Ocean Sediment, It's A Gas

Methane is an important greenhouse gas, 30 times more potent than CO2, but our knowledge of the methane cycle is woefully inadequate. Sediments on the ocean's floor contain immense quantities of methane and there are enormous fluxes of methane into and out of these sediments. Trapped frozen in ice, there are some 10,000 gigatons of carbon stored under the sea—twice as much carbon as contained in conventional fossil fuel reserves. Some scientists consider the release of this methane the single worst environmental danger we face as a species. A massive release of ocean floor methane could cause real runaway global warming that would have dramatic impact on life. But methane continually leaks from seabeds around the world, contributing to the total amount of carbon injected into the ecosystem. A new report finds that ocean methane concentrations have been underestimated by a factor of 10 to 20 fold.

Estimates of sedimentary methane production vary between 85 and 300 Tg per year, but analytical difficulties have made previous measurements too imprecise to tell what the true amount is. Most previous estimates were calculated from ship board readings, not measurements taken at depth. According to a report in Geophysical Research Letters, Zhang et al., in order to avoid the sampling issues that have plagued other methods, employed an in situ technique to measure methane concentrations in sediments. Motivation for the research and general results are listed in the abstract:

Ocean sediment dissolved CH4 concentrations are of interest for possible climate-driven venting from sea floor hydrate decomposition, for supporting the large-scale microbial anaerobic oxidation of CH4 that holds the oceanic CH4 budget in balance, and for environmental issues of the oil and gas industry. Analyses of CH4 from recovered cores near vent locations typically show a maximum of ∼1 mM, close to the 1 atmosphere equilibrium value. We show from novel in situ measurement with a Raman-based probe that geochemically coherent profiles of dissolved CH4 occur rising to 30 mM (pCH4 = 3 MPa) or an excess pressure ∼3× greater than CO2 in a bottle of champagne. Normalization of the CH4 Raman ν1 peak to the ubiquitous water ν2 bending peak provides a fundamental internal calibration. Very large losses of CH4 and fractions of other gases (CO2, H2S) must typically occur from recovered cores at gas rich sites. The new data are consistent with observations of microbial biomass and observed CH4 oxidation rates at hydrate rich sites and support estimates of a greatly expanded near surface oceanic pore water CH4 reservoir.

In short, they found concentrations as much as 10 to 20 times higher than those determined by shipboard measurements and conclude that production rates are near the high end of past estimates. Researchers have known since the 1960s that there are large natural deposits of frozen ice containing methane lying on the ocean floor, where the high pressure and cold temperature keep them from melting. Oceanographers have pulled up frozen chunks of this material, called methane clathrate or hydrate, from more than 90 locations around the world.


Methane clathrate deep ocean deposit.

Clathrate hydrates are cage-like minerals in which water forms an ice-like cage structure in which gas molecules, such as methane, reside. Huge amounts of methane clathrate exist under the high pressures and cold temperatures of the seafloor, forming a major reservoir of greenhouse gas. Unsurprisingly, some energy companies are investigating ways to tap into this huge reservoir of trapped natural gas.

Other key findings include measurements giving a 30× increase in methane concentration and the conclusion that pore water methane is a massively underestimated carbon reservoir. Note that, when sediment particles get deposited on the seafloor they carry some ocean water with them. Water trapped in this way, scientists call “pore water” because it fills the pores between the sediment grains. Because this water is in contact with methane bearing clathrate ice, it also contains elevated levels of CH4.

In fact, there must be high levels of gas in the water saturating the mud that methane ice is buried in. Otherwise, according to Peter Brewer, ocean chemist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, the hydrate will not be stable. “If you just put a block of methane hydrate on the sea floor it will dissolve really fast,” says Brewer. “The hydrates in sediments have to be in equilibrium with the water around them, which must contain huge amounts of methane. One would guess it is about the same as the amount in the clathrate itself.”

This is why Brewer and his PhD student Xin Zhang, the papers lead author, equipped a remotely piloted submersible with a Raman-based probe to measure methane in place. Raman spectroscopy is well suited to chemical analysis on the ocean floor. The robotic sub can stick its metal probe into the mud next to a hydrate deposit and suck up water, and then a laser beam reveals the amount of methane and other substances in that water. Bottom line: there's a lot more methane down there than is apparent from cores brought to the surface.


A Raman spectroscopy laser on the sea floor.

So are the merchants of doom correct? Could a seafloor eruption of methane cause another episode of rapid warming like that of the PETM or even the more prolonged warming of the recently discovered Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum? Brewer thinks that a mass releases of sea-floor methane is unlikely to cause a blip in today's climate. More likely would be for any released gas to get digested by bacteria or dissolved into sea water, instead of released to the atmosphere. “It's not a scare story,” says Brewer, in an article on Nature.com.

Other than having oceanographers all atwitter, what do these new findings mean? It means that we have discovered science has a long way to go before it can claim to truly understand the carbon cycle. Particularly the sort of mid term sequestration of carbon represented by methane clathrates, falling as it does between the short term cycle of vegetation growth and decomposition, and the long term cycle of geological sequestration. There is more carbon being cycled through Earth's environment than science knows about—10, 20, even 30 times more than previous estimates in this case. It comes from sources undetected and is consumed by processes unknown. But there is a larger lesson here.

What is important about the work done by Zhang et al. is that they devised better instruments and then actually went out and measured the gas they were studying. In other words they did real science—they didn't just muck about with computer models, or even haul samples back to the lab for measurement. They gathered data about methane ice from where it occurs: on the bottom of the ocean. Real experiment, real observations, real science. If only the twits making doomsday predictions based on their software playthings had as much scientific integrity. But then the whole global warming crisis would fizz away, like a clathrate hauled from its ocean larder.

Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.

Cooling could release it, too

If sea levels drop and gradually reduce the pressure on these deposits, it might take little more than a local earthquake to destabilize a large amount of this methane.

What I am thinking about is slowly removing the cork of a bottle of champagne and then shaking the bottle.

Warming of the water isn't the only way to destabilize it. Colder temperatures that would possibly drop sea levels by several hundred feet might also set the stage for a large release.

Cuts both ways

That's a good point. When it comes to clathrate stability, temperature change cuts both ways. In fact, the significant drop in sea level during a glacial period (~400 feet) could well cause the release of a lot of methane, which breaks down into CO2. That would form a kind of feedback loop, where cold temperatures cause eventual warming. Only problem, CO2 levels seem to lag temperature. That may mean it takes both reduced temperature (i.e. dropping sea levels) and rising water temperatures (the ocean would warm before sea levels were restored by melting glacial ice). Another example of why climate change is not simple.

So, I went to Nature.com and

So, I went to Nature.com and read the article. You seem to like to cherry pick what is talked about. When Brewer says the methane is unlikely to cause a blip in the climate, he is referring to the likely hood of its mass release. The mass release would necessitate a change in ocean circulation.

"It's hard to imagine this happening," agrees Chapman. "Warming happens at the surface, and that would have to work its way down to the bottom. It would have to warm up about 4 °C — that's a huge amount." - Brewer

Its not that bacteria would consume a mass release as it seems you imply. That is an implication of a lack of knowledge of the carbon cycle that you've made using a statement out of context.

Next you talk about the clathrates as if we don't know where they are coming from and where they are going. You mention yourself that they are being consumed by bacteria when released from the sea floor. Second, read the following right from the very abstract you posted...

"The new data are consistent with observations of microbial biomass and observed CH4 oxidation rates at hydrate rich sites and support estimates of a greatly expanded near surface oceanic pore water CH4 reservoir."

Now the following is taken directly from that article.

"The recent review by Reeburgh [2007] estimates
sedimentary production as 85.3 Tg yr−1
and consumption as 75.3 Tg yr −1 However one estimate [Hinrichs and Boetius 2002] based upon microbial consumption rate data suggests
that sedimentary methane production is a factor of 4 higher at 304 Tg yr −1. Our data would tend to support that claim and more, and since production must equal or exceed consumption true CH4 production rates on continental shelves may well be significantly higher. The direct CH4 observations here are also consistent with the higher estimates of CH4 consumption inferred from SO4
ion gradients." (Zhang et al., 2011).

So, its not like there is no idea where the methane comes from or how much is being produced. There is no magical source as you imply. There is an understanding of sources and sinks, as well as estimates of how much is there.

There being even 30x more carbon on the ocean floor than previously estimated does not increase the entire carbon cycle by 30x. That is an exaggeration.

Different interpretations, not cherry picking

All of my posts contain my interpretation of the results and/or findings contained in the articles I cite. You might call it cherry picking but I call it taking an alternative view (see my article “Cherry Picking, Black Swans and Falsifiability” for a discussion of cherry picking). If you don't think that scientists are putting their own spin on the conclusions in journal papers you are quite naive. In the past I have disagreed with many “official” conclusions and have been proven correct.

A case in point, I quoted an article on ocean thermohaline circulation, stating the the findings presented had significant impact on existing circulation models (and hence climate models). The lead author disputed this publicly. Later, she and her group issued a second paper that pretty much concluded that the old model was dead and the game had changed.

That aside, my interpretation of a “mass release” is variable. My reading of Brewer's statement about not causing a blip is that it did indeed apply to a release on the order of the BP Gulf accident, in which 75% of the hydrocarbons released were in the form of natural gas, primarily methane. That is where a lot of the discussion regarding methane digesting microbes has come from.

It is widely suspected that a much more massive release, something that the ocean microbes couldn't handle, is what caused the rapid warming of the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). This sized event exceeds that amount of pollution humans produce, perhaps greatly. This event caused a 5-6°C bump in global temperature that took around 100,000 years to return to normal. And if all the methane trapped in ocean floor clathrates was released it would probably be devastating for sea life and most large land animals.

Finally, your assertion that the 30x increase in estimated ocean floor free methane has no impact on the carbon cycle is ludicrous. The fact that this methane is absorbed in the water column and doesn't make it into the atmosphere doesn't mean that the carbon released from clathrates is not part of the carbon cycle. The quote from the article you offer does indeed reaffirm that ocean methane production is higher than previously estimated, as is the amount of reabsorption. All forms of carbon that are released and recycled are part of the carbon cycle, whether in the deep ocean, in the atmosphere or in soil. If that previously underestimated source of methane was not there the way the carbon cycle works would be altered from its current form. It's the great circle of life, Simba.

But thank you for taking the time to follow the link and read the article. I fear that not enough people do. After all, science is a debate and scientific truth, as far as it exists, is open to many interpretations.

Discrediting science

I never stated that clathrates were not part of the carbon cycle, I was merely stating that your "interpretation" of the proportion of the carbon cycle it encompasses was exaggerated.

Sure journal articles have some skew to them, however, you are misinterpreting the data and presenting it by taking it out of context. That is a discredit to science.

Check the numbers

If you check the numbers, at the high end of the article's estimates, the ocean/methane interchange exceeds the normal exchange between land, sea and air. It also dwarfs the amount of carbon emitted by humans by a factor of 50 fold. I exaggerated nothing. As to discrediting science, aggressive ignorance is so tiresome.

Clathrate disassociation

Oddly enough, the physics of methane clathrates and their disassociation (melting of the ice phase and release of the methane) is something the petroleum industry knows very well since it poses a significant hindrance for pipeline operators. Pressure is far more influential than temperature. And this introduces a new hypothesis for clathrate disassociation. Continental glaciation and the drop of sea level would relieve pressure AND increase temperature. And shallower oceans could increase circulation.

Potential New Source of Clean Energy??

I wonder why there isn't more research done on developing methane hydrate deposits given that governments are throwing money at projects that are never likely to work. Surely if we can develop the technology to mine minerals under the ocean we can do the same for extracting methane crystals.