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.
Methane seeps occur all over the world on the continental shelves. There are more on the west coast of the US than on the east coast, because the west coast is an active continental margin. But, even on the east coast there are hundreds of them, see here: http://www.livescience.com/47523-hundreds-east-coast-methane-seeps.html They are not as common on land, but they exist there as well, especially in swamps, wet lands, oil and gas basins, farms and sewage treatment plants. I’ve seen sonar images of methane coming off of the sea floor that are larger than the one pictured in Indonesia and in the Gulf of Mexico. They are very common and hardly Earth shattering news.
+10
The common name for Methane in England was Marsh Gas which you would think is a pretty big clue. One of the things geologists look for in potential gas fields is a non porous cap rock as otherwise the gas produced will have escaped into the atmosphere. Methane is an entirely natural product of decay and most of it does escape leaving a trail of bubbles behind.
If warmer waters are causing the release of more methane, why isn’t the concentration of methane in the atmosphere increasing?
Well, it is, according to Wikipedia (you can check its source, could be Connolly-based)
“by water that formed decades ago”
I thought most of that water has been around since before the earth was formed?
Thank you MarkW. I’d noticed that also. I’m glad someone commented on it.
Are you serious?
Anthony-I found this “study” talked about in an article in December 2014-
http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/climate/warmer-pacific-ocean-release-millions-tons-seafloor-methane/
OK! Whose been feeding the whales beans?
Godzilla farts
If I remember my NOAA information correctly, the Earth is believed to have warmed 0.8 degrees since 1920. Apparently the Earth was so close to being “off balance” prior to this that this one little bit of warming, which happened before we got so smart on global climate (and which cannot be reversed by Man) has caused these methane plumes to start, the Antarctic ice shelves to become unstable, and glaciers all over the planet to begin melting.
Seems to me like a few decades of an active Sun could have done the same thing and it would have been natural.
No…I stick to my theory that anything we have done to warm the Earth has just moved forward the inevitable by a few decades. Getting tired of all the hyperventilation and efforts for every climate scientist in the world to attract attention to himself.
does this mean Gaia has flatulence?
Yes, which causes Atlas to shrug . . .
There are methane (CH4) seeps all over the ocean floor which supports the assertion that source of hydrocarbons on the earth’s surface is deep core CH4 that is extruded from the core as it solidifies. The super high pressure liquid CH4 that is extruded from the core, is the source of the force that moves the ocean floor underneath the continents and that splits apart the continents.
The oldest section of ocean floor is 200 million years old. A portion of the CH4 is left at the continental edge where the ocean floor is pushed under the continental plate which explains why there are chains of mountains on the edge of the continents.
The deep core source of CH4 explains why there is more carbon in Methane hydrates on the ocean floor than there are liquid hydrocarbon reserves and why the upper ocean is saturated with CH4.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9/full/ngeo2232.html#affil-auth
is deep core CH4 that is extruded from the core as it solidifies
====================
CH4 is continually produced by plate tectonics. limestone (fossilized CO2) is carried along with water into the earth, where it is reduced in the presence of iron, heat and pressure, to form methane. (few people realize that hydrogen is produced by super heated steam contacting iron.) this methane continually percolates up to the surface of the earth to be consumed by microbes, except where it is trapped by rock or ice formations.
There is certainly a large amount of CH4 out in the cosmos.
…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…
Was anyone PAID to document these bubble plumes 50-100 years ago? I think not…
Prior to the use of sonar to locate schools of fish, would anyone have even noticed these plumes?
methane is produced naturally within the earth by the reduction of limestone and water by iron all along the “ring of fire” subduction zone. limestone itself is made from CO2 and calcium dissolved in the ocean.
limestone + water + iron + heat + pressure yields methane
the vast deposits of methane on earth were not the by product of rotting dinosaurs. They are the product of recycled CO2 within the earth. Otherwise all the CO2 on earth would have been long ago been bound up as limestone and life on earth would have gone extinct due to the lack of carbon as a basic building block.
FB, it is true that abiogenic methane is produced under unusual geological conditions. Largest quantities known are locked in clathrates (methane hydrate) at the bottom of the Framm Strait, as an indirect chemical consequence of mid-Atlantic tectonic seafloor spreading bringing up iron rich basalts. Certainly, most if not all nonterrestrial methan (Titan, etc) is of abiotic origin.
The vast majority of Earth’s present methane is of biological origin. Most natural gas deposits are thermogenic, the result of photosynthetic marine kerogen ‘cooked’ beyond the oil window. Most clathrates are biogenic, produced in deep seafloor sediments by methanogens ( Archea) decomposing organic matter below the temperature/ pressure clathrate ceiling. Think cold cow farts without the ow. Similar Archea organisms. Essay Ice that Burns provides more details and references.
Rud, I value your opinion highly, because usually it does not come from tea leaves. “The vast majority of Earth’s present methane is of biological origin.” Link, please? Is it based on models, or measurements?
Methane clathrates have a magnetic moment; methane obviously doesn’t. I wonder if the U of Washington researchers have checked this out.
CG, only measurements. No models. References in essay Ice that Burns. And the difference between abiogenic, thermogenic, and biogenic methane are determined by carbon isotope ratios. Standard oil and gas geophysics stuff. Abiogenic gas has been indisputably proven for decades, first from burning seeps in Turkey, Greece, and Spain. Framm Strait clayhrates are a quite recent discovery, well worth a google. Abiogenic oil has pretty much been discredited after the $40million Swedish misadventure. Makes no chemical sense from first principles absent sophisticated catalysts being developed by Siluria Technologies. Worth another google. Methane does under geologically feasible temp/pressure conditions with iron catalyst. As observation has shown. Regards.
ristvan,
I’m really enjoying trying to wrap my brain around your, “Think cold cow farts without the ow.” statement. LOL
Abiogenic oil has pretty much been discredited after the $40million Swedish misadventure.
=============
Rubbish. Biological petroleum (meaning “rock oil,) has been discredited by the laws of thermodynamics:
**********
“The spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons that comprise natural petroleum have been analyzed by chemical thermodynamic-stability theory. The constraints imposed on chemical evolution by the second law of thermodynamics are briefly reviewed, and the effective prohibition of transformation, in the regime of temperatures and pressures characteristic of the near-surface crust of the Earth, of biological molecules into hydrocarbon molecules heavier than methane is recognized.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.long
**********
There is also a logistical problem with the thermodynamically unconstrained fossil fable. Petroleum eating microbes infesting the planet from pole to pole, from the deepest anoxic sediments to the surface, consuming more oil and gas than we do, and have been doing so for eons, even before photosynthesis evolved.
Let me show you….
**********
“Far more natural gas is sequestered on the seafloor—or leaking from it—than can be drilled from all the existing wells on Earth”. -Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2004
“Methane seeping from the seafloor sustains microbes that serve as the base of the food chain for communities of animals, like these tubeworms, which thrive in the sunless depths.”
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/lstokey/2005/1/v42n2-whelan5en_5323.jpg
Microorganisms living in anoxic marine sediments consume more than 80% of the methane produced in the world’s oceans
-Methane-Consuming Archaea Revealed by Directly Coupled Isotopic and Phylogenetic Analysis, Science, July 2001
“Attempts to draft plausible scenarios for the origin of life have in the past mainly built upon palaeogeochemical boundary conditions while, as detailed in a companion article in this issue, frequently neglecting to comply with fundamental thermodynamic laws.
[…]
Based on a review of our present understanding of the biochemistry and biophysics of acetogenic, methanogenic and methanotrophic pathways and on a phylogenetic analysis of involved enzymes, we propose that a variant of modern methanotrophy is more likely than traditional WL systems to date back to the origin of life.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1622/20120258.abstract
**********
(for more convergent evidence, see my web page, “Life from Petroleum”, under my nym)
The frequently-invoked “reducing conditions” required for converting low energy dead stuff into high energy petroleum in the sediments have never been specified by fossil proponents, and are therefore unfalsifiable at this point. In contrast, petroleum has been squeezed from rock and water in the laboratory repeatedly by simulating the pressure and temperatures expected at depths of around 100kms. (using diamond anvil & laser)
Petroleum also has an affinity for (i) natural fractures, (ii) helium, (iii) sulphides, and (iv) diamondoids, none of which can be explained in fossil terms.
FB, CO2 (not methane) is recycled from carbonate rock in subduction zones, then vented back to the atmosphere by volcanic eruptions. Without which life would cease in about 2 million years as marine sequestration (carbonates from coccolithophores and foraminifera) would cause atmospheric levels to fall below 150ppm, at which point plants die from CO2 starvation, causing directly (herbivores) or indirectly (carnivores) the death of everything else from plant starvation.
BTW, Dr. Patrick Moore’s magnificent talk to the GWPF this date is highly recommended reading for all.
Rud,
The Marum video I posted below shows a map of the subduction zones on the globe, followed by a remotely-operated-vehicle (ROV) tour of the real world seafloor at most of those locations.
If you watch it (stunning footage, well worth a few minutes), you’ll see methane rising from the sediments at subduction zones in the real world, in exactly the way Ferd’s abiotic model of production predicted.
Check it out.
Assuming these vents produce methane for a long time, and from Willis article there is no sudden increase in methane the last years, no worry.
last week, I was ashamed that I was breathing out. This week I am ashamed to do a f@rt.
when will these greenies leave me alone ??
I’ve had my 77 Ford F250 with it’s 493 and 750 Holly carb in storage for the past 5 years.
I dug it out this spring, blew out all the bad gas, changed the plugs and passed emmisions with flying colors.
Since gas has been below $4.00/gallon, i’ve been driving it to work every day. I’ve forgotten what horse power plus 6000 lbs of steel can do when the light turns green. so far $50 dollars of premium gas lasts my truck a week from home to work if I stay off the freeway. It’s way more fun than the 4runner which tank lasts for two weeks.
Maybe in the future i’ll convert my truck to natural gas, what a gas that would be.
Someone notices something. It may have been going on for decades or more but because it wasn’t noted before, it’s suddenly something new.
How long has fishing sonar been in use? How likely is it that these “bubbles” were noticed by fishermen but not reported or even recorded?
It’s good that they are looking for past reports but how can they say or give the strong implication that they fall within the caGW timeline?
Where is the evidence that there is any significant warming at all at 500 metres.
This isn’t science, it is a fairy story
You nailed it in only 7 words Ian. Trouble is, no-one will give you taxpayers money to produce such insightful essays. The climate-changers have a need for ongoing taxpayer-funded salaries, hence they write alarming fairy stories.
I meant 8 words
New math?
I think there are similar plumes off the coast of Japan. The area is known as “the devil’s sea” or “the dragon’s triangle”. But no climatologists seem to be raising a scare about that.
From the Wikipedia page: “Research also explores natural environmental changes, as the cause of such controversial anomalies in the Dragon’s Triangle. One of these explanations is the vast field of methane hydrates present on the bottom of the ocean in the Dragon’s Triangle area. Methane clathrates (methane hydrates gas) will “explode” when it rises above 18 °C (64 °F). These gas eruptions can interrupt buoyancy and can easily sink a ship, leaving no trace of debris.”
Normally, I avoid going to the wiki for my references, but I’ve read the same thing elsewhere and in this case it was the most expedient source.
Not to mention the “ring of fire” volcanoes and subduction zones present on both sides of the Pacific ocean, including the Washington coast.
Is it too much to ask for the people who write these kinds of opinion pieces (I hesitate to call it a “science research” paper, because the author makes a claim with zero proof to support it) to maybe speak with a competent geologist/seismologist before spouting his nonsense?
This UW PR about a not yet published paper is a second slice of the same UW rotten apple. The first appeared Dec 5, 2014 in GRL. The 500 meter deep warming data in that paper is ‘very noisy’ (even according to the PR for that paper). The paper’s speculated mechanism for 500 meter depth warming is physically very implausible. And that mechanism is NOT the weather related ‘blob’, which only extends to a depth of 300 meters. Which means the ‘found’ warming is imaginary, not real.
Plus, a grand total of 14 out of the (IIRC) 168 methane bubble plumes identified were in the clathrate temperature/pressure transition zone, according to the lead post. Mark Twain’s science quip applies here for sure. A better illustration of junk climate science would be hard to find. Paris ho!
Scientists started looking at methane bubbles here in Santa Barbara a while ago, fortunately. Just FYI photos:
http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2007/012354/scientists-find-good-news-about-methane-bubbling-ocean-floor-near-santa-barbara
http://www.whoi.edu/oilinocean/page.do?pid=51880&tid=441&cid=89475&ct=61&article=57272
Methane had to be frozen for at least 50 years else the effect of manmade CO2 would need to be even less than alarmists claim….. Can’t have that, eh?
There are two theories of the origin of water and hydrocarbons on the surface of the earth.
1) The late veneer theory which supposes that – after the big splat at which time a Mars sized object collided with the earth removing most of the early earth’s atmosphere and volatile elements from the mantel – earth’s atmosphere was reformed by a late bombardment of comets. To account for the current enrichment of hydrocarbons on the surface of the planet this theory requires an early atmosphere that is 50 times the current atmosphere pressure.
The current amount of noble gases in the atmosphere does not support the late veneer theory (The amount of noble gases in the atmosphere is a fraction of that found in comets.) This fact is hand waved away with the suggestion that there is an unknown source of comets that differs from current comets.
Another negative for the late veneer theories is the complete lack of any components that form in a high pressure atmosphere in the geological record which indicates there was no high pressure atmosphere.
2) The second theory to explain the fact that the earth is 70% covered with water and there surface region of the mantel is enriched by a factor of hundred with hydrocarbons is the core CH4 source of hydrocarbons. As the core solidifies CH4 is extruded. The super high pressure liquid CH4 pushes through the mantel and is the reason why there is tectonic plate motion and is there reason why the continents float on the mantel.
One observation to support this assertion is the fact that there is large amount of helium in oil fields. The helium is produced from the decay of Uranium and Thorium in the mantel. Helium does and cannot break the mantel to travel to the oil fields.
The source of the oil fields is the super high pressure CH4 which carries with it heavy metals in solution at very high pressure and provides a pathway for the helium to the oil fields.
http://origeminorganicadopetroleo.blogspot.ca/2011/01/thomas-gold-professional-papers.html
See Carnegie Institute of Sciences Deep Carbon Workshop presentations and Gold’s book the Deep Earth Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil fuels, if you interested in this subject.
https://www.gl.ciw.edu/workshops/sloan_deep_carbon_workshop_may_2008
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9780387952536
From One Green Planet a media company claiming 4M vistors/month:
Putting aside the question of whether imbalanced bio-systems reporting has spiraled out of any semblance of sanity, I wondered what a “domino effect” of climate change might be.
A 2006 research paper by Stephen M. Gardiner titled “A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics and the Problem of Moral Corruption,” refers to a generational domino effect, where “climate change” demands intergenerational action, but “noncompliance by the first generation has a domino effect that undermines the collective project” such that it may not be possible to “create appropriate coercive institutions” and “current populations may not be motivated to establish a fully adequate global regime.”
http://ww.hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Environmental_Philosophy_Sp_09/Gardner_Perfect_Moral_Storm.pdf
In 2007, “Scientists Foresee Extinction Domino Effect” was the headline on an article warning “climate change is accelerating species extinctions and unraveling the intricate web of life” and that “up to 30 percent of all species on Earth could vanish by 2050 due to unsustainable human activities.”
http://www.ipsnews.net/2007/05/biodiversity-scientists-foresee-extinction-domino-effect/
In 2008, “Domino Effect” was the headline of an Environment Protection Online magazine article in which Thomas Fingar, chair of the National Intelligence Council, told Congress that climate change could lead to destabilized developing countries around the world, causing mass immigration and fostering terrorism. That claim was further expounded on in a 2009 University of South Florida News article “Domino Effect of Climate Change,” advising that “the domino effect of climate change will lead to political instability, armed conflict and national security issues even for better-positioned nations.”
https://eponline.com/articles/2008/10/20/the-domino-effect.aspx
http://news.usf.edu/article/templates/?a=1666
A plethora of precariously-positioned dominoes demand defensive action. Ignore them at your hypothetical peril!
Meanwhile, Willis’s recent “myths” article gives hope for a different domino effect, with common sense initiating a chain reaction of toppled Climatastrophist shibboleths
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/10/14/obama-took-wrong-side-on-climate-change-says-physicist-freeman-dyson.html?intcmp=hpbt3
[Please provide a few words of explanation rather than just a link. Thanks. ~mod.]
OOPs !!!!
A disproportionate number of the bubble plumes came from the critical depth for the stability of methane hydrates?
And chocolate bars come from chocolate bar factories! Tell me more about The Identity Theorem!