Major reversal in ocean circulation detected in the Southern Ocean

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.

It doesn't reflect their existing views so many will pile on with glee sadly.

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.

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.

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.

Wtf? Links , substantiation!

>No, the new algorithms used to be determine this was created by ICM-CSIC who are also the publishers of this article.

Where does it say this? Also, it doesn’t matter what the co- author said, the study that he took part in literally does not support the statement.

He's the only that says something that drastic in the article, and he's a physicist, not a climate scientist. The other two comments are from telecommunication engineers. I'd wait a bit to see what the general climate science community has to say about the study. Based solely on the facts reported in the paper I'd say the most worrying point is precisely that we don't know what's going on.

> 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.

I think that's kind of the point: nobody knows if that's what actually happened and the study doesn't show any information to support any specific theory. I could be that (though I think it would be unlikely as we'd have probably seen a real steady decline in the ice sheet and not an up and down up), something else that is still concerning but not as severe, or maybe something that we didn't now before and is not as concerning.

Your critique appears to mischaracterize both the article and how scientific communication works. The ICM-CSIC piece isn't "taking liberties". If you read the article you will find it is presenting direct quotes and interpretations from the actual researchers who conducted the study. When Antonio Turiel, a co-author of the PNAS paper, states "we're seeing that the SMOC is not just weakening, but has reversed," that's the research team's own assessment, not journalistic embellishment.

It sounds like you really want the article to not discuss anything beyond anything explicit stated in the paper. I find that an incredibly bizarre desire which strengthens my impression of your comment as bad-faith. Research papers focus on presenting specific findings and data, while institutional communications appropriately discuss broader implications and potential consequences. This isn't misleading, it's how scientific discourse functions, AS INTENDED!

The CO₂ implications you dismiss aren't pulled out the article's author's behind. They come from researchers who understand their data and its significance for carbon cycling. Scientists routinely discuss the wider ramifications of their findings beyond what fits in a technical paper's scope. This is good, not misleading or disinformation.

Labeling this "disinformation" is a smear of what appears to be legitimate scientific interpretation by the researchers themselves. There's a meaningful difference between debating the certainty or magnitude of predicted impacts and dismissing expert analysis as fabrication.

Something like this :

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2025/07/saltier-water-less-...

(Though, to be fair, they are more on the doomer side.)

I tried looking up Sam Carana and found nothing about him. What climate science credentials does he have?

Turiel is a physicist and the other two commenters are telecommunication engineers. The paper itself, which I read, states that salinity has increased and previous stratification has been disrupted. And that's where they stop because that's what the data tells them. Then they say that we need to perform more studies to understand what's going on, which is the logical conclusion. There is no mention of "doubling of co2 emissions" or "deep Southern ocean circulation has reversed completely" in the study.