“Witnesses”? 😂 I have some questions for them.

There’s actually more evidence the asteroid wasn’t the major dinosaur killer…the KT boundary layer, created by the asteroid dust and charcoal from global fires is NOT full of dinosaur bones. If one event killed 75% of species and 95% of all biomass, that geological layer would be absolutely full of fossils, but it’s not…it’s nearly empty, but the layers preceding it show a steady decline in animal populations long before the final death blow.

Yellowstone, the American super volcano, is overdue for a similarly disastrous eruption.
Our grasp of volcanology is far too tenuous to claim we would have a million years of warning before a similar major eruption. We might get no warning at all. Surprise eruptions aren’t abnormal even with all our monitoring…and the strength of eruptions is almost always a surprise.

The acidification of the ocean that preceded the other climate-caused extinction events is occurring today. Once diatoms and plankton can no longer create their exoskeletons the ocean food web dissolves, then the land food web dissolves, then clouds of hydrogen gas start erupting from the deep ocean when bacteria consume the billions of tons of dead ocean life, further poisoning the oceans and atmosphere. Yes, that will likely take hundreds or even thousands of years to play out, but the food webs are already falling apart from other pressures before the plankton even fails. Interesting unprecedented times are ahead.

*doublepromote someone else finally telling the truth, even if it is just a fictional tv character. I’ve been saying the same thing since around 2000. If we went all in, halted all co2 emissions and all methane emissions 20 years ago, and invested in methods to catch and sequester what we already emitted, we might have avoided the tipping point where we are no longer in control….but instead we increased emissions every year, flooring it towards that cliff and hitting the nitrous button.
*quality if inconvenient truths

That tipping point was reached well over a decade ago when methane started to melt out of permafrost and the deep ocean where it has been frozen for eons. It’s capable of causing warming >80 times as much as co2 short term, >25 times as much long term, and is boiling out at rapidly increasing rates. Pre 2006 it’s estimated around .5 million tons per year…2006 it was measured at 3.8 million tons…by 2013 that was up to 17 million tons with the trend increasing. More recent estimates are hard to find, but it’s agreed that as temperatures climb not only are hydrates melting much more rapidly, bacteria are also accelerating decomposition in the thawed permafrost, and they emit methane. The Arctic is warming up to 5 times faster than the average global temperature. It’s likely over 50 million tons per year by now if not much higher.

Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 gigatonnes (Gt=1 billion tons) of carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5–10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve in one shot….game over.

Bear in mind, 1 cubic meter of hydrate contains >160 cubic meters of methane gas at atmospheric pressure.

The amount of increase from bacterial emissions in rotting permafrost is debatable, but even the lowest estimates are insurmountable.

This is only one of dozens of KNOWN feedback loops already in action, and there are definitely unknown feedback systems we can’t predict.

This does not mean there’s nothing to be done, we can still mitigate the damage somewhat, maybe slow the rate of change enough that some animals and plants more advanced than bacteria survive long term. It does mean a massive >99% culling of humanity, a total shift in civilization from a money based civilization to one focused on survival, and likely an unavoidable mass extinction rivaling any previous extinctions.

Your video, 5 Insane Deep Ocean Jellyfish, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The simplest counter arguments to your dismissal are, 1) it's not a single degree, it's a number of degrees in a short time, releasing massive amounts of methane at once instead of over a few millennia. 2) it's exactly what happened 250 million years ago when climate change happened rapidly enough to release massive methane deposits in a short time frame, causing massively more climate change and a mass extinction event. Since then, there has not been the same kind of rapid mass increase in ocean temperature since the methane deposits were replaced.

It's about the speed of the temperature change, not just the amount of temperature change. Methane is short lived in the atmosphere, so if a change happened over 1000 years, the same total amount of methane might be released as a 100 year change, but only 10% of it will be in the atmosphere at a time. Consider, we've raised the temperature fast enough that the permafrost is melting at the same time as ice at the bottom of the ocean. That's a fairly unique situation that releases two enormous deposits of methane at the same time.

Our understanding does not need to be "complete" to be scientifically valid, or right. We may not know everything we need to know about the climate, but what we do KNOW is how methane reacts in the atmosphere, and how methane hydrates melt at certain temperatures/pressures, and we are near those levels in the deep oceans and permafrost areas today....so close that there are massive methane pockets bubbling out of the northern oceans and recently frozen ground worldwide.

Argh. I hate it when people say that it "required" a very specialized set of conditions for life to arise on Earth. Instead, I would argue that life on Earth arose in a set of specialized conditions and is therefore accustomed to those conditions.

Life similar to what we have seen on Earth might "require" those conditions, but why should we assume that those conditions are required for life in general? We have discovered life here on Earth that falls outside of the hospitable conditions that we have previously thought of as being "required" for life. For example, consider extremeophiles like the organisms that live around deep ocean vents, and can survive and thrive in water well over the boiling point, with no sunlight, etc.

There is a limited range of conditions present in Earth environments; a maximum and minimum temperature likely to be encountered on Earth, varying amounts of light or other sources of energy, etc., and we can find life adapted to wildly varying positions within that range. Why do we continue to assume that Earth-like conditions are some sort of magic combination for life? For life "as we know it", ...maybe. But I figure there is a probably a lot of stuff out there that we would recognize as alive, but which is adapted to very different conditions than anything considered hospitable to any life on Earth.

Expecting perfect prediction from an observational science of a chaotic system is hardly reasonable. Back in the 1890s it was predicted warming would follow the emissions. Limited in the kind of experiments they can do - climate scientists are bound to err.

It's not 'alarmists' saying the heat is being trapped in the deep oceans. At least not exclusively. It is an observed fact that there is more heat energy entering our system than is leaving it. This leaves some possibilities:

1) Our observations of heat flow are incorrect to a significant degree.
2) The laws of thermodynamics are nonsense
3) The heat is trapped somewhere on earth.

Without reason to suppose 1) and being able to reject 2) out of hand, we're left with 3). And from there, where is it? The classic answers would be

a) atmosphere
b) biosphere
c) cryosphere
d) hydrosphere
e) lithosphere

Some scientists proposed d) as an answer. This is at least partially true, the fist km or so of ocean is warming. It was hard to get measurements of the global deep ocean temperatures, it was hypothesized that some heat was down there.

Maybe they're wrong, and maybe the heat is somewhere else. This is the joy of science: the capacity to falsify ideas, even popular ones. But the heat is very likely here, and until we find it, it might be said to be 'hiding'. It may be that there is more heat going somewhere we thought we'd accounted for already such as 'the cryosphere'.

It's not happening at the litho-atmosphere boundary so much right now (the 'hiatus'), but that leaves plenty of stones to explore. It's still happening, and we're breaking post industrial temperature records almost annually (2014 looks like it'll be the new hottest year).

First, I thought you gave up.
Second, the ten year period you mention APPEARED to show a slowdown in the rate of rise expected, because most models did not account for the rise in deep water oceans, nor did they account for 'global dimming', which is the sun's radiation being deflected by particulates in the upper atmosphere (and it's more of a data skewer than one might think, in 2001 it was estimated that it was causing up to 3 degree C COOLING globally, and China at least is producing WAY more particulates today than they did then...which could explain most if not all of the 'missing' heat, but I never hear it mentioned).
I would say that what it means is the models are not useful for short term (ie 10 year) samples, they are intended for longer time frames. In the short term, one expects the model to not follow the prediction exactly, but in the long term it will. As I read it, that's what they said too.
If stating that scientists often simplify and omit functions they either think are unrelated or simply don't know about is 'spreading doubt about the science', se-la-vie. I think it's explaining the science and the reasons it's imperfect while at the same time supporting it. Because I think, based on past and current models and data, that it's likely important things have been missed does not mean I disagree with them in a meaningful way, only in degree and time frame.
I began watching this issue in the late 80's, and at that time, ALL public models were predicting less warming than we were seeing. I fear, and assume, that they have continued that trend for the reasons I've stated above. (I know, you'll say it just said there was a decade where it was below predictions...but they don't include deep ocean temps or global dimming in that data (or do they? I didn't go through it all, admittedly, so I admit I may be wrong), so it's wrong).
To me, that's only logical to think that until proven wrong, and I've yet to see all inclusive data that proves my hypothesis (that we're going to see more warming faster than predicted) wrong, but have seen many trends that support it. When I see a study that includes air, surface, sub surface, ice melt/flow, and ALL water temps (including but not limited to surface ocean, mid ocean, deep ocean, lakes, rivers, and aquifers), mentions global dimming's effects, volcanos, planes trains and automobiles, factories, deforestation, phytoplankton, reefs, diatoms, algae, cows and other methane producers, other random 'minor' greenhouse gasses, etc. I'll pay closer attention to what they say, but without including all the data (at least all we have) any model is going to be 'light' in it's predictions in my opinion. There's a hell of a lot of factors that go into 'climate', more than any simple model can account for. That's why I say they're nearly all technically wrong, but are on the right track. That does not mean I don't support the science/scientists. It means I wish they were more thorough and less swayed by finance or politics.

@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

In a comment, the uploader said:

See complementary videos on Marine food web and Reproduction in the Ocean
Fish story - The secret life of plankton: http://ted.com/talks/the_secret_life_of_plankton.html
and
Urchin odyssey: sex among plankton / How life begins in the deep ocean: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/how-life-begins-in-the-deep-ocean

>> ^Hybrid:

It's insane that the coiled loading process has not been mechanized.


Machines dont handle fibre spooling like that with enough finesse.

The cable shown in this video is of the unarmored variety. This is mainly laid in the deep segments of cable runs, where anchor drops are least likely to cause a cut. The cables that run from the shore out to depths that are unreachable by all but the largest seafaring vessels are armored even further with Kevlar sheaths covering quite a lot more steel wires wrapped around the thin inner core of the cable you see in this video.

Laying of the cable in the deep ocean requires a plow, the cable is literally sown several feet beneath the seabed with said plow to ensure that no anchor drops, or fishing nets can cause a cable cut.

Cables are laid in areas of ocean that are marked on sea charts as 'no-drop' zones. In most nations, dropping anchor in these areas carries a MONSTROUS fine, whether you cut the cable or not.

The deep ocean scares the day lights out of me for exactly reasons like these .

[redacted]

Actually, I can't imagine they make enough volume of this component to do any statistically significant testing.

And BP is absolutely responsible for this disaster, good intentions or no. The final manufacturer or project owner has to take responsibility to ensure the quality of the components, parts, and modules that he buys. Especially since the risks are so high. The fact that they didn't put this fail safe on their rig looks very much like a financially driven decision.

But even if they did everything they could, it's still their fault. BP, and other oil companies, choose to gamble not only with their investors, but with our planet. And that is not hyperbole, as we now see. All of BP's money will not fix this disaster. They owe humanity a huge debt.

Also, I am sure that this has happened before with BP or others in the same business; I hope some journo is digging for other occurrences so we know the full score.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^enoch:
it was not a small random chance.
thats what BP would LOVE for you to view this disaster but in reality it was negligence and greed.
40 billion in profits last year and BP tried to save 500k.fuck BP in the ass with a razor blade dildo.
the reason why you have not seen this type of disaster in other developed countries is due to the fact they impose incredibly strict safety measures with hefty fines attached if not adhered to.
thanks to haliburton and its influence in american legislature no such requirements here in the states.
exxons valdez was tragic but that was an tanker and with that comes risk.THIS could have been avoided from the beginning all the way to a few days prior.
so while i would tend to agree with your assertion "accidents happen" not in this case..NOT ONE BIT..this could have and SHOULD have been avoided but..profit above all else right??
now you watch as BP will use its political might to squirm out of this disaster which will be felt for the next twenty years.
whole communities wiped out.eco-systems destroyed to a point they may never recover.
accidents happen right? what would you say if you understood this could have been avoided?
would you still be so flip?
because i know if i run into a BP executive i am kicking him in the balls.

You seem pretty confident. Prove it wasn't a small chance. Prove they don't go through an abundance of safety regulations. It's easy to hop on the hate boat when something bad happens, but do you really think that these companies are that stupid? Yes, they'll get a slightly larger profit if they cut some corners, but they weigh that against something like this happening and just reinforce standards. Crews go through extensive safety training. The equipment used out there is tested before deployment. To think otherwise is ignorant. It pisses me off even more than you seem to place all of the blame on BP. I'll say it once and I'll say it again: BP didn't manufacture that blow-out preventor. We don't know all of the details yet, but do you really think they would purposely put a faulty preventor out in a deep-ocean well?

Also, my rebuttal for it NOT being small, random chance. Basic statistics. The company that produced the BOP in question probably ran simple random samples on their final products. A sample taken from a large batch of BOP probably tested fine, even though this one, and possible many others, was able to get through their testing, due to small, and random chance.

[redacted]