Major reversal in ocean circulation detected in the Southern Ocean
245 comments
·July 4, 2025taylorlapeyre
mturmon
I read TFA and looked over the PNAS article (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2500440122) it is based on.
I believe the deep-ocean vents you mention are beside the point. The article is discussing the upwelling of cold, CO2-rich water in the Southern Ocean - not emissions from vents.
Also, it’s worth noting that the PNAS article does not mention CO2 per se, only upwelling. The article summary of the press release does draw the CO2 connection.
Besides the connections you mention, the PNAS article points out that this result illustrates that current models of ice/ocean interaction are not producing these observational trends.
irthomasthomas
As water is more dense than ice, wouldn't the sea level drop when the ice shelf melts?
_fizz_buzz_
Floating ice will displace exactly as much water as it does when it melts to water. Ice that melts on a land mess such as Greenland and Antarctica will raise the ocean level when it melts.
Matumio
Only one way to find out... float some ice cubes in a glass of water and observe.
dang
(This was originally a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44461309, but we downweighted that subthread. Since this is a fine comment, I detached it so it wouldn't share the same fate.)
ImaCake
Thanks for the clarification, these click-bait titles pop up again and again around very interesting technical climate science, causing not only pointless panic but allowing denialists to drive doubt by pointing out the BS.
Its doubly frustrating because these studies invariably indicate that climate change is happening, getting worse, and triggering feedback loops that amplify CO2.
cedilla
Isn't a bit premature to jump to "it's BS" just because one random commenter on some forum says it's wrong?
Journalists make lots of mistake, and it's good to keep that in mind, but random people in forums are even worse.
vixen99
I won't put words in your mouth but given what you say - doesn't this imply calamity? So how do we explain why Net Zero is essentially collapsing? Why do a number of countries say one thing and do another? There's certainly no consensus that survival is at stake.
eastbound
It is true. My personal test is to ask climate believers what the wage gap is. If they answer women earn .77 cents on the dollar -> Not science.
If I really witness New York flooded to the 3rd floor in my life, it’s really sad, because no-one told me [who didn’t also make spurious science on other topics of life].
bryanrasmussen
Your personal test for someone making a technical claim on one matter is to ask them a technical question on another thing that they have not claimed any expertise in. If they guess and guess wrong you ignore their claims on the thing they supposedly know something about because.. points I guess.
Hey, I do a lot of crazy stuff myself, so not exactly blaming you but I don't think your "flooding == really sad" claim holds up here, because of the crazy.
abhijat
The article says that deep water is warmer, afaik deep water is colder and surface water is hotter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upwelling)?
A 2023 study https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/03/230330102327.h... observed slowdown in Antarctic overturning, in which cold water sinks down at the south pole and then spreads north in the deeper parts of the ocean.
The slowing of this process would cause deep ocean water to become warmer.
edit: the publication linked in the article https://www.pnas.org/doi/epub/10.1073/pnas.2500440122 makes this a bit clearer:
"In the polar Southern Ocean, cold, fresh surface waters overlay warmer, saltier deep waters (Fig. 2A). During winter, surface cooling and sea ice formation reduce stratification, allowing vertical mixing to transport heat upward, either melting sea ice from below or limiting its growth (8). However, decades of surface freshening strengthened stratification, trapping subsurface heat at depth, sustaining expanded sea ice coverage (7, 9) and limiting deep convection along with open-ocean polynyas (10). Here, we show that since 2015, these conditions have reversed: Surface salinity in the polar Southern Ocean has increased, upper-ocean stratification has weakened, sea ice has reached multiple record lows, and open-ocean polynyas have reemerged."
jteg6886
Also this link explains the warmer deep water:
SwtCyber
That trapped warmth doesn't mean the deep water is "hot" in an absolute sense, just that it's saltier and denser and relatively warmer than the surface
user070223
In general at high enough depth the ocean temperature is constant[0]. At high latitude like the southern ocean it's constant at whatever depth. I think the surface ambient temperature is below(cooler) the temperature where the water density is the highest around 4 degrees for pure water(water has negative thermal expansion which causes it to expand and float!), for southern ocean salinity is between 33-34 and maximum density is below 0[1] but still ambient might be lower which means the colder water is lighter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ThermoclineSeasonDepth.pn...
Modified3019
I’m reminded of how small changes in temperature can greatly effect the metabolism of things like crabs: https://www.globalseafood.org/advocate/noaa-confirms-link-be...
SwtCyber
If deep water is now rising and releasing centuries of stored CO2, we're talking about a major shift in Earth's climate plumbing. Also wild that this only became visible thanks to a novel satellite processor
Ringz
Most climate research studies provide a range from optimistic to pessimistic outlooks on climate impacts. It would be interesting to know how the studies from the last 30 years have fared. I have the feeling that rather the pessimistic estimates have come to pass.
exe34
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-p...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-uns-devastating-climate-...
Old articles. Nowadays I'd say there's an even stronger current against "doomerism", which acts as a force suppressing sufficiently bad news. Don't look up!
n2fole00
I didn't know much about the Southern Ocean. For a quick update, YouTube has some good info https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VMSF28J9H4
csomar
Can someone explain in simple terms what this means? Like what is happening (like am 5) and what are the consequences of this.
ashoeafoot
You get unreliable weather patterns . monsoon in dry places, and monsoon dependent countries falling dry..
And thus unreliable investment, a house or factory might be flood prone in a dessert valley, a dam with power stations might fail to provide.
So you have uninsureable riches, that might aswell no longer be there.
signalToNose
And as a consequence, massive migration from inhabitable regions. Hard to imagine the implication when there are billions of people affected
jonathanstrange
Not important, but I want to briefly point out as a Grammar Nazi that you mean uninhabitable regions. Inhabitable and habitable mean the same and their opposites are uninhabitable and not habitable. This is one of those bizarre oddities of the English language.
Workaccount2
The consequences of the reversal of the current or the consequences of CO2 in the atmosphere doubling?
notfed
Yes
keyle
[flagged]
lancewiggs
Look at London. Draw a line west. Compare climates. Now do the same for New York and go East. Ocean currents are what keeps London warm and NYC cool.
So this is a huge deal. I’ve been down to the Southern Ocean, lectured all the way by scientists.
North of the Antarctic is the only place on earth where the sea can rotate completely around the world without hitting a land mass, and it is deemed the engine of the world’s oceans. Those oceans are what have absorbed most of the excess CO2 that we’ve emitted, and a lot captured has been buried in deep ocean. But the ocean warms, and can capture less CO2, and bad days are ahead.
This news signals not just a slowing in that absorption for an area, which not just sends more CO2 into the atmosphere, but has more terrifyingly unknown downstream implications for other ocean streams.
yosito
I asked for no more unprecedented world events in my lifetime.
cyberlimerence
Next up, AMOC collapse.
SlowTao
There was a report that said the AMOC could collapse between 2025 and 2075. That said the 2025 mark was said to be very unlikely, I hope it still is...
moffkalast
We thought the currents would run AMOC but got a SMOCdown instead?
Well as long as we keep pretending that the most conservative of the already downplayed IPCC estimates is the real trajectory we'll keep getting surprised over and over. It's not really a coincidence that most climate scientists are depressed.
ars
If this is the very first time this part of the ocean has ever been imaged/studied, how do we know that this is unusual and not something that happens periodically?
bronco21016
Exactly the same thought I had while reading the article. They mention multiple times this is the first time ever that they’ve been able to measure anything in this area. My take on science is that we need to measure for some period of time before we jump to conclusions about the normal state of affairs.
This isn’t to argue against climate change, but I think journalism like this only fuels skeptics.
IAmGraydon
Be warned, this article is misleading. The actual scientific paper shows a salinity‑driven weakening of stratification that likely allows more subsurface heat to reach the surface and melt sea ice. The article describes this as a complete overturning‑circulation reversal with dire carbon release consequences. These are claims that the paper itself does not make or substantiate. The paper actually does not use the words carbon or CO2 even once. The authors of the article took such liberties with this that I really believe this should be considered disinformation.
zmmmmm
The article is about the overall findings and their implications, not just the specific paper istelf. Scientists will always be conservative in what they publish, scoping it down to the minimum interpretation that is supported by their evidence. The article directly interviews authors of the study and quotes them, eg:
> We are witnessing a true reversal of ocean circulation in the Southern Hemisphere—something we’ve never seen before,” explains Antonio Turiel, ICM-CSIC researcher and co-author of the study.
If you incorporate these statements it seems quite reasonable to me. You can argue with the author of the study saying that but I can't see an issue with an article reporting that they did, if that's what actually happened.
ffwd
No, the new algorithms used to be determine this was created by ICM-CSIC who are also the publishers of this article.
Also the authors of the paper is involved with the article, there is for example this quote:
“We are witnessing a true reversal of ocean circulation in the Southern Hemisphere—something we’ve never seen before,” explains Antonio Turiel, ICM-CSIC researcher and co-author of the study.
panstromek
Glad I'm not the only one to see the disconnect here. I thought I'm somehow missing rest of the paper text, it really doesn't say all that much compared to the article interpretation.
robk
It doesn't reflect their existing views so many will pile on with glee sadly.
The deep-ocean vent south of Antarctica is real but small, on the order of a few-tenths Pg C yr⁻¹. The claim that it could double atmospheric CO₂ exaggerates the flux by three orders of magnitude relative to observed values and known physical limits.
The most optimistic estimate of deep-water outgassing south of 60 ° S is 0.36 Pg C yr⁻¹. Even if that rate tripled and persisted unabated, it would take more than 800 years to add 895 Pg C (which would be what it would require to justify the press release’s claims of “doubling”)
What the salinity reversal can do is:
- Expose ice shelves to warmer subsurface water, accelerating sea-level rise.
- Reduce the Southern Ocean’s role as a sink by a few tenths Pg C yr⁻¹, nudging the global ocean sink (~2.7 Pg C yr⁻¹) downward.
- Perturb atmospheric circulation patterns, with knock-on effects for the Atlantic overturning (but those links remain speculative).