New methane scare off Washington coast begs the question: did anybody look for these before?

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

Sonar image of bubbles rising from the seafloor off the Washington coast. The base of the column is 1/3 of a mile (515 meters) deep and the top of the plume is at 1/10 of a mile (180 meters) depth. CREDIT Brendan Philip/University of Washington
Sonar image of bubbles rising from the seafloor off the Washington coast. The base of the column is 1/3 of a mile (515 meters) deep and the top of the plume is at 1/10 of a mile (180 meters) depth. CREDIT Brendan Philip/University of Washington

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

147 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 14, 2015 6:20 pm

Anthony,
It is amazing how little these academics in Washington investigate what is happening further down the plate boundary. We have a nearby beach town of Pismo Beach. “Pismo” is a Chumash word meaning “tar.” The beach has always been covered with tar which the Chumash gathered to seal their canoes. Note that this process began long before the major influx of Europeans and Asians. Perhaps the folks in Washington believe Chumash cooking fires melted methane hydrates deep in the Pacific, however since the normal wind flow is on shore rather than off shore, there is no vector to blow heat from cooking fires on land to toward the Pacific.
They could also look toward Santa Barbara where there is sufficient methane seeping from 6,000 feet below that there are pyramids installed to collect the methane. “The second largest oil seep in the world is off Coal Oil Point. The first is in the Caspian Sea,” Greig informs the group. “In the 1980s, Arco installed two large, steel pyramids on the ocean floor to capture the natural gas. The tents, or pyramids, are about 100 feet by 50 feet wide. We [Venoco] collect 250,000 cubic feet of natural gas from those pyramids every day.”
“The seeps have been here thousands of years. There’s evidence that when the explorer Cabrillo came to the Santa Barbara area in the 1500s, he documented the seeps. The Chumash used the tar in their daily lives to caulk their canoes.”
http://www.missionandstate.org/departments/our-town/mission-seep/
This seepage gas is one of the sources of natural gas which supplies my house.
Since this seepage dates back much more than 500 years, it is highly unlikely that AGW has anything to do with it. Clearly, lead author H. Paul Johnson needs to do a bit more traveling down the West Coast to find out what has been happening off California’s Central Coast since before Cabrillo sailed here.
Brooks Hurd
San Luis Obispo, CA

Bernie
October 14, 2015 6:49 pm

Good show! Evoke “Deepwater Horizon” for visual impact! Maximize fear!

October 14, 2015 7:21 pm

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but my investigations lead me to believe the natural gas and petroleum deposits off the California coast could keep the state’s welfare business profitable for decades at least.

AntonyIndia
October 14, 2015 8:48 pm

Me thinks the first thing a rational scientist without agenda should research off the coast of Washington, Oregon is fault line properties or even underwater vulcanism. The risk of tsunamis there is massive too. Me thane??

indefatigablefrog
October 14, 2015 9:02 pm

Has anybody looked for these weird plumes before?
Yeah, that’s probably a really good question.
No, man, nobody did – and that is why we are all totally freaking out.
But wait – this kinda thing is why I wrote down my guide for stoner scientists.
So, that all the stoner environmental studies guys can get to grips with the problem of observational bias.
O.K. dudes, I found it. So here it is:
“When you let yourself get intensely messed up about just one kinda shit,
then you tend to focus in on it waaaay to much, and give that shit waaaay too much time and attention,
and then you tend to notice all sorts of weird new shit, about the shit.
New shit, which had not formerly been weighing on your mind.
Then you end up getting deeply heavy and a bit psyched about all the weird new shit that is seemingly going down.
And you are like, woah, this is all way too much for me man, we gotta do something about this, I’m getting seriously freaked.
So, next thing, you are trying to freak out the whole planetary system, and shit, by writing a doom-laden scientific paper.
But, hell, the money is freaking A. And Nature will publish pretty much any junk. So no hassles there.
As long as your paper doesn’t get shredded by MacIntyre, because that dude can do math.
But, that’s why you have to be careful about getting snagged up on your own fears.
Because, seek shit and ye shall find more shit. (Apologies to the good book).
And because you are the biggest sucker around. (Apologies Feynman)
And because, shit does go down. (Apologies, Rumsfeld)
Wait a minute…why am I apologizing to Rumsfeld?
Screw you, Rumsfeld.”
And I wrote all that down whilst completely loaded. Pretty amazing huh?
Now even stoner researchers can avoid getting freaked out.
If we all listened to my words of wisdom then we could all stop freaking out and figure out what is really going down. Which is probably not all that much. Thanks dudes…

Mark Cooper
October 14, 2015 9:14 pm

Doubt anyone will read this far down but anyway, I’ve been involved in drilling many oil/gas wells in the North Sea, including deepwater wells in 500m to 1000m of water, where the seabed temperature is Minus 2’c.
When we drill there, we warm up the seabed and release plumes of Methane from melting clathrates. Its a well known problem in the industry because the sediment is heated enough to release the gas, but as soon as the gas exits the seabed it cools down and if you have equipment down there such as a wellhead or BOP, the gas re-freezes and covers everything in “ice” making it difficult to operate the equipment. So when we drill in those conditions, before we start we put a mat on the seabed about 30m x 30m to prevent the freezing interfering with the equipment.
Oil companies have sonar data of the resulting plumes of gas.
So I am confident is saying the image in the post is not a plume of gas from the seabed, it is something else.
Keeping it simple, in water, pressure increases with depth at a rate of 1 bar/10m, so at 500m, the pressure is 50 bar methane released at this depth will expand by a factor of 50 between the bottom and the surface. because of this, even tiny gas plumes are an inverted cone (like a tornado) except with a tiny source single point and an area of 1000’s of metres.

Patrick
Reply to  Mark Cooper
October 14, 2015 10:55 pm

Well worth the post Mark, thanks!

Reply to  Mark Cooper
October 15, 2015 12:06 am

“Like a tornado”, but inverted — as typically seen in sonar data:
http://www.deconcrete.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/methane-plumes.jpg
Methane liberated from the hydrate dissolves into the water column as it rises, leaving smaller and fewer bubbles at the top of the vanishing plume compared to the source at the bottom. The dissolved gas invariably gets sucked into the complexities of the biosphere:

That’s why the ebullient sediments don’t produce an effervescent surface at the end of the day.

Mark Cooper
Reply to  Khwarizmi
October 17, 2015 7:58 am

Sorry but I disagree. Just because you find one case of methane being absorbed at around 600m on google you state all gas plumes are inverted cones. However, that is not a “typical” gas plume
have a look at this link- which is actually typical of methane gas plumes.
http://www.condorexpressphotos.com/keyword/seep;gas/

Reply to  Khwarizmi
October 17, 2015 7:25 pm

Thanks for the interesting photos. I checked the location and depth of the first example (Platform Holly), only to discover that there is only 64 meters of water column above the seep:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellwood_Oil_Field
But your argument was predicated on leakage from depths of around 500 meters:
Keeping it simple, in water, pressure increases with depth at a rate of 1 bar/10m, so at 500m..” etc.
The seepage in the article has 515 meters of water column to percolate through, vanishing entirely at around 180 meters below the surface. Thus, after rising ~340 meters, all the gas has dissolved. That’s what happens with for gas rising from those depths.

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  Mark Cooper
October 15, 2015 10:17 am

I read down this far. And found your comment fascinating and insightful.
Unfortunately, your opinions on the matter would be immediately discounted by academics, because you have based what you have said on years of practical real-world experience.
You have failed to either publish or cite an academic paper.
Nor have you produced a fancy computer graphic to illustrate your point.
The assertion that academic science is 97% bullcrap shall remain unchallenged by people who have done real stuff in the real world.

James Bull
October 15, 2015 12:02 am

I’d be more worried by the large hot air venting going on in Washington than this little bit of Methane.
I will make a prediction about the future which will come true
There Will Be Much More Hot Air Venting In Paris and all of it will be wasted to no purpose.
James Bull

Samuel C. Cogar
October 15, 2015 6:07 am

Note: Shortly after publication, some text formatting errors were corrected, and bolding of a statement added.

Did they fix this mistake ( my bold)?

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.”

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 15, 2015 6:21 am

If I were a fisherman I’d stay far away from gasventings at sea. If the quantity of bubbles gets greater and greater the water loses its capacity to bouy the vessel. If the bouyancy is decreased too much your boat will sink. Blup.

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 15, 2015 10:25 am

This theory/topic has been considered at great length in the past.
Although nobody has ever reported having been sucked down into the briny deep, in this manner.
I wonder why?
http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/methane_hydrates.html

Michael J. Dunn
October 15, 2015 10:24 am

For “Hugs,” further up: Just remember that plate tectonics started as a “fringe theory.” Don’t be too quick to construe an open mind as being hostile to your closed one.

Hugs
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
October 15, 2015 11:17 am

I think at this point opposing plate tectonics is just daft.

Editor
October 15, 2015 10:30 am

The UW press release contains this statement:

“Still unknown, however, is whether these plumes are really from the dissociation of frozen methane deposits.
“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.”

There is no indication whatever that they have actually measured any temperatures or temperature increases in the area they have studied, nor have they captured any gas or analyzed the gases to see if they are hydrate-sourced methane.
They have considerable jumped the gun — and yes – I too fear that it is yet another run-up-to-Paris scary press release.

October 15, 2015 12:20 pm

Er…….. 0.1 million tons? I’ve just gone back and checked, yes that is what they said. If they are right, this is no more than a drop in the bucket. If they are right (again, a bit of a reach, but let’s be kind) and it’s all converted to CO2 by feeding marine micro-organisms, that would be 0.275 million tons of CO2. Among the gigatons that we are constantly reminded about that “we” are emitting, this looks like, as I once heard from a prospector on the west coast, “a popcorn fart in a sandstorm”.
And why did they say “0.1 miillion tons” instead of “100,000 tons” or “10^5 tons” Perhaps the word “million” makes it sound like a big number?
Talk about jumping on the bandwagon.

EthicallyCivil
October 26, 2015 2:16 pm

With one data point, the slope is undefined. Speculation without data is not science. Auggh.

Verified by MonsterInsights