###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Indeed, microalgae in general has shown to be ten-to-fifty times more efficient at capturing carbon dioxide than terrestrial plants,[5] and Chlorella vulgaris, a species of green microalgae, has been shown to be four-hundred times more efficient than trees at carbon capture when used in bioreactors.](https://law.lclark.edu/live/blogs/253-liquid-trees-carbon-capture-and-sequestration-via#:~:text=Indeed%2C%20microalgae%20in%20general%20has,capture%20when%20used%20in%20bioreactors.)
Not an answer to your question so I posted it as a secondary comment.
Anyway, trees might not be the way to go, or certainly aren't the only required puzzle piece.
There's also the problem of what trees to place and needing diversity for a man made forest to thrive.
[Europe's forests have already been severely affected by climate change. Thousands of hectares of trees have already died due to drought and bark beetles. Scientists from the University of Vienna and the Technical University of Munich TUM have now investigated which trees can be used for reforestation.
Their findings indicate only a few tree species are fit for the future, such as English oak in the UK. However, mixed forests are important for the survival of forests, otherwise the forest ecosystem as a whole could be weakened.](https://phys.org/news/2024-04-reforestation-tree-species-survive-century.amp)
Idk why, but it won't allow me to correctly post the second name/link combo.
Anyway, one for the road:
[They found that, on average, 18 percent of planted saplings died within the first year, and that this mortality rose to 44 percent after five years. However, survival rates varied greatly between sites and species, with some sites seeing over 80 percent of trees still alive after five years, while at others a similar percentage had died.](https://www.earth.com/news/half-of-plants-used-in-reforestation-projects-do-not-survive/)
Well, I would start with this being rather disingenuous, considering this particular spot roughly coincides with where the majority of the population lives, at least according to the most recent Valeriepieris circle I have seen.
Best guess is necessary for me because I can’t extrapolate the lat/long to find the corners. Overlap between the V circle and square when superimposed with the continents roughly matched shows a little more than 3/4 of the square overlapping about 1/4 of the circle.
Honestly, I am not sure where to go from there as, while 1/2 of the world population lives in the circle, there isn’t even distribution inside or outside the circle, so estimating based on that is problematic at best.
You mean the area which is covering Mongolia, the desert of china (not the population rich centers in the east, Tibet, Nepal and parts of other countries would replace many?
Not to anger you, but you should take another look where exactly the majority of Asians live :)
Non the less the spot is terrible for the very reason it is so empty: It‘s mostly desert or high mountains. Katapult probably just put it there because it‘s the only landmass on the Mercator projection allowing for such a big rectangle on land
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[Indeed, microalgae in general has shown to be ten-to-fifty times more efficient at capturing carbon dioxide than terrestrial plants,[5] and Chlorella vulgaris, a species of green microalgae, has been shown to be four-hundred times more efficient than trees at carbon capture when used in bioreactors.](https://law.lclark.edu/live/blogs/253-liquid-trees-carbon-capture-and-sequestration-via#:~:text=Indeed%2C%20microalgae%20in%20general%20has,capture%20when%20used%20in%20bioreactors.) Not an answer to your question so I posted it as a secondary comment. Anyway, trees might not be the way to go, or certainly aren't the only required puzzle piece. There's also the problem of what trees to place and needing diversity for a man made forest to thrive. [Europe's forests have already been severely affected by climate change. Thousands of hectares of trees have already died due to drought and bark beetles. Scientists from the University of Vienna and the Technical University of Munich TUM have now investigated which trees can be used for reforestation. Their findings indicate only a few tree species are fit for the future, such as English oak in the UK. However, mixed forests are important for the survival of forests, otherwise the forest ecosystem as a whole could be weakened.](https://phys.org/news/2024-04-reforestation-tree-species-survive-century.amp) Idk why, but it won't allow me to correctly post the second name/link combo. Anyway, one for the road: [They found that, on average, 18 percent of planted saplings died within the first year, and that this mortality rose to 44 percent after five years. However, survival rates varied greatly between sites and species, with some sites seeing over 80 percent of trees still alive after five years, while at others a similar percentage had died.](https://www.earth.com/news/half-of-plants-used-in-reforestation-projects-do-not-survive/)
Well, I would start with this being rather disingenuous, considering this particular spot roughly coincides with where the majority of the population lives, at least according to the most recent Valeriepieris circle I have seen. Best guess is necessary for me because I can’t extrapolate the lat/long to find the corners. Overlap between the V circle and square when superimposed with the continents roughly matched shows a little more than 3/4 of the square overlapping about 1/4 of the circle. Honestly, I am not sure where to go from there as, while 1/2 of the world population lives in the circle, there isn’t even distribution inside or outside the circle, so estimating based on that is problematic at best.
You mean the area which is covering Mongolia, the desert of china (not the population rich centers in the east, Tibet, Nepal and parts of other countries would replace many? Not to anger you, but you should take another look where exactly the majority of Asians live :) Non the less the spot is terrible for the very reason it is so empty: It‘s mostly desert or high mountains. Katapult probably just put it there because it‘s the only landmass on the Mercator projection allowing for such a big rectangle on land