Would someone prove me wrong...USA has nearly 6 times the number of trees necessary

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again as far as Obama's spending versus Bush.... wow!!!

Now a true comparison should be what is the total 8 years for Obama.
The estimate for 2016 is this: $3.525 trillion in Receipts..... $3.999 trillion in spending or a $.474 trillion.
Add that deficit to the total deficit Obama has rung up of $6.696 plus the 2016E of $.474 is $7.170 trillion total for 8 years.

Compare $7.170 trillion in deficit spending by Obama over 8 years to Bush's $2.005 deficit spending how much of an increase in the deficit spending?
Obama's deficit are 358% more then Bush's deficit spending.... i.e. nearly 400% deficit spending INCREASE by Obama!


You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

You also forgot though to add to Obama's deficit the following:
TARP paid back $672B and Obama spent THAT!...
Add that to his $7.170 billion and you get $7.842 Billion or 391% more then Bush.

REMEMBER the deficits start at Zero each year. Bush started at Zero in 2001,Obama started at zero 2009!
If Bush spent exactly as much as came in the deficit would be zero. Therefore Obama started at ZERO deficit but spent each year more then Bush did!

View attachment 67295

REMEMBER the deficits start at Zero each year.

Bush ran up the National Debt from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, he added $4.9 trillion.

Obama ran up the National Debt from $10.6 trillion to $19.1 trillion, so far, for an addition of $8.5 trillion.

8.5 is 73% more than 4.9

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

You should probably stop posting math, because you suck at it, seriously.

And once you are talking about the DEBT!
NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???
The national debt is when there is a deficit the US borrows to pay the deficit. That borrowing adds to the DEBT!
The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush and remember NOTHING adverse has happened during Obama's terms!
NO hurricanes. NO 9/11... No dot.com bust that cost $8 trillion in market losses. NOTHING of those gigantic events.
So why is that hard to admit? THEY happened! Nothing like that has happened to obama. And in spite of NO major events that costs TAX revenues
ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

And once you are talking about the DEBT!

Yes, that's what you get when you spend more than revenues.

NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???

The deficit spending adds to the debt, that's why I'm showing how much was added to the debt.

The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush

Nope. Obama's deficit spending is $8.5 trillion, so far, compared to $4.9 trillion, for Bush.

ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

You should stop posting your math errors, they make you look stupid.

 

[Siete]

HM figures ....

 

[g5000]

HM figures ....

I think I finally figured out what is going on.

The rubes are not getting enough oxygen to their brains!

We need more trees.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wasn't it 8 times earlier? Did someone prove the OP wrong?

I did. Every time I check his math.

Of course I did! I admitted it. That's what really smart people do though and that's why I wanted some to refute it.
BUT yup I made a mistake and said 8 times .. Of this is still far more then the idiot who used 7.5 tons per person when it was per household!
This idiot said...You need 756 living trees to absorb and at 330 million that would be over 249 billion trees. WRONG.
AGAIN because this idiot can't admit a mistake like I admitted he still is wrong and reading skills woeful!
When you consider that the living tree absorbs 50 lbs/year and the average person emits 5,905 that means it will take 118 trees which is far closer to my original
mistake of 94.5 trees which I calculated using this site: :Carbon dioxide emission footprint calculator and offset estimator then your grossly exaggerated 756 trees.

Of course I did! I admitted it.

Still waiting for you to also admit your error here:
In 6 years Obama has spent 400% more revenue ($6.2T) then Bush did in 8 years!

Of this is still far more then the idiot who used 7.5 tons per person when it was per household!

You made that mistake too? LOL!

This idiot said...You need 756 living trees to absorb

Yeah, based on your claim that you emit 37,800 pounds and the claim that a tree would absorb 50 pounds a year, 37800/50 = 756. Durr.

When you consider that the living tree absorbs 50 lbs/year and the average person emits 5,905 that means it will take 118 trees which is far closer to my original
mistake of 94.5 trees which I calculated using this site

Your original error was based on your claim of 18.9 tons, for everyone
Bringing in a totally different source for emissions to defend your original bad math is silly at best, dishonest at worst.

AGAIN because this idiot can't admit a mistake

I've admitted every one of your mistakes. Durr.

My first comment said 94.5 trees per person...based on this calculator did you try it? NOO!
Carbon dioxide emission footprint calculator and offset estimator
YOU were the one who mentioned 37,800 pounds per person!
I never said 7.5 tons per person! I said per household! I gave you the fact it was 7.5 tons per household. I gave you the fact there 2.54 people per household!
Which works out to 5,905 lbs per person! NOT 18.9 tons ! YOU wrote that!

YOU wrote "If 330 million Americans emit 38,000 pounds (19 tons) of CO2 per year, each, that's 12,540,000,000,000 pounds per year."

Which works out to 5,905 lbs per person! NOT 18.9 tons ! YOU wrote that!

todd is correct with the math asked in the question

15000/2.54=5905.5

 

[mamooth]

Please prove me wrong

No problem.

That calculator was talking about growing new trees. It was not saying that existing trees will eat your carbon.

The existing trees are dying and releasing their carbon at the same rate they're growing and absorbing carbon, hence the existing trees have no net effect on the carbon balance.

So, in order to offset your CO2, you'd have to plant 94 or 118 or whatever number of trees, AND make sure they all grew to maturity, AND do that every year for the rest of your life.

 

[Timmy]

Does the tree count include Alaska ?

I'd guess that the trees North of mason Dixon line are dormant about 1/2 the year .

 

[healthmyths]

Please prove me wrong

No problem.

That calculator was talking about growing new trees. It was not saying that existing trees will eat your carbon.

The existing trees are dying and releasing their carbon at the same rate they're growing and absorbing carbon, hence the existing trees have no net effect on the carbon balance.

So, in order to offset your CO2, you'd have to plant 94 or 118 or whatever number of trees, AND make sure they all grew to maturity, AND do that every year for the rest of your life.

NOTHING was said about NEW trees! GEEZ what is wrong with your reading skills? You still in grade school?
AGAIN... the calculator tells how many trees it takes to offset emissions.. DID you try it?
WHERE in any of the below information does it say "NEW TREES"???

Carbon dioxide emissions calculator
This carbon dioxide emission calculator will help you gain an approximate idea of how many tons of carbon dioxide some of your activities generate and how many trees it would take to offset those emissions - free to use! Carbon dioxide emission footprint calculator and offset estimator
Below the emissions figures will be the estimated number of trees needed to offset those emissions both annually and monthly.

SEE.. No. of trees to offset per year! AGAIN for you dolts.......
In my calculation it will 94.5 trees breathing in my CO2 emissions to sequester at 50 lbs per tree/year by CO2 emissions!
HOW clear can that BE???

 

[healthmyths]

Again as far as Obama's spending versus Bush.... wow!!!

Now a true comparison should be what is the total 8 years for Obama.
The estimate for 2016 is this: $3.525 trillion in Receipts..... $3.999 trillion in spending or a $.474 trillion.
Add that deficit to the total deficit Obama has rung up of $6.696 plus the 2016E of $.474 is $7.170 trillion total for 8 years.

Compare $7.170 trillion in deficit spending by Obama over 8 years to Bush's $2.005 deficit spending how much of an increase in the deficit spending?
Obama's deficit are 358% more then Bush's deficit spending.... i.e. nearly 400% deficit spending INCREASE by Obama!


You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

You also forgot though to add to Obama's deficit the following:
TARP paid back $672B and Obama spent THAT!...
Add that to his $7.170 billion and you get $7.842 Billion or 391% more then Bush.

REMEMBER the deficits start at Zero each year. Bush started at Zero in 2001,Obama started at zero 2009!
If Bush spent exactly as much as came in the deficit would be zero. Therefore Obama started at ZERO deficit but spent each year more then Bush did!

View attachment 67295

REMEMBER the deficits start at Zero each year.

Bush ran up the National Debt from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, he added $4.9 trillion.

Obama ran up the National Debt from $10.6 trillion to $19.1 trillion, so far, for an addition of $8.5 trillion.

8.5 is 73% more than 4.9

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

You should probably stop posting math, because you suck at it, seriously.

And once you are talking about the DEBT!
NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???
The national debt is when there is a deficit the US borrows to pay the deficit. That borrowing adds to the DEBT!
The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush and remember NOTHING adverse has happened during Obama's terms!
NO hurricanes. NO 9/11... No dot.com bust that cost $8 trillion in market losses. NOTHING of those gigantic events.
So why is that hard to admit? THEY happened! Nothing like that has happened to obama. And in spite of NO major events that costs TAX revenues
ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

And once you are talking about the DEBT!

Yes, that's what you get when you spend more than revenues.

NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???

The deficit spending adds to the debt, that's why I'm showing how much was added to the debt.

The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush

Nope. Obama's deficit spending is $8.5 trillion, so far, compared to $4.9 trillion, for Bush.

ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

You should stop posting your math errors, they make you look stupid.

OK one last time: 7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Please prove me wrong

No problem.

That calculator was talking about growing new trees. It was not saying that existing trees will eat your carbon.

The existing trees are dying and releasing their carbon at the same rate they're growing and absorbing carbon, hence the existing trees have no net effect on the carbon balance.

So, in order to offset your CO2, you'd have to plant 94 or 118 or whatever number of trees, AND make sure they all grew to maturity, AND do that every year for the rest of your life.

NOTHING was said about NEW trees! GEEZ what is wrong with your reading skills? You still in grade school?
AGAIN... the calculator tells how many trees it takes to offset emissions.. DID you try it?
WHERE in any of the below information does it say "NEW TREES"???

Carbon dioxide emissions calculator
This carbon dioxide emission calculator will help you gain an approximate idea of how many tons of carbon dioxide some of your activities generate and how many trees it would take to offset those emissions - free to use! Carbon dioxide emission footprint calculator and offset estimator
Below the emissions figures will be the estimated number of trees needed to offset those emissions both annually and monthly.


View attachment 67349

SEE.. No. of trees to offset per year! AGAIN for you dolts.......
In my calculation it will 94.5 trees breathing in my CO2 emissions to sequester at 50 lbs per tree/year by CO2 emissions!
HOW clear can that BE???

NOTHING was said about NEW trees! GEEZ what is wrong with your reading skills?

Sigh.........

Tree offset calculation is based on a tree planted in the humid tropics absorbing on average 50 pounds (22 kg) of carbon dioxide annually over 40 years2 - each tree will absorb 1 ton of CO2 over its lifetime; but as trees grow, they compete for resources and some may die or be destroyed - not all will achieve their full carbon sequestration potential. This calculator assumes that 5 trees should be planted to ensure that at least one lives to 40 years or that their combined sequestration equals 1 ton.

Remember how I said you shouldn't post your math? Maybe you shouldn't post about reading either?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again as far as Obama's spending versus Bush.... wow!!!

Now a true comparison should be what is the total 8 years for Obama.
The estimate for 2016 is this: $3.525 trillion in Receipts..... $3.999 trillion in spending or a $.474 trillion.
Add that deficit to the total deficit Obama has rung up of $6.696 plus the 2016E of $.474 is $7.170 trillion total for 8 years.

Compare $7.170 trillion in deficit spending by Obama over 8 years to Bush's $2.005 deficit spending how much of an increase in the deficit spending?
Obama's deficit are 358% more then Bush's deficit spending.... i.e. nearly 400% deficit spending INCREASE by Obama!


You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

You also forgot though to add to Obama's deficit the following:
TARP paid back $672B and Obama spent THAT!...
Add that to his $7.170 billion and you get $7.842 Billion or 391% more then Bush.

REMEMBER the deficits start at Zero each year. Bush started at Zero in 2001,Obama started at zero 2009!
If Bush spent exactly as much as came in the deficit would be zero. Therefore Obama started at ZERO deficit but spent each year more then Bush did!

View attachment 67295

REMEMBER the deficits start at Zero each year.

Bush ran up the National Debt from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, he added $4.9 trillion.

Obama ran up the National Debt from $10.6 trillion to $19.1 trillion, so far, for an addition of $8.5 trillion.

8.5 is 73% more than 4.9

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

You should probably stop posting math, because you suck at it, seriously.

And once you are talking about the DEBT!
NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???
The national debt is when there is a deficit the US borrows to pay the deficit. That borrowing adds to the DEBT!
The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush and remember NOTHING adverse has happened during Obama's terms!
NO hurricanes. NO 9/11... No dot.com bust that cost $8 trillion in market losses. NOTHING of those gigantic events.
So why is that hard to admit? THEY happened! Nothing like that has happened to obama. And in spite of NO major events that costs TAX revenues
ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

And once you are talking about the DEBT!

Yes, that's what you get when you spend more than revenues.

NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???

The deficit spending adds to the debt, that's why I'm showing how much was added to the debt.

The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush

Nope. Obama's deficit spending is $8.5 trillion, so far, compared to $4.9 trillion, for Bush.

ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

You should stop posting your math errors, they make you look stupid.

OK one last time: 7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

View attachment 67358

7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion...

Don't know where you got 2.005 trillion for Bush's deficits, but you're way, way off.

7.842 trillion .. divide by.. 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

Which would mean an almost 300% increase, if your bad numbers were correct.

Try this, what percentage increase if you go from 3 to 6?

 

[healthmyths]

Again as far as Obama's spending versus Bush.... wow!!!

Now a true comparison should be what is the total 8 years for Obama.
The estimate for 2016 is this: $3.525 trillion in Receipts..... $3.999 trillion in spending or a $.474 trillion.
Add that deficit to the total deficit Obama has rung up of $6.696 plus the 2016E of $.474 is $7.170 trillion total for 8 years.

Compare $7.170 trillion in deficit spending by Obama over 8 years to Bush's $2.005 deficit spending how much of an increase in the deficit spending?
Obama's deficit are 358% more then Bush's deficit spending.... i.e. nearly 400% deficit spending INCREASE by Obama!


You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

You also forgot though to add to Obama's deficit the following:
TARP paid back $672B and Obama spent THAT!...
Add that to his $7.170 billion and you get $7.842 Billion or 391% more then Bush.

REMEMBER the deficits start at Zero each year. Bush started at Zero in 2001,Obama started at zero 2009!
If Bush spent exactly as much as came in the deficit would be zero. Therefore Obama started at ZERO deficit but spent each year more then Bush did!

View attachment 67295

REMEMBER the deficits start at Zero each year.

Bush ran up the National Debt from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, he added $4.9 trillion.

Obama ran up the National Debt from $10.6 trillion to $19.1 trillion, so far, for an addition of $8.5 trillion.

8.5 is 73% more than 4.9

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

You should probably stop posting math, because you suck at it, seriously.

And once you are talking about the DEBT!
NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???
The national debt is when there is a deficit the US borrows to pay the deficit. That borrowing adds to the DEBT!
The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush and remember NOTHING adverse has happened during Obama's terms!
NO hurricanes. NO 9/11... No dot.com bust that cost $8 trillion in market losses. NOTHING of those gigantic events.
So why is that hard to admit? THEY happened! Nothing like that has happened to obama. And in spite of NO major events that costs TAX revenues
ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

And once you are talking about the DEBT!

Yes, that's what you get when you spend more than revenues.

NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???

The deficit spending adds to the debt, that's why I'm showing how much was added to the debt.

The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush

Nope. Obama's deficit spending is $8.5 trillion, so far, compared to $4.9 trillion, for Bush.

ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

You should stop posting your math errors, they make you look stupid.

OK one last time: 7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

View attachment 67358

7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion...

Don't know where you got 2.005 trillion for Bush's deficits, but you're way, way off.

7.842 trillion .. divide by.. 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

Which would mean an almost 300% increase, if your bad numbers were correct.

Try this, what percentage increase if you go from 3 to 6?

You asked!

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; Historical Tables (last accessed Feb 2, 2015).

Bush spent $3.546 trillion but when you subtract TARP which WAS PAID BACK PLUS $50B IN PROFIT.
Deduct $550 B from what was spent is $3.046 Billion. While Obama spent $6.220 Trillion and deduct $550B he spent $6.770 Trillion.

Divide $6.770 trillion Obama spent by Bush's $3.046 trillion and you get: 222%

Dividing 6 by 3 and you get 200%

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

REMEMBER the deficits start at Zero each year.

Bush ran up the National Debt from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, he added $4.9 trillion.

Obama ran up the National Debt from $10.6 trillion to $19.1 trillion, so far, for an addition of $8.5 trillion.

8.5 is 73% more than 4.9

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

You should probably stop posting math, because you suck at it, seriously.

And once you are talking about the DEBT!
NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???
The national debt is when there is a deficit the US borrows to pay the deficit. That borrowing adds to the DEBT!
The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush and remember NOTHING adverse has happened during Obama's terms!
NO hurricanes. NO 9/11... No dot.com bust that cost $8 trillion in market losses. NOTHING of those gigantic events.
So why is that hard to admit? THEY happened! Nothing like that has happened to obama. And in spite of NO major events that costs TAX revenues
ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

And once you are talking about the DEBT!

Yes, that's what you get when you spend more than revenues.

NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???

The deficit spending adds to the debt, that's why I'm showing how much was added to the debt.

The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush

Nope. Obama's deficit spending is $8.5 trillion, so far, compared to $4.9 trillion, for Bush.

ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

You should stop posting your math errors, they make you look stupid.

OK one last time: 7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

View attachment 67358

7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion...

Don't know where you got 2.005 trillion for Bush's deficits, but you're way, way off.

7.842 trillion .. divide by.. 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

Which would mean an almost 300% increase, if your bad numbers were correct.

Try this, what percentage increase if you go from 3 to 6?

You asked!

View attachment 67378
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; Historical Tables (last accessed Feb 2, 2015).

Bush spent $3.546 trillion but when you subtract TARP which WAS PAID BACK PLUS $50B IN PROFIT.
Deduct $550 B from what was spent is $3.046 Billion. While Obama spent $6.220 Trillion and deduct $550B he spent $6.770 Trillion.

Divide $6.770 trillion Obama spent by Bush's $3.046 trillion and you get: 222%

Dividing 6 by 3 and you get 200%

Dividing 6 by 3 and you get 200%

And what is the percentage increase?

 

[Rustic]

to absorb the entire CO2 emissions by 330 million people.
Here's how I figured it.
Using this chart I figured my usage from this source:Carbon dioxide emission footprint calculator and offset estimator
So my usage requires 94 trees to absorb the amount of CO2 I am responsible for in a year.
Based on this source Tree Facts | Facts About Trees
About one third of the United States of America is covered by forests.
According to the last forest inventory, there are almost 247 billion trees over 1 inch in diameter in the U.S.
The average tree in an urban/city area has a life expectancy of only 8 years.
So if there are 330 million people like me (kids included) that works out to 31 billion trees needed to
absorb all the CO2 that ALL 330 million of us emit...where is the problem?
247 billion trees divided by 31 billion trees need means nearly 8 times the number of trees needed to
absorb the CO2 that 330 million people are responsible for causing. This includes manufacturing,etc.

Please prove me wrong and if so WHY are we destroying the coal industry causing unemployment and
higher utilities' cost?


View attachment 67235

So called Man-made climate change is a myth...

 

[mamooth]

NOTHING was said about NEW trees!

That's because they were assuming the readers weren't morons.

GEEZ what is wrong with your reading skills? You still in grade school?

According to your very peculiar theory, the existing trees on earth can keep absorbing unlimited carbon forever. They will never die and release that carbon. The trees will just get bigger and bigger, growing until the trees have more mass than the rest of the planet.

That's not how it works. Trees grow, mature, die, fall over, rot, and the cycle starts again. If there's the same number of trees, then roughly the same amount of carbon stays locked in the trees.

In order for more carbon to get locked into trees, you have to start growing trees where there weren't trees before. That means new trees, that is. And you have to make sure they grow to maturity, and that land remains permanently forested.

 

[healthmyths]

NOTHING was said about NEW trees!

That's because they were assuming the readers weren't morons.

GEEZ what is wrong with your reading skills? You still in grade school?

According to your very peculiar theory, the existing trees on earth can keep absorbing unlimited carbon forever. They will never die and release that carbon. The trees will just get bigger and bigger, growing until the trees have more mass than the rest of the planet.

That's not how it works. Trees grow, mature, die, fall over, rot, and the cycle starts again. If there's the same number of trees, then roughly the same amount of carbon stays locked in the trees.

In order for more carbon to get locked into trees, you have to start growing trees where there weren't trees before. That means new trees, that is. And you have to make sure they grow to maturity, and that land remains permanently forested.

NO SHIT!!!
Of course idiots that don't use the internet obviously don't know these FACTS!!!

READ AND LEARN and USE the internet...

More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!
Protection and responsible harvesting are the reasons behind the success story.
In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival.

This is great news for those who care about the environment because trees store CO2, produce oxygen — which is necessary for all life on Earth — remove toxins from the air, and create habitat for animals, insects and more basic forms of life. Well-managed forest plantations like those overseen by the Forest Stewardship Council also furnish us with wood, a renewable material that can be used for building, furniture, paper products and more, and all of which are biodegradable at the end of their lifecycle.
More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!

GEEZ... please read and admit it... THERE ARE MORE trees!

 

[Little-Acorn]

to absorb the entire CO2 emissions by 330 million people.
Here's how I figured it.
Using this chart I figured my usage from this source:Carbon dioxide emission footprint calculator and offset estimator
So my usage requires 94 trees to absorb the amount of CO2 I am responsible for in a year.
Based on this source Tree Facts | Facts About Trees
About one third of the United States of America is covered by forests.
According to the last forest inventory, there are almost 247 billion trees over 1 inch in diameter in the U.S.
The average tree in an urban/city area has a life expectancy of only 8 years.
So if there are 330 million people like me (kids included) that works out to 31 billion trees needed to
absorb all the CO2 that ALL 330 million of us emit...where is the problem?
247 billion trees divided by 31 billion trees need means nearly 8 times the number of trees needed to
absorb the CO2 that 330 million people are responsible for causing. This includes manufacturing,etc.

Please prove me wrong and if so WHY are we destroying the coal industry causing unemployment and
higher utilities' cost?


View attachment 67235

How DARE you inject facts into the "We're all going to die from greenhouse gas and Global Warming" hysteria?

 

[healthmyths]

How many trees do you think there are on the planet? … 3 trillion!
Previous estimates have put the number at around 400 billion.

According to a new analysis, we need to take that number and multiply it by almost 8.

A new study by an international team of researchers has determined that there are roughly 3 trillion trees on Earth. Published on Wednesday in the journal Nature, the study found that the global tree count is so much higher than previously thought by using on-the-ground data to enhance the accuracy of satellite imagery counts.
There Are 8 Times More Trees on Earth Than We Thought, but How Should You Feel About This?


NOW... Global carbon (C) emissions from fossil fuel use were 9.795 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2014 (or 35.9 GtCO2 of carbon dioxide). Fossil fuel emissions were 0.6% above emissions in 2013 and 60% above emissions in 1990 (the reference year in the Kyoto Protocol).
https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions?itemid=1%3Fitemid=1

How much is a GIGATONNE??? Measurement unit conversion: gigatonne
One gigaton is 1 billion tons. So there are almost 10 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year.
One tree absorbs 50 lbs of CO2 so 3 trillion trees should absorb based on this very simple math.
1 ton equals 2,000 lbs. 10 gigatons @ 2,000 lbs equals 20 trillion lbs.
20 trillion lbs. divided by 50 lbs per tree would require 400 billion trees.
THERE are 3 trillion trees or over 7.5 TIMES the amount of trees that would be necessary to absorb all 10 billion tons of CO2!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many trees do you think there are on the planet? … 3 trillion!
Previous estimates have put the number at around 400 billion.

According to a new analysis, we need to take that number and multiply it by almost 8.

A new study by an international team of researchers has determined that there are roughly 3 trillion trees on Earth. Published on Wednesday in the journal Nature, the study found that the global tree count is so much higher than previously thought by using on-the-ground data to enhance the accuracy of satellite imagery counts.
There Are 8 Times More Trees on Earth Than We Thought, but How Should You Feel About This?


NOW... Global carbon (C) emissions from fossil fuel use were 9.795 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2014 (or 35.9 GtCO2 of carbon dioxide). Fossil fuel emissions were 0.6% above emissions in 2013 and 60% above emissions in 1990 (the reference year in the Kyoto Protocol).
https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions?itemid=1%3Fitemid=1

How much is a GIGATONNE??? Measurement unit conversion: gigatonne
One gigaton is 1 billion tons. So there are almost 10 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year.
One tree absorbs 50 lbs of CO2 so 3 trillion trees should absorb based on this very simple math.
1 ton equals 2,000 lbs. 10 gigatons @ 2,000 lbs equals 20 trillion lbs.
20 trillion tons divided by 50 lbs per tree would require 400 billion trees.
THERE are 3 trillion trees or over 7.5 TIMES the amount of trees that would be necessary to absorb all 10 billion tons of CO2!

20 trillion tons divided by 50 lbs per tree would require 400 billion trees.

Why do you believe the average tree absorbs 50 pounds a year?

 

[healthmyths]

How many trees do you think there are on the planet? … 3 trillion!
Previous estimates have put the number at around 400 billion.

According to a new analysis, we need to take that number and multiply it by almost 8.

A new study by an international team of researchers has determined that there are roughly 3 trillion trees on Earth. Published on Wednesday in the journal Nature, the study found that the global tree count is so much higher than previously thought by using on-the-ground data to enhance the accuracy of satellite imagery counts.
There Are 8 Times More Trees on Earth Than We Thought, but How Should You Feel About This?


NOW... Global carbon (C) emissions from fossil fuel use were 9.795 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2014 (or 35.9 GtCO2 of carbon dioxide). Fossil fuel emissions were 0.6% above emissions in 2013 and 60% above emissions in 1990 (the reference year in the Kyoto Protocol).
https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions?itemid=1%3Fitemid=1

How much is a GIGATONNE??? Measurement unit conversion: gigatonne
One gigaton is 1 billion tons. So there are almost 10 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year.
One tree absorbs 50 lbs of CO2 so 3 trillion trees should absorb based on this very simple math.
1 ton equals 2,000 lbs. 10 gigatons @ 2,000 lbs equals 20 trillion lbs.
20 trillion lbs divided by 50 lbs per tree would require 400 billion trees.
THERE are 3 trillion trees or over 7.5 TIMES the amount of trees that would be necessary to absorb all 10 billion tons of CO2!

20 trillion tons divided by 50 lbs per tree would require 400 billion trees.

Why do you believe the average tree absorbs 50 pounds a year?

A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.

Tree Facts | American Forests

 

[easyt65]

You've got to be a liberal...I mean, who else can think they are capable or are the authority to declare how many TREES are 'necessary'...

And only a liberal would limit the importance of trees to CO2 emissions and completely ignore their value in other areas, such energy and commercial use.