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

reply to post by Phage


It's clear that your mind is made up, Phage. You're an unconvinceable. No amount of evidence would convince you. So, that means that you're basically the still-walking-around equivalent of a 'walker', like from The Walking Dead. If you ever man up and cough up an alternative explanation, I'll pay some attention. Hasn't happened yet, so I'm thinking it won't be happening at all.

For the record though: when you participate, however lacking your participation is in anything meaningful, I get more traffic! That means you being here doing your thing wakes more people up. And so, you're serving my purpose, even if your purpose is exactly the opposite. That's kinda cool, in my opinion. So hang around, keep on truckin'! I'm liking what you're doing!

reply to post by JonnyMnemonic

No amount of evidence would convince you.

Incorrect. It takes evidence to convince me. You have none. You have arguments to ignorance and confirmation bias. Sort of like this guy.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JonnyMnemonic

 

No amount of evidence would convince you.

Incorrect. It takes evidence to convince me. You have none. You have arguments to ignorance and confirmation bias. Sort of like this guy.

edit on 3/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

So if by evidence, why would you dismiss the clathrate gun hypothesis which he asked as his question?

What in particular about that hypothesis makes his evidence stated as "none"?

reply to post by Philippines

What in particular about that hypothesis makes his evidence stated as "none"?

His claims that "mysterious" explosions are caused by rogue clouds of methane and/or hydrogen sulfide.

His claims that animal die offs of unknown causes are caused by rogue clouds of methane and/or hydrogen sulfide.

His refusal to accept explanations for these "mysterious" explosions and die offs that don't fit his hypothesis.

His cherry picking (and apparent fabrication) of earthquake data to support his hypothesis.


I don't dismiss the clathrate gun hypothesis (nor do I accept it). But this conglomeration of arguments to ignorance and confirmation bias is not evidence for it. It is not evidence at all.

So giant explosions in the skies in the last year, along with giant methane releases in the last year, and methane is highly flammable, and you can't see any correlation? Haha, you're a funny guy, Phage. Obtuse, sure, but funny!

reply to post by JonnyMnemonic

along with giant methane releases in the last year,

Methane release in the Arctic, yes. Giant? Not so sure about that. Large, yes.

methane is highly flammable

Yes, at concentration of 5%. Any evidence that those Arctic releases resulted in concentrations of 5%?
No?
I see. But since there were explosions the methane concentrations must have been that high. Is that how your reasoning works? It's called confirmation bias and in this case, circular reasoning.

reply to post by Phage


Actually, my reasoning works like this: propose explanation, see if observations fit (they do). See if anyone comes up with BETTER explanation. (Not yet.) That's science for ya right there. Hypothesize, predict, observe. Tweak as necessary, but I haven't seen much need for that. I'd really like someone to propose a better explanation that explains the otherwise unexplainable events, like especially for all those mass-groups of people dropping suddenly unconscious, often with a 'strange smell' mentioned, but alas, nobody has done so. So, with every day that passes, as things escalate, it appears more and more that I was correct. Hopefully someday someone will come up with a better explanation. That day is not today.

Now that you're here this morning, Phage, traffic is doing better. My thanks for that. I'd be waking people at like 60% of the speed without you as I am with you, so your efforts here are paying off nicely, and I am properly appreciative. I kinda NEED a foil like you, always have. I've noticed that over the last year, over and over. Me + naysayer = more people wake up. Me alone = kinda slow. I think it's because I don't use enough WTFs or OMGs and keep my tone calm, but that's just who I am.

reply to post by JonnyMnemonic

See if anyone comes up with BETTER explanation.

That is an argument to ignorance. Please, look it up.

That's science for ya right there.

No.
Science does not use arguments to ignorance. It uses actual evidence. You have no actual evidence, you have arguments to ignorance and you disregard evidence that contradicts your hypothesis.

reply to post by Phage


Why I thought all those scientists detecting hydrogen sulfide and methane in the air WAS evidence. It's at least evidence that there was hydrogen sulfide in the air in Kuwait City and in Southern California. And the scientists reporting the methane eruptions, their measurements are evidence that methane eruptions are occurring. There's plenty of evidence here. Sorry you're kinda blind. Makes you seem...kinda crazy, to dismiss these things. But whatever, if a crazy person helps me wake up more people, that's fine with me. Bring on the crazy, Phage-style!

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?

reply to post by JonnyMnemonic

Why I thought all those scientists detecting hydrogen sulfide and methane in the air WAS evidence.

Yup. That is evidence. Speculating that a car explosion was caused by methane is not. BTW, I'm still not sure why you keep talking about hydrogen sulfide releases and methane releases as if they were the same thing with the same cause. Can you explain that?

And the scientists reporting the methane eruptions, their measurements are evidence that methane eruptions are occurring.

Eruptions? Or releases?
An eruption would be a sudden event and implies a large amount of methane explosively escaping at one time. A release would be an escape of methane over a period of time. The rate of release would not necessarily have to be high.

reply to post by Phage


Sure, I can explain that. Obviously methane is being released because the frozen clathrate deposits are receiving heat that they previously did not. Thus the 'frothing' at the hundreds or thousands of kilometer-wide seeps in the north. Hotter waters ALSO results in anoxia, and 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, so they are obviously going to be expanding their territory as the environment becomes more to their liking. That problem may have begun quite some time ago, with the growing and spreading of the 'dead zones', as scientists have mentioned over the past several decades.

Also, as the Harvard and German geology team confirmed, in the past when the ice has melted, volcanism is a result. There are a lot of volcanoes erupting, now. And the ice IS melting. I mentioned the two subsurface volcanic eruptions, but those are just the ones we know about. But even ONE volcanic eruption will add large quantities of heat to the nearby waters, and if there are any clathrate deposits near there, they will dissociate. There was the pumice raft near Australia last year, from a subsurface volcanic eruption. And at the same time, scientists said that sharks were closing in because the ocean had heated up by 5 degrees Celsius. That is a HUUUUGE amount of heat. It's not like a 5-degree temp diff for AIR. Air is gas, the ocean is liquid, so it takes waaaay more heat to raise the ocean temps 5 degrees than it does air.

So, volcanic eruptions are obviously occurring, underwater. At least two. How many more, who knows, but the ice keeps melting, so there will be more, and there are surely others right now, but nobody has a camera on them 20,000 feet down on every square mile of the Earth. That heat will both enhance the growth environment for those ancient anaerobic bacteria AND help augment the melting of the methane. It doesn't have to happen in every area of the ocean to poison the atmosphere either. In fact, I did the math once, and it would take 528 cubic miles of GASEOUS hydrogen sulfide to create a 1000 ppm (lethal to humans) cover over the planet 8 feet thick and kill mostly everything. Around 90% of species went extinct in the Permian-Triassic extinction (95%+ died in the oceans). In liquid form, it would take just a fraction of that (liquid being denser). Biological processes can do that. Bacterial growth rates. As that Scientific American article I have linked shows, it appears they have done just that a number of times now.

Also, the methane will simply heat the planet up ITSELF. The hotter it gets, the less oxygen water holds, and the better the environment for those ancient anaerobic bacteria. One problem reinforces the other, and that problem then reinforces the other one, and on and on. Where's it end? I dunno. I guess once the bacteria have eaten everything they can possibly eat (and they will eat methane too, by the way), then their population will crash and oxygen-using life will restart. Could be a few million years for that though. I'd say 'don't hold your breath waiting for recovery' but, all things considered, maybe you should. Heh.

reply to post by Rezlooper


The difference is that his post doesn't polarize the discussion with abstract connections that do not relate.

I don't know how many times I have to say that it is the "All-Inclusiveness" of your additions to the science that turns people like myself away from the discussion.

AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

I don't know how many times I have to say that it is the "All-Inclusiveness" of your additions to the science that turns people like myself away from the discussion.

Well, we're only talking about things where the atmosphere is involved. But I think you will find that atmospheric problems ARE rather inclusive, affecting just about everything. Obviously nobody is contending that any effects are going to destroy orbiting satellites or anything - they're outside the atmosphere. Anything INSIDE the atmosphere will be affected by atmospheric changes, obviously. Or at least I would have thought that'd be obvious. Guess not!

reply to post by JonnyMnemonic


Why do you not understand that what you are saying concerning methane and its increasing concentration (no matter how small) does not validate every other connection you are making?

We are arguing your connections. Not Methane releases. Do you understand that?

And when we ask you about those connections, all you reply is that there is no "Better explanation".

That is not the scientific approach. Are you ingoring this or do you really not get it?

And this thread has not woke anyone up. Anyone who has read through it to the end will realize that you are not winning in this debate of science. In fact, you are coming off as short-sighted and ignoring relevant points people are asking.

Again, it is your connections that people are disputing. Not Methan itself.

Get it?

AAC

reply to post by JonnyMnemonic


Johnny, you previously said that I should keep an eye out for crazy people that will kill me from the methane plumes. People blowing up. Telephone poles bursting in flames. Cars igniting. Children collapsing. Marathon runners passing out. Birds falling from sky. Fish dying. etc...

These connections are what I am dispuiting. You mix these connections in with the theory like they are just as belonging as the science itself. That is a problem with science.

And then when someone has a problem with it, you say, where is a better expanation? That is just wrong.

AAC

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation


I 'get it' just fine. Hypothesize, predict, observe. That's science. I note the things that match the predictions. I explain the chemical reactions that would result in the events, when possible. I await a competing hypothesis that explains things better. So far, there is none. In the meantime, I'll keep on chugging and wakin' people up. Maybe one of THEM will have a better-explaining hypothesis for the otherwise unexplained events. Hopefully so. We shall see. Gettin' pretty exciting with all the fires and explosions and masses of people sickening and dropping unconscious, either way!

Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation

 

I 'get it' just fine. Hypothesize, predict, observe. That's science. I note the things that match the predictions. I explain the chemical reactions that would result in the events, when possible. I await a competing hypothesis that explains things better. So far, there is none. In the meantime, I'll keep on chugging and wakin' people up. Maybe one of THEM will have a better-explaining hypothesis for the otherwise unexplained events. Hopefully so. We shall see. Gettin' pretty exciting with all the fires and explosions and masses of people sickening and dropping unconscious, either way!

Of course you guys have made some mistakes. They are an essential part of the learning process. Thomas Edison knew this as witness this story about his creation of the light bulb.

The story goes that "Thomas Edison failed more than 1,000 times when trying to create the light bulb". (The story is often told as 5,000 or 10,000 times depending on the version.) When asked about it, Edison allegedly said, "I have not failed 1,000 times. I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT make a light bulb."

Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation

 

I await a competing hypothesis that explains things better.

You say this like there is supposed to be absolute answers for everything thing scientific. Just because someone doesn't offer a competing hypothesis doesn't mean yours is right. You understand that, right?

Does science fully understand Gravity or dark matter? Absolutely not.

Does that mean i can say that Dark Matter is really the dreams of humanity's subconscious populating in another dimension? Yes, i can say it. But it doesn't make it true no matter how many philosophies may loosely support such an idea.

You cannot do that. But I don't expect you to realize that because you are lost in love with your point of view.

Maybe one of THEM will have a better-explaining hypothesis for the otherwise unexplained events.

This is the most dynamic thing you have stated regarding your theory.

Gettin' pretty exciting with all the fires and explosions and masses of people sickening and dropping unconscious, either way!

This statement goes the distance in supporting my theory about your theory. You are in love with it.

Did you really say you're excited about people dropping dead?



You just lost those who were hanging on by a thread I would imagine.

AAC

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

And happykat is right - I make mistakes. Overall, things have been getting more accurate and predictive though, I think. Also, just postulate for a moment that I am correct, about everything. So, how would YOU go about proving it? Start with showing methane events, right? I am doing so. Show events where hydrogen sulfide is mentioned specifically, right? I am doing that. Document fires and explosions and don't trust government stats, lest they be corrupted, right? I am doing that. And so on. Seriously, if true, then the way I am proving it may be the ONLY possible way that people ever get the truth at all. The alternative would be the gubment gives you a snowjob until you're dead. So you should be glad I'm doing what I'm doing, even if you're not sure, just in CASE it's true.

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. So even if I'm just a news source for news that would otherwise go unnoticed by some, hey, that's cool with me. As the fires and explosions escalate, some of them may even look a little deeper and see that what I am saying IS not only true, but backed by sound science, and then they can go from there.

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. 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.

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.