I am 100-.9^100 percent sure you are just using this as an opportunity to shill for your thing but the Meta logo is just an undulating circle, while yours is a Mobius strip (meta is only the Mobius in profile)
Trees eventually decay and rot. The problem is fundamentally that we're taking carbon from outside the biosphere and putting it into the biosphere. The Earth has self-regulatory mechanisms to keep that balanced with increased rock weathering going against constant levels of volcanic CO2 emissions but that solves the issue on the order of 10,000 years and trees don't last nearly that long. Plus, growing forests only absorb enough carbon per square meter to offset about watt of coal power production.
Increasing the world's forest cover is worth doing for its own sake, on biodiversity grounds, but its at best a small part of the solution to global warming.
If they're under water they'll probably decay to methane instead of CO2 which is even worse. If you can put them somewhere dry, though, that might work. Bury them in the dessert maybe?
My third grade idea for trapping CO2 was to fill upside down buckets with gas and put them push them to the bottom of the ocean. The pressure would eventually compress the gas into a solid, so it would sink and remain there.
I'm still accepting funding in the from of rare stamps.
You've gotten good answers, but allow me to expand with an eye towards a Cunningham's law situation. We have to address "how did all that carbon get underground in the first place?" I can't tell you much about oil, but coal is buried trees. They buried because there were not yet microorganisms that could break them down. So atmospheric carbon ended up underground due to the extraordinary circumstance of 1) there were tons of trees 2) the trees died 3) the trees could not decompose, so their carbon ended up buried then subjected to geological processes that turned them into a kind of rock. This takes the thick, CO2 and O2 rich atmosphere that gave us 3 foot wide dragonflies (which, honestly, pretty cool), and turns it into the one where we can live now. This process will never happen again, because now trees can break down.
If you wanted to zoom out and squint and get a little biblical, this is a Garden of Eden situation. There was an atmosphere that could not support our lives. There was a perfect mix of things at the same time to change that atmosphere into the one in which humans flourished. It was something too powerful we'd never be able to replicate ourselves. All we had to do was not exploit buried hydrocarbons. But we've instead made a race to dump as much carbon in the atmosphere as possible, it would seem. And now the comfortable world we live in will doom us to live outside of paradise.
No, they release the stored carbon from the tree in various cycles.
Unless you're doing deep carbon extraction, nature is pretty well carbon neutral. A forest of some given density, over time, will remain carbon neutral. If it gets thicker, the carbon captured is more, but it's also more prone to fires (which obviously then release that carbon).
Nature is circular. Any "waste" from one process is an input into another process. It's humans that think in linear "Resources into products into waste" ways.
Carbon is fungible, so trees will consume carbon emitted by any source. So in equilibrium the carbon consumed by trees and other sources will be equal to carbon emitted by decaying trees, or wildfires, or any other source, whether man made, or coming from a comet or volcano. To the trees, it's all food.
But outside equilibrium, the forest canopy will expand until equilibrium is reached, or the forest canopy will shrink until equilibrium is reached. You will also see more hungry plant life supported in environments with more carbon again until starvation levels are reached.
It is like any other kind of food. We can think of food as sequestered in the living bodies of a population, with deaths matched by births, a constant amount is sequestered. But increase food and population goes up until starvation levels are reached and now more is sequestered. Decrease food and population falls so less is sequestered. It doesn't matter where the food comes from. Currently 20% of the earth's carbon is sequestered in plant biomass. This is why various carbon offset programs do include increasing forests as a legitimate offset, but the land has to be allocated to the forest in perpetuity. It's not like you can grow 10 trees, the point is to support a bigger forest where there are 10 more trees permanently.
Thus nature regulates carbon levels at those altitudes that trees can feed from. I have no knowledge about equilibrating mechanisms in the atmosphere as a whole, this discussion is for carbon accessible to plants.
>Unless you're doing deep carbon extraction, nature is pretty well carbon neutral. A forest of some given density, over time, will remain carbon neutral. If it gets thicker, the carbon captured is more, but it's also more prone to fires (which obviously then release that carbon).
No, you can get it to sequester carbon if you plant trees (or other plant matter), harvest it, convert it to charcoal, then spread that around. Apparently in that form (biochar) it stays sequestered for a few thousand years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar
Yes, but that's neither geological scale times, nor something nature does. I can make a forest sequester carbon if I dig big holes and bury trees in them, but that's not a particularly natural process either.
Left alone, nature's cycles are mostly carbon neutral.
I am not a scientist but I don't think that's right. A decay and rot situation should put some amount of carbon in the ground. Where else would all the peat that formed coal have come from otherwise?
Obviously violent combustion will put a great percentage in the air, but I don't see a strong reason to believe that a rotting tree trunk will completely put carbon in the air and none of it in the ground.
All the carbon that makes up most of the mass of plant is from the CO2 in the air. Decay and rot release whatever carbon was captured back into the air.
The same way the food you eat turns to CO2 you breathe out but due to fungi and bacteria.
Regardless of Ethiopia or #TeamTrees, trees are not fast or permanent enough to sequester anything substantial.
Not all tactics will be equally effective. It's worth investing in the approach(es) that are most effective in proof-of-concepts trial runs guided by a first principles perspective. That's how to maximize change. GMO kelp and phythoplankton for oceanic BECCS seem like the leading candidates.
Is there any reason we don't genetically modify trees so that they grow huge? GMOs are some of our most advanced technologies, yet it seems no one has thought to modify trees to grow more.
That's a rosy, invalid assumption and equivocation. Climate drying, and effectively biome changes in the direction of desertification, across much of western North America and other parts of the world due to climate change isn't conducive to replacing biomass lost to forest fires caused by multi-year droughts.
I'm assuming this is done as a part of an effort to actually regrow and maintain forests as natural carbon sinks, and not some weird thing where trees are grown in the desert.
A couple of points that I see people miss surprisingly often. I will pretend for the purposes of this post that I do not know how mRNA or DNA works and will not argue that until very recently we considered 75% of our DNA structure be junk.
What really surprises me is the fact that a lot of educated people trust 'science' blindly. So on to my first point. The original narrative regarding the current crisis is that we are dealing with an extremely trasmitable and deadly virus. As such we are facing the danger of collapsing the medicare system because intensive care units are simply not enough to handle the volume of cases. A disastrous situation, I agree. Fine! So let's have a vaccine. Let's combat 'future' (ie new) infections (cases) and completely disregard the 'present' situation at hand. Why should we bother with coming up with a treatment (medicine, antibodies or whatever) to keep people from entering intensive care? Our savior is only something that regards new cases alone. Until we come up with such a 'miracle' unfortunately people will die. This concludes the first point, the vaccine mania and the complete disregard for treatment. What sane person would see a 'conspiracy' here?
The second point. "The technology is so advanced that you noobs have no idea". Granted! Let's pretend I'm an ignorant noob. "The new mRNA and cDNA tech is effective and safe". How do you know? Let's entertain this idea for a while. Sure, we've got a tech that can produce a brand new vaccine in a matter of a couple of hours. All it takes is a gene-sequence typed on a keyboard which is then 'printed' in the bio-reactor and voila, the wonder is here! Ready to be injected into the human body, able to affect and modify sensitive cellular mechanics pretty much as you would type some code, compile it and load onto your chip, right? What a wonder! Who needs thorough testing after all? We have ruled over nature! No one will ever get sick by this 'curse' again or any of it's variations. One single recipe to rule over the 7.5Bn person diversity on this planet. Yes, because we have so advanced tech that we are standing at a point where we have a complete understanding to the very finest detail of cellular biology. Only if countries like Israel hadn't proven otherwise...
Trust the 'science', it IS safe. Not only we have a complete understanding to the very finest detail of cellular biology but we also have mastered time-travel. Yes, we have so advanced tech that allows us to time travel to the year 2030 A.D. and behold our wonder did not hurt anyone, ever! Who needs testing? We are so bright! What a time to be alive!
I guess we can now take our righteous seat right next to God! Hell, what am I saying we ARE Gods! Oh, sorry I forgot, we still gotta find that gene-sequence that beats death altogether. But worry not, our saviors are a few clicks away! But I digress... Forgive me.
What sane person would see a conspiracy in all the above? Hell, what 'educated' person with 'critical' thinking would dare to question the 'wonder'? We have so advanced tech, said the 'educated' Gods.
I'm confused, is it science we are talking about here or is it religion???
For sure they can. Someone with an appeal to power will take advantage of these people and tell everyone how smart the decisions are (s)he is making and that everybody else should shut up.
My understanding is that it generates parallel to the rgb information, a depth-map and segments encoded also in specific spectrum of colors. This removes the burden of heavy image processing (edge-detection, etc) which improves performance. The segments can be trained for classification.
"The number is mounting, and it'll vary depending on whom you talk to," said John Stewart, an evolutionary paleoecologist at Bournemouth University in the United Kingdom. Some researchers argue that the species known as Homo erectus is in fact made up of several different species, including Homo georgicus and Homo ergaster.
"It's all about the definition of a species and the degree to which you accept variation within a species," Stewart told Live Science. "It can become a slightly irritating and pedantic discussion, because everyone wants an answer. But the truth is that it really does depend."
It is very interesting to read how Hesiod defined the extinct species (size, anatomy, behaviour, etc) almost 3000 years ago and contrast it with modern research
The author at 17 years of age can understand academics and research. Has the skills and dedication to go through an exercise of reconstructing state-of-the-art.
I can't help but feel pride and hope for the future, both the author's and the world.
I was watching an ICML presentation and was surprised by the presenter's (not OP, a different AI prodigy) apparent age. Well turns out he was 17 and a 2nd year PhD student. I think he graduated from UC Davis when he was 14 or something.
Some people roll wicked real life DnD character sheets, that's for sure.
A vanity exercise? I think you are really missing the point here. As a 3D graphics developer myself, having published my 13-years long pet-project, a full-featured 3D graphics engine as open source (https://github.com/StylianosPolychroniadis/NthDimension), I can surely tell you that going 3D as well as GPU programming, is The most rewarding, in terms of computer science knowledge, effort one can possibly do.
Now only if UV texture-mapping was any easier, I would love to be in a position to call myself a 3D artist.
Luckily, procedural graphics (both geometry & texturing) has filled the gap for me.
Off course, the biggest school was working along with real 3D artists that shed light and introduced me to engine and shader optimization, my greatest passion at the moment (along with GPU parallelization).
