It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Massive amounts of methane spewing from the Arctic

page: 4
79
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by 4chi11e
 


Hydrogen sulfide detected in California, Florida, Canada. Baltimore's Inner Harbor just turned milky white, all the fish died, and a sulfur odor was smelled. That was the chemocline rising to the surface and belching up gas. Same thing happened in Santa Monica Bay in California. First time in human history, a major metropolitan area was told to shelter-in-place because of hydrogen sulfide, in Kuwait City. Woman killed by hydrogen sulfide in her home in Kansas. Library closed because of hydrogen sulfide in Indiana. And so on and so on and so on.

Hydrogen sulfide is reactive with rusty iron and electrified copper. Random cars and warehouses have rusty iron and often electrified copper. What, did you think hydrogen sulfide would ONLY kill women in their homes or cause problems in Kuwait, or stink up California or Baltimore?

If you're truly that blind, then you're gonna die. You have to see threats to react to them. If you wanna lay on the train tracks until the train mows you down, fine with me. That'd raise the average IQ of the survivors at least. Hopefully not EVERYONE is quite that brain dead.




posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by JonnyMnemonic
 


I have hazwoper training and H2S is covered extensively. It is a very dangerous chemical in confined spaces and is dealt with daily in thousands of rusty, electrically powered locations.

I wouldn't be surprised to correlate H2S off-gassing to methane sublimation at sea. I would be very surprised to see it causing fires, especially inland and related to clathrates.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


So I've read through the sourced material, and your source is a dude on facebook and a post on blogspot ?

Wake me up again when something of importance happens.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   

4chi11e
reply to post by JonnyMnemonic
 


I have hazwoper training and H2S is covered extensively. It is a very dangerous chemical in confined spaces and is dealt with daily in thousands of rusty, electrically powered locations.

I wouldn't be surprised to correlate H2S off-gassing to methane sublimation at sea. I would be very surprised to see it causing fires, especially inland and related to clathrates.



Well then, prepare to be surprised, because that's what's happening. Not always related to clathrates though. Because of its extreme volatility and its extreme reactivity, it is also inducing more fires involving OTHER flammable vapors. I explained this process under the 'Ghostly Match' entry in the Glossary. The bulk of the volatility comes from, say, butane (as an example). A little hydrogen sulfide blows in, mixes with the butane, and near some electrified copper or rusty iron there is a spark, and whoosh, fire, possible explosion. You'll see this happen a lot after vehicles refuel, when someone is siphoning gas, making hash oil or meth, applying flammable flooring chemicals, etc. A ghostly match ignites and fire breaks out. These fires are happening over and over and over now.

Also burning, piles of rusty scrap iron. Not usually flammable, but hydrogen sulfide is reactive with rusty iron, no other ignition source necessary. These fires involving piles of rusty scrap are also on the rise. You can observe for yourself as the vehicles and metal recycling fires increase. There've been so many vehicular fires in Vietnam that the government is meeting just about that problem in May. They're occurring everywhere, but I wouldn't be surprised that Vietnam is suffering the worst because it's a peninsula nation and much of it is actually below sea level, rice paddies and the like, very vulnerable to a fire-inducing heavier-than-air gas.

Anyway, follow along as things continue to ramp up, if you like. (There are no ads, since I don't want to profit off pain and suffering, so I don't really care if you follow along or not.) We're just entering the planes-burning-and-crashing phase now, and cargo ships are burning pretty good lately, so it's only going to get more mind-boggling from here on out, for anyone who does want to watch as things escalate.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Mainstream science keeps pushing the date of GW affecting humanity in the future but all the evidence shows it is happening now, and getting much worse, at a much faster rate than predicted..

Interesting point about hydrogen sulfide. Here is an interesting link on the subject.

news.psu.edu...


Humans can smell hydrogen sulfide gas, the smell of rotten cabbage, in the parts per trillion range. In the deeps of the Black Sea today, hydrogen sulfide exists at about 200 parts per million. This is a toxic brew in which any aerobic, oxygen-needing organism would die. For the Black Sea, the hydrogen sulfide stays in the depths because our rich oxygen atmosphere mixes in the top layer of water and controls the diffusion of hydrogen sulfide upwards.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by JonnyMnemonic
 


I'm not familiar with the chemistry involved. Do you have source for the H2S ghostly match effect? It sounds interesting.

For rust, all I found is that H2S can form Pyrophoric iron sulphide when concentrated in a tank at levels exceeding oxygen. There would much bigger problems if that much H2S was accumulating out of the atmosphere.

There are H2S meters for sale though. It would be a service to your community to monitor the atmosphere and any low lying areas for H2S plumes.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   

4chi11e
reply to post by JonnyMnemonic
 


I'm not familiar with the chemistry involved. Do you have source for the H2S ghostly match effect? It sounds interesting.

For rust, all I found is that H2S can form Pyrophoric iron sulphide when concentrated in a tank at levels exceeding oxygen. There would much bigger problems if that much H2S was accumulating out of the atmosphere.

There are H2S meters for sale though. It would be a service to your community to monitor the atmosphere and any low lying areas for H2S plumes.


Read through the links in the Info Links section if you want to learn more. That's why they are there.

Much bigger problems? Bigger than people and animals dropping dead, massive neighborhood-shaking atmospheric explosions often accompanied by flashes of light, homes exploding, vehicles burning and exploding, metal facilities burning up, recycling centers going up in flames (and insurers dropping coverage because of the increase in fires), underground explosions and fires tripling in one year in Britain, and much more? Well, I dunno, describe for me what you would call bigger than that?

I do have an H2S detector. The problem is, if I detect 1000 ppm, then what? Well, I clutch my chest and fall over dead, and then the news says I died from 'natural causes', and what good did I just do my community? Not much. In fact, then there'd be a vacant house, ready to ignite and burn their homes down too.

Sorry, I'll leave it to braver people than me to wander around outside with an H2S detector. I stay inside with ozone generators running, personally. Don't drive much either, not with all the corpses being found in burning or burned-out cars. I think I've driven a vehicle twice since the last presidential election. (I'll do a post on just the charred corpses in vehicles eventually - just accumulating data for now.)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   
so i have 7 years & change to rape and pillage before the end?/ lmao



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Dr1Akula
reply to post by webedoomed
 


Why don't you move at the abandoned village near Fukushima, Sinse you claim there was no nuclear disaster, and zero people affected by it.

It is easy talking bs when your a$$ is safe, right?


I didn't make that claim, I said it was understandable to take such a position. The quote was taken out of context. If you bother to read the article that the quote linked, you'd see he was trying to say that the tsunami and resulting earthquake are what caused nearly all of the damage from that event. That is absolute truth. Thousands died from the tsunami and earthquake. Not a single death was recorded from the nuclear event.

In this context, there was no "nuclear disaster". Absolute truth. Why would I move to an abandoned village near Fukushima?! Please try to make an inkling of sense before you appeal to members emotions. Thanks!



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed
 


No belief necessary. It's truth. The doom porn surrounding Fukushima is quite laughable, except I realize too many gullible idiots are taking in this nonsense, and it could lead to more harm than good if the troglodytes organize and fight against a non-existent tragedy.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
In his posts, Jonny Mnemonic is referring to his own website where he tracks the fires, among other events. His site is Jumping Jack Flash Hypothesis

Thanks for stopping by



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Beano..not for the arctic, but the MSM

As we all know, the MSM forgets about the events that are not sensational enough for the average sheep. I, for one, am very disappointed in the lack of scientific news coverage. It is sad that a country, USA, (I cannot speak for other countries' news agencies) cannot report evenly on such things as science, health, and environment.

How can we possibly encourage the future of our existence without the importance of the above mention three topics?

Many folks here in this forum seem to agree that we are not the sheep that follow the shepherd. We are those who stray from the flock to really find out what is wrong or right in the world. The fact that many of the things covered here, including the methane issue in the arctic circle, are not mainstream is that perhaps the media pundits are ineffectual.

I agree that this methane issue is rather troubling. But as a collective group, we may be able to push the sheep to see the truth.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Rezlooper

jjkenobi
I don't know man. What's your response to 2013 being the calmest weather year ever? You mention extreme storms and such, but the data doesn't show it.

www.climatedepot.com... ally-low-levels/

www.usatoday.com...

www.washingtonpost.com...



Well, I don't know except that you're citing a story from a website claiming the weather isn't extreme, that also claims there was no radiation leak at Fukishima.

Physicist claims there was no radiation leak at Fukishima

I think I'll believe the hundreds of links I have provided over the past year in my threads versus a phony propaganda website claiming there hasn't been extreme weather or any other climate changes for that matter. I wonder who funds that website?

And the Post and USA Today...also, who gains by their phony stories. I don't believe anything I read in those papers including the worst of them all...the New York Times!


Well you only cherry picked one link, while I included 3. I could find a dozen more but so could you via Google and I don't need carpal tunnel. Are you denying that 2013 is one of if not the calmest weather year ever?



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


It's worse than that. He doesn't know that fires and explosions happen all the time. Him and this other chump look for events happening within the nation, and try to erroneously tie them into this theory, completely disregarding the fact that thousands of said events happen yearly nationwide, every year, for many decades now.

The methane issue is real, but it has yet to truly erupt. The guy doesn't even realize that it's normal for CH4 concentrations to rise the higher the latitude, and confuses a 1700 rating for spikes that are 1950-2100. It's still 1700 in most parts of the word, most of the time.

Not trying to downplay the methane releases, but also trying to combat misinformation.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   

webedoomed
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


It's worse than that. He doesn't know that fires and explosions happen all the time. Him and this other chump look for events happening within the nation, and try to erroneously tie them into this theory, completely disregarding the fact that thousands of said events happen yearly nationwide, every year, for many decades now.

The methane issue is real, but it has yet to truly erupt. The guy doesn't even realize that it's normal for CH4 concentrations to rise the higher the latitude, and confuses a 1700 rating for spikes that are 1950-2100. It's still 1700 in most parts of the word, most of the time.

Not trying to downplay the methane releases, but also trying to combat misinformation.


So why is it that Britain says underground fires and explosions tripled from 2011 to 2012? Oh, you didn't know that? Hah, well, you're not very informed. Did you know insurers are dropping recycling facilities and raising rates hugely for those still willing to take the risk, because fires at recycling facilities are escalating tremendously? Didn't know that? Then you're not very informed. Did you know that the explosions and fires in vehicles have gotten so terrible in Vietnam that their government is having a special meeting just about that? Didn't know that? Well, obviously you're just, like, asleep, totally uninformed. Might wanna wake up before you don't ever wake up again.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

webedoomed
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


It's worse than that. He doesn't know that fires and explosions happen all the time. Him and this other chump look for events happening within the nation, and try to erroneously tie them into this theory, completely disregarding the fact that thousands of said events happen yearly nationwide, every year, for many decades now.

The methane issue is real, but it has yet to truly erupt. The guy doesn't even realize that it's normal for CH4 concentrations to rise the higher the latitude, and confuses a 1700 rating for spikes that are 1950-2100. It's still 1700 in most parts of the word, most of the time.

Not trying to downplay the methane releases, but also trying to combat misinformation.


Yet to truly erupt? Did you see where the scientist is quoted in the article as saying that a livable level is only 1200 ppb? Or do you have a way to deny that as well?

I recognize that all of these events have occurred in the past...it's the frequency and intensity of each individual event occurring now that deserves attention.

And yes, I disagree that this is a calm weather year. The Weather Channel decided this past winter for the first time to start naming winter storms...Each of the storms they named dropped a foot of snow somewhere and do you know they ran out of letters and had to start over at A...there were 28 winter storms that dropped over a foot of snow somewhere in the US last winter. And what about the repeated super typhoons in Asia or the number of hurricanes off the west coast of Mexico, dousing rain into the southwest US this year, causing numerous flooding events. Early October, 3 feet of snow drop on South Dakota killing over a hundred thousand cattle, said to have been a catastrophic event but without much media attention. And this is not to mention the extreme weather events in Australia...they've had anything but a normal weather year. What about the UK...you going to tell them in the UK that they are having a normal weather year. And there are plenty of Asian countries I think would disagree with you as well, considering the countless flooding rains there as well.

The only place I believe has been way below normal is the Atlantic hurricane season. Other than that...please point out some facts to your claims of it being the calmest weather year besides that lame energy propaganda website.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

JonnyMnemonic


So why is it that Britain says underground fires and explosions tripled from 2011 to 2012? Oh, you didn't know that? Hah, well, you're not very informed.


Weather is not climate. One nation does not a world make. Please try again.


Did you know insurers are dropping recycling facilities and raising rates hugely for those still willing to take the risk, because fires at recycling facilities are escalating tremendously? Didn't know that? Then you're not very informed.


You're lying by omission. Insurers are increasing policy rates in general, and dropping those which are deemed economically unviable. This has been going on for over a decade, and was known to be an issue long before that. The science provides an explanation. There's no need to make up nonsense on top of the science.



Did you know that the explosions and fires in vehicles have gotten so terrible in Vietnam that their government is having a special meeting just about that? Didn't know that? Well, obviously you're just, like, asleep, totally uninformed. Might wanna wake up before you don't ever wake up again.


What about the 180+ other countries? Why are you only mentioning one.

If I flip one hundred coins, one hundred times, only some of them will show up 50 heads and 50 tails. Some will show more or less of each. Same as you're doing showing a single example, and attempting to extrapolate it to the whole. It's logical fallacy.

You know damned well that fires and explosions have decreased over the last decade. Information was already provided for you in another thread. You choose to be intellectually dishonest.

Shame on you.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Rezlooper

Yet to truly erupt? Did you see where the scientist is quoted in the article as saying that a livable level is only 1200 ppb? Or do you have a way to deny that as well?


Yes, and I know you have no clue of undersanding what that truly means. You're too dumb. Do you know how long they've been over 1200 ppb? Long before the methane releases were seen in 2010. Can you put two and two together?! I'm having major doubts in your ability to do so at this point.


I recognize that all of these events have occurred in the past...it's the frequency and intensity of each individual event occurring now that deserves attention.


Which is what I'm trying to explain. The events are simply more known. There is absolutely no proof that you provide which shows these events are increasing in intensity or frequency.


And yes, I disagree that this is a calm weather year. The Weather Channel decided this past winter for the first time to start naming winter storms...Each of the storms they named dropped a foot of snow somewhere and do you know they ran out of letters and had to start over at A...there were 28 winter storms that dropped over a foot of snow somewhere in the US last winter. And what about the repeated super typhoons in Asia or the number of hurricanes off the west coast of Mexico, dousing rain into the southwest US this year, causing numerous flooding events. Early October, 3 feet of snow drop on South Dakota killing over a hundred thousand cattle, said to have been a catastrophic event but without much media attention. And this is not to mention the extreme weather events in Australia...they've had anything but a normal weather year. What about the UK...you going to tell them in the UK that they are having a normal weather year. And there are plenty of Asian countries I think would disagree with you as well, considering the countless flooding rains there as well.


So we need to differentiate from "explosions and fires" related to your insane methane release hypothesis, and the ongoing AGW. AGW is real, and will increase intensity and frequency of events, regardless of the methane releases. Do you think the GHG emissions we put into the system over the last 30-40 years has magically ceased to cause an effect. You relate this solely to methane emissions?! Are you retarded??


The only place I believe has been way below normal is the Atlantic hurricane season. Other than that...please point out some facts to your claims of it being the calmest weather year besides that lame energy propaganda website.


I didn't make the claim.
edit on 1-11-2013 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by webedoomed
 


I got no respect for dudes like you who can call someone names behind the safety of your keyboard...I'm done conversing with you.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


You don't need respect to prove your points.

You're incapable.

Defeated!



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join