Mass Plankton Die-Off

[mintyspilot]

Originally Posted by GordMay

With all due respect, repeating obviously lunatic fringe claims, without attribution, explanation or admonitory; does nothing to reduce the noise level.

I was just making a point - badly it seems. By asserting that the claim that only "10 years of oil are left" has been uttered for the last 100 years I was making a point that seemed obvious to me - namely that the 10 year claim was rubbish.

Obviously resources are finite, but making blanket claims won't help.

I think that the best contribution to this debate was made a few pages ago where someone asserted that humans are doing what all living things do - using up resources until they are gone and the depletion then forces a change of behaviour.

It's more damning of our animal natures than I like to admit and it seems to deny the point of having reason and logic, but I am regretfully coming to the conclusion that it may be 100% accurate.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

I think that the best contribution to this debate was made a few pages ago where someone asserted that humans are doing what all living things do - using up resources until they are gone and the depletion then forces a change of behaviour.

It's more damning of our animal natures than I like to admit and it seems to deny the point of having reason and logic, but I am regretfully coming to the conclusion that it may be 100% accurate.

More crudely put, but gripping:

"The difference between humans and bacterian in a petri dish is negligible."

Can't recall the attribution.

[Chief Engineer]

There are a lot of people that believe that oil is produced deep in the earth and that dead dinosaurs/plants are not the origin

[highseas]

Humans are only living thing that tries to alter the environment in order to attain needed resources.All other living things use resources in their natural state.

[GordMay]

So, what does what all this portend for the future of life, in the ocean & ashore?
I think we can safely say with certainty, it will be very different.

[mintyspilot]

Should we start a new thread?

Secrets of the ocean: Decade-long 'sea census' uncovers 6,000 new species of marine creature | Mail Online

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Yes, there is much greenwashing and people trying to make a buck from the whole GW thing.

That does not prove GW is not happening, it just proves people are........................well..................p eople.

Yep.
And I am not saying things are not warming.
I am saying we are not the cause.
And we can try lots of things that will make no difference. Except cost a lot for nothing.

[bobsadler]

"peak oil" may be when production has peaked but that doesn't mean it's all downhill in case of recoverable reserves.

in the u.s., for example, production may well have peaked in the mid-70s but th so much of the u.s. is off limits to oil and gas exploration that it's likely not 10% of recoverable reserves of hydrocarbons have been recovered.

additionally, refining capacity in the u.s. has also decreased since the mid-70s (i seem to remember that no new refineries have been built since the early 80s) so, again, production may have peaked but that is no indicator of reserves consumption.

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by bobsadler

"peak oil" may be when production has peaked but that doesn't mean it's all downhill in case of recoverable reserves.

in the u.s., for example, production may well have peaked in the mid-70s but th so much of the u.s. is off limits to oil and gas exploration that it's likely not 10% of recoverable reserves of hydrocarbons have been recovered.

additionally, refining capacity in the u.s. has also decreased since the mid-70s (i seem to remember that no new refineries have been built since the early 80s) so, again, production may have peaked but that is no indicator of reserves consumption.

I have heard the same thing, but there is so much variation in what different folks define "peak oil" to mean and to what geographical area they are applying it.
- - I maintain that future fossil fuels will become more expensive to harvest and that will act as a "governor" to prevent catastrophic collapse of the supply of the fuel. More and more "difficult" sources of oil are being discovered. Recently Cuba is getting into the oil production business and has contracted for "deep ocean" wells to be drilled off the north shore of Cuba in their underwater economic zone that reaches north to within 45 nm of the Florida Keys.
- - And actually "world" production of refineries is increasing steadily every year from 47 million barrels per day in 1970 to 85.9 mb/day in 2009. See: Table 11.9 World Crude Oil Refining Capacity, 1970-2009 (Million Barrels per Day)
So oil refining capacity inside the USA has been reported to have declined which I think is a result of political decisions and policies that make it "unfriendly" to build your refinery while other countries welcome refineries with few if any regulatory problems.

- - And I think GordMay is right on target with -"So, what does what all this portend for the future of life, in the ocean & ashore? I think we can safely say with certainty, it will be very different." I would hazard to say that same line was validly used shorty after the invention of:
Spears
Writing
sailing ships
swords
gun powder
weapons of mass destruction
Fox News

[bobsadler]

and

faxes
email
www
cell phones
i-pads

but will it be worse? probably not.

globally we're the best fed, longest lived and materially the best satisfied we've ever been even if the distribution of benefit is wildly uneven and, as i read today, britain now has the greatest area of forest since 1750.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by bobsadler

... but will it be worse? probably not ...
... britain now has the greatest area of forest since 1750.

FWIW: I vehemently disagree.

So what?
Britain's forest area continues to grow according to statistics published today by the Forestry Commission.
The total area of woodland in GB is now estimated to be 2.7 million hectares (6.7 million acres) - an increase of over 370,000 hectares (more than 900,000 acres) in the past ten years. Woodland now covers nearly 12 per cent of Great Britain, 8 per cent of England, 14 per cent of Wales and 17 per cent of Scotland. 30 per cent of the total area is managed by the Forestry Commission. In the year to 31 March 2001, 18 thousand hectares of new woodland were created and 14 thousand hectares restocked after harvesting.

Nonetheless, current woodland cover has fallen to less than 12% from an estimated high of around 75% around 6,000 years ago.


➥ http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/QJF_legacy_of_fragmentation_may06.pdf/$FILE/QJF_legacy_of_fragmentation_may06.pdf

[JiffyLube]

How did we go from Mass Plankton Die-Off to oil?

[osirissail]

Easy - Mass PlanKton die-off settles to the bottom of the ocean and 65 million years or so later we have more oil to use.

[bobsadler]

and what exactly is the value of 75% forest cover ??

[mintyspilot]

Originally Posted by osirissail

Easy - Mass PlanKton die-off settles to the bottom of the ocean and 65 million years or so later we have more oil to use.

I always thought that the plankton and other small marine doo-dahs wound up looking like this....