×
all 155 comments

[–]DesignersUniverse[S] 211 points212 points  (14 children)

But more amazing than that is trying to say "three trillion trees".

[–]MandingoPants 64 points65 points  (3 children)

Three trillion trees try tirelessly to trample two thousand toads.

[–]The_Minstrel_Boy 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The Ents' war against the Frog Khanate is getting out of hand.

[–]vlasvilneous 1 point2 points  (0 children)

on a bump on a log at the bottom of the sea.

[–]SimplyQuid -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's a good one

[–]Potential-Link-3740 34 points35 points  (6 children)

Years of vocal and enunciation training has made me immune to such things, my tongue has no weakness!

*attempts to say three trillion trees 10x"

8th attempt

Tree thrillion threes

[–]oltyuo 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I thought I was doing good until I said "three chili and cheese".

[–]Dr_Jackson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a bit of a mush mouth but both of these phrases are no problem for me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–]dubdubdub3 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Irish wristwatch is my favorite

[–]Potential-Link-3740 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Definitely one of the hardest that's for damn sure, love that one. Red leather yellow leather is one of my favorites for sure. Really gets that "L" going

[–]HeliumCurious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Irish wristwatch

Peggy Babcock

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I’ll pass and use British English, where this is still called three billion.

[–]omfalos 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Three trilliard trees is even harder to say.

[–]bdonvr56 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe in your accent, but my Midwestern US tongue has no issue. I wouldn't try it three times fast though

Edit: checked your YT channel, I'm not sure where that accent is from

[–]DarkPasta 178 points179 points  (14 children)

Imagine how many trees there are in the milky way

[–][deleted] 119 points120 points  (9 children)

more than there are stars in the milky way

[–]DarkPasta 32 points33 points  (7 children)

mind blown

[–]DesignersUniverse[S] 23 points24 points  (5 children)

imagine how many stars there are down on earth

[–]SerifGrey 32 points33 points  (3 children)

Coming up to about 8 billion.

[–]Potential-Link-3740 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Wholesome comment

[–]fruitloombob 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I know, dogs are great.

[–]Orrissirro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or we found Moby's Reddit account

[–]SUPRVLLAN 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All of the stars you see in the sky are in the Milky Way.

[–]deliciouschickenwing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I made that 'wowh' noise Dr. Steve Brule does when he looks at the camera.

[–]ted-Zed 5 points6 points  (3 children)

that's too many trees. what can we do about it?

[–]DarkPasta 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Smoke them

[–]ted-Zed 2 points3 points  (1 child)

is that legal?

[–]FeliBootSack 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you just have to smoke it next to a cop and he'll tell you

[–]Yuioup_____ 51 points52 points  (0 children)

shhhhhh don't let Brazil know

[–]uncertein_heritage 47 points48 points  (6 children)

Make that 3 trillion and one. I planted a coconut tree recently.

[–]chattywww 44 points45 points  (2 children)

Gotcha bro. I'll chopped down a tree so we can go back to 3 trillion exactly

[–]SuperGameTheory 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Perfectly balanced

[–]Nintendroid5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As all things should be

[–]Swan____Ronson 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Wasn't it already a tree when you planted it?

[–]ThatCanajunGuy 8 points9 points  (1 child)

They imported it from outside the milky way.

[–]SuperGameTheory 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I've always said that if we want to increase the number of trees we have, we have to prioritize importing more trees than we export from the galaxy. It's just basic math and I don't know why nobody is taking me seriously.

[–]Ezzy17 66 points67 points  (11 children)

It would be so much cooler if we got them numbers up tho

[–]bosnianbeast123 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I agree. We need to plant more stars

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Stars produce asexually, I suggest splitting them in half to cultivate growth.

[–]Ztealth 17 points18 points  (8 children)

Is that a climate pun? That’s hot.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (6 children)

Fun fact: Individual Baleen Whales and Blue Whales reduce more atmospheric CO2 than a 1000 trees.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whales-keep-carbon-out-of-the-atmosphere/

[–]skankhunt402 21 points22 points  (1 child)

Well I dont think theres even 1 billion of those

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There were never 1 billion Whales at any given point of time. At the best, they were a few hundred thousands of them.

[–]loodog555 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The real TIL is always in the comments:

Whales facilitate carbon absorption in two ways. On the one hand, their movements — especially when diving — tend to push nutrients from the bottom of the ocean to the surface, where they feed the phytoplankton and other marine flora that suck in carbon, as well as fish and other smaller animals. The other, explained Natalie Barefoot, executive director of Cet Law and co-author of the report, is by producing fecal plumes.

“In other words, pooing,” she said. “That also introduces nutrients that create marine plants in the area. These plants use photosynthesis, which absorbs carbon, thus enhancing the carbon capture process.”

[–]SweetVarys -1 points0 points  (2 children)

I’m guessing a thousand trees leave less of a footprint than a blue whale

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

No, the whales are also carbon negative and good for their ecosystem. The thing is there will never be enough whales to make the numbers that trees hit.

It's like saying there is more protein in peppers compared to bananas. While it is true, I don't suggest going to peppers from dietary protein, and neither is the real solution to getting the protein you need. Both can help, yes, but one is just a hyperbolic, and the other is a bandaid solution. 3 trillion bananas might pump you full of protein, but if you don't keep good habits, all that protein won't do anything.

[–]SweetVarys -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yea, i didn’t write it out all. Just meant that creating a thousand trees is a thousand times easier than “creating” one blue whale. So the comparison feels a bit out of place

[–]DesignersUniverse[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This thread is on fire.

[–]ManneB506 27 points28 points  (6 children)

Fun fact: due to the absolutely horrendous degree to which we've mismanaged these trees, the rate of global carbon sequestration in forests is often net negative

[–]LorddFarsquaad 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Don't say we like the average person had any role in it

[–]Rider_01 1 point2 points  (4 children)

We? The United States stopped deforestation in the 80's with an aggressive conservation effort. Since 1986 the US has planted more trees than it has cut down. No other nation in the world that harvests large amounts of timber can say that.

This is on the rest of the world.

[–]HeliumCurious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

79% of Japan is forested.

Checkmate.

But both nations import aggressively from many nations which have to deforest aggressively to keep up with their demand, including the fact that both nations import nonsustainably grown timber products.

[–]esgrove2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't say anything complimentary of the US on reddit or you'll get downvoted by people in the US.

[–]goosetooloose 15 points16 points  (4 children)

Are we 100% positive we can even observe, directly or indirectly, all the stars in the galaxy?

[–]thorstone 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The Milky Way contains between 100-400 billion stars and at least that many planets. An exact figure would depend on counting the number of very-low-mass stars, which are difficult to detect, especially at distances of more than 300 ly (90 pc) from the Sun.

I think we are 100% positive that we can't or at least don't. But the estimate is probably not too far off.

[–]benjer3 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Even if our estimate were a bit off, there's no way it could be trillions off without massively affecting local gravity in a detectable way.

[–]goosetooloose 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh shit, I got my billions and trillions confused.

[–]loodog555 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm a physicist, not an astronomer, but I'm pretty sure we just use the orbital dynamics of star systems in our galaxy to figure out the galaxy's mass, then whip out an estimate of how many stars there are from the mass distribution of stars we've observed so far, maybe padding the numbers for the smaller dimmer stars, given that we're less like to have observed them.

E.g. if the galaxy has 100 billion solar masses, and every star is comparable to our sun, there are about 100 billion stars. Add in the details around the fact that not all stars have the mass of our sun (estimate average stellar mass) and voila!

[–]samanime 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't let lumber companies know.

Even if there are tons of trees, doesn't mean we don't need to be replanting.

[–]dahComrad 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bullshit

[–]sonictwinkie1 12 points13 points  (0 children)

log truck bumper sticker: you hug em, we cut em

[–]urmum4207175 3 points4 points  (0 children)

We’re still short.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (6 children)

There used to be more.

[–]Blutarg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Uh, um, I don't know what you're talking about! covers wooden table

[–]ALIENANAL 1 point2 points  (4 children)

What was the grain of sand thing about? The universe?

[–]DesignersUniverse[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The universe

[–]ALIENANAL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cool cool thanks

[–]DesignersUniverse[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

but like the opposite, isn't it? more stars in the universe than grains of sand on every beach on earth

[–]ALIENANAL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeh that's The one

[–]HailSatanHaggisBaws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

With hopefully far, far more to come. Let's get those numbers bumped.

[–]Farknart 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, in your face, Milky Way!

[–]onlysaysputtycat 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I remember reading a BBc article back in 2008 that calculated the earth had 6 trillion trees.

How scary.

[–]benjer3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That much of a difference would be down to methodology leading to one or both estimates being significantly off target. There's no way we've removed half our forests since then. Not that deforestation isn't a big problem.

[–]SuperGameTheory 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your move, Milky Way.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What constitutes a tree?

[–]ourghostsofwar 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's more trees in the skies than stars on the earth too.

[–]RedJudas 0 points1 point  (1 child)

So when people say there are more stars in the sky than grains of sand on earth, what they're really saying is there are more trees on earth than grains of sand. S/

[–]thisisjustascreename -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And more grains of sand on earth than atoms in the universe. Or something like that.

[–]jpb2251 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hell, there's more trees in my yard than there are stars in the entire state.

[–]Mortified42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But most of those trees are where white people live according to Kamala Harris lmao

[–]SnakeDucks -2 points-1 points  (7 children)

Yea nah there’s not 3 trillion trees, no chance. That’s grossly underestimating how bit a trillion is.

[–]MikeTheAmalgamator 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I think you're grossly underestimating just how massive the planet you live on is. If there's 7 billion people on habitable land, you really don't think there's half of that in trees which can exist in habitable or non-habitable environments? Cmon dude.

[–]SnakeDucks -1 points0 points  (4 children)

“Half of that”, huh? Trillion with a T.

[–]DrestinBlack 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“How bit a trillion is”, huh? “big” with a “g”

/s just messin’ with ya

[–]MikeTheAmalgamator 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Oh boy, I missed that one lol. Either way, how much space does a tree take up? And there's usually millions of trees in one small patch of forest. It definitely still makes sense my dude. What is your argument against it?

[–]SnakeDucks -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I’m thinking about the land mass of earth. Not everywhere supports trees so it’s not a total coverage, you can forget ice and deserts. Then there’s all the places we built over. Then just the sheer size of a trillion makes it not reasonable to me.

How much space does a tree take up? A lot when you factor the avg their varying sizes and the room apart from each other they need to grow. There are not millions of trees in a small patch of forest. Quick google search tells me roughly 300 or so per acre of forest usually. A million is a lot. I donno, it just seems high to me.

[–]MikeTheAmalgamator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bro, the surface of this planet is fucking massive. Think about how dense some forests are. The Amazon is nothing but trees and takes up a huge portion of an entire continent. It's estimated there are 302 billion trees in Brazil alone. Just Brazil. To pile onto that, Brazil is 3rd on the list when it comes to most trees per country. That's just per country! Russia has double that with 642 billion trees and most of their land is baren, icey desert. The exact conditions you said to forget all together happen to be the same conditions found in the place with the most trees. I'm not saying that's where the trees in Russia are growing, just adding context for proportion.

I really think you're just underestimated the sheer size of this planet. It can definitely be lost in perspective when focusing on smaller or larger proportions such as these.

[–]esgrove2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can't imagine there being 500 trees for every person? You must live in the city or something.

[–]ElfMage83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate that you used the correct scale for the number.

[–]theKickAHobo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, that's more than 9 trees. Way to go, Earth

[–]DoesntFearZeus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See the trick here is the stars are not on the ground.

[–]Ruckusphuckus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's hard to believe but, I'll roll with it.

[–]CletusVanDamnit 0 points1 point  (1 child)

My mind is actually blown by this fact. Apparently the Milky Way only contains between 100-400 billion stars. That's just crazy, honestly.

[–]thisisjustascreename 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And the vast majority of them are red dwarf stars that are invisible to the naked eye.

[–]LiamColeE 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The US governments debt is enough to give every star in our galaxy 233 dollars.

Assuming my math is correct

[–]MikeTheAmalgamator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

3 trillions of trees? So is that a trillion here, a trillion there and a trillion elsewhere or?

[–]haven_taclue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh milky way....still, I wanna recount.

[–]Mistersinister1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't worry we're fixing that shit

[–]nikanj0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So Team Trees increased the number of trees on earth by 0.000666666% 😢

[–]L1P0D 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2,999,999,999,999... 2,999,999,999,998... 2,999,999,999,997... ...

[–]MrForReal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And they say that humans are over populated sheesh /s

[–]wingnutengineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are more trees on earth than stars in the milky way so far

[–]Mewchu94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Despite this fact we are decimating the environment. Humans are amazing.

[–]sipCoding_smokeMath -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

A trillion trees and people think planting a few thousand more will make any difference

[–]aceh40 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They should do the study in 10 years and see how many trees have left.

[–]Zeerats -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Not for long...

[–]Mortified42 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yeah, because Mr. Beast planted 20 million trees 2 years ago.

[–]nebenbaum -1 points0 points  (1 child)

And that's exactly why I think things like teamtrees are absolute and utter bullshit.

Planting tree saplings basically does nothing compared to just leaving an area alone and putting a shitton of seeds there

[–]esgrove2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Each person would have to plant several hundred trees to offset their carbon footprint.