Fossil Records Show Methane In Seafloor Sediments (Global Warming)

Science Daily ^ | 2-26-2003 | Woods Hole

[balrog666]

Sounds plausible. Except for the disappearance of Flight 19.

The new-to-the-area pilot instructor made a navigation error and they all ran out gas before making it back to land - no mystery involved at all. IIRC, their course was reconstructed and they went out and photographed them on the bottom.

[Henk]

My problem with the theory is that it implies a positive feedback mechanism:

warming temps-->released methane-->global warming-->(repeat)

Positive feedbacks are not stable, and would not just now be showing up after 6 billion years of earth history.

[js1138]

I think it was a different "flight 19" that got photographed, but of course I might be having a brain spasm. There's so much stuff on the bottom in that region you hardly have room to wiggle.

[balrog666]

I think it was a different "flight 19" that got photographed, but of course I might be having a brain spasm. There's so much stuff on the bottom in that region you hardly have room to wiggle.

I plead brain-fart.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Obviously youdon't understand science. The US Geological Service Paper lists just one theory for where "fossil fuels" came from. You treat science like each new advance is the Gospel truth. In fact, science is constantly learning more. I found these sites discussing the opposite position.

http://talc.geo.umn.edu/courses/3005/Coal.html

http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/fossils/fgw6.htm

http://eyrie.shef.ac.uk/will/eee/cpe630/comfun9.html

http://earthsci.org/energy/oil/oil.htm#origin

Your attitude seems to be: "I found one scientist who says something. Therefore it is true." I think that may be an incorrect assumption.

[Little Bill]

Any moron knows, except the tree huggers, PETA commies, and other enviro wackos, that when you have a large amount of carbon based material covered so that an aerobiotic decomposition can't take place an anaerorobotic one will, the byprodict is methane, commie bas*****.

[VadeRetro]

Your attitude seems to be: "I found one scientist who says something. Therefore it is true."

The more general version goes something like this:

I found one expert who says something my cult can at least spin it its favor. The statements of this expert are the only real evidence. Utter and absolute proof is required that this evidence is false and/or that anything else is true.

[rustbucket]

See the above link to the U.S. Geological Service paper. It will answer all your questions.

If you mean the link to the USGS article by Gold of the same title, it does not answer my questions. Gold points to oil found in the well he drilled in Europe's largest meteor crater, the Siljan Ring. The fractured rock there did indeed contain an oil. Gold's paper does report the relative ratios of sterane compounds commonly used for the purposes of pinpointing the origin of the oil.

You might be interested in the following excerpts from a report on the oil found in Gold's well by a panel of US and Swedish geologists, petroleum geochemists, and geophysicists (from All that Glitters):

Unmistakable evidence found by geochemical analysis of oils, oil-stained rocks, and organic rocks points to the Ordovician bituminous Tretaspis Shale as the source for the oil found in the Siljan crater. [The] contention that the oil is abiogenic is without merit.

Siljan data show little evidence that abiogenic gas exists. The Siljan oil, which [is claimed] to be abiogenic is clearly not...

I'm no expert in this field (I'm an engineer not a geochemist), but that is my conclusion too, based on the plot of sterane data in Gold's article. I've used those particular sterane compounds before to resolve issues of petroleum origin. I suspect the oil Gold found migrated through fractures caused by the meteor.

[PatrickHenry]

Methane burst placemarker.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Why is it that when we start to all work together and start making a lot of sense, the other side just abandons their ramparts and moves on to another fight? It's almost as if they are shutting out all evidence that would disprove their own beliefs. But humans would never do that. Hmmmmm.....

[RightWhale]

Could it ignite and cause huge blasts?

It could. Such happens in barns around the world all the time. One spark and disasster.

[blam]

"I'm curious as to how often this happens, though - the whole Pacific rim is seismically active, and yet we haven't seen a release of methane that I know of. Possibly it takes some sort of once-in-a-million-years type of superquake to release it?"

The French are presently installing pipes to the bottom of the two culprit lakes to release the gasses slowly.

Professor Mike Baille in his book, Exodus To Arthur, reveals ancient Irish and English legends about 'the lands without life' and speculated that one of these gas clouds may have settled over that area and killed everything. He goes into some pretty convincing details that I won't here.

[Mamzelle]

If a scientist smells methane, maybe he ought to look at the scientist sitting next to him.

[rustbucket]

If a scientist smells methane, maybe he ought to look at the scientist sitting next to him.

LOL. Methane is odorless. But other gases aren't.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Sounds plausible. Except for the disappearance of Flight 19."

Actually, it does. Two factors: 1) large methane bubble displaces air/oxygen--airplane engine doesn't run any more, 2) if airplane flies thru big enuff bubble, and pilots don't have oxygen mask--pilots lose consciousness. Result in both cases is "...disappearance of Flight 19..."

[I got the rope]

My work uses the physics behind IR absorption and I have to worry about CO2 interferring with my experiments on a dialy basis.) However, there isn't as much methane in the atmosphere, so adding methane would increase the amount of IR absorbed dramatically, which, in turn, would contribute significantly more to global warming.

Interesting. What about the interference from water on IR? Has anyone in the last 10 years measured an ambient increase in CO2?

[RadioAstronomer]

Thanks for the ping! :-)

[PatrickHenry]

Ah yes. Where there is methane, one can be certain to find RadioAstronomer nearby.

[doc30]

IR absorption by water is an important issue. I'm getting a little out of my league here, but I believe that is one of the problems with all these computer modelling systems for climate change. Moisture in the air is quite variable, depending on your geography, local temperature and time of year. Also, dissolved H2O can absorb IR, but clouds reflect IR so there is really complicated synergy between the two. On the other hand, CO2, compared to water, is more homogeneously spread throughout the atmosphere.