2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2015.07.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Megaplume bubble process visualization by 3D multibeam sonar mapping

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
1
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…After nearly stabilizing, atmospheric CH 4 concentrations are increasing again, although the underlying reasons remain poorly understood (Nisbet et al, 2015). Despite likely increasing future natural emissions from global warming feedbacks (Rigby et al, 2008) and anthropogenic activities (Kirschke et al, 2013;Wunch et al, 2009), many source estimates have large uncertainties with greater uncertainty in future trends. This is particularly relevant for Arctic sources where global warming is the strongest (Graversen et al, 2008).…”
Section: Arctic Methanementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…After nearly stabilizing, atmospheric CH 4 concentrations are increasing again, although the underlying reasons remain poorly understood (Nisbet et al, 2015). Despite likely increasing future natural emissions from global warming feedbacks (Rigby et al, 2008) and anthropogenic activities (Kirschke et al, 2013;Wunch et al, 2009), many source estimates have large uncertainties with greater uncertainty in future trends. This is particularly relevant for Arctic sources where global warming is the strongest (Graversen et al, 2008).…”
Section: Arctic Methanementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sonar is the most common survey approach and has been used on concentrated seep areas covering ∼ 1000 m 2 in the North Sea (Schneider von Deimling et al, 2007Wilson et al, 2015), far more dispersed and weaker seepage in the Black Sea of ∼ 2500 plumes in an area of ∼ 20 km 2 , and offshore Svalbard where a few hundred plumes were observed in an area of ∼ 15 km 2 (Veloso et al, 2015). Sonar can also be used from remotely operated vehicles for the deep sea, e.g., Muyakshin and Sauter (2010) for the Haakon Mosby mud volcano (3 plumes).…”
Section: Arctic Methanementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is suggested that carefully located deep ADCP may be able to resolve a rotation within a plume and could be used to test our suggestion that maintenance of the tight axial shape of the plumes is at least partially due to the formation of a vortex tube. Multibeam sonar data may also be useful for determining some of the plume internal structure and rotation (e.g., von Wilson et al, 2015). Instrumentation specifically set up for volumetric water mass assessment, or a number of AUVs having very sensitive internal navigation would be needed to identify plume morphology and rotation.…”
Section: Discussion and Conceptual Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Undirected hydrostatic pressures decrease during bubble ascent resulting in gas exsolution and bubble expansion and fragmentation, which in turn results in increased buoyancy, possible expansion of the bubble plume, and changes in the interfacial tension of hydrate-shelled bubbles. Vortex tube generation could explain the consistent relatively slender morphologies associated with plumes seen in multibeam data (Solomon et al, 2009;Colbo et al, 2014;Skarke et al, 2014;Smith et al, 2014;Tudino et al, 2014;Weber et al, 2014;Garcia-Pineda et al, 2015;Wilson et al, 2015) and recent observations indicate that vertical rise of buoyant plumes may be augmented by spiral flow geometries (von Deimling et al, 2015). Because the reflection and scattering from a bubble plume is a bulk effect, rotation has not been observed in seismic reflection data.…”
Section: Axialized Plumes In Vortex Tubesmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Currents distort the momentum plume, compressing it in the upstream direction and extending it in the downstream direction (McClimans et al, 2000;Leifer et al, 2009). Detrainment of suspended material from the bubble plume can segregate detritus and upwelled fluids into the downstream momentum plume ) including small, dissolving bubbles (Wilson et al, 2015). As noted, the major difference between the PROVESS and 22/4b sites is the presence of the FIC and the bubble megaplume at the latter location.…”
Section: Bubble Plumes and Vertical Fluid Motionsmentioning
confidence: 90%