Carbon Releases in Asia

ninthwave writes "After previous discussions on global warning, I thought I would post some interesting research in the affects of forest fires and drought in Asia on carbon output. The Guardian has this article. More detailed information can be found in these articles from Leicester University and the BBC"

Comments

Re:Responsibility

[spicyjeff]

While the environment might be threatened by over-population, it is only our environment, the one that allows humans to survive. The Earth will continue on its cycle of renewal long after the last human has passed, or before.

So while "Saving the Planet" is a noble cause...maybe people would be more responsive if they realized they are saving themselves, their loved ones, their children and their grandchildren.

Re:Going out on a limb !?!?

[SirSlud]

When folks yell "Save the Planet" they really mean "Save the Planet enough such that we can stay alive."

We shouldn't care about the distinction. Of course our efforts are designed to save ourselves. Folks who think humans are arrogant because we talk like we can destroy the planet (ie, not just the habitable conditions we require as a species) are simply looking for an 'out' .. a semantical justification for not giving a shit.

Of course planet earth will go on just fine without us; who cares what the words we use are, I'd just like to ensure we (or my grandkids, for that matter) don't have to wear gas masks to go to the corner store at some point in the future.

So I agree with you, but it's always confused me why people feel the need to point it out. In the end, a person either believes that we're setting ourselves up for some _serious_ human-endangering problems or not.

Think about it. When people say, "Save my house!" (lets say its on fire), nobody points out that the house doesn't have feelings or that all the molecules in the house will just end up in other places (in the smoke or in the ashes). We recognize that what the person _means_ is "Save the house I have to live in!" Same logic applies to the environmentalist's warcry.

The planet will survive , but will we?

[Viol8]

The question isn't whether we'd destroy the planets enviroment completely (unlikely) but whether we could damage it enough to make the current human population unsustainable (very likely) due to drowned land , drought and/or flodding causing food crops to fail. The asteroid that supposed to have hit the earth 65 million years ago wasn't a big deal to the planet as a whole but it didn't do the dinosaurs any favours did it?

Ice age vs Global Warming

[cronus42]

Has anyone considered that the most probable ecological disaster is an Ice Age?? Our global environment has been in fluctuation between warm and cold for 900,000 years!

Maybe the CO2 will save us from the next one! Maybe we're just delaying it. Who knows how much environmental change is natural vs. mankind? I'm not sure we have enough of an observational timeline to say that we have caused any of it.

My point is that the global climate is dynamic. Maybe we should stop flipping out about every tiny variation. It's obvious that pretty extreme fluctuations occur normally!

Here is a timeline of past ice ages.