Genghis Khan - Liberator or destroyer

Genghis Khan has been branded the greenest invader in history - after his murderous conquests killed so many people that huge swathes of cultivated land returned to forest.

The Mongol leader, who established a vast empire between the 13th and 14th centuries, helped remove nearly 700million tons of carbon from the atmosphere, claims a new study.

The deaths of 40million people meant that large areas of cultivated land grew thick once again with trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

And, although his methods may be difficult for environmentalists to accept, ecologists believe it may be the first ever case of successful manmade global cooling.

‘It's a common misconception that the human impact on climate began with the large-scale burning of coal and oil in the industrial era,’ said Julia Pongratz, who headed the research by the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology.

Isnt the world agend the greenhouse effect and human contribution, is this the only way to resort the problem?

Genghis Khan wasn't a destroyer for sure, but, a conqueror. He did do one big mistake and it was trying to put China into slavery which cripple its Eastern resources. Therefore pissing off the local population causing a rebellion. One of Genghis successor put its Empire Heart in China which was Yuan Dynasty.

Kublai Khan.. en.wikipedia.org...

This lead to disintegration of the Mongol horde and back up resource coming from the East to support the Western Horde from moving any further into Europe. China reclaiming its territory is the true reason the Mongol Horde started to end and lose ground. Mongols were just too busy against China to care about moving further West.

Most of the Mongol army went back to try and fight the Chinese which was Ming dynasty that risen after the fall of Yuan Dynasty.

Oh, by the way, Genghis didn't finish the empire. He died before he fully conquered China. His other Khan successor finished it for him.

en.wikipedia.org...

Edit: The Statistic of 40 million maybe inaccurate mainly because maybe there are a bigger population in the past than today. There are a lot of burnt bodies to count for, but they do not exist for people to find. There were way more empires(that had fallen, most likely burnt to the ground) in Asia alone than what you see on the modern map. While Mongols were doing a lot of killing, it doesn't mean the rest of the world isn't doing it too. The statistics also doesn't count on bodies that are fed to animals or cannibals eating other human bodies.

Less smoke that is created from fires which burn wood, wood that was removed from the earth. Take away you natural carbon eater and oxygen maker and burn them in the atmosphere to inject more carbon byproducts.

My conclusion from the article is that more efficient combustion methods are needed which let less emissions. Less tree cutting is practice that is a must, keep the trees which create shade and absorbs the energy/heat/photons from the sun, thus cooling down the planet or if you prefer, it uses CO2 and photons to create oxygen and the sun doesn't heat up the planet because it is consumed if you will by the trees. We already have the solution right here.....FOR FREE! The best technology known to man......nature.

An alternative would be less fire starters; humans.

a reply to: bitsforbytes
Trees and vegetation only contribute small amounts of O2 to the atmosphere . Per some research from the 80s they contribyte a great deal to the CO2 levels as well. The Earth's oxygen supply comes mainly from plankton in the oceans. 90+ %

a reply to: Gothmog

Trees and vegetation only contribute small amounts of O2 to the atmosphere .

Per some research from the 80s they contribyte a great deal to the CO2 levels as well.

So...which is it?

Keeping in mind that living plants are part of the carbon cycle. They remove CO2 from the atmosphere and when they decompose or are burned they return it. No net change.

a reply to: temujiin

The Mongol leader, who established a vast empire between the 13th and 14th centuries, helped remove nearly 700million tons of carbon from the atmosphere, claims a new study.

Great. But we produce many times that amount of CO2.
Stop agriculture and plant trees? Are they good eating?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

Trees and vegetation only contribute small amounts of O2 to the atmosphere .

Per some research from the 80s they contribyte a great deal to the CO2 levels as well.

So...which is it?

Keeping in mind that living plants are part of the carbon cycle. They remove CO2 from the atmosphere and when they decompose or are burned they return it. No net change.

You ok tonight Phage ?
Trees and vegetation only contribute small amounts of O2 to the atmosphere
Per some research from the 80s they contribute a great deal to the CO2 levels as well
Meaning trees and vegetation have their own CO2 footprints as well.
There is a difference between CO2 and O2. O2 comes mainly from the plankton in the oceans. No conflict there.

a reply to: Gothmog

You ok tonight Phage ?

Fine, thank you.

Yes, plants in the ocean produce most of the O2 in the atmosphere. They are still plants.
How do plants add CO2 to the atmosphere?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

You ok tonight Phage ?

Fine, thank you.

Yes, plants in the ocean produce most of the O2 in the atmosphere. They are still plants.
How do plants add CO2 to the atmosphere?

All I remember was there was research done in the 80s that showed that land based vegetation had its own CO2 footprint . It had something to do with the breakdown of other chemicals produced during photosynthesis . Basically , trees were not as efficient as the plankton that uses a slightly different process.

a reply to: Gothmog
Plants (of all types) respire CO2 as part of their metabolism. However plants (of all types) absorb more CO2 than they produce. CO2 from carbon which they have, through photosynthesis, turned into carbohydrates. Carbon which comes from the atmosphere in the first place.

As I said, plants are part of the carbon cycle. They remove CO2 from the atmosphere and return CO2 to the atmosphere. No "footprint". Net zero.

It's the carbon that's been buried for a long, long time and is now being burned that is the problem.

a reply to: Gothmog

Its not about oxygen and more to do with absorbing the rays of the sun to make photosynthesis. The rays from the sun are absorbed by the trees and also removes carbon from the air.

Seaweed create more oxygen than trees do hands down.

a reply to: bitsforbytes

Has anyone of you guys considered that Volcanoes were way more active in the past. Tree cutting wasn't always in Mongolia/Asia, just look at Europe. Also we did not poison the oceans like Today. Ehm. Corporations and America.. One of you did say plankton help produce O2. It is obviously the pollution that is causing the majority of the problem.

www.scientificamerican.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...


Get to the facts we are killing ourselves with useless products. Pollution doesn't include Biological Weapon or HAARP blocking the sun's ray.

a reply to: makemap

Yes we are removing the free technology which is nature from the planet. whether it be cutting trees down, clouding the skies with airplane contrails, to cars, and even industrial revolution era technology being around today. Also, we are creating unclean substances, harmful for any kind, on purpose, like big babies, taking waste and dumping it like a kid hiding a broken plate from its father/mother.

You must understand that it is our responsibility to buy products which aren't made or are harmful in any way. Don't listen to the commercials and only take interest in what a product can do for you, take your time and find out about what you are buying, how it is made, who makes it and where. Vote with our heads, hearts and wallets.

We must grow up and see past the new gadget that sells you on making your life easier while unknowingly supporting to make others' hell. Look into who are running things, who are they? Are they good people? Who are their friends? Are they good people?

Vote with your head, heart and wallet.

I wonder if this is part of a desensitization effort. 'removing people will be good for the environment!' um, 'removing'?

I think there's a movement in certain circles to insure long-term stability and resources by removing sources of excess consumption (people).
addressed pretty well in the novel 'Deep Sky'. basically, some Really Smart People conclude that there are too many people consuming too few resources, so they plot to remove people (the suboptimal kind, like me) for the long-term benefit of other people (the really smart, rich, educated ones).

www.naturalnews.com...

"In the modern era, uber-left wing academics who view environmentalism as a religion and take on blind faith that the world is being destroyed by the infestation of human beings have long considered and discussed how best to achieve "population control" and even population reduction.

Most have been careful not to actually state what it is they would really like to see: the mass murder of billions of people, so they could "save" the planet through avoidance of destruction by humans. But even a reasonably astute observer can see through the veneer of their "concern" and figure out what they really want."

anyone for free birth-control for the third world?