On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:18 PM Ian Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > Would anyone fancy checking my calculations?
I don't, but if I did, I'd try to find an alternate way of getting the same information and see if the numbers land in the same order of magnitude. (For example, when talking about global temperature change over the last century, I like double checking those kinds of numbers with rise in sea level. Weather stations tend to be near airports, which tend to have lots of asphalt, but sea level doesn't have that issue and the thermal expansion coefficient of water is something I can easily find, as are NOAA numbers on sea level...) So, if I were be double checking numbers related to CO2, I'd try to find some similar thing. For actual levels, I don't have any good ideas - maybe something optical? For cost of pulling it back out? The big mechanism there has always been trees and similar vegetation. So maybe I'd check forestry service records, or lumber statistics. I'd probably have to put some thought into it though - maybe a few weeks before I had any really good ideas on what to look for. Hopefully someone else has been doing this thinking, but most people aren't really interested in doing that kind of thinking. (Related: It takes about 60 years to grow a typical crop of trees for lumber -- maybe 10 times that for something like Sitka Spruce -- and during that time they relatively large amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere. So if enough land is earmarked for vegetation, we should be seeing a lot of CO2 being pulled out of the atmosphere. Well, that and don't let them burn up in forest fires, for example.) Anyways, good luck, but I'm going to put myself in the "not enough interest to try to figure this out" category, for now. Maybe if I think up a good approach I'll change my mind. Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
