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

page: 5
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
LMAO, someone didn't like my link being in every post I make (despite the fact that there are no ads at the site, nor have I ever said anything derogatory about ATS), so can't have the link in my sig apparently. So Rez, I'm linking to your original thread too, hope you don't mind! Lots of good info in there anyway, so what the hey.




posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Vexatious Vex
 


Don't read this if you can't handle the truth.

I'd rather read what a scientist has to say about it. An links to Leonid Yurganov's comments? Who is "Dr. Malcolm Light"?

Maybe you can explain the connecton between methane and hydrogen sulfide for me. JonnyMnemonic doesn't seem to be able to. I've asked a couple of times now. Any ideas about why the OP sees fit to include gasoline and freon leaks?




I already responded to you in the last paragraph of that post.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Here is a possibility that could create seismic activity.
I don't see that in the article. Maybe you can point it out.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 





The tectonic plate movement came after from Permafrost melt.

What?

You guys are hilarious.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Vexatious Vex
 




I already responded to you in the last paragraph of that post.


Ah. A response with no answer.
Good tactic. Not really. But I see it a lot.

Who is "Dr. Malcolm Light"? Why are there no comments from Dr. Leonid Yurganov? This guy:
scholar.google.com...
The one who the pictures supposedly came from.
edit on 3/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
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.


Here are a couple of charts on methane



That's parts per billion over the last 1,000 years.



Here it is over the last thirty years. Notice how the methane levels leveled off in the late 90's up until 2007, then it suddenly started rising again. Why at this time? One thing I do know that started taking off in the year prior to this was hydraulic fracking. Another thing to consider is that these levels of methane are in the troposphere and stratosphere. Methane is rising up into the mesosphere and we have no idea how much is up there. We have no way of testing for it in this level because its too high for our weather balloons and jets and too low for our satellites and shuttles.



Now here is an earthquake chart tracking quakes over 6.0. Notice how it started rising as well around 2007, but it flew off the chart in 2010 over 200 quakes. If you look at the possibility of a chain reaction, this would be about three years after the methane levels began rising again.



Here is Jonny's earthquake chart from his website

Jumping Jack Flash Hypothesis

His chart tracks 4.5 and higher.



It's hard to put graphs for the other matters when there is no organized tracking of say, sinkholes and animal die-offs. But, I did provide links to sites in the OP for my sinkhole watch thread where I've posted sinkholes that are occurring on a daily basis and sometimes two a day (and this is outside of Florida where they are common) and also I provided links to animal die-offs over the past three years that one website has been keeping a record. Once again, these die-offs are up to twice a day somewhere on the planet.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


Here it is over the last thirty years.
an increase from 0.00015% to 0.00018%. Thats a change of 0.00003%. Scary.



Notice how the methane levels leveled off in the late 90's up until 2007, then it suddenly started rising again. Why at this time?
How about this:

From the late 1970s through the late 1990s, methane levels in the atmosphere rose but then flattened until they began increasing again in 2007. Methane emissions from wetlands found mainly in the tropics, with some in the Arctic, are the likely reason for the increase.

www.noaa.gov...



Now here is an earthquake chart tracking quakes over 6.0.
Why does your the chart stop at 2010? And why do I find 174 6.0+ quakes in 2010? What was your data source? You wouldn't be cherry picking data would you?

If methane levels were associated with the earthquakes, why the drop in earthquake between 1983 and 1989?


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



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JonnyMnemonic
 


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".


Hey Phage, do you deny the fact that animal die-offs are increasing as you deny everything else? Do you deny the records at the site I link in my OP about the animal die-offs?



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


Hey Phage, do you deny the fact that animal die-offs are increasing as you deny everything else? Do you deny the records at the site I link in my OP about the animal die-offs?
I don't have enough data to know if animal die-offs are increasing. Unlike you I'm not willing to make assumptions based on internet news items. I prefer a valid database for statistical analysis.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


IGBP


The scientific information at hand gives no indication of a catastrophe waiting to happen. But it does highlight gaps in our understanding and points to the need for continuous monitoring of changes to the methane cycle as the Arctic region warm


Yes there's methane release, significance and potential results - unclear !

Sorry I'm not going to panic yet never mind how much you beat the drum. My personal panic signal to look out for in climate change is when the Amazon starts burning down, that's when we know things are out of hand.

As for the hydrogen sulfide, is it not concievable that the cause of that problem is the huge amounts of nitrogen we pump into the enviroment. This leeches out into the seas and oceans and guess what, causes algae blooms, which release hydrogen sulfide.
edit on 7-3-2013 by Hopeforeveryone because: added a bit and typo fix



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vexatious Vex

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.


There is also this: (bolding mine)



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.


But in your comment as to increasing quake activity, I posted this back in 2010 so I agree there could be a connection: (and check out the one comment for a chuckle)

Rising sea levels linked to increased earthquakes
edit on 7-3-2013 by Vexatious Vex because: formatting


Exactly! Thanks for the contribution. Great post.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic
LMAO, someone didn't like my link being in every post I make (despite the fact that there are no ads at the site, nor have I ever said anything derogatory about ATS), so can't have the link in my sig apparently. So Rez, I'm linking to your original thread too, hope you don't mind! Lots of good info in there anyway, so what the hey.



No problem. I think there is a rule somewhere here about having to be a member for a certain period before you can link to websites.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 

I answered your question.
Why won't you answer mine? I asked 5 here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 3/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


Notice how the methane levels leveled off in the late 90's up until 2007, then it suddenly started rising again. Why at this time?
How about this:

From the late 1970s through the late 1990s, methane levels in the atmosphere rose but then flattened until they began increasing again in 2007. Methane emissions from wetlands found mainly in the tropics, with some in the Arctic, are the likely reason for the increase.

www.noaa.gov...


Oh no you didn't!!! Did you, Phage, just use a quote that said "Likely?" This quote says the likely reason for the increase, not the definite cause of the increase. Isn't this what you have been preaching against?



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


Avoiding the topic and a distraction, people are following this you know.

Well done everyone, so far, for keeping it civil !



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 




Isn't this what you have been preaching against?

No. Statements like that are based on evidence and make it clear that it is not certain.

However definitive statements from you, like this, based on your putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5, do get to me.

50 people were sickened and some collapsed from methane fumes in Jamaica last week.
How do you know it was methane?

These methane plumes are rising up out of fractures in the earth’s crust below the oceans.
How do you know it's coming from fractures in the Earth's crust?

It seems whether man made or natural, methane is somehow involved in all of it. Even in the man made sinkholes, large amounts of methane are releasing
How do you know methane is involved in all of it? How do you know large amounts of methane are releasing from the sinkholes?

The tectonic plate movement came after from Permafrost melt.
How in the hell do you know this?

That's another answer for you and you still have not answered one of mine.
edit on 3/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I've said this to you before Phage when you've asked these questions on my other threads. I'm not the scientist, I do not have definite answers. What I have done is gathered up a whole lot of information and presented it in a theory. Whether one chooses to believe in it, or at least take time to consider the possibilities, that is entirely up to them. You obviously have a job to do, and you'll do your best. I do my best to lay it all out there for all to see. That's it. If I'm wrong, great, I hope I am, but if I'm right, well, only time will tell. I just hope to make people aware that these problems are actually occurring despite your disinfo and that methane levels have risen, and the news articles I quote are representative of your scientists!



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


You obviously have a job to do, and you'll do your best.
There it is. When you have no real evidence. When you have no answers. Cry "agent!" when someone points it out.


What I have done is gathered up a whole lot of information and presented it in a theory.
No. You have thrown a bunch of unrelated things together. Cherry picked data, invented data. And created a handful of threads with nothing new to add in any of them.


I just hope to make people aware that these problems are actually occurring despite your disinfo and that methane levels have risen, and the news articles I quote are representative of your scientists!
Yes. No answers. No evidence. Cry "disinfo!" when someone points it out.
As I said before, the only thing you actually have evidence for is that methane levels have risen...a very small amount. Where did you get that evidence? Oh, wait. Was it from scientists? How can you trust it if it came from them?

So you don't dispute anything I've said? You cherry pick data, you make things up?
edit on 3/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Wrong Phage, good try though. I provide links for everything I post throughout the threads. I've backed up everything with links from the animal die-offs, drug-resistant bacteria, increasing earthquakes, methane levels, super storms, sinkholes, etc. And Jonny's site links to literally hundreds of strange and unexplained explosions and mysterious deaths. All backed up with actual news articles. With the hundreds of links that we've provided, that's all wrong and full of BS and you're right, right? Because you said so! Nothing else to see here folks because Phage said so.Move along now.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   
I don't normally run into you here, PHAGE, but I must say i regard your fortitude in this thread. I gave up much sooner in the last one where these two played ping pong with inflated conjecture.

I was almost tempted to create my own outlandish theory, based on peripheral relevance, and then go fishing on the internet for thinly relevant stories to validate my claims.

But then I remembered I have a 5 month old daughter and that is an insult to my time.

The bottom line is that the nucleus of this theory has a stable foundation for discussion, however the fact that they have romanticized their relationship with the theory to the point that it is all they see makes it worthless to discuss.

You guys have conditioned your minds with so much of this theory that it is all it operates on. You are feeding your brains with this all-encompassing theory, and then #ting it out all over ATS.

Go outside. Ride a bike. Fall in love. Read a book. Get your minds off this. You are not doing it any justice. You are making smart people disregard this entire concept, that if not for the way you present it, would be a nice point of discussion on ATS.

AAC





top topics
 
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join