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

page: 8
53
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
How does Man and daughter found dead off Cork get turned into anecdotal confirmation of a "dangerous gas theory" when the Reality is so sad.

Are any of the links investigated before they are posted as "proof"?




posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WillowWisp
How does Man and daughter found dead off Cork get turned into anecdotal confirmation of a "dangerous gas theory" when the Reality is so sad.

Are any of the links investigated before they are posted as "proof"?


You're not gonna GET 'proof'. What, you think the gubment is gonna TELL you what's going on? LMAO, you're an innocent, aren't you? So you can only see what you see. Dead bodies in low-lying areas was a prediction, was it not? Yes it was. Were those two corpses in a low-lying area? Yes they were. So they fit the prediction. Over time you build a picture. No single incident can do that. Like all the corpses being found burned up in burning vehicles lately, and the people bursting into flame. Does any single incident mean much? Not really. But over time, when you see LOTS of them, that implies something. As Kennedy once said, 'Things don't just happen. Things are MADE to happen.'

And are the stories SAD? Hell yeah they are! I've shed my share of tears over many of these stories. I found the saddest story, personally, to be the woman who burst into flame on her porch swing in Illinois, a bit east of the Mississippi River, last year. She never even tried to get up (since she was probably unconscious or dead). But I do put aside the sadness when I do the updates, else I couldn't function. For me, I reserve the late evening for mourning the dead. If you're found dead slumped over the wheel in your car someday soon, like the guy in today's update, I will mourn you too.

Anyway, you think these events are all normal, fine with me. I don't. We can agree to disagree.
edit on 8-3-2013 by JonnyMnemonic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Stirling, Im with ya!


It is a WHOLE lot of stuff all at once, however the research the OP has done is on the right track.... we just need to dig deeper, I feel.

It's all debatable depending on which source is used, unfortunately. One can research so much though they do see the light at the end of the tunnel. Is it artificial light? Perhaps....

...but the causation is what is at the root and that is what I want to locate, and see for myself.

The Sun seems to play a huge role in just about everything here, so I look to the Sun to be at the root. Is it the main contributing factor to even the sink holes though? Well, a snowball effect is what I believe we are dealing with.... and that is IF it is indeed all tied in together.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by WillowWisp

Are any of the links investigated before they are posted as "proof"?


So the answer is a resounding, "No"?

It is an interesting idea. It would be nice if all the anecdotes corroborated the dangerous gas idea.


Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic
LMAO, you're an innocent, aren't you? So you can only see what you see. Dead bodies in low-lying areas was a prediction, was it not? Yes it was. Were those two corpses in a low-lying area? Yes they were. So they fit the prediction. Over time you build a picture. No single incident can do that. Like all the corpses being found burned up in burning vehicles lately, and the people bursting into flame. Does any single incident mean much? Not really. But over time, when you see LOTS of them, that implies something. As Kennedy once said, 'Things don't just happen. Things are MADE to happen.'

And are the stories SAD? Hell yeah they are! I've shed my share of tears over many of these stories. I found the saddest story, personally, to be the woman who burst into flame on her porch swing in Illinois, a bit east of the Mississippi River, last year. She never even tried to get up (since she was probably unconscious or dead).

Anyway, you think these events are all normal, fine with me. I don't. We can agree to disagree.
edit on 8-3-2013 by JonnyMnemonic because: (no reason given)


Do these incidences fit into the dangerous gas theory: Man drowns in waters off Lydgate Beach on Kauai; Woman, 77, nearly drowns at Ala Moana; Mysterious death of 67 year old St. Petersburg woman?

One of the most compelling incidences that would bolster the theory are the articles about Morristown, New Jersey and the frequent underground explosions:


The most recent incident happened Aug. 31, while JCP&L was restoring power in the wake of Hurricane Irene. A driver’s arm was burned by steam released in a manhole explosion near James Street, an accident attributed to a piece of oil-filled equipment that failed. The BPU has asked the consultant to investigate the Aug. 31 explosion and the history of incidents involving the network since 2000. In the same area a couple months earlier, several businesses were evacuated due to a fire in a subterranean room where electrical equipment was stored. In May 2010, a library shared by Morristown and Morris Township was rocked by an explosion that caused it to shut down for repairs for eight months. The blast was strong enough to blow off doors and rattle nearby manholes. JCP&L blamed the incident on the presence of a combustible gas, not its electrical equipment and activities. At the mayor’s urging, the BPU agreed to investigate. There were also manhole explosions in December 2009 and February 2010.


If innocent means asking questions and not believing everything that makes into a person's personal blog, then yes, I am an innocent.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Recent heat spike unlike anything seen in 11,000 years



Here is a "Science-Based" article about the warming trend as something we haven't seen in 11,000 years. For the Phages of the world, even "Science-Based" articles won't be enough though unless it's his article based on science, as he said last night when i pointed out his quote that used the word "Likely." It was okay he said because it was based on science. Well, this article is from a study that appeared in the Journal Science. Hopefully, it's based on science.

Recent heat spike unlike anything seen in 11,000 years


Research released Thursday in the journal Science uses fossils of tiny marine organisms to reconstruct global temperatures back to the end of the last ice age. It shows how the globe for several thousands of years was cooling until an unprecedented reversal in the 20th century. Scientists say it is further evidence that modern-day global warming isn't natural, but the result of rising carbon dioxide emissions that have rapidly grown since the Industrial Revolution began roughly 250 years ago. The decade of 1900 to 1910 was one of the coolest in the past 11,300 years—cooler than 95 percent of the other years, the marine fossil data suggest. Yet 100 years later, the decade of 2000 to 2010 was one of the warmest, said study lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University. Global thermometer records only go back to 1880, and those show the last decade was the hottest for this more recent time period.



"In 100 years, we've gone from the cold end of the spectrum to the warm end of the spectrum," Marcott said. "We've never seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly."


Here's more


Marcott's data indicates that it took 4,000 years for the world to warm about 1.25 degrees from the end of the ice age to about 7,000 years ago. The same fossil-based data suggest a similar level of warming occurring in just one generation: from the 1920s to the 1940s. Actual thermometer records don't show the rise from the 1920s to the 1940s was quite that big and Marcott said for such recent time periods it is better to use actual thermometer readings than his proxies. Before this study, continuous temperature record reconstruction only went back about 2,000 years. The temperature trend produces a line shaped like a "hockey stick" with a sudden spike after what had been a fairly steady line. That data came from tree rings, ice cores and lake sediments.



Marcott's research finds the climate had been gently warming out of the ice age with a slow cooling that started about 6,000 years ago. Then the cooling reversed with a vengeance. The study shows the recent heat spike "has no precedent as far back as we can go with any confidence, 11,000 years arguably," said Pennsylvania State University professor Michael Mann, who wrote the original hockey stick study but wasn't part of this research. He said scientists may have to go back 125,000 years to find warmer temperatures potentially rivaling today's.


And finally


Marcott said the general downward trend of temperatures that reversed 100 years ago seemed to indicate the Earth was heading either toward another ice age or little ice age from about 1550 to 1850. Or it was continuing to cool naturally until greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels changed everything. The reason the globe warmed after the ice age and then started cooling about 6,000 years ago has to do with the tilt of the Earth and its distance from the sun, said Marcott and Severinghaus. Distance and angle in the summer matter because of heat absorption and reflection and ground cover.

"We have, through human emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, indefinitely delayed the onset of the next ice age and are now heading into an unknown future where humans control the thermostat of the planet," said Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, responding in an email.
edit on 8-3-2013 by Rezlooper because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-3-2013 by Rezlooper because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 

Hi,

Without carefully reading all the thread, which I don't have time for now...where is the methane tie to diseases becoming drug resistant?
I'm having a hard time seeing how there is any connection


I expanded on his theory to include the gases as the cause of all the other strange phenomenon that we are experiencing all around the globe, which includes .....the rash of drug-resistant diseases.


edit on Fri Mar 8 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: speeling



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


This is just another example how you see your theory in everything. I read this article this morning (As it was on everyones news feeds) and didn't see any correlation to your theory.

Show me in the article where it points to Methane as a cause of this temperature increase. In fact, the article points to the industrial age and beyond as key contributors.

You have to realize what is being argued by the naysayers of this thread. It is not the science of methane deposits and their potential hazards on humans, plants and animals. It is the fact that you are trying to group so many things into this science.

Don't think I have forgotten about the man eating the face off the homeless guy and the American Airlines Commercial jet that went down over a NYC suburb after 9/11 that you two tried to connect to Methane plume releases.

You cannot just post an article about warming trends as some sort of validation for your entire theory.

And the point you were trying to make about Phage using the term "likely" is a swing and a miss within the debate format. You are comparing apples and oranges.

What is more obvious than ever, is that you guys are such fanatics over this subject that you JUST HAD to create another thread that is the EXACT same as the previous one. If you found more info, then post it in the "Other" thread.

Or did people forget about that thread and it hurt your feelings?

It happens. Move on. Don't rekindle an old flame. It never works out.

AAC



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   



Are any of the links investigated before they are posted as "proof"?


No they are not. They do not need to be when these two can see their theory in random bumble bees pollinating flowers.


You're not gonna GET 'proof'.


Very convenient for a proposed theory.



Dead bodies in low-lying areas was a prediction, was it not?


A friend of mines father died of a heart attack. Medical records revealed he had coronary artery disease. He lived 10 above sea level. Was it the Methane that got him too?

You know, with a prediction that vague, you realize the time it takes me to finish this post, 100k people have died in the world that falls into your "prediction" bubble.

Dead bodies in low-lying areas was a prediction.

I really cannot believe this. ^ It's almost like you two are be government agents messing around with this forum to see how many gullible people you can convince of your absurd theories.



Yes it was. Were those two corpses in a low-lying area? Yes they were. So they fit the prediction.


All I can do is laugh now.


What is your vector, Victor? Roger, Roger. What is your clearance, Clarence?


This theory is very Naked Gun, Airplane, etc...


But over time, when you see LOTS of them, that implies something.


Yeah, but it all doesn't imply the SAME THING.



As Kennedy once said, 'Things don't just happen. Things are MADE to happen.'


Your point?


For me, I reserve the late evening for mourning the dead. If you're found dead slumped over the wheel in your car someday soon, like the guy in today's update, I will mourn you too.


Thanks.



Anyway, you think these events are all normal, fine with me. I don't. We can agree to disagree.


Please don't put words into the member's mouth. Just because she doesn't think that they all fit your outlandish criteria, doesn't mean she thinks they are normal.

AAC



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
successful troll is successful



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I don't know exactly what point the thread is at here, but I want to provide some data on why there should be a concern for methane (CH4) leaking into the atmosphere, especially in the Arctic regions.

The images below were referenced from CMOS (Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society), and can be downloaded [here] (9 mb pdf.)



This picture is pretty self explanatory. Here we can see a distinct rise in all methane (CH4) levels since around 2007. All models/formulas are rising, not just 1 or 2 potentially incorrect ones.



Another great collection of data imagery, showing methane in the Arctic atmosphere, starting at 2006, then 2007, 2008, and 2009. It is clearly increasing in methane concentrations, though the next images show that trending more clearly.



This image shows 2010 and 2011, the most dense and red one to date, meaning there is a lot more methane in the Arctic atmosphere than who knows how far back exactly. Notice the graph on the bottom showing the increasing trend of methane since ~2007.



Here is a nice image showing that things are really warming up.



This is a great image of the feedback loop going on right now in the arctic. Some things to know are:

Albedo -


It is defined as the ratio of reflected radiation from the surface to incident radiation upon it.


And more in particular, the Ice Albedo Feedback Loop


A positive feedback climate process where a change in the area of snow-covered land, ice caps, glaciers or sea ice alters the albedo. This change in albedo acts to reinforce the initial alteration in ice area. Cooling tends to increase ice cover and hence the albedo, reducing the amount of solar energy absorbed and leading to more cooling. Conversely, warming tends to decrease ice cover and hence the albedo, increasing the amount of solar energy absorbed, leading to more warming.


So as this methane trapped in the Arctic regions will be released, causing more warming, causing more ice to melt and release the methane hydrates.



This last image is a recent shot of the Beaufort Sea, a sea in the Arctic ocean.

According to this post, and the note from one a user over here

He states that:


If taken as a simplistic predictor of the 2013 melt season, we are 51 days ahead of last season.


Here are some more interesting links:

Arctic Methane Emergency Group

ESRL (NOAA) PSD Map Room Climate Products - Sea Surface Temperature

So to me, it seems there is a problem with the methane being released.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


That is a very informative post. You should start a thread dedicated to this data and what reasonable impact this could have on humans, plants, and animals.

AAC



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Philippines
So to me, it seems there is a problem with the methane being released.


Well, of course. You haven't got your fingers in your ears singing 'na na na na na'. You see what's important. That's what counts. That's the big picture here.

Nice post, by the way.

What Jonny and Rezlooper are suggesting is that what we can 'prove' to everyone's satisfaction is only the tip of the iceberg. They are looking for emergent SIGNS and PATTERNS that by definition can't be proved either way. By nature the work will be imperfect. But it is important work. I am glad they care about this. I am glad they are focused on the subject in depth. Lord knows they have put a huge amount of time into it. They are spreading awareness. It was precisely because of their previous thread that I learned about the Clathrate gun hypothesis, among other things. Their efforts increased my knowledge. Are we to believe that any of the debunkers here would be spending their time engaging on issues of climate change if it wasn't for this thread? No, of course not. They are only here to debunk. That is their passtime. They are not here because they care about the environment. No. Rightly or wrongly, arguing with and ridiculing individuals who do care is more important to them. If I see them spending the same time and effort spreading awareness on climate change issues as they do posting rebuttals to Jonny and Rezlooper, I will eat my words.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 


Very informative.

I second your advice to start a separate thread. It would be ashamed to get lost in this one.



edit on 9-3-2013 by crappiekat because: sp



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
reply to post by Rezlooper
 

Hi,

Without carefully reading all the thread, which I don't have time for now...where is the methane tie to diseases becoming drug resistant?
I'm having a hard time seeing how there is any connection


I expanded on his theory to include the gases as the cause of all the other strange phenomenon that we are experiencing all around the globe, which includes .....the rash of drug-resistant diseases.


edit on Fri Mar 8 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: speeling


Here is my thread that ties in the drug-resistant bacteria.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by Philippines
 


That is a very informative post. You should start a thread dedicated to this data and what reasonable impact this could have on humans, plants, and animals.

AAC


What is the difference here than what has already been posted. This is great that he posts more informative graphs and links, but throughout these threads there have been links to back up everything I've posted. I haven't posted anything off the top of my head, I've gathered information from many science based and news articles. Sorry Absolute, but I'm not making any of this stuff up. What Philippines has posted here just supports what I've already posted. Thanks Philippines.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Well, animals are dying off. Frequently, scientists say they've never seen anything like it, or they have no explanation. So I developed a hypothesis, based on science that shows that hydrogen sulfide and methane are the cause of extinction events. As all hypotheses work, I made predictions and I am watching for events that match those predictions, including the rising number of methane-related and hydrogen sulfide-related events.

Obviously, anyone else can at any time propose a different explanation for things. Just start with, say, the 500 mysteriously sickened people at the Las Vegas marathon (food and water were ruled out), or the 120 people who fell unconscious outside in Cambodia (blamed on trees sucking up the oxygen, lol), or the 22 Houston students who suddenly fell unconscious (and the brother of one smelled 'something funny'), or the 60 Jamaicans losing consciousness last week, or the people who sickened on the ferry suddenly in Louisiana, or the people who suddenly sickened near a canal while riding a bus in coastal New York. So, what is the alternative explanation? Nobody has one that explains just THOSE things. Hydrogen sulfide does - it's a fast-acting knockdown agent. Absent any other rational explanation, you go with what fits.

But hydrogen sulfide and methane are both flammable. People and vehicles are bursting into flame. Many of the vehicular fires are caused by spontaneous combustion in the engine compartment, on 'cold' vehicles. Hydrogen sulfide reacts with copper too. What's the alternative explanation? Nobody's mentioned any. A car mysteriously burst into flame in Wisconsin carrying two newly-engaged people. They mysteriously didn't get out, and were burned to death. What's the alternative explanation? Nobody's mentioned one, cops don't know.

MASSIVE home-cracking explosions all over the planet, often accompanied by a flash of light. Officials and cops are 'baffled'. Those are clearly explosions. Explosions means a chemical reaction. What chemicals? And why are they in our atmosphere now? What's the alternative explanation? There isn't one.

So when a hypothesis explains SO MANY things, and does so very well, and is predictive, it is almost always either completely accurate or substantially so. If you don't see that yet then you will in time. Some people will need to wait for a mass-fatality incident. That's fine. I understand that. I doubt you'll need to wait long for that. Why do you think Congress is now working on legislation related to 'mass fatality incidents' anyway? As people choke and die on gas or are incinerated or blown up, they do need to plan for that, so they are.

In the meantime, while I wait for the mass fatality event that wakes people up, I'll go ahead and continue to develop the one hypothesis that DOES explain all, or at least a great many, of the otherwise unexplained events happening on Earth. If you don't want to pay attention, don't. If you want to develop a hypothesis that BETTER explains all these otherwise-unexplained events, then go ahead!
edit on 9-3-2013 by JonnyMnemonic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by JonnyMnemonic
 


I don't mean to be callous here because despite what I'm about to say, I think the fact that you're thinking about things, cause and effect etc is good but, isn't your theory basically the global warming theory or the greenhouse gas theory just with explosions and fire?



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by JonnyMnemonic
 


So, what is the alternative explanation?
You like that expression, don't you?

Have you ever heard of this expression?
Argument to ignorance

Because no alternative explanation is given, it's probably hydrogen sulfide or methane because it supports your hypothesis. That is a backward approach. It is a logical fallacy called an argument to ignorance.
 

And in your follow up on these cases, do you reject explanations that don't fit your hypothesis like the OP does?

Here is an article from Monroe Country, NY about eight homes having gas smells in their basement. I think they blamed this on a car leaking gas into a storm sewer.


Three people sickened by odor at a Trader Joe’s restaurant in Maryland. They blamed this one on Freon leak

That makes it really easy to support your hypothesis. It's called confirmation bias
edit on 3/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by JonnyMnemonic
 


I don't mean to be callous here because despite what I'm about to say, I think the fact that you're thinking about things, cause and effect etc is good but, isn't your theory basically the global warming theory or the greenhouse gas theory just with explosions and fire?


It's more a combination of the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis and the work done in this document (PDF):

www.chicagocleanpower.org...

And with lots of poisonings and fires and explosions, until the surface of the Earth becomes uninhabitable, at least by humans. Other species should survive, especially insects, as they have before. Probably small mammals too. Anything that reproduces rapidly should have some chance at survival. (Less so in the oceans and seas and lakes.) And actually, WE can reproduce fairly fast, but that doesn't work for us, because we lose an experienced knowledgeable 45-year old engineer and replace that person with an infant, who then takes quite a number of years before he or she can actually BE a replacement for that dead engineer (or whatever).

Is 'global warming' the culprit, the root cause of it all? Is that what started the chain reaction? Got me. I don't care. We have to survive hydrogen sulfide and methane contaminating our atmosphere. We don't have to survive the WHY of it, we have to survive the WHAT of it. I leave it to the survivors, if there be such, to track down root causes, and there may be no single root cause or culprit, but a combination. Hopefully there will be survivors and they can work all that out. The job at hand for us is survival of the species.
edit on 9-3-2013 by JonnyMnemonic because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
53
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join