Massive Methane LEAK in Arctic sea - the End is Nigh

How the hell would I know? I'm just here to bear witness to the event. I didn't make it happen, I don't like it, and I certainly don't control it. Mother Nature - the biogeochemical sulfur cycle of the Earth - will do as she wishes and at her own pace. But this IS the type of self-reinforcing event that feeds on itself, and if you postulate that 'they' are doing everything they can to mitigate the problem (and I believe that), then 'they' have reached the limits of what 'they' can do for us, and so we will bear the full brunt of every additional escalation.

Laugh all you want. These are real people dying though, every day. Our biosphere itself is dying off. I personally don't see much to laugh about there, but whatever toots your horn I guess.

"But this IS the type of self-reinforcing event that feeds on itself"

You mean an event powered by positive feedbacks? That is very rare in nature. Negative feedbacks dominate the natural world.

"Laugh all you want. These are real people dying though, every day."

Yep, real people die every day, but not from this.

"Our biosphere itself is dying off."

No it isn't. The biosphere is fine.

Again, you read too much GLP.

Welp, time will tell. I say watch the east coast. Yeah, those hundreds of people sickened in San Diego recently, and that family of four was found dead there, but even so, the gubment is spending a lot of time around DC training for HazMat, and mass casulaties, and how to quickly evacuate DC. And with that town's sewers exploding near there, and the 'rumbling' people are feeling near there...well, I'm gonna be watching the east coast closely. If the gubment is expecting danger, they probably have a reason, albeit one they're not telling us about.

Met a guy from NOAA last week who knew all the data concerning this continuing catastrophic situation in the arctic.

When I asked the potential ramifications. After a lengthy discussion of all the variables attributable now and in the future, like what hope there is? He said, "You Can Kiss Your Ass Goodbye," and walked away.

His knowledge and resume lend profound credibility to his parting words.........

Please is that true? Really?

I am very nominally famous when it comes to climate change/global warming. No, I won't hand out my name, but I have been read by tens of thousands of people.

A lot of the people at NOAA are idiots when it comes to climate. The same goes for NASA. They've been spouting their scaremongering BS for three decades now - and the younger ones actually believe it. The heads of their agencies go around getting arrested for their environmental activism.

Their predictions have always been tainted with extreme alarmism....probably because their funding has been directly tied to how scared they can make people.

I guess the government can only be trusted when they tell you what you want to hear.

its OK i launched a bottle rocket that way.

doom over.

Yeah, yeah, we know all that stuff. Personally, I don't think you can go around a planet, engaging it's climate envelope as we do without altering its composition. However, clever clogs, whats your take on this leak? Keep it reasonable free of anti-grant funding induced hysteria and lets hear your science.

I still think it's a great thread.

At least it's a topic that we can discuss without going for the jugular all the time. All these mysterious deaths concern me.

Thanks for the update.

They've had lot's of storms in Norway 100+ winds might have something to do with it maybe.

Last Edited by alexisj9 on 01/02/2012 05:18 PM

This was hardly what I expected or wished to hear.

When I asked about various tipping points etc., he said we had already passed many of them.

He was in no way an advocate of the current administration nor an endorser of their machinations to manipulate truth. He was extremely anti establishment and well aware of the manipulations there in. But he takes his work where he can get it as many scientists do.

I believed him completely, as I was just seeking valid corroboration for what I already knew and deduced.

This methane issue has been on the global warming roundtable of worst case scenarios for many years. And discussed and analyzed by the best of them. No one with valid credentials in atmospheric research would deny the major implications of the advent of such prorportions.

What about 10s of thousands of birds and 1000s of animal killed from methane gas in Northern Manitoba and southern Arctic?

I asked before and I guess I'll try and ask again.
What is your education regarding this topic?

I'm not asking who you are, where you live, what you look like - just your education. But, if you are going to admit that you are nominally famous then I question why you don't just post your findings that have been read by tens of thousands of people. If they have read them, why can't we?

Are you absolutely positive that it isn't YOU that is doing the role playing??

Not much is gonna get done however. The least of our problems would be the antipathy aroused whenever a scientist identifies a potential risk. The danger lies in the apathy our way of life has induced. These sorts of nebulous issues are incapable of being resolved. Who is going to sacrifice a life of mammon for a risk that is barely quantifiable, especially when the detractors have sealed the fate of many of these grant funded initiatives. I read this stuff out of some grim curiosity I guess....however, I am wasting my time for all it will do.

"Personally, I don't think you can go around a planet, engaging it's climate envelope as we do without altering its composition."

We've had very little impact on the composition of the atmosphere. We've affected the temperatures somewhat with land-use changes.

However, clever clogs, whats your take on this leak? Keep it reasonable free of anti-grant funding induced hysteria and lets hear your science.


My take is very simple. It is probably a natural phenomena. It will have zero effect on the climate or human life.

People discover natural events all the time and think they are novel and of course man-made (e.g. the ozone hole), when they've really happened many times in the past without anyone there to watch.

Indeed. However, I am not suggesting this is man-made. This is a natural event that has happened many times in the past without anyone there to watch. The oceans go anoxic, stagnate, belch H2S, which eats the ozone layer, allowing more heat in, which releases the methane, and most stuff dies by suffocation/poison or by being burned. This is simply the first time WE have been around for it, and it likely is a cyclical thing which would have happened whether we were here this time or not.

"When I asked about various tipping points etc., he said we had already passed many of them."

Yes, they've been squawking about tipping points for a while - never actually found one though.

"He was in no way an advocate of the current administration"

Most of them aren't. They think they should fundamentally alter our economy and impoverish the world based on their moronic computer models.

"I believed him completely, as I was just seeking valid corroboration for what I already knew and deduced."

And millions believed in "Hope and Change" too.

"This methane issue has been on the global warming roundtable of worst case scenarios for many years."

But for different reasons. They are worried about its greenhouse effect. Totally different set of bullshit.

"The oceans go anoxic"

And yet you have no proof of this happening.

"belch H2S"

Again, no measurements of this happening.

" which eats the ozone layer"

No measurements again.

"allowing more heat in"

UV actually, not that the ozone layer is being destroyed by such things. FYI ozone is continuously created in the upper atmosphere.

Extra heat from methane release is proposed to occur from an increased greenhouse effect. Many problems with that theory though - like those long-wave radiation bands already being saturated due to water vapor.

"which releases the methane"

Methane increase has been logarithmic. It is clearly flat-lining instead of accelerating like it would in the scenario you propose.

"and most stuff dies by suffocation/poison or by being burned."

Yet there isn't any proof of any of this happening.

"Are you absolutely positive that it isn't YOU that is doing the role playing??"

Yes I'm positive and no I don't need your affirmations.

Its only been happening for 8000 years

does nobody read things properly these days?

"Who is going to sacrifice a life of mammon for a risk that is barely quantifiable, especially when the detractors have sealed the fate of many of these grant funded initiatives."

Exactly, so-called environmentalists propose solutions that would ensure the death of millions, if not billions, based on unknown "risks."

It is incredibly stupid.

The problem is that doing everything you can to avoid near imaginary "risks" is a risk itself - and much easier to quantify.

You seem to have a fervent need to negate my discourse and opinions. Why so offended? The facts are easily accessed if anyone wishes to delve into the arena.

Your commentary on the other hand, is in my opinion seems founded in profound ignorance.

This is happening and no amount of rhetoric is going to diminish the ominous environmental dilemma which we collectively face.

We are all in the same boat so to speak. It's not worth spending time arguing about what cannot be changed. We are in this together, like it or not.......

Well, everything one would expect if an H2S event is under way IS happening, and it explains everything happening around the world quite neatly. Considering it has happened before, and it starts with anoxia in the oceans, which have been growing consistently, then, well, I guess it depends on your definition of 'proof'. Lacking any other theory that would explain the events in the world, I will stick with this one, which does, and is in fact nothing new to the Earth at all - one of her 'golden oldies'.

So YOUR theory that explains all these events is, what? Nuh uh, stuff is normal! Or....I dunno, but not THAT. Well, whatever, that is simply unsatisfactory, for me anyway.

If events keep happening that fit the increasingly-poisonous-and-flammable-atmosphere theory, I'll post here and we can discuss, like rational people.

Did he give you any kind of timetable? Iv'e read articles and seen Nova specials, etc that say up to 100 years from now. Saying you can kiss your own ass goodbye would indicate that he is thinking much sooner.

Just wondering if a timeframe came up in the convcersation.

Thanks for sharing this tidbit, by the way. :)

Just took a drive here in Phoenix, Az. Sun is beastly hot while in direct contact, 81 degrees F air temp. The sun seems brighter as well.

Didn't say you do need my or anyone elses affirmations and know for sure that I wouldn't care if you did.

However, you still haven't answered my original question!
And I have a feeling you never will. I would have very much liked to read your paper/s as you actually do raise some very valid points.

Oh well, such is life........

(I only suggested you are role playing since you felt the need to acuse someone else of that - tit for tat and all)

My take is very simple. It is probably a natural phenomena. It will have zero effect on the climate or human life.

People discover natural events all the time and think they are novel and of course man-made (e.g. the ozone hole), when they've really happened many times in the past without anyone there to watch.


By that same token, you have no way of sustaining the argument that this particular event is a part of that natural cycle alone. It is a reasonable assumption that with each variant of the planet's makeup, terrestrial or chemistry, there has been a resulting outcome or else the various states of this solar systems planetary bodies would be unfathomable.

By that same token, the resulting changes in a whole raft of the earth's natural functions which have been logged and recorded such as the changes in the reefs or even the increases in particular components of the planets chemical envelope are likely to be as much a product of our massively induced and industrial revolution related terrestrial changes as they were naturally induced terrestrial changes in the past. To argue that a progressively altered man made landscape is incapable of any impact sounds like hogwash to me as it flies in the face of the evidence. There is only so much 6 billion and rising can do on this planet or are you suggesting that coast to coast paving will have not one iota of an impact?

On that basis, I find more sense in the cautions of the climate concerned than I do in the pronouncements of the BAU lobby.

"Your commentary on the other hand, is in my opinion seems founded in profound ignorance."

Probably because I've pointed out that there is zero evidence of any massive increase in methane or hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere.

No no timetable, but his response truly shocked me, and alluded to a rapid decline.

He spoke of various interventions such as weather modification to the extent of blanketing up some form of aluminum etc. to mitigate the rising temps. But this would necessitate such a volume that it would have fairly negative effects on alternative energy sources such as solar etc. among other things. And basically there is no model for this and they have no adequate measure of remedy.

I really didn't follow it all completely. But in retrospect I wish I had listened more closely.

OTHER than ALL of the effects you'd expect to see being present. Lol. What you're saying is, how come they haven't told us that this is happening? That answer is rather obvious. But go ahead, show us how YOU would write that speech.