Was the Middle-East a jungle once?

[Mr Rayon]

Was the Middle-East a jungle full of trees and shrubs, like billions of years ago? I ask this because I know that Middle-Eastern countries usually have lots of oil reserves and many of them are major exporters to the rest of the world. I also know that oil is produced from the decomposition of plant material with time/pressure etc. If the Middle-East was a jungle once, what caused it to become a desert now?

[Moontanman]

Was the Middle-East a jungle full of trees and shrubs, like billions of years ago? I ask this because I know that Middle-Eastern countries usually have lots of oil reserves and many of them are major exporters to the rest of the world. I also know that oil is produced from the decomposition of plant material with time/pressure etc. If the Middle-East was a jungle once, what caused it to become a desert now?

 

 

Much of the middle east was lushly forested even into historic times but the forests were cut down to feed the growing human need for wood and charcoal. How ever that has no bearing on where oil comes from. Most authorities think that oil was created by the lust plant growth of the Carboniferous age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous (I happen to not be in that particular camp but that is for another thread)

 

 

Some scientists blame man for why much of the middle east is barren, we are creating deserts even now by cutting away all the vegetation so it is plausible we did then too but it's important to remember the historical forests of the middle east have nothing to do with the oil under the ground there.

 

Continental drift also has to be blamed for the changing climate but not in historical times, the Sahara desert was a lush area with forests and rivers 15,000 years ago so it is easy to see how fast a desert can form but the Sahara is thought to be caused by simple climate shifts. During th last ice age rain belts were more southerly and the Sahara was in the middle of these rain belts. When the glaciers retreated the Sahara dried up...

[FX]

"the lust plant growth"? Where can I find some of them lust plants?

[Doc. Josh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Desert_(ecoregion) quickly thats all i found on it. Dosent really explain that it was ever a "lush" jungle per say but i believe refrences to some ancient text suggest other wise.

[Moontanman]

"the lust plant growth"? Where can I find some of them lust plants?

 

 

Yeah, the ones with blue fruits emblazoned with a V

[JohnB]

(I happen to not be in that particular camp but that is for another thread)

 

Moontanman, I take it you've been reading the Russian Academy of Science papers too? Perhaps one of the most interesting debates in scientific history, that one.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman, I take it you've been reading the Russian Academy of Science papers too? Perhaps one of the most interesting debates in scientific history, that one.

 

Mostly by proxy via Thomas Gold but I would like to read some of those Russian papers if you have links to English translations. But yes, i think it is a very interesting debate, to some extent the ideas as portrayed by Gold are almost too good, he would suggest that life is a natural development of any planetary body with liquid water deep under ground, so Mars would (by Golds hypothesis) certainly have life (and oil) possibly mercury, most of the outer planets large moons even Pluto like objects.

[JohnB]

From a quick check it seems that Gold has to a degree appropriated the Russian-Ukrainian theory.

 

I did a post some years ago with links to the russian papers, but can't find it now. however here is a 2002 replication of earlier russian work. Take iron, marble and water, add heat and pressure and you get hydrocarbons.

 

A comparison between the biotic and abiotic theories is here. (I haven't read it yet.)

 

I think the russian theory has some legs for the simple reason that they can show experimental evidence. AFAIK, no-one has put some grass or other organic matter into a chamber and managed to turn it into oil.

 

However, both theories have problems. The biotic theory can't really explain how massive oil deposits occur in largely magmatic areas and the abiotic theory uses a lot of handwaving to explain how large deposits get into sedimentary deposits. I suppose the possibility exists that both are right. Perhaps one is the source of heavy crude and the other results in light crude. I don't know and TBH I haven't read much on this in the last few years.