National Geographic News
A photo of icebergs in East Greenland.

Off the east coast of Greenland, where these icebergs are, salty water sinking into the deep may carry atmospheric heat with it—helping to slow global warming.

Photograph by Patrick Pleul, dpa/Corbis

Jane J. Lee

National Geographic

Published August 21, 2014

Temperatures at Earth's surface aren't rising as fast as they did in the 1990s, even though the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to increase steadily. This apparent hiatus in global warming has been fodder for skeptics—but among climate scientists, it has sparked a search for the "sink" that is storing all the missing atmospheric heat.

Locating that sink matters, because it could tell researchers how long our current hiatus might last, says Ka-Kit Tung, an atmospheric scientist and applied mathematician at the University of Washington in Seattle.

In this week's issue of Science, Tung and Xianyao Chen at Ocean University of China in Qingdao suggest that much of the missing heat has gone into the deep waters of the Atlantic Ocean. This is in contrast to a previous study that argued the heat went into the Pacific Ocean.

The two different sinks correspond to two different mechanisms for transporting heat in and out of the ocean. The earlier study suggested that intensifying trade winds, related to the El Niño-La Niña cycle, were sinking heat into relatively shallow layers of the Pacific. If that's true, then the current hiatus could be over as soon as the next El Niño, says Tung.

But if most of it is ending up deeper in the Atlantic Ocean, then we may have another 10 to 15 years before global warming resumes with its previous intensity. That could buy us a little more time to deal with the problem—but also give skeptics more ammunition.

Transporting Heat

Unlike some of the previous studies, which relied on computer models, Tung and Chen also used observations from an oceanwide network of sensors to locate the missing heat. The sensors included floats that dive nearly a mile (1,500 meters) beneath the surface to measure the temperature and salt content of the water.

The researchers found that warm temperatures penetrated much deeper in the Atlantic Ocean and in the waters surrounding Antarctica than in the Pacific or Indian Oceans. This heat storage deep in the Atlantic, below about a thousand feet (300 meters), is what has allowed the current pause in rising average surface temperatures globally, Tung says.

Watch: How Carbon Dioxide Kills Ocean Life

The researchers suggest that a global system of ocean currents known as the conveyor belt has been responsible for burying heat in the Atlantic. At the ocean surface, the conveyor transports warm, salty water from the Caribbean to the North Atlantic. North of Iceland, the water becomes colder and saltier, and so dense that it sinks into the deep, where it flows south again.

This sinking branch of the conveyor is what transports heat into the deeper Atlantic Ocean, the researchers write—and during the mid-to-late 1990s, it started to accelerate. For reasons that still aren't clear, the saltiness of the Atlantic water varies cyclically. When the water is saltier, it sinks faster and carries more heat into the deep.

The changes operate on a roughly 30-year cycle, says Tung. The current hiatus has lasted about 15 years. Since 2006, Tung adds, the conveyor belt has been slowing. But for now, the amount of heat being drawn out of the atmosphere is still enough to allow the global warming hiatus to persist.

A Murky Picture

There is some heat going into the Atlantic, writes Kevin Trenberth, a researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, in an email. But Trenberth—who was not involved in the current study—disagrees with how it's getting there.

Trenberth argues that processes in the Pacific Ocean drive changes in the North Atlantic current. The same basic mechanism that may drive heat into the Pacific—intense trade winds that pile up warm water in the western Pacific—has large ripple effects on the atmosphere.

Those ripples influence jet streams, or currents of air flowing through the atmosphere, across the U.S., and over the North Atlantic Ocean. And those atmospheric currents can drive changes in ocean currents.

Josh Willis, a climate scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, isn't entirely convinced by the new study either. "I think this is an interesting hypothesis," he says. But he would like to see a more detailed look at the ocean's heat content using other observational data—not just the information collected by one network of instruments.

Satellite measurements of sea-surface height could be one avenue, Willis says. "When the ocean warms up, seawater expands," he explains. That expansion changes the height of the ocean, which certain satellites in orbit are sensitive enough to pick up.

The Hiatus Will End

It's important to note that a pause in rising temperatures doesn't mean global warming isn't happening, writes Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at NCAR, in an email. "Global warming hasn't stopped, it has temporarily shifted to the subsurface ocean," says Meehl, who first proposed that the Atlantic Ocean was storing some of the missing heat.

Indeed, it's just a matter of time before this heat is reflected in atmospheric temperatures, says Tung. If this 30-year cycle holds, we're starting to climb out of the current pause, he explains.

"The frightening part," Tung says, is "it's going to warm just as fast as the last three decades of the 20th century, which was the fastest warming we've seen." Only now, we'll be starting from a higher average surface temperature than before.

Follow Jane J. Lee on Twitter.

118 comments
William Maruchi
William Maruchi

The Planet Earth is like an Elephant that has evolved over 5 Billion years.  The Earth is going to do whatever the Earth does.  Only Human Arrogance can believe that humans have any major influence.

Humans have minor influences, and they should be ecologically minimized. 

Does anyone need a car that gets less than 25 MPG?  Does anyone need 10-15 plastic bags from the food store every time going shopping?  Does anyone need to leave the water running while brushing their teeth?  Does anyone who owns sweaters need to turn their household heat up during the Winter?  There are thousands of other questions/issues like this.

If ants sit on the butt of an Elephant, and the ants have digestive issues (ie, frequently fart), is the elephant going to faint or change it course?

The Atlantic and Pacific, and all other oceans, are going to do whatever they do - whatever they have always done, before any research was ever done.  Research is good, but the research results, at the best called "Guesses", can not be used for national or international policy development.

There is a great 90 minute DVD, from the History Channel, called "How the Earth was Made".  I recommend it as required viewing for anyone who has planetary opinions.

How many people know if the Arctic is an ocean or a continent?  How many people know if the Antarctic is an ocean or a continent?  How many people know how many dissenting-scientists have remained as members on United Nations Climate committees?

The legitimate answer to many questions/issues is "I don't honestly know".

Bill, from Switzerland

Darral Simmons
Darral Simmons

I am 43 years old... I remember the threat of global cooling. I remember the discussion of dumping (I believe it was) coal ash over the North and South Poles to assist in the absorption and retention of radiational heat from the Sun. 


Then I remember being afraid that ACID RAIN was going to kill the planets vegetation. I remember watching a documentary showing man made infrastructure was literally  going to melt into the ground due to excessive corrosion. 


So pardon me if I give pause due to adrenal fatigue at the latest attempt to scare me into an early grave. 

Bill Dickson
Bill Dickson

Didn't I tell you these libratards would twist the fact that the earth is no longer warming into some kind of convoluted crap to keep the lie running? Its cyclical folks. Ask the scientists studying the Greenland Ice Cores. They'll tell you its a cycle and the warming is over and a slow cool down is about to, or perhaps already has, begun. In a decade or so these same morons will be yelling "Ice Age, gimme a grant to study it"..

D. Omygodliberalsagain
D. Omygodliberalsagain

What do the "Liberal Elites" want to do about Global Warming? Answer: Make one giant world commune and control your bowel movement schedule. Two pairs of shoes allowed. House choices: 700 sf, 900 sf. Don't laugh...There are people on the lunatic LEFT sending money to Democrats that would have it precisely this way if you let them. They see Global Warming as their happy weee waterslide into your pocket and freaking life.

Jim Read
Jim Read

Here's a thought.  Maybe global warming isn't the problem certain scientists think it is.  Maybe it's just an excuse to get more grant money.  Like this latest ploy.  Global warming has stalled.  We need more money to figure out why....

Marc Dreyfors
Marc Dreyfors

Delivering large amounts of heat into the Arctic Ocean may have destabilized and triggered the massive release of benthic and subsurface methane hydrates, hastening imminent cataclysmic run away heating of the planet....silly people.

joseph yechout
joseph yechout

Damn , not good for the Leftist narrative. But still can be spun.

dfksdf dksd
dfksdf dksd

Not taking into account the effect of the ocean - that was a HUGE miss. Wasn't the science settled? By all means, let's phase out fossil fuels for something cleaner as soon as that is feasible. But it will be a long, long time before I trust any apocalyptic forecasts from the climate science community.

Paul M.
Paul M.

So 32 years of 97% of all scientists being a laughable 95% certain of a GLOBAL CO2 CLIMATE CRISIS is consensus? Are they 95% sure the planet isn't flat as well? Why so eager to "believe"?

32 years of science's "could be" and "95%" certainty that THE END IS NEAR makes climate blame "belief" Humanities's longest earthly emergency since sacrificing virgins to please the angry weather gods.

Exaggerating science's consensus of nothing makes neocons out of all of us.

W Kang
W Kang

@Tom Ellis. This is what a recent Yale University study shows.  Professor Dan M. Kahan and his team surveyed 1540 US adults and determined that people with more education in natural sciences and mathematics tend to be more skeptical of AGW climate science.  On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.

John Patt
John Patt

This is not rocket science. If you have trouble understanding how this is working, then you don't understand ovens, or even cold beer. You put a pie in the oven, the air heats up, and the heat is transferred to the pie. That's what's happening here. Same for beer, only in reverse. If you can't grock this go pour yourself a warm one.

Sardondi Sardondi
Sardondi Sardondi

Meh, you're looking through the wrong end. Rather, we've just gone through a brief two-decade hiatus in the global-cooling which has been in operation for more than a century, and now we're going back to the declining temps which in the 70's and 80's terrified scientists - when the climate science was just as "settled" as it supposedly is today. Thank G-, uh, Gaia that we're as industrialized as we are, or we could be moving very rapidly into a New Ice Age. 


I'll be more open to alarmist climate rhetoric when I see: 1) proponents of global warming, particularly its celebrity spokespersons, living like they believe it; 2) data isn't jiggered and inconvenient numbers aren't discarded so that studies and models lend themselves more readily to gratifying conclusions; and, 3) so many of the proponents of warming don't also miraculously hold such uniform views favoring collectivist economics, redistribution of wealth and socialist politics. 


Until then, I think my viewing eye will remain jaundiced.

Rob Vandenberg
Rob Vandenberg

It is nice to see that I am not the only person to think that climatology is an infant science that has not been around long enough to truly understand the workings of world weather patterns.  It is arrogance to think that we have that much influence on the global climate. Yes, we have influence on the air we breath, and the water we drink.  Maybe instead of focusing on Earth as the all important goal, we instead focus on MANKIND, the stewards of the Earth.  There is plenty of food, land, water, etc. for the world population for as long as our imaginations can imagine.  Yet, we tend to think of getting our biggest piece of the pie and screw everyone else!  How small minded.  What if we took on what we needed and passed on the rest to those people who were in need?  Sharpening our focus on helping people will help clean up the earth for everyone to live.  It would seem that our addiction to oil is again this abdication from the responsibility we have to our fellow man.  But our family has the right to fly halfway across the world for our vacation.  Yes, but what about that poor family half a world away, do they have the basic rights to food and freedom?  It is so easy to forget our larger human family when we have in excess in modern western world...  

Marcus Stone
Marcus Stone

It is my understanding that if all CO-2 emissions were stopped as of today it would take 60 years before there would be any noticeable impact and even that would be miniscule.  If we want to stop CO-2 emissions why don't we slaughter every species of livestock on the planet (Their flatulence causes a great deal of CO-2 emissions), no more volcanos, no more forest fires, and most important of all not one human being be allowed to exhale.  China and India are just beginning to burn exorbitant amounts of coal and as their countries advance their emissions will be exponential. Same with the rain forests.  Try telling someone that they can't make a living off of the land in South America buy burning off thousands and thousands of acres of the Rain Forest  so that they can plant crops or raise cattle to make ends meet.  I have heard that over 90% of all of the species that have lived on Earth have become extinct.  Why are we so shellfish to think that we will not be in that category as well.  If it is not Global Warming that will make the Earth inhabitable it will virus or bacteria that will do the job for us. The end is nigh!

Alexander Galvin
Alexander Galvin

Doesn't matter a lot.  The equation between burning things and international well being is so perfect that there is not the slightest chance of interrupting global CO2 production. To do so would condemn the poor to remaining poor.  Try telling a Chinese or Indian Millennial to give up hope of driving a car or having the kind of life enjoyed by a westerner.  There is always some minor chance that the world will adopt power sources that do not pollute in this way - but I'm beyond dubious.  With the USA enjoying coal and Natural Gas deposits as far as the eye can see - might as well buy some beachfront in Arkansas if global warming is the end product of burning.  There is simply no way, nor any sentiment for supressing people's aspirations worldwide.

Phillip Lake
Phillip Lake

The "hiatus" will end? The Earth will heal itself as it has always done for millions of years. It is called 'cyclical" and even the smartest, or should I say dumbest, scientist knows that for a fact. When your global warming theories went down the drain along with Al Gore then you start making up excuses for what you "THINK" is happening. This is a good lengthy hypothesis that doesn't mean crap!

John Williams
John Williams

This whole approach seems silly:  Obviously, the "extra" heat most likely is being radiated to space, thus explaining the "hiatus".

Joe Fabitz
Joe Fabitz

@Darral Simmons 

The adverse effects of Acid Rain was very real - just ask anyone who lived in the states most affected, or whose livelihood depended on the environment affected by it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

On March 10, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). CAIR permanently capped emissions of SO2 and NOx in the eastern United States. Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976. In 2007, total SO2 emissions were 8.9 million tons, achieving the program's long term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline. The EPA estimates that the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers at $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted

And you can also thank the EPA and U.S. government for addressing the problem with ozone depletion first observed in the late 70s' - which led to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol that bans the production of CFCs (used in aerosols), halons, and other ozone-depleting chemicals such as carbon tetrachloride and trichloroethane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

And finally - the big lie.
There was never any 'global cooling' or 'impending ice age' predicted in the 70s'. What you "remember" is the hype around a story printed in Time Magazine because one scientist had released a paper suggesting that. Even at that time only 10% of climate scientists believed the earth was cooling, while the vast majority predicted warming  - regardless whatever you "remember" being hyped by the media. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Seamus Cameron
Seamus Cameron

@Darral Simmons

I remember the 70's when they were pushing the 'impending Ice Age' tripe and it was no more founded in anything but a money and power grab than is this garbage today.

Joe Fabitz
Joe Fabitz

@Don Genaro 

Per interviews regarding that paper, Dr. Muscheler emphasised that he does not believe that the sun is the main factor driving current global warming – but he does believe that climate modellers will have to pay more attention to the influence of the sun on climate change.

However, he warned that the sun was not the only factor in causing climate change.

"Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.

What our paper shows is we need to include all processes – greenhouses, the sun and so on, especially for local climates which is important of course."

-----

I know of no one who denies solar influences on climate. I do know some who deny the influence of greenhouse gasses - despite the fact that 97% of climate scientists attribute man-made emissions as contributing to Climate Change. Those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus. Which is just, simply put, BS.

Peter Buch
Peter Buch

@Don Genaro How is it that you can dismiss thousands of papers demonstrating a link between greenhouse gases and climate change, but then accept a single paper as definitive and final without reading it?  Juvenile comments like "Must be the lack of minimum amount of IQ" suggest that you might not be the most sophisticated among us when it comes to reading and understanding scientific journals.

Joe Fabitz
Joe Fabitz

@joseph yechout 

How is this a "leftist narrative"? Unless you agree that it is a prerequisite of a right-winger to deny science? The right is the group that has politicized this issue - don't project that on 'leftists'.

Almost no one (less than 3%) in the climate science community denies that greenhouse gasses from man-made activity is contributing to Climate Change. And most all other 'scientists' who do so are speaking opinions outside their field of expertise (i.e. they are not climatologists).

J BD
J BD

@dfksdf dksd Agree, they said the science was settled but their models all failed and they had to scramble to explain the lack of warming over the past 15 years.  Guess it wasn't so settled after all.

The alarmists still cry wolf and its lost its effect.  We're not underwater the world didn't end and its still much cooler than the average temperatures of Earth's history.  And if it does warm up gradually we'll adjust gradually just like animals inhabiting this planet have always done.


Joe Fabitz
Joe Fabitz

@dfksdf dksd 

Without "apocalyptic" forecasts that include a 'worst case scenario' no one would act.  And the deniers (who prefer to call themselves 'skeptics') will continue to embrace any study or research that takes anything away from that worst case scenario (or that they can twist so as to make it appear that way) and will continue to use that as 'proof' of the 'alarmist' nature of the scientists. You have to feel bad for the scientists; it's no wonder they don't all just go off and blow their heads off, leaving a note saying "Goodbye cruel world". The so-called 'skeptics' should be ashamed - but of course that's hard to do for the right - because they literally have no shame.

Philip Sington
Philip Sington

@Paul M. A rather obvious straw-man argument, I'm afraid. The 97% consensus refers to human activity being the principal cause of recorded warming. This study says absolutely nothing about that. 

The subject it addresses is the movement of energy around the climate system, not the sum total of that energy - which is inexorably rising at a rate which can be assessed by satellites in orbit. The cause of this energy accumulation is the elevated levels of greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere. This is less scientifically controversial than Special Relativity or  the Theory of Evolution (which are not scientifically controversial at all).


Joe Fabitz
Joe Fabitz

@W Kang 

Why can I find this same text a zillion places on the internet - yet no link to the actual study and accompanying article by Prof. Kahan?  Hmmm, I wonder.

First off, this verbiage is a misrepresentation of the study. So I can bet it probably originated from a right-wing 'think tank' - most likely the 'brains' at Heartland Institute of Heritage Foundations, the 2 most notorious for twisting the real facts to fit their narrative.

Here's what the study was actually about and what Professor Dan Kahan  had to say about it.... http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/research/trends/123544-new-study-dispels-myth-blaming-climate-change-doubt-on-ignorance.html

"The aim of the study was to test two hypotheses," said Dan Kahan, Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School and a member of the study team. "The first attributes political controversy over climate change to the public's limited ability to comprehend science, and the second, to opposing sets of cultural values. The findings supported the second hypothesis and not the first," he said.

"Cultural cognition" is the term used to describe the process by which individuals' group values shape their perceptions of societal risks. It refers to the unconscious tendency of people to fit evidence of risk to positions that predominate in groups to which they belong.

The results of the study were consistent with previous studies that show that individuals with more egalitarian values disagree sharply with individuals who have more individualistic ones on the risks associated with nuclear power, gun possession, and the HPV vaccine for school girls.

[...]

"In effect," Kahan said, "ordinary members of the public credit or dismiss scientific information on disputed issues based on whether the information strengthens or weakens their ties to others who share their values. At least among ordinary members of the public, individuals with higher science comprehension are even better at fitting the evidence to their group commitments."

Kahan said that the study supports no inferences about the reasoning of scientific experts in climate change.

Bill DeMott
Bill DeMott

@W Kang  Sure, I read that conservatives are more skeptical with more education.  But among people with science Ph.d's, I have to say that we are very concerned about climate change.

George Antrobus
George Antrobus


"More Doctors Smoke Camels than Any Other Cigarette"

Therefore, cigarettes are healthful.

Case closed.

Brian Allisob
Brian Allisob

Tom Ellis seems to have left the building. Good research, Kang.

Nicholas Sajuukhaar
Nicholas Sajuukhaar

And we should believe you, someone who uses the the nonsense word 'meh' in their "argument" and who laces said argument with unsubstantiated political rhetoric over scientists who know much more than you do?

Joe Fabitz
Joe Fabitz

@Phillip Lake 

So is this "Morning in America" again?

GOP: "Don't worry, be happy!" (Now where's my dividend check)

Joe Fabitz
Joe Fabitz

@John Williams 

"Obviously." 

I just love the 2nd grade logic you folks always use to explain away things you don't really understand. The sad part is, the sheep reading the simpleton explanations just eat the fodder and move on. It's human nature to deny inconvenient truths I guess, and I won't be here for the day of reckoning - but I'm sure your kids will enjoy peeing on your grave.

J BD
J BD

@Joe Fabitz Apparently where we disagree is that you think the threats of acid rain and global warming are severe and I think they're dramatically overblown.  From my perspective that has proven out over the years.  We've been told to fear global warming for about 35 years now and this is it?  You mean life on earth didn't end and cities aren't underwater after all?  Same with acid rain.  These issues are gnats not the apocalypse.  Barely noticed. 

Jim Bowman
Jim Bowman

@Seamus Cameron @Darral Simmons The understanding of global warming is based on hard science. I'm a degreed engineer and have been following the data for over a decade. Your comments show a complete lack of understanding of how greenhouse gas emissions function in the environment. There are many, many indicators of human-caused climate change. And for the record, I was also alive in the 70s & never heard one word about an "impending ice age." If somebody did propose that one incorrect theory then, that doesn't invalidate other all other scientific knowledge. Or maybe you don't think the earth revolves around the sun, either - after all, that was a theory proposed by scientists.

J BD
J BD

@Joe Fabitz There have been numerous polls of scientists done.  The one you get the 97% number from has been shown to come from flawed methodology.  Reviewing peer-approved literature to come to a number on how many scientists agree leads to an inherent selection bias.


You should read more on this topic.  The Bray and Von Storch survey of climate scientists from about 30 countries is the most thorough performed to date.


"How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" 35% were "very convinced", 49% "convinced to a large extent".

Shaun Kirkpatrick
Shaun Kirkpatrick

@Peter Buch @Don Genaro  Well the issue is that there has not been in increase in global temperature, even though we have seen a dramatic increase in greenhouse gasses.  Now they say the heat went into the ocean.  If true this is a natural cycle, that should have been reflected in their studies.  And is it possible that 15-30 years of temp increase that started the global warming threat, was simply this ocean cycle working in reverse? Therefore it wouldn't be global warming but a previously undiscovered factor in natural climate changes.

J BD
J BD

@Philip Sington Its not 97%, Philip.  Does some reading on the topic.  You might start with the Bray and Von Storch survey of over 2000 climate scientists.  Its a little more nuanced than you may care for, though.  Doesn't have selection bias, doesn't only allow yes/no black/white answers.  And doesn't estimate the opinions of individual scientists based on published papers.  You'll probably be surprised that most climate scientists don't agree with you.  Only 35% were certain or "very convinced" that the majority of recent or near-future climate warming was due to humans.

Joe Fabitz
Joe Fabitz

@Philip Sington 

One of the primary authors of the paper, Dr. Muscheler, specifically stated "Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so. [...] What our paper shows is we need to include all processes – greenhouses, the sun and so on, especially for local climates which is important of course."

Yet that fact is omitted by the right wing noise machine for any link to the study. They post links like this ALL THE TIME - and circulate them faster than a flock of parrots via social media - believing the link/paper supports a 'skeptics' view - when in fact it does nothing of the sort.

Joe Fabitz
Joe Fabitz

@J BD @Joe Fabitz 

Well you're just wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain#Adverse_effects

Because man and science was wise enough to recognize and take measures to stop those inevitable man-made catastrophes from coming to fruition does not mean they were not a threat.

Observed changes in sea level relative to land elevation in the United States between 1958 and 2008. Source: USGCRP (2009)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/impacts-adaptation/NationalSLR-large.jpg

It won't take much to cause billions of dollars - Sea level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts (interactive map)

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/slr/viewer/

Without adaptation, 0.2–4.6% of global population is expected to be flooded annually in 2100 under 25–123 cm of global mean sea-level rise, with expected annual losses of 0.3–9.3% of global gross domestic product. Damages of this magnitude are very unlikely to be tolerated by society and adaptation will be widespread. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/01/29/1222469111.abstract

Just because things didn't occur as fast as the 'worst case scenario' predictions of 20-years ago it does not mean Climate Change is 'a hoax' and is not happening now.

Shaun Kirkpatrick
Shaun Kirkpatrick

@Jim Bowman @Seamus Cameron @Darral Simmons  Same crap you guys said about the new Ice age in 1970.  If the ocean can absorb heat then it can also work in reverse.  Could the heating we experienced in the past be due to this cycle, and greenhouse gasses while a factor in climate,  a much smaller factor then reported?

Justin Smith
Justin Smith

@John Patt @Justin Smith Obviously you have never been outside the US. Warm beer is served in many countries. As for pie, right out of the oven is too hot. So yeah I like it warm, with a really large scoop of Blue Bell. Yes I am from TEXAS. 

Share

Popular Stories

The Future of Food

  • Why Food Matters

    Why Food Matters

    How do we feed nine billion people by 2050, and how do we do so sustainably?

  • Download: Free iPad App

    Download: Free iPad App

    We've made our magazine's best stories about the future of food available in a free iPad app.

See more food news, photos, and videos »