Fireballs, comets and asteroids, oh my!

Much of the information I have gathered for this proposed theory come from the article linked at the end of post. With all the fireballs lately I thought I would offer up my theory and once again, I believe that methane is the bad guy!

Fireballs! What could they possibly have to do with this theory about dangerous gases? To find out more about the dangerous gas theory, check it out in my signature below. Here’s what I think is happening in a nutshell. Methane has been rising at an alarming rate, more so over the Arctic Sea since August of 2010, which we already know traps much more heat from the sun when shortwave infrared attempts to escape the atmosphere but fails. Here’s the thing though, methane is rising high into the upper atmosphere where we can’t even detect it with our conventional methods. We don’t even know how much methane is in the upper atmosphere, which contains the mesosphere where meteors burn up. It’s this layer, the mesosphere, where we see the fast shooting stars on a clear night burning up as they enter the atmosphere.

I’ve been mentioning this fireball phenomenon on this thread since I first wrote it and I’ve even been interested in it as far back as October long before this large rock exploded over Russia on Feb. 15. In the beginning I wasn’t sure how methane levels could have any sort of effect on the fireball phenomenon except that maybe the atmosphere had been damaged somehow. It wasn’t until the massive explosion over Russia that injured over 1,200 people from shattered windows that I decided I really needed to look into this and see if it was possible.

My first search was to study the layers of the atmosphere, where I saw the graph at the website linked that shows meteors burn up in the mesosphere. The website also has additional information about the layers.

Layers of atmosphere

I then discovered that large amounts of methane have risen to the mesosphere on a scale that we don’t even know. Although it’s all I can do at this point is speculate that the methane has damaged the mesosphere layer of the atmosphere allowing these meteors to enter much deeper before burning out, sometimes even reaching the ground, I think I’m about spot on. Many theories are being offered, such as, we are traveling through an asteroid field. That was offered up after the Russian fireball, but this doesn’t account for the fact that these fireballs have been on the rise for at least the past four months. That would be quite the large asteroid field.

To actually sight a fireball falling from the sky, you may have to wait your entire life and when you do see it, enjoy the moment because it’s considered an once-in-a-lifetime event. Well, that was what I used to think anyways, but that was a time past and not past that long ago. Now, in 2013, fireballs are being spotted on a regular occurrence and that’s not normal. I for one, have yet to see a fireball in my life, aside from a small one I saw on Halloween night in 2012, which was right around the time the fireball sightings started rising according to threads and posts here at ATS.

The following article has some information about the methane levels rising to these upper layers of the atmosphere and what our government may be planning to destroy the methane. The methane is too little to ignite and burn up so, according to the story, there is a possible plan using HAARP to destroy methane at the molecular level high up in the atmosphere. If my theories about the methane are correct, this may be our only hope!

Radio and Laser Frequency and Harmonic Test Ranges for the Lucy and HAARP Experiments and their Application to Atmospheric Methane Destruction

Great topic i think you are on to something it make's more sence to me then the asteroid field theory.
I'm going to dig deeper in this interesting stuff .. S&F

Interesting that you bring this up, Rez, as I have been wondering why in the world all these explosions are going on all over the world. Crazy explosions that the "experts" have no explanation for.

I had been thinking that perhaps there is more methane out in the atmosphere than ever before, thereby making things more volatile. Now, I don't know if methane is at ground level, or if it floats up into the mesosphere as you pointed out, but things exploding out of the blue don't usually happen this much.

All these things in the sky as well....people are saying, oh it's airplanes leaving contrails. Whatever. Definitely, the rock over Russia wasn't an airplane.

Something has changed in our environment, and nobody is talking about it!!

reply to post by Rezlooper


Extremely thought provoking hypothesis you have postulated.

I am a great believer in the "methane gas escape" theory and I believe -
probably the culprit in the many recent specie 'die offs' and migrations
we have been witness to.

Thank you for sharing.

As an avid 'fireball' enthusiast as you can verify in my thread here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
However if you choose to delve into the posted LINK - I must warn you
it is a very long read with part one on obviously on the first page
and part two (the largest portion) on page four.

be well - all

reply to post by HumAnnunaki


Just read your thread. Great read, you make a lot of good points in there. As you can tell from my threads on this gas theory, I'm a believer that something is a bit off, and we may be heading for those things you predict.

reply to post by Rezlooper


How ,where and why a meteor burns up depends on size,speed and what its made of

reply to post by wmd_2008


Yes, you're partially correct here, but the highest volume of shooting stars appear in the mesosphere layer of the atmosphere. Others burn up in an even higher layer, the troposphere (about 60 miles up) and those are the fast moving meteors. The faster they come in, they tend to burn up higher in the atmosphere, so the slower ones make it the mesosphere, which is normally about 40 miles up. A lot less of the meteors actually make it past this layer into the stratosphere. So, your reasoning doesn't explain all the fireballs making it past the mesosphere, if that's what you were attempting to do. If anything, what you say explains that only a few of the meteors make it past the mesosphere and of course, they do (no one is saying they don't) and the ones that do are larger rocks rather than specs of dust. But, these rocks are rare, specs of dust are not.

reply to post by Rezlooper

So, your reasoning doesn't explain all the fireballs making it past the mesosphere, if that's what you were attempting to do.

What "all the fireballs?" What makes you think there are more meteors reaching lower levels of the atmosphere? I know that you think there has been an increase in fireball activity. I also know that you base that opinion on a site which has been collecting data for only a few years. Have you looked for a more comprehensive database yet? But where does this idea that more are making it below the mesosphere come from?

While you're correct that speed has something to do with how high an object will become incandescent, size and composition are probably a more important factors in determining how deep into the atmosphere an object can survive.

But, these rocks are rare, specs of dust are not.

Again, what makes you think more objects are making it through the mesosphere?

reply to post by Phage


Yes, larger rocks will naturally reach deeper causing fireballs, but, let's take the Russian meteor for example... maybe that rock would have burned up a little sooner and not caused an explosion that injured 1,200 people, or been 40 times that of Hiroshima.

reply to post by Rezlooper

Tell me again how increased levels of methane in the upper atmosphere would allow meteors to penetrate to the lower atmosphere. Are you saying that the density of the upper atmosphere has been reduced somehow by the small amounts of methane that may reach above the mesosphere? How would that work?

That rather odd blog post about using HAARP to deal with methane shows how little methane actually exists in the troposphere (peaking at about 0.0002%). Do you think an increase on the order of several parts per billion would have much of an effect on the density of the upper atmosphere?

maybe that rock would have burned up a little sooner

It didn't burn up. It fragmented. And it was the physics of its composition, mass, angle of entry, speed, and atmospheric density which determined where that would happen and how much energy would be released when it did.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

Tell me again how increased levels of methane in the upper atmosphere would allow meteors to penetrate to the lower atmosphere. Are you saying that the density of the upper atmosphere has been reduced somehow by the small amounts of methane that may reach above the mesosphere? How would that work?

That rather odd blog post about using HAARP to deal with methane shows how little methane actually exists in the troposphere (peaking at about 0.0002%). Do you think an increase on the order of several parts per billion would have much of an effect on the density of the upper atmosphere?

I said it in my post that I didn't know how it could damage the atmosphere, I'm not the scientist. I asked "could it have damaged the atmosphere?" I'm not sure how, I am only suggesting the coincidence of these meteors (which normally burn up in the mesosphere) and methane leaking into the mesosphere. Where in the HAARP article does it say the amount of methane in the mesosphere? From what I read, it suggests that we have no way of knowing how much methane is in this layer.

reply to post by Rezlooper

I'm not sure how, I am only suggesting the coincidence of these meteors (which normally burn up in the mesosphere) and methane leaking into the mesosphere.

And I asked why you think there are more meteors passing through the mesosphere. I've pointed out to you the problem with assuming that correlation implies causation. But you haven't even established a correlation.

Where in the HAARP article does it say the amount of methane in the mesosphere?

It doesn't. I didn't say it does. So why do you think there has been an increase in the mesosphere?
Here is what you said:

I then discovered that large amounts of methane have risen to the mesosphere on a scale that we don’t even know.

Where did you discover this? Large amounts? What constitutes large amounts?


BTW, another question. Where does that blog post say anything about "what our government may be planning to destroy the methane?" From what I can tell all it is talking about is what some guy named Malcolm Light thinks what would be a good idea. Something about using microwaves and lasers to break up methane in the lower atmosphere. He seems to think that HAARP in "vibrating the ionosphere" would somehow lead to destruction of methane in the stratosphere.

Play nice you two, or no milk and cookies at recess. Can't we al just get along???? GEEEEEEZZZZZZ!!!!!!!! !!! !

Hi

Maybe instead of blowing in and asking what makes you think this and what makes you think that,you could instead come in and set us all straight.

After all your supposed to be the "smart guy" here,

Set us straight. Because to ME (maybe no one else though) your creating more unanswered questions, instead of answering some.

If the dudes wrong, point it out and tell us why and what really is happening.

Am I asking to much?

Interesting OP Rez, S&F

reply to post by lnfideI


Thanks infidel, great post. That's basically the tactics used to discourage, discredit or turn you away from stumbling upon the truth.

I find it also interesting how these recent sightings are over coastal areas or close to the Arctic, which are both areas where the most methane will be found leaking into the atmosphere. As Arctic ice melts, or permafrost melts, it releases methane that is trapped underneath the ice. Also, it's along the coasts where the methane hydrates are. It's the dead zones of anaerobic waters just off the coasts above the continental shelfs where the methane and hydrogen sulfide releases are occurring. The fireballs lately; Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Cuba, Italy, Saudi Arabia. All close to the oceans or the sea's. The Russian meteor in the Ural Mountains not far from the Arctic.

Roanoke Fireball Thursday night

WDBJ7 has gotten several reports through social media of people seeing a fireball shoot across the sky Thursday night. We have checked into the reports and found that the object, likely a meteorite, was visible from Virginia to North Carolina. Mena Hobs saw it and posted this on the WDBJ7 Facebook page. "Last night around 9:41 pm a huge ball of orange light in the sky. You could see it beyond Roanoke Electric Steel. It dropped below the horizon and appeared again briefly." More than a dozen shared their story on the American Meteor Society website. The website tracks and archives fireball reports from around the country

The article ends with this statement

Meteors and fireballs are very common, and fall even during the day

No they aren't. Meteors are common, fireballs are not. I wish we could do polls on ATS. I'd ask how many of us have actually seen a fireball, and then if you have, how many times. I'd bet there'd be a lot who haven't and then of those who have, it's very minimal. I have yet to see one that was anything more than a brilliant meteor. Here are definitions from Wikipedia.

METEOR:

The visible streak of light from space debris is the result of heat as it enters a planet's atmosphere, and the glowing particles that it sheds in its wake is called a meteor, or colloquially a "shooting star" or "falling star". Many meteors appearing seconds or minutes apart, and appearing to originate from the same fixed point in the sky, are called a meteor shower.

Meteors are usually just specs of space dust and happen millions of times a day.

FIREBALL:

A 'fireball' is a brighter-than-usual meteor. The International Astronomical Union defines a fireball as "a meteor brighter than any of the planets" (magnitude −4 or greater). The International Meteor Organization (an amateur organization that studies meteors) has a more rigid definition. It defines a fireball as a meteor that would have a magnitude of −3 or brighter if seen at zenith. This definition corrects for the greater distance between an observer and a meteor near the horizon. For example, a meteor of magnitude −1 at 5 degrees above the horizon would be classified as a fireball because if the observer had been directly below the meteor it would have appeared as magnitude −6. For 2011 there are 4589 fireballs records at the American Meteor Society

BOLIDE:

Fireballs reaching magnitude −14 or brighter are called bolides. The IAU has no official definition of "bolide", and generally considers the term synonymous with "fireball". Astronomers often use "bolide" to identify an exceptionally bright fireball, particularly one that explodes (sometimes called a detonating fireball). It may also be used to mean a fireball which creates audible sounds. In the late twentieth century, bolide has also come to mean any object that hits the Earth and explodes, with no regard to its composition (asteroid or comet). The word bolide comes from the Greek βολίς (bolis) which can mean a missile or to flash. If the magnitude of a bolide reaches −17 or brighter it is known as a superbolide.

Very interesting! I remember seeing a science report about a year or two ago, something about how the lower layer of atmosphere had recently become much closer to earth's surface, although at the time, scientists did not know why. Ive looked for the info since, and cant find it online.
I wonder if that is the reason meteors are getting so much closer before burning up.

Originally posted by gemdog
Very interesting! I remember seeing a science report about a year or two ago, something about how the lower layer of atmosphere had recently become much closer to earth's surface, although at the time, scientists did not know why. Ive looked for the info since, and cant find it online.
I wonder if that is the reason meteors are getting so much closer before burning up.

Yeah, that would be a good one to find and post. If it were true, the big question would be what caused it to lower.

Originally posted by Rezlooper
Meteors are common, fireballs are not.

I'd say fireballs are common and meteors are even more common.

Originally posted by Rezlooper
I wish we could do polls on ATS. I'd ask how many of us have actually seen a fireball, and then if you have, how many times.

We can still do a poll - I'll start you off


This is just an estimate mind you...

Meteors: 11,000+
Fireballs: 500
Bolides: 3-4

Note: I've been observing meteor showers for 15+ years, and most meteors/fireballs I've seen occurred during either the 1998 Leonid fireball "storm" and the 2001 Leonid storm.

Take away these two events, and my stats look something like this:

Meteors: 2-3000
Fireballs: 40-50
Bolides: 1

Originally posted by Rezlooper
I'd bet there'd be a lot who haven't and then of those who have, it's very minimal.

For most people who don't generally spend much time observing the sky you'd probably be right IMO, but people who spend time observing are almost certain to have seen at least a fireball or two, and those who like me regularly observe specifically for meteors are likely to have seen many more.

Don't forget, there is a small army of amateur astronomers/meteor observers out there, many of whom have been observing the sky for decades, as well as those (both organizations and individuals) who point cameras up at the sky to monitor what is going on up there. If there was anything *that* obviously significant going on up there, these people and organizations would be the first to pick it up (followed by ATS if I'm on the ball).

It seems to me that thanks to increasing media coverage more people are starting to realize that it isn't all that hard to see meteors and fireballs, and this is something I've been trying to explain to people (with mixed success) on ATS since I first became a member in 2007. It's really only when large fireballs occur that people start paying attention in my experience.

Originally posted by FireballStorm

Originally posted by Rezlooper
Meteors are common, fireballs are not.

I'd say fireballs are common and meteors are even more common.

Originally posted by Rezlooper
I wish we could do polls on ATS. I'd ask how many of us have actually seen a fireball, and then if you have, how many times.

We can still do a poll - I'll start you off

This is just an estimate mind you...

Meteors: 11,000+
Fireballs: 500
Bolides: 3-4

Note: I've been observing meteor showers for 15+ years, and most meteors/fireballs I've seen occurred during either the 1998 Leonid fireball "storm" and the 2001 Leonid storm.

Take away these two events, and my stats look something like this:

Meteors: 2-3000
Fireballs: 40-50
Bolides: 1

Originally posted by Rezlooper
I'd bet there'd be a lot who haven't and then of those who have, it's very minimal.

For most people who don't generally spend much time observing the sky you'd probably be right IMO, but people who spend time observing are almost certain to have seen at least a fireball or two, and those who like me regularly observe specifically for meteors are likely to have seen many more.

Don't forget, there is a small army of amateur astronomers/meteor observers out there, many of whom have been observing the sky for decades, as well as those (both organizations and individuals) who point cameras up at the sky to monitor what is going on up there. If there was anything *that* obviously significant going on up there, these people and organizations would be the first to pick it up (followed by ATS if I'm on the ball

).

It seems to me that thanks to increasing media coverage more people are starting to realize that it isn't all that hard to see meteors and fireballs, and this is something I've been trying to explain to people (with mixed success) on ATS since I first became a member in 2007. It's really only when large fireballs occur that people start paying attention in my experience.

You're an exception to the rule Fireball. You are what I'd like to call a "Fireball Hunter!" You are definitely going to see a lot of fireballs compared to the rest of us. I'm not a frequent star gazer, but I try. Especially since I was witness to a UFO sighting of my own back in August 2009. I live in northern Wisconsin, grew up here, and these are some of the clearest night time skies you'll find anywhere. I've had plenty of chances to see some good stuff while I was looking up over all these years, and like I've said, witnessed many things but not anything close to a spectacular fireball, or what we would call a large meteor. I don't dispute that there's always space junk crashing into our little blue marble, from dust to boulders. It's just that it seems a little more frequent as of late. The common excuse of those who disagree with me is that there's better reporting. The better reporting didn't start up in the past year. I think it's an odd coincidence that I was posting about these fireballs on my gas thread over the past month when suddenly, a meteor explodes over Russia as it did...becoming a once-in-a-lifetime event. Well, let's hope a once-in-a-lifetime event.