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.
Absolutely untrue that grazing ruminents increase methane in the atmosphere, since that biome is the only biotic net sink on the planet.
Usual errors and ignorance about Science showing that Savory's global warming reversal by his HM is wrong.
"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?
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.
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.
Consumers get hit either way. Food prices have just shot up here.
More derailing into science and fantasies irrelevant to Savory's debunked idea.
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.
!).My emphasis added. This agrees with my impression - some soils are methane sinks , others are sources and the overall effect is a methane source.
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.
Which why it is irrelevant to Savory's idea when Savory apparently disregards methane from all sources including methanotrophs in soil.
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.
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
!
.
You are telling lies. I am actually following the evidence
Oh dear - the ignorance that global warming has only existed since 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!
Persists with errors and ignorance about Nordborg (2016) and climate science, etc.
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.
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.
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.