Feeding Seaweed To Cows Eliminates Methane Emissions (www.cbc.ca) 283
Dave Knott writes:
A Canadian farmer has "helped lead to a researcher's discovery of an unlikely weapon in the battle against global warming: a seaweed that nearly eliminates the destructive methane content of cow burps and farts," reports the CBC. "Joe Dorgan began feeding his cattle seaweed from nearby beaches more than a decade ago as a way to cut costs... Then researcher Rob Kinley of Dalhousie University caught wind of it." He tested Dorgan's seaweed mix, discovering that it reduced the methane in the cows' burps and farts by about 20 per cent. "Kinley knew he was on to something, so he did further testing with 30 to 40 other seaweeds. That led him to a red seaweed Asparagopsis taxiformis he says reduces methane in cows burps and farts to almost nothing."
"Ruminant animals are responsible for roughly 20% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, so it's not a small number," said Kinley, an agricultural research scientist now working at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Queensland, Australia. "We're talking numbers equivalent to hundreds of millions of cars."
The researcher predicts a seaweed-based cow feed could be on the market within three to five years, according to the article. "He says the biggest challenge will be growing enough seaweed."
"Ruminant animals are responsible for roughly 20% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, so it's not a small number," said Kinley, an agricultural research scientist now working at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Queensland, Australia. "We're talking numbers equivalent to hundreds of millions of cars."
The researcher predicts a seaweed-based cow feed could be on the market within three to five years, according to the article. "He says the biggest challenge will be growing enough seaweed."
Simple explanation (Score:5, Funny)
Seaweed tastes so bad that it makes them puke when the farmer is not looking. That's why they're no longer farting. The guy will come back in 6 months saying all his cows died of hunger and he doesn't understand why.
Re: (Score:2)
seaweed taste for cows (Score:2)
Re:Simple explanation (Score:5, Informative)
But it doesn't taste bad. "Umami", one of the five basic tastes, was discovered by studying seaweeds, and was named for the Japanese word for the flavor seaweeds lend to broth, literally "pleasant savory flavor."
It's a fair bet that every pre-industrial community that lived by a productive ocean ate seaweed, although just like Brussels sprouts not being as popular as corn, not all varieties of seaweed are equally tasty. Nori and Kombu are very tasty. Dulse, fried and salted, is somewhat reminiscent of bacon (it's that umami flavor again). Carageenan is virtually tasteless, which is why it is used as a base for fancy puddings [wikipedia.org]. It is extensively used in prepared foods as a texture improver: half-and-half, ice cream, reduced fat dairy products, candy bars, toothpaste, even soda. Americans are food wimps, but they eat a lot of the stuff without realizing because it's hidden in many of the prepared foods we like to eat, like fast food "shakes".
Elon Musk (Score:2, Funny)
Someone please forward this article to Elon Musk.
Re: (Score:2)
I see a market for seaweed-based Mexican food.
Re: (Score:2)
I see a market for seaweed-based Mexican food.
We eat seaweed and it's products already Carrageenan comes to mind, with ice cream, Beer!, Toothpaste and that's just Carrageenan. Sushi also uses it. In Wales they use some seaweed called Laver - sounds awful, but they like it, so it can't be too bad.
Cows will probably love it. I see supply problems though. Right now a lot of them get chicken shit - I kid you not - and if you had the choice between poultry waste or seaweed, I think I know what most of us would pick. https://www.organicconsumers.o... [organicconsumers.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I probably eat 1000X as much seaweed as the average American. It's tasty, cheap, a great source of anti-oxidants, requires no farming... It's a win-win.
The crispy thin green sheets of it are pretty darn good as well. Sometimes I eat those like potato chips, and very low calorie and way tasty.
Re: Elon Musk (Score:2)
If they're eating chicken muck I don't know how you can make seaweed the more attractive option for the farmer. Where will he put the mountains of chicken waste now? I have 5 chickens, they make a lot more waste than I can deal with.
Re: (Score:3)
If they're eating chicken muck I don't know how you can make seaweed the more attractive option for the farmer. Where will he put the mountains of chicken waste now? I have 5 chickens, they make a lot more waste than I can deal with.
It is a good question - if a gross one. But we gotta remember the chicken shit goes in and we get cow shit back.
There's also the humane issue, and the what we're willing to eat issue. I know people who refuse to eat catfish because they grub in the mud, but will happily gobble down a burger from a cow that ate chicken shit it's whole life. I'm a dedicated carnivore, but until they are harvested, we should treat them right.
The big issue with chicken manure is it's so darn powerful. You've probably seen
Re: (Score:2)
No individual rich person could personally fund basic income for all Americans; it just doesn't add up. Three hundred million people in the USA. So giving each of them just one Franklin would take three billion. No rich person can handle that kind of outlay for long; when you see Mr Rich has $XX billion, that's not annual income but total accumulated.
Re: (Score:2)
Elon Musk is worth 11.1 billion dollars. There are 318.9 million Americans.
If you took ever dollar he had and distributed it to all Americans we'd each get a little less than $35. You seriously overestimate how much those "1%" can do.
I think the article had one thing backward (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't that be "noticed the absence of wind?"
I couldn't resist. I've been waiting years for this opportunity (note my account name)...
Re:I think the article had one thing backward (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I think the article had one thing backward (Score:5, Informative)
It happens all the time because if you've modded a thread the only way to post without reversing the mod is to do so as AC.
Re:I think the article had one thing backward (Score:4, Informative)
You sure about that? I though they still track you by cookie or ip or something and un-apply your mod if you post, even as AC.
Nope. I've done this in the past - as long as you don't stand to gain karma from the discussion, you're golden. But you do have to remember to click that "post anonymously" box, which isn't checked by default.
Re: (Score:2)
You sure about that? I though they still track you by cookie or ip or something and un-apply your mod if you post, even as AC.
Post truthing eh? No they don't.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure it does undo the mod if you post AC, however, if you post AC and then mod and the mod stays.
Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
Either open another browser
Or open, uh, a window? ;-PPPPPP
Re:I think the article had one thing backward (Score:4, Informative)
I gave you a charity +1 Funny mod, but it really wasn't that funny. Try harder next time, k?
But look at his username (flatulus.) That's FTW.
Price? (Score:3, Interesting)
The real question is if this new feed costs the same or less than the current feed given to cows.
Re: (Score:3)
Because... "the biggest challenge will be growing enough seaweed."
Re: (Score:2)
Doing it in a cost effective way for such a large scale will be the problem,
Didn't I just say that??
Why yes, I did!!! Because... "the biggest challenge will be growing enough seaweed."
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the seaweed can be made into pellets for similar nutritional benefit, to be fed to grain-fed livestock..
The article doesn't state whether it's the process of chewing or the chemical composition of the food that causes the reduction. Maybe grass-fed animals can also benefit by taking a dietary supplement of seaweed-juice added to their water supply?
Does big ag care about emmissions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What incentive does big ag have to do anything to reduce their environmental footprint?
It may not, but it would be additional business for artificial fisheries (ie, fish farmers).
Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
I can finally eat surf-and-turf while only harming one animal. Take that, vegetarians!
Re: (Score:2)
Is that something like reef-and-beef?
Curtain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Please pay no attention to all the extra emissions from growing, harvesting, processing, and transporting!"
You have to think outside the box!
Fantastic growth industry teaching cows to swim and chew food with a snorkel in their mouth...
so in other words... (Score:5, Funny)
...weed cures farts?
Re: (Score:2)
Mind. Blown.
Works with cars (Score:2)
too ?
So I have a bunch of cows... (Score:2, Interesting)
Am I going to pay a bunch of money for fancy seaweed and force my cows to eat it, or will I continue to let them graze my land that costs me nothing?
Decisions, decisions...
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't about the cows that chew on grass all day, this is about the cows in big industrial feedlots that are fed things cows were never meant to eat. (I have seen stories of cows being fed chocolate bars and candy, foods that even humans shouldn't be eating let alone animals that need a lot more fibre in their diet than humans do...)
If you can replace that feed with something that doesn't cost the farmer any extra money and is better for the cows and the planet, I think the farmers will be interested.
Wh
Not feeding the cows also does that (Score:2)
Not feeding the cows also does that, because they die. Can I have a research grant?
Unrealistic..let's just take a look. (Score:5, Informative)
There are ~100 million cows in the US.
They each eat about 24lbs of food a day.
Doesn't say what proportion of that has to be seaweed, but even if it's just a pound a day, that's 100 million pounds of seaweed every day. 36.5 billion pounds a year.
Annual global seaweed harvest was 28,000 metric tons (61,729,433lbs) in '88 according to Wikipedia.
And there are lots more cows around the rest of the world (upwards of 1.5 billion).
People think *I'm* crazy as a vegan. But take note, according to this pro-meat article, livestock accounts for 20% of greenhouse emissions. Should be worrisome to anyone consuming cows or dairy...that's a lot we could cut out very quickly if the will existed.
Re: (Score:3)
Vegans produce more methane than omnivores do...
Vegans CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING!
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're probably joking, but bear in mind that with vegans, we fart ourselves. Everyone else has cows, pigs, chickens and other livestock farting on their behalf....so not really. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This article is a little late, most places reported this back in October. It was 3-5% of the diet for the reduction. Now it is also only one type of seaweed that produces the dramatic reduction.
Now it does bring in a possible business venture of seaweed farming, one of the other articles from when this was first reported estimated roughly 700 square miles of seaweed farms would be needed for the US, and about 250 for Australia. With current seaweed farming basically being null there is plenty of room for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People think *I'm* crazy as a vegan. But take note, according to this pro-meat article, livestock accounts for 20% of greenhouse emissions.
That depends, did you or are you intending to reproduce? If so your actions there are many orders of magnitude worse for the environment and global green house gas emissions than your diet will ever be.
Remember the old days. (Score:2)
Fat (Score:5, Interesting)
What does it do to the fatty acids in the beef?
Mammals are unable to relocate the double bond in fatty acids that we eat. (If you aren't up on this stuff, that is the omega number.) To make a long story short, the essential fatty acids in our bodies are the essential fatty acids in the feed that we raise our food with. Switching most of our beef and milk from grass to corn changed the balance that they eat and thus the balance that we eat. And it was probably unwise to do that without any understanding of what that would do (is doing) to us.
I don't care about methane one way or the other, but the long running chemistry experiment that is our food supply bothers me a little bit.
Re: (Score:3)
How many times have you spoken to your congressmen about your ideas regarding nuclear power? Has he ever sponsored bills promoting research into addressing whatever deficiencies you perceive to exist with the nuclear power program?
What? You don't know your congressman's name, much less how to reach him?
I don't know you at all. Maybe you are the exception. Maybe you actually are deeply involved. But for 99% of the people reading this, for 99% of the people who "care about global warming", they've done n
I thought I read this a while back ... (Score:2)
A quick search nets me http://journals.plos.org/ploso... [plos.org] a 2013 submission. Quote: "The most effective species, Asparagopsis, offers the most promising alternative for mitigation of enteric CH4 emissions."
Not only that... (Score:2)
Seaweed is also being studied as a means of carbon sequestration [sciencealert.com].
So grow vast amounts of seaweed, feed some of it to cows, and you've got a "two for the price of one" effect on global warming.
Will the Canadian agriculture minister (Score:2)
be allowed to talk about this in the Canadian parliament, given the fuss the last time fart was said in parliament [bbc.co.uk]?
Re:Won't ever happen (Score:5, Funny)
Can we at least feed the seaweed to our elderly uncles at Thanksgiving to cut down on their burps and farts?
Re: (Score:3)
Sure [foodnetwork.com]. The color and flavor will be a bit weird to them, but who knows... they may like it.
Note, however, that this just reduces methane and doesn't eliminate the actual fart. The paper also doesn't say whether it has any effect on the amount of methyl mercaptan [wikipedia.org], which is what actually makes your elderly uncles' farts smell so bad, so the only benefit may be fewer uncles lighting their farts at the table.
Re:Won't ever happen (Score:5, Funny)
Fucking cows are polluting the planet. Acid rain and global warming and turning forests into wasteland. I say we kill and eat those fuckers!
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking cows are polluting the planet. Acid rain and global warming and turning forests into wasteland. I say we kill and eat those fuckers!
Way ahead of you... pass the steak sauce.
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking cows are polluting the planet. Acid rain and global warming and turning forests into wasteland. I say we kill and eat those fuckers!
Way ahead of you... pass the steak sauce.
Let's wait for the seaweed feed. Then we can have discount surf-and-turf AND save the environment** all at the same time...
Gotta love science!
** it's a joke, just roll with it greenies...
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President Elect of the United States of America
"Close, but no cigar." -- Bill Clinton, former President of The United States
A Modest Proposal (Score:2)
Fucking humans keep breeding more and more cows, not to mention all the other ways they're polluting the environment. I say we kill and eat those fuckers instead!
Re: (Score:2)
Every time we start killing them people get upset about it. It's a simple solution to so many problems but political untenable.
Re: (Score:2)
That still leaves the methane. Cows gotta go.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if Buffalo pollute as much as cows? I think we need a 5 year, 3.6 billion dollar study on this.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if Buffalo pollute as much as cows? I think we need a 5 year, 3.6 billion dollar study on this.
Eat them too; their wings are delicious.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the Wild ones.
Agg lobby in general would likely prefer it (Score:2)
The current system where it's not just subsidies, but we're actually required to burn food, is screwed up enough that it causes noticeable problems. If farmers can grow seaweed in ponds, and we can eat corn, many people would prefer that. I could definitely see that happening IF we can grow it in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
There simply isn't incentive for the feed manufacturers to fix the methane problem
Maybe not, but there may be for fisheries. If used up fisheries can be used for growing seaweed, this could create a huge additional business for fish farmers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Eating less meat would help GHG reductions.
We like meat. People like you are such killjoys. Please, just go away, you whiny little bitch!
Re: (Score:3)
"Ruminant animals are responsible for roughly 20% of greenhouse gas emissions globally". Not really. The *responsibility* is on the humans who are growing cows for food (and other industrial uses). Eating less meat would help GHG reductions.
The problem is not growing cows for food, the problem is how it's done. If people stop eating meat, whatever they eat instead will be grown as irresponsibly because it's human nature to chase profit and cut corners.
You may have this romantic vision of a few hippies tending to a garden with rain water (greener pastures and all that), but look at where the GMO started - it's the people who invented that who will feed you if meat is gone.
Re:20% of GHGs not from ruminant animals really (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: 20% of GHGs not from ruminant animals really (Score:2, Interesting)
Because
1. The fats and proteins in meat are needed for our health. The human body does its best when it consumes low carbs and high protein.
2. It tastes good.
Please stop offering to poison me with a bad tasting poison. I eat my fruits and vegetables thanks but meat is an essential part of our diet that we evolved to consume.
Hippies like to argue that but the facts are what they are, from the types of teeth we have to the way our body uses fat cholesterol to make its hormones, generate energy and repair cell
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like junkie talk to me. Face it. You're addicted.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Most cited human ailments like heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc are caused by eating too much sugar, which comes from plants, and not from eating meat.
Re: 20% of GHGs not from ruminant animals really (Score:5, Informative)
Ask a paleoanthropologist and they will tell you that you are full of shit about the lifespan of early humans.
One issue that may be of interest is fossil records show many examples of humans and neaderthals and analysis shows that many were likely to have died at an older age due the observation of common age related dental issues (such as ground-down and missing teeth) and arthritis. Unfortunately fossil records are rare so it isn't possible to determine the average age related issues, and even if there were many more fossil records, they cannot determine cancers or cardiovascular issues from fossil remains.
As mentioned by other posters, refined sugar and other refined carbs have been identified as a likely candidate (potentially more significant than saturated fats from meat) for many of these diseases, but the jury is current out on that topic.
The reason prehistoric man was attributed with short life-expectancy was because of high infant mortality and childhood deaths (disease and other mortality risks). If we factor those things out, prehistoric man is estimated to have lifetimes similar to those in the 16th century humans. These extrapolations were done by a few decades ago in scientific studies of isolated hunter-gatherer societies in Africa and South America before there was significant contact between these isolated groups and modern society (unfortunately that they are difficult if not impossible to repeat now because of widespread cultural contamination).
You can take these with a few grains of salt, but it tracks with estimates done over historical times (where they have better information) that factoring out infant/child mortality effects, the lifespan of humans has been pretty constant until the industrial revolution when people started living a bit longer. Post-childhood causes of deaths that limit life-expectancy have changed greatly over time. In the hunter-gatherer society external injuries dominated the deaths, in the agricultural society the prevalence of infectious diseases dominated, it wasn't until the industrial revolution that cardiovascular diseases dominated, but as we move to a "high-tech" society cancers now dominate over cardio-vascular disease.
Since our diets have changed since the earlier part of the industrial revolution, I don't think we are eating *less* meat than we were before during the industrial revolution (where we were collectively much poor-er and couldn't afford much meat) so I'm not so sure it is conclusive that meat is the cause of all this cardio-vascular disease during the industrial revolution, and I'm not sure it's a cause of the current cancer epidemic either. Personally, I suspect generally higher calorie diets and less exercise for cardio-vascular disease prevalence and prior-generational under-reporting combined with increased industrial pollution for the modern cancer prevalence. I have no evidence to support this, but I suspect many will agree with that assessment.
Re: (Score:2)
If people stop eating meat and instead ate the vegetables fed to the animals,
There's nothing worse than being stuck in a confined area with a bunch of righteous vegetarians farting.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing worse than being stuck in a confined area with a bunch of righteous vegetarians farting.
I am a vegetarian, and I have to admit this is true. There are benefits to being a vegetarian, but increased flatulence is a minor problem. Fortunately, I work in a private office with a window.
Re:20% of GHGs not from ruminant animals really (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is indeed growing cows for food, no matter how it's done. If people stop eating meat and instead ate the vegetables fed to the animals,
That's just it. Very few "vegetables" are eaten by cows. Most of their diet is grass while in pasture, hay over the winter, and grain when fattening them up for slaughter. Grass and corn grow very well with little help beyond planting and limited watering. I grew up on a vegetable farm. The corn rows took very little maintenance, but the juicy vegetables like tomatoes and cucumbers took a lot of time and water.
The studies that say beef needs 1000+ gallons of water per pound, while vegetables only need 100-500, don't take into consideration that the cows get most of that water from eating grass in their pasture and drinking from ponds in the pasture. Water for vegetables is mostly coming from a well or dammed river.
If you switched all acreage currently growing field corn for cows, and instead planted all the various vegetables, you would need to use a lot more water to irrigate them, and a lot more labor to tend to them.
Re:20% of GHGs not from ruminant animals really (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of their diet is grass while in pasture, hay over the winter, and grain when fattening them up for slaughter. Grass and corn grow very well with little help beyond planting and limited watering...the cows get most of that water from eating grass in their pasture and drinking from ponds in the pasture.
This is a romantic view of how cows are reared. The cows in our food chains are in fact fed almost entirely on corn and soy, and they don't have any pasture or ponds to drink from. Animal agriculture is in fact an industrial commodity produced using factory farming methods. The water problem lies in the fact that it takes all the fresh water that a cow drinks, plus all the water used to irrigate the 10-40 pounds of feed (for each pound of meat), plus the loss of fresh water in the supply that is polluted with their sewage. The EPA themselves [epa.gov] estimate that 2,500 head of cattle produce the same amount of raw sewage as 411,000 people.
Re: (Score:3)
That's how it is in the USA but some other countries are different.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that there's a more fundamental problem which is that humans are nasty users of natural resources. The answer to the problem the world is facing isn't that humans stop eating beef, or turn off their lights, or do anything else that they won't do because ... well meat is delicious and why would you eat in the dark, but rather there are simply way too many of us.
You want to really save the environment? Don't turn vegan but instead make a conscious decision not to reproduce. That will have more effect o
Re:20% of GHGs not from ruminant animals really (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
A pound of beef takes 10 to 40 pounds of feed, an absurd amount of fresh water, a huge expanse of land, countless antibiotics, and the transportation of elements within the system (feed to cows, cows to processing plants, etc). Why not just skip the middlemen and give humans the vastly-more-efficient feed?
The bulk of the food cows are eating is unfit for human consumption. You couldn't feed it to people even if you wanted to. Our digestive system is completely different and can't be "upgraded" to work like that of a cow.
Calories are not all equals, otherwise we could just feast on corn sugar all day and be healthy.
If you want to be a vegan because you feel sad thinking about animals being slaughtered or because you have a craving for foliage, knock yourself out, but stop peddling that bullshit that's been ar
Re:20% of GHGs not from ruminant animals really (Score:5, Informative)
Our digestive system can't digest corn and soy? That's what cows are fed in industrial agriculture.
Again your are misleading people with your carefully crafted misinformation. For the record, here's what cow eat:
In the beef cattle diet, common roughages include hay, silage and grass. Silage is a crop that has been preserved in a moist, succulent condition by partial fermentation in a tight container (silo) above or below ground. The majority of the food cattle eat comes from this type of feedstuffs.
Much less grain is needed in the cattle’s diet than roughage is. This is because grains fill cattle energy needs more than it fills their stomachs. Cattle are fed more grain the older they get. They gain weight faster when they are on higher amounts of grain. This is how cattle are finished off before they go to market.
http://animalsmart.org/species... [animalsmart.org]
Now why don't you go have a feast of those delicious roughages - that's the bulk of that "40 fold" figure you mentioned - with maybe a small side of grain that was for the most part rejected by beer brewers or left over in the process of cleaning grain destined for human consumption; then you can come back here and educate us about the marvels it did for your digestive system.
Re: (Score:2)
But but but but but .. I don't LIKE seaweed!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only way to solve man-made climate change is to tax average people an exorbitant amount.
And give it to the already exorbitantly rich, because that's the whole scheme behind this AGW-hype.
Re:K2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Game Changer (Score:5, Informative)
Climate models that are calibrated to accurately 'predict' weather conditions in the past are not proven to be as accurate in predicting conditions for which they haven't been calibrated, so knowing very well that this will attract a lot of flak from the usual AGW-zealots, and acknowledging that my karma will be reduced based on their disagreeing with me--which means that slashdot effectively already does have the 'fake news' filter that facebook is only still talking about--I will not be compelled to hold back my opinion.
Run-on sentence much? Anyway, for about the bazillionth time, climate != weather.
The AGW people are not zealots, they're scientists, and those who understand how science works. What you seem to interpret as zealotry is actually a genuine concern for the future of the human race.
All models are a compromise, because they attempt to express in mathematics and algorithms the essential parts of a complex real world. They can make wrong predictions in both directions. But the practice of science works to correct this by observing discrepancies and producing better models. And guess what? Models keep improving, and they are becoming quite accurate:
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
http://www.ucsusa.org/publicat... [ucsusa.org]
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/c... [yale.edu]
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-g... [phys.org]
Whether you accept what the models say or not, the essential take-away is that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gasses, and humanity is responsible for adding a significant amount of them to the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Enough to cause a problem that we must face and solve, or risk significant global hardship. Temperature is trending upwards. Polar ice is melting. Sea levels are rising. These are observed facts.
And maybe, in fact perhaps quite likely, efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will be a net benefit for economies, rather than a hardship.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And guess what? Models keep improving, and they are becoming quite accurate:
That is exactly totally beside the point.
Models are calibrated in a subset of their variable space, i.e. a subset of weather, oops, my bad, climate conditions from the past.
Stating that they are 'improving' inside that subspace is in no way any indication of their accuracy in a totally different part of the variable space, namely some apparently dramatically different subspace where the state of the system is supposed to reside in the future, including the dynamics with which the state of the system arriv
Re: (Score:2)
Climate models are numerically imprecise and approximative computer models with parameters that have been tweaked with data sets from the past, representing a limited region in the multidimensional state space in which the climate variables can reside.
The predictions by those models are based on approximations, guesses--no matter how expertly estimated--and extrapolations by mathematical approximative functions.
I hope I don't need to explain what is th
Re: (Score:3)
Climate models contain plenty of physics. And those from 10-15 years ago have successfully predicted the increase observed over the last decade. Not only that but they also predicted the warming in individual locations, the increased weather extremes, etc.
Every model is an approximation of the real world with some degree of accuracy. These ones are useful and give insight into the most important physical mechanisms at work.
Re: (Score:3)
If eating grass-fed beef is so important, then why are there so many healthy vegetarians?
Re: (Score:2)
That keeps happening to me as well. Bouncing up and down from 'Excellent' to 'Good' depending on if I've mentioned the CAGW farce recently. Let's see if it goes down after this one.
FWIW, eating Kelp / Dulce [seaveg.com] is a thing on the east coast of North America, probably elsewhere, too.
Re: (Score:2)
which means that slashdot effectively already does have the 'fake news' filter that facebook is only still talking about
I think you've smoked a bit too much seaweed.
Re: (Score:3)
If you eat plenty of green leafy vegetables you'll get your K1. As for K2, fermentation of that plant matter in your guy transforms some of that K1 into K2, and Bob's your uncle.
As for the anti-AGW argument, grass-fed beef as a smaller CO2 footprint than feedlot fattened beef, so your argument that the "AGW zealots" are trying to ruin your health. Grass fed beef is more expensive per pound of course, but another plus is more of the money goes to the farmer.
Adding a macroalgae to cattle feed is an interesti
Re: Game Changer (Score:5, Funny)
No. Ruminants are responsible for 20%. Cows are not the only ruminants on the planet.
Did you hear the story about how cows were once the dominant and most intelligent creatures on earth? Then they devolved, and are now just a ruminant of their one time greatness.
Re: Game Changer (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I want you to go to your room and think about what you've done.
No dinner for me?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh shit, now you've got me doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Those cows are going to taste like shit."
On the contrary. Due to their sea-weed diet, they are already pre-salted.
Re: (Score:2)