Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Deep Pacific Waters Are Cooling Down Due To Centuries-Ago Little Ice Age, New Study Suggests (inquisitr.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the cause-and-effect dept.

schwit1 quotes a report from The Inquisitr: Most of the world's waters may be warming as a result of climate change, but a new study shows that the deepest parts of the Pacific Ocean still appear to be cooling down hundreds of years after the period in history known as the "Little Ice Age." According to a report from Science Daily, a team of researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) and Harvard University discovered that there has been a "lag" of a few centuries in terms of temperature change in the deep Pacific. This part of the ocean, the report stressed, is still seemingly cooling and adjusting to the temperature drops of the Little Ice Age while the rest of the Pacific gets warmer as a result of modern factors.

"These waters are so old and haven't been near the surface in so long, they still 'remember' what was going on hundreds of years ago when Europe experienced some of its coldest winters in history," commented WHOI physical oceanographer Jake Gebbie, lead author of the new study. As documented in a paper that was published Friday in the journal Science, the researchers created a model simulating how the deep Pacific's temperature might react to changes in climate on the surface, then compared the data from the model against two historical sources. These sources included ocean temperature data taken in the 1870s by scientists aboard the HMS Challenger and temperatures gathered over a century later, through the World Ocean Circulation Experiment in the 1990s. Based on how these comparisons aligned, the researchers found that warming was present in most parts of the world's oceans and consistent with the current trend of climate change. The only exception was the deep Pacific, where temperatures were cooling at around 1.25 miles (two kilometers) deep. This suggested that long-ago changes in surface climate, such as those that took place during the Little Ice Age, could still have an influence on the effect of climate change in modern times.

144 comments

  1. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Don't worry the global warming preachers have calculated every possible variable and this is simply a glitch.

    1. Re:Don't worry by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      During the Little Ice Age, surface temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere dropped by about 2C, and sea ice expanded while snowfall decreased. The coldest and densest water in the ocean is Antarctic bottom water, which forms as ice freezes on the surface. The ice is nearly salt free, which means the seawater left behind is extra salty, and thus dense, so it sinks. When it reaches the bottom, it can't just immediately flow toward the deepest part of the sea, because there is no monotonic slope. Instead it fills basins close to the ice shelf, and only flows to deeper water when those are full. Yes, this can take centuries. Reason: The ocean is big. Really big.

      Here is an excellent description of the topology of the ocean bottom. Especially look at the last map, showing the deep basins around Antarctica.

    2. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      The Church of Global Warming really bears such striking resemblance to traditional religion, it's frankly uncanny. No sooner does some type of contradictory information become known than the acolytes have rationalized away the explanation and fit it tidily into their canon. There is no type of proof that cannot be warped into the Global Warming Armageddon myth.

    3. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      What's "uncanny" is the amount of Republican faggots willing to lie without even requiring payment up front. I mean c'mon, aren't you 6 time walking bankruptcies pretending to be good at business? DEMAND payment!

      Propaganda isn't free, what the fuck are you INCEL's doing?

    4. Re:Don't worry by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

      This is the moronic credo of the climate science denier that until every possible variable is accounted for that there's doubt and therefore no cause to act. Of course in an infinitely complex analogue system this is impossible, if the same criteria were applied to every other endeavour humanity has undertaken we would still be in the stone age and if we listen to these morons that's exactly where we'll return.

    5. Re:Don't worry by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no type of proof that cannot be warped into the Global Warming Armageddon myth.

      "Proof" is a mathematical concept. In science, there is only evidence.

      The evidence is that the very deepest ocean water, in the Marianas, Philippine, and Bougainville trenches, is getting colder. A plausible hypothesis is the one made in TFA: A lag of Antarctic bottom water from the Little Ice Age, because of the deep basins in the Southern Ocean.

      This is supported by models, and (most importantly) is falsifiable: If the hypothesis is correct, the water in the southern basins should be getting warmer. Surface waters should also be warming. Only the extreme depths should be getting colder.

      If you have an alternative hypothesis, then please tell us, and explain how it can be falsified.

      Other "contradictory" evidence, such as expanding sea ice around Antarctica, is also best explained within the context of global warming: As air temperatures rise, they hold more moisture, which means more snowfall onto the ice pack. So the ice pack is expanding even as measured air temperatures rise. Notably, this is NOT happening in the Arctic, since temperatures there are already higher. The northern ice pack has shrunk by over a million square miles. Feel free to post an alternative falsifiable hypothesis.

    6. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck yeah, let's burn some more coal and further pollute the food chain with mercury. /snark

    7. Re: Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidence? Facts? Falsifiability?

      That is for real science! We are talking about AGW!

      Keep your white trumptard nazi faggot science away from here! We dont need none of your white science! We got the truth handed down to us by Al Gore and NPR and Maxine Waters!

      Fuck you and your fake news and your wall and your little dog Toto, too!

    8. Re: Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: we still have NO IDEA wtf we are talking about but if you point that out we will call you names and ruin your career so stfu and go along with the taxes so we can all get rich off the stupid bastards who actually have to work for a living.

      I am happy to have helped clarify your statement. Your version was a bit too opaque. Now it is very clear who you are and what you mean and your end goals.

      Real science is falsifiable, uses facts, questions evidence, never stops asking questions and does not go ape shit crazy when someone points out an error or questions a premise. AGW is not science. It is politics. Just another in for the socialists to exert control over our freedom and finances.

    9. Re: Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      As a Republican denialist propaganda faggot, this pseudo-sarcastic "pretend-to-be-your-adversary-and-act-irrational" ploy really appeals to my tiny micropenis and nonexistent testicular pudenda specifically. Thanks, lieo-cons.

      Keep up the tiny felatios, Putin is counting on you.

    10. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct credo for Science is to always be open to having an hypothesis disproved. To do otherwise is to be an unscientific ostrich. That is not a "moronic credo" but the credo of a true scientist who is not prejudiced by politics. Anytime I hear someone preface their personal conclusion with the justification of "proven science" I know two things (1) that whatever follows is simply their prejudiced opinion and (2) the science is definitely not proven.

      That does not, however, mean that we should not act with prudence.

    11. Re: Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Again, climate denialist faggot, this is about the science being factual, not the taxes being sub-actual. You're a moron, fuck off to a coal mine and die there. Nobody cares nor will miss you deplorables. Welp, so long!

    12. Re:Don't worry by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I think it's important to note this is just one study. While the evidence for global warming as a whole is pretty overwhelming it doesn't mean that every bit of climate related research is correct.

      There's a lot of things that could have gone wrong with this study, their corrections and adjustments to the historical deep sea temperature data could be incorrect, the model could have bad assumptions, their assumptions about the relationship between the deep sea and other waters could be incorrect, etc, etc.

      This is a cool study, and it may be right, but it's better to think of it as starting the process for understanding the role of the deep sea rather than providing a solid answer.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    13. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Global warming happens. It's happened many times in the Earth's life. Extinction also happens. It too has happened many times in the Earth's life and we would not even exist if the mass extinction events didn't happen.

      Most people are just fucking self-centred and too stupid to understand that life and the state of everything is temporary. Trying to fight against nature and the multiverse is both futile and a waste of time. I prefer to spend my time grateful for being lucky enough to have existence and having as much fun as possible while I have it. One day, nothing will exist in our universe and possibly the entire multiverse/xenoverse.

    14. Re:Don't worry by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      I think it's important to note this is just one study. While the evidence for global warming as a whole is pretty overwhelming it doesn't mean that every bit of climate related research is correct.

      Specifically, the idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming is well-supported by experiment.

      The predictions of disaster are not well-supported at all.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Don't worry by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I think it's important to note this is just one study. While the evidence for global warming as a whole is pretty overwhelming it doesn't mean that every bit of climate related research is correct.

      Specifically, the idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming is well-supported by experiment.

      The predictions of disaster are not well-supported at all.

      That we've had climate change already is incontrovertible.

      That climate change will accelerate due to feedbacks is controversial to the public, but not among the only people who seriously investigate it.

      We're already in the middle of a mass extinction, that is just a fact.

      To risk even more climate change in the middle of a mass extinction is lunacy. Sure the scientists might be wrong, and we might find some cool technological solution, but we also might be underestimating the severity of the situation we're about to encounter.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    16. Re:Don't worry by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      That climate change will accelerate due to feedbacks is controversial to the public, but not among the only people who seriously investigate it.

      What blog did you read that on?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re:Don't worry by quantaman · · Score: 1

      That climate change will accelerate due to feedbacks is controversial to the public, but not among the only people who seriously investigate it.

      What blog did you read that on?

      Every serious news organization and magazine for the past 2 decades.

      Seriously, stop this game where you pretend there's no scientific consensus. If you want into any sciences department at a University and start declaring that AGW isn't happening people are going look at you like you're a fruitcake.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    18. Re:Don't worry by phantomfive · · Score: 0, Troll

      Seriously, stop this game where you pretend there's no scientific consensus

      I didn't. There's no consensus on what feedbacks are important, or how large they might be.

      Here's another one for you that will show how ignorant we are: there is no consensus on how much the atmosphere warms the earth compared to if it weren't there. We know to within ~10 degrees, but that's a huge margin of error. Look it up.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re: Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More ad hominem attacks without substance. You lose sucker.

    20. Re: Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're still in ice age - poles are still covered in ice. This ice age is about to be over. A few degrees up or down within a few decades isn't very unusual. It happens with or without humans. We will need to be able to adapt either way.

      Where it gets religious is the belief in a precise sub-percent-error CO2-temperature correlation. Measurements we have come with error bars the size of the signal, and the models for the complex and not fully understood reality contain more parameters to tune them to reality than data exists to feed into the models. Improving is very tedious because we can't get more than one year of data per year, and not do much experiments.

      Of course there are scientifically valuable papers analyzing individual effects, with appropriately carefully worded limited conclusions. Putting things together isn't easy, and from there, before it reaches media for the masses, it quickly loses all error bars and the model boils down to CO2 correlates directly to temperature, showing a chart of a couple of years of temperature data as proof. Somewhere along that process it becomes religon.

    21. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There's no consensus on what feedbacks are important, or how large they might be." Wrong, really. How large is kind of unbounded but other than that we know insulating gasses insulate and that mankind's activities add a lot.

      The people who want to pretend the tailpipe just pumps out clean potable atmosphere are the people we're talking about being disingenuous about this. Not people whose models of warming are 4% off, or 15% off. That's a hard long-term prediction.

      Stop being an agent of FUD.

    22. Re:Don't worry by Sique · · Score: 1
      People dying happens also. Thus close down all hospitals and disband all police forces investigating murder!

      Somehow your logic is quite off.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    23. Re:Don't worry by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The moronic credo is, that "doubt" is equivalent to anything. Doubt is just "I don't believe it", and belief does not go well with science.

      It's a completely different story if you put up a What-if-hypothesis and gather data and build models and investigate which consequences this What-if would have. And if this What-if harmonizes with what we see, then you have a valid ground for further scientific investigation.

      Albert Einstein was famous for not believing into Quantum Mechanic. But he didn't deny quantum mechanics, he put up a series of very interesting what-if-hypotheses like the Bose-Einstein-condensate, quantum entanglement etc.pp. which would be true if quantum mechanics were true, and which were the base of further scientific work. Today, we know they are real, and Quantum Mechanic is still ruling supreme. Albert Einstein was wrong in this case, and still he managed to greatly further the science of Quantum Mechanics. He even got his Nobel Prize in Quantum Mechanics (and not for Special or General Relativity). That's how doubt works in Science. Not by just declaring "I don't believe it" or "There might be future results contradicting this", but by actually thinking through your alternative hypotheses and publishing possible results.

      Yes, it's possible that there are unknown effects lurking somewhere, and we should be open if we get evidence of it. But for instance, we are able to calculate the absorption spectrum of Carbon dioxide down to 10 digits, and the results of experiments fit the calculation. There is not much wiggle room for Carbon dioxide not being a Greenhouse gas. The planetary greenhouse effect was wellknown already in the 1970ies, when the first probes landed on Venus and Mars and actually measured the effect of a 95% Carbon dioxide atmosphere on both planets. Why for some reason the effect clearly measured on two other planets would not exist on Earth is somehow not clear.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    24. Re:Don't worry by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Frankly, if you're frying me I don't give a shit whether it's at 200 or at 220 degrees. It doesn't matter whether you drown in two or two hundred meters of water. There are certain levels at which it doesn't really matter whether it's "more" or "less", there is such a thing as "enough". One bullet is enough to kill a person. Of course you can use 100, but one is sufficient.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re: Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Democrat unhinged lunatic, this straight-laced "ad hominem" ploy really appeals to my deep rooted father abandonment issues.

      Fight the power! Neo-facism is counting on you.

    26. Re:Don't worry by stealth_finger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously, stop this game where you pretend there's no scientific consensus

      I didn't. There's no consensus on what feedbacks are important, or how large they might be. Here's another one for you that will show how ignorant we are: there is no consensus on how much the atmosphere warms the earth compared to if it weren't there. We know to within ~10 degrees, but that's a huge margin of error. Look it up.

      So the obvious solution is to do nothing and everything will be all fine forever? You talk like the earth gives a shit if we're on it or not and will always balance for us. Spoiler alert, it won't. Regardless of the causes we can see the average global temperature is going up and that's bad for us so were trying to do something about it.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    27. Re:Don't worry by stealth_finger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One day, nothing will exist in our universe and possibly the entire multiverse/xenoverse.

      And if we one day find ourselves in a position to stop or delay that should we take it or just say hey ho it's the natural run of things and it was fun while it lasted?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    28. Re: Don't worry by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Real science is falsifiable, uses facts, questions evidence, never stops asking questions and does not go ape shit crazy when someone points out an error or questions a premise. AGW is not science. It is politics. Just another in for the socialists to exert control over our freedom and finances.

      Where is the science that says everything will be just rosy?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    29. Re: Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People get angry when you challenge their religion.

    30. Re: Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure antifa isn't on the conservative side of any issue.

    31. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what experiments are you referring to? Has someone setup a very large and tall, closed environment location with simulated sun light and the exact composition of the atmosphere, then measured the surface temperatures then changed only the concentration of CO2 in the enclosure from 400ppm to 450 or 500ppm and then measured it?

      Or are the experiments you are referring to computer simulation models?

    32. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then you're in luck because not even the most absurd radical predictions show temperatures anywhere near 200. The argument is over a potential paltry 1-2 degrees at most, if that even occurs.

    33. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know that you interfering wouldn't cause worse catastrophic problems? When did you become so omnipotent that you know better than nature or the universe what should and shouldn't be, who made you arbiter of what the exact temperature the Earth should be?

      You are such a speciest, you don't give a crap about any species but your own. CO2 is plant food and it is absolutely proven that increased CO2 increases plant coverage. Increased temperatures, if they are really caused by CO2, opens up whole new areas of previously hostile territory for animal, bird and insects to occupy.

      But all you care about is the fact your beach front property might get closer to the water and that you might get a little uncomfortable where you live.

      Typical human.

    34. Re: Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if these cold water basins have been there for hundreds of years, clearly they have zero effect on current overall climate. I envisage random spots of somewhat cooler water on the bottom of the ocean, piled up and organised by topography

    35. Re: Don't worry by Type44Q · · Score: 1
      There's another category besides hearsay; it's called logic.The way it works - t's a good system - is you find "flaws" or "holes" in their logic, and point them out.

      Or not, as the case may be...

    36. Re:Don't worry by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Increased CO2 does improve plant growth, but also lowers nutritional value, which is a bit of a problem for anything that eats it.

      And the biggest problem with global warming is not so much that it's happening, but that our best understanding is that if we continue on as we are we're going to make it happen FAST - and every time that happens in the geologic record we see mass extinction events - typically upwards of 90% of all species go extinct, and it takes thousands of years for the ecology to recover. That's not a good time for anyone.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    37. Re: Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said multiverse like you understand something. Any citation that is not to some nutjob blog misinterpreting physics research?

    38. Re: Don't worry by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Logic is useless without evidence to give it foundation, just like your post.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    39. Re:Don't worry by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So the obvious solution is to do nothing and everything will be all fine forever?

      The obvious solution, to any scientist, is to do more research and figure out what is happening. Fearmongering and hysteria (which you are promoting) helps nothing.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    40. Re:Don't worry by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Frankly, if you're frying me I don't give a shit whether it's at 200 or at 220 degrees.

      What are you talking about? The earth is going up to 200 degrees? Do you think that's science? Do you think?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    41. Re:Don't worry by cahuenga · · Score: 1

      So the obvious solution is to do nothing and everything will be all fine forever?

      I remember way back in my youth hearing about this thing called "erring on the the side of caution", especially when consequences rise to the level of 'catastrophic'.

      This issue qualifies, and the vast majority of the experts and empirical evidence point in one direction, catastrophe. However, in this case 'erring on the the side of caution' doesn't do this choice justice. This is more about the difference between wishing something were true and informed expert opinions, intelligence and wisdom

    42. Re: Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The result of any temperature measure is greatly modified by where is was recorded. 1 or 2 degrees over much of Europe and America, 3 to 4 over the tropics. However in the last decade alone, temperatures have shot up by 10 to 15 degrees over much of the arctics. The only way to achieve this all encompassing mantra of 1 to 2 degrees rise is by completely ignoring the fact that the poles are utterly fucked already, thus making your science worth exactly as much as the weight of your statement. Nil

    43. Re: Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Logic is useless, full stop. Something might make sense for most of us yet there always will be individuals who will go completely against it, for whatever reason, be it making business out of war and destruction. Logic is always relative

    44. Re:Don't worry by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      How do you know that you interfering wouldn't cause worse catastrophic problems? When did you become so omnipotent that you know better than nature or the universe what should and shouldn't be, who made you arbiter of what the exact temperature the Earth should be?

      You are such a speciest, you don't give a crap about any species but your own. CO2 is plant food and it is absolutely proven that increased CO2 increases plant coverage. Increased temperatures, if they are really caused by CO2, opens up whole new areas of previously hostile territory for animal, bird and insects to occupy.

      But all you care about is the fact your beach front property might get closer to the water and that you might get a little uncomfortable where you live.

      Typical human.

      More catastrophic than the end of the universe? And of course I care only about humans, it's other species jobs to look out for themselves and we're not in the business of creating ideal climates for hypothetical species yet to exist.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    45. Re:Don't worry by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, we usually call this an analogy. Look it up.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    46. Re: Don't worry by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So we have reached level 4 already?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    47. Re: Don't worry by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      It's not hyperbole? Point is the scientific consensus is that we won't be frying because of AGW, and if you think we will, then you are full of shit.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    48. Re: Don't worry by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The point is that it's moot to calculate the exact amount of degrees that it gets hotter if even the lowest estimate is enough to ensure we're fucked. That's what the analogy of frying with 200 or 220 was pointing to, in the end you don't care about 20 degrees more if the lower one is already plenty to achieve the result.

      How dense can a person be that this needs to be explained?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    49. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The predictions of disaster are not well-supported at all.

      Absolutely right - the claims of certain economic doom if we dare even try to think about the slightest actions to avoid Global Warming are complete hog-wash. So stop claiming that.

    50. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, stop this game where you pretend there's no scientific consensus

      I didn't. There's no consensus on what feedbacks are important, or how large they might be. Here's another one for you that will show how ignorant we are: there is no consensus on how much the atmosphere warms the earth compared to if it weren't there. We know to within ~10 degrees, but that's a huge margin of error. Look it up.

      Just because 0.001% of scientists (not Climate Scientists, but all scientists) claim some absurd number different to anybody else doesn't mean there's a consensus.

      And yes, we are thankful that you at least don't switch to "this isn't science, because science doesn't have a consensus" after complaining that there's no consensus for years

  2. Cooling due to old ice age? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow, yes, when I unplug my freezer it gets colder

    1. Re:Cooling due to old ice age? by BeauHD-Cum+Dumpster · · Score: -1

      When I was a kid, I loved the Ice Age movies. They told me a lot of important lessons I would of learned in years later in school but didn't need to. What was 10000 years ago will be today and then 10000 years into the future. Amazing.

      -beau

    2. Re:Cooling due to old ice age? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      I would of learned in years later in school

      Would've learned years later in school. Too bad you weren't paying attention that day in school either....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Cooling due to old ice age? by votsalo · · Score: 1

      This is true. A working freezer or refrigerator heats the house, even though it keeps it cool inside it. Where do you think the electrical energy goes? Unless your freezer heat exchanger is outdoors so it pumps heat out of the house. I don't know if this has anything to do with the ice ages.

  3. Sure. Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, this part isn't warming because it "remembers" it was cold 200 years ago because the water is "so old", but everything else is warming because of modern climate change.

    1. Re: Sure. Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it sounds like bullshit.

      But we do know that when things warm up due to surface heat, the deepest part of ocean gets warmed up last, or maybe never depending on the conditions.

      They really should not use anthropomorphisms... Makes me think they don't know what they are talking about.

    2. Re: Sure. Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it sounds like bullshit.

      But we do know that when things warm up due to surface heat, the deepest part of ocean gets warmed up last, or maybe never depending on the conditions.

      They really should not use anthropomorphisms... Makes me think they don't know what they are talking about.

      It is called "Inertia".

    3. Re:Sure. Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like this:

      -air, fluctuating wildly but warming on average-
      -Surface Water, trends towards the average of the air, currently cooler than the air on average, warming up due to contact with air-
      -Deep Water, cooler than Surface Water, warming up due to contact with air and contact with deep deep water-
      -Deep Deep water, warmer than Deep Water, cooling because the water above it is still cooler than it is-

      It's the same mechnism that makes pouring fresh hot water into a room temperature bath take longer to heat the far end from the faucet. Only the ocean is so damn huge the process takes centuries to reach the deepest parts.

  4. No ice age! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is all republican trumptard billshit!

    We all know the ice age was limited to just a piece of Europe and was not world wide so these guys are just stupid or trolling for trump (they are from Harvard, good old boys!) or taking money from the oil industry.

    The world is warming at an historically unprecedented rate and these shills can not publish this stuff that trump will use to say it isnt. They should have their degrees removed and get fired immediately for being right wing propagandists and white supremacist nazi supporters.

    There is no cooling! There never was!

    1. Re: No ice age! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Millions of years ago your ancestors crawled out of the ice and caused global warming. It's your fault the Earth isn't -28 right now. Fuck you.

    2. Re: No ice age! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Jesus, the original Republican. "They're sending lepers... they're sending wine drinkers... they're not sending the best philistines..."

    3. Re: No ice age! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are people with your opinion so often so aggressive and irate?

    4. Re:No ice age! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science is the creation of white male supremacists. Next .....

  5. Pepridge Farm Remembers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 0

    This is the worst pseudo-science since Trump shut down the EPA for generating most of it.

    1. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by jwhyche · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the worst pseudo-science since Trump shut down the EPA for generating most of it.

      An this the exact kind of crap that you keep saying about any study that doesn't agree with your views on what should be. If a study doesn't support your ridged views on climate change is fake science or pseudo science. It has gotten so bad that you throw this label at a study, such at this one, that doesn't in any way refute man made climate change in any way.

      All this study shows is that an event that happened hundreds years ago can still have an effect on the climate today. That just goes to show how complex the climate is and how much we actually don't know about it. This study in no way refutes any affect that man made effect will have on the climate.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    2. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ridged? Did you mean RIGID, uneducated denialist propagandist?

    3. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      An this the exact kind of crap that you keep saying about any study that doesn't agree with your views on what should be.

      Nope, it's what I say about "scientific" studies and reports that state things like "water remembers what it was like last century."
      Pro tip: That's been the trend in climate "studies" for decades, to anyone who legitimately knows how to construct an experimental setup and can spot the glaring holes.

    4. Re: Pepridge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is exactly what they meant

    5. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by BeauHD-Cum+Dumpster · · Score: -1

      Please, no unapproved product plugs here. That include's building supplies and stuff.

      Thank you,
      The Management

    6. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny part is these guys are too dense to even glean that this study has nothing to say about global warming. That's the state of the intelligence of the climate warrior crowd.

    7. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " to anyone who legitimately knows how to construct an experimental setup" - So what did you say your relationship to climate science experimentation was? I missed your credentials and body of work somehow.

      Inform us please, since you referenced your expertise. If it's not climate science but somehow related methodology I'll give you a pass, but what is your field?

    8. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he meant ridged. For your pleasure.

    9. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am so glad you are here to set right the stupid people at Woods Hole and Harvard.

    10. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by jwhyche · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bull. You saw an opportunity to bash Trump and you took it. That is all there was to that.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    11. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inform us please, since you referenced your expertise. If it's not climate science but somehow related methodology I'll give you a pass, but what is your field?

      I have a PhD in trolling. Your mom can vouch for my expertise.

    12. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is a traitor. That's all there is to that.

    13. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they state things like "water 'remembers' what it was like last century". You know what it means to put a word in scare quotes, you do it yourself with the words "scientific" and "studies". Why do you ignore them around the word "remembers" and take that as if it was meant to be a literal capacity for remembering?

    14. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody that is not dishonest or autistic would know that they don't literally mean water has a memory, they are saying that it has kept it's temperature over a number of years.

    15. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      This is how the world ends. Not in a nuclear explosion but in stupification of people to the point where they can only communicate in memes.

    16. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      This is how the world ends. Not in a nuclear explosion but in stupification of people to the point where they can only communicate in memes.

      Would you have a car analogy for that?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    17. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is the best thing that has happened to the president. get over it, you lost.

    18. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      okay ivan

    19. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      I have no reason to validate myself to an AC, I already outrank you.

    20. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      The fuck makes you think I was bashing Trump? The EPA is a terrible organization.

    21. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      This is how the world ends. Not in a nuclear explosion but in stupification of people to the point where they can only communicate in memes.

      At least it's not with a whimper.

    22. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no reason to validate myself to an AC, I already outrank you.

      Woooo... how brave!

    23. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When is the last time a river caught fire in the US?

      1969? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River
      1970. https://www.epa.gov/history

      It seems that it is doing an ok job.

    24. Re:Pepridge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That just goes to show how complex the climate is and how much we actually don't know about it.

      Oblig. "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED".

      Sorry.

  6. Where is the heat going? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just that. If the water is cooling then it seems that it must be that energy (heat) is being removed from that water and so I'm wondering where that energy (heat) is going........

    1. Re: Where is the heat going? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It turns into /. poster hot air

    2. Re:Where is the heat going? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      If the water is cooling then ...

      The water is NOT cooling. Warmer water is being displaced by colder/saltier/denser water flowing in from further south.

      This is called thermohaline circulation, and it is a well know phenomena.

    3. Re:Where is the heat going? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that. So, I guess that what is going on is that the water in the ocean is at different temperatures in different places and at different depths and it is moving around (currents) and as that happens some areas at certain depths will have warmer water displaced by colder water....and the mistake is to think heat is being removed from the ocean as a whole.....when in fact because of global warming the ocean is truely getting warmer as a whole.

      Is that right?

    4. Re:Where is the heat going? by JoePete · · Score: 1

      I believe the prevailing notion around themohaline circulation (THC) is that it is slowing down. As such, if it slows, we'll actually see global cooling - think of a forced hot air heating system and someone blocks the return; it might be trying to crank out the heat, but with no air circulation, your house gets cooler. This could be evidence that the earth, after some 4.5 billion years, has developed methods of self regulation. The problem is we humans might not fit into the earth's plans. The problem with all this is we are looking at a fairly narrow window of time. We are comparing data from the 1870s and 1990s when by most assessments we're dealing with a system that can take 1000 years to go through one cycle. Is this something left from the "Little Ice Age" - and perhaps an indicator that the THC is an ice age catalyst - or is this the first indicator of next Ice Age?

    5. Re:Where is the heat going? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I believe the prevailing notion around themohaline circulation (THC) is that it is slowing down. As such, if it slows, we'll actually see global cooling...

      You've got a smattering of truth there, but a whole lot wrong.

      The oceans have already taken up about half the CO2 and the related warming that we've caused as humans. This warmer water is generally surface water, but does make it into the thermohaline circulation. If that slows, and we don't have really great evidence that it is globally, we won't see global cooling but rather more warming. The warm surface waters won't sink, and colder water won't be pulled to the surface if that circulation slows down or stops. In addition, a lot of warm water gets moved to the poles by this circulation, where it cools and sinks. This warms the polar regions, and cools the equatorial regions. Stopping this makes the polar regions colder, but the equatorial regions warmer.

      Regionally, there may well be dramatic cooling. The Day After Tomorrow is a pretty shit movie from a science point of view, but the concept is pretty sound. All of northern Europe gets its temperate weather from the gulf stream. If that part of the ocean circulation shuts down, they will start to look a lot more like Canada or Siberia over there, since they're at that latitude. However the gulf of Mexico won't get cooler - it will get hotter because those hot waters will no longer be flowing out and up to Europe.

      Just as concerning is that we're stocking away a lot of CO2 in the deep ocean right now. If that circulation slows or stops, the atmospheric CO2 levels will go up even faster. That's definitely not conducive for another ice age.

      Long-term, it might be that the colder poles will be able to form bigger ice caps further towards the equator, and that will reflect more sunlight, leading to cooling. However, it's not clear whether or not that can happen with the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. A prevailing theory for what ended snowball earth is actually CO2 building up in the atmosphere.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    6. Re:Where is the heat going? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there is some merit to your furnace analogy but I think that your view on what happens if the cold air return is blocked is incorrect. If the furnace is still producing heat and the return is blocked then the heat produced will not get distributed throughout the house and some areas will cool down and some but if the furnace keeps producing heat some areas will get warmer.......the overall global effect will be that the house will get warmer (assuming that the heat input from the furnace exceeds the transfer of heat out of the house in total.

      I think this is pretty much what I said about the ocean having currents moving water which is at different temperatures around but that the ocean as a whole will be getting warmer due to the greenhouse effect. I could be wrong about the overall warming of the ocean but it seems unlikely that there is a mechanism which prevents the ocean from warming.....maybe polar ice caps breaking off and melting could keep the oceans cool?

  7. Hey look it's known propaganda faggot SCHTWAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent propaganda, I guess the global warming hoax is exposed because of Schwtwat's efforts. Golf clap.

  8. Excellent, I love Republican nazi propaganda! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a nazi faggot and constant fraud apologist (Republican) myself, I can't get enough of this propaganda. Excellent, why let facts rule us? My gut says I'm king baby, order another round of treason shots off our imported whore wives!

  9. What Little Ice Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought they'd disproved that there ever was a Little Ice Age or a Medieval Warm Period. Wasn't it supposed to be all clear, steady and no changes until we buggered up the system?

    1. Re:What Little Ice Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, earth's climate was rock solid steady for 5 billion years before man f'd it up. You must believe this, it's in your bible.

    2. Re:What Little Ice Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      As all Republican-trained science-tits know, adding 250 ppm ~ of C02 and an unknown amount of methane and other strong insulating gasses to a "stable" atmospheric system will have zero effect.

      (Republicans are nihilist faggots, math/science/history are not worth attempting for them)

    3. Re: What Little Ice Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, I am pretty sure NO ONE EVER (except you just now) has said the climate/atmosphere/whatever is stable.

      That is so stupid it isnt even good enough to be a straw man. It is just stupid.

    4. Re: What Little Ice Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it is stupid. but that is what part of the whole Climate Change is going to kill us all fear and terror campaign are based on. The idea that nothing was changing until mankind started messing things up therefore mankind is the most powerful and dangerous force on the planet and must be contained and constrained. Look up Agenda 21 for more info.

  10. DOES this refute climate change generally? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " If a study doesn't support your ridged views on climate change " And yet, does this refute climate change? No. But the reason it was posted on slashdot by the known poster, that WAS an attempt to pseudo-that.

    Realize you're surrounded by dishonest republican propaganda faggots, not actually science-minded individuals trying to set a nuanced scientific record straight... or just.. don't realize that? I guess that's your choice/IQ test.

  11. Re:DOES this refute climate change generally? No. by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    Someone agrees with you and you misinterpret it and accuse them of being being the enemy - is this what modern liberalism has been reduced to?

  12. Re:DOES this refute climate change generally? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Realize you're surrounded by dishonest republican propaganda faggots, not actually science-minded individuals trying to set a nuanced scientific record straight... or just.. don't realize that? I guess that's your choice/IQ test.

  13. Re:DOES this refute climate change generally? No. by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    So basically, you're saying you're both mentally handicapped?

  14. It bears ironic repeating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Realize you're surrounded by dishonest republican propaganda faggots, not actually science-minded individuals trying to set a nuanced scientific record straight... or just.. don't realize that? That's your choice/IQ test.

    1. Re:It bears ironic repeating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are not very smart

  15. And once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We see that alarmist millennials are pretty much just stupid. Enough, already, and go to adulting school.

    1. Re:And once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, exhaust tastes great, mmm, Republicanism. The science makes me dizzy.

    2. Re:And once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are going to attack an opponent's position, you actually have to know what those positions are. Republicans don't believe in ingesting exhaust.
      Stop trying to create a caricature to attack. It shows a lack of intellectual fortitude.

  16. Re: DOES this refute climate change generally? No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're also surrounded by disingenuous liberal faggots too. Fuck climate science. Both of them want nothing more than to control you. Burn the motherfucking state to the ground.

  17. Lol, republican faggot tries to pretend again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually that was the "point" of the "climate warrior" crowd, in response to the republican (nazi) troll spamming their bullshit pseudo-spiel, that this study doesn't touch global warming - but Schwitt posted it for that reason.

    You republican propaganda faggots are nothing if not dickless. (You thought I was going to say predictable lol, you dumb faggots lose again.)

    I missed you at the fact checking after Trump's little bullshit crybaby whine tonight, lol. Maybe you weren't feeling up to it.

    1. Re: Lol, republican faggot tries to pretend again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didnt complain about my being a republic faggot last night when I put my cock down your throat. Why are you so bitchy about it now? Next day regrets? It is ok to be gay. You can come out. Even us republican faggots enjoy a blow job from a college boy like you now n again.

    2. Re: Lol, republican faggot tries to pretend again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's fine to be gay, just be open. Don't lie so obviously for all to see like some faggot Republican fraud while sucking Putin's dick and trying to gaslight as if that treason faggot shit is a heteronormative behavior.

  18. Like homeopathy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that how the water remembers?

  19. Re:DOES this refute climate change generally? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried to post this a few days ago but it never appeared and I'm not a known poster and I'm a democrat.

    -Geekpoet

  20. No more climate articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get this garbage off Slashdot

    1. Re:No more climate articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beg Putin the next time you're sucking his dick. Putin controls your country now, filthy American pigfuckers. We own Trump.

    2. Re: No more climate articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is cool if you want to suck my cock after I pull outta your ass. Just use listerine after. I do not want your canker sores to get infected. I love that you fantasize about Vlad. He is hawt.

    3. Re:No more climate articles by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hey, nobody complains, you can keep him. Could you just, ya know, finally come and pick him up, he's getting kinda ripe.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Re: DOES this refute climate change generally? No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're also surrounded by disingenuous liberal faggots too. Fuck climate science. Both of them want nothing more than to control you. Burn the motherfucking state to the ground.

    This would release a lot of carbon into the atmosphere and accelerate global warming.

  22. This is idiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazingly bad science.

    "still seemingly cooling and adjusting to the temperature drops of the Little Ice Age"

    So is it still cold, or is it still cooling? Because if it's cooling, then it's being driven by something.

    "These waters are so old and haven't been near the surface in so long, they still 'remember' what was going on hundreds of years ago when Europe experienced some of its coldest winters in history,"

    Are you fucking kidding me?

  23. Re: Lol, republican faggot tries to pretend again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heteronormative? That is a big word for such a small boy.

    All I am saying is this gay republican enjoyed fucking your ass. Why are you fighting it? You know you are cumming back for my cock.

  24. I regularly visit your site and find a lot of inte by martintolleygm · · Score: 0

    I regularly visit your site and find a lot of interesting information. Not only good posts but also great comments. Thank you and look forward to your page growing stronger run 3

  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. END OF THE WORLD! Really, maybe.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if it takes centuries or so for the effects to reach the bottom... Enough methane hydrates exists down there, IF it warms up from todays supposed excessive heat(sorry I don't see it in Canada, and I do buy the Nobel prize winning physicist argument about accuracy of past temperatures readings(ie: we donno wtf is going on really)); Then a century or so from now that methane might pop to the surface causing a chain reaction that'll end any possibility of stopping; an end of the world warming event.

    Better still, it might be already to late to stop it, since the 'heat' might be making it's way down and even if we did 0 emissions, that heat would still get there to release the gas.. fun fun.

  27. Water has memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like homeopathy. I guess pseudosciences converge over time.

    1. Re:Water has memory? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      The wording sucks, but here's a clue: the quotes around "remember" means it's a bad analogy rather than a literal truth.

      Here's a trick - first take an ice cube out of the freezer. Now look at it carefully - is it made out of ice? Wow! Clearly it still remembers having been in the freezer!

      Lets try one a little more directly applicable - Find a nice sunny warm spot right at the base of a tall snow-covered mountain with a river flowing down it. Now check the water temperature. Practically ice cold? Amazing! Clearly the water "remembers" that it was snow only a short time ago!

      Now, for the situation in the article: picture that river is radically larger, and flowing for thousands of miles, incredibly slowly since it's displacing very-slightly-less-dense warmer water rather than 800x less dense air. There'll be some heating due to mixing and conduction with the slightly warmer water above it, but not actually nearly as much as you might expect.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  28. Re: DOES this refute climate change generally? No by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Yes, but it would also keep a lot of hot air from being produced in DC.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  29. 1870 technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Separate question: How the hell did they measure the temperature of water 1.2 miles down in 1870? Now THAT is clever!

    1. Re:1870 technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      found it:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversing_thermometer

      Thats cool!

  30. More endless bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...from the 'global warming' alarmists. It's hilarious. Endless lies and more lies, all to get those huge research grants, while pissing away tens of billions of dollars a year on a lie.

    www.climatedepot.com
    www.wattsupwiththat.com

  31. Pacific Ocean... Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These morons know that the Pacific Ocean is nowhere near Europe right? So why would Europe's "little ice age" (which was caused by global warming, by the way) be "remembered" by non-sentient liquid water at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean?

  32. Re:DOES this refute climate change generally? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone agrees with you and you misinterpret it and accuse them of being being the enemy - is this what modern liberalism has been reduced to?

    It always has been. In all of human history there's been a faction on the left that believes with their emotions at the expense of rational facts and then acts on those emotions. My 3 year old son does the same thing, which is why he throws temper tantrums over utterly minor things. Apparently some people never grow out of the toddler stage, they just focus on bigger topics and give the left a bad reputation.

  33. Thermohaline circulation by votsalo · · Score: 1

    This seems to be an example of the thermohaline circulation, the circulation of ocean waters caused by temperature and salinity gradients, which has transit times of around 1000 years.

    1. Re:Thermohaline circulation by votsalo · · Score: 1

      So if water moves about 10,000 km in 1000 years, it has an average speed of about 1 m/hour.

    2. Re:Thermohaline circulation by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      And there is a problem with this? If you think "I've never a river move that slowly" .. well, it's not a river. Specifically, the material above it has almost exactly the same density, unlike air versus water.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  34. this means NOTHING - will be overblown by deniers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the depths contain less water than the shallower parts... if this is about the deep water then think for a moment about the vast majority of the water already feeling the heat of climate change that is human driven.

    Migrating species? there is less space available the closer you get to the poles - so this too is a very very bad thing.

    Noise in the channel.

  35. weather forecast by s122604 · · Score: 1

    It's colder than usual in the Marianas trench... global warming LOL

  36. Re:END OF THE WORLD! Really, maybe.. by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Little bit of physics for you - warm fluids are less dense than cold ones, so they rise, not sink. The lowest reaches of the ocean will contain the coldest water that's managed to reach it. And while water flows very rapidly on ground, where it displaces air that's 800x less dense, it flows *much* slower while displacing water that's only a bit warmer, and minuscule less dense (even a 20C temperature difference amounts to less than 0.5% density difference, salinity probably makes a bigger difference.)

    On the plus side, that means if we stop heating the upper surface of the oceans the surface heat won't "settle" into the deepest parts, we'd have to inputenough heat that conduction between adjacent water bodies could warm the water all the way down. Unfortunately, the methane hydrates (that we know of) are in relatively shallow ocean where the response time to surface changes is much faster.

    But yeah, we *really* don't want those hydrates to melt - like permafrost, they're part of the "tipping point" that researchers talk about not wanting to cross - once something else warms the Earth enough to thaw them, the massive release of greenhouse gasses will very likley catapult the Earth out of the ice age it's been in for the last 2.6 million years, and into it's alternative hot-house state. Which will probably be great once life recovers, but the transition is pretty much always a "world-ending" extinction event that takes many thousands of years to recover from.

    And yeah, it might already be too late to stop it (without very expensive and risky geoengineering at least), so why bother trying. Lets throw up our hands and party instead, we'll fiddle while Rome burns, and our descendants can get bent.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  37. Pumping cool water to surface to delay CO2 affects by wanfuse123 · · Score: 1

    If water is cooling way down deep that means we could in a controlled manner pump trillions of gallons of water to the surface and buy us some climate change time, how much time I am not sure but it could easily be controlled and it would cause CO2 absorption to occur at hire rates. It might buy us five or ten years while we WORK on the emissions problem which isn't going any where near fast enough for my taste and the health of the planet!

  38. shame you are posting as AC by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    That was rather good.