DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Catastrophic Climate Change
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3961--------------------------------------------------
Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
By: AGelbert Date: October 6, 2015, 2:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Are There More Pigs than Humans in Denmark?
There are more pigs than humans in Denmark – the country’s human
population is an estimated 5.4 million, compared to its pig
population of around 24 million. Due to its high amount of pig
livestock, Denmark is the leading exporter of pork in the world.
From the 1980s through the 2000s, the number of pigs in the
country doubled, while the number of pig farms decreased by
nearly 80%, with the remaining farms growing in physical size.
The amount of slurry produced at Denmark’s pig farms is
estimated to be able to fill the equivalent of 90,000 swimming
pools every year.
More about the world’s livestock population:
Chickens are the most populous livestock in the world, at an
estimated three chickens for every one person on Earth.
There are over seven sheep for every one person living in New
Zealand (Agelbert obsevation: Nuttin' but mutton ;D). The
country also has one of the highest cattle rates, at around 2.3
cows per person.
China is the country with the highest numbers of livestock,
leading the world’s total livestock populations for cattle,
sheep, and pigs. [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/chinese-emoticon-22648577.jpg[/img]<br
/> [img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.wisegeek.com/are-there-more-pigs-than-humans-in-denmark.htm
#Post#: 3962--------------------------------------------------
Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
By: AGelbert Date: October 6, 2015, 2:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Human Population Growth: The Truth About How Human
Activity Threatens The Conditio Sine Qua Non For Our Survival
[/center]
What Is the Greatest Number of Children Born to One Woman?
As of 2014, the greatest number of children born to one woman
was 69. Birth records from the 1700s show that the wife of a
Russian peasant named Feodor Vassilyev gave birth 27 times — to
four sets of quadruplets, seven sets of triplets and 16 pairs of
twins. It was reported that 67 of the 69 children survived past
infancy. Vassilyev’s second wife reportedly gave birth to 18
children, which would make him the father of 87 children, with
all but three surviving infancy. It has not been proved that the
records are true, and some people believe that the numbers might
be inaccurate.
More about child birth rates:
Niger is the country with the most births per woman, at an
average of 6.16, with more than half of all Nigerian mothers
giving birth before age 18.
The greatest number of surviving children born to one woman at
one time was eight in 2009 in the United States.
The United Kingdom has the highest rate of childless women older
than 45, at more than 20%.
[center]Why Sterilizing the Poorest 50% of Homo Sap Won't Solve
ANYTHING! [/center]
Brainwashed Propaganda Victims and Fossil Fuelers' REACTION to
the ABOVE: 🤔 [img
width=30]
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718211017.gif[/img]
The "Human Population Must Be Reduced" Propaganda Myth. Why it
is a divide and conquer tactic and why it has absolutely no
basis in scientific fact.
[quote]
"The total biomass of all the ants on Earth is roughly equal to
the total biomass of all the people on Earth.
How can this be?! Ants are so tiny, and we are so big! But
scientists estimate there are at least 1.5 million ants on the
planet for every human being. Over 12,000 species of ants are
known to exist, on every continent except Antarctica. Most live
in tropical regions. A single acre of Amazon rainforest may
house 3.5 million ants."[/quote]
HTML http://insects.about.com/od/antsbeeswasps/a/10-cool-facts-about-ants.htm
The Human biomass is tiny compared with thousands of species
from insects to spiders to rodents, along with many marine
creatures.
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
See for yourself 🧐 the Evidence:
I will provide for you a couple of links for you to research but
let me give you a brief introduction to earth's biomass pyramid.
You have different trophic levels (life forms that eat other
life forms to survive).
The lower you are on the pyramid, the more collective mass you
have as a segment of the biosphere. What does that mean?
Here's a quote so you can see where I'm going with this:
[quote]"An ecological pyramid is a graphical representation that
shows, for a given ecosystem, the relationship between biomass
or biological productivity and trophic levels.
A biomass pyramid shows the amount of biomass at each trophic
level.
A productivity pyramid shows the production or turn-over in
biomass at each trophic level.
An ecological pyramid provides a snapshot in time of an
ecological community.
The bottom of the pyramid represents the primary producers
(autotrophs). The primary producers take energy from the
environment in the form of sunlight or inorganic chemicals and
use it to create energy-rich molecules such as carbohydrates.
This mechanism is called primary production. The pyramid then
proceeds through the various trophic levels to the apex
predators at the top.
When energy is transferred from one trophic level to the next,
typically only ten percent is used to build new biomass. The
remaining ninety percent goes to metabolic processes or is
dissipated as heat. This energy loss means that productivity
pyramids are never inverted, and generally limits food chains to
about six levels. However, in oceans, biomass pyramids can be
wholly or partially inverted, with more biomass at higher
levels."
[img]
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Ecological_pyramid.svg[/img]
[/quote]
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)
Take insects as one example of the Laws of Thermodynamics as
applied to life forms in the Biosphere trophic (food chain)
pyramids.
In order for insects to BE food for spiders as well as many
other creatures, the biomass of insects has to be much, much
greater because of the heat energy losses in transferring energy
from the insect to the spider (about 90% is lost in heat). The
predators (that's what we are, by the way) are at the top of the
pyramid and have the least total biomass of all the life forms.
Lions, tigers, sharks, whales, bears, wolves, etc. have a tiny
planetary biosphere biomass in comparison with ants, earthworms,
rodents, and krill (those tiny shrimp like creatures that whales
eat). And the krill eat tiny nearly microscopic phytoplankton
(that has more biomass than the ubiquitous krill).
Mollusks, as well as ants and several thousand other species
have a larger biomass than humans. I bring up the mollusks
because they have a HUGE biomass. I studied them in depth in
college Zoology.
The phylum Mollusca:
[quote]"The phylum Mollusca is the second most diverse phylum
after Arthropoda with over 110,000 described species. Mollusks
may be primitively segmented, but all but the monoplacophorans
characteristically lack segmentation and have bodies that are to
some degree spirally twisted (e.g. torsion).
The Phylum Mollusca consist of 8 classes:
1. the Monoplacophora discovered in 1977;
2. the worm-like Aplacophora or solenogasters of the deep sea;
3. the also worm-like Caudofoveata;
4. the Polyplacophora, or chitons;
5. the Pelecypoda or bivalves;
6. the Gastropoda or snails;
7. the Scaphopoda, or tusk shells; and
8. the Cephalopoda that include among others squid and the
octopus."
[/quote]
Agelbert Note: The biomass pyramid in the oceans in regard to
mollusks and fish is NOT inverted. The oceanic "confusion" is
due to the fact that some mollusks are apex predators like giant
squid and the smaller mollusk predators like Octopodes that eat
fish. Most mollusks are small to very small and are food for
fish. They are the ones (bivalves near Fukushima) that
concentrate radionuclides in their tissues that then get in the
fish that eat them. :( :P
The smaller mollusks (most of them are less than a foot long)
are FOOD for fish. That means there HAS TO BE much more of them
than there are fish. And I'm sure you don't believe the human
biomass is greater than that of all the fish species, right? ;D
.
Now for some biomass weights:
Human population = 335,000,000,000 kg.
[quote]"Human population = 335,000,000,000 kg. This figure is
based on an average human weight of more than 100lbs, though
(50kg, to be exact). I don't know how accurate this estimate
is, especially considering that about 1/3 of us are children.
There are supposedly around 1.3 billion cattle in the world,
and, put together, they may weigh almost twice as much as our
species."
Antarctic krill, [I]Euphausia superba[/I] = 379,000,000,000 kg.
There are more ants than krill. Also, metabolism plays a role
along with biomass. A "million ruby-throated hummingbirds will
consume much more food than one African Elephant, even though
both have about the same biomass (3,000kg, or 3.3 US tons).
Thus, ants, as a group, may actually consume more resources per
year than antarctic krill, even though both may have roughly the
same biomass, because ants tend to be smaller, and live in
warmer environments. Although there may be about 10-15 times the
biomass of termites than cows in the world, studies have
suggested that termites might produce almost 30,000 times as
much methane per year because of their faster metabolism."
[/quote]
HTML http://www.antweb.org/antblog/2010/10/do-ants-really-have-the-largest-biomass-of-all-species-on-earth-laurie-usa.html
[b]So how come nobody is hollering about reducing the termite
population?[/b] [img width=40
height=40]
HTML https://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
As the article in the quotes above points out, humans are a huge
problem, not because of our biomass, but because of our carbon
footprint (I.E. the use of fossil fuels!). And guess what
portion of our population does over 80% of the Fossil Fuel
consumption? You guessed it! The upper 20%!
Who Done it?
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/10/one-percents-planetary-assets-equals-80-responsibility-for-funding-a-100-renewable-energy-world<br
/>
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-260214201233.png[/img][/center]
The Global Compact: 20% using 80% of the Resources
HTML http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/other/DTIx0601xPA/docs/en/Module2%20-%20Session1.ppt
To ACTUALLY address, confront and STOP the biosphere damage that
Homo Sap is doing, we must face the scientifically confirmed
REALITY that if you get rid of the bottom 50% of the human
population (the most poor among us) you will, I'm sorry to say,
not even dent the pollution and biosphere destruction.
AS pointed out in the biomass numbers, the amount of people
eating and defecating is not the problem, CARBON FOOTPRINT is
the threat to a viable biosphere. We must attack that problem by
reducing the carbon footprint of the most powerful people on
this planet.
NOTHING ELSE WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM. The solution, in addition
to a 100% transition to Renewable energy, involves eliminating
corporate energy welfare queen subsidies for both fossil fuels
and nuclear poison.
Democracy and a viable biosphere requires it from all of us.
The "let's reduce the human population" [img width=30
height=30]
HTML https://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]<br
/>baloney is a divide and conquer tactic to avoid billing the t
op
🐽 human pigs for the damage they do while attempting to
give the rest of us a totally unwarranted with ZERO empirical
basis ( but VERY clever [img width=140
height=080]
HTML http://drphilyerboots.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/cherry-picking.jpg[/img][img<br
/>width=80
height=40]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]<br
/> [img width=40
height=40]
HTML https://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>) guilt trip. It's a lie. Don't buy it.
What we need to do is transition to 100% renewable energy as
soon as possible. That will give our future generations a chance
to live in a viable biosphere.
If you agree please pass it on. Also, feel free to visit my
forum and post on any subject you wish. Thank you.
Renewable revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum<br
/>
[center]
HTML https://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-160614020633.gif[/center]
#Post#: 3964--------------------------------------------------
Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
By: AGelbert Date: October 6, 2015, 11:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]The predator survives – but the ecosystem
crashes[/center]
Date:October 6, 2015 Source: Linköping Universitet
The killer whales' main prey used to be newborn whale calves.
When whale populations fell dramatically due to intensive
hunting, they began to hunt seal instead. Then when the seal
population was quickly eradicated, the killer whales moved on to
sea otters. This reduced the pressure on sea urchins, the
preferred diet of the sea otters. As a result, the sea urchins
grazed down the kelp beds that have served as nurseries for many
different fish species and small marine animals. :(
What do killer whales, polar bears and humans have in common?
They are adaptable predators with the ability to select new prey
when their favourite food is in low supply. But this change can
disrupt entire ecosystems.
"If the predator is efficient at killing its prey, such a change
can lead to negative effects in the long term, for the entire
food web, even if in the short term it benefits the predator's
survival," says David Gilljam, doctoral student in theoretical
biology, who joined with Professor Bo Ebenman and PhD Alva
Curtsdotter to publish a new model-based study in Nature
Communications.
By working with both natural and computer-generated food webs,
the researchers can show how the overexploitation of resources
caused by predators changing their prey can, in the worst case,
lead to an extinction cascade, where species after species is
wiped out in a domino effect.
A dramatic example of this is the killer whale, whose main prey
was newborn whale calves. When whale populations fell
dramatically due to intensive hunting, they began to hunt seal
instead. Then when the seal population was quickly eradicated,
the killer whales moved on to sea otters. This reduced the
pressure on sea urchins, the preferred diet of the sea otters.
As a result, the sea urchins grazed down the kelp beds that have
served as nurseries for many different fish species and small
marine animals.
"Think of a rope that's made of a number of twisted fibres. When
force is applied to the rope, the force is spread across all the
fibres. If one fibre breaks, the remaining fibres take all the
force, with more force on each individual fibre. If more break,
eventually the whole rope will fail," says Prof Ebenman.
[center]A few examples from the real world:[/center]
•As the ice in the Arctic melts, it gets more and more difficult
for the polar bears to hunt seal -- their natural prey. Instead
they have started to venture onto the land, to feed on the eggs
and young of ground-nesting birds, which are already the prey of
other predators such as arctic foxes. The risk is that the
predatory pressure on these birds will be too great.
•West-African fishermen are abandoning their fishing grounds in
times of poor supply -- which is caused by industrial-scale
fishing. Instead they are hunting on nature reserves, which
leads to drastic reductions to the populations of prey animals
there. Humans are an extremely flexible, efficient predator, who
have massive impact on ecosystems.
The theoretical simulations presented by the LiU biologists
completely contradict what we previously believed took place,
when a predator loses its favourite prey.
[quote]
"The belief was that an extinction cascade would be avoided if
the predator is adaptable and can shift to another prey. Our new
results indicate that the opposite can occur, and the
consequences can be even worse. A change in prey is a
double-edged sword -- in the short term it can help a flexible
predator survive, but long term it can negatively affect the
entire existence of the food web," says Prof Ebenman.
[/quote]
Story Source:
The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Linköping
Universitet. Note: Materials may be edited for content and
length.
Journal Reference:
1.David Gilljam, Alva Curtsdotter, Bo Ebenman. Adaptive rewiring
aggravates the effects of species loss in ecosystems. Nature
Communications, 2015; 6: 8412 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9412
#Post#: 4925--------------------------------------------------
Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
By: AGelbert Date: April 20, 2016, 7:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][font=times new roman]The extinction crisis in a warming
world[/font][/center]
How climate change is intensifying threats to nature — and what
can be done
Story by Ian James and Sammy Roth | Photographs by Marilyn Chung
and Jay Calderon, The Desert Sun | April 18, 2016
SNIPPET:
The world is losing creatures at an accelerating rate: Species
of frogs, lizards, fish and birds have all gone extinct as their
habitats have been fragmented, degraded and destroyed by humans.
Now, as the Earth grows warmer due to the burning of fossil
fuels, the rapid disruption of the climate is placing even
bigger stresses on species that are already struggling to
survive.
Scientists have warned that unless humans act quickly to protect
the natural world from habitat losses and the ravages of climate
change, more than a third of all plant and animal species on the
planet could disappear by the end of the century.
In every corner of the United States, animals are threatened by
climate change, from chinook salmon in California to the
Illinois chorus frog and endangered birds in the rainforests of
Hawaii. So many plants and animals are at risk that scientists
and conservationists are increasingly calling for new, more
ambitious approaches to saving species and habitats.
Those strategies include aggressive interventions to protect
species that are on the verge of dying out, and efforts to
conserve larger wilderness areas and “corridors” that connect
patches of fragmented habitat. There is also a growing push for
better data to help prioritize the areas and species that are
most vulnerable.
HTML http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2016/04/18/extinction-crisis-warming-world/82642298/
HTML http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2016/04/18/extinction-crisis-warming-world/82642298/
#Post#: 5956--------------------------------------------------
Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
By: AGelbert Date: November 24, 2016, 5:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML http://dl2.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1087/1087832pmq26zqtt4.gif[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/Ea_mard7Fag[/center]
[center]The Rainforest Alliance [img
width=100]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/earthhug.gif[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/computer3.gif
[/center]
HTML http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/video/we-are-the-rainforest-alliance
#Post#: 6602--------------------------------------------------
Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
By: AGelbert Date: March 2, 2017, 10:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[move][font=courier]Ninety percent of predatory fish gone from
Caribbean coral reefs due to overfishing[/font][/move]
March 1, 2017
Researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
have found that up to 90 percent of predatory fish are gone from
Caribbean coral reefs, straining the ocean ecosystem and coastal
economy. The good news? They identified reefs, known as
supersites, which can support large numbers of predator fishes
that if reintroduced, can help restore the environmental and
economic setback inflicted by overfishing.
[center][img
width=060]
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/png/200/emoticons/fingerscrossed.png[/img][/center]
The work, led by former UNC-Chapel Hill graduate student Abel
Valdivia working with John Bruno, a marine biologist at UNC
College of Arts & Sciences, suggests that these supersites -
reefs with many nooks and crannies on its surface that act as
hiding places for prey (and attract predators) - should be
prioritized for protection and could serve as regional models
showcasing the value of biodiversity for tourism and other uses.
Other features that make a supersite are amount of available
food, size of reef and proximity to mangroves.
"On land, a supersite would be a national park like Yellowstone,
which naturally supports an abundance of varied wildlife and has
been protected by the federal government," said Bruno, whose
work appears in the March 1 issue of Science Advances.
The team surveyed 39 reefs across the Bahamas, Cuba, Florida,
Mexico and Belize, both inside and outside marine reserves, to
determine how much fish had been lost by comparing fish biomass
on pristine sites to fish biomass on a typical reef. They
estimated the biomass in each location and found that 90 percent
of predatory fish were gone due to overfishing.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2017/1-ninetypercen.png[/img][/center]
[center]An illustration of the relative fish biomass on reefs
varying in fishing intensity and natural capacity to support
large predatory fishes. Credit: Adi Khen [/center]
What they didn't expect to find was a ray of hope—a small number
of reef locations that if protected could substantially
contribute to the recovery of predatory fish populations and
help restore depleted species.
"Some features have a surprisingly large effect on how many
predators a reef can support," said Courtney Ellen Cox, a
coauthor and former UNC-Chapel Hill doctoral student now at the
National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. For
example, researchers believe that the Columbia Reef within the
fisheries closures of Cozumel, Mexico, could support an average
10 times the current level of predatory fish if protected.
Not long ago, large fishes were plentiful on coral reefs, but
are now largely absent due to targeted fishing. Today, predators
are larger and more abundant within the marine reserves than on
unprotected, overfished reefs. But even some of the marine
reserves have seen striking declines, largely due to lack of
enforcement of fishing regulations.
The bottom line is protection of predatory fish is a win-win
from both an environmental and an economical perspective,
explained Bruno.
"A live shark is worth over a million dollars in tourism revenue
over its lifespan because sharks live for decades and thousands
of people will travel and dive just to see them up close," said
Valdivia, now at the Center for Biological Diversity in Oakland,
Calif. "There is a massive economic incentive to restore and
protect sharks and other top predators on coral reefs."
HTML https://phys.org/news/2017-03-percent-predatory-fish-caribbean-coral.html#jCp
Agelbert NOTE: The Climate change Elephant in the room of the
above study is the FACT that Ocean Acidification is destroying
the reefs! So, that "ray of hope" for the "supersites" is
contingent on STOPPING the burning of fossil fuels. Do YOU see
that happening any time soon? Certainly NOT with fossil fuel
TOOLS like Trump, Pruitt, Tillerson, etc. et al in charge of US
energy policy.
[move]Tomorrow is Yesterday...[/move]
[center][img
width=300]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210316151047.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 6607--------------------------------------------------
Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
By: AGelbert Date: March 2, 2017, 6:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030317114213.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center]Threatened species in the biosphere[/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160823/ncomms12558/images_article/ncomms12558-f1.jpg[/img][/center]
"Wealthy countries have a much higher per-capita footprint, so
each person there is consuming a lot more than those in poorer
nations."
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif
What these scientists are ERRONEOUSLY doing is ASSUMING the SAME
AGENCY (i.e. biosphere damaging ability) to each and every human
that is alive. That is TYPICAL broad brush fragmentation of
agency (i.e. share of responsibility for the damage) that
absolves the major polluters of the massive pollution they are
responsible for.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
The biosphere math facts clearly state that less than 17% of the
human population, MOSTLY concentrated in wealthy countries, is
DOING over 80% of the damage by consuming over 80% of the
resources. Only about half (or less) of the MILITARY budgets
alone of the wealthy countries could pay for bio-remediating the
most impacted areas, stop the exploitation and care for and
educate the high population growth poor there so they become
good stewards instead of biosphere destroyers.
Since, according to the U.N., the richest 20% of the world's
population uses 80% of the resources, the 'Fragmentation of
Agency' pie chart for the damage done to the biosphere should
look like this:
[center]
[img width=640
height=510]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240915212016.jpeg[/img][/center]
The fossil fuel industry, and almost half of the world’s 100
largest companies, want that 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart
to look like is as follows:
[center][img width=640
height=360]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240915212425.png[/img][/center]
The REAL bottom line is that less than 17% of the human
population is an existential threat to the ALL of the human
population AND a large part of macroscopic species in the
biosphere.
[center] [img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-140515152155.png[/img][/center]
[quote][font=times new roman]"Capitalist ideology claims that
the world is perfectly ordered and everybody is in their place
(i..e. everybody gets what they deserve). This self legitmating
aspect of Capitalism is Socially Catastrophic. This is the
Victorian view of the world." Rob Urie - Author " Zen
Economics"[/font][/quote]
#Post#: 7280--------------------------------------------------
Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
By: AGelbert Date: June 4, 2017, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://dinoanimals.com/wp-content/themes/Broadcast/thumb.php?src=http://dinoanimals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Blue_whale-2-949x475.jpg&w=949&h=475&zc=1&q=100[/img][/center]
[center]Where's the Krill? Don't ask the Fossil Fuel "Industry"
Polluters.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/fly.gif[/center]
[center]How Much Krill Can a Blue Whale Swallow?[/center]
Unlike toothed whales that hunt for individual prey, baleen
whales -- including the blue whale, the largest animal on Earth
-- eat an enormous quantity of food in one big gulp. When a blue
whale opens its mouth 80 degrees, it can hoover up large schools
of tiny crustaceans called krill, consuming as much as 1,100
lbs. (500 kg) at a time.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/wm/live/1280_640/images/live/p0/4z/ng/p04zng32.jpg[/img][/center]
And for a blue whale, a single mouthful of food can contain
457,000 calories, making each foray a relatively efficient and
satisfying meal.
A whale of an appetite:
Instead of teeth, filter-feeding whales use baleen, which are
plates with frayed edges in the upper jaw that filter out tiny
seafood from the water.
Baleen whales' feeding efficiency is unprecedented, says
researcher Robert Shadwick. “When they take a gulp of water,
they are filling their mouths with the amount of water equal to
their own body mass.”
Plates of baleen are made of keratin, a protein found in hair,
fingernails, and feathers.
HTML http://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-krill-can-a-blue-whale-swallow.htm
[center]------------------[/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://sevennutrition.com/products/images/krill-finger.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Your fossil fuel 'business model' is KILLING us! Whales,
seals, penguins, fish AND YOU are next, you arrogant, stupid,
greedy, humans! [/center]
[center]Krill Are Disappearing from Antarctic Waters[/center]
[move][font=courier]Whales, seals and penguins could be hurting
as this tiny creature--fundamental to the food
web--declines[/font][/move]
By Andrea Thompson, Climate Central on August 29, 2016
SNIPPET:
They may be small, but krill—tiny, shrimp-like creatures—play a
big role in the Antarctic food chain. As climate change warms
the Southern Ocean and alters sea ice patterns, though, the area
of Antarctic water suitable for krill to hatch and grow could
drop precipitously, a new study finds.
Read more: 🦉
HTML https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/krill-are-disappearing-from-antarctic-waters/
#Post#: 7320--------------------------------------------------
Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
By: AGelbert Date: June 12, 2017, 5:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: This video [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]<br
/>contains an excellent discussion of large marine species, thei
r
habits and their habitat problems.
[center]Biological Extinction | Discussion #5[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/tpAW7xP8csI[/center]
[font=times new roman]Casina Pio IV[/font]
Published on Mar 2, 2017
How to Save the Natural World on Which We Depend
PAS-PASS Workshop
Casina Pio IV, 27 February-1 March 2017
On our 4.54 billion year old planet, life is perhaps as much as
3.7 billion years old, photosynthesis and multi-cellularity
dozens of times independently around 3.0 billion years old, and
the emergence of plants, animals, and fungi onto land, by at
least the Ordovician period, perhaps 480 million years ago,
forests appearing around 370 million years ago, and the origin
of modern groups such as mammals, birds, reptiles, and land
plants subsequently. The geological record shows that there have
been five major extinction-events in the past, the first of them
about 542 million years ago, and suggests that 99% of the
species that ever lived (5 billion of them?) have become
extinct. The last major extinction event occurred about 66
million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous Period, and, in
general, the number of species on earth and the complexity of
their communities has increased steadily until near the present.
#Post#: 7637--------------------------------------------------
Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
By: AGelbert Date: August 5, 2017, 2:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: NBL is an abbreviation for 'Nature Bats Last", a
web site by scientist Guy McPherson.
[quote author=Eddie link=topic=4.msg136442#msg136442
date=1501958788]
[quote author=John of Wallan link=topic=4.msg136400#msg136400
date=1501929174]
Hello Folks. I hope all are well.
Am i the only person on this forum who is a NBL fan?
I listen to Guy's talks, hear the evidence as he presents it,
and hope to hell he is wrong. Trouble is every time I try and
investigate and look for facts I come to similar conclusions:
Were ****!
I dont think NBL is promoting nihalism by telling what he
belives is the truth. I really do hope Guy is wrong, even though
I fear what he says is real, and I do what I can to mitigate the
situation and be what I consider a good moral and ethical human
being. (Note: I said what I consider not what other tell me I
must do!)
The acceptance thing on NBL is interesting. I dont accept my own
demise ever though I rationally know I am a mere mortal. I
really picture myself as an RE like immortal Demi-god who will
live forever in Valhalla! (Cue Wagner: Ride of the Valkyries and
sweeping shot of me flying off into the sunset on the back of a
white winged unicorn brandishing a sword.. And perhaps a glass
of Merlot in the other hand if you want to have some
authenticity:)
It is hard as a parent to even contemplate the premature demise
of my children, even though I know they are going to face
hardships me and my parents did not; after all this is the whole
modus operandi of the Doomstead Diner: We are comingto the end
of the current industrial civilisation and all its perks....
Including Merlot! Damn.
Some of NBL ideas I agree with:
1. We are all going to die. Nothing new or controversial in that
statement.
2. We are all going to die soon. Nope, still nothing new. If I
live to 100 its still not that far off in geological time
frames.
3. We are screwing up the environment. Hmm, pretty obvious here
in Oz, let alone what I saw last time I was in mid west Merika
we are screwing up the environment and destroying habitat.
4. Screwing up the environment is going to lead to people dying.
Happening now. Plenty of foods, fires, droughts and famines.
Wait until we see an ice free arctic and lets see what effect
this has on Northern Hemisphere weather patterns and food
production....
5. If we screw up the environment enough it can and will lead to
human extinction. Just a matter of how much we screw it up.
Guy just asserts we have got to the last step already. I fear we
have too, but am working on the premise that we haven't, mainly
through denial, and the perhaps futile belief I can make a
difference for the next generation. After all I did actually
bring some of them into the world and I believe I have a moral
obligations to try and see them survive.
I did enjoyed the Mad Max movies, but would prefer if I could
actually avoid the scenarios in real life... (Watch the first
one, it is actually the best IMHO, and a lot of the scenes were
filmed not far from where I live. Also a Ford 1977 XB Falcon
was my first car, although it was not a V8 or a 2 doorlike those
that appear in the film.)
Geo- Engineering is about as logical as a Mars settlements as an
answer to the habitat problem we will face.
If we cant live sustainably on a planet we are tailor made for
how the **** are we going to live in an alien hostile
environment!
Geo-engineering i the cause of our problems not the cure...
Clean coal, or indeed clean energy is an oxy-moron. Solar panels
don't spontaneously assembly in virgin forests...
Guns and Span wont save humanity either for all you survivalist
types. Just leads to holes and constipation in lots of dying
people.
The way I see it we really only have 2 possible options:
1. Pain followed by death.
Or
2. Pain followed by death sooner.
Why sweat the details.
Enjoy.
Now where did I leave that bottle..
JOW
[/quote]
There was time most of us were NBL fans, or at least a fan of
Guy and what trying to get across in his writing and speeches.
The real issue became the tone of the angry people who sought
out the blog and used the comments section there to promote
hating the human race. Mostly pissed-off burnouts from various
environmental movements and animal rights groups who gathered
daily to viciously attack well-meaning people who dropped by the
blog to weigh in Guy's posts. I haven't checked out NBL in many
months, maybe a year or two now.
I have exactly the same POV on NBL as Dr. Geoffrey Chia, whom RE
cross-posts from time to time. Collapse is something to be
planned for and anticipated, so that you can weather the
vicissitudes of the coming storms.
[/quote]
[img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
I post videos of Guy from time to time. He makes a lot of sense,
but his narrative is extremely conflicted. He is rather
impatient with those who question his extinction box canyon
assumptions, only to turn around and talk of "love" and "living
the day". His insistance that he was born to be a "teacher"
comes off as rather arrogant, considering that he now
continuously advocates "humility". He is NOT open to being
TAUGHT by ANYONE who doesn't possess the same University
Credentials that he severely criticizes as belonging to mostly
the bought and paid for cowardly set of scientists and academics
out there.
Guy, the "boy genious" was TOTALLY unaware, by his own
admission, that the U.S. Gooberment was assigning fawning
pseudo-intellectual spies to his classes to gain his confidence
and track his every move in order to undermine the validity of
his excellent (anarchist = radical = root of proper living)
teaching style.
WHY WAS THAT? BECAUSE GUY IS SO FULL OF HIMSELF that he was, and
probably still is, a sucker for fawning con artists.
At NO TIME has he appeared, beyond lip service, to BEHAVE as if
he possesses any new found humility. So, he has an arrogance
problem. Sure, he will self deprecatingly talk about how long it
took for him to learn to milk goats and how hard it is for him
to grow plants and such in a display of humility, but he cannot
seem to give a talk without parading the fact that he earned his
full professorial credentials at a young age.
I enjoy listening to his dissertations on climate feedback loops
and the in-your-face wishful thinking stupidity of many
scientists. He is 100% right on both those issues. But his
personal life is testament, though he vociferously denies it, to
a man embittered because the establisment turned against the
worthy and erudite Guy McPherson.
If you do not see that as a highly conflicted message, I suggest
you look a bit deeper. 8)
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page