Science: The Deep Ocean Plays A ‘Leading Role’ In Global Warming. It’s Colder Now Than During The 1700s.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Authors of a new paper published in the journal Science (Gebbie and Huybers, 2019) insist the deep ocean ultimately plays a leading role in the planetary heat budget.” The global deep ocean has much less heat today than it had during both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

Image Source: Gebbie and Huybers, 2019

A Bottom-Up Heat Flux?

The deep ocean may warm hundreds (to thousands) of years before hemispheric surface temperatures and CO2 concentrations do (Stott et al., 2007).

Image Source: Stott et al., 2007

This bottom-up hemispheric-scale heat flux – independent of CO2-forcing – may occur for land area as well.

The increase of carbon dioxide concentrations occurred 2–3 thousands of years later than the heat flux increase and synchronously with temperature response.”  (Demezhko and Gornostaeva, 2015)
“GST [ground surface temperature] and SHF [surface heat flux] histories differ substantially in shape and chronology. Heat flux changes ahead of temperature changes by 500–1000 years.” (Demezhko et al., 2017)
 “During the Last Glacial Maximum 26–19 thousand years ago (ka), a vast ice sheet stretched over North America [Clark et al., 2009]. In subsequent millennia, as climate warmed and this ice sheet decayed, large volumes of meltwater flooded to the oceans [Tarasov and Peltier, 2006; Wickert, 2016]. This period, known as the ‘last deglaciation’, included episodes of abrupt climate change, such as the Bølling warming [~14.7–14.5 ka], when Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4–5°C in just a few decades [Lea et al., 2003; Buizert et al., 2014], coinciding with a 12–22 m sea level rise in less than 340 years [5.3 meters per century] (Meltwater Pulse 1a (MWP1a)) [Deschamps et al., 2012].” (Ivanovic et al., 2017)

Deep ocean heat leads surface temperature change yet today?

A new paper indicates that the deep ocean in the Pacific has continued cooling in recent decades, extending the long-term cooling trend that commenced after the warmer-than-today Medieval Warm Period ended.

Other authors (Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014) have also documented a global-scale deep ocean (below 2,000 meters) cooling trend within the last few decades.

“About 52% of the ocean lies below 2000 m and about 18% below 3600 m. … A very weak long-term [1993-2011] cooling is seen over the bulk of the rest of the ocean below that depth [2,000 meters] including the entirety of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, along with the eastern Atlantic basin.”  (Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014)

Image Source: (Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014)

Little Ice Age conditions may still dominate in the deep ocean despite the dramatic rise in CO2 concentrations during the last few hundred years — from about 280 ppm during the late 1700s to well over 400 ppm today.

The global ocean below 2000 meters may actually be colder today than during the 18th century.


Gebbie and Huybers, 2019

The Little Ice Age and 20th-century deep Pacific cooling

The ongoing deep Pacific is cooling, which revises Earth’s overall heat budget since 1750 downward by 35%.”
In the deep Pacific, we find basin-wide cooling ranging from 0.02° to 0.08°C at depths between 1600 and 2800 m that is also statistically significant. The basic pattern of Atlantic warming and deep-Pacific cooling diagnosed from the observations is consistent with our model results, although the observations indicate stronger cooling trends in the Pacific.” 
These basin-wide average trends are used to relax the assumption of globally uniform changes in surface conditions and to constrain regional temperature histories for 14 distinct regions over the Common Era by a control theory method. The result, referred to as OPT-0015, fits the observed vertical structure of Pacific cooling and Atlantic warming. Global surface changes still explain the basic Atlantic-Pacific difference in OPT-0015, but greater Southern Ocean cooling between 600 and 1600 CE leads to greater rates of cooling in the deep Pacific over recent centuries.”
“OPT-0015 indicates that the upper 2000 m of the ocean has been gaining heat since the 1700s, but that one-fourth of this heat uptake was mined from the deeper ocean. This upper-lower distinction is most pronounced in the Pacific since 1750, where cooling below 2000 m offsets more than one-third of the heat gain above 2000 m.”
“Finally, we note that OPT-0015 indicates that ocean heat content was larger during the Medieval Warm Period than at present, not because surface temperature was greater, but because the deep ocean had a longer time to adjust to surface anomalies. Over multicentennial time scales, changes in upper and deep ocean heat content have similar ranges, underscoring how the deep ocean ultimately plays a leading role in the planetary heat budget.”

Image Source: Gebbie and Huybers, 2019

A lack of long-term CO2→OHC correlation 

It may be worth a closer look at the graph of global ocean heat content (OHC, 0 m-bottom) during the last 2,000 years from Gebbie and Huybers (2019).

Image Source (bottom graph, heavily annotated): Gebbie and Huybers, 2019

It is interesting to note the multiple centennial-scale warming and cooling trends during the last two millennia that exceed the rate and amplitude of the ocean heat changes that have occurred since 1950, or since atmospheric CO2 concentrations began rising dramatically.

For example, despite the very modest  associated changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (< 5 ppm), it appears that both the 1850-1875 and 1925-1945 global warming periods in the 0-700 m layer exceeded the rate and amplitude of the heat content changes since 1950.

As the global oceans rapidly warmed and cooled in the centuries preceding modern times (i.e., the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age), the corresponding CO2 concentrations were remarkably stable, neither rising with the warming or falling with the cooling.

Considering 93% of the Earth’s heat changes are expressed in the global ocean, and that just 1% of global warming is said to be reflected in surface air temperatures (IPCC, 2013), the lack of conspicuous correlation between ocean heat content and CO2 during the last 2,000 years would seem to undermine claims that atmospheric CO2 concentration changes drive zero-to-bottom global ocean warming.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

87 responses to “Science: The Deep Ocean Plays A ‘Leading Role’ In Global Warming. It’s Colder Now Than During The 1700s.”

  1. SebastianH

    This is too good to not comment on … a classic Kenneth post ending in a logical fallacy 😉

    It starts with this gem:

    This bottom-up hemispheric-scale heat flux – independent of CO2-forcing – may occur for land area as well.

    So there is a heat flux from the cold lower ocean to the warmer top? Cool!

    Other authors (Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014) have also documented a global-scale deep ocean (below 2,000 meters) cooling trend within the last few decades.

    Well, here is one paper that disagrees:
    http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1601545.full (figure 6)
    This one disagrees as well:
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2801-0 (figure 10, generally a positive rate of change for the 700-6000 m “layer”)

    I fixed your highlights in the following quote:

    “Finally, we note that OPT-0015 indicates that ocean heat content was larger during the Medieval Warm Period than at present, not because surface temperature was greater, but because the deep ocean had a longer time to adjust to surface anomalies. Over multicentennial time scales, changes in upper and deep ocean heat content have similar ranges, underscoring how the deep ocean ultimately plays a leading role in the planetary heat budget.”

    The key is “time to adjust” and similar range. It’s a big buffer.

    It may be worth a closer look at the graph of global ocean heat content (OHC, 0 m-bottom) during the last 2,000 years from Gebbie and Huybers (2019). […]

    Not really. It is a reconstruction and therefore a model. Your fellow commentator spike55 got it right when he insisted on us having acceptable data on OHC only for this century. Everything before that is a rough guess-work and individual spikes in the data should not be taken too seriously considering the margin of error.

    As the global oceans rapidly warmed and cooled in the centuries preceding modern times (i.e., the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age), the corresponding CO2 concentrations were remarkably stable, neither rising with the warming or falling with the cooling.

    Why would CO2 concentration change significantly? Besides your linked paper mentions a rise in CO2 centration corresponding to the warming around the year 1000 …

    the lack of conspicuous correlation between ocean heat content and CO2 during the last 2,000 years would seem to undermine claims that atmospheric CO2 concentration changes drive zero-to-bottom global ocean warming.

    And here we go, the logical fallacy. Guns didn’t kill people in the distant past, so they don’t kill them today because a “lack of conspicuous correlation” … that’s what you are basically saying. Yet you’ll likely answer that guns have nothing to do with climate or something in that direction 😉

    Anyway, some day you’ll hopefully learn how changes in water temperature cause CO2 outgasing/absorption and how changes in CO2 concentration cause changes in water temperature. At that point you’ll look back at your annotated graph and will likely break out in laughter. I can wait …

  2. Newminster

    No. I will answer that guns didn’t kill people in the distant past because there were no guns. But CO2 has always existed in the atmosphere, sometimes in considerably higher concentrations than today. And CO2 behaves today as it has always behaved and whatever it was not responsible for 10 or 50 or 100,000 years ago it is equally not responsible for today.

    Can you explain, just as a for example, by what mechanism the atmospheric concentration of CO2 causes changes in water temperature? You might just have discovered a way of reducing my heating bills.

    1. SebastianH

      No. I will answer that guns didn’t kill people in the distant past because there were no guns.

      That is true.

      But CO2 has always existed in the atmosphere, sometimes in considerably higher concentrations than today.

      The times CO2 concentration was higher, mass extinctions happened. In the more recent past CO2 concentrations are mostly flat and follow the temperature changes of the surface.

      And CO2 behaves today as it has always behaved and whatever it was not responsible for 10 or 50 or 100,000 years ago it is equally not responsible for today.

      There was no significant artificial increase of the CO2 concentration before humans started burning fossil fuels. This is exactly the same flawed logic that Kenneth is employing. May I remind you of the first thing you wrote? There were no human emissions in the distant past, therefore human emissions didn’t cause climate change in the past.

      Can you explain, just as a for example, by what mechanism the atmospheric concentration of CO2 causes changes in water temperature? You might just have discovered a way of reducing my heating bills.

      It’s called the greenhouse effect. You could reduce your heating bills if you move to a region where this effect causes higher winter temperatures than whereever you live.

      1. Newminster

        Where the CO2 originated is irrelevant. And higher levels of CO2 show little or no causal relationship with extinctions. Mankind has inevitably had an effect on the planet but there is no evidence that his “emissions” have played a significant part in that effect.
        And prattling on about the greenhouse effect does not answer my question about the mechanism by which CO2 warms water.
        Try again.

        1. Yonason

          @Newminster

          “The times CO2 concentration was higher, mass extinctions happened. “ – SebH

          If that were a rule, high CO2 = extinction, there shouldn’t be any animal alive today.
          https://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/old_root/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif

          Oh, and as high as CO2 concentrations have been throughout earth’s history, it’s almost impossible for them to have happened when CO2 was not high.

          As much as he makes up, and as much mileage as he tries to get with it, I’m thinking he gets paid by the word, …or maybe even the letter, for writing that tripe.

        2. SebastianH

          In order:
          @☻Newminster

          Where the CO2 originated is irrelevant. And higher levels of CO2 show little or no causal relationship with extinctions.

          It is not irrelevant because there is a difference between CO2 concentration changes happening when humans burn fossil fuels compared to as a response to temperature changes (e.g. outgassing of oceans when they get warmer). Do I need to explain?

          Most mass extinctions followed high levels of CO2:
          http://www.johnenglander.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CO2%20550my%20Extinction%20Chart%20from%20Ward.jpg

          Mankind has inevitably had an effect on the planet but there is no evidence that his “emissions” have played a significant part in that effect.

          All the evidence points to this.

          And prattling on about the greenhouse effect does not answer my question about the mechanism by which CO2 warms water.

          Do you need a lecture about the basics of radiative heat transfer? Or are you one of those skeptics who say there is no greenhouse effect? Or better, that water isn’t as warm as it is because of it?

          @Yonason:

          If that were a rule, high CO2 = extinction, there shouldn’t be any animal alive today.

          There is hardly any species alive today that existed on this planet until now. It is the rule (with some exceptions, but that’s ok according to Kenneth). See graph linked in this comment above.

          @Kenneth:

          SebastianH believes that high CO2 concentrations cause mass extinctions.

          What do you believe? What caused the mass extinctions of the past? And how does it correlate to CO2 concentrations?
          http://www.johnenglander.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CO2%20550my%20Extinction%20Chart%20from%20Ward.jpg

  3. thelastpost

    They’re finally looking in the right place for long term natural climate fluctuation: the deep ocean.
    The CAGW assumption that the oceans are a passive puddle will go down as the most colossal scientific error of all time. And the most wasteful.

  4. thelastpost

    Sebastian
    Who’d a thunk it?
    Deep ocean heat flux preceded by 1000-2000 years BOTH CO2 increase AND surface climate warming.
    Do show us how you wriggle and weave from there back to good ole CO2 prime causation.
    Struggling? Take a tip from nature’s natural born global warming apologist – the eel.
    Secrete a thick layer of mucus from your skin.
    The tie your own body in a knot.
    Maybe then we’ll believe that CO2 has somehow worked its way back to the beginning of the causation chain.

  5. Skeptik

    Another day brings another theory. A little while ago climate change was mainly down to the sun. Now it is down to some mysterious processes taking place in the deep ocean. What will it be next week?

    1. thelastpost

      I have always been skeptical of a dominant solar role in climate. For the same reason that I doubt a dominant CO2 role. Both these hypotheses make the same mistake of assuming a passive climate forced from outside. It’s not passive but active – the oceans and atmosphere are excitable media (to use the language of chaos and nonlinear dynamics).

      As an oceanography graduate (many years ago) it has always been obvious to me that oceanic circulation dominates climatic changes over timescales from decades and longer. (It’s not just me. Leaving aside skeptical narrative, there are hundreds of published papers in oceanography describing century and millennial scale ocean driven climate oscillation, for instance in the context of glacial-interglacial cycling.) The oceans hold vast heat capacity. The climate system of atmosphere and ocean is a dissipative open heat engine posessungtboth negative (friction) and positive (excitability) feedbacks. Therefore chaotic oscillatory behaviour is not merely likely but inevitable. Long term oscillations such as the PDO and AMO are the expected rule, not exception.

      The null hypothesis of climate change is that it is natural ocean driven variation in the integrated sum of vertical mixing bringing deep cool water to the surface, on regional or global scales. CAGW proponents have not come close to addressing this null hypothesis as an alternative to anthropogenic CO2 forcing of warming.

      Nothing new about the ocean.

      1. SebastianH

        Vertical mixing and/or circulation as a means to increase the ocean heat content? How would that work exactly?

        It’s (mostly) the forcing of the increased CO2 concentration that increases heat content on this planet in modern times … queue in Kenneth with a cloud-reply 😉

        1. thelastpost

          Sebastian
          You need to think about what we mean by “climate”. It is not primarily semi-theoretical abstractions such as ocean heat content or volumes of the ice caps. It is the atmospheric conditions at the surface and lower atmosphere where the biosphere are situated. What if during ice ages the deepest oceans are half a degree warmer? Then the heat content of the atmosphere and ocean are the same and by the heat accounting definition of climate, the climate is unchanged. But with Berlin one km under ice, that definition would have little meaning.

          Consider two facts. The ocean holds the vast majority of climate heat (1). And the oceans have a large vertical temperature stratification (2) with near freezing water at the deepest level even in the tropics where at the surface the water temperature may approaching 30 C. This means that vertical mixing of the ocean is the single most significant climate process. Everything else, including in the atmosphere, can almost be ignored.

          You don’t even need to think in terms of warmth moving from the bottom up – just a reduction in vertical mixing would warm the surface, relatively.

          Yes in the long term, if energy received by the sun 🌞 increases slightly, such as CO2 creating new radiation, the trick at the core of CAGW, then the whole system including the oceans will gradually warm. Granted. But this happens slowly since the oceans are big. On a timescale of decades or even more, there is so much ocean heat energy that the climate as a whole, in terms of heat energy accountancy, can be considered to be adaiabatic. That is to say, temperature change overall is zero sum game, warming in one place is balanced by cooling somewhere else.

          We do know already that slight increase in insolation will slowly warm the oceans. How slowly? Over thousands of years. How do we know this? That’s simple – since ever since the mid Pleistocene transition, every interglacial without exception has followed a peak of obliquity with a lag (delay) of exactly 6500 years. So it takes 6500 years for increased insolation to make its way to the deepest ocean and bring about a change in the temperature of upwelled water.

          As a professional climate scientist you will of course know all this. So we know that the time scale over which insolation changes result in noticeable climate change is 5000-10000 years; so we know already that the idea that increased backradiation from CO2 causing actual warming of the climate over a mere 200 years or so is transparent and laughable nonsense. It is of course just pseudoscience to back a Luddite political agenda.

          But another aspect of the primary role of vertical ocean mixing in climate change (climate is always changing, with or without humans) is that of attribution. Natural chaotic-nonlinear oscillation in ocean circulation (owing to its being as we already discussed, an open dissipative system with mixed positive and negative feedbacks thus inevitably in the Hopf bifurcation chaotic regime) will mean that there are always natural changes in vertical mixing. So the climate (meaning weather where people and plants live, remember) will be always, naturally, changing..

          So this brings us to the final question. So the climate has warmed in the last 200 years. Is this due to (a) a process slightly increasing insolation that we know normally takes 6500 years to have a noticeable effect; or (b) from natural change in ocean circulation and vertical mixing which is chaotically changing all the time? You think a; I think b is more likely.

        2. Yonason

          “Vertical mixing and/or circulation as a means to increase the ocean heat content? How would that work exactly?” – SebH

          You could just look up the mechanism.
          http://iceage.umeqs.maine.edu/ers121/slides/ocean_circ.pdf

          But, as usual, you prefer showcasing the ignorance we’ve come to expect from you.

  6. Yonason

    Skeptik (so called): – “’no faults have been identified’ GHG theory?”

    Wrong, “Skeptic.” Here, I’ll fix that for you. “‘no faults have been ADMITTED TO’ in the GHG “theory.!” But there are plenty there.

    As to your “nobody has, as yet, come up with an even vaguely plausible alternative”

    First – There are plenty of “plausible alternatives,” the most significant is that the little warming that CO2 contributes is utterly insignificant in the scheme of things, i.e., NO “ALTERNATIVE” is needed!

    Second – If the problem is imaginary (which it is) then a “solution” isn’t necessary. And especially such a drastic “solution”as they propose. We are told that rillions of $$$ that could be better spent elsewhere must be squandered, causing immense pain with absolutely no gain.

    I posted this elsewhere, but it’s also appropriate here, so please see what Dr. Will Happer has to say.
    https://youtu.be/z_OjGxrlloE?t=212

    He gives a far more qualified and coherent presentation than any of the pseudo-Skeptiks here.

    Remember, folks, if a theory is wrong it’s not worth considering. CAGW is junk based on biased climate model junk, not real world observations, none of which support it.

    NOTE – Climate models are “junk” not because they are models, but because you CANNOT model climate. Even the IPCC admits it’s impossible.

    If “Skeptic” were correct, there probably would be a consensus. Unfortunately, there is not one. John Cook’s utterly biased claims have been disproved by numerous honest researchers.
    https://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

    CO2 caused AGW is a house of cards, based on bad science and paranoid delusions.

    See also what Bill Gray has to say about that, here.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL6ZCmmCU7c

    Real scientists dissent, but fake skeptics pretend they don’t exist, that there is no alternative to their phony claims. I submit that we DO have an alternative to AGW, and that is that AGW is nonsense, and that there is therefore no need for any alternative.

    Just because you have an hypothesis to explain your fantasies is not a reason we should waste our time trying to come up with a “better” explanation, …other than perhaps, “your nuts, jack.” or, nore politely, “stop wasting our money and our time!” //;-o)

    1. tom0mason

      Well said Yonason!

      I would like to add that the advocates of cAGW, or ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change™’ (or whatever it’s called this week) is NOT a scientific theory as the nerds that put if together made it unfalsifiable. Therefore it is not a scientific argument, it is just an political, philosophical or even a religious argument.
      The observed scientific evidence for its main attributes are missing (the planet is not heating up alarmingly, there is no equatorial tropospheric hot spot, or the consequential alarming sea levels rise, and polar ice is quite within historic norms), however the minuscule rise in CO2 has led to some improvement in vegetative growth — much to the benefit of the planet.
      All in all it’s just political/religious pie-in-the-sky sophistry designed to keep most people fearful of enjoying life and living well, and thus under control and overtaxed.
      CAGW advocates just noisily bang the drum of “we have a ‘theory’ and you haven’t” , little do they understand that just having a ‘theory’ does not make it the correct, especially with so little observed evidence to support it.

      As far as I see it, the solar minimum is the greater threat, and we would be wise to be planning to mitigate against the worst that this scenario might bring to our ever-changing world.

      1. Yonason

        Thanks tomO, for your approval as well as your added thoughts on the topic.

    2. SebastianH

      It must be nice in your imaginary fairy land where everything is fine, Yonason. I guess ignorance is bliss …

      Whatever people need to tell themselves to sleep better and foster an unhealthy hate against everyone not conforming to how they think their bubble world works. So in Florida AGW doesn’t exist, good to know. Maybe that why people run around in shorts there even at single digit degrees (Celsius).

      1. sunsettommy

        Gee Sebastian, you offer made up arguments over and over as shown early in the thread.

        Why make up strawmnan arguments, logical fallacies, bogus claims and more? Why bother since it is so obvious to many here that you have no coherent argument to make.

        You are the fool who thinks, “30,000 species are going extinct every year”, but never offer evidence that it is happening. Al $$$ Gore thinks the Earths core is 1 million degrees C, Dutton thinks Sea level will be 20 FEET higher by year 2100.

        You are in good company with these goofballs. They run on their modeling delusions as badly as you do…. apparently.

        1. SebastianH

          Gee Sebastian, you offer made up arguments over and over as shown early in the thread.

          Nope.

          Why make up strawmnan arguments, logical fallacies, bogus claims and more? Why bother since it is so obvious to many here that you have no coherent argument to make.

          I am not, but you are right, I shouldn’t bother to comment here when it is so obvious that you guys will never change your minds.

          You are the fool who thinks, “30,000 species are going extinct every year”, but never offer evidence that it is happening.

          I cited the author of this claim, not my problem that you don’t seem to understand what he wrote.

          You are in good company with these goofballs. They run on their modeling delusions as badly as you do…. apparently.

          Rest assured, the company you chose here is a good one for you as well. You guys deserve each other. Stay in wonderland and leave the younger generation and everyone actually working in science alone. That would be great.

          1. sunsettommy

            Your 30,000 extinctions a year is a LIE!

            It has been addressed many times since that bogus claim came along a few years ago,

            Are 30 thousand species going extinct every year?

            https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/08/28/species-extinctiondanger-88489/

            You still haven’t produced evidence/data to support your thumper claim, you were asked by others, still nothing.

            Meanwhile the Ocean waters are still cooling in the lower levels and also cooling in the upper levels through El-Nino’s, otherwise there would be little to no warming without them.

            Every published paper that gets posted here is always wrong to you, because it contradicts your delusional beliefs, which is why many here think you are a troll and a goofball, who acts if you are never wrong even when you were OBVIOUSLY wrong.

          2. SebastianH

            You still haven’t produced evidence/data to support your thumper claim, you were asked by others, still nothing.

            It is not my claim. I am in no way a climate scientist or biologist that does the actual research and I suspect neither are you.

            Meanwhile the Ocean waters are still cooling in the lower levels and also cooling in the upper levels through El-Nino’s, otherwise there would be little to no warming without them.

            Too bad the US government websites are currently closed, but I am sure it can’t be hard for you to find the actual data of global ocean heat content. It’s not cooling, heat content is increasing.

            Every published paper that gets posted here is always wrong to you

            I am very skeptical about what so called skeptics come up with. And no, I usually doubt the interpretations of you guys. But yes, it happens from time to time that the authors of this blog dig up a ridiculous paper and defend it with all they’ve got. Those times should make you very suspicious about their competence on this matter, but apparently, that’s not the case. You never doubt anything … you just believe you are being lied to by climate science and that everything is fake or nonsense. A big conspiracy if you will.

            I don’t care if you have to tell yourself that I am a troll to live with this kind of ignorance and denial.

            Have a nice time trying to convince yourself that you’ve got it right.

          3. sunsettommy

            Sunsettommy:

            “You still haven’t produced evidence/data to support your thumper claim, you were asked by others, still nothing.”

            Sebastian’s empty reply:

            “It is not my claim. I am in no way a climate scientist or biologist that does the actual research and I suspect neither are you.”

            See no evidence produced, which is not surprising since it doesn’t exist, as my link he completely ignored shows. Here it is AGAIN!

            Are 30 thousand species going extinct every year?

            https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/08/28/species-extinctiondanger-88489/

            You will ignore it because you are wedded to a lie that you can’t let go of.

          4. SebastianH

            Sunsettommy, I find it rather strange that someone like you goes on and on about the need to produce evidence. Please lead by example random internet person who thinks he knows everything and most scientists have it wrong 😉

          5. sunsettommy

            Sebastian,

            I posted a link showing that it was a lie, since there was never any such documented list of 30,000 dying off in ANY year.

            I provided proof that your 30,000 a year dies out was false and absurd.

            You make this pathetic deflection earlier:

            “It is not my claim. I am in no way a climate scientist or biologist that does the actual research and I suspect neither are you.”

            I never saw your link you claim exist, yet when asked SEVERAL times to produce it, you deflect and avoid posting it.

            The problem is that there was no such research in the first place, and you know it, refusal to produce it is proof you are a liar.

            You are proven troll with your proven lies, deflections and stupid replies.

          6. SebastianH

            I provided proof that your 30,000 a year dies out was false and absurd.

            That’s the thing, you didn’t. You are using the same argument as Kenneth does so often, basically “there are only X records of species having gone extinct in the last Y years, therefore Sebastian is wrong”. You don’t even try to understand what the scientist meant by 30000 species going extinct every year.

            I never saw your link you claim exist, yet when asked SEVERAL times to produce it, you deflect and avoid posting it.

            Skeptics seem to be good at forgetting and ignoring such things. You can also easily google it. If you like to imagine that Kenneth bringing this up all the time and me not taking it serious anymore counts as me failing to produce a link, well then … that’s your problem.

            refusal to produce it is proof you are a liar.

            Hahahaha … forgive me, I had to laugh.

            You are proven troll with your proven lies, deflections and stupid replies.

            Not really and I suspect you know it. You just try to deflect from your inability to understand basic climate science by perceiving anyone threatening your reality as a troll.

            See you at the next Mensa meetup. Yonason will be there as well, I think.

          7. sunsettommy

            Oh my Sebastian continues to IGNORE my request of some alleged science research he claims exist, he employs the long standing habit of a dodge because he knows he is lying, until this thread I never asked for this alleged research link, thus his excuses are plain dumb.

            Sebastian’s excuse:

            “Skeptics seem to be good at forgetting and ignoring such things. You can also easily google it. If you like to imagine that Kenneth bringing this up all the time and me not taking it serious anymore counts as me failing to produce a link, well then … that’s your problem.”

            I did GOOGLE it, never found such a published paper, what I found was the link I posted earlier in the thread showing how absurd the large extinction rate claims are. It is indicative that you have ignored it several times I brought it up, because you have no intention of discussing any of it.

            The evidence is clear, you have no such paper, no desire to produce the paper YOU claim exist, for a purpose only Trolls understand. That is the only reality anyone can see here since your mythical paper never gets produced despite several requests for it.

            The ONUS is on YOU to produce the link, otherwise you have nothing. You avoid my reasonable request several times now, coming back with absurd excuses and deflections, I have no choice but to call you a liar.

            One last time to show what a dishonest jackass you are, from your hand is this brain dead crap, since you never produce this “phantom” paper about it:

            “That’s the thing, you didn’t. You are using the same argument as Kenneth does so often, basically “there are only X records of species having gone extinct in the last Y years, therefore Sebastian is wrong”. You don’t even try to understand what the scientist meant by 30000 species going extinct every year.”

            How can I understand what this “phantom scientist” said when you don’t post the link?

            You are so gob smacking bad at this.

          8. Yonason

            @Kenneth

            SebastianH: “The question is, why do you believe that 30000 species aren’t going extinct every year already?“

            He really said exactly that, eh. WOW! So, basically, he’s admitting that warmist/watermelon activists can make up anything they want, and we have to prove it isn’t true.

            Yes, I know that’s what they do, but I’ve rarely seen one come so close to admitting to it. Not the sharpest tack in the box, for sure.

            Also, as we know, even when we do show that their unsubstantiated claims are false, they just ignore that and keep on making them.

            Thanks

          9. sunsettommy

            Thank you Mr. Richards.

            I knew it was absurd because there was no list of actual EVIDENCE of losing 30,000 species, BY NAME.

            It was a modeling exercise only, which people like Sebastian fall to the floor in ecstasy over, the rest of us rational people wouldn’t take such garbage seriously.

            I like it where you show that only ONE confirmed extinction took place, and only a few hundred since the LIA:

            “The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does just that. It has listed 801 animal and plant species (mostly animal) known to have gone extinct since 1500.”

            He quickly bowed out after one more silly statement with you.

            “The question is, why do you believe that 30000 species aren’t going extinct every year already?”

            He apparently is willing to ignore the IUCN official tabulations on Extinctions in favor unverified/non falsifiable models.

            He runs on pseudoscience crap so willingly, that is sad.

          10. SebastianH

            @sunsettommmy:

            Oh my Sebastian continues to IGNORE my request

            Yes, I do. I posted this often enough, it gets ignored and people like you request it again and again. I’m tired of this and it is too silly of a strategy, but I suppose one could drive skeptics crazy with this as well. Maybe I should bring up topics again and again pretending I haven’t read your answers before and continue claiming that you never post any evidence … rinse and repeat. As a cherry on top I’ll demand impossible experiments to show that you can’t possibly be correct 😉

            The ONUS is on YOU to produce the link, otherwise you have nothing.

            Oh really? The onus is on the other side? I suppose skeptics would like that.

            I don’t care if I have nothing. I am not a scientist and I am certainly not your science-finding-nanny.

            One last time to show what a dishonest jackass you are, from your hand is this brain dead crap

            Please refrain from using this kind of language. It merely serves as a show of character to saner people reading this blog and you don’t want skeptics to look bad, do you?

            since you never produce this “phantom” paper about it

            Oh sorry, I don’t have my catalog of climate science links with me all the time and I am not inclined to google stuff for you guys in instances where you guys bring up old topics again and again where you imagine you’ve one an argument in an effort to discredit your opponents.

            He apparently is willing to ignore the IUCN official tabulations on Extinctions in favor unverified/non falsifiable models.

            He runs on pseudoscience crap so willingly, that is sad.

            Well, note the difference between extinctions of a named species and observed/assumed background extinction rates.

            @Yonason:

            He really said exactly that, eh. WOW! So, basically, he’s admitting that warmist/watermelon activists can make up anything they want, and we have to prove it isn’t true.

            Ehm, you are the ones making stuff up as you go. Wildly inconsistent stuff. And you demand from us to show you evidence that it is not the case. That’s the reality my random internet troll friend.

            I find it funny how all discussions with me or other people who stick around here long enough to oppose you, end in these shit shows when you can’t bear the fact that everything you believe in is imaginary

            So who knows if 30000 species a year is a relatistic number for the background extinction rate in modern times. Bringing this up all the time to defend yourselves by attacking me is weird. You don’t do that to Kenneth or Pierre, do you?

          11. sunsettommy

            Mr. Richards provided the link you refused to provide, it make clear you love unverified modeling assumptions.

            There is no actual EVIDENCE of losing 30,000 species a year, no actual names of known species being lost is posted by you or your ecoloony heroes such as Eldridge and Ehrlich at all.

            It is modeled assumptions only all the way down…, no listed names of species lost published.

            You are truly a joke with it.

          12. SebastianH

            Sunsettommmy,

            there is no actual evidence for this world being real and not a mere computer simulation either. How does that make you feel?

            no listed names of species lost published.

            So you don’t understand what a background extinction rate is. Noted. Anyway, this is what one scientist wrote. How this has become something you use in attacks against me personally when you feel the need to defend yourselves … is beyond me.

            Would you like to attack someone from your side as well who made a statement based on nothing more than a hunch? A certain prediction from 2008 about the temperatures in 2020 comes to mind. If you get mad about someone referring to something a scientist wrote, how will you react when it’s just a hollow claim based on a feeling?

          13. sunsettommy

            Your replies are getting too stupid to respond to anymore, this is my last one.

            It is clear you have no EVIDENCE that it is happening, thus you have nothing that is real to offer, just made up modeling assumptions.

            What is EVIDENCE?

            take note of the synonyms.

            ev·i·dence
            /ˈevədəns/
            noun
            noun: evidence

            1.
            the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

            “the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination”

            synonyms:
            proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation; support for, backing for, reinforcement for, grounds for…”

            https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=dBc-XK2_LKrm0gL-ppnAAQ&q=evidence+definition&oq=Evidence&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0j0i131l2j0j0i131j0l5.1720.3781..5215…0.0..0.131.858.2j6……0….1..gws-wiz…..0.2bnX894HFvo

            unverified modeling assumptions are not based on real evidence, or they would have used evidence instead of models.

            I am done with your here.

        2. Yonason

          @sunsettommy

          As if we needed ANY more confirmation that SebH is nothing but a troll.

          And not a very smart one, apparently. About on a par with the AI depicted here.

        3. Yonason

          @sunsettommy 13. January 2019 at 6:51 AM

          SebH pretends to care about species going extinct, yet he wants to see vastly many more raptor and bat abattoirs installed, despite the threat that wind turbines pose to those species survival. Like all watermelon greenies, he a hypocrite, …a fraud.

          1. SebastianH

            Your logic is sound and I bow to you my all-knowing internet friend. Congratulations!

        4. tom0mason

          SebH,

          Yet again more empty sophistry and utterly cr@p analogy. Why did you bother? You’re as convincing as any newspaper’s astrologer (i.e. not at all).

          I still wonder how much you get paid for commenting here.

      2. Yonason

        “…foster an unhealthy hate against everyone not conforming to how they think their bubble world works.” – SebH

        A perfect description of the Warmists, and all Leftists in general.
        https://notrickszone.com/2012/12/03/lets-all-spread-the-hate-against-science-skeptics-alarmists-panic-confirms-fear-of-the-growing-skeptic-invasion/

        It’s SebH’s side that owns the hate. …and the lies, obviously.

  7. tom0mason

    It must be nice for people to believe that their CO2 supposition and all it’s political ramifications are so true, especially as there has been so little observed atmospheric warming, or any of the the much professed impending doom they screeched about. After 40 years you would think there would be something of worth to what they predicted. But no there’s not.
    There’s no skepticism for these cAGW, Climate Change™ ‘dangerous CO2 warming’ advocates, for they truly believe they and their CO2 suppositions are correct 😉 All this despite the reality of observations such as those listed here in this blog-post.
    Even after 40 years of no dire climate calamity, there’s just evidence of the usual variable weather.

    However as the solar minimum progresses it is quite likely all the expensive, flaky, unsustainable boondoggles will be seen as nought but expensive political mischief and futile, but for some profitable, tilting at windmills that they truly are.

    1. SebastianH

      So you think the climate didn’t change enough? Is that it?

      All this despite the reality of observations such as those listed here in this blog-post.

      Right, this blog post changes science. In fact every blog post by a skeptic is a little science revolution. It’s only because their revelations stay unnoticed or get ignored by the elite that science still has it wrong. Correct? 😉

      Even after 40 years of no dire climate calamity, there’s just evidence of the usual variable weather.

      So you really need bad stuff to happen before you act and don’t ever try to prevent bad stuff from happening? But then again, the “precautionary principle” get not applied often in the US either. Maybe that’s a culture thing.

      However as the solar minimum progresses […]

      Ehm, so if you are losing $1000 per month and rapidly approach bankruptcy, you’ll stop doing something against it when someone helps you out and hands you $2000 to give you more time to solve the money-losing problem? Even despite you knowing that you are still losing $1000 of your own money each month?

      That seems to be the definition of shortsightedness. Let’s hope mankind isn’t that “stupid”, even though I highly doubt that a solar minimum would provide for much relief at this point …

  8. Yonason

    Here’s Willy Soon’s presentation on what activists like SebH mean when they refer to “THE SCIENCE.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYAy871w9t8

    Pretty scary stuff.

    1. tom0mason

      Yonason,
      Excellent video from and excellent scientist.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close