It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Confirmation bias tends to make that easy to do.
Look, I made some predictions. They are coming true.
What concentrations of H2S are required for a combustive reaction to occur with either of those compounds and hydrogen sulfide? But it doesn't really matter since you assume (with no evidence) that there was enough.
those are two semi-common industrial chemicals that are exothermically reactive with hydrogen sulfide.
Right. Atmospheric hydrogen sulfide at flight altitudes. Couldn't have anything to do with the lithium batteries themselves. Lithium batteries are known to be trouble free, right?
Dreamliner grounding from battery fires, to go along with all the sickening passengers and 'strange odors' and emergency landings with planes.
Ok. And while we're at it, let's get as many gullible people terrified of bursting into flames as we can. That'll be cool!
So, like Kurt Russell said in the remake of 'The Thing', why don't we just sit here, see what happens?
Dude, how do you think people might react to the idea that they might burst into flames and there's nothing they can do about it?
Dude, if I was trying to TERRIFY people, I could do a way way way better job. I keep my tone calm so as NOT to terrify people.
That's right, it doesn't. What is the concentration required for a combustion reaction with nitric acid, with all those other factors involved. You don't know and you don't know that hydrogen sulfide was even involved. But you assume that hydrogen sulfide was the cause, why do you assume that? Not because you have any evidence but because it fits nicely with your little idea. That is called "an argument to ignorance". It also is a case of circular reasoning.
So what? That obviously doesn't mean anything in relation to fires caused by chemical reactions with iron, copper, or a variety of chemicals.
Really, then what are you trying to do when you "warn" people that events like this are going to increase and there is nothing anyone can do about it?
And I'm not trying to scare people with the stories about the Houston kids suddenly collapsing unconscious, or the 500+ marathon runners sickening, or the 30 people who suddenly sickened in a store in today's update.
What do you suggest people do? How, oh how, can we protect ourselves from roving bands of hydrogen sulfide gas?
And if people are kept oblivious to what's going on then they won't take even some basic steps that might protect them, even if only a little bit.
Right, saving energy = hydrogen sulfide.
that people should seriously insulate their homes.
Not only will the ozone react away hydrogen sulfide (H2S + O3 --> H2O + O2 + S)
In the gas phase, ozone reacts with hydrogen sulfide to form sulfur dioxide: H2S + O3 → SO2 + H2O
Yup. No fear. Seal up your house! Dont' go outside!
Other steps: don't go outside unless you have to.
Better to focus on problems that actually exist.
What might we accomplish if people actually focused on the problem?
Originally posted by Kali74
The more Co2 oceans absorb the more acidic they get, the more acidic they get the more methane is released from the the ocean floor. These are coastal areas aren't they? Might want to check out exactly how acidic the sea water is in the areas where methane seems to be a problem or 'strange odors' are occuring. I dunno if that's what this is, but that's what my mind jumped to.
1) compute warming rates with uncertainties along 28 full-depth, high-quality hydrographic sections that have been occupied two or more times between 1980 and 2010; 2) divide the global ocean into 32 basins, defined by the topography and climatological ocean bottom temperatures; and then 3) estimate temperature trends in the 24 sampled basins. The three southernmost basins show a strong statistically significant abyssal warming trend, with that warming signal weakening to the north in the central Pacific, western Atlantic, and eastern Indian Oceans.
Sure, but it can't be used for statistical purposes. You can't claim there are more sinkholes occuring just because you happen to hear about it more often. You need statistical evidence, not random news reporting.
Anecdotal evidence is one of the three pillars of scientific research and discovery.
What insults? The trouble is, the people that are looking for "proof" are convinced that everything they see is related to hydrogen sulfide and methane. That bias makes them ignore evidence that contradicts them and resort to the argument to ignorance to support them; "there's no evidence that the explosion wasn't caused by hydrogen sulfide, therefore it was!" That ain't science.
If you were 1/10 the scientist you would have us believe you are you would be looking for proof that we are either right or wrong instead of slinging insults at people who are honestly trying to investigate certain phenomenon.
Originally posted by Rezlooper
reply to post by Vexatious Vex
I agree with you here. This is the number one cause and the beginning of the chain reaction. The tectonic plate movement came after from Permafrost melt. I add tectonic plate movement in though because I also think it is a cause in the fact that earthquakes have increased and so have sinkholes and land slips. And sure, when there is plate movement below the seas, there may indeed be gas release. The permafrost melt causes relieved pressure on the earth's crust when the ice retreats, but I also think it adds pressure on the weak continental shelf around the ocean's when water rises from the permafrost melt. Both of these cause more and more tectonic plate movement. So Vex, you're right about the causes that began this chain reaction, but now I think that the earth's crust displacement is adding to the methane amounts in our atmosphere.
During the formation of gas hydrates, methane and water become immobilized within the sediment pore spaces. Because of the presence of these solids (instead of pore waters and gas), the sediment can not become consolidated because the water can not be expulsed with increasing overburden as more sedimentation occurs. Cementation of the sediments does not occur when pore spaces are filled with hydrates (solid ice) rather than with water, from which minerals such as calcite can be precipitated. Gas hydrate rich sediments are thus cemented by the hydrateice, which may occupy much of the sedimentary section, but which are not stable when the temperature rises or the pressure falls (sea level falls). In general, rising temperatures have more effect than falling pressure. If temperatures of ocean waters rise, hydrates will no longer be stable, and will disintegrate into a liquid water and gas. This could lead to the development massive underseas landslides. With the landslides, more gas could escape. Several examples of possibly gas-hydrate linked extremely large slumps have been described, e.g., on the Norwegian continental margin, where debris from the giant, three-part Storegga slide, over 450 m thick, is spread over a distance of 800 km. One of the Storegga slides caused a tsunami to deposit sediment up to 4 m above the high water line in Scotland. There are more of these mega slides in the same region. We think that these slides were triggered when the ocean waters warmed by a few degrees at the end of the last ice age.
Don't read this if you can't handle the truth.
Really? How many people. Rains a lot on the Washington coast seems that it would happen to a lot of people.
There have been a number of stories where people have gotten acid burns on their skin from the rain. One I recall specifically was in Washington State, near the coast.
Didn't you say H2S is heavier than air? How does it get up to the upper stratosphere in significant quantities?
So as the H2S reacts away our ozone layer, we're getting some acid rain here and there, and so people IN that rain sometimes get burned.