Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhen you get your science from the global media you are bound to think along such ignorant lines.
Environmentalists have gotten every major prediction wrong: at any one time, they've claimed that the planet was entering a new ice age, that there were too many people, that we'd run out of food, that we’re running out of oil, that there were going to be more hurricanes due to global warming this season, , etc.. In every instance, they were wrong.
Originally posted by no1marauderHere's more background on "abiogenic" theory.
The article doesn't say anything like oil is "shot up through the mantle" though it discusses the possibility that oil isn't a biological byproduct. It raises no scientific hypothesis that oil creation isn't a long process even in geological terms. Therefore, it isn't much help to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Of course the best place to learn is from T. Gold's "The Deep, Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels." Here's a review from Publishers Weekly:
When scientists discovered thermophiles?primitive microorganisms that live in deep seafloor vents and eat hydrocarbons (chemicals like gasoline)?experts assumed the mysterious bugs had little to tell us about ourselves or about the earth's core. Cornell University Professor Emeritus Gold, however, who for 20 years directed the Cornell Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, here proposes the striking theory that "a full functioning... biosphere, feeding on hydrocarbons, exists deep within the earth, and that a primordial source of hydrocarbons lies even deeper." Most scientists think the oil we drill for comes from decomposed prehistoric plants. Gold believes it has been there since the earth's formation, that it supports its own ecosystem far underground and that life there preceded life on the earth's surface. The "deep hot biosphere" hypothesis would explain the thermophiles, the minerals and the oil Swedish drillers found in 1990 under rock where no one expected them. The hot goo and massed gas far under our feet would also explain some mysterious historical earthquakes (notably the New Madrid, Mo., shocker of 1811), and it would tell puzzled geologists why so many oil reserves just happen to sit underneath coal fields. As later chapters explain, if Gold is right, the planet's oil reserves are far larger than policymakers expect, and earthquake-prediction procedures require a shakeup; moreover, astronomers hoping for extraterrestrial contacts might want to stop seeking life on other planets and inquire about life in them.
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Originally posted by HumeAIt seems more likely that contact with others i.e. Europeans is what doomed the Easter Islanders.
When the world's resources run out, will we have anyone to trade with? Our planet is just as isolated as Easter Island was, in fact moreso. The fact that they had no trade is exactly the reason that their system fell apart. Other Island groups(?) such as Hawaii survived because they were able to maintain contact with others.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterEven if this speculation is correct, it's of no help to your argument.
Here's more background on "abiogenic" theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Of course the best place to learn is from T. Gold's "The Deep, Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels." Here's a review from Publishers Weekly:
When scientists discovered thermophiles?primitive microorganisms that live in deep seafloor ...[text shortened]... and inquire about life in them.
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc.
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZThat seems to be a matter of dispute; from the American Scientist article already cited:
But all their trees were gone before they met Europeans.
Other recent archaeological and paleo-environmental work has also challenged long-held assumptions about Rapa Nui's prehistory. Catherine Orliac of the Centre national de la recherche scientifique in France has conducted a remarkable study of 32,960 specimens of woods, seeds, fibers and roots. In addition to identifying 14 taxa not previously observed on the island, she showed that the primary source of fuel for the Rapanui changed in a dramatic fashion. Between 1300 and 1650 A.D., inhabitants burned wood from trees, but they used grass, ferns and other similar plants for fuel after that point. Orliac also argued, however, that at least 10 taxa of forest vegetation may have persisted until Europeans began visiting the island.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53200?fulltext=true&print=yes
Also, there are human habitats devoid of trees.
Originally posted by no1marauder"taxa of forest vegetation may have persisted" sounds to me like a way to weasel out of saying "no trees".
That seems to be a matter of dispute; from the American Scientist article already cited:
Other recent archaeological and paleo-environmental work has also challenged long-held assumptions about Rapa Nui's prehistory. Catherine Orliac of the Centre national de la recherche scientifique in France has conducted a remarkable study of 32,960 spec ...[text shortened]... /53200?fulltext=true&print=yes
Also, there are human habitats devoid of trees.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo wait, the study you cited says that around 1650 the fuel used for fires changes from wood to grass, ferns &c (all of which are rubbish fuels, creating lots of smoke and not as much heat).
That seems to be a matter of dispute; from the American Scientist article already cited:
Other recent archaeological and paleo-environmental work has also challenged long-held assumptions about Rapa Nui's prehistory. Catherine Orliac of the Centre national de la recherche scientifique in France has conducted a remarkable study of 32,960 spec ...[text shortened]... /53200?fulltext=true&print=yes
Also, there are human habitats devoid of trees.
And yet it says that there were trees until at least 1722 (when the Dutch discovered Easter Island)? Despite the fact that the Dutch came across a population of a few thousand but evidence suggests that a few hundred years earlier it was much higher (10-15k).
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterjust for the record birds evolved from dinosaurs and ,,
Here's more background on "abiogenic" theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Of course the best place to learn is from T. Gold's "The Deep, Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels." Here's a review from Publishers Weekly:
When scientists discovered thermophiles?primitive microorganisms that live in deep seafloor ...[text shortened]... and inquire about life in them.
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc.
read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oilbird
Originally posted by HumeAThere is one kink in this story. Newer work on this subject has clearly shown an influx of mice circa AD 900 caused an extreme growth in mice on the island very quickly, in the millions. It seems it was mice eating the seeds that decimated the trees before people showed up in volume. There is an article about this in New Scientist and American Scientist mags, can't find a link online yet, I read the actual paper, don't see it just yet. So the new data says it wasn't the poster child for humans wasting a natural resource. They actually found ancient seeds chewed up by mice early on. Which, if true, does not lessen our culpibility in destroying our planet.
The short version of the story goes like this...
People come on boats to Easter Island, quite possibly the most remote place on this earth, bringing some supplies with them, some animals to breed, and some plants to grow, etc. But with the main intent to live off the land. They cut trees down down to engage in a little bit of arable farming, all is happy. T ...[text shortened]... le I have never been an enviromentalist, this little bit of history has been making me think...
Originally posted by XanthosNZDid you bother to read the article cited? It disputes the assertion that the population of Easter Island was ever over the approx 3,000 that were on the island when the Europeans arrived. This is based on the archeological evidence. That there was deforestation from 1200-1650 is clear, but your claim was that there were NO trees when the Europeans arrived, which seems dubious based on Orilac's work and the journals of various Europeans in the 18th century.
So wait, the study you cited says that around 1650 the fuel used for fires changes from wood to grass, ferns &c (all of which are rubbish fuels, creating lots of smoke and not as much heat).
And yet it says that there were trees until at least 1722 (when the Dutch discovered Easter Island)? Despite the fact that the Dutch came across a population of a few thousand but evidence suggests that a few hundred years earlier it was much higher (10-15k).
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseActually, it's rats who apparently arrived with the first Polynesian settlers around 1200. The American Scientist article is here:
There is one kink in this story. Newer work on this subject has clearly shown an influx of mice circa AD 900 caused an extreme growth in mice on the island very quickly, in the millions. It seems it was mice eating the seeds that decimated the trees before people showed up in volume. There is an article about this in New Scientist and American Scientist mag p by mice early on. Which, if true, does not lessen our culpibility in destroying our planet.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53200?fulltex
t=true&print=yes
EDIT: A better link with photos and graphs is at: http://www.rso.cornell.edu/nwaeg/documents/bookgroup/fall06/Rethinking%20the%20Fall%20of%20Easter%20Island%20-%20Hunt,%202006.pdf
