Congratulations! Your video, Deep sea crab gets a shock as he mistakes methane bubbles..., has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 49 Badge!

Your video, Deep sea crab gets a shock as he mistakes methane bubbles..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Yeah, you could say he's been keeping busy.

2016 Alice Through the Looking Glass (post-production)
2016 Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (post-production)
2015 Goosebumps (completed)
2015 Before I Wake (completed)
2015 Tulip Fever (completed)
2015 Avengers: Age of Ultron
2015 Fifty Shades of Grey
2015 The End of the Tour
2014 Tales from the Crypt (Short)
2014/I Big Eyes
2014 Mr. Peabody & Sherman (music by)
2013 American Hustle
2013 The Unknown Known (Documentary)
2013 Epic
2013 Oz the Great and Powerful
2013 Captain Sparky vs. The Flying Saucers (Short)
2012 Promised Land
2012 Hitchcock
2012 Frankenweenie
2012 Silver Linings Playbook
2012 Gun Test (Short)
2012 Men in Black 3
2012 Dark Shadows
2011 Real Steel
2011 A Conversation with Danny Elfman and Tim Burton (Documentary)
2011/I Restless
2010/III Do Not Disturb (music by)
2010 The Fight for the Last Cookie (Short)
2010 The Next Three Days
2010/I Alice in Wonderland
2010 Ooozetoons! (TV Movie)
2010 The Wolfman
2009 The Dollar (Short)
2009 Taking Woodstock
2009 Terminator Salvation
2009 Notorious
2008/I Milk
2008 Hellboy II: The Golden Army
2008 Wanted
2008 Standard Operating Procedure (Documentary)
2007 The Kingdom
2007 Meet the Robinsons
2007 Arkham Asylum Fan Film (Short) (score music)
2006 Charlotte's Web
2006 Nacho Libre
2006 Deep Sea (Documentary short)
2005 Shadows of the Bat: The Cinematic Saga of the Dark Knight - Dark Side of the Knight (Video documentary short)
2005 Corpse Bride
2005 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (music by)
2005 No Experience Needed (Short)
2004 Spider-Man 2 (music by)
2003 Big Fish
2003 Hulk (music by)
2002 Red Dragon
2002 Men in Black II (music by)
2002 Spider-Man (music by)
2001 Planet of the Apes
2001 Mazer World (Short)
2001 Spy Kids
2000 The Family Man
2000 Proof of Life
1999 Sleepy Hollow
1999 Anywhere But Here
1999 Instinct
1998 A Civil Action
1998 A Simple Plan
1997 Good Will Hunting
1997 Flubber
1997 Men in Black (music by)
1996 Mars Attacks!
1996 Extreme Measures
1996 The Frighteners
1996 Mission: Impossible (music by)
1996 Freeway
1995 Dead Presidents
1995 To Die For
1995 Dolores Claiborne
1994 Black Beauty
1993 The Nightmare Before Christmas (original score by)
1993 Sommersby
1992 Batman Returns
1992 Article 99
1990 Edward Scissorhands
1990 Darkman
1990 Dick Tracy
1990 Nightbreed
1989 Batman
1988 Scrooged (music score by)
1988 Face Like a Frog (Short)
1988 Hot to Trot
1988 Big Top Pee-wee
1988 Midnight Run
1988 Beetlejuice
1986-1987 Pee-wee's Playhouse (TV Series) (4 episodes)
1987 Summer School
1985-1987 Amazing Stories (TV Series) (2 episodes) )
1986 Wisdom
1986 Back to School
1986 Alfred Hitchcock Presents (TV Series) (1 episode)
1985 Pee-wee's Big Adventure
1980 Forbidden Zone

Your video, Large Deep Sea Squid Giving Birth Is Insane, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Under the (Deep) Sea, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@dannym3141, I understand that you are "stepping out of the debate," but, for your edification, I'll respond here... And, for the record, I am not "funded" by Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Solar, or Big Green. Nor am I a professor of climate or environmental science at a State University (and don't have a political agenda around this issue other than to help promote sound reasoning and critical thinking). I do, however, hold a doctorate and can read the scientific literature critically. So, in response to what climate change "believers" say, it's worth noting that no one is actually taking the temperature of the seas. They simply see sea levels rising and say "global warming," but how do they know? It's a model they came up with. But far from certain, just a theory. Like Antarctica melting, but then someone finds out that it's due to volcanic activity underneath, and so on.

And also, why is the heat then staying in the water and not going into the atmosphere? So, they then have to come up with a theory on top of the other theory... So the heat is supposedly being stored deep below where the sensors cannot detect it. Great. And this is happening because...some other theory or another that can't be proven either. And then they have to somehow come up with a theory as to how they know that the deep sea warming is due to human activity and not to other causes. I'm not denying that any of this happens, just expressing skepticism, meaning that no one really knows for sure. That folks would "bet the house on it" does not serve as any proof, at all.

The discussion on the sift pivots from "global warming" to vilifying skeptics, not about the original skepticism discussed, that there is catastrophic man-caused global warming going on. Three issues yet to be proven beyond skepticism: 1) that there is global warming; 2) that it is caused by human activity; 3) that it's a big problem.

When I ask about one, they dance around to another one of these points, rather than responding. And all they have in response to the research is the IPCC "report" on which all their science is based. And most if not all published "believers" say that the heat "may be hiding" in the deep ocean, not that they "certainly know it is" like they seem to claim.

They don't have knowledge that the scientists who are actively working on this do not have, do they? It's like the IRS saying, "My computer crashed." The IPCC says, "The ocean ate my global warming!"

Here are some links worth reading:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274

And, from a different rebuttal: "Referring to the 17 year ‘pause,’ the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models project and that the heat added by increasing CO2 is ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean. Both possibilities contradict alarming claims."

Here's the entire piece from emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen: http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment/

And take your pick from all of the short pieces listed here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/08/is-gores-missing-heat-really-hiding-in-the-deep-ocean/

And http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/

"Just where the heat is and how much there is seems to depend on who is doing the modeling. The U.S. National Oceanographic Data Center ARGO data shows a slight rise in global ocean heat content, while the British Met Office, presumably using the same data shows a slight decline in global ocean heat content."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-2/#sthash.idQttama.dpuf

Dr. Lindzen had this to say about the IPCC report: "I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/01/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-1/#sthash.oMO3oy6X.dpuf

So just as "believers" can ask "Why believe Heartland [financier for much of the NPCC], but not the IPCC," I can just as easily ask "Why should I believe you and not Richard Lindzen?"

"CCR-II cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide controls."

And from the same author's series:

"Human carbon dioxide emissions are 3% to 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and about 98% of all carbon dioxide emissions are reabsorbed through the carbon cycle.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

"Using data from the Department of Energy and the IPCC we can calculate the impact of our carbon dioxide emissions. The results of that calculation shows that if we stopped all U.S. emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.003 C per year. If every country totally stopped human emissions, we might forestall 0.01 C of warming."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/08/01/climate-change-in-perspective/#sthash.Dboz3dC5.dpuf

Again, I have asked, repeatedly, where's the evidence of human impact on global warming? "Consensus" is not evidence. I ask for evidence and instead I get statements about the consensus that global warming happening. These are two different issues.

"Although Earth’s atmosphere does have a “greenhouse effect” and carbon dioxide does have a limited hypothetical capacity to warm the atmosphere, there is no physical evidence showing that human carbon dioxide emissions actually produce any significant warming."

Or Roger Pielke, Sr: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/pielke-sr-on-that-hide-and-seek-ocean-heat/

Or Lennart Bengtsoon (good interview): "Yes, the scientific report does this but, at least in my view, not critically enough. It does not bring up the large difference between observational results and model simulations. I have full respect for the scientific work behind the IPCC reports but I do not appreciate the need for consensus. It is important, and I will say essential, that society and the political community is also made aware of areas where consensus does not exist. To aim for a simplistic course of action in an area that is as complex and as incompletely understood as the climate system does not make sense at all in my opinion."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/meteorologist-lennart-bengtsson-joins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html

Bengtsson: "I have always been a skeptic and I believe this is what most scientists really are."

What Michael Crichton said about "consensus": "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Will Happer on the irrelevancy of more CO2 now: "The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds."

Ivar Giaever, not a climate scientist per se, but a notable scientist and also a skeptic challenging "consensus": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

Even prominent IPCC scientists are skeptics, even within the IPCC there is not agreement: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

And for your research, it may be worth checking out: http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683

I wonder if I've been eating my damn oatmeal correctly after watching Trevor (given-name, doomed to derision) here...

Best sushi experience-Deep sea charter, catch tunies, filet on deck-Bring rice if ya want, wasabi, good soy-Oh, decent Saki. This is good sushi.

Sue Austin: Deep sea diving ... in a wheelchair has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by ant.

>> ^demon_ix:

Dupe, sadly.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Enormous-deep-sea-volcano-fil
med-by-OSU-researchers


*water *dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Enormous-deep-sea-volcano-filmed-by-OSU-researchers

Bad news! This one looks to be a dupe!
(ReverendTed is not privileged to dupe.)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'deap sea fishing, santa cruz, mark peters, underwater photography' to 'deep sea fishing, santa cruz, mark peters, underwater photography' - edited by bareboards2

I think it's more likely a displaced population of some foreign crustacean (made even more ambiguous by being larval), either deep-sea or swept (maybe even migrated due to environmental change) from somewhere else.

If I ever go deep sea fishing, it's going to have to be with Australians.