Obvious solution in our face, we fund research to preserve AGW causing industries

[Tsukasa Buddha]

There may not be data for every grassland, in every climate, in every soil on the planet,

And you felt the need to point out this obvious fact because... ?

but there is plenty of data to prove--->>>>
1) CAFOs are a net emissions source.
2) Pasture raised don't have to be a net emissions source if raised properly to local conditions.

You didn't prove 2. You showed that pasture raised can lead to more carbon sequestered in soil (in some places, going by further studies). That is by definition not "net" (e.g. including the methane) nor does it compare every option available.

That's all I need to show to prove it is unnecessary to exterminate domestic food animals to extinction world wide, only remove them from the CAFOs and start respecting them for what they are...an important part to both humans food supply and an important part to the nutrient, carbon, water cycles for a farm.

Yes, but you've yet to show it.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

And you felt the need to point out this obvious fact because... ?

....you seem to have an issue understanding the real controversy. There is no controversy that the grassland/grazer biome can be a carbon sink. The only controversy is whether it will be big enough and the rate of sequestration fast enough.

You didn't prove 2. You showed that pasture raised can lead to more carbon sequestered in soil (in some places, going by further studies). That is by definition not "net" (e.g. including the methane) nor does it compare every option available.

ERM yeah........ Did you read and understand the links?

Grasslands and their soils can be considered sinks for atmospheric CO2, CH4, and water vapor

Prove might be too strong a word. I'll give you that. But I showed 3 published scientific studies with evidence and also other evidence in post #173. Your problem seems to be in understanding what that means. Basic physics. Carbon is not magically being created or destroyed. If the soils become a sink and show increased carbon, it had to come from somewhere. In this case the air. Then converted to more stable forms of carbon humus in the soil by the biosystem. So unless some magic carbon fairy is magically putting carbon in the soil, if you see increased humus then it is a net carbon sink.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I am quoting them again. Please point out which ones you think show a net benefit. And before you try it, I did not see anything in the abstract of #3 that matches your summation of it, though even that would not be "net". Which ones include the animal emissions in their analysis? You seem to think that one side of the equation automatically outweighs the other. This is false, and a problem with many "green" solutions. Magic pixies.

This study shows the natural wild grassland/grazer biome does force climatic cooling. [1]

This study shows that on HM land, mimicking that lost wild biome can have a similar effect of increasing C in soils (reducing greenhouse gasses)[2]

Here is another study that confirms that effect and even confirms the effect is better than no grazing at all. [3]

This university extension guide explains how to use the effect to benefit other wildlife as well. [4]

This university extension guide explains how a farmer can use it at a profit, requiring no massive multi trillion dollar subsidies from society. [5]

This USDA case study shows how it can be integrated with crop production to turn those soils into a net carbon sink as well as increasing crop yields. [6]

This article by a well respected science writer shows that the scientific community, rather than regarding it as woo, actually is taking the concept very seriously. [7]

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I am quoting them again. Please point out which ones you think show a net benefit. And before you try it, I did not see anything in the abstract of #3 that matches your summation of it, though even that would not be "net". Which ones include the animal emissions in their analysis? You seem to think that one side of the equation automatically outweighs the other. This is false, and a problem with many "green" solutions. Magic pixies.

It is false? Ok Name the source of carbon in the grassland/grazer biosystem that could possibly make it false.

If it is an emissions source and a carbon sink simultaneously at the same time, it has to come from somewhere. We are not talking nuclear fusion here. And no room for magical woo. So if we are increasing carbon in the soil, where is it coming from if not the atmosphere?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

So you don't have the proper evidence. Nice talking to ya.