Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Recent methane leaks, sinkholes show more evidence Dangerous Gas Theory may be correct!

page: 3
53
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Instead of always sitting in Godlike judgement Phage
Perhaps you could help instead of bitch at every OP that has the germ of an idea.....its getting lame.
The OP has some good thinking behind this, its a big world and some of the data is perhaps extraneous,
But the idea has merrit.


I have to agree here. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll even admit the fact that part of my own skepticism for areas of the OP's theory are due to the fact I have a competing one I'm working on.
(Honesty and all)

With that in mind, the OP has put long, hard work into this theory as many of us have seen by the posts over an extended period ...always building on and adding to the core theory. It's an impressive effort by anyone not being paid for it.

Even if I totally disagreed with the OP? Given the nature of the effort and degree of work I can see was put into it ... I'd sure disagree in a different way than someone who just had a brain fart of a bad idea and threw it up like breakfast after a long Tijuana weekend.
edit on 7-3-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




It's an impressive effort by anyone not being paid for it.

I wouldn't put quantity over quality. Drawing conclusions based on cherry picked data is not quality research. Inferring causation because of imagined or unsupported correlations is not research.




These methane plumes are rising up out of fractures in the earth’s crust below the oceans.
The OP talks about gasoline and freon leaks and adds them to his broth to come up with the above conclusion. The OP somehow adds sink holes to his speculation? Why?
edit on 3/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Sorry, double post.
edit on 7-3-2013 by puncheex because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnik
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


Listen, we all know from geography, or some other classes, that tectonic moves created, for an example, Alpes and Himalay, during the geological history of The Earth.
Taking this as a fact, it is very logical to expect new tectonic moves, sooner or farther in future.
The emission of methane, and sulphur, and similar toxic gases, may be in close connection with it.
Everyone should be always prepared for accidental situations, that is the fact.
And governments and civil deffence units, too.
It is better citisens to be regularly informed about, from the services.


Oh, all this is true. The problem is that this thread hasn't yet established there there is a problem to be explained.

Where is you time line of carefully researched occurrences stretching off into the past that shows an increasing number of these sorts of things happening just recently? You can't be serious that tectonic events, which happen on a time scale of millions of years, just started doing this in the last 10 years, all over the globe? What is much more likely in your scenario would be a *very* slowly increasing number of events, or a number of event clustering around a single location. You have to have a pattern, and it has to be commiserate with the forces we know might be responsible. What we have in this pile of ad-hoc isolated events, without any context in history, is something that is much more centered on human actions, the longest scale of which might be global warming.

As Phage has noted, Florida is not a tectonic area; it is an area full of limestone geology, however. Are sinkholes now more common than they were in, say, the era of Andy Jackson's liberation of Florida, or 200 years before that? The truth is that you just don't know. The one place there may be a pattern of sinkholes is in the Yucatan, dating back at least millions of years ago - that's a pattern, but unfortunately one that has already be explained. Do you have anything similar? Are the patterns different from this reported, oh, 100 years ago? Can you sift the chaff from the wheat that far back in order to show a pattern?

Oh, and BTW, if those kids smelled gas, then it's not natural methane they are getting; The smell of gas that everyone recognizes is manufactured in that plant in France that tried to gross out England, and places like it. Real natural gas, even natural propane, has no odor. And, of course, hydrogen sulfide in dangerous concentrations is going to smell orders of magnitude worse than Norris geyser basin's renown rotten egg smell; there will be no mistaking that.


That can be caused by closely passing celestial body, too.


...and how exactly would you know anything about that? Do you have figures about the disruption that the grazer that passed by us a couple of weeks ago may have had? Or are you suggesting Niburu? Let's see the math, because your explanation is unique in this regard. Anne McCaffery's Pern and von Daniken aside, I've never seen this seriously proposed.
edit on 7-3-2013 by puncheex because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-3-2013 by puncheex because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-3-2013 by puncheex because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by puncheex
 


No, hydrogen sulfide in significant concentrations will NOT be easily smelled. Do your homework there. I provided lots of safety links related to that and one thing they all say: DO NOT COUNT ON SMELLING IT. At very very LOW concentrations it smells like 'rotten eggs', like the hydrogen sulfide that blew over Southern California a few months before that big methane release recently. At concentrations beyond the trivial you will either not smell it at all, or the smell will fade rapidly (olfactory paralysis). At medium-high concentrations some folks say it smells 'sickeningly sweet', or 'flowery'. I smelled the flowery smell at an open sewer a few weeks ago; that was hydrogen sulfide. So if you smell flowers and there are no flowers around, you might wanna start thinking about getting the eff out of there. Obviously people who smell VERY high concentrations (beyond 0.1% of the atmosphere, which is lethal), they don't report back what that smells like, because they're dead.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
OK. Sources say it is very pungent, but deadens smell quickly, so I'd say we're both right.

Now, how about the rest?
edit on 7-3-2013 by puncheex because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Sinkholes and methane in the atmosphere can definitely be related. The earth is one giant ecosystem, and what effects one thing, easily affects another, like dominoes.

The OP states that excess methane in the atmosphere creates more moisture from storms. Heavier rainfall equates to more water on the ground. Florida has underground rivers criss-crossing all over it.

Previously the majority of Florida has been in a drought. One can imagine the rivers, previously somewhat full, dropped to low levels. Maybe the higher water level was supporting the ground. Lower levels might have allowed certain areas which were weak to begin with, to start to dip down. Perhaps the very recent heavy rains raised the underground rivers, which was the final straw to break apart what was dipping down.

Drought and then heavy rain is much more destructive on the land than a regular amount of moisture. I can imagine how underground rivers, suddenly flooding with extra water, would be rushing more strongly, and therefore, much more destructively.

Heavier rainfall due to methane in the air could cause more damage than regular rainfall.


Drought, along with resulting high groundwater withdrawals, can make conditions favorable for sinkholes to form. Also, heavy rains after droughts often cause enough pressure on the ground to create sinkholes.


www.sjrwmd.com...

Therefore, there is no disconnect between methane and sinkholes.

Good job putting this all together, OP. Very interesting...and kind of scary!



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by puncheex
OK. Sources say it is very pungent, but deadens smell quickly, so I'd say we're both right.

Now, how about the rest?
edit on 7-3-2013 by puncheex because: (no reason given)


What rest? I don't think the hydrogen sulfide has anything to do with tectonics, at least not directly. It's not merely a geochemical gas; it is also a biochemically-produced gas. I believe it is the consequence of the ancient anaerobic bacteria and archaea that produce it expanding their territory. It's an old extinction event. Here's some more details on that, a Scientific American article (PDF) from 2006:

www.chicagocleanpower.org...

So basically, the oceans start going anoxic. They've told us over the years that the dead zones have been growing and spreading. That's how it starts. Then the bacteria spread their territory and the oceans belch strangling hydrogen sulfide, which kills off marine and land life and destroys the ozone layer, which kills off most of what's left. The methane releases will add fuel to that fire, heating things up more, in an unstoppable self-reinforcing cycle. That's what we're seeing happening.

Feel free to doubt, of course. Just observe the fires and explosions as they consume human civilization. Eventually the fires and explosions alone will either convince you or they'll kill you. Of course, even once you accept reality - if you choose to do so before you die - then you'll still have serious problems surviving. Poisoned-atmosphere doom is pretty tough to survive.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


Heavier rainfall due to methane in the air could cause more damage than regular rainfall.
Yes, and as your quote says, so can drought. The man eating sinkhole was not caused by heavy rainfall.


Therefore, there is no disconnect between methane and sinkholes.
The disconnect occurs because the OP thinks there has been an increase in the number of sinkholes. He has no statistics to support this belief, only anecdotal reports.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic

Originally posted by puncheex
OK. Sources say it is very pungent, but deadens smell quickly, so I'd say we're both right.

Now, how about the rest?


What rest?


Well, the rest of the post. the hydrogen sulfide was one sentence out of perhaps a dozen, a sort of after-thought.


I don't think the hydrogen sulfide has anything to do with tectonics, at least not directly. It's not merely a geochemical gas; it is also a biochemically-produced gas. I believe it is the consequence of the ancient anaerobic bacteria and archaea that produce it expanding their territory. It's an old extinction event. Here's some more details on that, a Scientific American article (PDF) from 2006:

www.chicagocleanpower.org...

So basically, the oceans start going anoxic. They've told us over the years that the dead zones have been growing and spreading. That's how it starts. Then the bacteria spread their territory and the oceans belch strangling hydrogen sulfide, which kills off marine and land life and destroys the ozone layer, which kills off most of what's left. The methane releases will add fuel to that fire, heating things up more, in an unstoppable self-reinforcing cycle. That's what we're seeing happening.


Perhaps. It is a prediction. I have no problem with global warming; I'm just not convinced that all the disasters we witness today, like sinkholes, animal die-offs, earthquakes and volcanoes are any more numberous now than they were 400 years ago, just more noted and publicized than they were back then.


Feel free to doubt, of course. Just observe the fires and explosions as they consume human civilization. Eventually the fires and explosions alone will either convince you or they'll kill you. Of course, even once you accept reality - if you choose to do so before you die - then you'll still have serious problems surviving. Poisoned-atmosphere doom is pretty tough to survive.


True, but then I don't have thousands of years anyway.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I don't know what happened in the historic or geologic past as to sinkholes, but I don't remember seeing this many in the news in my 70+ year lifetime until the past year or two. Make of it what you will, but this isn't a college lecture room and I am not writing a dissertation for credit. This is a conspiracy theory site and is an appropriate place for speculation. If anyone wants to be in an academic environment I respectfully suggest they return to college; if they ever went to one that is.

The Most Incredible Sinkholes Around The World!



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by happykat39
 


I don't know what happened in the historic or geologic past as to sinkholes, but I don't remember seeing this many in the news in my 70+ year lifetime until the past year or two.
That's what anecdotal means, as opposed to statistical.



This is a conspiracy theory site and is an appropriate place for speculation.

And this is a science based forum within this site.
There are other forums within this site which are directed more toward speculation.
There are other forums within this site which are directed more toward conspiracy theories.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 3/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Being reasonably old I must have heard hundreds of doom theories over the years. What i like to see in my doom porn these days is facts. Ideally, in this case I'd want to see atmospheric readings from both land and sea, chemistry reports on animal die offs, input from actual scientists who study the atmosphere or chemistry.

Anyone with any sense has to take the perspective of " fool me once , shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"

While I appreciate Rez and Johnny have done a lot of work to keep this theory alive, all I'm seeing is a whole load of confirmation bias and connecting dots that have no right to be connected.

I'd be interested to see if this has been taken seriously by anyone with any science credentials.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopeforeveryone
 

The only fact presented (other than the anecdotal stuff) is that there has been an increase of atmospheric methane. A 7% increase between 1985 and 2010.


“At least three factors likely contributed to the methane increase,” said Ed Dlugokencky, a methane expert at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. “It was very warm in the Arctic, there was some tropical forest burning, and there was increased rain in Indonesia and the Amazon.”

theenergycollective.com...



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


That was a hodge podge of links... I liked the "meteor/comet is going to end us" theory better.

Fish dieing off could be result of maybe all those oil leaks we have had, and all the industrial pollution we dump into the ocean.(fukishima anyone?) I think there was a thread not to long ago of little baby birds who would die because they were fed plastics. maybe gases. maybe a combination of things not just an escalation of gases.

I remember reading about how bats were dieing due to a disease that was wiping them out. It was some fungus that was spreading I forgot the details here is a link i found on it off the fly. Bat Disease

Bees have been dieing off and the most likely culprit would be GMO crops. Bees are used for honey and for pollination. If they get into crops that have GMO crops with pesticides they will die. many of these pesticides result in the bees having poor immune systems and then dieing off from a bunch of different diseases. At least that was the last explanation I read/watched about bees disappearing. It makes a lot of sense to be quite honest.

I currently began a bee keeping endeavor and maybe I will be able to experience this myself but I hope not.

Many animals have gone extinct... and many of those animals which have thought to be extinct have been found well and alive.

14 extinct animals rediscovered

More


I do not think that "the dangerous gas theory" can be responsible for all of what you listed. Reaching in my opinion.

edit on 7-3-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-3-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-3-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-3-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I do think the methane hydrates/clathrates are a real danger to the world. It is evident that there is a lot of potential for release in the arctic ocean and the Siberian/Canadian permafrost. I just don't like the sensationalist approach taken by Rez and Johnny. From my limited understanding of the problem, it's not going to be a sudden event, it'll be drawn out over hundreds or thousands of years as the enviromental impact takes hold.

As for the hydrogen sulfide, who knows ? I'm pretty sure it's not specifically targeting species, blowing up cars and doing all the other illogical things as presented by Jonny and Rez, it just doesn't make any sense.

Anyway's i think we agree this isn't science, it's speculation about cherry picked data.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopeforeveryone
 

I should point out that the 7% was a relative increase was in the methane level.
The actual concentration of methane went from 0.000169% to 0.000181%, an absolute change of 0.000012%.
Methane is a trace gas and its concentration increased a very slight amount.


edit on 3/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
LMAO. This is science. I linked to all the science related to hydrogen sulfide in extinction events. For the first time in history a major metropolitan area was told to shelter-in-place because of hydrogen sulfide (Kuwait City). Southern California had hydrogen sulfide blow through. Nitric acid is bursting into flame (incidents are recorded and were noted, can't help you if you don't pay attention). Sodium hydroxide too, starting with those 12 kids burned at school in Australia. HUGE massive unexplained explosions shaking and damaging homes this past year, unexplained. Massive animal die-offs of precisely the kind you'd expect to see from a hydrogen sulfide event. Hundreds of people suddenly sickening at marathon in Nevada, unexplained. 22 students collapsed unconscious at OUTDOOR stadium in Texas last year, unexplained. People falling over dead and bursting into flame. (The first story I noticed on that was a woman who burst into flame and burned on her porch swing in Illinois, didn't even try to move - she was probably unconscious or dead.)

You can't send up a probe and measure hydrogen sulfide gas. I'd have thought you'd realize that. It's heavier than air, and it blows around in clouds, mostly (but not always) lurking near the ground. Will the clouds be everywhere suddenly? Of course not. You could take a measurement in one area and be clean then walk away and 5 minutes later a lethal 1000ppm cloud blows through right where you registered clean. They'll build up over time, and as they do, more fires will break out, and more explosions. Homes and businesses are exploding everywhere now, and cars - many not running - are bursting into flame everywhere. They weren't doing this a year ago. How do I know that? Because I was watching for that a year ago too, and have watched it escalate. You didn't notice that? Then you aren't paying attention again.

As for methane, here's the chart that's worth seeing, in this link:

jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com...

And all those methane-release events there are from this past year, they were done by those one kind of people, what do you call them..oh right, SCIENTISTS.

Here's the science article about hydrogen sulfide in past extinction events again (PDF):

www.chicagocleanpower.org...

Well worth a read. More of those scientist-types there. Might as well educate yourself. And you only ever get to see ONE planetary extinction event. This is the one. Same as many previous ones. All the precursor events you'd expect to see - especially growing anoxia in the oceans - were present, so this happening should not have been entirely unexpected. On the contrary, it would have been odd if it DIDN'T happen. If you (try to) sleep through this then it'll kill you, so you might as well at least watch the show.

People ARE waking up, the truth now spreading inexorably from person to person, consciousness to consciousness. It's insane to think this could be hidden for much longer. But of course if you insist then you can be the last to wake up; somebody has to be last, after all.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by JonnyMnemonic
 


Southern California had hydrogen sulfide blow through
www.pe.com...


Nitric acid is bursting into flame (incidents are recorded and were noted, can't help you if you don't pay attention).
Huh? What does that have to do with methane or hydrogen sulfide?


Sodium hydroxide too, starting with those 12 kids burned at school in Australia.
Huh? What does that have to do with methane or hydrogen sulfide?


HUGE massive unexplained explosions shaking and damaging homes this past year, unexplained.
So they must be caused by rogue hydrogen sulfide? I think you need to look up the definition of "argument to ignorance".


Massive animal die-offs of precisely the kind you'd expect to see from a hydrogen sulfide event.
But no evidence of such. I think you need to look up the definition of "argument to ignorance".



Hundreds of people suddenly sickening at marathon in Nevada, unexplained. 22 students collapsed unconscious at OUTDOOR stadium in Texas last year, unexplained. People falling over dead and bursting into flame. (The first story I noticed on that was a woman who burst into flame and burned on her porch swing in Illinois, didn't even try to move - she was probably unconscious or dead.)
All attributable (by you) to hydrogen sulfide. I think you need to look up the definition of "argument to ignorance".


They'll build up over time, and as they do, more fires will break out, and more explosions.
Do you happen to know the concentration of hydrogen sulfide necessary for combustion? And methane, for that matter?


As for methane, here's the chart that's worth seeing, in this link:
I see you put a big "boom" on your chart. Neat.


And all those methane-release events there are from this past year, they were done by those one kind of people, what do you call them..oh right, SCIENTISTS.
Methane? You mean those events where you talk about hydrogen sulfide? Those ones?


If you (try to) sleep through this then it'll kill you
Ok, I try to stay wake. What good will it do me to do so?


LMAO. This is science.
No it isn't. It's all based on a logical fallacy and anecdotal "evidence".
skepdic.com...
edit on 3/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Look, I made some predictions. They are coming true. If you want to wait a while before you accept that, fine with me. I'm waiting and amassing evidence myself as time goes on, collating all the hydrogen sulfide events and massive methane releases and unexplained events and so on. As for nitric acid and sodium hydroxide, I guess I expected you to be more knowledgable than you are, Phage - those are two semi-common industrial chemicals that are exothermically reactive with hydrogen sulfide. (Copper and rusted iron are a couple of more, thus the Dreamliner grounding from battery fires, to go along with all the sickening passengers and 'strange odors' and emergency landings with planes. Man, you really ARE oblivious, Phage! LMAO!

So, like Kurt Russell said in the remake of 'The Thing', why don't we just sit here, see what happens? Reality will show us what it shows us. Hah, I said that same thing BEFORE all the vehicles starting spontaneously combusting, a year ago. How time flies!





new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join