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

This article states that methane is at record levels in the Arctic. Here you go Phage, tear this article apart as it contradicts your claims of trace amounts of methane levels in the atmosphere.

Record methane levels for the Arctic in early March

reply to post by Rezlooper

Here you go Phage, tear this article apart as it contradicts your claims of trace amounts of methane levels in the atmosphere.

The peak level was 2237 ppb. That's 0.0002237%. Gosh, all it would take is a concentration more than 22,000 times that to be combustible.

0.0002237% is a trace amount.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

Here you go Phage, tear this article apart as it contradicts your claims of trace amounts of methane levels in the atmosphere.

The peak level was 2237 ppb. That's 0.0002237%. Gosh, all it would take is a concentration more than 22,000 times that to be combustible.

0.0002237% is a trace amount.

I'm not talking what's combustible here...I'm talking about what amount is enough to begin trapping the sun's heat? When is it enough to start a warming trend?

Huge amounts are already being released and a rapid buildup of atmospheric methane is coming. Permafrost in the arctic lakes is currently holding back 10 times more methane than we have in the global atmosphere today. And the permafrost is thawing. Combustibility is not what matters, at least with methane, it the positive feedback warming loops.

Runaway global warming-a climate catastrophe in the making

Note this article sites information from another article published in 2008. Nearly five years ago.

Arctic scientists discover new global warming threat as melting permafrost releases millions of tons of a gas 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. Preliminary findings suggest that massive deposits of subsea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats.

But now we know (see news item, below) that the hydrates emit into the atmosphere in large amounts at just today's warming of 0.8° C. If the hydrates break up, they will float to the surface in solid form and from there emit all their methane into the atmosphere.

The warming of an Arctic current over the last 30 years has triggered the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from methane hydrate stored in the sediment beneath the seabed. Scientists at the National Oceanography Centre Southampton working in collaboration with researchers from the University of Birmingham, Royal Holloway London and IFM-Geomar in Germany have found that more than 250 plumes of bubbles of methane gas are rising from the seabed of the West Spitsbergen continental margin in the Arctic, in a depth range of 150 to 400 metres.

Professor Tim Minshull, Head of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science based at that the National Oceanography Centre, says: "Our survey was designed to work out how much methane might be released by future ocean warming; we did not expect to discover such strong evidence that this process has already started."

While most of the methane currently released from the seabed is dissolved in the seawater before it reaches the atmosphere, methane seeps are episodic and unpredictable and periods of more vigorous outflow of methane into the atmosphere are possible. Furthermore, methane dissolved in the seawater contributes to ocean acididfication.

It is now clear that the Arctic permafrost holds many more times the amount of carbon than had been estimated and so would release enormous amounts of methane with rapid thawing.

There is no question about this being the greatest single threat to humanity because it results in the release of huge amounts of additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, driving all climate change impacts harder and faster.

All the evidence indicates that humanity would not be able to survive runaway global heating, nor would most of the rest of life on Earth.

James Hansen, NASA's top world climate expert, has been warning about this for years, and so has the world's leading physicist, Stephen Hawking. James Hansen has been warning that there is a threshold of GHG concentrations at which the planet moves totally beyond our control to mitigate global climate change. This has to be avoided at any and all costs.

As the ice disappears, the cooling region (caused by the albedo effect (reflection of light from white surfaces, which reduces the amount of heat radiated into the atmosphere) is replaced by the dark open ocean (and exposed land) that absorbs heat. This sudden change of climate could be catastrophic for agriculture in the Northern Hemisphere. It will boost the global warming of the planet—in the order of another 1° C. The switch from albedo cooling to exposed ocean warming will boost the global warming of the planet. There no published estimate of the additional global warming from the loss of Arctic albedo. Prof. Peter Wadhams thinks the increase will be 20%, or in the order of another 1° C by 2100.

reply to post by Rezlooper

I'm not talking what's combustible here...I'm talking about what amount is enough to begin trapping the sun's heat?

No. You claimed that the article contradicts my "claim" that methane is a trace gas. Remember? Methane is a trace gas.

When is it enough to start a warming trend?

Over a small area at low altitudes? I don't know.

reply to post by SteveR

Combustibility is not what matters, at least with methane, it the positive feedback warming loops.

But the OP claims that methane is resulting in mass kills and mysterious explosions. That takes pretty high concentrations.

reply to post by Rezlooper

Yes. Arctic methane is of concern in global warming.
What does that have to do with sinkholes, mass kills, and mysterious explosions?

Originally posted by Jana12
Rezlooper - Thank you so much for the info ... very interesting.

This is not within my area of expertise (I am a Psychologist and work with mentally-ill people)

In and out in a flash there Jana. Rather dubious that a Psychologist would dare make a diagnosis based on this thread and on a particular posters posts. Or indeed make a diagnosis (Or even hint at one) over the internet.

I've read the thread from start to finish, and I'm not seeing what your seeing. Saying that, I'm not a Psychologist either

reply to post by Phage


As I pointed out earlier, small increases in the warming of deep oceans, means increased pressure on the continents. Multiply a tiny increase in PSI over thousands of square miles and that is a lot of pressure.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Phage

 

As I pointed out earlier, small increases in the warming of deep oceans, means increased pressure on the continents. Multiply a tiny increase in PSI over thousands of square miles and that is a lot of pressure.

So you're saying a blimp inflated to 10 psi would have more pressure than a beach ball at 10 psi?

Interesting.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


I'm saying that if you apply 10 psi to a surface of a 1,000 sq inches, you get 10,000 pounds of force pushing that surface, as opposed to 10 psi applied to 10 sq inches, which would only give you 100 pounds of force.

Basic hydraulics. You should have paid attention to science back in grade school.

reply to post by poet1b

I'm saying that if you apply 10 psi to a surface of a 1,000 sq inches, you get 10,000 pounds of force pushing that surface, as opposed to 10 psi applied to 10 sq inches, which would only give you 100 pounds of force.

Still equal pressure, so what's your point?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Psi might be equal, but force is not equal.

Clearly basic mechanics is way beyond your understanding.

Compared to what?

reply to post by Phage


Any statistics you deem reliable.

So now it's not the crust but the core which is unstable?

Could they not go hand in hand?

That doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense that explanations saying the same thing with each one across the globe may not be the same EVERY time? If it doesn't make sense to you, fine. Remember we are not YOU..... you are unique.

"I never said there was but one explanation. I said the contrary."

You said this:

"How do you explain all the booms across the world? The "experts" can't seem to figure it out"

All the booms...can't figure it out.

Um... maybe you need a break from ATS. lol "IT" meaning the explanation or lack thereof for ALL the booms being heard and felt worldwide. You are grasping here and its tiresome.

I don't know what you are referring to with that statement.

See? Why don't you know? It's simple..... again.... maybe a breather is needed because your brain is overloaded my dear sweet Phage. xoxox

I was saying you think there is one explanation for ALL the sink holes worldwide.

Hear what? A sonic boom? Yes. It was a very brief and distinctive event.

So if you heard the "sonic boom" again you would know what exactly??

In all cases?

The ones being reported to have no claims of causation. There are many! Glad you know though. You should call the news stations and newspapers. They would love to know, seeing as the experts in the field do not.

I already did that and none if it has anything to do with a single cause like methane or the Earth's crust becoming more unstable or the Earth's core becoming unstable.

Link please? I have not read where you are stating what you think. Either way, do you think you could ever be wrong and someone else right? Just because you do not understand how something could be doesn't make it so.

Correction. The OP is stringing random events together with speculation, confirmation bias, and arguments from ignorance in order to support his "theory".

Correcting my perception? lol OK. I'm not surprised.

So your theory of the cause must not be speculative in nature? Bias? Arguments from ignorance? You could not be ignorant for a moment I guess. You set yourself on such a pedestal when it comes to your intellect, I get that, we all do. Methane may not be a cause but its worth pondering and thinking for yourself rather than taking some person's word for it without investigation. Free thinking is good and why some of you on here hinder others from doing so is beyond me..... but.... I am unique too.

Here Op you will find a research paper from 2009. www.agu.org...

I copied a few excerpts for ya.

Organic matter clearly accumulates in these hypoxic habitats. Thick, black, organic­ rich sinkhole sediments are 5–16% carbon by dry weight. In the lower sedi­ ment depths (>8 centimeters), methano­ genic archaea reduce carbon dioxide and produce methane. Sediment profiles display high methane concentrations at depth and lower concentrations near the sediment sur­ face. This suggests that methane is being consumed at the sediment­ water interface by methanotrophic bacteria. An inventory of δ 13C signatures of organic matter in various reservoirs of the ecosys­ tem suggests that sinkholes are sinks for carbon fixed by phytoplankton, and not for carbon fixed by the cyanobacterial mats. Indeed, cyanobacterial mats may facilitate pelagic carbon burial and preservation in sinkhole habitats:

Overall, biomass and activity of sinkhole microbes are quite high compared with the surrounding lake ecosystem. Measurements of microbial biomass, rates of carbon incor­ poration, and DNA sequence diversity all indicate that submerged sinkhole ecosys­ tems are hot spots of microbiogeochemical diversity and activity

At present, there is a poor understand­ ing of groundwater flow into the sinkhole ecosystems because there has been no sys­ tematic search for areas of groundwater dis­ charge within the Laurentian Great Lakes. Details of the source, age, and flow rates of the emerging groundwater are unknown, as is whether such flow is continuous or variable in time, or how geographically iso­ lated sinkhole ecosystems are colonized by similar microbial communities. Further exploration of these underwater ecosys­ tems presents new and exciting opportu­ nities for microbial and geochemical stud­ ies that have the potential for discovering novel organisms, biochemical compounds, and physiological processes.

If you have already read through these sites, my apologies. My time is limited, unfortunately, to be able to keep up with the thread.
www.sciencedirect.com...

www.nature.com...

These molecules act as fuel for methanogenesis, or the creation of methane gas by sediment Archaea. Some of this methane gas is lost from the system as it bubbles up and escapes to the atmosphere. Along the purple carpet, finger-like protrusions sometimes occur (Figure 1a). These fingers are formed when methane gas produced by sediment Archaea becomes trapped under the fibrous microbial mat.Modern Sinkholes as Analog of Proterozoic Seas (~2.5-0.5 bya)

Sinkholes can tell us of our past?

What can sinkholes tell us about the past? Could modern day sinkhole microbes hold clues to the early oxygenation of the Earth? Sinkholes harbor the types of cyanobacteria that mediated dramatic global changes on ancient Earth, including perhaps the greatest turning point in the history of Earth and life, the oxygenation of the atmosphere. The "great oxidation event" (GOE) ~2.4 bya, set the stage for the evolution of complex life, including plants and animals (Figure 6). Cyanobacteria are thought to have driven the GOE by evolving oxygenic photosynthesis, a metabolism that consumes H2O and produces O2 as a waste product. Prior to the innovation of oxygenic photosynthesis, anoxygenic photosynthesis predominated-instead of being fueled by H2O, it is fueled by other electron donors such as H2 or H2S. The balance between these two forms of photosynthesis determined oxygen levels in the oceans and the atmosphere as follows. Anoxygenic photosynthesis (and chemosynthesis) is a net sink for oxygen because it fixes carbon without producing oxygen-much of this organic carbon will fuel microbial respiration that then consumes oxygen. On the other hand, oxygenic photosynthesis produces both organic carbon and oxygen-if some of the organic carbon gets buried through sedimentation, oxygen accumulates in the atmosphere.

Not sure if this link will work. www.google.com...=onepage&q=methane%20and%2 0sinkholes&f=false "In-situ method of producing oil shale and gas (methane) hydrates, on-shore ..."

Waters in the deepest sinkholes are reducing and warm with measurable levels of carbon dioxide and methane and anoxic conditions. These systems host a diverse microbial habitat that may contain new kingdoms of archea and bacteria identified by DNA sequencing; it is possible that unique microorganisms may have evolved in the sealed sinkholes. These studies suggest that long-term models of deep karstic systems may have to extend wider and deeper than is commonly considered.

gsa.confex.com...

The research into sink holes are ongoing, just as what role methane plays is ongoing.

Never stop learning and never think you have found the answer to questions as the possibilities are endless. We learn something new daily and so the research of such continues and it should.

More links below..

www.osti.gov...

Surveys were conducted across two Weeks Island sinkholes, several mapped anomalous zones in the salt, and over the SPR repository site and its perimeter. Samples were also taken at other south Louisiana salt dome locations for comparative purposes. Notable results from these studies are that elevated levels of hydrogen and methane (1) were positively associated with anomalous gassy or shear zones in the salt dome(s) and (2) are also associated with suspected salt fracture (dilatant) zones over the edges of the SPR repository. Significantly elevated areas of hydrogen, methane, plus some ethane, were found over anomalous shear zones in the salt, particularly in a location over high pressure gas pockets in the salt, identified in the mine prior to SPR operations. Limited stable isotope ratio analyses, SIRA, were also conducted and determined that methane samples were of petrogenic origin, not biogenic.

Below is the final report in deep water port project in Florida.

www.safmc.net...

Here is a book... about methane in the ocean...you may review.. link.springer.com...

gsa.confex.com...

www.sciencedirect.com... "Determining the origin of carbon dioxide and methane in the gaseous emissions of the San Vittorino plain (central Italy) by means of stable isotopes and noble gas analysis"

reply to post by MamaJ

I was saying you think there is one explanation for ALL the sink holes worldwide.

Can you point out where I said that?

Bias? Arguments from ignorance? You could not be ignorant for a moment I guess

Confirmation bias. Selective acceptance and rejection of evidence.
www.sciencedaily.com...

Arguments from ignorance. The concept that lack of data supports one's position. If I am ignorant on a matter, if I don't know what caused an explosion, I do not use that ignorance to support my position.
www.fallacyfiles.org...

reply to post by MamaJ

It's nice that you present valid avenues of research. That's a lot more than the OP offers however nothing there really indicates that there has been a significant increase in methane levels caused by sinkholes, or vice versa. They explain that biological activity and geothermal activity produces methane. That's sort of well known.

More links below..

From the first one:

Gases in the near-surface soil originate predominantly from the oil, from petrogenic sources within the salt, or from surface microbial activity.

www.osti.gov...

Below is the final report in deep water port project in Florida.

Which has exactly what to do with the topic?

Here is a book... about methane in the ocean...you may review

You linked us to a book review?

"Determining the origin of carbon dioxide and methane in the gaseous emissions of the San Vittorino plain (central Italy) by means of stable isotopes and noble gas analysis"

Isotope ratios of CH4 (δ13C-CH4 -6.1‰ to -22.7‰; δD-CH4 -9‰ to -129‰) show that CH4 does not appear to be related to mantle or magma degassing, but it is the product of thermal degradation of organic matter (i.e. thermogenic origin) and/or the reduction of CO2 (i.e. geothermal origin). Most of the samples appear to be affected by secondary microbial oxidation processes.

www.sciencedirect.com...

reply to post by Phage


Ignorance comes from many things and one of them is from not understanding a subject thoroughly.

You may want to read the links I gave in full before you summarize. Maybe not... up to you..... but my position is the same, regardless.

You can deem the OP's intellect in a way that I do not have to agree with. So be it.

I would still like for you to link me to your conclusion and or theory ~ speculation ~ as I am interested.

The experts in the field would love to know as well.