Posted on 10/13/2025 6:48:10 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
The planet is grappling with a “new reality” as it reaches the first in a series of catastrophic and potentially irreversible climate tipping points: the widespread death of coral reefs, according to a landmark report produced by 160 scientists across the world.
As humans burn fossil fuels and ratchet up temperatures, it’s already driving more severe heat waves, floods, droughts, and wildfires. But there are even bigger impacts on the horizon. Climate change may also be pushing Earth’s crucial systems — from the Amazon rainforest to polar ice sheets — so far out of balance they collapse, sending catastrophic ripples across the planet.
“We are rapidly approaching multiple Earth system tipping points that could transform our world, with devastating consequences for people and nature,” said Tim Lenton, a professor at the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter and an author of the report published Sunday.
Warm water corals are the first, according to the report.
Since 2023, the world’s reefs have been enduring the worst mass bleaching event on record as oceans reach record high temperatures, with more than 80% affected. What was an underwater riot of color and life is being replaced with a bleached, seaweed-dominated landscape.
“We have now pushed (coral reefs) beyond what they can cope with,” said Mike Barrett, chief scientific advisor at the World Wildlife Fund UK and co-author of the report. Unless global warming is reversed “extensive reefs as we know them will be lost,” the authors wrote.
The impacts will have far-reaching consequences. Coral reefs are an essential habitat for marine species, vital for food security, contribute trillions to the global economy and buffer coastal areas from storms.
(Excerpt) Read more at channel3000.com ...
First tipping point.....the dang thing either tips or it doesn’t tip!!!
I think they mean first red line, of an infinite number if red lines drawn by cowards and Three Stoodges to show they mean business....really mean business this time.
Total BS.
The sun never sets on Englandistan!
Hail Caliph Britannia!
We’re at the end of the last ice age but still in it. The ice is still melting and seas are still rising.
120 feet more sea level rise to go before the oceans reach the height of the last inter-glacial max sea level.
There are limestone reefs in FL 80’ above sea level from the last inter-glacial max 2.5 Mya. No humans to blame then. Guess it was Homo Habilis’s fault.
Total BS
I last Plymouth rock about 40 years ago. Someone must secretly move it upwards so it stays at the same water level.
Good catch! But, no, it’s our local news, Channel 3, CBS. Not sure why they chose ‘3000’ as their handle for their website.
“Spoiler Alert: A leading actor is eaten by cannibals.”
When I first read ‘State of Fear’ ages ago, I pictured Alec Baldwin in my head in that role, LOL!
RUN! WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!
What I have read so far about this “climate change” sounds like a lot of crap to me.
Wouldn’t warmer water help warm water corals grow in more areas?
Mean while here is SE PA we have had about 5 years of some of the most spectacular summers and winters.
You know, I'm not a real scientist, but I sure have had a lot of training in science.
As such, there is NOTHING that is more upsetting to me than this "global warming" nonsense.
First: A "globally agreed goal" is meaningless garbage.
Second: a "limit of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels". Which "preindustrial level" are we talking about? The Paleocene thermal maximum? The quarternary glaciation? The little ice age of 1400-1850? These fluctuations in "average temperature" have existed for millions of years, they are entirely normal, some of them are quite large (+20C and -20C) and NONE of them have anything to do with humans.
Third: A "tipping point". Absurd, discursive, unscientific trash.
Ask a global warmer what his null hypothesis is? I'll tell you what it is, because they never state it.
The null hypothesis of global warming is that, absent human activity, the climate of the planet is invariant.
That is SO absurd, easily refuted by children in fourth grade who have had even minimal history teaching, that they really don't dare speak it.
I’m old enough to remember when we were entering an Ice Age. That was in the 60’s.
From Snowball Earth to subtropical conditions in the lower arctic region, change has been constant throughout Earth’s history. You can’t change it, you must adapt to it.
Plant more trees and stop clear cutting. Nobody wants to talk about our asphalt and concrete jungles, the amount of heat they absorb during the day and release after the sun goes down.
Oh noes! Atmospheric CO2 must be up to 450 parts per million as opposed to 400. Meanwhile plants thrive and gush out more life-giving oxygen.
The null hypothesis of global warming is that, absent human activity, the climate of the planet is invariant.
Is that the null hypothesis? Were it so, no scientist of repute or integrity would touch it with a bargepole: but, like it or not, there are many such active in the field.
Surely, the implicit null hypothesis is
Absent human industrial activity, the known and well understood causes of previous warming cycles are sufficient causes of present and predicted trends in global mean surface temperature.
That satisfies the Popper falsifiability test.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm a sceptic (true sense) on this matter, prepared to be convinced either way. To date the evidence seems powerful and persuasive, but far from conclusive.
(After all, It would not be the first time that atmospheric composition has been modified by the activities of organic life. It's happened twice before, at least - the 'Great Oxygenation Event' of the Palaeoproterozoic, when the spread of photosynthesising cyanobacteria across ocean surfaces significantly increased atmospheric oxygen, and again in the Devonian when the spread of land plants across the continents further increased free oxygen to near-present values. Given that history, the proposition that at some subsequent point in geologic time the composition of atmospheric gases might be further modified by organic activity doesn't seem conceptually implausible.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.