so it de-strengthened the area where the methane was. like the area's where methane flares are coming up in the arctic?? so they're taking this methane out and if the area will collapses like it does up in the arctic, guess it could cause a collapse of the side of japan causing it to landslide into the ocean. but i'm probably wrong and we'll all die anyways probably from the methane monster from what's going on besides this
Methane hydrate seems to be a major concern for global climate change but as Ray Boswell explains, this area of methane hydrate is not the environmentally concernable mh that is discussed by climate change experts. I would just like to point out that money drives science and that this mh science in the energy district can yield knowledge on mh as a whole for when/if we have to deal with methane hydrate in the future with respects to climate change. Unfortunately it seems that the runaway effects of methane will be an issue before this science is undertaken.
Preconceived notions are not helpful and there are a couple of classic examples of this in interplanetary exploration. Probes have have shown that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels on Venus (96.5%) and Mars (96.0%) could not have been caused by the burning of 'fossil' fuels. Furthermore, we must ask: just how prevalent is atmospheric methane in our solar system? Earth …….. 2 ppm (parts per million) Jupiter ….. 3,000 ppm Saturn ..… 4,000 ppm Neptune .. 15,000 ppm Uranus …. 23,000 ppm Saturn's moon, Titan, hosts gigantic lakes brimming with liquid methane, constantly replenished by methane rain. Methane is not a 'fossil fuel' and is not biogenic in origin. What's the point of the NASA space program if its results are simply ignored?
so it de-strengthened the area where the methane was. like the area's where methane flares are coming up in the arctic?? so they're taking this methane out and if the area will collapses like it does up in the arctic, guess it could cause a collapse of the side of japan causing it to landslide into the ocean. but i'm probably wrong and we'll all die anyways probably from the methane monster from what's going on besides this
It's nuts to peruse even more fossil fuels in light of abrupt climate change.
If they use methane for fuel on the platform, they could just circulate warm water in and out of the bore hole to extract.
Almost fracking.
Methane hydrate seems to be a major concern for global climate change but as Ray Boswell explains, this area of methane hydrate is not the environmentally concernable mh that is discussed by climate change experts. I would just like to point out that money drives science and that this mh science in the energy district can yield knowledge on mh as a whole for when/if we have to deal with methane hydrate in the future with respects to climate change. Unfortunately it seems that the runaway effects of methane will be an issue before this science is undertaken.
to my right, excuse me which is ur left, wtf who u thinkin u talkin to
Preconceived notions are not helpful and there are a couple of classic examples of this in interplanetary exploration. Probes have have shown that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels on Venus (96.5%) and Mars (96.0%) could not have been caused by the burning of 'fossil' fuels.
Furthermore, we must ask: just how prevalent is atmospheric methane in our solar system?
Earth …….. 2 ppm (parts per million)
Jupiter ….. 3,000 ppm
Saturn ..… 4,000 ppm
Neptune .. 15,000 ppm
Uranus …. 23,000 ppm
Saturn's moon, Titan, hosts gigantic lakes brimming with liquid methane, constantly replenished by methane rain. Methane is not a 'fossil fuel' and is not biogenic in origin. What's the point of the NASA space program if its results are simply ignored?