I have to wonder, before the scientific world went nuts looking for GHG boogymen under every rock and tree, had anyone observed methane venting in this area before? While they enlisted the help of fishermen now, would anyone bothered to have documented these bubble plumes 50-100 years ago? I think not. They claim “… it is not likely to be just emitted from the sediments; this appears to be coming from the decomposition of methane that has been frozen for thousands of years.” yet offer no methodology for how they determined that. I seems to be little more than the opinion of the researcher.
Then there’s the question, is this simply a natural variation that is part of the PDO shift, and the “blob” off the Pacific NW coast is responsible? These are pertinent questions that seem to have been overlooked, and I find this study suspect anyway, because by their own admission, the press release precedes the actual publication of the paper. The October 2015 edition of Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems is not out yet. Science is not supposed to be done to grab headlines ahead of publication. It seems more like COP21 “me too” frenzy than science.
From the UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON:
Bubble plumes off Washington, Oregon suggest warmer ocean may be releasing frozen methane

Warming ocean temperatures a third of a mile below the surface, in a dark ocean in areas with little marine life, might attract scant attention. But this is precisely the depth where frozen pockets of methane ‘ice’ transition from a dormant solid to a powerful greenhouse gas.
New University of Washington research suggests that subsurface warming could be causing more methane gas to bubble up off the Washington and Oregon coast.
The study, to appear in the journal Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, shows that of 168 bubble plumes observed within the past decade, a disproportionate number were seen at a critical depth for the stability of methane hydrates.
“We see an unusually high number of bubble plumes at the depth where methane hydrate would decompose if seawater has warmed,” said lead author H. Paul Johnson, a UW professor of oceanography. “So it is not likely to be just emitted from the sediments; this appears to be coming from the decomposition of methane that has been frozen for thousands of years.”
Methane has contributed to sudden swings in Earth’s climate in the past. It is unknown what role it might contribute to contemporary climate change, although recent studies have reported warming-related methane emissions in Arctic permafrost and off the Atlantic coast.
Of the 168 methane plumes in the new study, some 14 were located at the transition depth – more plumes per unit area than on surrounding parts of the Washington and Oregon seafloor.
If methane bubbles rise all the way to the surface, they enter the atmosphere and act as a powerful greenhouse gas. But most of the deep-sea methane seems to get consumed during the journey up. Marine microbes convert the methane into carbon dioxide, producing lower-oxygen, more-acidic conditions in the deeper offshore water, which eventually wells up along the coast and surges into coastal waterways.
“Current environmental changes in Washington and Oregon are already impacting local biology and fisheries, and these changes would be amplified by the further release of methane,” Johnson said.
Another potential consequence, he said, is the destabilization of seafloor slopes where frozen methane acts as the glue that holds the steep sediment slopes in place.
Methane deposits are abundant on the continental margin of the Pacific Northwest coast. A 2014 study from the UW documented that the ocean in the region is warming at a depth of 500 meters (0.3 miles), by water that formed decades ago in a global warming hotspot off Siberia and then traveled with ocean currents east across the Pacific Ocean. That previous paper calculated that warming at this depth would theoretically destabilize methane deposits on the Cascadia subduction zone, which runs from northern California to Vancouver Island.
At the cold temperatures and high pressures present on the continental margin, methane gas in seafloor sediments forms a crystal lattice structure with water. The resulting icelike solid, called methane hydrate, is unstable and sensitive to changes in temperature. When the ocean warms, the hydrate crystals dissociate and methane gas leaks into the sediment. Some of that gas escapes from the sediment pores as a gas.
The 2014 study calculated that with present ocean warming, such hydrate decomposition could release roughly 0.1 million metric tons of methane per year into the sediments off the Washington coast, about the same amount of methane from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout.
The new study looks for evidence of bubble plumes off the coast, including observations by UW research cruises, earlier scientific studies and local fishermen’s reports. The authors included bubble plumes that rose at least 150 meters (490 feet) tall that clearly originate from the seafloor. The dataset included 45 plumes originally detected by fishing boats, whose modern sonars can detect the bubbles while looking for schools of fish, with their observations later confirmed during UW research cruises.
Results show that methane gas is slowly released at almost all depths along the Washington and Oregon coastal margin. But the plumes are significantly more common at the critical depth of 500 meters, where hydrate would decompose due to seawater warming.
“What we’re seeing is possible confirmation of what we predicted from the water temperatures: Methane hydrate appears to be decomposing and releasing a lot of gas,” Johnson said. “If you look systematically, the location on the margin where you’re getting the largest number of methane plumes per square meter, it is right at that critical depth of 500 meters.”
Still unknown, however, is whether these plumes are really from the dissociation of frozen methane deposits. [bold mine, Anthony]
“The results are consistent with the hypothesis that modern bottom-water warming is causing the limit of methane hydrate stability to move downslope, but it’s not proof that the hydrate is dissociating,” said co-author Evan Solomon, a UW associate professor of oceanography.
Solomon is now analyzing the chemical composition of samples from bubble plumes emitted by sediments along the Washington coast at about 500 meters deep. Results will confirm whether the gas originates from methane hydrates rather than from some other source, such as the passive migration of methane from deeper reservoirs to the seafloor, which causes most of the other bubble plumes on the continental margin.
###
Note: Shortly after publication, some text formatting errors were corrected, and bolding of a statement added.
For safety we should extract and burn this methane.
While we’re on, what’s all this dangerous water doing around the planet? This stuff is lethal. Just a bucket of the stuff can drown you.
I didn’t know you could detect Methane bubbles with radar !!!!
Time to drill some exploratory wells?
The government would never allow it.
we don’t really know natural flows of methane nearly well enough to start making statements about the role of antrhopogenic sources.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2674147
And when the sea levels were 140M lower during the last ice age did the plumes emit more methane.
In Hawkes Bay New Zealand there are a number of these plumes well know for decades to fisherman as guides to fishing spots.
” ‘… it is not likely to be just emitted from the sediments; this appears to be coming from the decomposition of methane that has been frozen for thousands of years,’ yet offer no methodology for how they determined that. I seems to be little more than the opinion of the researcher.”
The methodology the researcher used to come to that opinion seems rather obvious… pulling something out of the arse that fits the GW narative.
Suggest a scare the bubble plumes did. Guessed the bubble plumes have done. Do some scientific casual analysis based on verified observational evidence is what the bubble plumes must try now.
John
…”most of the deep-sea methane seems to get consumed during the journey up. Marine microbes convert the methane into carbon dioxide, producing lower-oxygen”
So CO2 is plant food, and methane is marine microbe food. There will be more of it, so more plants and more microbes. Which would be good for the things that eat plants and microbes.
Sorry, did I miss the downside again?
In the 90s this was suggested as a possible explanation for the Bermuda Triangle. There are lots of Methane Hydrates on the shelf slope, that show up as strong / Bottom Simulating Reflectors (BSR) on seismic. Since hydrates exist at low temperature / high pressure, removal of overburden (pressure) by regular submarine slides causes reduction of overburden and hydrates destabilise to free gas. At least that was the theory in the literature when I did an assignment / paper on hydrates as a geological oceanography undergrad in 92.
My point really is that this isn’t a “new thing”.
The Bermuda triangle thing was/is plausible, if a bit left field. Here’s a Journo description from 97
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/science-the-real-power-of-the-deep-1290114.html
….. so for my money, the fact that these sediments are on a subduction zone, subject to frequent seismic activity and slope failures / submarine landslides, is a likely cause of hydrate destabilisation. The text mentions that hydrates are sensitive to temperature change (true) but i didn’t see any reference to pressure change (also true), but maybe i read it too quickly
“Bubble plumes off Washington, Oregon suggest warmer ocean may be releasing frozen methane”
Perhaps they can tell us by how much the ocean has actually warmed. And since when.
Is it greater than 0.023K per decade?
Has anyone else noticed the way that they’re trying to shift the focus onto METHANE just recently…they’re clearly no longer getting much traction with CO2…a bit like the old Global Warming to Climate Change manoeuvre !
Currently we have about 500 million tons of methane in the atmosphere. Adding 0.1 million tons to it annually, while its atmospheric lifetime is 12 years, is equivalent to insist, that contribution of hydrate decomposition at the Washington coast to atmospheric methane level could only be negligible. That’s what this press release is telling us in a rather roundabout way.
last paragraph –
“Solomon is now analyzing the chemical composition of samples from bubble plumes emitted by sediments along the Washington coast at about 500 meters deep. Results will confirm whether the gas originates from methane hydrates rather than from some other source, such as the passive migration of methane from deeper reservoirs to the seafloor, which causes most of the other bubble plumes on the continental margin”.
Reveals that entire article is pure conjecture and the real work on the observation has not been done. Just what was the point of the conjecture? Well now.
I did an observation in the bathtub – any sudden release of bubbles were definitely a sign of noxious gasses and cause for alarm.
http://enenews.com/unpublished-govt-map-shows-massive-plume-fukushima-radioactive-material-west-coast-north-america-radiation-levels-quadrupled-recent-months-scientist-starting-penetration-cesium-offshore-coast-video
Funny you should mention plumes of toxins off the West Coast, today. Here’s a different kind, much, much deadlier than any little ol’ natural gas….
So since we’ve been warming for ‘many’ years the methane should have started increasing in the atmosphere when this outgassing started. And so the graph of atmospheric methane should show a point where the rate is increasing, right? Because this is relatively new, right?
I feel like we are living in an era similar to the Salem Witch Trials where self appointed “experts” are declaring cause and effect correlations that don’t hold water, but do ruin peoples lives from a never ending increase in government controls. The real witches are the AGW fanatics and their power hungry government bureaucrat enablers.
long time a ago science meant knowledge, now science is about ignorance, the less you know the better scientist you are.
“Methane has contributed to sudden swings in Earth’s climate in the past. It is unknown what role it might contribute to contemporary climate change,”
How can they know the 1st argument and not know the 2nd???
Excellent! It seem you are getting out in front of this “Boogyman” You know Paris is going to parading this all over the news. Any idea of the % of annual methane is from ice methane? Noteworthy, as per previous posts, is the lack of evidence of catastrophic CH4 burps.
I have been the proud uncle tasked with reading a very well regarded niece’s papers as she makes her way to and thru the PhD degree in Ecological Sciences (which ought to alert you to the next comment)… My “job” hasn’t been to read the content for content, but for wording, case, tense, and general grammatical shortcomings. Being a PERL programmer, it has also been easy to unobtrusively figure out just exactly how many words I’ve had to suggest corrections for. About 10%.
To me that seems high.
But no matter.
Content is the key to this comment.
Niece’s papers have roundly been on topics just such as this article’s: purported habitat and environmental changes wrought by anthropogenically mediated global climate change; there are a lot of citations, a lot of measurement, and a surprisingly large amount of second-hand conjecture taken as faith.
Though her university mentors obviously counsel “stay neutral, scientific; resist urge to proselytize or preach”, truth is, she seemingly can’t help it, and gets away with a whole lot of it, unchallenged. Gets As, even.
This article’s reference to ancient, ‘frozen’ methane (which is really methane hydrate, a clathrate metastable material) is typical… attribution of a bubbling stream of rising methane gas to the unseen, unmeasured, un-assayed clathrate as the source is a leap of scientific faith, which without the same measurements and assays is just open conjecture until otherwise proven. Niece’s attribution of forestation rates (she’s at University of Alaska, Anchorage), spectrum and mass of lichens, mosses is similarly attributed to conventional and prevailing theory – but without measuring whether the proposed mechanism is real or fiction.
And of course, each one of her papers ends up being a guarded, monotonic, muted-but-bug-eyed screed warning of the future based on tissue-paper thin evidence that anything at all is actually amiss. The bug-eyed business however is openly clear when one views her hashtag fan groupies pre-publication twitters.
Anyway.
As our Fearless Leader so well states … was anyone looking at the nominal rate of oceanic seabed methane emission with such accuracy as is today common … 50, 75 or 100 years back?
Rhetorical answer: No, of course not. Clathrates-in-the-sea had barely been discovered 50 years ago. Certainly not 100 years ago. So, I’m simply not willing to believe there’s a ‘problem’ yet. Just new data, and more data afforded by the amazing metrology that the late 20th and present centuries have brought forth. (And feel-good grants to afford the hugely carbon-emitting open ocean junkets to measure the same.)
GoatGuy
From Anthony: “I find this study suspect anyway, because by their own admission, the press release precedes the actual publication of the paper.”
In this particular case, that’s not so big a problem as it might seem. In today’s electronic world, it is common for journals to “e-publish” articles before the new edition comes out. E-published articles have already been through peer review, although typically they haven’t been through formatting and final editing for typos. I see this to be a good thing, as it allows these sorts of papers to be available a month or more sooner than if we had to wait for the entire new journal edition to be compiled and published. After all, the formatting doesn’t effect the legitimacy of the science.
Now if we were talking about research that hadn’t even been through peer review and the press release was already out, it would be a whole different story,
The University of Washington is my alma mater, but since I came from the College of Engineering, I feel no kinship with the trendy science types. I get the alumni magazine monthly, and it is a tedious showcase for all the politically-correct fads and trends in academic do-gooder-ism. The publication regularly gives voice to the President of the University and constantly emphasizes that the UW is a prominent research institution and is saving the world wholesale. I can only suspect that the publicity appearance of this research in advance of formal publication is consistent with the UW’s interest in hawking its wares in the publicly-funded realm.
On another note, the Pacific Northwest is moderated by the tail end of the Japan Current, which keeps us from being as cold as Labrador. It would be expectable that the Current would have variations in strength, location, and temperature at the far end of its gyre.
And also: According to the theory of plate tectonics (which I don’t necessarily uphold), there is a subduction zone ALL ALONG the Pacific coast. One might imagine that subduction mechanics would stir things up over time. When this sort of thing goes on along the California coast, they are called oil seeps and tar pits. Like someone said, the conclusion that it is methane clathrate shaken from a geological slumber may omit the possibility that it is deep abiogenic gas finding its way to the land of the free.
FTA: “… it is not likely to be just emitted from the sediments; this appears to be coming from the decomposition of methane that has been frozen for thousands of years.”
Just what does methane decompose into anyway? Hydrogen and carbon. Since carbon is a solid at these temperatures, the gas bubbling up from the “decomposition of methane” must be hydrogen gas?