Deep ocean current may slow due to climate change

Mar 21, 2014 by Katherine Unger Baillie
As global warming increases precipitation in the Weddell Sea, sea-ice patterns are changing and a deep sea current is shrinking.

(Phys.org) —Far beneath the surface of the ocean, deep currents act as conveyer belts, channeling heat, carbon, oxygen and nutrients around the globe.

A new study by the University of Pennsylvania's Irina Marinov and Raffaele Bernardello and colleagues from McGill University has found that recent climate change may be acting to slow down one of these conveyer belts, with potentially serious consequences for the future of the planet's climate.

"Our observations are showing us that there is less formation of these deep waters near Antarctica," Marinov said. "This is worrisome because, if this is the case, we're likely going to see less uptake of human produced, or anthropogenic, heat and carbon dioxide by the ocean, making this a positive feedback loop for climate change."

Marinov is an assistant professor in Penn's School of Arts and Sciences' Department of Earth and Environmental Science, while Bernardello was a postdoctoral investigator in the same department and has just moved to the National Oceanography Centre in the United Kingdom. They collaborated with Casimir de Lavergne, Jaime B. Palter and Eric D. Galbraith of McGill University on the study, which was published in Nature Climate Change.

Oceanographers have noticed that Antarctic Bottom Waters, a massive current of cold, salty and dense water that flows 2,000 meters under the ocean's surface from near the Antarctic coast toward the equator has been shrinking in recent decades. This is cause for concern, as the current is believed to "hide" heat and carbon from the atmosphere. The Southern Ocean takes up approximately 60 percent of the anthropogenic heat produced on Earth and 40 to 50 percent of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

"The Southern Ocean is emerging as being very, very important for regulating climate," Marinov said.

Along with colleagues, Marinov used models to discern whether the shrinking of the Antarctic Bottom Waters could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change.

They looked to an unusual phenomenon that had been observed from satellite images taken between 1974 and 1976. The images revealed a large ice-free area within the Weddell Sea. Called a polynya, this opening in the sea ice forms when warm water of North Atlantic origin is pushed up toward the Southern Ocean's surface. In a separate process, brine released during the sea-ice formation process produces a reservoir of cold, salty waters at the surface of the Weddell Sea. Because this situation is not stable, the heavy surface waters mix with the warmer, lighter waters underneath in a process called open-sea convection.

Polynyas were not observed again in the Weddell Sea after 1976, leading researchers to believe they –- and hence open-sea convection -– were rare events.

In the new study, however, the team suggests that polynyas were likely more common in the pre-industrial era, before anthropogenic climate change took hold.

The reason has to do with the fact that climate change has led to more precipitation around the Antarctic continent, which leads to greater levels of fresh water at the surface. Fresh water is more buoyant than saltwater and thus doesn't sink through the layers of the ocean as saltier water does, leading to fewer polynyas and less open-sea convection in the Southern Ocean.

The origin of Antarctic Bottom Waters is near the West Antarctic Peninsula.

"This is important because this process of deep convection that happens in polynyas is a big contribution to the Antarctic Bottom Waters, these deep currents that feed the rest of the ocean," Marinov noted.

Examining 20,000 data points, the researchers showed that the Southern Ocean surface has freshened during the last 60 years. They also found that vertical gradients of salinity and density have increased in the Southern Ocean, suggesting that mixing has been reduced.

Using the latest generation of climate models, 36 finely tuned and complex models that simulate climate change patterns, they found that, in most of the models, convective events, such as the polynyas captured by satellite images in the 1970s, were much more common in pre-industrial conditions, before anthropogenic climate change took hold.

"We see that the convective process is shutting down as the water gets fresher and fresher," Marinov said.

Seven of the models suggest that increased fresh water in the Southern Ocean could stop the convection from occurring altogether by 2030, and most models show strong decreases in convection during the 21st century, reducing the Antarctic Bottom Waters' formation.

This has implications for current and future climate change, the researchers said. The absence of polynyas in recent decades could mean that heat is getting trapped in the deeper ocean, possibly contributing to the recent "hiatus" in global atmospheric warming and the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent that have been observed in recent years.

But overall, Marinov said, "the slow down of polynyas will likely be a positive feedback on warming, as the convective process is shutting down and reducing the amount of new, anthropogenic carbon and heat being taken out of the atmosphere. We are pursuing these implications in our current work."

In a related paper, published this month in the Journal of Climate, Bernardello, Marinov and colleagues examine how the ocean's natural ability to store carbon might respond as the climate warms.

The ocean contains about 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere, making it a crucial but sometimes overlooked player in climate change regulation.

Irina Marinov, standing on Weddell Sea sea-ice.

This ability, Marinov noted, stems in large part because of tiny organisms called phytoplankton that live near the ocean's surface.

"They are all microscopic so we don't see them, but they are mighty," Marinov said. "They account for 50 percent of the photosynthesis that occurs on the planet."

In conducting photosynthesis, the phytoplankton take up carbon, which is then passed down through the deep ocean layers as these organisms and the organisms that eat them die and decompose. If it were not for this process, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would be about 200 parts per million higher than the currently observed 400 ppm.

The Penn-led team considered how wind, temperature and salinity may change during the 21st century and how these phenomena affect the natural ability of the ocean to store carbon.

Running climate simulations into the future, their findings suggest that the phytoplankton-driven biological carbon pump will strengthen, leading to increased carbon storage in the ocean. Yet this effect is not enough to outweigh the fact that a warmer ocean will not be able to hold onto as much gas.

"Gases are more soluble in colder liquids," Marinov said. "With climate change we predict that the ocean will lose some of its deep, natural carbon in the future, partly because the temperature warming effect is so strong."

Looking ahead, Marinov plans to add to this complex picture of the ocean's role in . She will participate in an effort to increase sampling from remote parts of the Southern Ocean, blending physical, biological and chemical analyses with further modeling.

"More and more, people interested in and climate sciences must also be interested in interdisciplinarity, in linking physics, biology, chemistry in the global climate context," she said.

Explore further: Global warming felt to deepest reaches of ocean

More information: "Cessation of deep convection in the open Southern Ocean under anthropogenic climate change." Casimir de Lavergne, et al. Nature Climate Change (2014) DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2132. Received 02 September 2013 Accepted 13 January 2014 Published online 02 March 2014

Bernardello, Raffaele, Irina Marinov, Jaime B. Palter, Jorge L. Sarmiento, Eric D. Galbraith, Richard D. Slater, 2014: "Response of the ocean natural carbon storage to projected twenty-first-century climate change." J. Climate, 27, 2033–2053. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00343.1

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Global warming felt to deepest reaches of ocean

Mar 02, 2014

In the mid-1970s, the first available satellite images of Antarctica during the polar winter revealed a huge ice-free region within the ice pack of the Weddell Sea. This ice-free region, or polynya, stayed ...

Recommended for you

NASA image: Fires in the Egypt River Delta

9 hours ago

This NASA satellite image is of the Egyptian River Delta. Actively burning areas, detected by MODIS's thermal bands, are outlined in red. Each hot spot, which appears as a red mark, is an area where the thermal ...

Terra Satellite sees Tropical Storm Ana over Hawaii

9 hours ago

Tropical Storm Ana made a slow track west of the Hawaiian islands over the last couple of days, and by Oct. 20 was moving westward away from the main Hawaiian islands and heading toward the northwest Hawaiian ...

User comments : 34

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mememine69
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 21, 2014
When will science be 100% certain that the worst crisis imaginable WILL happen because I can't issue a CO2 death threat to my own children with another 30 years of "95%" and "could be"? They can be certain about comet hits, evolution and smoking causing cancer but not if we need to SAVE THE PLANET or not?
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (16) Mar 21, 2014
When will science be 100% certain that the worst crisis imaginable WILL happen because I can't issue a CO2 death threat to my own children with another 30 years of "95%" and "could be"? They can be certain about comet hits, evolution and smoking causing cancer but not if we need to SAVE THE PLANET or not?


mememine69: Interesting comparison.

So, you are telling me that 100% of people who smoke will get cancer? Please show a references to that statistic.

You are also saying that there is a 100% probability that an asteroid will hit. Please tell me when and where?

I know there is an electron in the 1S orbital of hydrogen. Please tell me with 100% certainty where it is and what its momentum is?

What every scientist I know of is certain of is that excess CO2 in the atmosphere will trap IR radiation. That is reproducible. Where, when, and how much have uncertainty attached. Are you saying that is not the way science works?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 21, 2014
You are also saying that there is a 100% probability that an asteroid will hit. Please tell me when and where?

I know there is an electron in the 1S orbital of hydrogen. Please tell me with 100% certainty where it is and what its momentum is?

What every scientist I know of is certain of is that excess CO2 in the atmosphere will trap IR radiation.


Really,100% probability IR will be trapped?

OK, the Martian atmosphere is 95% CO2, would you conclude by observation IR is being trapped?

That is reproducible.


Where has this been reproduced? OK, you'll point to Venus, 95% CO2 as well? Now what?

Where, when, and how much have uncertainty attached.

That's for sure, especially true when comparing two planets with the same % CO2 & one has runaway greenhouse & the other doesn't, that's a 50% uncertainty at a minimum.

Are you saying that is not the way science works?

Using 50% uncertainty? Doesn't sound like good science to me.
Ducklet
2.3 / 5 (16) Mar 21, 2014
Too much may, can, could, might - I might sprout wings and fly to the moon, but that doesn't mean I will. Can we shift to reporting on science instead of more wildly hypothetical models and pseudo-science? This is all ecological economics all over again; in 1970 it was predicted that due to poor ecological economics 4 billion people (75 million Americans) would starve to death from food shortages in the first half of the 1980s. Climate change is the same thing all over - fit historical data and extrapolate wildly. It's total BS.
JohnGee
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 21, 2014
I might sprout wings and fly to the moon, but that doesn't mean I will.


That would also require sprouting a rocket engine. Somebody doesn't know science too well.

According to orbital mechanics and history, the Earth should actually be cooling. We are not just warming the Earth, but we are warming it so much the temperature is going in the wrong direction. It's sound science unless you think Newton was a hack.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (15) Mar 21, 2014
According to orbital mechanics and history, the Earth should actually be cooling.


Is this what you're referring to:

The Earth's tilt varies over a 42,000 year period, ranging from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees. The direction that the Earth's axis is pointed also changes over a long cycle, lasting almost 26,000 years. Right now, the Earth's north pole is pointed towards the star Polaris. Over the course of this cycle, the seasons for summer and winter reverse (at 13,000 years), and then return to their original positions (after another 13,000 years).

We are not just warming the Earth, but we are warming it so much the temperature is going in the wrong direction. It's sound science unless you think Newton was a hack.


Have you looked at the recorded data since the year of the 1998 Hockey Stick? CO2 levels are going up,while global cooling has set in for the past 16 years & showing no signs of weakening. Google it, the data is found all over government websites.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2014
2000 meters is deep?
Most of the ocean is below that depth.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 21, 2014
........or this JohnGee :

Obliquity (change in axial tilt)

As the axial tilt increases, the seasonal contrast increases so that winters are colder and summers are warmer in both hemispheres. Today, the Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees from the plane of its orbit around the sun. But this tilt changes. During a cycle that averages about 40,000 years, the tilt of the axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. Because this tilt changes, the seasons as we know them can become exaggerated. More tilt means more severe seasons—warmer summers and colder winters; less tilt means less severe seasons—cooler summers and milder winters. It's the cool summers that are thought to allow snow and ice to last from year-to-year in high latitudes, eventually building up into massive ice sheets. There are positive feedbacks in the climate system as well, because an Earth covered with more snow reflects more of the sun's energy into space, causing additional cooling.
TegiriNenashi
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 21, 2014
According to orbital mechanics and history, the Earth should actually be cooling. We are not just warming the Earth, but we are warming it so much the temperature is going in the wrong direction...


You mean it just happens that earth naturally cools a certain amount, and the mankind warms it up to compensate it exactly? What is your proposal: should we cool it even more, or leave mother Gaja alone?
JohnGee
3.9 / 5 (14) Mar 21, 2014
Benni, I'm referring to the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit which varies over the course of thousands of years. This affects the average sunlight the planet receives, cooling and warming it. We should be entering a cold period and are not. I don't know where you got the data that say the Earth has been cooling for the last 16 years. That's absurd.

The "hockey stick" disproves nothing.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 21, 2014

@JohnGee:

Orbital Variations:

Changes in orbital eccentricity affect the Earth-sun distance. Currently, a difference of only 3 percent (5 million kilometers) exists between closest approach (perihelion), which occurs on or about January 3, and furthest departure (aphelion), which occurs on or about July 4. This difference in distance amounts to about a 6 percent increase in incoming solar radiation from July to January. The shape of the Earth's orbit changes from being elliptical (high eccentricity) to being nearly circular (low eccentricity) in a cycle that takes between 90-100k yrs. When the orbit is highly elliptical, the amount of insolation received at perihelion would be on the order of 20 to 30 percent greater than at aphelion, resulting in a substantially different climate from what we experience today.

So which of any of the three posts I've made above about "orbital mechanics" would you like to pick to prove your case we should be entering a period of "global cooling"?

aksdad
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 21, 2014
Deep ocean current may slow due to climate change

...and it may not.

There is nothing here to suggest that this is anything more than well-funded, well-researched...how to say it?...speculation.

Antarctic ocean currents, Antarctic Bottom Waters, polynyas: all very interesting to study to understand the dynamics of Antarctica and how it may affect the rest of the globe. The key word is "may". Is any of this understood well enough to make accurate predictions? Doubtful.

The use of global climate models to paint future scenarios may be helpful as a means of testing theories, but those climate models are also not very accurate so they're useless for predictions.

Graph of accuracy of IPCC AR5 climate models at predicting global temperature:
http://www.climat...g1-4.jpg

(IPCC AR5 Technical Summary, p. 64 "Comparing Projections from Previous IPCC Assessments with Observations")
JohnGee
4 / 5 (12) Mar 21, 2014
You were about 10 minutes too late Benni. Good try though.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 21, 2014
You were about 10 minutes too late Benni. Good try though.


Actually JG, I didn't do it for you, I did it for the hundreds of others who will for the first time read this Commentary about orbital mechanics. I did it for those novices such as yourself who never knew it existed.

So, the onus is now on you to prove your case we should be in a global cooling state, not a global warming state based on what you claim to know about "orbital mechanics". Now that you have just learned something about orbital mechanics for the first time, you should know how to get the answer from the posting info I've given you.........Right?

JohnGee
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 21, 2014
What alternate reality do you live in? I clearly mentioned orbital eccentricity before you did.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2014
JohnGee muttered in some way to enliven his sense of self esteem & ego just like a child with
.. I clearly mentioned orbital eccentricity before you did.
But, you didn't answer Benni's question when u had the chance, isnt that far more important than childish oneupmanship, this is a Science site mate, not a prelude to ugliness like "Fight Club" ?

aksdad posted some good info
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig1-4.jpg
But, with doubtful provenance & the misunderstanding small variations imply errors in models.

ryggesogn2 mutters these things often
2000 meters is deep?
Most of the ocean is below that depth.
BUT, despite his CLAIM he completed University level Physics doesn't actually come up with any data - even by way of preparatory notes to support a position. Heck ryggesogn2, hasnt even been able to comment on the perturbation in the so called 'cooling period' re noise, here:- http://www.woodfo...rg/notes
for yr 2000+

ryggesogn2 degree !
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 22, 2014
@ thermodynamics, Maggnus, JohnGee, Vietvet, Sinister1812,

OK you down voting AGW geniuses above:

How many of you have ever seen a differential equation you could solve?
or
How many of you have ever seen a rate of reaction equation you could solve?

How many of you above math geniuses can create a graphical plot of JG's contention that the planet should be in a period of "global cooling" right now, basing this on his claim to be an expert in "Orbital Mechanics"?

Maybe the five of you above math geniuses can get together & do some PM's. After you've collaborated in your PM's & solved the math problem for proving your hypotheses about the present state of "climatic change vs. orbital mechanics", you can then create a blog site with the mathematically calculated data proving the state of climate change according to JG's claim.

With 6 yrs of engineering school education, I'll be able to follow any math you come up with.

Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 22, 2014
What alternate reality do you live in? I clearly mentioned orbital eccentricity before you did.

Now, prove you know something about it..........do more than clearly mentioning something about it. Impress us with some math proving your claim to being a mathematical genius in "orbital eccentricity".
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 22, 2014
So true as evidenced by the 'liberals' who post here.
"It's almost impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion with a liberal because while you're trying to come up with logical points to support your position, he's trying to come up with new ways to convince people you're Hitler."
1) Everyone who disagrees with a liberal is racist!
2) We're all going to die because man is causing global warming!
3) (Before Obamacare was passed) Everyone should support Obamacare because it will cover all of the uninsured, it'll save you money on health care, you'll get to keep your doctor and it'll be super convenient!
4) Guns cause crime and if we take guns away from people who haven't broken the law yet, then criminals will also not have guns somehow.
5) You can't expect black people to get voter ID.
6) Republicans are waging a war on women!
http://townhall.c...age/full
Sinter
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2014
Global CO2 stopped tracking with Milankovitch cycle northern hemisphere insolation beginning about 8,000 BCE, if it followed the northern hemisphere solar insolation trend established with previous interglacials, pre-industrial CO2 concentrations would be 245ppmv instead of the 280ppmv that we know is the correct value.

Methane stopped tracking with the Milankovitch cycle beginning about 4,500 BCE if it had tracked with the trend prior to 4,500BCE it would have reached 500ppbv by the 1880's instead of the 680ppbv that is the established value.

Had these greenhouse gasses not been increased during the agricultural revolution over the last 8,000 years, the combination of the Maunder Minimum and large stratospheric volcano eruptions in the 1810's http://en.wikiped...r#Causes would have produced several decades of ice sheet accumulation in the northern hemisphere and the change in albedo would have easily plunged the earth into the next glacial state.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 22, 2014
According to orbital mechanics and history, the Earth should actually be cooling. We are not just warming the Earth, but we are warming it so much the temperature is going in the wrong direction. It's sound science unless you think Newton was a hack.
But the earth is cooling, and has been for over a dozen years.

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2014
.
JohnGee
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2014
JohnGee muttered in some way to enliven his sense of self esteem & ego just like a child with
.. I clearly mentioned orbital eccentricity before you did.
But, you didn't answer Benni's question when u had the chance, isnt that far more important than childish oneupmanship, this is a Science site mate, not a prelude to ugliness like "Fight Club" ?

aksdad posted some good info

If you weren't so interested in trying to one-up me, you would have noticed I did answer the question, and you even quoted it.
orbital eccentricity
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2014
According to orbital mechanics and history, the Earth should actually be cooling. We are not just warming the Earth, but we are warming it so much the temperature is going in the wrong direction. It's sound science unless you think Newton was a hack.
But the earth is cooling, and has been for over a dozen years.

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Since the year of the Hockey Stick the mean temperature trends have flatlined & may very well go downward when 2014 data is entered. The Earth's atmosphere is cooling even as ppm of CO2 is rising. However JG, your phony claim that the mean atmospheric temperature is rising does not meet with the facts of the data.

JG, you feel you are such a mathematically gifted person, so just explain how rising CO2 levels & falling mean temperatures comport with one another. Your rate of reaction equation isn't working, your problem is you don't know why.

Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 23, 2014
Benni blundered as normal for the uneducated
But the earth is cooling, and has been for over a dozen years.
http://www.woodfo...14/trend
No.
Selective Temp data shows lower temperature With drop in salinity, two corroborate "Properties of water", very difficult for untrained to understand, an increase in heat will NOT result in increase in temps at all & depending on shifting sea currents exposing cooler waters to higher differentials thus dragging temps DOWN whilst the overall is a rise in heat !

Hey, where is start/end re the so called cooling then ?

WHY Integration & Knowing PHYSICS is so VERY important !

Especially so re Water, "Latent Heat of Fusion" does any non-uni person see that ?

Benni, not claiming to be educated like ryggesogn2 lied, will have difficulty understanding we don't know details about shifting deep sea currents BUT, we do Know,

http://en.wikiped...of_water
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 23, 2014
ubavontuba also uneducated in Physics & Maths blundered again
But the earth is cooling, and has been for over a dozen years.
http://www.woodfo...14/trend
Surely you have heard of:-
http://en.wikiped...of_water
During University days

AND

Must have a metric for deciding where the start point is for so called 'cooling' versus the end point for the warming you already agree occurred ?

Because obviously as the step wise time series is open to subjectivity then why are you so fixated on simplistic interpretations not commensurate with good education, sadly the only interpretation is you are untrained in interpreting graphs !

Factor that in with cumulative heat output, you are forgetting we are still burning 230,000 Litres of petrol each second, thus adding masses of GHG's *AND* extra heat beyond Insolation.

Why is this so hard for you ubavontuba to appreciate, understand or even articulate?
Sinister1812
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 23, 2014
Really,100% probability IR will be trapped?

OK, the Martian atmosphere is 95% CO2, would you conclude by observation IR is being trapped?

That is reproducible.


Where has this been reproduced? OK, you'll point to Venus, 95% CO2 as well? Now what?


And Mars atmosphere is 1% of Earth's. So it doesn't count. Venus is 90 times that of Earth. Just check on Google. It makes sense.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2014
@Mike_Massen

ubavontuba also uneducated in Physics & Maths blundered again
But the earth is cooling, and has been for over a dozen years.
http://www.woodfo...14/trend
Surely you have heard of:-
http://en.wikiped...of_water
During University days
You stupidly keep posting this like it means something. Explain, in your own words, what you think it adds to the discussion.

AND

Must have a metric for deciding where the start point is for so called 'cooling' versus the end point for the warming you already agree occurred ?
Maybe you need a metric to describe where you are when you start your day, but it's readily apparent to me from where I start.

Because obviously as the step wise time series is open to subjectivity then why are you so fixated on simplistic interpretations not commensurate with good education, sadly the only interpretation is you are untrained in interpreting graphs !
LOL. It seems apparent the uneducated one here, is you.

Factor that in with cumulative heat output, you are forgetting we are still burning 230,000 Litres of petrol each second, thus adding masses of GHG's *AND* extra heat beyond Insolation.
B.S.. This is insignificant in context.

Why is this so hard for you ubavontuba to appreciate, understand or even articulate?
LOL. More mindless word salad/babble. Are you yet another AGWite chatterbot?

Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 23, 2014
ubavontuba also uneducated in Physics & Maths blundered again


OK then, you put up the "time integrating response" equations proving otherwise....

Because obviously as the step wise time series is open to subjectivity then why are you so fixated on simplistic interpretations


This statement can only be interpreted that you think CO2 Vs. Temperature is non-linear, not the conclusion AGW math has been trying to spoon feed their mathematically challenged followers.

not commensurate with good education, sadly the only interpretation is you are untrained in interpreting graphs


Then it's up to you to come up with some math to prove that CO2 vs. Temperature can have a time integrating response that is non-linear as well as one that is iinear & that the two can occur simultaneously. The wonderfully mathematically gifted AGW's have been adamant that time integrating response is directly linear, they just don't include the last 16 years.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2014
Have you looked at the recorded data since the year of the 1998 Hockey Stick? CO2 levels are going up,while global cooling has set in for the past 16 years & showing no signs of weakening. Google it, the data is found all over government websites.

More Benni bollocks
.
Have you any concept of what a "system" comprises... as in the "whole" thing?
Isn't it obvious to even the most simple mined dolt that re the climate system the Oceans are THE major part. Why? ... err, perhaps because they absorb and retain solar energy at a rate 1000x that of the atmosphere due there being 1000x more mass and additionally the SH of water is 4x that of air.
Give me the data that shows that oceans aren't warming. Google it indeed.

You're conversing with people who know science on here sunshine, and you don't get to justify your ideologically derived conclusions by stupidity.
Try WUWT - you'll be preaching to the converted there.
PS: Some will think I've lost my patience - and they are correct.
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (13) Mar 23, 2014
Yeah, @runrig I too have had it with these Koch duped flatearthers too. The most amazing one of all is this lie that the earth hasn't been warming for the past 10 years, so there for the hockeystick is wrong. However CO2 has tracked global temperatures for millions of years very accurately so when CO2 spikes exponentially, it follows temperature too. The deniers are ignoring way too much, and most seem to have there heads in the sand when presented actual evidence.

From the article
Examining 20,000 data points, the researchers showed that the Southern Ocean surface has freshened during the last 60 years. They also found that vertical gradients of salinity and density have increased in the Southern Ocean, suggesting that mixing has been reduced.

An obvious consequence of global warming's impact on the ice sheets and glacial melting.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (13) Mar 23, 2014
I laugh at this idiocy.

Every few weeks one group publishes an alleged computer simulation claiming the worst, such as ocean currents shutting down, and another group publishes their simulation claiming it will not shut down...
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2014
I laugh at this idiocy.


@ Returner-Skippy. The Ira-Skippy will big laugh at you too me. What you doing with the Really-Skippy's pointy cap on your head? You think he make the fashion statement with that and wanted one too?

Whatever you. But maybe you tell me, is it or did it shut down or not shut down? Maybe the Returner-Skippy don't believe the oceans are in the trouble, eh?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Returner-Skippy the jester cap look good on you, oh yeah Cher, it does.
Neal Asher
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2014
And the ocean current MAY speed up, and it MAY stay the same, and rains of frogs MAY fall from the sky.