Unprecedented SSTs strike Florida's coral reefs

Yes, it 'is' science in that it's warning of much worse consequences of ignoring AGW.
America chose to ignore earlier warnings from mainstream science and chose instead to believe what their greed told them.
Now we all will pay the price tenfold over, and includes all life on earth from the insects up to humanity! That too is SCIENCE my friend! The ant's nests are the first to burn!
Speculation, duck, is not science. Science is based on facts, not speculation. No wonder you morons have such tough times that you want everyone to dummy down to your level.
 
20230722_113912_jpg-2894808.JPG
 
97% of AGW Deniers think a good joke wins an argument in science.

There is no harm for anyone to dissent from the AGW bandwagon.
It's all about the science, right?

Report: Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr. John Clauser — who recently declared climate science a ‘pseudoscience’ — has his IMF talk abruptly canceled​



Holy shit!!!

An ACTUAL Nobel Prize winner. And not from 50 years ago, he won last year.

Gee, I wonder why no one wants to speak up?
 
The process continues


If you kill the coral reefs in Florida, they will get destroyed by large waves. That will eliminate the protection they provide the beaches all along Florida's coast and the beaches will get steeper and narrower. Rocks will be uncovered. And, of course, without the habitat provided by the reefs, most of Florida's marine species will die out.

No beaches, no fishing, no diving. People aren't going to come to Florida just to sweat and enjoy the Ron DeSantis Legacy Tour. An example of a real cost to global warming.



Except, you have NO OCEAN WARMING because if you did canes would be increasing and THEY AREN'T.....

So once again a MISDIAGNOSIS is posted to justify the $20 trillion Co2 fraud....
 
There is no harm for anyone to dissent from the AGW bandwagon.
It's all about the science, right?
I don't know about that. Would it be harmless to argue that dioxin is nontoxic? Would it be harmless to argue that humans can tolerate 10% carbon monoxide? Would it be harmless to argue that newborns should be fed Coca Cola and spicy kimchee? Would it be harmless to argue that avalanches, tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanoes, COVID, MRSA, flesh-eating bacteria and cancer are all hoaxes? Could anyone possibly be hurt because they adopted such beliefs?

Report: Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr. John Clauser — who recently declared climate science a ‘pseudoscience’ — has his IMF talk abruptly canceled​



Holy shit!!!

An ACTUAL Nobel Prize winner. And not from 50 years ago, he won last year.

Gee, I wonder why no one wants to speak up?
He developed the first experiment to demonstrate non-local entanglement. He's a brilliant physicist but has done ZERO work in climate sciences. No research, no reviews, nothing published. He was invited by William Happer to join the board of the CO2 Coalition (nee The George C Marshall Institute) for which he put together the paragraph claiming AGW was pseudoscience. That is the sum of his global warming commentary.
 
I don't know about that. Would it be harmless to argue that dioxin is nontoxic? Would it be harmless to argue that humans can tolerate 10% carbon monoxide? Would it be harmless to argue that newborns should be fed Coca Cola and spicy kimchee? Would it be harmless to argue that avalanches, tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanoes, COVID, MRSA, flesh-eating bacteria and cancer are all hoaxes? Could anyone possibly be hurt because they adopted such beliefs?

He developed the first experiment to demonstrate non-local entanglement. He's a brilliant physicist but has done ZERO work in climate sciences. No research, no reviews, nothing published. He was invited by William Happer to join the board of the CO2 Coalition (nee The George C Marshall Institute) for which he put together the paragraph claiming AGW was pseudoscience. That is the sum of his global warming commentary.

I don't know about that. Would it be harmless to argue that dioxin is nontoxic?

Global warming is equivalent to dioxin? You're such a little bitch.

Would it be harmless to argue that humans can tolerate 10% carbon monoxide?

You'd contribute less to global warming if you spent an hour with 10% CO.

Could anyone possibly be hurt because they adopted such beliefs?

The co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize has launched an excoriating attack on the ‘climate emergency’ narrative, calling it a “dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people”. Dr. John Clauser notes that misguided climate science has “metastasised into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience”.

A Nobel Prize winner believes AGW hysteria is corrupting science and harming billions of people.
 
I've been saying that for years. Just as I've been saying that water vapor is a net negative feedback that naturally cools the planet. How else did the planet cool for millions of years with significantly higher levels of CO2 than today?
 
Except, you have NO OCEAN WARMING because if you did canes would be increasing and THEY AREN'T.....

So once again a MISDIAGNOSIS is posted to justify the $20 trillion Co2 fraud....
But, but, but, woulda coulda shoulda, maybe, might, IF LMAO. IT'S SCIENCE DONTCHA KNOW.
 
But, but, but, woulda coulda shoulda, maybe, might, IF LMAO. IT'S SCIENCE DONTCHA KNOW.


They've tried the coral bleaching before. Thai fishermen used to squirt actual bleach into coral to flush fish into nets.

They have NOTHING.
 
Once the coral expels the organisms that cause its coloration I believe they also stop growing.
Yes. Algae. Coral polyps and algaes have a symbiotic relationship in which the coral provides the algae a relatively protected substrate and the algae uses photosynthesis to provide the coral polyps glycogenic nutrition. But the algae have a lower tolerance to high temperatures and so abandon the coral when the water becomes too warm. If it doesn't last too long, the coral may survive their absence until the water cools and the algae return. If it does, its all toast.
 
Yes. Algae. Coral polyps and algaes have a symbiotic relationship in which the coral provides the algae a relatively protected substrate and the algae uses photosynthesis to provide the coral polyps glycogenic nutrition. But the algae have a lower tolerance to high temperatures and so abandon the coral when the water becomes too warm. If it doesn't last too long, the coral may survive their absence until the water cools and the algae return. If it does, its all toast.
The water temperature is alarming.... hot air is one thing but the BTU energy required to heat that much water is astounding and speaks to massive input.
 
The water temperature is alarming.... hot air is one thing but the BTU energy required to heat that much water is astounding and speaks to massive input.
Yah. It is a flabbergasting amount of energy. I just read that the tip of southern Florida hit triple digits: 101.1F which may be a new world record. And they still have several months of summer yet to go.
 
As you can see right away, up bob the automatons of capitalism in the Age of Cynicism followed by low-IQ replies. Fish rely on the coral. Low-IQ humans should stop eating fish now so that they will be ahead of the others in this starvation process.
Few people in the US rely on fish for sustenance and the bulk of what we do eat are pelagic species, but in Florida, fishing and diving the reefs are a very large draw, as are the beaches those reefs protect. With all that gone, Florida tourism will collapse and take the state's economy with it. That might lead to some starvation.
 

Forum List

Back
Top