Sequestering carbon

[Brian Ellis]

I've written a short monograph on this subject. You may see it at http://www.bnellis.com/sequestration/ if you are interested.

[Umfriend]

Interesting. What is r^2 for the model? How many parameters does it have (including transformations of parameters)?

[Brian Ellis]

Umf

Have no idea: I have not been involved in producing the algorithms. I leave that to the experts. The number of parameters is high, but I can't quote a figure.

[Umfriend]

I find the graphs pretty hard to understand. The model results, are they intended to represent modelled temprature "ranges" or or an actual time-series of point values? (Or did they just use a fat line)? Also, at some times it appears as if the two models' (a) and (b) results are additive, but in others as if they are to be averaged to get at (c) model results. Does the source show actual data for the models?

I tried to google some up, but could not find it. You got the report, right?

[Brian Ellis]

The report is downloadable from http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf

The maths are not given, but there are references you could contact to find out more or you could purchase the full scientific report. As I understand it, the grey area is a max/min range, accounting for all the uncertainties in the input data. Graph (a) was a modelling without anthropogenic data, graph (b) with only the anthropogenic data and graph (c) was not an addition or averaging of (a) and (b) but a total remodelling.

I was told that this modelling took a few weeks of supercomputer time and cost well into the six figures!!!

[Umfriend]

pffff, hope to find some time to look at it.

BTW, I do feel we should plant trees a lot. Not so much to lower CO2 levels but to (re)gain fertile land.

[Brian Ellis]

Yup! I'm all for reforestation, provided that it is not a monoculture. No two large trees of the same species should be planted within 50 metres of each other, IMHO, in order to create biodiversity and reduce the risk of propagating diseases and pests. Then let nature decide where the seedlings grow 20 or 30 years later. I saw in Switzerland how the bostrych beetle created havoc in the conifer forests, about 20 years ago, whereas, in the few places where virgin forest occurred, with a mix of perhaps 20 species, including the odd conifer, the beetle was almost absent.

I also saw in Japan many cultivated forests of mixed species and was impressed by the beauty of the coloration.

Here, there is vast reforestation campaign that started in the 1950s, unfortunately almost exclusively monoculture with the Aleppo pine. The result is a plague of the pine processionary caterpillar (related to the Gypsy Moth): hundreds of km2 have to be sprayed from aircraft each winter to keep them more or less under control.

[Marshmallowman]

I think a bit of an atempt to vegetate arad regions and deserts would not go amiss either, coupled with population growth we are going to have to make more effort in the future anyway

[Umfriend]

Wow, 3 posters in a thread and they all agree on something!

[KvHagedorn]

Some forests have single species predominant, and as a result, these species have become fairly resistant to disease and pests. Redwood and Pine forests are some examples here in North America. The wonderful diversity of the European virgin forests have other values though.. I think there is only one section of this forest left, however.. somewhere in eastern Poland. Replanting these as they once were and leaving them alone for our children to enjoy would be a wonderful undertaking.

I agree that reforestation will not solve global warming. The most productive thing we could do to this end is to pour more energy into reseaching alternative fuels. The riddle of fusion needs to be solved.. the lackluster efforts so far put forth just haven't been cutting it.

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
The riddle of fusion needs to be solved.. the lackluster efforts so far put forth just haven't been cutting it.

I agree it would be nice, but I don't think "lacklustre effort" is a suitable description. In fact it is rather patronising and even insulting. This has been researched for 5 decades by many laboratories throughout the world and many dedicated scientists have spent their whole working life on the problem, having spent literally billions to say today what they were saying 5 decades ago: it will be here in about 20 years. The effort has been enormous; it's the practical results that haven't been achieved.

In fact, I'm beginning to wonder whether fusion is, with our current knowledge, not just a bottomless pit to pour $$$ into and get little back as a result.

[KvHagedorn]

I should have said lackluster results. Certainly the people are working hard, but apparently they aren't working smart enough. There needs to be real genius with breakthrough ideas applied here.. unforutunately, the people who might have those ideas are probably restricted from profiting from them because they are OWNED by whatever corporation or government agency they work for, so they will never profit from the breakthrough and they know it.. thus why blow that cushy research paycheck by actually making a breakthrough? A new serfdom results in a new dark age..

[Brian Ellis]

Spirit and Opportunity wouldn't be trundling round Mars if you applied that cynicism to all corporate or governmental research. What makes fusion so different from, say, medical, space or any other cutting edge research?

[KvHagedorn]

Perhaps that's why our Mars efforts have been so mediocre, as well. Compared to their level of dedication during the 60s, NASA is a pale mockery of itself now.

[Wombat]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
Perhaps that's why our Mars efforts have been so mediocre, as well. Compared to their level of dedication during the 60s, NASA is a pale mockery of itself now.

I don't think our Mars efforts have been mediocre at ALL. They've been outstanding. Especially considering the financial strangulation that NASA is put under.