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

Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic
I was being facetious. I guess that doesn't work well in text format. Ah well.

Yes. Personality rarely translates in text.

Overall, things have been getting more accurate and predictive though, I think.

Do you not think it has anything to do with your wide range or vague prediction model?

Also, just postulate for a moment that I am correct, about everything. So, how would YOU go about proving it?

I would followup on stories you post. Find autopsy reports. I would advise you to disregard the connections that cannot be verified. Follow up on die offs. Were fish poisoned or were they asphyxiated? Etc...

Start with showing methane events, right?

Sure.

Show events where hydrogen sulfide is mentioned specifically, right?

There is a difference in these two events, right?

Document fires and explosions and don't trust government stats, lest they be corrupted, right?

But you cannot disregard governmental stats and replace them with your own unverifiable stats. It's like replacing one thin argument with another. However, I would lean to trust government stats because they are more susceptible to 3rd party scrutiny.

Seriously, if true, then the way I am proving it may be the ONLY possible way that people ever get the truth at all.

I disagree with you. You are not proving anything without follow-up work. I think you will find that the work you put into verifying your claims will be the work that discredits your connections.

So you should be glad I'm doing what I'm doing, even if you're not sure, just in CASE it's true.

Why would I be glad? You're not coming with anything that circumvents the problem, if indeed it is a problem.

Also, as I have been told many times, people are getting news from me that they knew nothing about, and I am told that it is appreciated.

I would agree. I also didn't recognize the issue before your thread. I do no mean to be dismissive, i am just trying to show you how I use deductive reasoning. I need more. And you are in a realm where more is not possible, especially if you do not fight to do follow-up work on your connections.

Every time another non-running vehicle bursts into flame and burns down a family's home - and especially when children are killed - I wish they'd read my hypothesis.

How would they have known to park further from their home? Or are you saying that everyone should park further from their home.

Then they might have listened to me, parked farther from their home, and fewer people would have burned to death. Is anyone else warning them about that danger? Not that I can tell. How many children are going to be burned alive before people wake up? I guess we're gonna see, and I don't know about you, but it's gonna be painful for me to watch that.

These are the statements that leave me scratching my head. Leave the idea of burning babies out of it. Okay?

AAC

Maybe I should create a new metric - CBABOSCVPD - Children Burned Alive Because Of Spontaneously Combusting Vehicles Per Day. Then I could chart it and we could all watch.

Weather men have trouble predicting next weeks weather. The long term trends of complex systems are virtually impossible to predict. The vast number of possible factors and variables involved in the prediction of possible outcomes become immense as the longer time scale is considered. To be taken seriously by anyone with a high school school level of scientific training requires data sets, checkable evidence and ultimatly peer review. Sadly this theory is lacking all of these things. I'd describe all of this as a "non-scientific hypothesis"

The major (it is a biggy) problem in my opinion is the linking of car fires and other incendary events with methane or hydrogen sulfide. In many cases it could be faulty wiring, there is a recession on so maybe more people are slipping on car maintenance. Without any scientific investigation my theory on car fires is as valid as Johnny's. And that is one of the major problems with this theory. I'll ignore the rest as it's late.

I do however applaud Johnny and Rez for highlighting the potential consequences of run away global warming. If it's inspired any thought on the subject then that's got to be a good thing, right ?

Sure, keep your mind open, keep your eyes open. I've said it many times: the truth will unveil itself as we go. Quite happy to keep doing what I'm doing, and simply observe all the underground fires and mass-sickening and mass-losing-consciousness events and stuff. If people wanna think that's all normal, that's their call. If they don't like my explanation and would prefer to have none at all, no big deal to me either. Let's see how it goes! Hey, ya never know, maybe those giant explosions in the sky and flashes of light are aliens playing alien Sky Rugby or something, and none of those explosions will ever touch the ground and kill anyone.

This Phage dude is annoying. When I First joined ATS, I remember reading a thread where phage was some kind of damn super hero. Ohhh dont let phage see this, ohh phage where are you. WTF
Dude you are a thread killer. Its a damn THEORY to be discussed, not for your arrogant ass to get in here and be a super hero trying to act like you know everything. If you dont agree then let it be man. Let others discuss if they feel it is interesting to them. Go ahead all the phage knob slobbers, let me have it I dont care, but Phage is very good at destroying threads when HE doesnt agree.

Originally posted by Rezlooper
What is the difference here than what has already been posted...What Philippines has posted here just supports what I've already posted.

People only see the parts of your posts they don't like. Everything Philippines said, you already brought to the discussion with a database of links and references. People have a short attention span. They are confident in attacking your position without having read through the wealth of information you have posted.

Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic
Well, animals are dying off. Frequently, scientists say they've never seen anything like it.

This is absolutely correct.

Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic
So I developed a hypothesis, based on science that shows that hydrogen sulfide and methane are the cause of extinction events.

Changes in atmospheric gas composition has wiped out almost all life on Earth several times before. You are wise to monitor for patterns that fit the emerging scenario. Because people are totally unaware of how real the scenario is and has been through Earth's history, they are trying to murder you with Occam's razor. They are living in a bubble. A bubble that seems to hold that the Earth is a safe, stable, perpetual environment for human beings. Wrong. We live in a delicate balance. There is a different reality than the one they are coming from.

Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic
Obviously methane is being released because the frozen clathrate deposits are receiving heat that they previously did not.

Correct.

Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic
Thus the 'frothing' at the hundreds or thousands of kilometer-wide seeps in the north.

Correct.

Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic
the ancient anaerobic bacteria that produce hydrogen sulfide need low-oxygen or NO-oxygen waters. You will see that a lot of these fish deaths are blamed on low oxygen levels. This means that the environment for those bacteria- from their perspective - is improving...with the growing and spreading of the 'dead zones', as scientists have mentioned over the past several decades.

Like most of your posts. This is not even your theory - it is 100% fact. Yet people do not accept it. They think you're speculating.

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
I do however applaud Johnny and Rez for highlighting the potential consequences of run away global warming. If it's inspired any thought on the subject then that's got to be a good thing, right

They surely are contributing more than others who only post to put them down. What I want to know is. What are THEY doing to spread awareness better? Nothing. They are stuck up their own ass.

And yes - people have learned a lot from these threads. There should be more threads.

reply to post by SteveR


Personally speaking i've fund raised for charities concerned with the enviroment - not going to mention names. What have you done ?

These kinds of threads can be informative but they can also take focus off real issues or distort the fact surrounding the real issues. I've been aware of the hydrate theory since the early 90's. One of the original global warming models predicted that there would be a methane release about the same time the amazon started to have seasonal wild fires. I haven't seen convincing evidence to think otherwise.

Really though if Johnny is right you're best off leaving the PC, spending time with your loved ones and chosing a nice spot to die in.


Anyway this is turning into one of those gun or religion based threads where believers believe and doubters doubt, so i'm out. Damn that rhymed !

reply to post by Hopeforeveryone


I was agreeing with you. Learn to read.

reply to post by SteveR


It's irrelevant if you agree with me, my point you missed was you generalised, you don't know what other people do with relation to AGW. Their position within the lower part of the digestive system is unknown to you. Do you always make uninformed snap judgements ?

Sorry derail over.

reply to post by JonnyMnemonic

That's quite a convoluted scenario, especially when you start including anaerobic bacteria in your hypothesis.

Or should I say hypotheses. You include several in there. And that's a problem, you've built up a house of cards.

I would suggest that you work first on demonstrating your hypothesis that the "mysterious" explosions are caused by roving bands of hydrogen sulfide or methane.

I would suggest that dismissing explanations just because they conflict with your hypothesis does not actually help your position.

You know that part of the scientific method is attempting to disprove your own hypothesis, right? It's called falsification.

reply to post by Hopeforeveryone


You're back again? That was fast. You just said you were "out".

No it is not irrelevant. The quote I agree with is the only sensical, relevant statement you have made. And you were right, Jonny and Rez have inspired much thought and discussion on this important subject. The more attention they bring to the environment and the threats the planet faces, the better.

You are not the brightest bulb in the box but I assure you if you read carefully, my comments weren't pertaining to you. You said it yourself, you "applaud" Jonny and Rez. You are not one of the people who have been posting here to put them down and debunk them. One particular person here is well known for wandering thread to thread doing this, because he cares about the environment? No. Because it is his passtime. Yes. The same with others who think their flippant comments are more important than the seriousness and constructiveness this topic deserves.

I think my cynicism is well founded. Telling Jonny that he is "in love" with his theory is constructive how exactly? If they are all secret global warming activists then why are they only here to detract others who care about the subject? Why do they dodge the science that is thrown at them and prefer to attack the speculation instead? Because the science is of no interest to them and it is easier to attack the speculation. To any "global warming" activist, any discussion that highlights and brings awareness to the Clathrate gun hypothesis (for one example) is a good thing, as you yourself said. These threads do just that. Yet these posters habitually attempt to deride and suppress the threads. You REALLY think they are activists for the subject?

Lastly, I've been on this site a heck of a lot longer than you. I know that they are more interested in debunking than they are in discussing and promoting awareness of the real issues. Otherwise, they'd do just that. Not a snap judgement. I am well informed by their posts and discussions here.

None of the comments in my post were about you as you were correct in pointing out the benefit of these threads, before you suddenly turned against them. "They can also take focus off real issues". No idea how you think that. These threads are 100% in line with the real issues. Ocean hypoxia, hydrate melting, etc. And again, "chose a nice spot to die in". What a really nice, helpful, constructive remark.

But I thank you for helping to bump the thread at least. As Jonny said, you guys are doing us a favor like it or not.

Telling Jonny that he is "in love" with his theory is constructive how exactly?

It was not meant to be constructive. It was meant to explain why I think it is so easy for them to place so many suspicious connections to the science based foundation. In other words, they are in love with the idea, which is why they can see the whole world in the confines of their theory.

Why do they dodge the science that is thrown at them and prefer to attack the speculation instead?

Because it's wrapped in questionable detail wrapping-paper and they refuse to allow us to unwrap the actual gift. Everything goes back to them being "excited" to watch people die, as Johnny previous said. Even if he was joking, what kind of desensitized joke is that? Doesn't resemble a person genuinely concerned to inform the masses.

What science are they promoting? All it is is an existing theory with all kinds of crazy unverifiable connections now attached to it.

And concerning not discussing the science itself, what is there to discuss? It is an existing theory that doesn't allow for experiments in the lab or long equations to play with. All this thread is is the canvass for them to attach all of their connections to.

That's all it is. And they are happy to do that and get other people to agree.

And, somewhere someday, Johnny is going to be in a room excited about reading another death in a low-lying area.

AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
It was not meant to be constructive.

Why not?

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
they are in love with the idea, which is why they can see the whole world in the confines of their theory.

We should start seeing the whole world in the confines of these problems. I'd wager the Earth would be a better place if we all did, rather than live in our blissful ignorance. No-one is saying Johnny or Rez are 100% correct on their interpretations. It's a hypothesis. They may be wrong. Even Johnny says that. You must of missed that disclaimer since you are so determined to correct his confidence.

Everything goes back to them being "excited" to watch people die, as Johnny previous said. Even if he was joking, what kind of desensitized joke is that?

Even? I'm pretty sure he said he was joking. It was the kind of frustrated joke you would make if no-one believed your warnings.

What science are they promoting? All it is is an existing theory with all kinds of crazy unverifiable connections now attached to it.

I don't understand this. You take the least important aspect and define the whole discussion by it. What science? Jonny and Rez have posted more information and more links about ocean deadzones (for instance) and a whole host of other hard scientific facts than I've seen anyone on this forum do. These are incredibly important things, yet skipped over and not given the gravity they deserve. These threads do that. They get people thinking about things they should care about.

And concerning not discussing the science itself, what is there to discuss?

Sure. Let's file the facts away in our memory to gather dust and never speak of them again. That is the worst thing we could possibly do. I don't know how you could write such an antithesis. The prime function of these threads is the propagation of scientific awareness and a warning of the potential consequences. Key word: awareness. 44 flags on this thread and a lot more on the previous threads. Far from the "last few readers hanging on by a thread" as you put it.

All this thread is is the canvass for them to attach all of their connections to. That's all it is.

You have to understand with that kind of statement you are really saying the way you see it, not the way it is. You don't know the way it is because you can't know what those 44 people and the countless thousands of readers (only a minority of thread views come from signed up users, I think 10% if memory serves) got from reading these threads. The tragedy is you are missing the whole point. Do you think the disagreement over their interpretations of world events is the important thing here? It could not be more unimportant. If you actually cared to read, over half of Jonny's and Rez's posts contain scientific facts. I quoted some pertinent examples in my post above, like I said, half the time when they post it's not even their theory. It's facts. You, Phage and others are hung up over the other speculative half which is of symbolic importance. In your efforts to deride and dismiss Jonny and Rez over that half you end up obfuscating the value of the threads.

If not for them. Who would be making 44 flag threads propagating awareness of the Clathrate gun hypothesis and other important science, in a way that is not easily dismissable as dry, academic and irrelevant to people's lives? Worst case scenario gets people's attention. The latest NASA press release about Arctic monitoring doesn't. People just can't visualize real world effects, or the gravity of the issue on a global extinction level unless it is spelled out to them.

Let's be very clear. Hydrogen sulphide producing bacteria, ocean anoxia, and the release of methane hydrates are directly implicated in events that wiped out over 90% of life on Earth. Several times. How many threads tie this science together and present a compelling warning. The speculation may be a little much for your tastes but however imperfect this thread is, it's filling an important role by generating thought, awareness and conciousness of these topics. That's exactly what we need if we are to change the destructive behavior that is potentially causing this. Knowing that, is this really a thread you should set your targets on? There is so much of value here that is not speculation. The growing ocean deadzones are real, the increasing release of methane hydrates is also real, the mass animal die offs are real, and this is a thread you really want to sink? Jonny and Rez may not be doing things your way but the fact they are passionately interested and spreading consciousness of this is something we ought to be grateful for. Accept the imperfections and encourage the positive momentum. Their time is not worth less than yours. If you can do it better, do so. Otherwise, quit deriding them.

Originally posted by Philippines
Phage, what do you know about the AIRS satellite in general? It looks like it tracks Co2 from IR? From the site, I am a bit confused by this statement:

Infrared also has an important role in understanding clouds. In particular, the hyperspectral infrared is particularly good at detecting and characterizing cirrus clouds. These clouds have a tendency of providing a negative feedback (warming effect) since they radiate at a lower temperature and are not as effective in shielding solar radiation.

So when I look at cirrus clouds, the look a lot like sheets of clouds. They provide a negative feedback?

While the current trend looks to be a positive feedback loop for warming?

For people wanting to dig deep, visit the AIRS website at JPL/NASA. AIRS stands for the "Atmospheric Infrared Sounder", and it is a satellite in space measuring Co2 and water vapor levels around the planet, since 2002.

I am still reading more about what else it monitors and trying to find some of their products. However, when you visit the "Climate" page [here], the website clearly states:

Most of the warming caused by carbon dioxide does not come directly from carbon dioxide, but from amplifying feedbacks. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas whose amount in the atmosphere increases with temperature. This makes its feedback particularly important.

Scientists using AIRS data have removed most of the uncertainty about the future role of water vapor. Temperature and water vapor observations have corroborated climate model predictions that rising carbon dioxide levels will lead to warming and increased water vapor. The increased water vapor greenhouse effect will roughly double the warming effect of carbon dioxide alone.

And then later down the page, it seems the folks at JPL are saying that Cirrus clouds, which can be mistaken as contrail sheets and other "conspiracy" terms like chemtrails, are providing a "negative feedback (warming effect)" -- what? That makes no sense. Positive feedbacks lead to warming, not negative feedbacks. These "cirrus clouds" should help COOL the planet, not warm it, as I understand it.

Clouds also play a very important role in climate science. Solar reflective sensing instruments such as MODIS, GOES and MISR provide vital information on the cloud shortwave response to the climate system. Cloudsat, CALIPSO and CALIOP provide exceptional cloud profiles and phase information. Infrared also has an important role in understanding clouds. In particular, the hyperspectral infrared is particularly good at detecting and characterizing cirrus clouds. These clouds have a tendency of providing a negative feedback (warming effect) since they radiate at a lower temperature and are not as effective in shielding solar radiation.

To back this up, even a pubmed document seems to think positive feedback leads to warming:

NIH.GOV - Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming.

Very strange things going on, I may just end up making a thread of all this stuff compiled.

reply to post by Philippines

And then later down the page, it seems the folks at JPL are saying that Cirrus clouds, which can be mistaken as contrail sheets and other "conspiracy" terms like chemtrails, are providing a "negative feedback (warming effect)" -- what? That makes no sense. Positive feedbacks lead to warming, not negative feedbacks. These "cirrus clouds" should help COOL the planet, not warm it, as I understand it.

I was working on a reply earlier but had to leave. High clouds (cirrus and contrails) do reduce incoming shortwave infrared but at the same time they absorb and re-emit (reflect) outgoing longwave infrared. They produce a net increase in radiative forcing.

The term negative feedback is not the same as negative forcing and it gets kind of confusing. Negative feedback means that small effects in a process causes that process to decrease. In this case, I think it is saying that the negative feedback (the cooling effect) is there but it is overpowered by the warming effect, resulting in a net warming effect. It is a horribly worded paragraph. I grant you that.

For reference:
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Phage


Would links to articles such as ENASA satellite finds Earth's clouds are getting lower help out?

It really makes a person think. Can we trust that those who create the models are able to distinguish positive feedback from the negative? I still question so much.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines

 

And then later down the page, it seems the folks at JPL are saying that Cirrus clouds, which can be mistaken as contrail sheets and other "conspiracy" terms like chemtrails, are providing a "negative feedback (warming effect)" -- what? That makes no sense. Positive feedbacks lead to warming, not negative feedbacks. These "cirrus clouds" should help COOL the planet, not warm it, as I understand it.

I was working on a reply earlier but had to leave. High clouds (cirrus and contrails) do reduce incoming shortwave infrared but at the same time they absorb and re-emit (reflect) outgoing longwave infrared. They produce a net increase in radiative forcing.

The term negative feedback is not the same as negative forcing and it gets kind of confusing. Negative feedback means that small effects in a process causes that process to decrease. In this case, I think it is saying that the negative feedback (the cooling effect) is there but it is overpowered by the warming effect, resulting in a net warming effect. It is a horribly worded paragraph. I grant you that.

For reference:
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

edit on 3/10/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the link, it helped explain a lot. The picture was nice too =)

For the article on JPL about AIRS and Climate Science, I don't see the term "negative forcing" anywhere on the page.

Negative feedback means that small effects in a process causes that process to decrease.

Agreed, just like positive feedback would cause the process to increase. And in a positive feedback loop, to increase exponentially until resources are exhausted and the loop should stop, correct?

It looks to me like the AIRS Climate page is either a typo or mistake? It should be positive feedback (warmer).

However, cirrus clouds are water vapor, and the article is about water vapor and co2 contributing to warming.

Originally posted by WillowWisp
reply to post by Phage

 

Would links to articles such as ENASA satellite finds Earth's clouds are getting lower help out?

It really makes a person think. Can we trust that those who create the models are able to distinguish positive reinforcement from the negative? I still question so much.

edit on 10-3-2013 by WillowWisp because: (no reason given)

Interesting stuff, thanks for that link. Their graph showing the anomalous cloud height is also interesting how it drops in 2007. Something happened in 2007 that really affected the climate dramatically.

From the article you linked is the image below. I added the red line at 2007:



From my previous post, notice 2007 here too:

Well the government knows the severity of the climate situation according to this little nugget. And it seems they also are aware of the timeline. If they are implementing policies like this Admiral is saying, then it leads me to think that the rest of government isn't being entirely forthright with the masses. Then again, they wouldn't dare, the panic would be impossible to manage.

Check it out: Chief of US Pacific forces calls climate biggest worry

Some key quotes (emphasis mine):

America’s top military officer in charge of monitoring hostile actions by North Korea, escalating tensions between China and Japan, and a spike in computer attacks traced to China provides an unexpected answer when asked what is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region: climate change.

Locklear said his Hawaii-based headquarters — which is assigned more than 400,00 military and civilian personnel and is responsible for operations from California to India, is working with Asian nations to stockpile supplies in strategic locations and planning a major exercise for May with nearly two dozen countries to practice the “what-ifs.”

“The ice is melting and sea is getting higher,” Locklear said, noting that 80 percent of the world’s population lives within 200 miles of the coast. “I’m into the consequence management side of it. I’m not a scientist, but the island of Tarawa in Kiribati, they’re contemplating moving their entire population to another country because [it] is not going to exist anymore.”

“We have interjected into our multilateral dialogue – even with China and India – the imperative to kind of get military capabilities aligned [for] when the effects of climate change start to impact these massive populations,” he said. “If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.’’

So why would this guy give a hoot about what isn't "supposed" to happen for centuries and implementing a policy environment for such a scenario RIGHT NOW?

Because those are his orders. I doubt very much he is a rogue Admiral except for the fact that he probably shouldn't have let the cat out of the bag the way he just did...

reply to post by Vexatious Vex


Ha!!! That article reminds me of the future map of America.

Originally posted by Vexatious Vex
Well the government knows the severity of the climate situation according to this little nugget. And it seems they also are aware of the timeline. If they are implementing policies like this Admiral is saying, then it leads me to think that the rest of government isn't being entirely forthright with the masses. Then again, they wouldn't dare, the panic would be impossible to manage.

Check it out: Chief of US Pacific forces calls climate biggest worry

Some key quotes (emphasis mine):

America’s top military officer in charge of monitoring hostile actions by North Korea, escalating tensions between China and Japan, and a spike in computer attacks traced to China provides an unexpected answer when asked what is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region: climate change.

Locklear said his Hawaii-based headquarters — which is assigned more than 400,00 military and civilian personnel and is responsible for operations from California to India, is working with Asian nations to stockpile supplies in strategic locations and planning a major exercise for May with nearly two dozen countries to practice the “what-ifs.”

“The ice is melting and sea is getting higher,” Locklear said, noting that 80 percent of the world’s population lives within 200 miles of the coast. “I’m into the consequence management side of it. I’m not a scientist, but the island of Tarawa in Kiribati, they’re contemplating moving their entire population to another country because [it] is not going to exist anymore.”

“We have interjected into our multilateral dialogue – even with China and India – the imperative to kind of get military capabilities aligned [for] when the effects of climate change start to impact these massive populations,” he said. “If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.’’

So why would this guy give a hoot about what isn't "supposed" to happen for centuries and implementing a policy environment for such a scenario RIGHT NOW?

Because those are his orders. I doubt very much he is a rogue Admiral except for the fact that he probably shouldn't have let the cat out of the bag the way he just did...

edit on 10-3-2013 by Vexatious Vex because: Editing

That's a gem of an article, thanks for posting that. Really! He isn't saying anything about China/Japan/North Korea/MidEast. Nope. The climate is changing. And there is enough concern for him to have orders to be concerned about this. That means his bosses know something is up and are ordering him to be prepared, "in case." This is the guy in charge of the US Pacific military operations, that has weight.

It makes things come into perspective when about 10% of land mass on Earth is above 1000m, including places like Denver, Colorado, and the recent military/private government construction going on there.

Maybe the "wars" and other mainstream media manipulated conflicts and everything else on TV is a distraction from true runaway global warming.

I encourage everyone to listen to nearly 30 minutes of info to really make you think and research more: