2016)

Quote:

Lack of correlation between emissions of methane from cattle, and the (rising) atmospheric concentration of methane is completely at odds with the available scientific knowledge. Of the total greenhouse gas emissions from the global livestock sector, methane from enteric fermentation of ruminants account for 39% - of which cattle account for three-quarters (Gerber et al., 2013). Lassey (2007) showed that the increasing concentration of methane in the atmosphere can largely be attributed to the world’s increasing livestock population. For more information, see Appendix 7.

Livestock methane emission: From the individual grazing animal through national inventories to the global methane cycle by Lassey (2007) is not freely available but the abstract hints that the analysis may be over the last three centuries. However I found a PDF and the "Methane is a potent greenhouse gas whose atmospheric abundance has grown 2.5-fold over three centuries, due in large part to agricultural expansion. The farming of ruminant livestock, which generate and emit methane during digestion (‘enteric fermentation’), is a leading contributor to this growth." in the abstract seems to be not supported in the PDF - perhaps in the tables that it does not include.

A little research and I found Livestock counts, World (including chickens!) that shows an increase in cattle numbers from 1890 to 2014. Compare that to Atmospheric methane (graph from 1988).

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Persists with errors and ignorance about Nordborg (2016) and climate science, etc.
9. Still ignorant about Nordborg (2016) and her citation of a paper following "it" (the correlation between ruminants and methane) back!

For others: Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method by Nordborg, M. (2016)

Livestock methane emission: From the individual grazing animal through national inventories to the global methane cycle by Lassey (2007) is not freely available but the abstract hints that the analysis may be over the last three centuries. However I found a PDF and the "Methane is a potent greenhouse gas whose atmospheric abundance has grown 2.5-fold over three centuries, due in large part to agricultural expansion. The farming of ruminant livestock, which generate and emit methane during digestion (‘enteric fermentation’), is a leading contributor to this growth." in the abstract seems to be not supported in the PDF - perhaps in the tables that it does not include.

A little research and I found Livestock counts, World (including chickens!) that shows an increase in cattle numbers from 1890 to 2014. Compare that to Atmospheric methane (graph from 1988).

Right so world cattle inventory in 1988 was more than now.
World cattle inventory by year

As you can easily see there is some variation year by year but mostly flat, and overall a decline since 1988.

But methane numbers continue to climb... By your own graph

So again, your hypothesis and that of Nordborg is falsified yet again. Cattle are clearly NOT responsible for the increases in atmospheric methane and are NOT causing manmade global warming because of being ruminants.

Just a BS talking point by denialists to try and prevent action mitigating AGW. No different than denialists pretending AGW is a hoax. The same result. Trying to prevent anyone from taking any action to prevent or even mitigate AGW.

You should be ashamed of being so easily fooled by the merchants of doubt, considering how long you have been a member of this skeptic forum.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Right so world cattle inventory in 1988 was more than now. ....

Correct and methane has increased thus the correlation between increasing numbers of cattle and increasing CH4 presumably since records have been kept that Savory denies. That is not a strict correlation]since there are other factors - sheep and goats exist, changes in feed, changes in cattle types, global warming affects decay.
This is explained in Nordberg (2016).
Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory's grazing method by Nordborg, M. (2016)

Quote:

Appendix 7. Anthropogenic emissions of methane
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the concentration of methane in the atmosphere has increased from 722 to 1803 ppb (IPCC, 2013). In the 1980s, the growth rate slowed down, and almost ceased by the end of the 1990s. The fact that the atmospheric methane concentration almost stabilized, while global livestock populations increased see Appendix 8), has been misinterpreted as lack of correlation between these two variables: this idea was proposed in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in 2008. The explanation was that the emissions of methane, which remained relatively stable at around 550 million tonnes per year for nearly three decades, were basically offset by decay (IPCC, 2013). Hence, the atmospheric concentration of methane was stabilizing. Since 2007, the atmospheric concentration of methane has however continued to increase again (IPCC, 2013).

Natural sources, mainly various types of wetlands, accounted for 35-50% of total methane emissions during 2000-2009. The remaining portion (50-
65%) came from anthropogenic sources, of which enteric fermentation of ruminants accounted for about a quarter (IPCC, 2013). Enteric fermentation
is a process in which microorganisms in the rumen of ruminant animals break down cellulose and produce methane (Lassey, 2007).

Methane emissions from cattle vary with type and amount of feed: grass result in higher emissions than protein-rich feed-stuff, such as grain, because
grass contains more cellulose (Crutzen et al., 1986). The FAO has estimated that the global livestock sector accounts for 14.5% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission (Gerber et al., 2013). Of the total greenhouse gas emissions from the global livestock sector, methane from enteric fermentation
of ruminants account for 39% - of which cattle account for three-quarters (Gerber et al., 2013). That methane from enteric fermentation affects the
climate has been known for a long time (Johnson & Johnson, 1995; Moss et al., 2000). Lassey (2007) showed that the increasing concentration of methane in the atmosphere can largely be attributed to the world’s increasing livestock population. Methane emissions from enteric fermentation of cattle
are at least 15 times higher than methane emissions from the global population of wild ruminants (own estimate based on IPCC, 2013, pp. 507 and
Crutzen et al. 1986).

As a greenhouse gas, methane is 34 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, measured over 100 years, including climate–carbon feedbacks (IPCC, 2013; Table 8.7).

My emphasis added with the year of Lassey emphasized. At least up 2007 there was a published correlation. We measure that cattle belch methane (Lassey describes how we do that) so of course increasing the number of cattle as Savory proposes will increase the net amount of methane they emit! The uncertainty is in the effects of the other factors.

The climate science is that Savory ignoring increasing methane emissions from his increased number of cattle alone makes his idea dubious. His displays of ignorance and errors make his idea wrong:
16 January 2020: Why Savory and his institute is a bad source of climate science] (CO2 and CH4 ignorance from an agriculturist touting his debated system with only a 2013 TED talk and documents on his web site).
22 January 2020: Science showing that Savory's global reversal by his HM is wrong

Another error from you: "Cattle are clearly NOT responsible for the increases in atmospheric methane and are NOT causing manmade global warming because of being ruminants."
The published climate science, e.g. IPCC 2013, has evidence that cattle are largely responsible for the increases in atmospheric methane, i.e. a correlation between numbers and CH4 in Lassey (2007).
CH4 from cattle is a contributing factor not the cause as you imply ("14.5% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission" from global livestock).

ETA: If you want to support Savory's denial of climate science, you have to look at the actual correlation between increasing numbers of cattle and increasing CH4 in Lassey (20007) and maybe in IPCC (2013). It is obviously not a correlation from recent data because the paper is 13 years old! When you use data older than 2007, you are automatically wrong because you are not analyzing the actual correlation.

ETA: Consider the IPCC explanation that anthropogenic emissions of methane were basically offset by decay for a period of almost 3 decades before the late 2000's. A speculation: If that was caused by global warming and if Savory's erroneous idea worked, would anthropogenic emissions of methane no longer be offset and increase global warming again?

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

My emphasis added with the year of Lassey emphasized. At least up 2007 there was a published correlation.

And now you know why correlation with flawed causation is so dangerous, especially when there is heavy bias. One little change and the whole hypothesis falls apart.... as yours and Nordborg's did.

Falsified!

Make a new hypothesis or go home.