- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Trees vs CO2 in the atmosphere
Posted on 3/22/25 at 2:02 pm
Posted on 3/22/25 at 2:02 pm
Playing with AI on this.
The average tree consumes about 30 pounds of CO2 per year.
There are about 3 trillion trees on Earth.
Human CO2 emissions are estimated to be about 33B metric tons per year.
Our planet is getting greener.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 2:28 pm to Auburn1968
But did you factor in the cow farts to your equation?
Posted on 3/22/25 at 2:30 pm to Auburn1968
If you really want to laugh, look at CO2 absorption rates of plant life in shallow water. It’s off the charts per acre vs trees.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 2:31 pm to Auburn1968
Trees don’t consume CO2. They trap it temporarily.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 2:34 pm to Auburn1968
I’ve had conversations with trees before
Posted on 3/22/25 at 2:55 pm to Auburn1968
What about chili with beans? Did you account for that?
Posted on 3/22/25 at 3:05 pm to holdem Tiger
You'll have to explain this one.
This post was edited on 3/22/25 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 3/22/25 at 3:11 pm to holdem Tiger
quote:
Trees don’t consume CO2. They trap it temporarily.
Right, carbon isn't really reduced until the subduction process sends the deposits back into the mantle.
This post was edited on 3/23/25 at 1:05 am
Posted on 3/22/25 at 3:17 pm to shoestring
Growing trees convert CO2 into wood. Mature trees don’t absorb much CO2 at all. And rotting trees return all of the carbon back to air.
No carbon is destroyed, and trees aren’t very good at long term sequestration.
No carbon is destroyed, and trees aren’t very good at long term sequestration.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 3:57 pm to holdem Tiger
So how about just burying trees then?
Posted on 3/22/25 at 4:02 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
Our planet is getting greener.
The utilization of fossil fuels such as coal, crude oil, and natural gas have resulted in the greatest re-forestation period since man kind has been on this planet.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 4:17 pm to UptownJoeBrown
quote:
So how about just burying trees then?
That approach definitely worked during the Carboniferous period.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 4:22 pm to Mushroom1968
quote:
I’ve had conversations with trees before
quote:
Mushroom1968

Posted on 3/22/25 at 4:28 pm to Auburn1968
Between 2010 and 2020, the net loss in forests globally was 4.7 million hectares per year.
- Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020
- Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020
Posted on 3/22/25 at 5:28 pm to Tridentds
This is one of my favorites, but there are bunches of this type of demonstrations on internet.


Posted on 3/22/25 at 5:34 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
The average tree consumes about 30 pounds of CO2 per year.
There are about 3 trillion trees on Earth.
Human CO2 emissions are estimated to be about 33B metric tons per year.
Our planet is getting greener.
That’s nice, dear.

Posted on 3/22/25 at 5:55 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
This is one of my favorites, but there are bunches of this type of demonstrations on internet.
I guess it's great for photosynthetic lifeforms, I am sure Cyanobacteria will feast. Take a look at the results of the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event if you want a glimpse of how it might go for most of us.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 6:50 pm to holdem Tiger
Yes, Trees absorb CO2 during growth. When they die, they release it back. I'm not if they take in more than release when die or not.
An interesting process is biomass energy. Plant 10 trillion trees, let them absorb CO2, then chop them down and burn to create biomass energy. You'd have to put carbon capture and sequestration on the Biomass energy. Expensive process compared to nat gas turbines.
An interesting process is biomass energy. Plant 10 trillion trees, let them absorb CO2, then chop them down and burn to create biomass energy. You'd have to put carbon capture and sequestration on the Biomass energy. Expensive process compared to nat gas turbines.
This post was edited on 3/22/25 at 6:52 pm
Posted on 3/22/25 at 9:08 pm to FutureMikeVIII
quote:
That’s nice, dear.
That's a very poor place to measure CO2.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 9:16 pm to Auburn1968
Why’s that? It’s not influenced by local pockets of pollution and higher where levels have stabilized giving a better picture of the average
Popular
Back to top
