"Up in the Arctic, things are getting slushy. But some polar bears are refusing to change their ways. Instead of compromising on where they spend their time, they’re clinging to the icy habitats they’ve always loved. As those habitats keep shrinking, though, the bears will eventually find things too crowded and uncomfortable to ignore."
Buuuuut....it would seem those stubborn bears just keep ignoring their human scientific betters whom keep predicting the demise of polar bear species.
“Polar bears are sticking to using the same type of habitat conditions even while sea ice disappears,” says lead author Ryan Wilson of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They still love regions with shallow water, a high but variable concentration of sea ice, and not much land-bound ice. He thinks that’s because—for now—they can still eat....So these polar bears seem to be doing fine without changing their habits."
Buuuuut....just wait until next season warns the Discover Magazine's species helicopter-parent nanny.
"As the iciest spots continue to shrink, more animals will have to either crowd into them or move onto solid land during the summer. They can’t stay stuck in their ways forever. These carefree polar bears will soon experience the same negative effects that their neighbors have, Wilson says: “It’s likely only a matter of time.”
Stephen Hawking has gained a less than stellar reputation for predicting doomsday catastrophes multiple times. Seems his non-scientific predictions are classic clickbait catnip for mainstream media publications and net tabloids.
Hawking's space alien, robot, and nuclear war prognostications have gotten a lot of play and views. Yet they are essentially just vague fear-mongering memes provided by an individual with a high IQ.
And then there is his latest doomsday scenario of human CO2 emission causing global warming so hot that humanity on Earth is wiped out by a Venus-like climate of 250 degrees. Unfortunately for Hawking, the empirical evidence clearly indicates that Earth becoming Venus is such an absurdity that even the fear-mongers at the IPCC won't support this vaporfear.
Why is Hawking's Venus prediction so way out there in the twilight zone of black holes? Just look at the adjacent chart.
Plotted are the absolute temperatures for the tropical oceans and the atmosphere above the tropical oceans, as of April 2016 (purple columns). If the oceans are going to be boiled-off by Venus atmospheric temperature levels, then we are a very long way from that happening.
But what about Earth's temperatures a 100 years from now, due to that "runaway" warming Hawking insinuates that we suffer from?
Well, based on the linear trend of temperatures since the satellite measurement age began in 1979, the expected tropical temperatures for April 2116 (yellow columns on chart) will barely budge up - ahem, 250 degrees is not in the cards. Earth's actual experience with Hawking's modern "runaway" warming clearly indicates that we can't get there (250 degrees) from here (25.3°, -4.2°, -24.2°).
And by the time the next 100 years passes, humanity will no longer be using fossil fuels as the primary source of energy. Technology will advance far enough during that time to make the issue of runaway warming or climate change tipping points from human greenhouse gas emissions moot historical footnotes.
Note: Calculated rolling absolute temps using 12-month averages of anomalies and then adding an average absolute temp to the anomalies. Absolute average temp used for HadSST, 24.4C; absolute average temp for UAH lower troposphere -5.0C; absolute average temp for mid-troposphere, -25.0C. Excel used to calculate averages and plot column chart. Venus surface, lower and mid-troposphere temperatures are vastly hotter than 250 degrees that Hawking alluded to.
As multiple recent articles have documented, wind energy, in the form of wind farms, has been plagued with multiple serious issues. When compiling the list of issues, it demonstrates that wind power's future as a sustainable renewable energy resource is not so bright.
Adding to the negative issue impacts of wind energy is a new study out of Scotland that established an 80% reduction of the EU protected golden plover bird species in the vicinity of a wind farm.
Per the inconvenient study:
"Lead researcher Dr Alex Sansom said: 'Golden plovers breed in open landscapes and it is likely that the presence of wind turbines in these areas leads to birds avoiding areas around the turbines. This study shows that such displacement may cause large declines in bird numbers within wind farms ...'It will be important to examine whether these effects are maintained over the longer term at this site, and we should also use these detailed studies to examine the effects of wind farms on other bird species.'"
Heavily subsidized wind turbine farms have been a mainstay for investors seeking wealth from the government mandated, renewable energy green fiascoes.
And wind farms have become a bloody slaughter-grounds mainstay for multiple species of birds and bats.
A threat of green-made extinction is in the air.
Now it appears that the significant offshore wind farm noise and other acoustic artifacts combine to produce a deadly impact on whales. And additional marine species may be adversely impacted too.
This image of the beached sperm whales on Europe's shores is not a typical occurrence. As this article explains, the gigantic offshore wind farms these two whales traversed may be the underlying cause.Sadly, an additional 27 whales suffered the same fates at the same time.
Since wind farm power generation has no discernible influence on global warming, and are unable to survive without a massive transfer of average taxpayer monies to wealthy investors, via government mandate, maybe its time for this subsidization of mass animal killings to end.
Why does any sane person believe these knuckleheads?
Global warming alarmists, green activists, celebrities, and especially the mainstream press, collaborated in a loud chorus denouncing CO2 human emissions due to its supposed destructive nature on honeybee colonies.
With the onset of the widely publicized American 'colony collapse disorder', they were predicting that climate change from greenhouse gases would destroy the honeybees (and other bee species) and crop agriculture - meaning a massive starvation for mankind.
Something had to be done about global warming and this potential extinction. Climate change had to be dealt with swiftly. Do it for the children honeybees!!!
So, Obama proposed the typical tardy government response of more bureaucrats, taxpayer monies for scientists, and evidence-free untested policies, which will likely accomplish zilch.
In the meantime, the bee problem has been solved, like usual, via free markets, capitalism and individualism, not by govt diktat. Read the whole story here.
And not to be forgotten, like polar bears, another species predicted to go extinct a long time ago, bee colonies just reached a record high in the last 20 years at a time of the world's "hottest" temperatures evah and highest atmospheric CO2 levels.
In contrast to the crazed, paranoid, lefty-loon rants of an obviously disturbed, anti-science journalist, what do actual scientists say about global warming....let's summarize with a favorite...
Read here. It is well known that climate doomsday journalists have a serious aversion to actual empirical evidence and ignore the overwhelming amount of new peer-reviewed studies that seriously challenge their anti-science, green-religion belief system about global warming.
And now comes a new study by a huge international team of scientists, Niu et al, that points out an inconvenient scientific truth. The world's ecosystems (plants, animals and microbes) indeed prosper within warmer climate regimes - they successfully adapt and evolve with higher temps.
"In introducing their huge collaborative study, the sixty-eight authors say "it is well documented that plants, animals and microbes acclimate and/or adapt to prevailing environmental conditions in a way that can optimize their functioning under varying temperatures, which is collectively termed optimality...say they found that "the temperature response of NEE followed a peak curve, with the optimum temperature (corresponding to the maximum magnitude of NEE) being positively correlated with annual mean temperature over years and across sites," and they say that "shifts of the optimum temperature of NEE were mostly a result of temperature acclimation of gross primary productivity (upward shift of optimum temperature)...they indicate that "extended growing seasons, increased nitrogen mineralization, and enhanced root growth may also have contributed to the increased CO2 uptake under higher temperatures, leading to the upward shift in the optimum temperature of gross primary productivity in warmer years."" [Shuli Niu, Yiqi Luo, Shenfeng Fei, Wenping Yuan, David Schimel, Beverly E. Law, Christof Ammann, M. Altaf Arain, Almut Arneth, Marc Aubinet, Alan Barr, Jason Beringer, Christian Bernhofer, T. Andrew Black, Nina Buchmann, Alessandro Cescatti, Jiquan Chen, Kenneth J. Davis, Ebba Dellwik, Ankur R. Desai, Sophia Etzold, Louis Francois, Damiano Gianelle, Bert Gielen, Allen Goldstein, Margriet Groenendijk, Lianhong Gu, Niall Hanan, Carole Helfter, Takashi Hirano, David Y. Hollinger, Mike B. Jones, Gerard Kiely, Thomas E. Kolb, Werner L. Kutsch, Peter Lafleur, David M. Lawrence, Linghao Li, Anders Lindroth, Marcy Litvak, Denis Loustau, Magnus Lund, Michal Marek, Timothy A. Martin, Giorgio Matteucci, Mirco Migliavacca, Leonardo Montagnani, Eddy Moors, J. William Munger, Asko Noormets, Walter Oechel, Janusz Olejnik, Kyaw Tha Paw U, Kim Pilegaard, Serge Rambal, Antonio Raschi, Russell L. Scott, Günther Seufert, Donatella Spano, Paul Stoy, Mark A. Sutton, Andrej Varlagin, Timo Vesala, Ensheng Weng, Georg Wohlfahrt, Bai Yang, Zhongda Zhang and Xuhui Zhou 2012: New Phytologist]
'C3' Conclusions: So, who you going to believe about global warming? The anti-science, lefty-loon doomsday fanatics like Al Gore and David Appell, or 68 expert scientists regarding thermal optimality and our favorite optimist, Bobby McFerrin? We conclude the latter group to be a better indication of climate reality and outlook. The green anti-science zealots really need to stop and smell the roses every once in a while, and be thankful how both life and climate have improved since the Little Ice Age - a suggested therapy for their miserable attitudes should include listening to "Don't Worry, Be Happy" at least 3 times per day, which will hopefully dull the catastrophic-fear paranoia edge they continuously live on.
Read here. The IPCC prediction that the sea's plankton are at survival risk because of ocean acidification has gained much attention in the mainstream press. But does this prediction have scientific merit?
The Nielsen et al. team of researchers decided to investigate if the prediction was sound in terms of science.
"The authors write that "the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising, and models predict that by the end of the century it will have increased to twice the amount seen at any given time during the last 15 million years," stating that "this will cause a decrease in average surface water pH of 0.4," while noting that planktonic protists will be among the organisms to be affected first by this change."..."tested whether reduced pH would affect plankton communities over an incubation period of 14 days."...researchers determined that nutrient uptake and photosynthetic parameters "were all unaffected by pH treatments 8.3-7.7," treatments that they say "match the predicted 21st century changes in CO2 and pH." In addition, they found that "cellular carbon and total particulate organic carbon were both completely unaffected by pH treatment within this range," and that "the same was true for the succession of all 25 enumerated protist species." [Lasse Tor Nielsen, Gustaaf M. Hallegraeff, Simon W. Wright, Per Juel Hansen 2012: Aquatic Microbial Ecology]
Conclusion: As multiple scientific studies have now shown, the ocean acidification hysteria is just that. Marine life seems extremely capable in its adaptive abilities, such that the risk from lower sea pH levels due to excess CO2 is tiny. This is also now true for the world's plankton communities in spite of the IPCC's prediction.
A new study by climate doomsday scientists came to the conclusion that the penguins would become extinct because climate models predicted warmer temperatures and less ice in Antarctica - however, the actual empirical evidence finds climate models to be wrong
Read here and here. The IPCC's global and regional climate models are based on a high climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels. As a result, the models predict a warmer Antarctica with a loss of sea ice.
Using the IPCC models' output as input, another computer model thus predicted the extinction of Antarctica's penguins. Essentially, to be blunt, this is crappy science based on the familiar data processing concept known as 'GIGO'.
To the surprise of no one, with the exception of most lame stream science reporters, the GIGO penguin study has now been harpooned by actual empirical evidence and Antarctica climate reality.
"Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time - and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all..."Previous ocean models ... have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place,"...The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ...
"According to a statement from the American Geophysical Union, announcing the new research: "It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception...that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass."
Conclusions: Incredibly crappy penguin study based solely on GIGO computer simulations dies on the harpoon of actual empirical evidence. Antarctica and the surrounding seas are not appreciably warming from human CO2 emissions as predicted by the IPCC's climate models.
Endangered species & climate change - it is often claimed by the IPCC and its cadre of climate doomsday scientists that global warming is threatening the survival of many species - not so in regards to the 'wandering albatross'
Read here. The wandering albatross is officially a vulnerable species that happens to have the largest wingspan of all birds. How will global warming / climate change affect this giant of the air?
Actually, like so many other marine-based species, the wandering albatross seems to be thriving from the feared "human-induced" climate change. A new study by a team of scientists (Weimerskirch et. al) recently confirmed this to be so.
"The authors write that "in marine systems, wind is a major component of the environment, and climate change-induced alterations in oceanic wind regimes and strength have already occurred and are predicted to increase." With respect to what has "already occurred," they note that "over the past fifty years, Southern Hemisphere westerlies have shifted poleward and increased in intensity," which could well affect "the movement or distribution of wind-dependent species, such as migratory land birds or pelagic seabirds,"...The four researchers report that over the period of time characterized by the IPCC as having experienced unprecedented global warming, the foraging range of wandering albatrosses has shifted poleward...One extremely important consequence of this change was a 22% decrease in the duration of albatross foraging trips between 1970 and 2008 (a drop from 12.4 to 9.7 days). And as a consequence of this change, they write that "breeding success has improved, and birds have increased in mass by more than one kilogram,"..." [Henri Weimerskirch, Maite Louzao, Sophie de Grissac, Karine Delord 2012: Science]
Conclusions: The alarmism of endangered species & climate change is overblown by chicken-little pundits who constantly fail to embrace the empirical evidence. As has been found with the wandering albatross, most marine-based species are propsering within the current climate change conditions that are associated with a modest global warming since the Little Ice Age.
Read here. Ocean acidification sounds like a catastrophe waiting to destroy all marine life, until one examines the actual empirical research. ‘C3’ has written about the bizarre, chicken-little acidification fears multiple times, and multiple studies keep coming to the same conclusion – the facts don’t correlate with the blatant fearmongering.
Now, a new peer reviewed study (Crawfurd et al.) examines “acidification” impacts on marine diatoms – the most common phytoplankton, the basis of the food chain. As previous studies determined and this study confirms, in reality ocean acidification impacts are tiny and future marine catastrophic death scenarios are on par with other hyped urban legends.
“The authors state that diatoms are very important for the productivity of the world's oceans, as they contribute about 45% of global marine primary production; and they therefore say it is essential to understand how diatoms and other marine phytoplankton will respond to the higher aqueous CO2 and lower pH conditions that will prevail in their surface waters in the near future, as a result of the dissolution of anthropogenic CO2 in them... grew over 100 generations of the diatom Thalassiosira pseudonana in seawater maintained in equilibrium with air of either current (ambient) CO2 concentration or expected end-of-the-century (twice-ambient) CO2 concentration (380 or 760 ppm)...conclude in the final sentence of their paper that "if all diatoms respond in a similar fashion to T. pseudonana, acidification of this magnitude in the future ocean may have little effect on diatom productivity."” [Katharine J. Crawfurd, John A. Raven, Glen L. Wheeler, Emily J. Baxter, Ian Joint 2011: PLoS One]
Conclusions: The carbon dioxide facts, ocean “acidification” is not a practical threat to marine life per this recent study. Although computer models may predict marine life harm, multiple empirical research efforts have proven the models to be without merit. Any climate doomsday scientist or chicken-little pundit claiming otherwise is practicing nothing more than shrill fearmongering.
Read here. Alarmists and anti-CO2 activists have loudly suggested that sea water that becomes more "acidified" will significantly harm marine species. Listening to the alarmists, one would surmise that mollusks such as clams and oysters would literally have their shells disappear from lower pH levels of oceans.
A new peer reviewed study by Parker et al. punctures this hot air balloon of alarmism with empirical evidence from actual experiments.
"The authors write that studies on the impact of ocean acidification on marine organisms that have been conducted to date "have only considered the impacts on 'adults' or 'larvae', ignoring the potential link between the two life-history stages and the possible carry-over effects that may be passed from adult to offspring,"...placed adults of wild-collected and selectively-bred populations of the Sydney rock oyster which they obtained at the beginning of reproductive conditioning - within seawater equilibrated with air of either 380 ppm CO2 (near-ambient) or 856 ppm CO2 (predicted for 2100 by the IPCC)...found that the larvae spawned from adults living in the "acidified" seawater were the same size as those spawned from adults living in near-ambient seawater; but they report that "larvae spawned form adults exposed to elevated CO2 were larger and developed faster."...concluding that the results of their work suggest that "marine organisms may have the capacity to acclimate or adapt to elevated CO2 over the next century."" [Laura M. Parker, Pauline M. Ross, Wayne A. O'Connor, Larissa Borysko, David A. Raftos, Hans-Otto Pörtner 2012: Global Change Biology]
Conclusion: Climate alarmists claims of the ocean acidification impact on marine species has not been factual. As researchers continue their research, the carbon dioxide emissions facts are being firmly established with empirical evidence while exposing the frequent fearmongering and exaggerations to scientific sunlight.
The mainstream print media has been misinforming the public for years about man's affect on coral reefs - finally, '60 Minutes' tells truth that NYT & WAPO cover up
Read here. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. is one of few climate scientists who has long insisted that human influence on climate is much more than just the CO2 greenhouse gas. For Americans, a recent the '60 Minutes' TV episode on the devastation of coral reefs pretty much vindicates Pielke's view that any number of non-CO2 factors significantly influence the world's climate and habitats.
"Scientists say the world's reefs are being harmed by a complex combination of factors; including pollution, agricultural runoff, coastal development, and overfishing. It turns out fish are essential to the health of a reef...The reason this reef's doing so well, Fabian Pina believes, is that it's far from the mainland and well-protected...Maybe it’s because this ecosystem is being protected, it’s got a leg up on other ecosystems around the world that are being heavily fished and heavily impacted by pollution. So that makes it more resilient. That’s one of the theories that if we do what we can locally that these reefs have a better chance of being resilient to what’s happening globally."
"There is a very important message from this news report. The risks to coral reefs are dominated by local interference by humans on its ecosystem function. Such effects include local pollution (e.g. runoff from rivers and shorelines and from shipping; overfishing including the major predator species such as sharks)...Despite this short reference to global warming in the CBS report, the report is quite an important addition to the broadening out of environmental issues beyond the myopic focus on global warming. The contrast between reef health near Veracruz, Mexico and the Cuba Preserve should convincingly show objective readers that coral bleaching from global warming is clearly not the largest threat to the health of tropical coral reefs."
Now, if only the MSM print media would also start informing their readers about the truth of climate change - that would be the truly real climate fix.
Read here. The predictions of alarmist scientists are frequently hysterical, and most often wrong, as was globally witnessed with the Hurricane Irene forecasts. Another example of an incredibly bad "climate science" prediction was that marine life would be decimated by human-induced global warming. Scientists and empirical evidence prove that prediction wrong.
A new peer-reviewed study by Chavez et al. determined that the opposite has occurred: marine life and productivity has improved during the modern warming.
"...the three researchers -- all from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute of Moss Landing, California -- write that "general conclusions from the satellite and in situ time-series presented here are that PP [primary production] is increasing globally," and they note that global marine PP appears to have risen over the past several decades in association with multi-decadal variations in climate. In addition, they indicate that data from Continuous Plankton Recorder surveys conducted in the north Atlantic depict "increases in chlorophyll from the 1950s to the present," citing McQuartters-Gollop et al...report that ocean sediment cores containing an "undisturbed history of the past" have been analyzed for variations in PP over timescales that include the Little Ice Age...they determined that during the LIA the ocean off Peru had "low PP, diatoms and fish," but that "at the end of the LIA, this condition changed abruptly to the low subsurface oxygen, eutrophic upwelling ecosystem that today produces more fish than any region of the world's oceans...write that "in coastal environments, PP, diatoms and fish and their associated predators are predicted to decrease and the microbial food web to increase under global warming scenarios," citing Ito et al. However, they say that, "present-day trends and the sedimentary record seem to indicate that the opposite might occur."" [Francisco P. Chavez, Monique Messié, and J. Timothy Pennington 2011: Annual Review of Marine Science]
Read here. Climate change alarmists, many of whom write for professional climate tabloids where global warming fiction reigns, often speak to the detrimental global warming impact on species such as the polar bear and the caribou. Unfortunately for these tabloid speculators, the actual scientific research and empirical evidence is proving them wrong.
The "consensus" on the declining caribou herds of northern Canadian Territoris was that global warming was changing the local environment that was adversly impacting the herds. Yet skeptical scientists believed over hunting was the real problem. As a result, biologists pushed for hunting restrictions that were then implemented and the caribous responded: for example, one herd expanded from 32,000 to 100,000 in a just few short years.
Turns out the native idiots were slaughtering at least 20% of the herds' cows by hunting them down with GPS, snowmobiles and highpowered rifles. Not very sporting and certainly not good for maintaining a stable herd population.
"In a recently published paper, Adamczewski and three co-authors estimated the annual aboriginal harvest from the Bathurst herd alone was between 4,000 and 7,000 animals, mostly cows. Best estimates suggest that about 20 per cent of the cows were being killed every year, making it the most heavily hunted herd in the N.W.T..."They were getting hammered," Adamczewski said...But when hunting restrictions came in, the Dene could no longer take as many animals as they wanted."
As has been well established by science, the caribou have survived both warmer and colder eras, than those of modern times, since the end of the last major ice age. The key to their future survival is keeping modern aboriginals from pushing them into extinction by sheer stupidity.
Read here. The left/green coalition has conjured up the boogieman termed "ocean acidification" to instill fear in the hearts of liberal/progressives "elites" that marine life will be adversely affected by greater emissions of human CO2. Based on the ocean acidification fears, Yu et al. conducted research on sea urchin babies larvae immersed in water with lower values of pH to determine its impact on larvae growth and well being.
The research found that sea urchin larvae were not impacted by levels of increasing "acidification" of sea water that some have predicted will represent ocean waters 100+ years from now.
"Yu et al. state that "the observed developmental progression and survival of cultures was within the norm typically observed for this species at this temperature range." In addition, they indicate that "a lack of developmental deformities at early stages for pCO2 ~1000 ppm has been previously reported for this species..." And they say "there are even reports that survival is increased in this species and its congener S. droebachiensis under some low pH conditions..."...conclude, that "the effects of small magnitude in these urchin larvae are indicative of a potential resilience to near-future levels of ocean acidification."" [Pauline C. Yua, Paul G. Matsona, Todd R. Martzb, Gretchen E. Hofmanna 2011: Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology]
Note: Yes, indeed we know larvae are not 'babies' and we also know that polar bears are not 'cuddly' as the greens like to portray.
Read here. Empirical-based scientists conducted real-world field research and determined that summer Arctic ice has been less than 50% than that during most modern summers. This clearly indicates that summers were definitely warmer in the recent past, despite the low levels of CO2.
BTW, this means polar bears survived this extreme ice shrinkage in the past and will do so again.
It also conclusively proves that the infamous disappearing sea ice "tipping point" that IPCC climate alarmist scientists claim is lurking in the next heat wave is likely non-existent - just like the scary boogieman living underneath the bed of children.
From the peer-reviewed study by Funder et al.:
"For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in The Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts. This is indicated by new findings by the Danish National Research Foundation for Geogenetics at the University of Copenhagen...when the temperatures were somewhat warmer than today, there was significantly less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, probably less than 50% of the summer 2007 coverage, which was absolutely lowest on record...The good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return: a level where the ice no longer can regenerate itself even if the climate was to return to cooler temperatures. Finally, our studies show that the changes to a large degree are caused by the effect that temperature has on the prevailing wind systems. This has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of the ice, as often portrayed in the media,”" [Svend Funder, Hugues Goosse, Hans Jepsen, Eigil Kaas, Kurt H. Kjær, Niels J. Korsgaard, Nicolaj K. Larsen, Hans Linderson, Astrid Lyså, Per Möller, Jesper Olsen, Eske Willerslev 201: Science]
Read here and here. Climate alarmist scientists and green activist groups have led an orchestrated hysteria about global warming and climate change over recent years. Near the top of their hysteria agenda is the claim that coral reefs would be destroyed, including Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR) unless CO2 emissions were halted.
Now comes a peer-reviewed study by reef experts (Pandolfi et al.) published by Science that refutes the exaggerations and imminent death-by-CO2 claims.
"The world’s largest coral reef off the east coast of Australia is not going to disappear as fast as once previously thought, according to a new study. Warnings that the Great Barrier Reef could die off due to climate change over the next 20 to 30 years are exaggerated says Sean Connolly of the James Cook University.”..."some current projections of global-scale collapse of reefs within the next few decades probably overestimate the rapidity and uniformity of the decline.”..."However reefs are naturally highly diverse and resilient, and are likely to respond to the changed conditions in different ways and at varying rates.”" [John M. Pandolfi, Sean R. Connolly, Dustin J. Marshall, Anne L. Cohen 2011: Science]
Read here. In order to convince political leaders and the public that global warming was endangering the world, the UN's IPCC Climategate scientists and alarmist cohorts predicted that marine life would be threatened, even endangered with species extinction.
Two scientists interested in empirical, objective science conducted research to ascertain the validity of that prediction. Their findings? The evidence says the IPCC is wrong.
This new peer reviewed research found that species richness increased both in 'well-connected' and 'low-connected' seas while these waters were warming. Map source here.
"The objective of this study was to compare how regional warming affected the biodiversity of marine fish in areas that differed in their connectivity in the Baltic Sea...The total species richness and the mean species richness from scientific surveys were related to changes in temperature and salinity...Rising temperatures in the well-connected Kattegat correlated to an increase in the species richness of fish, due to an increase in low-latitude species. Unexpectedly, species richness in the poorly connected Baltic Sea also increased." [Jan Geert Hiddink, Chris Coleby 2011: Global Ecology and Biogeography]
Read here. Without doing any empirical research, radical green groups (Greenpeace, etc.) claim that coral reefs will die off due to increased warming of ocean coastal waters. Actual scientists say that is wrong.
Bauman et al. published a peer-reviewed study regarding corals in the southern Persian Gulf area, which found corals to be hardy and resilient to extreme temperature fluctuations. Their research confirms what other coral studies have found:
"...three researchers report that the reproductive biology of the six coral species in the southern Persian Gulf "appears to be well adapted to extreme annual environmental fluctuations" and is "remarkably similar to conspecifics elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific (Baird et al., 2009a,b),"...say their work "confirms that corals are capable of reproductive activities under extreme environmental conditions," as has also been found to be the case by Coles and Fadlallah (1991) and Coles and Brown (2003). Hence, they state that "coral populations can survive and proliferate in extreme conditions that are projected to occur in many other regions of the world by the end of this century," buttressing their claim with the statement that "the recovery of these coral assemblages following mortality induced by a number of recent temperature-related bleaching events (1996, 1998 and 2002) suggests these assemblages are also resilient to extreme fluctuations in water temperature,"" [A. G. Bauman, A. H. Baird, G. H. Cavalcante 2011: Coral Reefs]
Read here. A new study by coral reef experts was just published regarding the health of Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR). The concern worldwide, and especially in Australia, is that human activities are destroying the GBR. Global warming alarmists have claimed, hysterically, that global warming was causing the GBR coral to die and the reef to shrink.
As Osborne et al. determined in their study, the GBR is alive and well in contrast to the non-scientific, alarmist hysteria.
"The authors write that "coral decline is frequently described as ongoing with the integrity and persistence of the reef system threatened by a number of different stressors,"...that "climate change is widely regarded as the single greatest threat to coral reef ecosystems."...they decided to quantify the trend in live coral cover of the GBR over the critical temporal interval of 1995-2009, which climate alarmists contend was the warmest decade and a half experienced by the planet to that point in time over the past millennium...four researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science report that "coral cover increased in six sub-regions and decreased in seven sub-regions," with some of the changes "being very dynamic and others changing little." But with respect to the entire reef system, they report that "overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009." And to emphasize this fact, they forthrightly state that they found "no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995."" [Kate Osborne, Andrew M. Dolman, Scott C. Burgess, Kerryn A. Johns 2011: PLoS ONE]
Read here. It is often predicted by global warming alarmists that warming sea temperatures will endanger marine life. Most scientists disagree with these unsubstantiated catastrophic claims, especially as the peer-reviewed evidence does not support them.
And the growing peer-reviewed evidence just keeps mocking the anti-science alarmists: a new research study by Seo et al. determines that Pacific salmon actually prosper and survive longer in waters that are warmer.
"The authors write that "Pacific salmon play an important role as both keystone species in North Pacific ecosystems and as an ecosystem service that provides human food resources for countries of the North Pacific rim,...used multiple regression and path analysis to examine the effects of regional and larger spatial scales of climatic/oceanic conditions on the growth, survival and population dynamics of the species...determined that growth of one-year-old chum salmon in the Okhotsk Sea "was less during the period from the 1940s to the mid-1970s compared to the period from the mid-1980s to the present," which result "was directly affected by warmer sea surface temperatures associated with global warming." And they add that "the increased growth at age one led directly to higher survival rates and indirectly to larger population sizes." [Hyunju Seo, Hideaki Kudo, Masahide Kaeriyama, 2011: Environmental Biology of Fishes]
Read here. The IPCC consensus science predicted that global warming would have a devastating impact on tropical fish in shallow sea waters. Non-Climategate scientists decided to challenge the "consensus" and conducted experiments on tropical fish. The IPCC consensus prediction turns out to be wrong.
Eme et al. exposed two species of tropical fish to significantly warmer water. Both species easily survived the hotter waters, indicating that tropical fish have a high toleration for temperature variation.
"Eme et al. conclude, in their words, that "terapon and mullet demonstrate exceptional tolerance to high temperatures," and they say "it seems likely that shallow-water sea surface temperatures would have to be much higher to adversely affect these and other shallow water marine fishes...they write that "despite diverse independent origins across taxa, fishes may share a common suite of physiological adaptations allowing them to survive periodic exposure to high environmental temperature ..."and that "exceptional thermal tolerance may be common throughout the biodiverse shallow waters of the Indo-Pacific." Thus, in the final analysis, they conclude that "tropical marine fishes inhabiting fringing nursery environments may have the upper thermal tolerance necessary to endure substantial increases in sea temperatures." [John Eme, Theresa F. Dabruzzi, Wayne A. Bennett 2011: Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology]
Read here. IPCC experts predicted that polar species would be harmed and threatened as the oceans in the higher/lower latitudes changed to a lower pH ("acidification") due to human CO2 emissions. Based on recent peer-reviewed studies, this prediction seems to have been conjured up without any robust empirical evidence or experimentation to support it.
New research by Ericson et al. found that two Antarctic species they studied did not suffer the predicted harm that has been the simple speculation spread by IPCC "experts".
"..."investigated the effects of present-day pH 8.0, predicted ocean surface pH for the years 2100 and 2300 (pH 7.7 and pH 7.3, respectively) and an extreme pH (pH 7.0) on fertilization and embryogenesis in the Antarctic nemertean worm and sea urchin..."..."as in a number of other studies, that gametes appeared relatively robust to pH change, especially to changes within the range predicted for the near future (i.e. a decrease of 0.3-0.5 pH units)," and they state that their initial findings "do not support a view that polar species are more affected by lowered pH compared with temperate and tropical counterparts (as has also been shown for the later developmental stages of S. neumayeri (Clark et al., 2009))."" [Jessica A. Ericson, Miles D. Lamare, Simon A. Morley, Mike F. Barker 2010: Marine Biology]
Read here. As has been widely noted by the hysterical MSM, Hollywood bimbocelebrities and the IPCC's climate change alarmists have predicted that CO2 levels higher than the current 390 ppm level will bring great harm to all ocean life, especially to the early development of calcifying invertebrates. A new peer-reviewed study, by actual non-Hollywood scientists, reveals that the predicted larval death by acidification is the usual liberal/left, anti-science hysteria on steroids.
Martin et al. analyzed the effects of incredibly high CO2 levels (low ocean pH) on Mediterranean sea urchins. Other than a slower larval growth at ~3560 ppm, the sea urchins were unaffected by the ludicrously low pH levels imposed on the test subjects.
"The authors write that "ocean acidification is predicted to have significant effects on benthic calcifying invertebrates, in particular on their early developmental states," and they note that "echinoderm larvae could be particularly vulnerable to decreased pH, with major consequences for adult populations."...explored the effect of a gradient of decreasing pH from 8.1 to 7.0 -- corresponding to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of ~400 ppm to ~6630 ppm -- on the larvae of the sea urchin...The eleven researchers found that "Paracentrotus lividus appears to be extremely resistant to low pH, with no effect on fertilization success or larval survival."" [Sophie Martin, Sophie Richier, Maria-Luiza Pedrotti, Sam Dupont, Charlotte Castejon, Yannis Gerakis, Marie-Emmanuelle Kerros, François Oberhänsli, Jean-Louis Teyssié, 0. Ross Jeffree, Jean-Pierre Gattuso 2011: The Journal of Experimental Biology]
Read here. "Consensus" climate scientists, the IPCC, fanatical environmental groups, and the MSM have all predicted the demise of coral reefs due to the twin evils of human-induced global warming and ocean acidification. Were the predictions just alarmist hype and fabricated lies to easily fool the anti-science liberals/progressives/leftists?
Researchers, Helmle et al., analyzed coral reefs from the Florida Keys to determine if they were degraded during the 20th century from the twin "evils" predicted. Hmmm....turns out the predictions were wrong. Instead, it would seem that coral reefs prospered under warmer and CO2-enhanced water conditions.
"The authors note that ocean acidification due to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide is claimed by many to be a threat to calcifying marine organisms; and they state that when ocean acidification is combined with physiological stress caused by concomitantly rising sea surface temperatures, "shifts in community structure and accelerating degradation of coral reef ecosystems may result."...Coral cores were collected in May of 1997 and June of 1998 from seven Montastraea faveolata colonies located in the upper Florida Keys...for these cores, annual extension, density and calcification rates were obtained and analyzed, to see how they varied over this period of intensifying warming and acidification of the global ocean...they demonstrate that "the measured corals have historically been able to maintain rates of extension and calcification over the 60-year period from 1937 to 1996 under the combination of local environmental and climatic changes." They also note that calcification rates were positively related to sea surface temperature, "similar to results for Porites corals from Tahiti (Bessat and Buigues, 2001) and the Great Barrier Reef (Lough and Barnes, 1997),"" [Kevin P. Helmle, Richard E. Dodge, Peter K. Swart, Dwight K. Gledhill, C. Mark Eakin 2011: Nature Communications]
Read here and here. IPCC-friendly green activists got into the Climategate spirit by predicting that 40% of world's coral reefs would disappear by 2010. Like so many before it, this green activist hysterical prediction was totally fabricated out of thin air, having little relationship to reality.
"In 1997 the area of the world's coral reefs was estimated to be 255,000km2. Reference. If the prediction made on 4 Corners is to be believed, then in 2010 the area of the world's coral reefs should be around 153,000km2. Instead, in 2011, one year on from that alarming forecast, we find that the global area of coral reef is estimated to be 249,713km2. Reference.This amounts to a change from 1997 figures of -2.1%. Given the unreported uncertainties, there has essentially been no change in global reef area over the past 10 years. Within error, essentially none of the reefs are missing in 2010."
As is apparently true for all climate science AGW-related predictions, any made by green activists or tax-payer funded scientists is very suspect, especially if it is reported by the mainstream media.
Read here. Map source here. (click on image to enlarge)
A coral reef off the coast of Colombia was severely damaged by the heat of the 1982-83 El Niño. Close to 85% of the reef's coral was devastated, and then the 1997-98 El Niño struck putting more stress on the reef. Per the global warming alarmist's claims, this reef was destroyed for all future generations. The climate alarmists were wrong, again.
"Working with data they obtained over the period 1998-2004 from 20 permanent transects at two sites on one of the largest and best developed coral reefs in the Colombian Pacific (La Azufrada reef on Gorgona Island), plus data obtained there even earlier by others, Zapata et al. developed an extended history that revealed some interesting aspects of the reef's resiliency.....showed the reef at La Azufrada to have returned to "pre-disturbance (1979) levels of coral cover within a 10-year period after the 1982-83 El Niño, which caused 85% mortality," and that, subsequently, "the effects of the 1997-98 El Niño, indicated by the difference in overall live coral cover between 1998 and 1999, were minor (<6% reduction)." And they indicate that "despite recurrent natural disturbances, live coral cover in 2004 was as high as that existing before 1982 at La Azufrada."" [Fernando A. Zapata, Alberto Rodríguez-Ramírez, Carlos Caro-Zambrano & Jaime Garzón-Ferreira 2010: International Journal of Tropical Biology and Conservation]
Read here. Actually, this linked article speaks to two recent studies that show frogs greatly benefit from a warmer climate, which runs counter to the prediction by alarmists that frogs were threatened by global warming. The 9-year study by McCaffery and Maxwell conclusively proved that mountain frog species's survival rate improved with warmer conditions.
"McCaffery and Maxwell conducted a 9-year demographic study of Columbia spotted frogs in the Bitterroot Mountains of Montana; they collected data on local climate variables, frog survival and fecundity (fertility), and population growth rates. In their own words, these scientists report “These results unambiguously demonstrate that earlier ending winters with lower snowpack in this system lead to higher survival rates, higher probabilities of breeding, and higher population viability. Most research on amphibian declines assumes that climate change will have negative impacts on already vulnerable species, yet we show that this may not be the case for alpine and boreal amphibian populations currently persisting in harsh environments. This provides a unique perspective to the role of climate change in amphibian declines in temperate ecosystems.” [Rebecca M. McCaffery, and Bryce A. Maxell 2010: PNAS]
Read here. Global warming alarmists and IPCC Climategate scientists have long been predicting that coral reefs will be destroyed by global warming, along with the the associated coral fisheries and tourism. This purely speculative prediction, based on zero empirical evidence it appears, has also been determined to be false as so many other climate doomsday predictions.
The Yamano et al. study discovered that tropical reefs adjacent Japan have expanded northward and remained stable along their southern end while modern global warming has taken place. The inescapable conclusion, based on this latest research, is that coral species easily and positively adapt to a climate change of warming; plus, the conclusion being 180 degrees opposite of the coral-doomsday prophecies from the IPCC-related scientists.
"We show the first large-scale evidence of the poleward range expansion of modern corals, based on 80 years of national records from the temperate areas of Japan, where century-long measurements of in situ sea-surface temperatures have shown statistically significant rises. Four major coral species categories, including two key species for reef formation in tropical areas, showed poleward range expansions since the 1930s, whereas no species demonstrated southward range shrinkage or local extinction. The speed of these expansions reached up to 14 km/year, which is far greater than that for other species. Our results, in combination with recent findings suggesting range expansions of tropical coral-reef associated organisms, strongly suggest that rapid, fundamental modifications of temperate coastal ecosystems could be in progress." [Hiroya Yamano, Kaoru Sugihara, Keiichi Nomura 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. Contrary to the AGW alarmist predictions that ocean warming and "acidification" will harm sea life, eight sea biology experts found otherwise. Byrne et al. studied the impact on intertidal and shallow subtidal echinoids (sea urchins, sand dollars, starfish, sea snails and etc.) and determined that neither lower pH nor greater warmth had any material impact on the reproduction of these species.
In a word, the researchers found these marine invertebrates "robust" to negative impacts.
"Byrne et al. examined the interactive effects of near-future (ca. AD 2070-2100) ocean warming (temperature increases of 2-6°C) and ocean acidification (pH reductions of 0.2-0.6) on fertilization in four intertidal and shallow subtidal echinoids.....in the words of the eight researchers, "there was no significant effect of warming and acidification on the percentage of fertilization.".....say their results indicate that "fertilization in these species is robust to temperature and pH/PCO2 fluctuation,".....suggests that other marine fauna in still other circumstances may likewise be capable of adapting to any warming and acidification that might possibly develop throughout the world's oceans during the remaining decades of the 21st century." [Byrne, M., Soars, N.A., Ho, M.A., Wong, E., McElroy, D., Selvakumaraswamy, P., Dworjanyn, S.A. and Davis A.R. 2010: Marine Biology]
Read here. The IPCC's Climategate alarmist scientists have predicted that warming ocean waters will endanger sea life. This alarmist prediction apparently has no merit as growing research finds that warming waters enhance sea life.
The latest study, Stoner et al., discovers that the red king crabs achieve better growth rates and a likely increased survival span due to higher temperatures.
""The authors write that "temperature is a dominant environmental factor that mediates the behavior, physiology, growth, survival, distribution, and recruitment of ectothermic animals living in temperate and high latitudes." Hence, they decided to see how the growth and survival of the red king crab (RKC) "may be affected by warming trends expected in Alaska," since the RKC was once that state's "most economically valuable crustacean fishery.".....""growth increased as an exponential function of temperature, with slightly higher growth rates observed in populations than for isolated individuals.""....."conclude that the "accelerated growth" they observed in the RKC raised at the highest temperature might yet have a "positive, indirect effect on survival," in that "larger size associated with high temperature could provide for earlier refuge in size from the typical fish and invertebrate predators on RKC."" [Stoner, A.W., Ottmar, M.L. and Copeman, L.A. 2010. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology.]
Read here. If you're unaware of how clueless scientists really are, read the article - it provides an insight into science-hysteria that scientists constantly fall victim to. This time it's the frog death hysteria that possessed them.
"About 15 to 20 years ago, folks began to notice problems in amphibian communities around the world. At first, physical deformities were being noticed and then large population declines were being documented...The finger was initially pointed at the coal industry, with an idea that perhaps mercury was leading to the deformities. But this didn’t pan out. Next, farm practices came under fire, as excess fertilizer running off into farm ponds became the leading suspect. But that theory didn’t hold water either. Then, attention turned to the ozone hole, with the idea that increased ultraviolet radiation was killing the frogs. No luck there either...Then came the Eureka moment—aha, it must be global warming!"
Okay, it was then found the global warming was not the cause - the actual cause was finally determined to be a fungus, which the article explains.
The tropical frog populations are now recovering due to evolution - they are adapting to the fungus that attacked them. Since global warming did not impact frogs, will global cooling? It's not known, and as this real world past "science experience" reveals, scientists are literally (and remain) clueless about frogs and their environment. The same is very likely true for all plant and animal species supposedly threatened by climate change.
Read here. Because the CO2 alarmists keep losing the empirical evidence battle regarding global warming and climate change claims, they've turned to the bizarre hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will "acidify" the seas turning them deadly to all sea life, including sea corals. Like so many of the outlandish AGW-claims, this one does not stand up to empirical scrutiny either.
In a peer-reviewed study, Kreif et al. (2010) ran experiments to study the impact on sea corals in a water environment resembling those that would occur if extraordinary high levels of CO2 were found in the atmosphere. The result of the experiments found the sea corals not only surviving under low pH value extremes, but pertaining to certain health measurements, actually thrived.
"In the words of the seven scientists who conducted the study, "following 14 months incubation under reduced pH conditions, all coral fragments survived and added new skeletal calcium carbonate.....This was done, however, at a reduced rate of calcification compared to fragments growing in the normal pH treatment.....Yet in spite of this reduction in skeletal growth, they report that "tissue biomass (measured by protein concentration) was found to be higher in both species after 14 months of growth under increased CO2."....." and they write that "since calcification is an energy-consuming process ... a coral polyp that spends less energy on skeletal growth can instead allocate the energy to tissue biomass,".....In concluding their paper, Krief et al. say "the long acclimation time of this study allowed the coral colonies to reach a steady state in terms of their physiological responses to elevated CO2," and that "the deposition of skeleton in seawater with Ωarag < 1 demonstrates the ability of both species to calcify by modifying internal pH toward more alkaline conditions."" [Krief, S., Hendy, E.J., Fine, M., Yam, R., Meibom, A., Foster, G.L. and Shemesh, A. 2010]
Read here. Map source. A major claim of climate alarmist scientists is that global warming will endanger or kill off species. Almost all these claims are made based on computer simulations/models, with no empirical evidence foundation. Fortunately for humanity, real scientists continue to do research that documents that climate warming is actually very good for almost all species.
In a peer-reviewed study by Nakamura et al., empirical evidence was gathered from a unique experiment that proved oak trees responded very favorably to warmer temperatures. And as a result, one could surmise that squirrels will be very fat and happy in the future of global warming.
"Working in Japan's Tomakomai Experimental Forest, the authors employed a construction crane to lift themselves some 18 to 20 meters above the ground, where they attached, via adhesive tape, 120-meter-long electric heating cables to some of the top canopy branches of three tall, mature Quercus crispula oak trees, by which means they continuously warmed their developing shoots approximately 5°C above local ambient temperature for the next full year.....five researchers report that time of leaf flush in the spring was unaffected by warming; but they found that the growing season of canopy leaves was extended by later leaf fall.....And, perhaps most impressive of all, they discovered that "when acorns were present, warmed branches had about double the number of acorns found on control branches." [Nakamura, M., Muller, O., Tayanagi, S., Nakaji, T. and Hiura, T. 2010.]
Read here,here and here. The overwhelming "consensus" prediction by global warming alarmists was that the world's biodiversity would suffer and decrease from global warming. A new study totally demolishes that alarmist, hysterical prediction as it is discovered warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels allowed existing species to thrive and new ones to develop. h/t Luboš Motl
"The threat to tropical rainforests from climate change may have been exaggerated by environmentalists, according to a new study. Researchers have shown that the world's tropical forests thrived in the far distant past when temperatures were 3 to 5C warmer than today."
"We [Carlos Jaramillo et al.] investigated the tropical forest response to this rapid warming by evaluating the palynological record of three stratigraphic sections in eastern Colombia and western Venezuela. We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa.....The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast to speculations that tropical ecosystems were severely compromised by heat stress." [Carlos Jaramillo, Diana Ochoa, Lineth Contreras, Mark Pagani, Humberto Carvajal-Ortiz, Lisa M. Pratt, Srinath Krishnan, Agustin Cardona, Millerlandy Romero, Luis Quiroz, Guillermo Rodriguez, Milton J. Rueda, Felipe de la Parra, Sara Morón, Walton Green, German Bayona, Camilo Montes, Oscar Quintero, Rafael Ramirez, Germán Mora, Stefan Schouten, Hermann Bermudez, Rosa Navarrete, Francisco Parra, Mauricio Alvarán, Jose Osorno, James L. Crowley, Victor Valencia, Jeff Vervoort]
Read here. Climate alarmist scientists and their computer models have predicted that global warming will cause multiple species to become extinct. Like all global warming predictions emanating from the IPCC Climategate science, this one also does not hold up to actual scientific scrutiny.
Scientists examined past significant global warming periods and discovered that the excessive and extended warmth of those periods did not cause species to die out.
"The first period they examined was the Eocene Climatic Optimum (53-51 million years ago), during which time the atmosphere's CO2 concentration exceeded 1200 ppm and tropical temperatures were 5-10°C warmer than modern values.....The second period they examined consisted of two rapid-change climatic events in the Holocene -- one at 14,700 years ago and one at 11,600 years ago -- during which times temperatures increased in the mid- to high-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere by up to 10°C over periods of less than 60 years.....the authors note that "at no site yet studied, anywhere in the world, is there evidence in the fossil record for large-scale climate-driven extinction during these intervals of rapid warming." On the other hand, they report that extinctions did occur due to the cold temperatures of the glacial epoch, when subtropical species in southern Europe were driven out of their comfort zone." [Willis, K.J., Bennett, K.D., Bhagwat, S.A. and Birks, H.J.B. 2010]
Read here. Whether it's vegetation or animal species, global warming produces environments and local climates that allow species to thrive and prosper. Scientists have now concluded the same will happen for marine life around Australia, including sharks, turtles and the overall fisheries biomass. Excellent!
There is a fly-in-the-ointment, though. A huge caveat actually. The scientists used a variety of computer models to come to this conclusion. First, they used output from an IPCC climate model (the 'A2' warming scenario); then a ocean climate model was used based on the A2 output; that model's output was then fed into a "suite" of models; and finally, that output was fed into a dozen marine food web models. Yikes!
Objectively, the likelihood of a correct prediction from a serial chain of model outputs is probably as low as someone picking the correct six numbers (from zero to 99) for the mega-million lotto - that's a really low probability of success. Unfortunately, after spending billion on computer models, they're still nothing more than extreme crystal ball gazing with serious problems.
"In the concluding sentence of their paper, Brown et al. state that the primary production increases suggested by their work to result from future IPCC-envisioned greenhouse gas emissions and their calculated impacts on climate "will provide opportunities to recover overfished fisheries, increase profitability of fisheries and conserve threatened biodiversity," which is an incredibly nice set of consequences to result from something the world's climate alarmists claim to be an unmitigated climate catastrophe."
Read here. Big-Government funded scientists and Big-Soros funded leftist-AGW-activists all predicted that CO2-induced "global warming" would cause permanent damage to the world's coral reefs. Now three new studies have found that the predictions of coral reefs' demise from AGW is categorically false.
The moral of the story? As is usually the case, government funded climate scientists and left funded activists are primarily on the agenda payroll to mislead and deceive. Their claims and predictions of AGW calamities should be heavily discounted as there is high likelihood that further science will expose them as agenda-driven, political-based garbage.
Fortunately, there are still objective scientists publishing science that doesn't kow-tow to the leftist, collective, agenda or the fabricated IPCC "consensus."
"“Despite the multiple influences on the reef sites over the study period, the size classes of the corals studied showed resilience to change.” We suspected this all along – the coral reefs have been around for 100’s of millions of years! He states “What is apparent from this study is that despite the chronic and acute disturbances between 2002 and 2008, demographic studies indicate good levels of coral resilience on the fringing reefs around Discovery Bay in Jamaica.” Crabbe warns that “Unfortunately, previously successful efforts to engage the local fisherman in controlling catches around Discovery Bay have not been maintained, and it may be that the development of a Discovery Bay Marine Park is the only solution.” We get the message – don’t blame global warming, blame the local fishermen!"
“The proportional increase in coral cover after 2.5 years was fairly high at reserve sites (mean of 19% per site) and significantly greater than that in non-reserve sites which, on average, exhibited no net recovery.” They conclude “Reducing herbivore exploitation as part of an ecosystem-based management strategy for coral reefs appears to be justified.” An important implication of the research is that the long-term impact of and recovery from coral bleaching events may be largely controlled by herbivore fish – rather than just global warming."
"...they noted that “Coral assemblages in Moorea, French Polynesia, have been impacted by multiple disturbances (one cyclone and four bleaching events between 1991 and 2006).” Their conclusions include the statement “In addition, our results reveal that corals can recover rapidly following a dramatic decline. Such decadal-scale recovery of coral cover has been documented at some locations, but our results are novel in demonstrating rapid recovery against a backdrop of ongoing, high frequency, and large-scale disturbances.”"
Read here. There exists corals in several locations already thriving in open waters that possess the attributes of sea water under a condition of CO2 levels 2 to 3 times higher than today. The empirical evidence suggests that corals are fully capable of adapting to a wide range of conditions, including much higher levels of atmospheric CO2.
"...the two researchers report that "today, several reefs, including Galapagos, areas of Pacific Panama, and Jarvis (southern Line Islands), experience levels of aragonite saturation equivalent to that predicted for the open ocean under two times and three times pre-industrial CO2 levels"....."Probably the most important deduction to flow from these observations is the observable fact, in the words of Cohen and Holcomb, that "naturally elevated levels of inorganic nutrients and, consequently, high levels of primary and secondary production, may already be facilitating high coral calcification rates in regions with naturally high dissolved CO2 levels," which further suggests that earth's corals, with their genetically-diverse symbiotic zooxanthellae, are likely well equipped to deal successfully with whatever increase in the air's CO2 content will ultimately result from the burning of fossil fuels before other energy sources become viable..."
Read here. A recent study by alarmist scientists has implicated global warming as the cause of a 50% reduction of the oceans' phytoplankton over the last century. Fortunately for humanity and the oceans, the study seems to be fairly lame in terms of science:
1. There are numerous places in extremely warm sea waters where plankton thrives.
2. Plankton populations appear to be better correlated to water nutrient abundance, not temperatures.
3. Increased CO2 from human emissions should have increased the plankton population since it is a major nutrient.
4. The likelihood that a 4/10's of a degree increase in sea temperatures would cause a 50% reduction in marine life is essentially a ludicrous finding.
So, if there actually has been a 50% reduction in sea plankton, and if global warming isn't the culprit, then what is? Very possibly it's the intensive overfishing practiced by humans that is the cause:
"The problem is that we have fished out the oceans. Only 10% of the large fish found in the oceans in 1950 remain. And we have been over-fishing the oceans far longer than just the last 60 years. Even back in 1950, people were already noticing a reduction in stocks of whales, salmon, cod, halibut, and other fish. We probably have less than 10% of the large fish and whale stocks that were present before we began harvesting the seas in earnest...Where does the nitrogen that phytoplankton require come from? At the the mid-ocean levels, some comes from nitrogen fixing bacteria, but the rest comes from excrement in the form of urea and ammonia from bacteria breaking down protein as carcasses decompose. Iron, molybdenum, and phosphates come from the same sources. But remember we are removing large amounts of fish protein from the ocean, especially whale, tuna, shark, and other large fish. 90% of what was there is now gone. We are removing more every year. The fish products are no longer available to the phytoplanktons. Their food supply has diminished. They are starving."
Read here. The green organizations that rely on donations from those individuals frightened by "ocean acidification" may have to get a new gig or find new gullible patsies. Study after study keeps being produced showing the impact of CO2 on marine life to range from minimal to nada.
The green-fanatic groups that conduct this type of money-raising via orchestrated scaremongering should lose their tax-exempt status or at least be investigated by the FTC for outright fraud.
"In studies of sea urchins, for example, statistically significant reductions in egg fertilization rates did not occur in Echinometra mathaei until the atmospheric CO2 concentration was raised a full 5,000 ppm above that of the ambient air; and in Hemicentrotus pulcherrimus, even a 10,000 ppm increase in the air's CO2 concentration was insufficient to elicit a statistically significant decline in egg fertilization rate.....In doing so, they say that over the ranges of seawater pH and temperature they studied, there was "no effect of pH" and "no interaction between temperature and pH" on sea urchin egg fertilization.....the five Australian researchers found that "across all treatments there was a highly significant effect of sperm density, but no significant effect of temperature or interaction between factors." In fact, they state that "low pH did not reduce the percentage of fertilization even at the lowest sperm densities used, and increased temperature did not enhance fertilization at any sperm density." In addition, they remark that "a number of ecotoxicology and climate change studies, where pH was manipulated with CO2 gas, show that sea urchin fertilization is robust to a broad pH range with impairment only at extreme levels well below projections for ocean acidification by 2100."
Read here. A lot of publicity and research funds have found their way to scientists because of the bizarre fear the oceans will become too "acidic" to support life. Even Hollywood bimbos pass their prime have so claimed. Unfortunately for the bimbos, and the ocean-is-acid alarmists, the real science keeps finding the evidence doesn't support the hysterical fear-mongering. Surprised?
"Winans and Purcell conclude that "A. labiata polyps [a jellyfish life stage] are quite tolerant of low pH, surviving and reproducing asexually even at the lowest tested pH," which degree of "acidification" is not expected to occur (even by climate alarmists) until about AD 2300.....they acknowledge that many organisms "may be able to acclimate or adapt to slowly changing pH conditions." And in this context they report that in Puget Sound "pH fluctuates from 7.2 to 9.6 in 2.4-meter deep water over the span of a couple of days," stating that "with such large pH fluctuations due to plant photosynthesis during the day and respiration at night, many organisms may be exposed to low pH conditions routinely." And, obviously, they are also successfully dealing with those low pH conditions routinely, as are an enormous amount of other marine organisms."
Read here. Another day and another AGW claim/prediction shot full of holes, resulting in the bogus claim having the structural integrity of Swiss cheese. As almost everyone knows, adherents to the AGW hypothesis claim global warming is the cause of every conceivable malady and all minor inconvenient changes. And, as almost everyone knows (with the exception of leftist/liberal/progressive statists), the vast majority of these AGW scary claims have been found to be false.
The latest bogus claim to fail empirical research is that most/many bird species will go the way as their flightless relative, the dodo.
"We hear over and over that climate change is now so rapid that ecosystems all over the world are in peril as they attempt to cope with changes to the environment. This view of “delicate” ecosystems is at odds with the reality of the long climate history of the Earth. The climate has warmed in the past, cooled in the past, and many of these changes were quite rapid.....All of these studies [Askeyev et al., Dyrcz and Halupka, Wesołowski and Cholewa, Zuckerberg et al.] remind us that the birds have been around a very long time, they have experience massive changes in climate over the eons of their existence, they have learned how to adapt to warmer and colder conditions - they are not going to sit idly by and become victims of the global warming."
Read here. As just about everyone now understands, the less reputable scientists pushing the global warming crisis agenda will make "bold" predictions designed to attract attention and research funding. Scientists concerned about the hypothetical species extinction from global warning are very prone to these type of wild predictions. Such was the case of the American Pika, a mountain relative of rabbits that alarmist scientists predicted would suffer from global warming.
Surprise! Empirical research discovers just the opposite - the pikas are thriving. Just another failed prediction from the alarmistas.
"Millar and Westfall developed a rapid assessment method for determining pika occurrence and used it "to assess geomorphic affinities of pika habitat, analyze climatic relationships of sites, and evaluate refugium environments for pikas under warming climates,".....The two U.S. Forest Service researchers report that "whereas concern exists for diminishing range of pikas relative to early surveys, the distribution and extent in our study, pertinent to four subspecies and the Pacific southwest lineage of pikas, resemble the diversity range conditions described in early 20th-century pika records.....Millar and Westfall say their results suggest that "pika populations in the Sierra Nevada and southwestern Great Basin are thriving, persist in a wide range of thermal environments, and show little evidence of extirpation or decline," over a period of time, we might add, when the world's climate alarmists claim the planet warmed at a rate and to a level of warmth that was unprecedented over the past one to two millennia, which suggests to us that current concerns about the future of American pikas in a warming world may be wildly misplaced."
Read here. An exceptionally irritating and false assertion from the IPCC and climate alarmists is the one regarding species extinctions by the thousands, and more surely to come, all due to global warming. The classical example of this biased assertion is that the tropical Costa Rican toad's extinction was due to AGW. Unfortunately for the warming hystericals, recent actual science proved global warming innocent of the deaths.
A new group of researchers have revisited the dead toads' story, and again their new research finds that "global warming" is not the culprit. It's just more evidence that global warming alarmistas are totally 'clue'-less.
"Anchukaitis and Evans say their analysis suggests that "the cause of the specific and well-documented extinction of the Monteverde golden toad was the combination of the abnormally strong ENSO-forced dryness and the lethality of the introduced chytrid fungus, but was not directly mediated by anthropogenic temperature trends.....The two researchers report that "contrary to interpretations of the short instrumental record, no long-term trend in dry season hydroclimatology can be inferred from our δ18O time series at Monteverde." Instead, they find that "variability at the interannual scale dominates the isotope signal, particularly during the period of increased ENSO variance since the late 1960s," and they add, in this regard, that "there is no evidence of a trend associated with global warming." Hence, they emphasize that "the extinction of the Monteverde golden toad appears to have coincided with an exceptionally dry interval caused by the 1986-1987 El Niño event," which they describe as "one of the longest driest periods in the last 100 years," based on their δ18O chronology. In addition, they report there is currently no consensus on how anthropogenic climate change might influence the El Niño Southern Oscillation, while indicating that "ENSO anomalies in the most recent decades are not beyond the range of natural variability during the instrumental period"