Study from uni of Minnesota
Quote - shows that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the past 50 years have boosted aspen growth rates by an astonishing 50 percent. - unquote
Could it be a simple cheap solution is just to plant more trees to replace the gazillions that have been cut down?
Yes, in all honesty it could. But, then again, it would take a lot of trees, and a lot of trees aren't cheap either. One single adult tree absorbs about 48 pounds of CO
2 to use in metabolic processes
per YEAR. But......just to negate the top two producers of CO
2...
Country
Total Emissions
(Million metric tons of CO2)
(Tons) (per capita)
1. China 6017.69 4.58
2. United States 5902.75 19.78
11900X1,000,000= measured metric tonnes
119,000,000,000 mt = 262,350,092,000,004 lb =Amount of CO
2 in english pounds.
262350092000004 lb CO
2 / 48 lb per year by one adult tree= 5.46x10
12 trees just to
neutralize the top
two producers.
That's 546,000,000,000,000 trees.
Pick up your shovel.
Like I've said before, I feel it's already too late: I'm already seeing shifts in movements of the species I study. The sun is at the lowest output measured...and still we see melt. I measured the highest temperatures yet over coral reefs in the Florida Keys, in an ongoing 20 year study not related to climate. I never dreamed I'd actually see a measurable and verifiable pH shift in the ocean in my career. As a species, we've drug our feet too long already. Most of you say there isn't even a problem, and are convinced by the very same people who reap the profits from it. No wonder OPEC funds these bogus studies.
The problem with most of your arguments, is that you started with a biased opinion. The whole theory of constructing an argument is to begin from a point of zero bias and work your way to formulating ideas, then constructing an approach to your argument. Most of you have started with an idea and went looking for something to back up your predisposition.
I'm sorry, but one stolen batch of emails (whose credibility has not been established) by one single researcher does not refute the scientific body of knowledge on the subject.
