Posted on 08/25/2003 11:12:31 AM PDT by Mike Darancette
A massive methane explosion frothing out of the world's oceans 250 million years ago caused the Earth's worst mass extinction, claims a US geologist.
Similar, smaller-scale events could have happened since, which might explain the Biblical flood, for example, suggests Gregory Ryskin of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois1. And they could happen again: "It's a very conjectural idea but it's too important to ignore," says Ryskin.
Up to 95% of Earth's marine species disapeared at the end of the Permian period. Some 70% of land species, including plants, insects and vertebrates, also perished. "It's arguably the single most important event in biology but there's no consensus as to what happened," says palaeontologist Andrew Knoll of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massacheusetts.
Ryskin contends that methane from bacterial decay or from frozen methane hydrates in deep oceans began to be released. Under the enormous pressure from water above, the gas dissolved in the water at the bottom of the ocean and was trapped there as its concentration grew.
Just one disturbance - a small meteorite impact or even a fast moving mammal - could then have brought the gas-saturated water closer to the surface. Here it would have bubbled out of solution under the reduced pressure. Thereafter the process would have been unstoppable: a huge overturning of the water layers would have released a vast belch of methane.
The oceans could easily have contained enough methane to explode with a force about 10,000 times greater than the world's entire nuclear-weapons stockpile, Ryskin argues. "There would be mortality on a massive scale," he says.
"It's a wacky idea," says geologist Paul Wignall of the University of Leeds, UK, "but not so wild that it shouldn't be taken seriously." There is evidence that the oceans stagnated at the end of the Permian period. And the chemical signature in fossils of the time hints there was a massive change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide would have been produced as methane broke down or exploded in the atmosphere.
After all, belches of trapped methane from lakes and oceans are "a rare but well-known maritime hazard", Wignall adds.
Flood warning
The same phenomenon could explain more recent events, such as the Biblical flood, Ryskin also argues. An eruption from Europe's stagnant Black Sea would fit the bill. There is even some geological evidence that such an event took place 7,000-8,000 years ago.
Other sluggish seas might still be accumulating methane at their depths and could represent a future hazard, Ryskin adds. "Even if there's only a small probability that I am right, we should start looking for areas of the ocean where this might be happening," he argues.
References 1. Ryskin, G. Methane driven oceanic eruptions and mass extinctions. Geology, 31, 737 - 740, (2003).
(c) Nature News Service / Macmillan Magazines Ltd 2003
I thought he meant Kevin Costner did it.
Aw, that would hurt the poor doggie's feelings.
The French have devised a method and are presently venting this gas from the bottom of these lakes...it should not accumulate again and cause this problem
BIGTIME
Was there an Ark? Since Mount Ararat is just to the East of the Black Sea and various reports of the Ark have been made, then maybe there was a flood but no BRAIN FART!
The Latest.
The Mythology reality deserves some measure of consideration.
It challenges frontally the conformity models..[accretion formation]...the reader is left to consider if everything has been plodding allong slowly over Billions of years..or if time measure values are off significantly..especially do too Isotope decay rates..which could be very wrong in projection evaluation.
****************************************************
an excerpt from a post on another website by me.
plinking ablout on the net has turned up some info new to me...something of interest..and a valid point maker..that the previous dating models for our Earth and the Solar System may be way off.
the culprits know it...just hope we do not clammour relentlssly so that they have to amend their date claims. an excerpt from a chat site on Radio dating.
Past, present and future together Consider then. Radiometric dating methods (those measuring geologic time by rate of radioactive decay) have been used to date formations that could be associated with Noahs Flood. These dates supposedly prove these formations are millions of years old rather than thousands. Yet we find that different methods can yield radically different results. As The Science of Evolution explains: Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earths history . . . It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years).
There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ˜clock (William Stansfield, 1977, pp. 80, 84).
The potassium-argon [K-Ar] dating method, used to date lava flows, also has problems”as shown by studies of Mount St. Helens. The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar ˜age™ of 0.35 OR - 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from this same dacite give K-Ar ˜ages™ from 0.35 OR - .06 Ma to 2.8 OR - 0.6 Ma. These ˜ages™ are, of course, preposterous [since we know the rock formed recently]. The fundamental dating assumption (˜no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed™) is questioned by these data. Instead, data from this Mount St. Helens dacite argue that significant ‘excess argon™ was present when the lava solidified in 1986 . . . This study of Mount St. Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked”how accurate are K-Ar ˜ages™ from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide? (Stephen Austin, Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1996, pp. 335-344). In laymans terms, these volcanic rocks that we know were formed in 1986”less than 20 years ago”were scientifically dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old! Such examples serve to illustrate the fallibility of the dating methods on which many modern scientists rely so heavily.
*************************************************************
A reply to my post:
On the accuracy of radiodating, I clean forgot to mention about the Mount St Helens eruption.
Thanks for picking that up.
Proves how unreliable such dating methods can be.
It is erroneous dating assumptions such as these that form the basis of most Earth sciences.
Having fixed the date of the earliest rocks at around 4.5 billion years (uranium/lead) and obviously just before that, the formation of the Earth, then the principles of astronomy must equally follow suit and rely on vast amounts of time.
With uranium/lead dating, how do they know for sure how much uranium existed in the original rock sample to begin with and also know its isotopic content.
With extreme electrification or exposure to radiation, these conditions can change abruptly, giving entirely different readings.
Same with carbon-14 dating.
Cosmic rays striking the upper atmospheric produce fast moving neutrons, which combine with nitrogen atoms to produce carbon -14 isotopes.
This in combination with oxygen produces carbon dioxide which is absorbed by vegetation.
Many animals eat vegetation and when they die, the carbon-14 decays.
Basically, the theory assumes that carbon-14 is in equilibrium with the atmosphere and is broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced.
Therefore the influx of cosmic rays has remained constant too.
But how do they know this for sure.?
A stronger magnetic field strength in the past can deflect these cosmic rays, giving a much lower carbon-14 content.
Are we to say then that fossils with a much reduced carbon-14 content are of a great age (dinosaurs etc), measured in millions of years?
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this ping list.
Yes, but then what is the point of your water volume calculations?
Cordially,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.