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

reply to post by Rezlooper


Thanks for the link. I have been wondering when the latest information would be coming out on this situation. This is really bad news. As predicted by many, this situation is getting worse, essentially acting like a lit fire, it has become self generating. The result is acceleration of global warming.

Here is a link you might have seen.

news.discovery.com...

As the Feb. 8 storm passed over the North Pole, it created a strong offshore ice motion, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). The fracturing progressed through relatively weak, thin, year-old pack ice during February, as seen in a series of images from the NSIDC.

The overall February ice extent remains below average, in part due to warmer-than-average temperatures, the NSIDC said. The average sea ice cover in February was 5.66 million square miles (14.66 million square kilometers), the seventh-lowest on record for the month.

What ice has formed is very thin, and from earlier reports, even the ice that lasted through last summer was very thin, so odds are fairly good that we could see an ice Free Arctic ocean this year. There will still be lots of ice floating around, waves could very well break up all or most of the large sheets.

reply to post by MamaJ

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

Ignorance has a single source (lack of information, willful or otherwise) and understanding has nothing to do with it. One can be well informed (and thus not ignorant) and still not understand.

You may want to read the links I gave in full before you summarize.

You linked abstracts, a book review and an sealife survey. You yourself provided no hint about the relevance of any of them.

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

I haven't said anything about the OP's intellect.

I would still like for you to link me to your conclusion and or theory

About what? The "mysterious" explosions? The "booms"? The sinkholes? How could I have a single conclusion about a bunch of unrelated and individual events? How could I have any conclusion at all with insufficient information about those events.

Sinkholes have various causes. The booms have various causes. The explosions have various causes.

reply to post by Rezlooper


My position thus far on global warming is this...

The climate is changing as it always does. Its changing. One cannot really say it is global warming and we are all doomed because the Earth knows what to do to maintain.

When the planet warms, volcanic activity rises to cool the planet.

The methane and other gases in our atmosphere and or oceans may contribute to unknown causes, however the Earth will stabilize herself in the way she has done since inception. Maybe I am naive and have too much faith in the system by which she has maintained all these years.

What bothers me is when man tries to correct it himself. In ignorance he can do more harm than good. If we try to correct an issue "we think" is going on, we may make matters worse and not allow the Planet to self correct. We could actually be making things worse to a point where we find our self in a mini ice age. lol

That right there would suck. The thing is, in my opinion. we are working on many things and solving many puzzles and depending on what you read and who you talk with, there is always a different answer.

Which Scientist do you want to believe? Take your pick. There is always a bias present per the agenda.

reply to post by Phage


That methane levels have continued to rise during the winter months is bad enough. This means even in the winter there are considerable amounts of methane bubbling up out of the arctic.

If high up in the atmosphere these levels are increasing by this much, about 25% over global average, what are the concentration levels above the KM wide plumes bubbling out of the Arctic continental shelf?

Odds are high that we could be seeing things this summer no one had ever imagined.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MamaJ

 

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

Ignorance has a single source and understanding has nothing to do with it. One can be well informed (and thus not ignorant) and still not understand.

One can be well informed but if he does not understand he is ignorant to the info. Im not going to continue to argue with you about perceptions of definitions. Geez!

You may want to read the links I gave in full before you summarize.

You linked abstracts, a book review and an sealife survey. You yourself provided no hint about the relevance of any of them.

Yes, I did. Also, I would rather someone read and understand for them self, than be spoon fed what I want them to know. I have that right and thats the position I took. Why have another expectation?

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

I haven't said anything about the OP's intellect.

Yes, you did. But, I am not going back and forth with you for hours on silly things.

I would still like for you to link me to your conclusion and or theory

About what? The "mysterious" explosions? The "booms"? The sinkholes? How could I have a single conclusion about a bunch of unrelated and individual events? How could I have any conclusion at all with insufficient information about those events.

Sinkholes have various causes. The booms have various causes. The explosions have various causes.

You said you explained your position already (speculation) and now offer a bunch of excuses as to why you cannot do it again here and now. OK.... Maybe you really don't have any explanations or want to speculate the causes for each. I didn't ask you if they were related. I didn't assume you narrowed the issues to a single cause. I just asked you to speculate what you think the causes of each are.

No big deal. I really don't care what you think anymore. Our back and forth has exhausted itself.

reply to post by MamaJ

I just asked you to speculate what you think the causes of each are.

You said this:

I would still like for you to link me to your conclusion and or theory

.
Not a question about causes. A question about a conclusion or theory. Singular, not plural.

I gave you the explanations for sinkholes which were contained in the articles you linked.
The possible explanations for booms were provided.
Explanations for "mysterious" explosions were provided.

reply to post by poet1b

That methane levels have continued to rise during the winter months is bad enough. This means even in the winter there are considerable amounts of methane bubbling up out of the arctic.

Over the East Arctic levels dropped significantly. At lower latitudes levels also dropped.

If high up in the atmosphere these levels are increasing by this much, about 25% over global average, what are the concentration levels above the KM wide plumes bubbling out of the Arctic continental shelf?

I don't know where you get that 25% from but the methane measurements are not from high up in the atmosphere, they from the lower troposphere. As I said, levels over the East Arctic (Siberia, where the bubbles were coming from) dropped significantly during the winter and were lower than they were the previous year.

reply to post by Phage


This below is the first time in this thread I asked you to speculate.

Speculate for a moment and say what you think it could be.

IT was meant to mean (in case you are confused) causation. If you think the cause is plural, state THEM. I would rather have a meaningful conversation than one that is not. I don't like to argue, especially about silly non important things such as perception. One where you would state what you speculate the causes to be. It seems as if this is something you would rather not do. Why not just say you don't want to?

You quoted this

I would still like for you to link me to your conclusion and or theory

But there was more... lol

Sinkholes have various causes. The booms have various causes. The explosions have various causes.

reply to post by Phage


What are they? Name the various causes.

reply to post by Phage


No, arctic methane increased.

arctic-news.blogspot.com...

Above image shows dramatic increases of methane levels above the Arctic Ocean in the course of January 2013 in a large area north of Norway.

Any areas where methane is increasing in the winter is a serious issue.

Do you have any links to back your claims?

reply to post by MamaJ

Sinkholes:
Along with man made problems like broken water pipes:
www.sinkholes.com...


Booms:
Sonic booms, distant thunder, seismic activity, exploding transformers...


Explosions:
Gas leaks...mostly.

reply to post by poet1b

No, arctic methane increased.

Not over Siberia.

Do you have any links to back your claims?

The same one you used.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MamaJ

 

Sinkholes:
Along with man made problems:
www.sinkholes.com...


Booms:
Sonic booms, distant thunder, seismic activity, exploding transformers...


Explosions:
Gas leaks...mostly.

Thank you.

We will have to agree to disagaree on behalf of the "booms" though.

reply to post by Phage


But methane levels did increase over Norway.

This is very serious. If the pattern continues then soon they will be rising over Siberia in the winter.

What do you think methane concentrations are 10 meters above these plumes.

Would they ignite like in the videos?

reply to post by poet1b

If the pattern continues then soon they will be rising over Siberia in the winter.

Doubtful. Siberia has entirely different conditions from those of the West Arctic.

What do you think methane concentrations are 10 meters above these plumes.

The undersea plumes? Not much more than that of the general area. The methane dissolves before it reaches the surface.

Plumes from the pockmarks rise between 875 to 925m above the seafloor to a final water depth of 325 to 275m, respectively.

meetingorganizer.copernicus.org...

reply to post by Phage


Do you agree with this statement?

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.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

I've been all through that with him. It started with pointing out that rising sea levels because of thermal expansion results in lower density which doesn't translate to higher pressure.

I also did the calcs assuming that there actually would be an increase in pressure. At a depth of 4,000 meters, over a period of 100 years, the corresponding increase in pressure (due to an increase in depth) would be 0.0004%. An increase applied gradually and evenly.

reply to post by Phage


Doesn't titan have methane on it?

reply to post by Phage


Norway is west Arctic? Since when?

Siberia is more isolated from the Atlantic, but it has a much larger continental shelf, witha lot more methane. But hey, if you can define this difference better, please do.

Your quote is an excerpt about the plumes it doesnt say that the gas doesnt reach the surface, only comments on the observed field. The article says nothing about the numerous observed plumes of methane bubbling out of the surface. Nice try, but those cheap debate tactics won't work hear.

Oh yeah, I have already posted twice explaining how your claims about how tiny the changes are is wrong. Take another shot if you like. It seems your understanding of hydraulics is a bad as your supporter.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by poet1b

 

If the pattern continues then soon they will be rising over Siberia in the winter.

Doubtful. Siberia has entirely different conditions from those of the West Arctic.

What do you think methane concentrations are 10 meters above these plumes.

The undersea plumes? Not much more than that of the general area. The methane dissolves before it reaches the surface.

Plumes from the pockmarks rise between 875 to 925m above the seafloor to a final water depth of 325 to 275m, respectively.

meetingorganizer.copernicus.org...

I've cited numerous articles that show these plumes should normally dissolve before they reach the surface but many of them aren't. And when they do release there is enough in the local concentration if it reaches 5% or higher to have an explosive mix. These plumes may spread more evenly once they reach higher into the troposphere but at less than 10 meters all they need is an ignition source for a very loud explosion.

Also, I've said it before, how can you be so sure that these methane plumes aren't rising into the stratosphere and the mesosphere when we have no way of testing the air in those levels? There may be much more than trace amounts in those levels and you nor I know for sure.