Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of the worst wildfires in the world are cause by plant matter on the ground in tropical forests, just look at the peat fires of Kalimantan. It just has to dry out enough.
It was a combination of things, namely El Nino and poor irrigation. It is also possible that the fires there had been burning for years underground undectected long berfore the irrigation projects and El Nino dried out the surface. As I said all it needs is to dry out enough. The same thing happened in Russia completely naturally last year.
It was a combination of things, namely El Nino and poor irrigation. It is also possible that the fires there had been burning for years underground undectected long berfore the irrigation projects and El Nino dried out the surface. As I said all it needs is to dry out enough. The same thing happened in Russia completely naturally last year.
And even in Russia, which is not exactly known for rain forests, the peat around Moscow only caught fire because it had deliberately been drained before. They intend to flood them again to prevent such fires in the future.
And even in Russia, which is not exactly known for rain forests, the peat around Moscow only caught fire because it had deliberately been drained before.
That was one of the causes, but not what triggered it. The fires started in 1997-8 because El Nino really dried it out. As I have said this whole time if you dry out peat it burns. You do need a triggering event though it need not be humans.
The problem is introducing carbon from previously inaccessible carbon stores, which only humans and volcanoes do. Essentially by digging up and burning fossil fuels we are taking carbon out of previously inaccessible carbon sinks and using it. Trees on the other hand use CO2 that is all ready in general circulation and not stored. If anything trees are a net CO2 reducer because of peat bogs and taiga forests where plant matter does not completely decay. Thus while over time trees take CO2 out of circulation and store it in peat and coal people nowadays dig up peat and coal and burn it in such large quantities that the net CO2 in the atmosphere is increased leading to global warming.
There simply isn't any support for increase volume of greenhouse gases overwhelming natural responses to handling them. In fact their dire predictions based on faulty models have not come true.
Methane is a gas, either a gas is Methane or it is not. But the amounts produced now are not natural. Via the billions of farm animals we are producing much more Methane than would be there without human activity.
I do believe there is global warming, hence global climate change.
Again you seem to know how many cows we should have and now you appear to claim to know how much methane is natural. How do you do it?
You may believe, as a matter of faith, anything. The science simply doesn't support your faith.
Good point. But seriously, this makes my blood boil. I have children and these fools think it's cute to thumb their noses at protecting the environment. I can't wait until this current crop of know-nothings are out of power.
To be replaced by another group of know nothings representing corporate profits.
By then it will already be too late to do anything about it, if it isn't already.
There simply isn't any support for increase volume of greenhouse gases overwhelming natural responses to handling them. In fact their dire predictions based on faulty models have not come true.
There is ample evidence of that just compare CO2 in the air now with previous centuries, which can be extrapolated based on ice cores. You can see that ever since the industrial revolution the % of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up. This means nature is not processing and storing CO2 as fast as carbon fuel is being mined and burnt.
That was one of the causes, but not what triggered it. The fires started in 1997-8 because El Nino really dried it out. As I have said this whole time if you dry out peat it burns. You do need a triggering event though it need not be humans.
Sorry, but if you read the development, it clearly says that "The peat swamp forests of Kalimantan were being slowly cleared for small scale farming and plantations before 1997". Had humans not changed that whole environment to such an extent, there simply would not have been any of those peat fires, regardless of any el niño/la niña.
Rain forests protect the ground level from drying out.
Sorry, but if you read the development, it clearly says that "The peat swamp forests of Kalimantan were being slowly cleared for small scale farming and plantations before 1997". Had humans not changed that whole environment to such an extent, there simply would not have been any of those peat fires, regardless of any el niño/la niña.
They are both necessary causes thus why the fires in 1997 were so big. Prior to 1997 you had the slash and burn agriculture which is traditional, but did not have the fires because you did not have El Nino. Then from 1999-2001 the fires died down despite all the human causes still being around, but started up in 2002-3 because of El Nino again. Generally things don't have one cause.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
