- 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
If Each of Us Planted a Tree, Would It Slow Global Warming?
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:09 pm
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:09 pm
If on target or not, at least someone is applying science to the issue.
Author:
Rhett Allain is an Associate Professor of Physics at Southeastern Louisiana University. He enjoys teaching and talking about physics. Sometimes he takes things apart and can't put them back together.
Author:
Rhett Allain is an Associate Professor of Physics at Southeastern Louisiana University. He enjoys teaching and talking about physics. Sometimes he takes things apart and can't put them back together.
quote:
Yes, we made a lot of assumptions, and some of them are obviously wrong—but they’re not crazy-wrong. For example, we simplified by saying the trees are all the same. But allowing them to be different wouldn’t change the result if our generic tree is a good middle-of-the-pack average. The real question is whether our model is biased in one direction or the other.
One obvious bias is that we assumed away branches. (I'm trying to picture a poor village smithy standing under a non-spreading chestnut tree …) But that means we probably underestimated the carbon reduction. By how much? That would depend on the species, but I could imagine it increasing the benefit pretty significantly.
How about one more quick estimation. If everyone planted a tree, how much land would that require? Let's say they’re planted in a square grid, 5 meters apart, so that each tree takes up an area of 25 square meters. With 7.5 billion trees, that requires 1.8 x 1011 square meters of land, or 72,000 square miles. That's roughly the size of North Dakota.
I think we could do that. And with all due respect, North Dakota could use some more trees. Oh, for comparison, the Amazon rain forest has an area of 2.1 million square miles. Please don't burn it down.
29
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:10 pm to Alltheway Tigers!
Haven’t you heard? We may be on the brink of an ice age.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:10 pm to Alltheway Tigers!
This is actually going to be the coldest winter on record
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:22 pm to Alltheway Tigers!
I do my part for the environment when I eat steak.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:24 pm to Alltheway Tigers!
Climate is due to the Sun and there is nothing that we've done or can do to change it.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:25 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:
This is actually going to be Decoldest winter on record
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:31 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:
This is actually going to be the coldest winter on record
Solar cycles. We are currently at an 11 year minimum and the 11 year cycles are getting progressively weaker.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:35 pm to Alltheway Tigers!
Climate change is caused by the irregular orbit of the earth around the sun
It directly plots warming periods and ice aged
It directly plots warming periods and ice aged
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:36 pm to Alltheway Tigers!
There are more trees in the USA today I believe than when the white men came. Wrong. Just checked it.
But there are more than 100 years ago and about 70% of what there was in 1600.
But there are more than 100 years ago and about 70% of what there was in 1600.
This post was edited on 10/31/19 at 9:41 pm
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:38 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:
This is actually going to be the coldest winter on record
What does this even mean? In the entire recorded history of the planet? Colder than the Ice Ages?
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:41 pm to Alltheway Tigers!
Here's a better idea: If each of us planted a Leftists then we'd soon stop having to listen to their lies about "climate change". At the very least we'd be eliminating the toxic fumes they emit.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:41 pm to I B Freeman
The overwhelming bulk of CO2 is consumed by blue green algae. Next is grasslands such as the Steppe region of Russia or African savannas.
Planting trees would have little to no effect. But it’s still a good thing to do for other reasons.
Planting trees would have little to no effect. But it’s still a good thing to do for other reasons.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:42 pm to Alltheway Tigers!
I actually think reforestation and planting more grass would do more to help the environment than anything proposed by any moron leftist.
Trees would result in Healthier air. Cooler Cities. Less erosion of earth. Plus they look pretty.
And the kicker. It’s gotta be cheaper, not to mention less invasive to our personal life than eliminating airplanes and cows, and enacting socialism.
What’s not to love?
I approve, and this is actually my suggestion to solve the problem. The fricking trees eat CO2 and create oxygen.
Circle of life. It’s science. I took no class, either science related or history related where socialism made anything better.
Trees would result in Healthier air. Cooler Cities. Less erosion of earth. Plus they look pretty.
And the kicker. It’s gotta be cheaper, not to mention less invasive to our personal life than eliminating airplanes and cows, and enacting socialism.
What’s not to love?
I approve, and this is actually my suggestion to solve the problem. The fricking trees eat CO2 and create oxygen.
Circle of life. It’s science. I took no class, either science related or history related where socialism made anything better.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:43 pm to Alltheway Tigers!
Did you know that trees need co2 to create O2?
Without it they can't convert it to oxygen.
Without it they can't convert it to oxygen.
This post was edited on 10/31/19 at 9:58 pm
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:47 pm to umop_apisdn
Yes it would. It's also not as bad as Dem's say it is.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:53 pm to Alltheway Tigers!
I just planted 450 acres this past winter on my place.
I think it ended up being about 340,000 trees
Do I get a gold star?
I think it ended up being about 340,000 trees
Do I get a gold star?
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:55 pm to Alltheway Tigers!
quote:
If on target or not, at least someone is applying science to the issue.
Hardly, a physicist that apparently doesn't grasp the carbon cycle concept isn't applying much science here. If the average sedentary human produces 2.3 lbs of CO2 per day just existing and a mature tree can take in somewhat less than 48 lbs of CO2 per year, it doesn't take much to see planting a few billion trees isn't going to do a damned thing. Oh, and in the 10 years it takes the average tree to reach a point where it's consuming that much CO2, about 700 million more humans will be occupying the planet.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:56 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Trees would result in Healthier air. Cooler Cities. Less erosion of earth. Plus they look pretty.
What about winter time?
Most deciduous trees are nothing more than dead looking sticks in the winter time. By the way, there is no photosynthesis happening if there are no leaves. So no Oxygen production, but a tree is still alive and expelling Carbon Dioxide.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:56 pm to Wednesday
quote:
What’s not to love?
Fallen leaves and branches. Not saying that out weights the positives, but there are things not to love.
This post was edited on 10/31/19 at 9:57 pm
Posted on 10/31/19 at 10:01 pm to Alltheway Tigers!
Not if we all planted them in California, they'd just burn the mf'ers down with their mismanagement of forest land
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News