Remember when were told sea creatures couldn't run from global warming? Never mind.

Marine animals have been following their preferred climate for millions of years

Researchers at FAU discover prehistoric migration due to changes in temperature

Current global warming has far-reaching ecological consequences, also for the Earth’s oceans. Many marine organisms are reacting by migrating towards the poles. Researchers at Geozentrum Nordbayern at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) have now discovered that marine animals have been migrating for millions of years when the temperature on Earth increases or decreases.

Marine animals follow changed temperature zones to the poles or equator

Most living organisms on Earth have settled into ecological niches and one of the decisive factors in their choice of habitat is a certain temperature . Marine animals either need warmer water for their metabolism, such as tropical species, or colder water, such as animals that depend on a higher oxygen content in the water. They therefore migrate either towards the poles or the equator as soon as the temperature changes, and have been doing so for millions of years. ‘Whilst the climate appears to be changing more rapidly today than ever before, the climate also changed rapidly in the past, forcing organisms to migrate in order to survive. Adaptation tended to be the exception,’ emphasises Prof. Wolfgang Kießling, Chair of Palaeoenviromental Research.

By investigating fossils, Prof. Kießling and Dr. Carl Reddin, who is also at GeoZentrum Nordbayern, have shown that coral, molluscs, and sponges have been following their preferred cold and warm zones for half a billion years. Isotherms (geographic lines denoting the same temperature, for example 20°C) shift towards the poles or the equator as soon as the global temperature rises or decreases. Isotherms have been shifting towards the poles for several years due to global warming.

The tendency towards climate-related migration is most apparent in tropical species. This may be due to the fact that several of these species live near the thermal maximum for complex organisms of 35-45°C . Current global warming trends are driving marine animals towards the poles, provided there is a suitable habitat they can migrate to.

Tracing climate change by investigating shifts in species distribution

How did the palaeobiologists discover this prehistoric migration pattern? Firstly, they determined the geographic coordinates of the area in which the fossils were found when they were alive. Using a model, they determined how the tectonic plates have moved since the time when the animals were living and combined the results with the current coordinates of the location where the fossil samples were discovered. This enabled them to retrace changes in fossil species composition over long time periods. The researchers used a global database that they helped to set up that contains records of all fossils ever found.

The results are also significant for the present. Wolfgang Kießling and Carl Reddin expect that the current shifts will affect mostly tropical species, and it is thought that there will be a significant reduction of such species in the long run. Research up to now has largely been limited to central latitudes, where migration is already occurring on a large scale.


The paper:


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

“The change in temperature has brought great changes in the plant and animal life of the Arctic. Formerly vast shoals of whitefish were found in the waters round Spitzbergen, but last summer the fishermen sought them in vain. Seals, which used to be plentiful in those seas, have almost entirely disappeared. It would seem
as if the ocean must have become un- comfortably warm for some of its denizens which formerly frequented those latitudes, causing them to flock northward towards the Pole. On the other hand, other kinds of fishes,
hitherto unknown so far north, have made their appearance. Shoals of smelt have arrived, and immense schools of herring are reported by fishermen along the west coast of Spitzbergen”

Scott Koontz

Another “sure it’s warming, we always said the earth is warming” article. Seems Watts finally agrees with BEST.

Where have you been? The Earth has been warming, with some cold interludes (the Little Ice Age) ever since the last ice age. That’s what happens when an ice age ends, you know, and the Earth enters an integlacial period. I see an alarmist finally realizes that rejecting extreme warming notions does NOT mean rejecting modest warming notions. Extreme alarmists are always falsely attributing such beliefs to those skeptical of future climate doomsdays.

Scott Koontz

Wow, where have you been? Sure, it’s warming at the same rate.
Is this entire site duped into thinking this is natural? Extreme deniers are always forcing their beliefs, aka gut feelings, on each other. Nice echo chamber you got here.


Scott Koontz
What’s unnatural about global warming, or cooling for that matter?
And if either isn’t natural, can you kindly point me to the study that empirically demonstrates what causes either?


How “unnatural” can things be, Scott, if they’ve happened numerous times in the past, even before humans could have had any influence on the climate?

Farmer Ch E retired

“Extreme deniers are always forcing their beliefs, aka gut feelings, on each other. Nice echo chamber you got here.“
Fortunately I graduated from 3rd grade recess which gives me all the education needed to interpret what’s going on with all the name calling (i.e. extreme denier). Also fortunate that I went on to get an MS at Rice (paid for by NASA) so I could look at data and figure it out for myself – spent an entire career in the environmental field. Many others who frequent WUWT have similar stories. Let’s see your data for aka gut feelings.


Scott, are you actually claiming that CO2 caused the end of the ice age?

M Courtney

“CO2 caused the end of the ice age” is a reasonable hypothesis.
The ice age was cold (obviously) so humidity would have been lower. Radiative effects may be important in a dry atmosphere.
It’s just the complexities of a blue planet that that the climate models and Scott Koontz can’t handle, plausibly.


M Courtney May 17, 2018 at 12:20 pm
With all due respect, that’s not a reasonable hypothesis.
The world started warming and the ice melting before CO2 started climbing from ~190 ppm to 280 ppm. More CO2 was a consequence of the warming, not a cause.
The main cause, as with all glacial terminations, was axial tilt, affecting insolation over the NH ice sheets.
Scott Koontz May 17, 2018 at 5:02 am
The late 20th century warming was no different from all the previous warming cycles of the Holocene, except that it’s still not as warm as during previous such intervals. And there have been many instances of much more rapid warming naturally, as after the Maunder Minimum in the early 18th century and repeatedly when coming out of the Last Glacial Maximum 17,000 to 10,000 years ago.
Nothing out of the ordinary is happening to climate now.

M Courtney

Felix, You are probably right.
But on the other hand, it is still plausible. The causality would work if the times lined up. And the uncertainty of dating CO2 in ice-cores is large. Large enough.
You are probably right. I won’t go to the wall for this one.
But it still seems like it’s plausible. And it shouldn’t be discarded as definitely junk science.


The problem is that even at only 190ppm, CO2 is still pretty close to saturation. Small changes in CO2 levels just aren’t large enough to have much impact on global temperatures.

Thomas Homer

“Whilst the climate appears to be changing more rapidly today than ever before …”
Do you agree with that statement?

Scott Koontz

It’s not a matter of agreement, more a matter of science. Agreement is for people like Watts and Monckton who have no science background.
Certainly since man has been here it’s changing more rapidly, and certainly CO2 is the primary forcing. All of this “things change, they always have” nonsense allows people to pretend this is natural.


Certainly? When you claim certainty, you better have uncontestable proof. Correlation is not proof of cause.

F. Leghorn

Scott Koontz on May 17, 2018 at 5:04
You do realize there is not a shred of evidence the world is warming “faster than ever before”, don’t you?

Scott Koontz

Gary, you should look into CO2 levels. Fascinating stuff. Certainly (and with uncontestable proof) it is rising faster than it ever has in over 800,000 years, and is at it’s highest in over 800,000 years.
Most certainly. Seems like something people should know.

Scott Koontz

Leghorn, you may want to try reading my comment again. Your Gish Gallop is duly noted.
I wrote: “Certainly since man has been here it’s changing more rapidly, and certainly CO2 is the primary forcing.”
You reply: “You do realize there is not a shred of evidence the world is warming “faster than ever before”, don’t you?”
Can you see why your response is nonsense? It’s as though you’re having a conversation with yourself and not paying attention to what is being written.
(Your TROLLING level of replies are irritating because you make no arguments here, just a series of smarmy replies. Lift your debate level or you will be put on Moderation to stop your empty replies) MOD


@ Scott Koontz
You say: “Certainly since man has been here it’s changing more rapidly, and certainly CO2 is the primary forcing.”
Take a look at this graph:comment image
One thing is for sure: CO2 does not drive climate nor temperature.


Dincha read the article Koontz?
CO2 is not a problem for the biota.
Doya think it’ll be a problem for the rocks then?

Scott Koontz

Scarface, I think a review of history would be in order.
Me: “Certainly since man has been here it’s changing more rapidly, and certainly CO2 is the primary forcing.”
You: “Here’s an unsourced graph that goes back 600,000,000 years.”
You do know how long man has been around, right? You may want to zoom in on 1% of that graph and try again.
(The source, two scientists names, and website name is right there in lower left corner of the chart) MOD

Thomas Homer

Scott Koontz: “more a matter of science”
I’ve noticed you haven’t included any science in your arguments. Do you understand that it’s okay to employ the science to bolster your claims?


As Scott says, “a review of history would be in order”:
“Scott Koontz May 17, 2018 at 5:02 am
Wow, where have you been? Sure, it’s warming at the same rate.”
“Scott Koontz May 17, 2018 at 5:04 am
Certainly since man has been here it’s changing more rapidly, …”
So, the climate is warming at the same rate, only more rapidly!!!
Why is anyone, including myself, trying to discuss this topic with someone who already doesn’t agree with himself?


Scott Koontz
Zooming in on the 1% of Scarface’s graph, at the bottom right corner (I presume that’s the 1% you mean) demonstrates one irrefutable fact, The planet has only once been as cold, and as CO2 starved as it is now without entering an ice age.
CO2 at 400ppm as it is now, is only 250ppm away from the extinction of all meaningful plant life, and shortly thereafter, mankind.
Plant life is happiest around 1,500ppm which does humankind no harm whatsoever.
In the absence of empirical studies that demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 causes the planet to warm, I’ll be happy to see more CO2 added to the atmosphere so as we move further away from the absolute certainty that we’ll all die if it drops too low.
Sure, there will be changes as the planet warms (assuming it does, but the ‘hiatus’ – a term coined by an alarmist I believe – seems to be getting back on track), largely to polar temperatures and night time temperatures with little change at equatorial regions. This is a phenomenon recognised even by the IPCC.
And if the Northern Hemisphere warms a little, it might release billions of acres of land under perma frost in Russia and Canada to agriculture.
Our current cold climate represents 20% of earth’s history. For 80% of its life, the planet has functioned rather well with no polar ice caps.
Can man operate in warmer climes? Well, as equatorial regions won’t warm much, and along with the evidence from the Roman and Medieval warm periods, the answer is a resounding yes, in fact during those periods humankind flourished.
Clearly, the predictions of extreme weather are bunk as there was a period of 12 years when there was no landfall of a major hurricane on the coastline of the USA. I also noted that the current tornado season is ending in Idaho (the location may not be precise), down from it’s usual 200 tornadoes, to 2 (two).
So, again, show us all the empirical evidence that CO2 causes the planet to warm and I’m sure you’ll have some converts from this site.
Easy really.

Scott Koontz

JohnWho, did you know that sarcasm only works with some people?

Pamela Gray

Scott is using spliced apples and oranges ice core reconstructions serving as proxies added onto with direct measures of temperature. Ice core records are ice core records. Direct measures of temperature are direct measures on temperature. Science has yet to reconcile the two allowing for splices.


Scott Koontz,
I have looked though the thread, to see that you have yet to back up ANY of your assertions, why is that a problem?
The rate of warming is still well BELOW the Per Decade projected rate starting with the IPCC 1990 reports to 2012.
It is still around the .16C per decade as ALL the other short warming periods back to the 1800’s.
Dr. Jones BBC interview shows that it is around the .16C per decade warming rate:
Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
Do you know what a NULL Hypothesis is, Scott?


There is no evidence that the warming of the last 100 years is unusual. Despite your claims to the contrary.


Scott whines: “It’s as though you’re having a conversation with yourself and not paying attention to what is being written.”
Mental projection is the only skill trolls ever master.


Scott. of we want to know how CO2 affects the climate, shouldn’t we look at all the data? Why do you want to concentrate only on the time when man was present?
Are you trying to argue that the presence of man makes CO2 act differently?
BTW, the ice core data also shows that there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature, and those records cover most of the last 100K years.


“Scott Koontz May 17, 2018 at 6:45 am
JohnWho, did you know that sarcasm only works with some people?”
In that case, you should not use sarcasm when disagreeing with yourself in public.
It makes you look even more non-sensical.


“Do you agree with that statement?”
No. There’s no evidence the climate is “changing more rapidly”. There is evidence that weather extremes are decreasing.

R.S. Brown

Scott Koontz = Thread troll


I don’t know why they bother, perhaps they think the internet is going to stand up, cheer and clap following their words of wisdom.


97% sure he’s just another well-conditioned warmist parrot.


They do it so they can brag to their friends about how they took on the evil d#niers.
It makes them feel good about themselves. In most cases, this is the only time they acquire such feelings.

M Courtney

Scott Koontz has been taught that people who have studied the climate believe in the thermal apocalypse. Anyone who doesn’t believe the end is nigh must, therefore, be an idiot or a evil.
But either way, we are heretics and must be confronted.
The question “why do they not believe” is never to be asked.
It might be answered.

John Garrett

Diagram showing the University of Alabama (UAH) monthly global surface air temperature estimate (blue) and the monthly atmospheric CO2 content (red) according to the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. The Mauna Loa data series begins in March 1958, and 1958 has therefore been chosen as starting year for the diagram. Reconstructions of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations (before 1958) are not incorporated in this diagram, as such past CO2 values are derived by other means (ice cores, stomata, or older measurements using different methodology), and therefore are not directly comparable with modern atmospheric measurements. The dotted grey line indicates the approximate, overall linear temperature development, and the boxes in the lower part of the diagram indicate the relation between atmospheric CO2 and global surface air temperature, negative, positive or none. Last month shown: March 2018. Last diagram update: 10 April 2018.

John Garrett

Do you really believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1917-1950 are reliable?
You don’t really expect a sentient, rational person to believe that people were making accurate daily observations all over Russia during the Revolution or the Civil War or during the Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad?
Do you honestly believe that Chinese temperature records from, say, 1913-1980 are reliable?
Do you really expect anybody to believe that accurate daily temperatures were recorded in China during the Revolution or “The Great Leap Forward?”
Do you seriously believe that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-1975 are accurate?
Please don’t tell us you think accurate daily temperature recordings were made in Sub-Saharan Africa during any part of the 19th century and most of the 20th.
Do you really believe that oceanic temperatures from, say 1800-1970 are accurate? ( as we know, the oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface).
Do you really believe there were accurate daily temperature observations made in the Bering Sea or the Weddell Sea or in the middle of the Pacific at any time before the advent of satellite observations in 1979?
Are you kidding me?
All this is even prior to considering the GISS homogenization adjustments or the adjustments made for the UHI effect.


If the data agrees with the models, that’s proof that it is accurate.
All data that doesn’t agree with the models have to be adjusted until it does.


Scott has been corrected on this numerous times, but like most trolls he keeps repeating the same tired lie.
We have always acknowledged that the earth has been warming since the end of the LIA a bit over 150 years ago.
The disagreement has always been over how much of this warming CO2 is responsible for.
Examining the actual world, instead of computer models, shows that CO2 is a bit player when it comes to climate.
BEST isn’t, that has been shown over and over again. But the like their other lies, trolls keep trotting it out.


who’da thunked it?


Only hard nutty creationists (of which greeniards are) didn’t know that.


… one of the decisive factors in their choice of habitat is a certain temperature …

How about, life evolved to take advantage of whatever conditions were available.

Ed D

“Out of Africa” Climate chased man out of his natural habitat. The Horror!!


All animals are always trying to expand their territory. Not consciously, they are just looking for land where the competition for food and sex is less intense.
Sometimes they find land (or in this case, water) that where they can live and raise a new generation.
Sometimes they don’t, and die off.
If the world did get warmer, those animals expanding poleward would be able to find land that is less inhospitable than it was decades ago. Those expanding equatorward would find land that was less hospitable.


They have found the missing climate refugees


In the deep ocean arent they?

Rolf H Carlsson

I think Karl Popper said, commenting on Darwin, that all living organisms are in search of a better life, a more beneficial living Environment! He was an optimist re-interpreting Darwin a bit, i.e. the natural selection is not only driven by negative environmental factors.

Gary Pearse

Every geologist (which in the old days also meant paleontologist, paleoclimatologist and even geophysicist) knew this! Even assumed this on the evidence that a billion years of unbroken life meant the creatures had to adapt or move over time. Even fisherman know this in modern times – anchovy fisheries off equatorial east Pacific and salmon fisherman of west coast North America. These guys actually discovered Enso and the PDO and I believe north Atlantic oscillation was known to European fisherman.
Heck, skeptics hit warmists on the head with these observations for a couple of decades to show their effects on global T was affected big time by these natural variations until they had to cave and acknowlege them only in the last decade! Prior to that, they argued they all just cancelled out, even while the nineties were getting a big lift-up assist by natural variation and the Pause was a big haulback by the same agency. The reality of the Pause was ignored for over a decade and it was this latter Elephant that broke the resistance to nat variations. OK soi it isnt all manmade – that was a victory, I could say for skeptics but, better, it was a victory for common sense a the importance of real observations instead of mindless computer games.
So is someone going to get a Nobel for rediscovery?


Very good point, Gary. Maybe you are a fisherman?
I have fished all my life in fresh and salt water. The targets migrate to “better” places, even within a few days of changes in temperature or salinity or particulate density or dissolved oxygen. Not eons or hundreds or hundreds of years, but days!! And they can swim a few miles per hour, easily outrunning the gradual climate change temperatures, hot or cold. Many species migrate annually. Imagine that?
I conclude that whoever these yeahoos are that did the studies and modeling are not fishermen. And I want my Nobel for the paper I am publishing about fish adaption to climate change.
Gums sends….


Every marine biologist knew this, had to take paleontology and read literature. From the supporting materials—
(1)“We show that the occurrence centre is not correlated with temperature in Appendix 4 and, furthermore, have shown that it is instead strongly related to sampling (Appendix 3). ”
(2)“The raw genus latitude variance is strongly explained by the occurrence latitude (R2adj = 0.92). ” (3)“The statistical range (in degrees) is larger for the distribution of occurrences than for the distribution of range centres. ”
From the Abstract —
(4)“We expect that temporal changes in the latitudinal distribution of surviving taxa will reveal range shifts to trace global climate change.”
Students of oceanic biogeography used to study old literature. And old fossils. If I was a reviewer I would ask how statement (1) above relates to statement (4) above. I am still trying to understand how (2) and (3) are important but my review is inadequate.

The Original Mike M

The #1 motivator for life is not temperature, it is and always has been food. I would think that a higher CO2 will further enhance marine productivity in warmer waters where it is not otherwise limited by a lack of other nutrients.

Crispin in Waterloo

Gary P
“Every geologist (which in the old days also meant paleontologist, paleoclimatologist and even geophysicist) knew this!”
I am trying to find someone who didn’t know this. How are we to locate someone trained in a relevant field who was unaware that the Earth warms and cools and CO2 goes up and down in response. The new kid on the block is the idea that CO2 comes first and temperature follows – a hypothesis opposed by all manner of modern and historical records – so it will be tough to convince me the tables are turned.
While it is pretty obvious that there is an ‘agenda’ related to making such an assertion, what that agenda is, is not as clear as many would suppose. Not everything is a conspiracy by a distant, elite few (the Gnostic monk theory). Lots of things are done by leaderless, maddened crowds. We should not ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by stupidity, foolishness, short-sightedness and ego alone or in concert.
As the great thermodynamics Prof Adrian Bejan said, the thermodynamics of the Earth are so simple “it is not even interesting.” He may have been put off by the root error of comparing a GHG atmosphere to a moon with no atmosphere at all instead of a planet with a non-GHG atmosphere, but I am not sure he got that far. The errors made in working out the heat balance are so many and so basic (more than 1 is fatal); why engage in a conversation with rich fools?
Dr J Curry has followed his lead. When it comes to professional conduct, stick to creating a better and more competent world rather than fencing with waves, when any and every lunge is a touché. It means nothing and has no effect. Every geologist knows this too.

Jim Gorman

Gold, gold I say, is the answer!
How many alchemists made a living off the hopes of producing gold from worthless elements? Who paid them? Were the payers altruistic? Heck no, they were after the gold. How many alchemists knew they would never find the secret yet kept propagating the myth?
CAGW is no different. Follow the money from wind and solar, to EV’s, taxes, research grants, stories from journalists,etc. It’s all about the money. No doubt for some it is about personal power too, but mainly the money.


Very few, if any alchemists knew that their efforts were futile.
Without the knowledge of atoms, that wasn’t available at the time, there was no reason why one would believe that converting one material into another was impossible. After all they had thousands of examples of one material being turned into another. (Every chemical reaction is just another example.)
Comparing modern climate scientists (who do know better) to the ancient alchemists isn’t fair to the alchemists.

Jim Gorman

MarkW –> I don’t believe that. Although I never met any of them, I can’t believe that after a century, there weren’t some (even many) that didn’t think they could produce gold, yet they continued to push the possibility in order to receive ‘gold’ from their patrons.


There are many problems that took more than a century to crack.

Smart Rock

Good points Gary, but you must have noticed how the warmists, having discovered natural climate variation, are now using totally fabricated “natural cooling” to explain why observations aren’t matching models. To paraphrase:
“models show T going up by 0.47° during the period xxx, but average temperatures only went up by 0.02°, so the natural variation was -0.45°”. Totally unverifiable of course, but they are using it as the ultimate Get Out Of Jail card. If pressed, they would probably say “clouds, albedo, insolation, too complex to document, blah blah blah”


If marine animals could survive the last 400ky of climate change, certainly the minuscule variation we’ve seen in the last century won’t affect them at all.comment image


And check cyclothem sediments … but dah species will be all global grand-extincted, first time—not.

In geology, cyclothems are alternating stratigraphic sequences of marine and non-marine sediments, sometimes interbedded with coal seams. Historically, the term was defined by the European coal geologists[2] who worked in coal basins formed during the Carboniferous and earliest Permian periods. The cyclothems consist of repeated sequences, each typically several meters thick, of sandstone resting upon an erosional surface, passing upwards to pelites (finer-grained than sandstone) and topped by coal.
Depositional sequences have been thoroughly studied by oil geologists using geophysical profiles of continental and marine basins. A general theory of basin-scale deposition has been formalized under the name of sequence stratigraphy.[3]
Some cyclothems might have formed as a result of marine regressions and transgressions related to growth and decay of ice sheets, respectively, as the Carboniferous was a time of widespread glaciation in the southern hemisphere.[4] A more general interpretation of sequences invokes Milankovitch cycles.[5][6]
But we should listen to the UN instead.


It’s less than 1 degree….no sea creature has even noticed….

Scott Koontz

Lots of people with no science background here. Interesting how they migrate to the site hosted by someone with no degree. What’s next? A Monckton graph?
(Do you have a complaint to offer?) MOD


Pure ad hominem attack. Irrelevant.


…it’s past time for you to go

Farmer Ch E retired

Again – no data to back claim

Jacob Frank

Extreme denied? I prefer rapidly accelerating denier or unprecedented denier

And your science background is ???
what are you looking for here, migrated to this site….

Gary Pearse

You are clearly not a scientist yourself because you have nothing scientific to say. This is a big “tell” because no matter what side of an argument you support, a scientist or engineer just cant keep his mouth shut on a controversial topic. If you are referring to me, I am a scientist AND engineer.
But when fisherman know more about oscillating changes in ocean temperatures than climate scientists, shouldnt one doff his square tasseled hat and listen to a fisherman, or polar bear hunter, or farmer or forrester?
Finally, what is it about the statement by a seasoned geologist that weve known that creatures can shift location and adapt and have done so for a billion years of life’s unbroken chain that you find lacking. The amateurish thesis by the German authors of this “new” discovery shows a learning by doing finding that they ignorantly were unaware of it being trivial prior knowledge.
The same charge can be laid regarding the surprising lack of knowledge by climate boffins of the history of the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age. When they had their heads beaten with this they responded by twisting all their proxies to eliminate these established periods – the silly hockey stick. All because they couldnt countenance a warming period or cooling period with no change on CO2. Yet what are we to make of sheep and grains grown in Greenland, a wine industry in Scotland, the Froste Faires on the frozen Thames, the freezing of the Bosphorus, Washington’s troops spiriting away cannons from a warehouse on British held Manhattan by rolling them off to New Jersey over thick sea ice in NY Harbor and the NJ offshore.
Koontz, tell me you didnt learn a lot from this response of mine. And if you already knew this, how do you square this with the orthodox CO2 “control knob” theory? Careful visiting here. You could become a skeptic if your integrity is intact.


Fascinating how Scott actually believes that anyone who has a different opinion has no science background.
Based on what? I haven’t seen any proof of Scott’s scientific chops.
So far all he has done is whine that those who disagree with him are stupid.


MarkW –
Did you notice up-thread he was disagreeing with himself?
That could be a clue that he is clueless.


I did catch that. Though I doubt he will.

Smart Rock

There are a lot more with science backgrounds than you might imagine, Scotty. I only mention my PhD in geology if it seems relevant to a comment. It (and 40-odd years of hard knocks in the real world) has certainly helped my ability to think analytically. And to distrust easy answers to complex questions. As opposed to just disparaging those who don’t agree with me.
Endless repetition does not validate a dogmatic position based on very shaky foundations, Scotty. It just makes you look like a tool in the hands of forces that you may not even be aware of.
Casting aspersions at our host is most unworthy, Scotty old chap. You should be ashamed of yourself. Anthony allows almost anyone to comment here*, and the result is a very lively blog with interesting ideas thrown around, some of which are only tangential to global warming and climate change..And lack of a formal degree does not disqualify anyone from being able to observe and analyse the world around them, or to pick out the growing cracks in the erstwhile monolithic facade of cataclysmic anthropogenic global warming
* – and we see some wacky ideas from the anti-AGW camp too. My personal favourite was “nitrogen is the only greenhouse gas”. Then there’s the “lapse-rate” gang. Haven’t seen them much lately, perhaps Anthony has excluded them.

Matheus Carvalho

Who are you? Which degree do you have? Please enlighten the dumb among us, venerable sage.


He doesn’t have to be a sage. You see all the scientists that he agrees with, also agree with him, which proves that they are both right.


What is so controversial here, Mr. Koontz? Mr. Watts has accurately reported on a published paper, which was also reported on by NPR this morning. The researchers come to the common sense conclusion that critters have survived for eons by migrations to the desired climate zones.
I’ll help you build the mental picture: On land, here in North America is a critter known as the Mourning Dove. When these birds don’t like the weather where they are, they will fly at 60 miles per hour until they find the weather they want. In the coastal zones, popular sport-fish such as speckled trout and red-drum will move hourly with changing water temperature, tidal flow, clarity, salinity, and so forth (even moving offshore or into deep channels during severe winter cold). We observe the diurnal movements of marine invertebrates (such as jellies and squid through the vertical water column which subjects them temperature deltas FAR exceeding the centennial temperature delta predicted by CAGW theorists.
Here is another mental picture for you: The flora and fauna that lives within a 10 degree latitude band of the American Great Plains thrives within the middle 8 degrees and is marginal, depending on altitude, insolation, rainfall, etc. at the upper and lower one degree. Lets suppose that the expected changes to the global climate do occur and there is the 1 degree C change to the average temperature. The individuals at the southern end reproduce less successfully due to the marginal changes to average weather while those at the northern end are slightly more successful. This allows a northerly migration into new habitat.
This is what happened with the little known tree known as the Asimina triloba (“Paw Paw”), and it has adapted to a far cooler climate than its tropical sisters in Annonaceae. It has moved north through North America with each successive interglacial by either root cloning propagation or seed dispersal.
If terrestrial flora and fauna can easily move with the isotherms, why couldn’t aquatic species? The mass spawnings of coral and sponges, molluscs, and all the other marine organisms seems to me to be an ideal dispersal method allowing the organism to continue the succeeding generations while climate changes on any scale, even decadal or annual depending on the species generation gap.
Mr. Koontz, I ask that you take another look at the responses you have received from those contributors to this blog who routinely provide thoughtful insight into the matter of the day. Consider the tone and timbre of their measured responses. Those are the contributors to WUWT, ignore the rest.

Paul Schnurr

It’s obvious to me that animals will move to environments that suit them or away from unsuitable ones just as humans will not remain rooted in place for decades until they are inundated by slowly rising sea levels.
Ridiculous to think that some alarmists actually lose sleep worrying about this possibility:

Jon Jewett

(sigh) please don’t feed the Trolls. Here is a tool to help you to dissect their arguments,

michael hart

Many marine organisms are reacting by migrating towards the poles.

And when they get there they’ll find the seals and Poley Bears waiting to eat them. I sense a model catastrophe in the offing.


I am beginning to wonder if Mr Koontz isn’t the Chicago based environmental lawyer of the same name. Environmental law is a field that has long been associated with a complete divorce from science, relying instead upon the emotional value of images of dead animals. If this is the same person, his non-science, Ad Hominem approach to the subject would be explained. Courtroom behavior rarely works in a science forum.


What? Those things can move?

Go Home

It is amazing to me to see people responding to an obvious troll. Why give that troll all that satisfaction? This is what they want, this is what they thrive on. Ignoring them is the most hurtful response you can have. Makes them feel even more worthless than they were feeling before they arrived here.