The temperature will not change fast on sea floor. I guess there will be another mechanism: Shock desorbtion. Similar the same way you open spices jars - hit it hard by hand from the bottom and gases desorb from vinegar, oil, sugar water, rising the pressure inside and the jar end can be twisted easily.

LOL, they aren't accounting for...YET! And you can bet when they do, they will blame it on the oil/gas industry because of off shore drilling causing it to be released, and, considering the morons that have no education, but believe everything their teachers & professors tell them, they will believe it!

95% of the greenhouse effect on the Earth is from water vapor. 80% of the AGW is from water vapor. Noncondensibles will leverage this but that is all. Hydrothermal vents are at boiling or hotter. It is hard to believe that much gas would be trapped.

The concept is predicated on the assumption that atmospheric CO2 is somehow heating up the planet.
To date, there has not been one single empirical scientific study, accepted by the scientific community, which demonstrates atmospheric CO2 heats the planet up. That's not one study, ever!
The next time you read an MSM article/blog posting/scientific paper etc. have that fact planted at the forefront of your mind.
Climate change will seem a whole lot less threatening.

There's an easy way to test CO2 warming hypothesis, in your own home and with ordinary materials. What you do is wait for a sunny day, find a sunny window, and set up a couple transparent glass reservoirs. Fill one with atmospheric air (about 400 ppm CO2) and fill up the other one with exhalation (about 5% CO2). You just "breathe" into it. Use a tube or something, there's probably a way. Anyway, once this is accomplished, expose both reservoirs to equal levels of sunshine and measure the resultant temperature increase. One would think the reservoir filled with greater proportion of CO2 would have a higher resultant temperature, with a difference that might even be measurable. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Nobody seems to have 1/2 hr to spare for such a test. Nobody in the world.

There's another way, Grunchy.
Go to the Sahara desert where there is very little atmospheric water vapour and measure the temperature through the day and night, you will find it can approach 50deg C during the day and drop to almost freezing point at night.
Now go to a rainforest where there is very high atmospheric water vapour and on approximately the same latitude and measure again, you will find that the temperature remains much more constant throughout the 24 hour period, hardly dropping at all at night, even though the CO2 levels are practically identical.
So which gas is trapping the heat?

Let's just follow the logic of this paper:
Reservoirs of trapped carbon in the seafloor slurry where released into the atmosphere, warming the planet and ending the last ice age. Warming waters caused the resevoir caps to melt. (Ignoring that there's nothing "frozen" at the bottom of the ocean and that a slurry is a a non-newtonian suspension of particles, and that the author seems mixed up). It then goes on to say, ""We're using the past as a way to anticipate the future," says Lowell Stott,". This logic is circular and meaningless: it claims something like this: During the last major ice age (a time when the planet was so cold glaciers hundreds of feet high covered New York) the oceans warmed up and released the CO2 trapped in the ocean, which in turn warmed the planet ending the ice age - and same thing could happen today. Ok, let's say today it IS CO2 that is warming the oceans. And that these warm waters will release the trapped C02 in the seabed - AND that humans started this process. How does that relate to tens of thousands of years? There were not enough people to start the CO2 engine to warm the oceans. So what did? You can't say it was the trapped ocean C02 because you are running your causality backwards. It's trapped remember. Lowell, the trapped CO2 that warmed the planet couldn't have warmed the oceans to "untrap" itself... Because. It. Was. Trapped. And if most of the planet was locked in ice, how could we make any comparisons to that model as a way to anticipate today? I don't doubt that there is/was this slurry. But even a moron like myself can see that you can't say "This is the cause", and then just gloss over the idea that the thing that caused the warming needed a warming to cause it. How's this for an idea (warning sidebar tangent coming): The planet's changing relationship to the massive nuclear heat ball we call the sun is responsible for 99% of climate, and maybe we can alter about 1% of this relationship through carbon emmissions. We are screaming about this 1% like it will kill us all. Lowell, and everyone else panicking - the reality is - we already live on a planet with climate so inhospitable that for one thing, 99% of humanity would be dead. That thing is human-made heat and shelter. (Ok fine, two things). This planet already gets too darn hot and too darn cold every 24hrs for almost everyone on it. I implore anyone who doubts this to grab 3 days food and a sweater and go stand outside. Without our thermostats, roofs, central heating and AC (or a mud hut with a firepit), we would all die from exposure. We don't know exactly what caused the planet to move from one so warm it supported reptiles the size of buses and inland oceans in what is now the Arizona dessert, to then swing to an ice world - but you can't just say carbon dioxide - end of story. There are too many moving parts. If carbon were king we would have gotten stuck in a feedback loop one way or the other. And no matter what, without human inginuity we would all still be huddling together somewhere around the equator. Let's focus on man-made air pollution and the dirty uncombusted metal particulates, that we inhale in our cities. (Something we know kills people and is very impactful on quality of life.) And relax on carbon dioxide, how 'bout. We will of course decrease CO2 in the process - but it's a lot easier to convince people smog is bad for them, than "greenhouse" gas.
The most worrying thing about Carbon, isn't that there is more of it in the air than there use to be; but rather, that we've turned it into such a religion, that "scientists" just need to say it's "bad" to get published. Science isn't suppose to make value judgments. And it should be ok to question the validity of the research. And in this case the premise that claimed the cause of the end of the past ice age caused itself? Hurts my brain just thinking about that premise.

Mankind's carbon footprint could never equal close to 1% of the carbon dioxide trapped in these caps, methane deposits, etc. In fact, it's quite arrogant to believe man can change the planet's climate through industrial pollution.....local changes (read smog), yes. Global, no.

Where is all the global warming and rising oceans happening? I've lived a few metres from the Pacific Ocean for 67 years, there's been no change to the tides marks on rocks, piers, beaches, or seawalls - none. Global warming is just another way for gov'ts to collect more taxes.

Author is most worried because "the oceans are currently warming again". Again! Citation needed. A quick search on deep ocean temperature is a clutter, but most often cited as 0-3 °C. That's "warmer"???