Biome carbon cycle management

[Reality Check]

That is an option

Who cares about cows - this is a thread about global warming, Red Baron Farms .
Thank you for acknowledging that [2] is an irrelevant reference.

You obviously have not read Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems. It is a modern review that was published in 2014. Please list the "dogma" and the science debunking that "dogma" in the appropriate thread (that should be 119 citations debunking the 119 references ): Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread).

 

[Red Baron Farms]

obviously - you seem not to understand timing of release of a powerful GHG from a cow's stomach versus slow decay/sequester in a pasture are very different in near term effects on the atmosphere and subsequent trapping.
One reason kangaroo use as a meat animal would be beneficial.

Now would one of you nice gentleman request this entire sequence be moved to Biome Carbon Cycle Management which was set up for it.
Seems this ground has been tilled before.

I have no problem with moving the subthread if it is bothering people.

But it is very important to understand that you got it backwards on the methane issue. The spike is caused from separating the cattle (and their waste) from the pasture and soil that contains the methanotrophs.

The major sinks for methane are biological oxidation at or near the sites of production (∼700 Tg · year−1), uptake of methane from the atmosphere by aerobic soils (20 to 60 Tg · year−1), and photochemical oxidation in the atmosphere (∼450 Tg · year−1). Soil uptake of atmospheric methane is significant since the magnitude of the soil sink is equivalent to the observed annual increase in the methane concentration and it is more susceptible to disturbance by human activities. A change in the soil sink can have a significant effect on the atmospheric mixing ratios of methane.[1]

Moving them back to pasture reduces the methane problem, not increases it, both near term and long term because it restores that currently "disturbed by humans" ecosystem to function once again with regards to the carbon cycle. The methane cycle is part of the carbon cycle. Remember, we are restoring ecosystem services function to the soil. That's our goal and the reason it is significant in a topic about AGW. But either way it is the short cycle. So what's relevant is the effect of reducing the % emissions caused by crop production and turning that same land into a long term carbon sink.

 

[Pixel42]

I have no problem with moving the subthread if it is bothering people.

I for one am finding it very annoying to have to scroll through it all yet again.

 

[macdoc]

Me as well given there is a specific thread devoted to Carbon management by way of agriculture and land use.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

This sequestration of carbon is equivalent to 6.4% of China's total fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions in 2006. It should be noted that the restored area in the Loess Plateau accounted for about 6.4% of the total area covered by the GTGP program. Therefore, the GTGP program has made substantial contribution in mitigating China's anthropogenic CO2 emission.[1]

Seems promissing.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

ETA: Perhaps you would like to educate yourself about methane hydrates and their possible effects on climate change ?

I am well aware of them. The same thing I challenged you about addresses that issue as well. You need to get rid of methane? Change agriculture, boycott CAFOs. Not only do methanotrophs feed on the methane from livestock, they actually can reduce methane from those other sources too. They are a net sink after all. And as far as the "guess is about 15% of the forcing of CO2 from agriculture." If you turn a emissions source of 15% and turn it into a sink of 15% what is the net effect? ...30%? +/- And if you turn a 15% emissions source into a larger sink as many say is possible?..............

 

[Reality Check]

...And as far as the "guess is about 15% of the forcing of CO2 from agriculture." ...

It is as I stated a guess. So a further guess that unspecified changes can have a significant impact on methane is also a guess.

You did not challenge me about anything - you guessed that I did not already know about methanotrophs and have guessed so far that there is some way to use them to reduce methane.
What I know is
* methane fixing prokaryotes (methanotrophs) exist.
* they are not mentioned in the conference report.
* you have not cited anything about their role in global warming mitigation.

So I do your research for you and see some science about methanotrophs being potential sinks, e.g. Methanotrophs: the potential biological sink to mitigate the global methane load.
Would you count landfills as agriculture ?
Mitigating CH4 Emissions in Semi-Aerobic Landfills: Impacts of Operating Conditions on Abundance and Community Structure of Methanotrophs in Cover Soils

 

[Red Baron Farms]

It is as I stated a guess. So a further guess that unspecified changes can have a significant impact on methane is also a guess.

You did not challenge me about anything - you guessed that I did not already know about methanotrophs and have guessed so far that there is some way to use them to reduce methane.
What I know is
* methane fixing prokaryotes (methanotrophs) exist.
* they are not mentioned in the conference report.
* you have not cited anything about their role in global warming mitigation.

So I do your research for you and see some science about methanotrophs being potential sinks, e.g. Methanotrophs: the potential biological sink to mitigate the global methane load.
Would you count landfills as agriculture ?
Mitigating CH4 Emissions in Semi-Aerobic Landfills: Impacts of Operating Conditions on Abundance and Community Structure of Methanotrophs in Cover Soils

Nice dodge! You have all the makings a true world class AGW denier. I didn't post because I gave you the respect to believe you could/would actually read the link I posted.

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

Gee that's the leading paragraph page 1. To accuse me of "not cited anything about their role in global warming mitigation" means you either didn't read or couldn't even comprehend past page 1 paragraph 1 of the intro. Not even close to reading or comprehending the whole paper. Same goes for the other citations I posted. Either you didn't read them or you just are in such severe AGW denial that your blinders won't let you comprehend.

My point in all this was you made viscous attacks at Arnold for his denialism, while ignoring your own unique form of denialism. For all you know Arnold may have a smaller carbon footprint than your own even riding your so called carbon neutral taxis!

 

[macdoc]

Red Baron ...please take the argument to
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271970&highlight=agriculture

You started that thread and let it die.
We've heard your case over and over. Revisiting is not likely to change anyone's view that
a) it's an important aspect of mitigation
b) less important than you've shown or appear to think it is.

 

[Reality Check]

Nice dodge! ...snipped denier fantasy...

So what do the sources you cited since this post say:
[1] EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK AND MANURE MANAGEMENT - no instance of the word methanotroph
[2] Mitigating livestock greenhouse gas balance through carbon sequestration in grasslands - no instance of the word methanotroph
[3] IMPACT OF METHANOTROPH ECOLOGY ON UPLAND METHANE BIOGEOCHEMISTRY IN GRASSLAND SOILS

Wow - a thesis about METHANOTROPH ECOLOGY mentions methanotrophs . What this thesis does not mention the role of methanotrophs in global warming mitigation. There is a bit about the responses of the ecosystem to climate change.

Gee, that is 3 citations and no mention of how methanotrophs could mitigate global warming, Red Baron Farms.

I cite a paper that suggests methanotrophs as a technique in fixing global methane (global warming mitigation) and a paper about doing this in landfills and for some reason that makes you think that I have "the makings a true world class AGW denier" !

My points remain:

• Reduction of CO2 is a known, working global warming mitigation technique that addresses the main driver of AGW.
• The use of methanotrophs to reduce is an plausible but untested suggestion for a global warming mitigation technique that addresses a minor driver of AGW.
• Reduction of methane in general is a known but untested global warming mitigation technique that addresses a minor driver of AGW.

I correct Arnold Martin because he is using ignorance about climate science to attack climate science.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

My points remain:

• Reduction of CO2 is a known, working global warming mitigation technique that addresses the main driver of AGW.
• The use of methanotrophs to reduce is an plausible but untested suggestion for a global warming mitigation technique that addresses a minor driver of AGW.
• Reduction of methane in general is a known but untested global warming mitigation technique that addresses a minor driver of AGW.

I correct Arnold Martin because he is using ignorance about climate science to attack climate science.

First off you brought up the methane. I simply pointed out your error. In a CAFO, livestock is a methane emissions source. As part of a grassland ecosystem, livestock production could be the single largest net methane sink on the planet. You do realise CAFOs are not grasslands and have different effects on ecologies including different effects on AGW? Eliminate the CAFOs and you eliminate their effects on AGW. The whole CAFO system. The corn and soy fields, everything. The system taken as a whole is an emissions source of CO2 and methane and NO2 as well. Can't get much simpler than that. You can get more detailed as to why the alternative production system taken as a whole is not an emissions source of any of those things or not contributing to AGW, even how it might help mitigate AGW, but MacDoc has asked me not to post that here any more.

My question is why you think it is proper to take Arnold to task over some parts of AGW, but other parts of AGW are off limits?

 

[Reality Check]

First off you brought up the methane.
...snipped CAFO and grassland speculations...

Red Baron Farms, your citation [1] is the first mention of methane, for example "10.3 Methane Emissions from Enteric Fermentation". Thus my "cow farts" when I mentioned your citation!

Cows fart and produce manure wherever they are and however they are managed. The still open question is whether management of this could have an measurable effect on global warming. We could eliminate the problem by eliminating them .

My question is where do you seem to get the idea that I should take Arnold Martin to task for errors he has not made?
I have corrected Arnold Martin on several errors in this thread, the last being the link between CO2 and tempterure. If he makes more errors about any part of AGW (no parts of AGW are off limits!) then I will correct him again.

Can I take it that you accept that:

My points remain:

• Reduction of CO2 is a known, working global warming mitigation technique that addresses the main driver of AGW.
• The use of methanotrophs to reduce [global warming] is an plausible but untested suggestion for a global warming mitigation technique that addresses a minor driver of AGW.
• Reduction of methane in general is a known but untested global warming mitigation technique that addresses a minor driver of AGW.

since you did not comment on them in your reply, Red Baron Farms?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Red Baron Farms, your citation [1] is the first mention of methane, for example "10.3 Methane Emissions from Enteric Fermentation". Thus my "cow farts" when I mentioned your citation!

Cows fart and produce manure wherever they are and however they are managed. The still open question is whether management of this could have an measurable effect on global warming. We could eliminate the problem by eliminating them .

Grasslands coevolved with graziers. For the grassland ecosystem to function with regards to AGW, those niches need filled. So no, you wouldn't necessarily eliminate the problem by entirely eliminating all livestock. However, my first post asked: "Are you willing to do your part in 'saving the planet' by advocating a complete boycott on all CAFO produced food items?" So they are essentially the same. Boycotting all livestock foods would obviously boycott all CAFO produced foods in that case. It wouldn't actually help unless that system was replaced by something that had a positive effect though.

since you did not comment on them in your reply, Red Baron Farms?

No need. Although you phrased them in a misleading way. My main problem is you claim Methanotrophs are "plausible but untested suggestion for a global warming mitigation technique" When the fact remains that grassland soils are already the single largest single sink of methane already (because of those methanotrophs). That has been tested and quantified. Expanding that ecosystem would expand that sink. There is nothing really too complicated about it.

 

[aleCcowaN]

For the grassland ecosystem to function with regards to AGW....

... you should talk about AGW and not unsubstantiated undertakings.

I got a better solution for AGW than boycotting CAFO: Hugs!

 

[Reality Check]

Grasslands coevolved ...more statements of the obvious and irrelevant to this thread...

Sorry, Red Baron Farms, but you continually misunderstand what I write. So here we go yet again!

• Reduction of CO2 is a known, working global warming mitigation technique that addresses the main driver of AGW.
• The use of methanotrophs to reduce[global warming is an plausible but untested suggestion for a global warming mitigation technique that addresses a minor driver of AGW. This is because you have not cited any scientific literature on the testing of the methanotrophs to reduce global warming.
• Reduction of methane in general is a known but untested global warming mitigation technique that addresses a minor driver of AGW.

The largest single sink for methane is the atmosphere and the same source (just a web site though) does not mention grasslands in Methane Sinks - Soils.

So we have what looks like an unsupported assertion from you thus:
Please list your sources that state that grasslands are the single largest sink of methane, Red Baron Farms.

ETA: [2] Mitigating livestock greenhouse gas balance through carbon sequestration in grasslands has
Figure 1 Carbon fluxes (g C/m2 per year) in managed European grassland systems studied by Soussana et al. (2007).
On the left bottom of the diagram is a cow in a field with F_CO2 = 290 sink, F_CH4 = 5 source, F_{animal-products} = 5 source (according to the arrows). European grazed grasslands are a source of methane.

 

[macdoc]

Eat kangaroo

healthier
no methane
no hooves..

Win win all around ......

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Next time I see a kangaroo roaming these Oklahoma prairies, I promise to try your kangaroo meat pie recipe! LOLZ

More seriously, I would like to show you the biological nitrogen cycle.

The nitrogen cycle in agriculture. Image via WSU College of Natural Sciences.

When anything decomposes, it does produce methane. Yes even your kangaroos produce methane. But methanotrophs are active
N-fixers. They are part of both the carbon cycle and the nitrogen cycle. Further, high levels of nitrogen reduce methane uptake rates in upland soils.

So what does this mean for agriculture? It means manure and other decomposing material, although producing methane, also feeds part of the ecosystem that uses that methane to fix nitrogen, necessary for plant growth. In a cropping system where large quantities of nitrogen fertilizers are added directly to the soil, it simultaneously inhibits the natural N-fixing capacity of the soil, as well as the ability to metabolise methane. Since that cycle comes directly from the decomposing organic material as well as diffusion from the atmosphere (both Methane and N2), this reduces that soil's ability to function as a net methane sink. But in an undisturbed upland grassland ecosystem with a very high diffusion rate, not only is the methane absorbed from the decomposing manure, there is also a significant amount of methane reduced from the atmosphere by that diffusion and metabolism, for a net reduction of atmospheric methane and a net increase of fixed nitrogen. This is called "the fertilizer effect" of methanotrophs and it is inhibited by crop production under standard BMP.

So what you have going on is a very complex system with many unexpected emergent effects that were unknown when the decisions to change animal husbandry from pasture based to CAFO based were made. IMHO now that we know, we should make the changes in infrasture necessary to change back.

To sum up. In a CAFO based system, livestock is a significant net emissions source of both CO2 and methane, while in a properly managed pasture based system, livestock production is a significant net sink of both CO2 and methane. There is a lot more to it, but I am trying to post this without writing a book.

 

[Reality Check]

...nitrogen cycle...But methanotrophs are active N-fixers. ..the usual obvious stuff and wishful thinking...

But, Red Baron Farms, stating the obvious is not supporting your assertions!
Answering questions would be supporting your assertions, e.g.
Red Baron Farms: Please list your sources that state that grasslands are the single largest sink of methane.

Methanotrophs might be "active" N-fixers (citation needed). A quick look suggests any N fixation is secondary to their mechanism, e.g. they can be cultured in nitrogen free media.
Being N fixers or C fixers (or dancing the fandango ) does not tell us whether it is possible to use methanotrophs for significant global warming mitigation.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

But, Red Baron Farms, stating the obvious is not supporting your assertions!
Answering questions would be supporting your assertions, e.g.
Red Baron Farms: Please list your sources that state that grasslands are the single largest sink of methane.

Methanotrophs might be "active" N-fixers (citation needed). A quick look suggests any N fixation is secondary to their mechanism, e.g. they can be cultured in nitrogen free media.
Being N fixers or C fixers (or dancing the fandango ) does not tell us whether it is possible to use methanotrophs for significant global warming mitigation.

Methanotrophs would be simply part of the larger system that mitigates AGW. I never claimed by themselves they could be a mitigation plan. I know people are working on that side, but it isn't proven to work. But as part of a grassland/livestock production model, they certainly could. Two ways. First by eliminating the emissions found in the CAFO production model. Second by drawing down emissions already produced by mankind's disturbances.

As far as the "citation needed" claim you made. I already gave you that source before. You simply either didn't read it or didn't understand it.

2.3.2 Nutrient demand and ammonium sensitivity
Studies of methanotroph nutrient demands have primarily investigated nitrogen
and copper. SIP experiments with 15N-labeled N2 have found methanotrophs to be active N-fixers (Buckley et al. 2008), and this trait is thought to be widespread among
methanotrophs (Hanson and Hanson 1996, Auman et al. 2001, Boulygina et al. 2002,
Foght 2010)[1]

Apparently not reading that source is also why you can't seem to understand upland grasslands being the largest sink (meaning the largest reduction of atmospheric methane found in ecosystems). Oceans/wetlands can't reduce atmospheric methane because it is very poor at diffusing into water. Tropical rainforests often are emission sources as well for the same reason. Croplands are smaller due to nitrogen fertilizers inhibiting them as well as cultivation damaging pore space and structure which reduces diffusion rates. Too dry can also reduce the various types of arid ecosystems' ability to absorb and metabolize methane as well, due to excessive stress on the methanotrophic community. Even many deciduous forest are limited due to the thick flat leaf matt inhibiting atmospheric diffusion. That will vary though, some forests can use the effect of methanotrophs to reduce atmospheric methane, but generally the methanotroph communities there simply feed off the emissions from the decaying leaf matt, with little atmospheric net reduction. Functioning upland Grassland ecosystems on the other hand have exactly the right conditions of proper moisture range and diffusion rates to make them optimal for atmospheric methane reductions. Since that ecosystem can also function as a significant long term CO2 sink as well, it mitigates the two top causes of AGW.

ETA: Yes I know it is obvious and I shouldn't even need to state it. But since you seem to be having problems with the concept, I did it anyway.

 

[Reality Check]

...But as part of a grassland/livestock production model, they certainly could.

So are we back to the unsupported grasslands will magically fix global warming claim ?

There is the rather inane expectation that someone would read and memorize an 64 page thesis that you cited in another context:

[3] IMPACT OF METHANOTROPH ECOLOGY ON UPLAND METHANE BIOGEOCHEMISTRY IN GRASSLAND SOILS

Wow - a thesis about METHANOTROPH ECOLOGY mentions methanotrophs . What this thesis does not mention the role of methanotrophs in global warming mitigation. There is a bit about the responses of the ecosystem to climate change.

Repeating an unsupported assertion does not make it correct: 12 March 2015 Red Baron Farms: Please list your sources that state that grasslands are the single largest sink of methane.
Your claim was (and was in the global warming thread):

When the fact remains that grassland soils are already the single largest single sink of methane already (because of those methanotrophs). That has been tested and quantified.

That was false because the atmosphere is the single largest sink of methane.
But now we are here so we can move the goal posts to ecosystems.

ETA: We may have to move the goal posts elsewhere:

[2] Mitigating livestock greenhouse gas balance through carbon sequestration in grasslands has
Figure 1 Carbon fluxes (g C/m2 per year) in managed European grassland systems studied by Soussana et al. (2007).
On the left bottom of the diagram is a cow in a field with F_CO2 = 290 sink, F_CH4 = 5 source, F_{animal-products} = 5 source (according to the arrows). European grazed grasslands are a source of methane.