>>11488696Not my argument. I don't understand what you're getting at. You both agree and disagree with me in the same post. Methane is a 'carbon gas' because it contains carbon. The amount in the atmosphere is entirely stable unless humans begin ... I dunno, burning fossil fuels for instance?
Look, this is simple. The methane produced by livestock is trivial as a cause of climate change. We murdered all the bison and replaced them with cattle. So we didn't 'add' a producer of methane that somehow gets carbon from space. We simply took one species of methane contributing mammals and replaced it with another. The net gain is still 0. They don't magically get carbon from space.
The problem of climate change is entirely different. We're taking carbon which has been buried in the Earth for millions of years and adding it to the carbon cycle where it frankly doesn't belong. The ability of plants and animals to absorb the incredible volume of carbon we're pumping into the atmosphere is broken, so more and more gets stockpiled in the two reservoirs it can absorb into: the atmosphere and ocean. This is not and has never been a problem of farming or ranching, it is a problem of fossil fuels.
Look, we already know the source of carbon in the atmosphere. It's from fossil fuel burning, not any natural process.
Here's a paper from 1986 detailing the method we use
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0077757986900438We've known this shit for decades. The source of the increased atmospheric CO2 is humans directly. Not animals.
