Umm... please tell me this is exaggeration (END OF WORLD)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Based off of what the claims in that story are, the BP disaster may actually keep the methane eruption from killing us.

From what I can tell they are arguing that periodically a bunch of methane builds up in the oceanic crust to such a high pressure that it eventually goes BOOM and everyone dies. BPs fuck up would actually operate as a pressure relieving device, bringing the pressure down below the BOOM moment.

Maybe.

But yeah, I would say this could happen. Fuck it, if I'm going to die, so are the rest of yall.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
actually, its way worse than the article said.

Yeah, there's concern about clatherates blowing out of the sea floor and creating a monstrous bubble that kills everything, but I'm not sure how serious of a concern that is. Here's a way worse one (because it's pretty much guaranteed)

Methane Clatherates (methane trapped in ice is the simple description) exist in the permafrost that is all over the world. As temperatures rise and this permafrost melts, the methane escapes. As the methane escapes, it accelerates temperature change. Which then melts more of the clatherates. Uh oh :)

Anyways, yeah the more I read about this, the more it spooks me, but there's some good news: There's nothing you can do about it. It will either happen or it won't.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Dunno. At this scale there is almost no way to predict chemistry. Really you have 2 problems. One is that in these high pressure clatherates will expand dramatically if they melt and come to the surface. If we don't capture it or condense it then there will be a massive pressure increase across the globe. Or it will expand the upper atmosphere (could happen). But even a small pressure increase could kill pretty much everyone.

Then of course you have the problem that methane is poisonous, so if the pressure blast doesn't get us then we'll just be poisoned. If you were really on the ball you could set up a sealed bunker that would resist the pressure wave, and could turn the methane outside into something higher density like hexane or some polymer, but I'm not sure how easy to do that is.

But seriously I wouldn't get too freaked out about it, because really there's nothing you can do, and it probably won't happen. It's like the whole concern about a asteroid hitting the planet. There would be nothing we could do, we may not even know about it until a couple minutes before it happens and it would kill everyone. Fact is that the world isn't that secure. So, take this as a motivation to go have sex.
 
P

Philosopher B.

Hmmm, what? Did someone say the world's about to end?!

*Faps furiously*
 
ElJuski

ElJuski

Staff member
Isn't Helium the website that pays amateurs to write articles and fight for publication? That would make me much more skeptical of the whole thing, though I'm sure it is, regardless, rooted in science.
 
Calleja

Calleja

In all seriousness, this sounded plausible enough to me that I felt a twinge I had never felt before... an oh-god-it's-over-for-real-we-blew-it-we're-done-for kinda twinge. It's not a nice feeling.
 
Troll

Troll

Don't worry. The odds are against it. And if it does happen, well... what are you going to do about it? Might as well enjoy life up until the end.
 
Shawn

Shawn

Hey, David. Might want to get to work on that Ross and Craig animation right quick. Might be the only opportunity I have to see me fufill my life's dream as a voice actor.

Oh and Orgy = very yes.
 
North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Staff member
Sensationalist bullshit with Wikipedia articles and YouTube videos as sources, if you ask me.

But then again, I tend to believe that if mankind's gonna end up belly-up, it's not gonna be a big bang. More like a slow whimper.

Nonetheless, orgy yes please. I'm also planning to throw a "The World Ends Tomorrow So Let's Fuck" party on Dec. 20th, 2012.
 
Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

Not only are you stupid for believing this, but you're also giving a moron a lot of money! Great job!


edit: I mean the royal you, the handful of places I've seen this article, and not calling Calleja stupid
 
Cajungal

Cajungal

Staff member
My policy is to believe every person who says the world is going to end. It's why I can't go to big cities. Those wild-eyed men wearing sandwich boards give me panic attacks.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
I'm one for attacking the credibility of a source and using that as part of an overall argument, but that's not enough on its own. It's like an appeal to authority, in reverse. It's not like much other scientific reporting has an author with a better understanding or integrity. Most scientific reporters take what they are told on face value because they don't understand it. In this case, I don't think the guy is that far off (although it is sensationalist.)
 
Tinwhistler

Tinwhistler

Well, so far, it seems to me that the strongest sensationalist/emotional arguments in the article are also the weakest links.

The article outlines some methane explosion research by a Gregory Ryskin. Looking at the links, you'll see that what Ryskin has proposed is a theory, one which hasn't had much testing or evaluation as of yet.
For instance, see here: Erupting Seas : "This spectacular story will be tested against the geologic record' which tells me that while Ryskin may have a compelling theory, there isn't much science behind it yet to prove it up.

Completely un-confirmed in the article is this line about the warning signs of the impending disaster: "All three warning signs are documented to be occurring in the Gulf."

This line is the line that provides all of the dramatic tension for the article. The article author paints this increasingly dim picture of mass extinction, and all of the warning signs. Then he drops this little line in that makes everyone reading say to themselves: "OMFG! It could happen RIGHT NOW!" But, unlike most of the claims in the article that are sourced, this claim has no attribution. The author points to no news article, scientific journal, or any other publication that actually says that "all three warning signs" are occurring. That makes it very suspect to me. We don't know if these alleged warning signs are actually present, or to what extent, if they are.

The methane levels in the gulf are also exaggerated, as well as oxygen depletion numbers. The article author focuses on the largest number from his quoted article, while dismissing entirely the more moderate tone of his source.
""At some locations, we saw depletions of up to 30 percent of oxygen based on its natural concentration in the waters. At other places, we saw no depletion of oxygen in the waters. We need to determine why that is."

Another unattributed claim "Areas of dead zones devoid of oxygen are driving species of fish into foreign waters, killing plankton and other tiny sea life that are the foundation for the entire food chain, and polluting the air with cancer-causing chemicals and poisonous rainfalls." i see no mention of these events in the authors sources.

In addition, this "huge gash" that the article talks about that NOAA's Thomas Jefferson found seems to not be in the ships actual report: http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions..._responsemissionreport_june3_11_2010final.pdf

So, throw in exaggerated, invented, and unattributed claims. Throw in a dash of conspiracy theory ("The government won't let us in. What are they HIDING..hmm?"), throw in a sensationalist doomsday predition/opinion, and it smells of yellow journalism to me.
 
ElJuski

ElJuski

Staff member
Necronic said:
I'm one for attacking the credibility of a source and using that as part of an overall argument, but that's not enough on its own. It's like an appeal to authority, in reverse. It's not like much other scientific reporting has an author with a better understanding or integrity. Most scientific reporters take what they are told on face value because they don't understand it. In this case, I don't think the guy is that far off (although it is sensationalist.)
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, I'll usually toss away a trash article if it's trash until someone with at least a little bit of credibility comes along the way. It's not an appeal to authority at all. It's one of the cornerstones of argumentation--ethos.
 
Tinwhistler

Tinwhistler

I agree. A so-called 'reverse' appeal to authority is perfectly valid.

I certainly won't be listening to anything my garbage man says about quantum physics. Especially when he starts ranting about how the Large Hadron Collider is going to destroy the world. He's simply not in a position to speak with any authority on the subject. Dismissing him out of hand because he lacks credibility on the subject is entirely proper.
 
nfldraftman

nfldraftman

It's a race between the Gulf of Mexico Methane Bomb and the Yellowstone Supervolcano to eradicate almost all life on our little planet!!!
 
Espy

Espy

CincyGuy said:
It's a race between the Gulf of Mexico Methane Bomb and the Yellowstone Supervolcano to eradicate almost all life on our little planet!!!
Click to expand...
Man that supervolvano scares the crap out of me.


When I actually think about it. Which is... really rare.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top