around 4 Trillion trees globally (50%). There were about 8T trees 5k years ago, today there are roughly 4T trees. I minored in Botany and yet only recently learned this fact using an LLM, was my education shit? How was such a crucial piece of data omitted from university studies?
>LLMs are not trustworthy. >prehistoric estmates have poor fidelity.>human land use affects the biome
>>16894978>>LLMs are not trustworthy.It probably sources e.g. 'The research also found that humans have already removed almost three trillion trees since the last ice age about 11,000 years ago." https://www.climateaction.org/news/three_trillion_trees_on_earth_with_15bn_cut_down_per_year"And as if to emphasise this point, a comparison with estimates of ancient forest cover suggests that humanity could have already removed almost three trillion trees since the last ice age, some 11,000 years ago."https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34134366
>>16894973yeah but we replaced it all with grass
>>16895030The trillions of dead trees got replaced with agriculture and some grass. Doesn't explain why such a Huge statistic is missing from a botany program.
Meh
>>16894973Botany would be more concerned about the biology of plants. You probably would’ve learnt about habitat destruction if you took an ecology or conservation subject
>>16894973ask for a refund
>>16894973>>16895068What was your major retard? I was a Hort major and took A SINGLE BOTANY class where we were taught grasses aka C4 photosynthesis is far more efficient at converting carbon to oxygen vs a tree aka a C3 plant. picrelYou didn't learn even the most basic botany, WTF. Are you lying OP? For the record GMO trees with c4 genes spliced in can and will reverse global CO2 levels in a very low tech cheap way but it can't make trillions in profits since C4 trees can be cloned for free and passed around for mass production. Besides greenhouses and labor costs it's practically free. But elites want to sell complex carbon capture factories that don't work half as well as a C3 tree and C4 fast growing trees can be made into vast amounts of lumber for cheap housing where complex carbon sequestration factories just use resources in mass and benefit nothing and no one.
>>16895127picrel, sorry
>>16895127
>>16895127True in a narrow sense: Under hot, high‑light, relatively dry conditions, C4 grasses are often more efficient at carbon fixation per unit light and water than C3 plants, including many trees.Misleading in the broad sense: That does not mean grasses are categorically bette than trees for carbon or oxygen globally, nor that C3 trees are inherently bad at carbon uptake. Trees dominate long‑term carbon storage because of how much biomass they build and how long they persist, not because their instantaneous photosynthetic pathway is the most efficient.
>4 trillionBullshit that is absurd.
>>16895202Yale’s global tree‑density study in Nature estimated about 3 trillion trees on Earth today and roughly 46% fewer than before large‑scale human impact, which implies on the order of 5–6 trillion originaly and about 3 trillion already removed , not absurd.
>>16894973>How was such a crucial piece of data omitted from university studies?because>minored in Botany
>>16895235the basic history of trees is Botany 101
>>16895198Incorrect you also ignore soil science as carbon is sequestered in soil. >from GoogleAn acre of old-growth timber's carbon sequestration varies, but mature forests store massive amounts of carbon, often stabilizing or slightly declining in rate compared to younger forests but serving as crucial, long-term carbon sinks, potentially sequestering 1-3+ tons of CO2 annually,The Joseph H. Williams Tallgrass Prairie Preserve, like other tallgrass prairies, acts as a significant carbon sink, with studies showing rates from 0.3 to 1.7 metric tons of carbon sequestered per acre annually, storing vast amounts in deep root systems and soil, with specific preserve measurements showing it as a net sink, particularly after accounting for prescribed burns, highlighting its vital role in climate mitigation>end of AI slopPART 1 of 2
>>16895198>>16896943So you see at best they are the same and science says old growth timber is worse at sequestration than new growth, likely due to old growth slowing down compared to younger timber. When we take all this into account managed soft wood timber land harvested every 25-30 years is a far better carbon sink than old growth forest OP bitches about. Now lets also acknowledge massive protected grasslands can host cattle and bison which is of course, food for people. Other large game like Elk can be populated on grass land for managed hunting for food as well. So when we actually look at the facts of the matter old growth forest, which we cut down, is beautiful sure but not better than what we currently have. We must also admit that protected grasslands are overall a greater net gain as we can sequester carbon and raise meat for massive amounts of people to eat, using Bison also boosts natural life cycles of grass and soil. Old growth forest can host much less large animals for humans to harvest. We must also admit that these managed soft wood timber lands are used, sustainably, to build homes that could last 100+ years and that carbon stays stored in the form of lumber that whole time. Old growth forest the trees and such fall and largely turn into methane via composting, a powerful "greenhouse gas", this doesn't happen in managed timber land or grasslands.The more we grow and harvest soft wood timber the less CO2 intensive construction methods need be used, like concrete. Yes sky scrapers can and are being built with lumber. >The tallest standing wooden structure is the Gliwice Radio Tower (112 m or 367 ft), located in Gliwice, Poland.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_wooden_buildings_and_structuresOnce again the small brains of /sci/ BTFO, please remember to tip your waiters. (2/2)
>>16896945You’re right that grasslands and soils are important carbon sinks and that young trees can grow fast. But long‑term studies show mature and old‑growth forests store far more total carbon than young or frequently harvested stands, even after accounting for wood products. Old forests are not big methane sources, and converting them to plantations or pasture is always a net loss for both carbon and biodiversty over the next 50-100 years.https://www.rff.org/news/press-releases/old-forests-store-more-carbon-than-young-onesand-that-matters-for-us-climate-goals/
