1/10. That Grauniad article is disinformation. I'll see you their "11,000 scientists" and raise you over 30,000 scientists who know better.
The best scientific evidence shows that manmade climate change is modest & benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, not harmful. Over 30,000 American scientists signed a petition attesting to those facts. I'm one of them.quora.com/Did-30-000-sci…
2/10. Climate change does not threaten coral reefs. In fact, most coral thrive best in the warmest water. Even the very warm southern Red Sea is dotted with healthy coral reefs (unlike the cooler Mediterranean).
If you look at a map of coral reef locations, you'll see that they're clustered around the equator.
3/10. Some coral inhabit temperate zones, but most prefer tropics. In fact, where there are seasons, corals grow fastest in summer.
At 7:20 in this BBC video you can hear how wonderfully healthy the coral are in warmest part of the very warm southern Red Sea, off Eritrea.
4/10. The world's largest coral reef is Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Contrary to what you might have heard, it is doing fine.
It's about 20 million years old, and it has withstood CO2 levels both much higher and much lower, and temperatures both substantially warmer and much colder, and water levels both higher and much lower, than present. We needn't worry that a degree or two of anthropogenic warming will destroy it.
5/10. Coral reefs are highly resilient ecosystems, with almost 800 identified species of reef-building coral, and highly mobile polyps. Claims that coral reefs are changed by slight differences in water temperature are based on "lab tests," which artificially eliminate that mobility, and hence that resiliency. In other words, they're "junk science."
@Jeppespip @ProfMarkMaslin @COP28_UAE 6/10. If you want to learn more about the GBR, the go-to experts are Australian Drs. Jennifer Marohasy, Peter Ridd, and Walter Starck.
10/10. In fact, all fears of "climate tipping points" or "runaway" warming are based on ignorance.
The field which studies these matters is called "systems science." (My undergrad degree is in it.) There are two general types of feedbacks: negative and positive:
Negative feedbacks attenuate (reduce) the effect of input changes (often called "forcings" in the climate biz).
Positive feedbacks amplify the effect of input changes.
Some people imagine that if positive feedbacks exceed negative feedbacks a system becomes unstable. That's wrong. Positive feedbacks less than +100% merely amplify, they do not cause instability.
Most systems are approximately linear over small input ranges, and a feedback f causes an amplification or attenuation equal to 1/(1-f). (E.g., a feedback of +20% causes an amplification of 1/(1-0.2) = 1.25×, which is +25%.) Linear systems have no “tipping points.”
That's certainly true of the Earth's climate, in the context of anthropogenic carbon emissions and consequent climate change. CO2 levels are believed to have been well above the current 420 ppmv for >98% of Earth's history, without triggering “tipping points,” or causing runaway warming, acidic oceans, or any other catastrophe.
During the lush Cretaceous, when complex life flourished, including aquatic life, atmospheric CO2 levels are believed to have averaged nearly four times the current level. During the equally lush Jurassic, CO2 levels were even higher. Yet, even with those much higher atmospheric CO2 levels, the oceans were still alkaline, rather than acidic, and there's no evidence that the high atmospheric CO2 levels were harmful to any living thing.
As CO2 levels rise...
● The warming effect of additional CO2 diminishes logarithmically.
● But the main negative (stabilizing) feedbacks accelerate:
Radiative emissions (which cool the Earth) are proportional to the 4th power of temperature, per the Stefan-Boltzman relation: E = ε⋅σ⋅T⁴
Also, the negative feedbacks which remove CO2 and CH4 from the air (terrestrial greening, dissolution into the oceans, rock weathering, CH4 oxidation, etc.) dramatically accelerate as the levels of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere rise. A rule of thumb is that for each 20 to 25 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration the net rate at which those natural sinks remove CO2 from the atmosphere increases by another 1 PgC per year (1 PgC = 0.4696 ppmv).
Those facts mean as the Earth's climate warms, it becomes more stable, rather than less, which is incompatible with hypothetical "tipping points" or "runaway" warming.
1/3》 No reefs are dying due to climate change. Climate Industry agitprop CLAIMS coral reefs WILL die due to climate change. But they stubbornly refuse to comply.
A web search finds lots of Climate Industry propagandists frantically "spinning" that news: google.com/search?q=recor…
2/3》 There are coral reefs which have been damaged by storms, starfish, water pollutants, dragging anchors, dredging, silt, etc. But not climate change.
With an El Niño coming on, the Pacific will probably "slosh east," lowering water levels at the GBR. So there'll probably be more frequent bleaching events there, pretty soon. But that's normal.
3/3》 In other words, as you can see for yourself, the sources you've been trusting on the topic of climate change lied to you.
But the takeaway point is less about climate than about epistemology. This is the important lesson:
1/5. If you learn about agronomy from climate-activist journalists, instead of agronomists, you're sure to be misled. Author Eleanor McCrary @ellie_mccrary apparently started from a 2018 disinformation piece by freelance journalist Annie Sneed @aisneed.
The Sneed article is entitled "Ask the Experts…" and the McCrary article is entitled "…Experts Say." Yet both of those journalists are so clueless about their topic that neither of them even knew who the "experts" were to ask! For their articles about agronomy, neither author spoke to a single agronomist!!
3/5. Agronomists have conducted THOUSANDS of rigorous studies, measuring the benefits of elevated CO2 (eCO2) for crops. All major crops benefit from eCO2, most of them dramatically.
It's long-settled science. In fact, the benefits of eCO2 for crops have been known to science for >100 yrs.sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
2/11. Fact: Rising CO2 levels have substantially boosted global crop yields, and improved crops' drought resilience.
The Indian subcontinent used to be plagued by periodic catastrophic famines. Now, despite greatly increased population, they have food surpluses every year. Rising CO2 levels are a major reason why.sealevel.info/negative_socia…
3/11. Fact: rising CO2 levels are helping to make famines rare, for the first time in human history. Few places on earth have benefited more than the Indian subcontinent.
When I was a child, horrific famines were often in the news, in places like Africa and the Indian subcontinent. But Bangladesh and India now have food surpluses, every year. Rising CO2 level is one of the major reasons.sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
1/6. I agree that that air pollution probably masked the warming effect of GHGs during the 1940s-1970s cooling period. But "measured warming" often uses baselines starting in 1979, because that's the start of satellite-based temperature measurements.
The correlation between temperatures and aerosol/particulate air pollution abatement is not perfect, but it is noticeable.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean…
2/6. The problem is that aerosol/particulate pollution abatement also dates from the 1970s. CO2's forcing has rising monotonically since ≈1945, yet temperatures only started rising (in fits & starts) with the advent of air pollution abatement in the West.
The 1979 baseline temperature, against which warming is compared, was artificially depressed due to aerosol/particulate air pollution. That means subsequent warming due to GHGs is exaggerated.agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10…
3/6. By the 1990s, the West had made great strides cleaning up aerosol/particulate air pollution, but it was worsening in rapidly industrializing Asia — and (once the super El Nino subsided) we had "The Pause" in global warming.
1/10. You obviously didn't read any of the studies I showed you. None of your claims are true.
Humans have killed off many species, but not even one has been driven to extinction by manmade climate change. (Not even the Bramble Cay mosaic-tailed rat.) theatlantic.com/science/archiv…
@RealCryoraptor @twit4thot @RARohde @BerkeleyEarth 2/10. Please peruse the resources I showed you:
2/7. The modest benefits of milder temperatures are in addition to the very large direct benefits of rising CO2 levels from "CO2 fertilization," and because elevated CO2 improves water use efficiency and drought resilience in plants. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
@RealCryoraptor @BerkeleyEarth @hausfath @RARohde @JudithSissener @eamuller 3/7. Those beneficial effects are helping to make catastrophic famines a distant memory, for the first time in history.