I somehow felt instinctively that this was happening. We just came back from a protected marine island in Sri Lanka to see what I felt was the last of the coral reefs that are still alive. What I saw there confirmed my fears that, though some of them are still alive, they are slowly depleting. It was not an entirely healthy ecosystem, even though a lot of care was being taken to protect the reefs and all the species living within them.
Really sad to hear this. I spent some time surveying the biodiversity of the coral reefs in Belize quite a few years back. They were teaming with life. Such an important Ecosystem for our planet. We need to keep sharing, raising awareness and taking action for the future!
Your article is a wake-up call, an eye-opener and an education into the life of corals and their reefs. It is a subject of great interest although I have little personal experience and many questions about them. But I can appreciatie the complexity of those communities. At about the same time you published this article, I was reading about the AMOC and the discussions about its strength and potential future. And it is another tipping point. The word you came away with was cascade and the one I came away with was connected. Dominos falling, connected one by one. And each step of the way happens incrementally so as to be almost unnoticed until it is obvious to many - that tipping point. Thank you for helping me to better understand coarals and their role.
Its clear that scientist disagree.... My understanding its more to do with pollution than temperature. And some argue they like more heat than cold….. I would also watch the Exeter uni.. its getting all its funding from the green blob
From an expert…
The Great Barrier Reef is Still Doing Fine Despite ‘Cataclysmic’ Bleaching Events - CO2 Coalition
Yeah, exactly, the planet will bounce back in some form, it always has. What’s really at stake isn’t saving Earth, it’s saving the version of Earth that humans can still call home.
This is the first confirmed global-scale tipping point, and if we can cross one, we can cross others. That’s what makes it so serious.
Scientists are watching several more that are moving dangerously close to their thresholds: the collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, the slowdown of the Atlantic circulation, thawing permafrost releasing methane, the dieback of the Amazon rainforest, and major changes in monsoon systems.
They’re all connected. Once one system tips, it pushes on the rest. That’s the cascade we need to stop before it defines the century.
What we should fear most is not climate change, but hubris — the conceit that humankind can command the climate as if it were a thermostat. That belief is not science; it is vanity disguised as virtue.
For hundreds of thousands of years, the Earth’s climate has oscillated naturally. Temperature rises first, carbon dioxide follows — typically a millennium later. The data are clear: CO₂ responds to temperature, not the other way around. Yet our age insists on reversing cause and effect to flatter its own sense of power.
The planet has never been stable; it has shifted endlessly between ice and warmth, flood and drought. To imagine that we can freeze it in a moment of climatic perfection is not stewardship but arrogance. Even now, while Western Antarctica loses ice, the East gains more — a reminder that nature rarely moves in unison. Antarctica is not vanishing; it is expanding.
The real danger lies not in carbon, but in our conviction that civilisation can master forces it barely comprehends. History is unkind to societies that mistake their reach for their grasp.
That reply is polished, polished but missing the context the science provides.
A few quick facts in response to keep things clear:
1. “Temperature rises first, CO₂ follows.”
That’s only true for ancient natural cycles. Small shifts in sunlight warmed the oceans first, which then released CO₂. The extra CO₂ amplified the warming. Today the order is reversed because humans are adding billions of tonnes of CO₂ directly into the air. The cause and effect have flipped.
2. “Antarctica is expanding.”
It isn’t. Satellite data from NASA and the European Space Agency show that Antarctica as a whole is losing about 150 billion tonnes of ice each year. East Antarctica gains some snow, but the losses in the west are much larger. That’s why sea level continues to rise.
3. “CO₂ responds to temperature, not the other way around.”
We can measure CO₂’s heat-trapping effect in the lab and from space. It absorbs infrared radiation at known wavelengths. This is basic physics, not ideology, confirmed by every major scientific agency on Earth.
4. “Climate has always changed.”
That’s true, but the speed is what matters. Past natural changes unfolded over thousands of years. The current 1.2 °C rise has happened in just over a century. Nothing in the geological record matches that pace.
None of this is about “controlling” the climate. It’s about recognising what’s real and slowing the damage so future generations inherit a planet they can still call home.
You argued that temperature rises first and CO₂ follows only in ancient natural cycles, when sunlight shifts warmed the oceans, which then released CO₂. You said that today the order is reversed, since humans are adding billions of tonnes of CO₂ directly into the air and therefore cause temperatures to rise.
The order is not reversed. Humanity is certainly emitting vast quantities of CO₂, but there is no evidence that this causes temperatures to rise. NASA’s own seasonal data show that CO₂ levels still follow temperature by about eight months. As the planet warms and cools through the seasons, CO₂ levels do the same—still trailing temperature.
You stated that Antarctica is losing about 150 billion tonnes of ice each year, and that while East Antarctica gains some snow, losses in the west outweigh it.
Recent research paints a different picture. [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024EGUGA..2620880M/abstract] Scientists have combined satellite gravimetry and altimetry to produce a clearer view. From 2019 to 2023, East Antarctica gained around 160 billion tonnes of ice each year—three times its earlier average—mainly due to heavy snowfall between longitudes 60°E and 130°E. West Antarctica continues to lose about 139 billion tonnes annually, but the eastern gains and those on the Antarctic Peninsula nearly balance that loss. Overall, Antarctica has remained broadly stable in recent years. Beneath West Antarctica lie roughly ninety volcanoes, many active, which likely contribute to its local melting.
You said that CO₂’s ability to trap heat proves it drives global warming, since laboratory and satellite data show it absorbs infrared radiation at known wavelengths.
This is true, but its effect is logarithmic—each doubling of CO₂ yields a smaller and smaller temperature increase. Beyond about 450 ppm, any further rise produces only a negligible effect.
You claimed that the present warming—1.2 °C in just over a century—is faster than anything in the geological record. In fact, the rise began in the mid-1600s, nearly four centuries ago, as the world recovered from the Little Ice Age. Measured over that span, the rate of change is gradual and entirely consistent with natural variation.
The broader pattern is clear. Temperature has always led CO₂, not followed it. Antarctica’s changes are regional, not global. The heating effect of CO₂ weakens as its concentration increases. And the so-called rapid warming of the modern era began long before human industry could have caused it. The climate has always moved to its own rhythm—slow, uneven, and largely indifferent to human activity.
I really appreciate how much thought you’ve put into this. I can tell you care about understanding the science, and I genuinely respect that. I just want to make sure we’re working from the same base of facts, because once data gets taken out of context, it’s easy for something to sound right even when it isn’t.
Sometimes AI tools make that even trickier. They sound confident, but they often pull information that fits the question instead of giving the full picture. I’d always suggest double checking anything that sounds too neat or certain. And honestly, if you’d ever like to talk this through properly, I’d be happy to jump on a quick call or video chat.
Here’s what the data actually demonstrates in response to what you said.
“CO₂ follows temperature by eight months.”
That’s true only for short seasonal cycles, not long-term climate change. Every year, Northern Hemisphere plants take in CO₂ in spring and summer, then release it in autumn and winter. That creates a small lag. The steady rise from about 280 to more than 420 parts per million is a completely different signal that comes from burning fossil fuels. We know this from the isotope fingerprint of carbon, the small drop in oxygen levels in air and the fact that the ocean is becoming more acidic. Over decades, higher CO₂ levels trap more heat.
“Antarctica is broadly stable.”
Some years bring heavy snowfall, especially in East Antarctica, but that doesn’t cancel out the overall trend. Satellite data from multiple missions show the continent as a whole is losing around 150 billion tonnes of ice each year. West Antarctica is losing ice much faster than the East is gaining it, mainly because warm ocean water is melting the ice shelves from below.
“CO₂’s effect becomes negligible above 450 ppm.”
The greenhouse effect is logarithmic, but that doesn’t mean it stops. Each doubling of CO₂ still adds about 3.7 watts per square metre of extra heat to the planet. That’s enough to raise global temperatures by around 2.5 to 4 degrees Celsius once the climate adjusts.
“Modern warming is just recovery from the Little Ice Age.”
The recovery from the Little Ice Age ended before industrialisation. The rapid warming we’ve seen since the 1970s matches the rise in greenhouse gases. Natural factors alone would have produced little or no warming in the twentieth century.
All of this comes from direct measurements collected by satellites, ocean sensors, and air samples over many decades. It’s not opinion or model-based; it’s what we can physically measure.
I’m always up for open, respectful discussion about this. If you ever want to go through the data together or have a proper chat about what’s actually being observed, I’d be glad to.
…and the billionaires really think they will survive climate catastrophe…
Thanks for this Luke. Devastating news. Very important to share. And very well said
Here is some positive and actionable intelligence on the ocean ecology front :
https://open.substack.com/pub/gavinmounsey/p/regenerative-ocean-gardening-kelp?r=q2yay&utm_medium=ios
I somehow felt instinctively that this was happening. We just came back from a protected marine island in Sri Lanka to see what I felt was the last of the coral reefs that are still alive. What I saw there confirmed my fears that, though some of them are still alive, they are slowly depleting. It was not an entirely healthy ecosystem, even though a lot of care was being taken to protect the reefs and all the species living within them.
Oof
Thanks Luke. My emotions swing between doom/loss and anger/fight but at present, anger/fight always wins out.
Thank you Luke for sharing this utterly sobering report. I believe this is the source? >> https://news.exeter.ac.uk/research/new-reality-as-world-reaches-first-climate-tipping-point/
Download the full report here: https://global-tipping-points.org/
Really sad to hear this. I spent some time surveying the biodiversity of the coral reefs in Belize quite a few years back. They were teaming with life. Such an important Ecosystem for our planet. We need to keep sharing, raising awareness and taking action for the future!
Your article is a wake-up call, an eye-opener and an education into the life of corals and their reefs. It is a subject of great interest although I have little personal experience and many questions about them. But I can appreciatie the complexity of those communities. At about the same time you published this article, I was reading about the AMOC and the discussions about its strength and potential future. And it is another tipping point. The word you came away with was cascade and the one I came away with was connected. Dominos falling, connected one by one. And each step of the way happens incrementally so as to be almost unnoticed until it is obvious to many - that tipping point. Thank you for helping me to better understand coarals and their role.
Lets focus on pollution not climate change... Its a far bigger problem.
Its clear that scientist disagree.... My understanding its more to do with pollution than temperature. And some argue they like more heat than cold….. I would also watch the Exeter uni.. its getting all its funding from the green blob
From an expert…
The Great Barrier Reef is Still Doing Fine Despite ‘Cataclysmic’ Bleaching Events - CO2 Coalition
https://co2coalition.org/2025/08/08/the-great-barrier-reef-is-still-doing-fine-despite-cataclysmic-bleaching-events/
Once again, the tone is one of finality — as if the planet, after billions of years of upheaval, has suddenly lost its resilience.
Coral reefs have vanished and returned many times in Earth’s long story.
What is new is not the change, but the certainty with which we now interpret it.
Civilisations have always feared the end of the world; each generation simply finds its own reason to believe it has arrived.
Yeah, exactly, the planet will bounce back in some form, it always has. What’s really at stake isn’t saving Earth, it’s saving the version of Earth that humans can still call home.
This is the first confirmed global-scale tipping point, and if we can cross one, we can cross others. That’s what makes it so serious.
Scientists are watching several more that are moving dangerously close to their thresholds: the collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, the slowdown of the Atlantic circulation, thawing permafrost releasing methane, the dieback of the Amazon rainforest, and major changes in monsoon systems.
They’re all connected. Once one system tips, it pushes on the rest. That’s the cascade we need to stop before it defines the century.
What we should fear most is not climate change, but hubris — the conceit that humankind can command the climate as if it were a thermostat. That belief is not science; it is vanity disguised as virtue.
For hundreds of thousands of years, the Earth’s climate has oscillated naturally. Temperature rises first, carbon dioxide follows — typically a millennium later. The data are clear: CO₂ responds to temperature, not the other way around. Yet our age insists on reversing cause and effect to flatter its own sense of power.
The planet has never been stable; it has shifted endlessly between ice and warmth, flood and drought. To imagine that we can freeze it in a moment of climatic perfection is not stewardship but arrogance. Even now, while Western Antarctica loses ice, the East gains more — a reminder that nature rarely moves in unison. Antarctica is not vanishing; it is expanding.
The real danger lies not in carbon, but in our conviction that civilisation can master forces it barely comprehends. History is unkind to societies that mistake their reach for their grasp.
That reply is polished, polished but missing the context the science provides.
A few quick facts in response to keep things clear:
1. “Temperature rises first, CO₂ follows.”
That’s only true for ancient natural cycles. Small shifts in sunlight warmed the oceans first, which then released CO₂. The extra CO₂ amplified the warming. Today the order is reversed because humans are adding billions of tonnes of CO₂ directly into the air. The cause and effect have flipped.
2. “Antarctica is expanding.”
It isn’t. Satellite data from NASA and the European Space Agency show that Antarctica as a whole is losing about 150 billion tonnes of ice each year. East Antarctica gains some snow, but the losses in the west are much larger. That’s why sea level continues to rise.
3. “CO₂ responds to temperature, not the other way around.”
We can measure CO₂’s heat-trapping effect in the lab and from space. It absorbs infrared radiation at known wavelengths. This is basic physics, not ideology, confirmed by every major scientific agency on Earth.
4. “Climate has always changed.”
That’s true, but the speed is what matters. Past natural changes unfolded over thousands of years. The current 1.2 °C rise has happened in just over a century. Nothing in the geological record matches that pace.
None of this is about “controlling” the climate. It’s about recognising what’s real and slowing the damage so future generations inherit a planet they can still call home.
You argued that temperature rises first and CO₂ follows only in ancient natural cycles, when sunlight shifts warmed the oceans, which then released CO₂. You said that today the order is reversed, since humans are adding billions of tonnes of CO₂ directly into the air and therefore cause temperatures to rise.
The order is not reversed. Humanity is certainly emitting vast quantities of CO₂, but there is no evidence that this causes temperatures to rise. NASA’s own seasonal data show that CO₂ levels still follow temperature by about eight months. As the planet warms and cools through the seasons, CO₂ levels do the same—still trailing temperature.
You stated that Antarctica is losing about 150 billion tonnes of ice each year, and that while East Antarctica gains some snow, losses in the west outweigh it.
Recent research paints a different picture. [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024EGUGA..2620880M/abstract] Scientists have combined satellite gravimetry and altimetry to produce a clearer view. From 2019 to 2023, East Antarctica gained around 160 billion tonnes of ice each year—three times its earlier average—mainly due to heavy snowfall between longitudes 60°E and 130°E. West Antarctica continues to lose about 139 billion tonnes annually, but the eastern gains and those on the Antarctic Peninsula nearly balance that loss. Overall, Antarctica has remained broadly stable in recent years. Beneath West Antarctica lie roughly ninety volcanoes, many active, which likely contribute to its local melting.
You said that CO₂’s ability to trap heat proves it drives global warming, since laboratory and satellite data show it absorbs infrared radiation at known wavelengths.
This is true, but its effect is logarithmic—each doubling of CO₂ yields a smaller and smaller temperature increase. Beyond about 450 ppm, any further rise produces only a negligible effect.
You claimed that the present warming—1.2 °C in just over a century—is faster than anything in the geological record. In fact, the rise began in the mid-1600s, nearly four centuries ago, as the world recovered from the Little Ice Age. Measured over that span, the rate of change is gradual and entirely consistent with natural variation.
The broader pattern is clear. Temperature has always led CO₂, not followed it. Antarctica’s changes are regional, not global. The heating effect of CO₂ weakens as its concentration increases. And the so-called rapid warming of the modern era began long before human industry could have caused it. The climate has always moved to its own rhythm—slow, uneven, and largely indifferent to human activity.
I really appreciate how much thought you’ve put into this. I can tell you care about understanding the science, and I genuinely respect that. I just want to make sure we’re working from the same base of facts, because once data gets taken out of context, it’s easy for something to sound right even when it isn’t.
Sometimes AI tools make that even trickier. They sound confident, but they often pull information that fits the question instead of giving the full picture. I’d always suggest double checking anything that sounds too neat or certain. And honestly, if you’d ever like to talk this through properly, I’d be happy to jump on a quick call or video chat.
Here’s what the data actually demonstrates in response to what you said.
“CO₂ follows temperature by eight months.”
That’s true only for short seasonal cycles, not long-term climate change. Every year, Northern Hemisphere plants take in CO₂ in spring and summer, then release it in autumn and winter. That creates a small lag. The steady rise from about 280 to more than 420 parts per million is a completely different signal that comes from burning fossil fuels. We know this from the isotope fingerprint of carbon, the small drop in oxygen levels in air and the fact that the ocean is becoming more acidic. Over decades, higher CO₂ levels trap more heat.
“Antarctica is broadly stable.”
Some years bring heavy snowfall, especially in East Antarctica, but that doesn’t cancel out the overall trend. Satellite data from multiple missions show the continent as a whole is losing around 150 billion tonnes of ice each year. West Antarctica is losing ice much faster than the East is gaining it, mainly because warm ocean water is melting the ice shelves from below.
“CO₂’s effect becomes negligible above 450 ppm.”
The greenhouse effect is logarithmic, but that doesn’t mean it stops. Each doubling of CO₂ still adds about 3.7 watts per square metre of extra heat to the planet. That’s enough to raise global temperatures by around 2.5 to 4 degrees Celsius once the climate adjusts.
“Modern warming is just recovery from the Little Ice Age.”
The recovery from the Little Ice Age ended before industrialisation. The rapid warming we’ve seen since the 1970s matches the rise in greenhouse gases. Natural factors alone would have produced little or no warming in the twentieth century.
All of this comes from direct measurements collected by satellites, ocean sensors, and air samples over many decades. It’s not opinion or model-based; it’s what we can physically measure.
I’m always up for open, respectful discussion about this. If you ever want to go through the data together or have a proper chat about what’s actually being observed, I’d be glad to.
Yes, we must continue to fight 💪