Klimaschau 235, presented by the Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) analyzes the new “Global Tipping Points Report 2025” and puts the alarmist reports into perspective.
Just in time for the 30th UN World Climate Change Conference in Belém, Brazil, the second “Global Tipping Points Report 2025” was presented by around 100 scientists, including those from the University of Exeter and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
The report warns of so-called tipping points—stages of negative development from which a process becomes irreversible and self-reinforcing. The purpose of course is to spread urgency.
The central message of the report: The 1.5°C warming limit could be exceeded in the next decade, entering the world into a “high-risk phase.”
Tropical coral reefs, especially the massive Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Northeast Australia, serve as one of the central examples in the report. The narrative suggests the reef has been dying since the 1980s due to CO2, heat, medicinal residues, and sediments from agriculture.
However, the video highlights a counter-position. The real dangers to the corals are primarily tropical cyclones, which occasionally devastate parts of the reefs.
EIKE also calls the claim that the thermal tipping point for warm-water coral reefs— 1.2 °C warming above pre-industrial levels—has already been exceeded and the upper threshold of 1.5 °C could be reached within the next 10 years into question.
Natural recovery occurs
Graphics show living coral coverage reveal natural, cyclical variations. A massive die-off around 2010 (cyclone-induced) was significantly worse than current events, yet the corals recovered as nature finds a way back toward equilibrium.
The drop in coral coverage in 2024 (El Niño-induced) also does not provide grounds to claim a tipping point has been reached. The mass mortality is reversible.
Iffy model projections
The dramatic projections that predict coral bleaching—the expulsion of the coral’s plant symbionts due to excessively warm water—will become extremely frequent in the future (up to the 2090s) are based on computer models of sea temperatures and pH values (e.g., CMIP6). Models, especially those used for future projections, are wrong extremely often.
Klimaschau heavily criticizes these models for their “one-sided fixation on CO2” and the resulting “runaway” predictions. It cites NASA researcher Gavin Schmidt, who emphasized that the scientific community must move away from viewing the raw model average as conclusive.
Conclusion
EIKE summarizes in the video that the panic surrounding corals, released shortly before the UN Climate Change Conference, is mostly “flashy headlines but little substance.”
P Gosselin wrote:
“mostly ‘flashy headlines but little substance.'”
We can prove, in a scientifically-rigorous and mathematically-precise manner, that the “Global Tipping Points Report 2025” is nothing but propagandist misinformation.
The AGW / CAGW hypothesis has been disproved. AGW / CAGW describes a physical process which is provably physically impossible.
They’ve been attempting to lie about corals ever since they glommed onto the idea that corals could be their new ‘polar bears’ (given that polar bear population increased significantly, and hence the alarmists were forced to drop polar bears as their alarmism-bullet-point du jour).
They first attempted to claim that increased atmospheric CO2 concentration would have a deleterious effect upon coral by making it more difficult for the coral to undergo calcification…
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1gsv82i/corals_and_mollusks_were_being_lied_to/?rdt=62203&sort=new
… but they were proven wrong.
Alarmists are going to alarm, so that didn’t stop them. They now claim that increased CO2 concentration will cause increased atmospheric temperature, which will cause increased seawater temperature, which will have a deleterious effect upon coral…
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
… but they were proven wrong (see below).
Remember that all action requires an impetus, that impetus will always be in the form of a gradient of some sort, and spontantaneous action is always down the slope of that gradient.
Energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient per 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, thus “backradiation” (ie: energy spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient) is physically impossible… in fact, it is conjured from thin air via the misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation in Energy Balance Climate Models (EBCMs).
This is how climatologists conjure “backradiation” out of thin air by misusing the S-B equation in their Energy Balance Climate Models (and how they claim that they’ve ‘measured’ it with their pyrgeometers and similar such equipment):
https://i.imgur.com/V2lWC3f.png
That physically-impossible “backradiation” is then claimed to cause the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”, which is then claimed to be the cause of the atmospheric temperature gradient.
That physically-impossible “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” is claimed to be caused by physically-impossible “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))”, when in fact, polyatomics are net atmospheric radiative coolants, not “greenhouse gases”.
In fact, the climatologists claim water vapor to be the most-efficacious “greenhouse gas”. If that were true, a higher concentration of it would cause a higher atmospheric temperature gradient and thus a higher surface temperature… but in reality, the exact opposite occurs, which is why the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate (~9.8 K km-1) is higher than the Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate (~3.5 – 6.5 K km-1).
In fact, water vapor is the predominant net atmospheric radiative coolant below the tropopause (you will note that CO2 is the second-most predominant net atmospheric radiative coolant below the tropopause, and the predominant net atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause… peer-reviewed studies corroborating this are at the PatriotAction URL above). Water vapor is such an effective net atmospheric radiative coolant that it acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause:
The refrigeration cycle (Earth) [AC system]:
A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an AC compressor], it gives up its energy to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the energy density gradient and the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that AC compressor], and the cycle repeats.
That’s kind of why, after all, the humid adiabatic lapse rate (~3.5 to ~6.5 K km-1) is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.81 K km-1).
You will note that the dry adiabatic lapse rate is due to the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics… we’ve removed in this case the predominant polyatomic (H2O) which reduces lapse rate. The dry atmosphere consists ~99.957% of N2 (a homonuclear diatomic), O2 (a homonuclear diatomic) and Ar (a monoatomic).
IOW, the climatologists, in misusing the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation in their Energy Balance Climate Models (EBCMs), have flipped thermodynamics on its head… they are as near to diametrically opposite to reality as they can be… because the easiest lie to tell is an inversion of reality, a flipping of causality. They needn’t invent entirely new physics to explain and describe their claims, and most people are too scientifically-illiterate to discern between reality and flipped-causality inverted-reality anyway.
Certain of those polyatomics (and you will note that it’s always polyatomics… the climatologists had to use radiative polyatomic molecules in order to get their “backradiation” claims to work… monoatomics have no vibrational mode quantum states and thus cannot emit nor absorb IR in any case; and homonuclear diatomics have a net-zero electric dipole which must be perturbed (usually via collision) in order for emission or absorption to occur, but collisions occur exponentially less frequently with altitude due to air density decreasing exponentially with altitude) are then claimed to cause the physically-impossible “AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)))”.
And from that, all of the off-shoots of AGW / CAGW spring: carbon footprint, carbon credit trading, carbon capture and sequestration, net zero, degrowth, banning ICE vehicles and non-electrical appliances and equipment, total electrification, replacing reliable grid-inertia-contributing baseload electrical generation with intermittent renewables, etc… all likewise based upon that physical impossibility.
The climatologists know that “backradiation” is physically impossible, thus their “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” is physically impossible… but they had to show it was having an effect, so they hijacked the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate.
We know the planet’s emission curve is roughly analogous to that of an idealized blackbody object emitting at 255 K. And we know the ‘effective emission height’ at that temperature is ~5.105 km.
6.5 K km-1 * 5.105 km = 33.1815 K temperature gradient + 255 K = 288.1815 K surface temperature
That 6.5 K km-1 is the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate. That 33.1815 K temperature gradient and 288.1815 K surface temperature is what the climatologists try to claim is caused by their “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”… except it’s not. It’s caused by the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate, and that has nothing to do with any “backradiation”, nor any “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”, nor any “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))”.
The Adiabatic Lapse Rate is caused by the atmosphere converting z-axis DOF (Degree of Freedom) translational mode (kinetic) energy to gravitational potential energy with altitude (and vice versa), that change in z-axis kinetic energy equipartitioning with the other 2 linearly-independent DOF upon subsequent collisions, per the Equipartition Theorem. This is why temperature falls as altitude increases (and vice versa). [1]
In short, the climatologists have misattributed their completely-fake “backradiation” (a wholly-fictive radiative energy phenomenon) as the cause of the atmospheric temperature gradient which is actually caused by the Adiabatic Lapse Rate and its associated gravitational auto-compression (the blue-shifting of temperature as one descends a gravity well in an atmosphere, and vice versa) (a kinetic energy phenomenon).
We cannot have two simultaneous but completely different causes for the same effect (one radiative… the wholly-fictive “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”; and one kinetic… the Adiabatic Lapse Rate). If we did, we’d have double the effect. One must go. And the one which must go is the mathematically-fraudulent “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”.
With the AGW / CAGW hypothesis disproved, that leaves only the Adiabatic Lapse Rate. And we can calculate the exact change in atmospheric temperature gradient (and thus surface temperature) for any given change in concentration of any given atmospheric gas.
For instance, the “ECS” (ie: the change in Adiabatic Lapse Rate) of CO2 is only 0.00000190472202445 K km-1 ppm-1 (when accounting for the atoms and molecules which CO2 displaces).
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
[1]
“So how do we know for certain that “AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)))” has absolutely zero effect upon atmospheric temperature gradient?”, some may ask.
Because Science™. Trust the Science™.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/what_the_nuke_bros_can_learn_from_the_navy_and_what_they_cant/#comment-6794146357
>> The above shows that any decrease in internal energy (𝑑𝑒 is negative)
>> is exactly balanced by an increase in gravitational potential energy
>> (𝑑(𝑃𝐸) is positive), or vice versa, for a parcel of air moving
>> adiabatically in a hydrostatic atmosphere. The total energy (internal
>> plus gravitational potential) of the parcel remains constant during
>> its vertical displacement under these conditions.
>>
>> IOW, “AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse
>> effect (due to backradiation)))” can have absolutely no effect upon
>> atmospheric temperature gradient… because it is a completely fake
>> physical process borne from mathematical fraudery.
>>
>> IOW, any climate ‘scientist’ shilling for AGW / CAGW is guilty of
>> scientific fraud.
The Great Barrier Reef was supposed to be dead in Christmas 1971 (as predicted by several scientists and reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, then a reputable newspaper).
Disappointed by the failure numerous scientists have predicted its death ever since (thanks to government subsidies). Any scientist who doesn’t agree get dismissed from the University.
great post , keep up
[…] From No Trick Zone […]
🙂
Clearly 2030 is now dead… WELCOME 2040 GOALS!
Gavin Smith/Smyth/Scmidt/Schmidt – I give up.Do you mean the Climate Gate gangster? Is he out of prison now?
I wondered where he went to.