Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Old Professer

Prof: You may be right on your estimate of 820 per acre but that translates into 1 tree for roughly 5 sq yds ( approx 7’ x 7’ )which means we are talking about some pretty small or tightly packed trees.

Would you agree to an estimate of about 1000 sq miles which gives approximately 500 trees per acre - all of which needed to die off!!

I do not see how the numbers make sense.


15 posted on 11/16/2007 8:37:58 AM PST by bjc (Check the data!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: bjc

Got the numbers off google; sounds a little dense to me, too.

Most forests go up and down hills while most improved lots are graded so, without knowing the average tree size in question, it is still a guess.

My point is that there doesn’t seem to be a concern here beyond hype.

We do know that most of the flooding occurred in low-lying areas and the total area flooded was 2,100 sq. mi. which was populated along the shorelines and for miles inland.


21 posted on 11/16/2007 9:23:07 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson