Scientists used to think there were 400 billion trees on Earth. Latest estimate is now 3 trillion trees.

I wonder what counts as a tree. If they "count" every seedling I would think that there might be twice as many or possibly 20 times as many "trees" at certain times of the year as at other times. Is there some cutoff - say 10' tall or 2" diameter as minimum requirements to included as trees for this purpose?

How 2 Count wrote:

I wonder what counts as a tree. If they "count" every seedling I would think that there might be twice as many or possibly 20 times as many "trees" at certain times of the year as at other times. Is there some cutoff - say 10' tall or 2" diameter as minimum requirements to included as trees for this purpose?

I don't mean to be a d-bag, but this took me about 20 seconds to find.

"We only included density estimates where individual trees met the criterion of greater than or equal to 10 cm diameter at breast height (DBH). Although NI databases can vary slightly in their definition of a mature tree...the vast majority of sources us 10 cm as the DBH cut-off."

Hey, you're not being a d-bag. You provided the requested (by inference) information.

True, I could have read the article but laziness happened to be in ascendance at that moment.

Thanks.

What percentage of the climate change alarmists are in it for the consolidation of power and redistribution of wealth, and what percentage are simply the gullible masses that these totalitarians rely on?

If you listened to the scientists who worked this out, there's a very substantial net loss of trees every year. This is not an increase in trees. It is an increase in the estimate of trees. There is a gross loss of 15 billion trees per year and a net loss of 10 billion, while there has been an estimated 46 percent decline in the number of trees since the beginning of civilization.http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/02/us-science-trees-idUSKCN0R21Z620150902

smokey the bar wrote:

It's all about advances in fire science...as least as it relates to the ever growing population of trees in this country. Back say in the 1840's, you get a wild fire out in California, and it would burn all the way to the first major river or desert area that was able to halt its advance. More timber in the country today than there probably ever was.

Sun is Hot wrote:

Al Gore might say that the reason we haven't turned into a great big frying pan is because of changes people made to reduce global warming. Of course people who have had droughts over the past tens years might say that Gore was right. But then again people who have experienced floods during the past ten years could say that Gore is wrong.

Recent floods and excessively cold winters are a result of changes in weather patterns.

DiscoGary wrote:

Funny you should say that. 9 1/2 years ago Al Gore said we only had 10 years left before the Earth would cook due to Global Warming, so Rush started a timer on his web site that's been counting down since then:

You and/or Rush made that up.

Pants on Fire wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Funny you should say that. 9 1/2 years ago Al Gore said we only had 10 years left before the Earth would cook due to Global Warming, so Rush started a timer on his web site that's been counting down since then:

You and/or Rush made that up.

I thought it was common knowledge that ManBearPig said the ice caps would be gone by 2014. We're right on the verge of falling out of the bottom range of the 95th confidence interval of several years of [revised] predictions as well. This, all despite greatly accelerating the amount of CO2 that we're pumping into thr atmosphere. But we should definitely keep freaking out about it.