Science Digest Gets Caught Pushing Coral Reef Myth
Science Digest reports that scientists are calling for urgent action to restrict carbon dioxide emissions to protect coral reefs from global warming.
The Science Digest article asserts that coral reefs, “which have functioned relatively unchanged for some 24 million years, are now going through profound changes in their make-up.”
A review of global temperatures during the past 24 million years, however, shows warming temperatures during the past 100 years since the end of the Little Ice Age are relatively insignificant compared to temperature swings during the past 24 million years.
Science Daily quoted Professor Nick Graham of Lancaster University says, “Coral reefs have been with us in some form since the dinosaurs and today they are at the frontline in terms of responses to climate change and a range of other human pressures.”
Scientists, however, report that temperatures were warmer than today throughout most of the period since the last ice age glaciation ended 10,000 years ago.
Moreover, scientists report that temperatures during each of the past several interglacial warm periods – lasting approximately 10,000 years apiece and separated by 100,000 years or more of advancing ice sheets – were warmer than our present interglacial warm period. See, for example.
Science Daily observes that coral reefs have “functioned relatively unchanged for some 24 million years,” which is quite strong evidence that coral can and will survive our relatively minor recent warming.
Although the Science Daily article strikes an overall alarmist tone, the article does acknowledge that “as the world’s climate changes, tropical temperatures shift towards the poles, enabling corals to grow in new places.”
A study in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters, for example, documents coral rapidly expanding their range poleward as ocean temperatures gradually warm.
So perhaps some alarmists are calling for restrictions on carbon dioxide, but objective evidence shows coral have thrived under much more warming and cooling than is presently occurring, and coral continue to thrive today.
Read more at CFACT
Trackback from your site.
Dean M Jackson
| #
The Essence Of The ‘Climate Change’ Fraud Identified: Massive Energy Levels Data Missing For Nitrogen & Oxygen
Greater than 94% of the energy contained within nitrogen and oxygen are unaccounted for by the ‘climate change’ narrative, informing us of the massive scientific fraud taking place, the purpose of the fraud to further weaken the West’s economies. Nitrogen and oxygen don’t absorb much infrared radiation (IR) emitted from the ground, and assuming they absorb 100% of thermal energy from the surface, constituting approximately 5% of Earth’s energy budget, we’re left with a massive energy deficit for nitrogen and oxygen, confirming that those two molecules derive their energy from thermal ground/ocean emissions instead, but since the ‘climate change’ narrative identifies such emissions as not thermal but IR, we have proof that the energy being emitted isn’t IR but thermal because nitrogen and oxygen absorb a miniscule amount of IR.
Nitrogen and oxygen obtain 5.1% of their heat energy from thermal energy emanating from the surface,* and another .078% of their heat energy from outgoing infrared radiation,** leaving an energy deficit of approximately 94.8%.
I’ve asked NASA twice regarding the energy data discrepancy, but, naturally, there can be no reply, which is what I received…deafening silence.
Scroll down to the May 15 (2019) posting at NASA’s Facebook Climate Change site …
https://www.facebook.com/pg/NASAClimateChange/posts/?ref=page_internal
NASA’s reply to my initial comment:
“Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century”
My last comment, to which no reply is given:
“NASA Climate Change, hello out there! It’s been a week now and no reply! What’s the holdup? We need to know where nitrogen and oxygen obtain the vast bulk of their heat energy in the troposphere. It’s a simple question for NASA who has the answer at the mere tap of a computer key. Why is NASA shy?”
Carbon dioxide is a denser molecule than either nitrogen and oxygen, approximately one-third denser due to approximately one-third less heat energy contained in the CO2 molecule,*** which informs us that carbon dioxide cools the atmosphere by displacing greater heat retaining nitrogen and oxygen molecules.
The missing energy levels for nitrogen and oxygen direct our attention to another aspect of the scientific fraud taking place: Misidentified outgoing energy types. IR is assigned an energy magnitude of 358.2 Wm2, and thermals 18.4 Wm2. The opposite is closer to the truth, where IR is assigned 18.4 Wm2, and thermals 358.2 Wm2.
At my blog, read the articles…
‘House of Cards: The Collapse of the ‘Collapse’ of the USSR’
https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/house-of-cards-the-collapse-of-the-collapse-of-the-ussr
‘Playing Hide And Seek In Yugoslavia’
https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/playing-hide-and-seek-in-yugoslavia
Then read the article, ‘The Marxist Co-Option Of History And The Use Of The Scissors Strategy To Manipulate History Towards The Goal Of Marxist Liberation’
https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/the-marxist-co-option-of-history-and-the-use-of-the-scissors-strategy-to-manipulate-history-towards-the-goal-of-marxist-liberation
Solution
The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology/blackmail, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
My blog, for other discoveries…
https://djdnotice.blogspot.com/2018/09/d-notice-articles-article-55-7418.html
See Earth’s Energy Budget diagram: 18.4/358.2 = 5.1%
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1200px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
** “Still the net global OLR [outgoing longwave radiation] reduction of oxygen and nitrogen together is with 0.28 Wm -2…”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL051409
.28/358.2 = .00078 = .078%
*** “Gases are easily compressed. We can see evidence of this in Table 1 in Thermal Expansion of Solids and Liquids, where you will note that gases have the largest coefficients of volume expansion. The large coefficients mean that gases expand and contract very rapidly with temperature changes.”
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/13-3-the-ideal-gas-law/
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Science Digest reports that scientists are calling for urgent action to restrict carbon dioxide emissions to protect coral reefs from global warming.”
That should go in the same trash can as this …
Yes another report from a derange ‘scientist’ saying that a large extinction event could be about to happen. This report called ‘Breaching a ‘carbon threshold’ could lead to mass extinction’ by Jennifer Chu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, July 8, 2019, is so stuffed with weasel-words of coulds, mights, mays, ifs has all the credibility of an astrological prediction!
All of it is extrapolated from a simple computer mathematical model (a model that no doubt has been programmed to resolve ‘increasing CO2=disasters’ ).
and
and
Does this professor believe that the oceans do not vent CO2 when they warm? Does this professor not understand that our knowledge of the oceans, how the carbon cycle operates there is very tenuous and certainly far from complete.
Just more alarmism for children then. Who is paying this person and why?
For more of this inane dross from a ‘scientist’ see https://phys.org/news/2019-07-breaching-carbon-threshold-mass-extinction.html
Reply
Thomas Jenkins PhD (physics)
| #
Joseph Postma did not accept my comment refuting his new article, so I am writing on this thread. He forgot about the 20% albedo, assuming 70% of solar radiation reaches Earth’s surface instead of 50%. He also forgot what Prof Claes Johnson explained about how not all the radiation is thermalized in the surface anyway. Wherever the surface temperature is already warmer than the solar radiation could make it none of that solar radiation causes input of thermal energy into the surface. I pointed out that the Moon’s global average surface temperature is well below 0C even though it receives about twice as much solar radiation as Earth’s surface, because our atmosphere absorbs about 30% and reflects about 20%. You can NEVER explain Earth’s global mean surface temperature with solar radiation reaching that surface.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Thomas,
There is basic problem with comparing the temperature of the Earth’s surface and the temperature of the gases in the atmosphere. If an oven is heated to 100 C it will have the same temperature as pot of boiling water. This means that both thermometers are receiving the same amount of heat from the mediums and the mercury is expanding the same amount. Since the gases in the oven have a density of 1 gram/m^3 while the water has a density of 1 million grams/m^3 there are fewer molecules (less mass) transmitting kinetic energy to the oven’s thermometer than water molecules to the pot’s thermometer. In order for the smaller mass to transfer the same energy the velocity of the gas molecules must be 1000 times that of the water molecules and the kinetic energy of the individual gas molecules must be greater than the kinetic energy of the individual water molecules. Since it is molecules that transfer energy by collisions the gas molecules will transfer energy to the boiling water even though they have the same temperature.
In order to convert 100 C water to 100 C steam you must add 540 calories/gram. This energy doesn’t disappear even though it doesn’t register on the thermometer. The comparison of temperatures of solids, liquid, and gases by a thermometer does not give an accurate measurement of the kinetic energy of molecules in the different states.
Herb
Reply
Thomas Jenkins PhD (physics)
| #
I am not interested in been “taught” physics by yourself Herb Rose who obviously does not realize that the temperature measured by a thermometer is NOT a function of energy transferred to it. I am quite aware of phase change processes, thanks. Frankly your comment is insulting. You make no reference whatsoever to the points in my comment. I have noted the false physics in some of your articles that amazingly get published on PSI thus ruining the reputation of PSI, just as do the articles and the papers by Joseph Postma.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Thomas,
You might be right that John O’Sullivan’s willingness to not pass judgment on (not censure) anyone’s scientific idea can cast doubt about the quality of other PSI postings.
But I ask: Where else can I find two real science postings almost side by side, like (https://principia-scientific.com/volcanism-altering-bering-sea-eco-systems-not-climate-change/) and (https://principia-scientific.com/rare-lake-of-bubbling-lava-discovered-on-antarctic-island/), for I would to check it out too.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
richard
| #
The coral at Bikini Atoll and around Cuba is in pristine condition. No one visits Bikini Atoll so no pollution and Cuba does not use pesticides or fertilisers that leach into the sea.
Reply