Frozen methane gas releases

Now, it's known that during earthquakes and seafloor slides, pockets of methane can be released into the ocean... and eventually into the air.

Ever since the Bermuda triangle adventures, people have not considered much the natural catastrophic side of things, such as in Malaysia these days. But now I am going to wake up the idea, that gases inside the earth slip into the air and can cause gas pockets, that can cause massive bird deaths ... ships sinking like rocks, and aeroplanes disappearing in the Bermuda triangle.

Anyone interested in these thoughts ...

We're talking about huge amounts of frozen methane, that is just under the sea sediment and can be released during seafloor tremors. Isn't this, a far more dangerous reality than for example ... meteorites and meteors. What if we had a huge volcanic outburst in the ring of fire, how much methane could slip into the air ... and how much other gases could slip into the air.

What could we be facing ... is it safer to let the methane be, or is it safer to harvest it.

reply to post by bjarneorn


It wouldn't account for the massive death of fishes in lakes.

But maybe it could explain some of the sounds people reported to hear a couple of years ago.

S&F for the opinion.

reply to post by bjarneorn

What could we be facing ... is it safer to let the methane be, or is it safer to harvest it.

Let it be, it's part of nature and have been since dawn of time, we don't have to change everything that suposedly could be dangerous, cause everytime we do so we change the balance of nature.

The balance is already completly effed up by human activity.

Mianeye
The balance is already completly effed up by human activity.

It is with or without human activities. Mass extinctions predates mankind by several hundred million years.

Extinction in the past, in 100% of specie, from Wikipedia:

reply to post by swanne

That is natures own balance, as soon as we try to save lifes more death arrive.

reply to post by Mianeye


Then if true nature is death, as shown in the graph, maybe some humane activity isn't so bad after all.

swanne
reply to post by Mianeye

 

Then if true nature is death, as shown in the graph, maybe some humane activity isn't so bad after all.

That makes no sense, instead of hurry up the natural death we should work together with nature and keep the balance right, we all want to live for as long as posible but we will all die eventually.

Unless you mean killing us all(humans) so nature can rebuild Earth's natural balance and continue doing it's own buisiness

Mianeye
reply to post by bjarneorn

 

What could we be facing ... is it safer to let the methane be, or is it safer to harvest it.

Let it be, it's part of nature and have been since dawn of time, we don't have to change everything that suposedly could be dangerous, cause everytime we do so we change the balance of nature.

The balance is already completly effed up by human activity.

Methane is not at all supposedly dangerous...it is dangerous. I believe that it would be safer to harvest it. Methane burns cleaner than many of the other energy sources we currently use and wind and solar just doesn't really have the energy to power much anything yet.

Just look at how many square acreage or miles that wind and solar farms take up. Oh...people want that alternative energy source, but not in their backyard.

Mianeye
Unless you mean killing us all(humans) so nature can rebuild Earth's natural balance and continue doing it's own buisiness?

Um, no, I am against eugenics mate. I am just saying that nature is always in disequilibrium, not worst but certainly not better than humans, since we are a part of nature anyway.

we should work together with nature and keep the balance right

Indeed we should. It seems we agree here - I fail to see what we are arguing about... I call for armistice, have a pint on me:

reply to post by swanne


Oh, we are not arguing

All i am saying is, we empty all resources from the crust of earth, but i will bet that all those resources actually have a use by nature to somehow keep a balance, and if we remove those resources we might offset that balance and create an instinction plus altering the arreas we are farming.

We all know how fracking is starting to Eff things up or oil drilling in general.

reply to post by TDawgRex

I agree, in Denmark we have for many years placed our windmills ofshore and noone is complaining, but the maintenance of those ofshore windmills eat all the efficience supposed to putting them in our backyards.

Mianeye
We all know how fracking is starting to Eff things up or oil drilling in general.

And farm irrigation. And pesticide...

We need to re-think our ways.

reply to post by swanne

We are rethinking, problem is, money controls the thinking and as long it is done with money in control, we will get nowhere.

reply to post by Mianeye


Indeed.

Up here in Quebec we have Hydroelectricity. Seems like a nice, eco-friendly thing, right? The problem is, it gained the monopole of our energy and now they keep on augmenting the monthly fee. People all over Quebec are protesting. As you say: money controls.

reply to post by Mianeye


They did a study here in Ohio recently and determined that a proposed wind farm based in Lake Erie would take up 2/3rd of the lake while only powering 1/3rd of the state. The environmentalists had a conniption fit. Everybody agreed that it wasn't economically viable and the damage done to environment would be to great as well.

There has to be more research and advancements done before we can really look at solar and wind as a alternative power source.

My sister looked into a wind turbine for her farm. It would have cost her $55,000.00 dollars and would have taken roughly 30 years to pay for itself. I'm pretty sure that it would break down a couple of times over those decades, which would cost even more. Plus she lives in a tornado prone area. It wasn't worth it.

bjarneorn

Anyone interested in these thoughts ...

Hey bjarn, you've been a member here longer than myself. Have you seen any of my methane gas threads?

bjarneorn
But now I am going to wake up the idea, that gases inside the earth slip into the air and can cause gas pockets, that can cause massive bird deaths ... ships sinking like rocks, and aeroplanes disappearing in the Bermuda triangle.

If you're interested in this topic, I have tons of information written over more than a dozen threads dedicated to the threat of these dangerous gases, which include not only methane but hydrogen sulfide as well.

You're definitely on to something though. Methane and hydrogen sulfide gases are releasing from below the sea floor as well as the surface when fractures occur from micro-quakes and larger quakes. Many of these plumes below the sea won't make it into the air, but many of them do, and yes, they are causing mass animal die-offs and a whole lot more.

Check out my signature threads. You can check out my profile to find more of these threads under Fragile Earth.

bjarneorn
Ever since the Bermuda triangle adventures, people have not considered much the natural catastrophic side of things, such as in Malaysia these days.

I'm not sure what you refer to in Malaysia these days. I know that Indonesia is a hot spot for disaster in regards to methane. Currently, that one island nation has 19 active volcanoes spewing out ash. They have numerous earthquakes, just like the two large quakes they had on Saturday. They suffer through major torrential rain storms that cause catastrophic flooding, and these have increased in intensity over the past couple of seasons. A new phenomenon to hit Indonesia has been tornadoes lately. They also have many land slides (which cause loss of life), sinkholes, and land cracks, mostly due to the heavy rains.

There is one theory out there right now that suggests the crazy weather patterns in North America and Europe over the past couple of years is due to these volcanoes erupting in Indonesia, which is causing the waters to warm in the Pacific that flows up to Alaska. The jet stream is out of whack because of this and its going way up over Alaska, thus bringing warmer temps to that state, then dips way too far south over the central part of America and then swings back far north over Greenland, causing warmer Atlantic temps to go up over that country. This is why the UK has been getting nasty weather and also why land ice is melting on Greenland at unprecedented levels, and why we here in the States have had unbelievably cold temperatures since the start of November.

All these things are due to more and more methane releasing into the atmosphere trapping the sun's heat far more effectively than does carbon dioxide, which is causing the planet's temperatures to rise (despite what the skeptics will try to say). The warming temperatures only causes more methane to release, more volcanoes to erupt, etc., in a chain reaction that is rapidly escalating out of control.

In regards to Bermuda. I to believe that the disappearances in Bermuda were caused by methane and hydrogen sulfide gas plumes escaping from the sea floor.

bjarneorn
What could we be facing ... is it safer to let the methane be, or is it safer to harvest it.

There are some projects currently out there to harvest methane where its releasing, such as landfills. But, there is just too much release to do anything about it now. A whole lot of changes would have to occur on this planet if its not too late already. For one, fracking is increasing on a world wide scale and they are losing more methane than they intended. It was said that they couldn't lose more than 3% of the gas to the atmosphere when capturing it from below in order for the process to be cleaner than coal. Well, there's been a few stories out there now that claim they are losing as much as 9%. This was in wells in Denver. In Utah, it was 6%. This is just adding way too much methane into the atmosphere. There are 400,000 drilled wells now.

Sorry I haven't provided links, but in my other posts I have. I just don't have time right now to look them up. You can Google any of this information and it all comes up.

Rezlooper

Hey bjarn, you've been a member here longer than myself. Have you seen any of my methane gas threads?

No, I haven't ... but you are exactly the guy I was hoping to find ... and I'm heading over to your threads to read them.

In regards to Bermuda. I to believe that the disappearances in Bermuda were caused by methane and hydrogen sulfide gas plumes escaping from the sea floor.

I've looked at that as a given fact, but never expected hydrogen sulfide to be released in large quantities?

The reason I mentioned Malaysia, is because of the crash ... and despite "the news flashes", I can't stop thinking "bermuda" on that one. So I went looking at information around southern china sea, only to discover that methane there is even greater than around Bermuda. That opened up my eyes, these frozen methane pockets aren't isolated scenarios ...

reply to post by bjarneorn


My first thoughts was Bermuda as well after that plane disappeared. But then, after the military revealed that it was tracked over an hour to the west from its last known radar contact, and the up and down flight pattern, and the pings, and every thing else, I started believing in the kidnap scenario....unless its all just a smoke screen and they really have no friggin idea where that plan went when it simply vanished form thin air.