The current science behind attempting to save coral reefs

[Thales]

I do wish I knew more about all this stuff. I can’t help but think about the role of zooxanthellae in a corals health. The link talks about being as diverse as possible. Could repopulating corals with a different strain of zooxanthellae make a difference? Does it even work like that? Maybe I’m way off course. I’m a simple man. I’ve seen caddyshack 1000 times.

There is a lot of work being done on the different clades and roles of coral symbionts. There seems to be a time where they will take up any clade, but at some point the seem not be so welcoming. Some clades are more heat tolerant than others. Really interesting stuff. I may have to culture some of them this spring, so I got that going for me, which is nice

 

[Thales]

If you turn off your air conditioning we could stop digging coal to run it. Now you want to put up giant ugly windmills that kill all the birds. By the time they strip the trees and build the roads for access it's as bad as a strip mine.

Much of that appears untrue.

LOL You are not ecologically friendly. You just think you are

No one living in the modern world is ecologically friendly. I don't think that means we shouldn't work to keep the parts of the world we have least messed up from being more messed up.

 

[Dr. Dendrostein]

I do wish I knew more about all this stuff. I can’t help but think about the role of zooxanthellae in a corals health. The link talks about being as diverse as possible. Could repopulating corals with a different strain of zooxanthellae make a difference? Does it even work like that? Maybe I’m way off course. I’m a simple man. I’ve seen caddyshack 1000 times.

Before I let my doctor explain anything to me, I tell him respectfully, "doctor talk to me as if I'm a 4 year old." True story. I'm not afraid to say that to anyone, if it goes over my head.

 

[Crashjack]

I am a coral scientist working of coral spawning, reef restoration, reef rehabilitation, and science communication.
Some question all kinds of evidence, but that doesn't mean that that questioning is something we should entertain. There are people that say that ginger cures ich, rock salt is fine for reef tanks, and that fish grow to the size of their tanks, but these have been shown to not be the case enough that we really shouldn't be talking about them seriously anymore (unless provided extreme evidence). Climate science, which is way more complicated, subtle and nuanced, is more robust than reef aquarium science, and most of the questioning of the evidence has been looked at enough that we really don't need to be talking about seriously it anymore. That said, we are always on the look out for new, compelling counter evidence, but almost all of what has been put forward recently are retreads of old positions, when, every day, we get more and more strong evidence supporting the climate science conclusions.

Hey, more power to you. There is an old fable about a boy tending sheep, who cries “wolf” to get the townsfolk to come running. Energy crisis, ozone holes, earthquakes, George W. Bush making a hurricane, climates... I guess I’m just one of the simple townsfolk who has heard a lot of wolf cries but has never actually seen a wolf.

Best of luck with your work.

 

[sfin52]

Raw sewage and yard fertilizers are the direct reson of reef decline around the world. The Florida keys reefs are facing issues tied to human waste. Untill this is fixed reefs will always remain in trouble.

 

[Brian1f1]

Raw sewage and yard fertilizers are the direct reson of reef decline around the world. The Florida keys reefs are facing issues tied to human waste. Untill this is fixed reefs will always remain in trouble.

Those are factors, yes, and they’ve been mentioned repeatedly. The sad truth is these are not the biggest threat to global coral health. Indeed, even some of the worlds most remote and pristine reefs have had mass (approaching total) coral bleaching/dying events over recents decades, with the frequency and severity of events increasing with average temp increases, which have climbed steadily. Other factors tend weaken and sicken coral, and prime them for more severe and damaging temp related bleaching events. That isn’t to say those factors haven’t outright killed some reefs. They have, and will, in areas where the problem is acute/concentrated enough.

 

[coralcruze]

the way I look at this is through two viewing angles... as a hobbiest for 22 years and as a diver for 15. it isbthis hobbybthat got me into diving. My early years of diving i didnt know how much better the reefs were because i had no frame of referance. however, in that 15 year time I have seen reefs that I commonly dove change for the worst. It was at this point that I decided to do something. aside from actively aquaculturing to lessen the pressure on the reef to suppy the hobby I took some courses and got specialty PADI reef restoration certification. since doing so I have worked on mesoamerican reefs for several years with a marine biologist to help save and restore a reef from all sorts of pressures from silt displacement from cruize ships to reef cleanup to mariculturing efforts to save native reef species. there is alot the hobbiests and certified divers can do to help.

 

[WVNed]

Much of that appears untrue.



No one living in the modern world is ecologically friendly. I don't think that means we shouldn't work to keep the parts of the world we have least messed up from being more messed up.

In what way?
What ever makes you feel better about it. Welcome to the comfort of being a denier.

I live close to
John E. Amos Power Plant is a three-unit coal-fired power plant owned and operated by Appalachian Power, a subsidiary of American Electric Power (AEP). With a nameplate rating of 2,933 MW,[1] it is the largest generating plant in the AEP system.[2] It was named after a prominent state senator, Democratic National Committee and AEP board of directors member from West Virginia.[3]

the energy generated at the John Amos Plant is enough to power about 2 million homes
I was here when it was built and have toured the plant. It is a monster.

Guess where the power it generates goes as much as it works that way.

Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in North America, making it the most threatening form of green energy. They also kill bats. This estimation come from surveys of carcasses found within a small radius of each turbine. Some consider it a gross underestimation.

Wind turbines are known to kill large birds, such as golden eagles, that live nearby. Now there is evidence that birds from up to hundreds of miles away make up a significant portion of the raptors that are killed at these wind energy fields.

 

[Retro Reefer]

Washington Post interactive on what’s being done to save coral from climate change.

R2R, we really should have a dedicated sustainability forum with a hobby focus. Who gets to decide on that?

Fake news! I wouldn’t believe anything printed by this entity.

 

[sfin52]

In what way?
What ever makes you feel better about it. Welcome to the comfort of being a denier.

I live close to
John E. Amos Power Plant is a three-unit coal-fired power plant owned and operated by Appalachian Power, a subsidiary of American Electric Power (AEP). With a nameplate rating of 2,933 MW,[1] it is the largest generating plant in the AEP system.[2] It was named after a prominent state senator, Democratic National Committee and AEP board of directors member from West Virginia.[3]

the energy generated at the John Amos Plant is enough to power about 2 million homes
I was here when it was built and have toured the plant. It is a monster.

Guess where the power it generates goes as much as it works that way.

Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in North America, making it the most threatening form of green energy. They also kill bats. This estimation come from surveys of carcasses found within a small radius of each turbine. Some consider it a gross underestimation.

Wind turbines are known to kill large birds, such as golden eagles, that live nearby. Now there is evidence that birds from up to hundreds of miles away make up a significant portion of the raptors that are killed at these wind energy fields.

Water turbines do the same thing to sea life including sea mammals

 

[LARedstickreefer]

I can’t speak for farming, but speaking as the Engineering Manager at an Electric Utility, I can say that I’ve seen a large push toward energy efficient initiatives. Not for environmental purposes, but for cost reduction. It’s actually becoming cheaper to kick coal to the curb.

Large scale solar is almost cheaper than natural gas right now. Once storage catches up, it’s going to be a different world. Give it 10 years and solar is going to be everywhere.

CVR is another nifty tech that we use to keep our peak demand, and thus the need for more power plants, down. It’s simple to do and every electric utility can do it.

Just be patient everyone. We are moving in the right direction without being taxed, or forced, to do so.

 

[Thales]

Hey, more power to you. There is an old fable about a boy tending sheep, who cries “wolf” to get the townsfolk to come running. Energy crisis, ozone holes, earthquakes, George W. Bush making a hurricane, climates... I guess I’m just one of the simple townsfolk who has heard a lot of wolf cries but has never actually seen a wolf.

Best of luck with your work.

Thanks, but I am confused about the crying wolf examples. There was an energy crisis. There was a hole in the ozone. We fixed those things because people said "hey, this is a real problem". Bush making a hurricane - I don't think anyone in science said that.
I am also confused why you put yourself down as a 'simple townsfolk'. I don't think that is true at all. There is a ton of science you and I both don't get, that we trust every day -it doesn't mean we are simple, just that we haven't studied that field professionally. There is no demeaning in that. I also think that you have see several wolves of climate change.

 

[TexasReefer82]

I am a coral scientist working of coral spawning, reef restoration, reef rehabilitation, and science communication.
Some question all kinds of evidence, but that doesn't mean that that questioning is something we should entertain. There are people that say that ginger cures ich, rock salt is fine for reef tanks, and that fish grow to the size of their tanks, but these have been shown to not be the case enough that we really shouldn't be talking about them seriously anymore (unless provided extreme evidence). Climate science, which is way more complicated, subtle and nuanced, is more robust than reef aquarium science, and most of the questioning of the evidence has been looked at enough that we really don't need to be talking about seriously it anymore. That said, we are always on the look out for new, compelling counter evidence, but almost all of what has been put forward recently are retreads of old positions, when, every day, we get more and more strong evidence supporting the climate science conclusions.

I hope you don't take any of that as jerky or elitist, I am trying to be straightforward, so if anything about the way I have communicated rubs you the wrong way please let me know so I can do better. Thanks.

Oh you don't need to worry about how any of that hurts my feelings. But if your goal is to convince people of the veracity of your claims simply shouting over and over that "the science is settled" and "the evidence is overwhelming" isn't convincing.

Maligning those who question the claims as "deniers" isn't' gaining the "Climate Change" community any friends.

Likening those who question the Climate Change claims to those who believe in idiotic things like using rock salt for reef tanks only hardens their resolve to doubt you.

The Climate Change community has an insurmountable credibility problem stemming from a 30+ year record of failed predictions. I was told as a kid that snow would no longer fall, that Miami would be underwater by now, that there would be no ice in the Arctic. The previous name, Global Warming, being a fine example. The Climate Change community never owns their failed predictions - when world-wide warming turned out clearly to not be the case the name was quietly changed to Climate Change, but no one ever came clean and said "we were wrong, something else is happening."

Just because someone's a scientist doesn't mean that they have all the answers. A scientist welcomes challenges to his conclusions and data as opportunities to strengthen his understanding and credibility. You appear to have prejudged questions as something that should not be entertained - how arrogant! Can the evidence you hold not take the pressure of questioners?

If you claim to have all the answers on this topic and you also want everyone to agree with your conclusions you will have to address questioners in a profoundly different manner. You cannot take your credibility for granted - credibility must be earned when the "ask" is for people to sacrifice lifestyle and tax dollars. Don't assume that the only people who question you are unscientific idiots - there are plenty of well educated, well informed, and intelligent people who don't believe in Anthropogenic climate change - and some of them are climate scientists. Understand that many of the questioners have a well-founded distrust in large institutions - the UN, IPCC, Federal government, and academia among them. This distrust is often a bipartisan issue and has much broader implications than just climate change. Simpy referring to the latest IPCC report is not convincing.

The McGovern Commission is a fine example of big science and big government who got it fantastically wrong. Their dietary recommendations launched an epidemic of dia-besity in this country that turned our healthcare system into a sickcare system. I see a lot of parallels between this and Climate Change Science.

 

[CubsFan]

Oh you don't need to worry about how any of that hurts my feelings. But if your goal is to convince people of the veracity of your claims simply shouting over and over that "the science is settled" and "the evidence is overwhelming" isn't convincing.

Maligning those who question the claims as "deniers" isn't' gaining the "Climate Change" community any friends.

Likening those who question the Climate Change claims to those who believe in idiotic things like using rock salt for reef tanks only hardens their resolve to doubt you.

The Climate Change community has an insurmountable credibility problem stemming from a 30+ year record of failed predictions. I was told as a kid that snow would no longer fall, that Miami would be underwater by now, that there would be no ice in the Arctic. The previous name, Global Warming, being a fine example. The Climate Change community never owns their failed predictions - when world-wide warming turned out clearly to not be the case the name was quietly changed to Climate Change, but no one ever came clean and said "we were wrong, something else is happening."

Just because someone's a scientist doesn't mean that they have all the answers. A scientist welcomes challenges to his conclusions and data as opportunities to strengthen his understanding and credibility. You appear to have prejudged questions as something that should not be entertained - how arrogant! Can the evidence you hold not take the pressure of questioners?

If you claim to have all the answers on this topic and you also want everyone to agree with your conclusions you will have to address questioners in a profoundly different manner. You cannot take your credibility for granted - credibility must be earned when the "ask" is for people to sacrifice lifestyle and tax dollars. Don't assume that the only people who question you are unscientific idiots - there are plenty of well educated, well informed, and intelligent people who don't believe in Anthropogenic climate change - and some of them are climate scientists. Understand that many of the questioners have a well-founded distrust in large institutions - the UN, IPCC, Federal government, and academia among them. This distrust is often a bipartisan issue and has much broader implications than just climate change. Simpy referring to the latest IPCC report is not convincing.

The McGovern Commission is a fine example of big science and big government who got it fantastically wrong. Their dietary recommendations launched an epidemic of dia-besity in this country that turned our healthcare system into a sickcare system. I see a lot of parallels between this and Climate Change Science.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The current warming trend is extremely likely human-induced and proceeding at an unprecedented rate in the past 1,300 years.

www.google.com

 

[Thales]

Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in North America, making it the most threatening form of green energy. They also kill bats. This estimation come from surveys of carcasses found within a small radius of each turbine. Some consider it a gross underestimation.

Though I am not sure why we are talking about bird deaths in this discussion, I looked up those numbers and the same report shows that coal kills between 790,000 and 8,000,000 birds per year in North America. Of course cats kill between 1.4 and 3.7 billion every year.

Why do you trust the scientists that made those estimates and models, but not the ones that do climate work?

 

[WVNed]

I think of myself more as a heretic than a denier.

Though I am not sure why we are talking about bird deaths in this discussion, I looked up those numbers and the same report shows that coal kills between 790,000 and 8,000,000 birds per year in North America. Of course cats kill between 1.4 and 3.7 billion every year.

Why do you trust the scientists that made those estimates and models, but not the ones that do climate work?

You are exactly right. I do not trust any of them anymore.

 

[Thales]

Oh you don't need to worry about how any of that hurts my feelings. But if your goal is to convince people of the veracity of your claims simply shouting over and over that "the science is settled" and "the evidence is overwhelming" isn't convincing.

That isn't my goal. It used to be, but sadly, it isn't now. I am not trying to convince at all because there is nothing to convince, just as I also no longer try to convince people that think the earth is flat that it isn't. I am still interested in the way people reason about such things.

Likening those who question the Climate Change claims to those who believe in idiotic things like using rock salt for reef tanks only hardens their resolve to doubt you.

I understand that that is an issue, but the point remains denying climate science is like saying rock salt is fine for reef tanks or claiming the earth is flat. The science is very robust, there really is no discussion to be had. I think anything besides agreement hardens their resolve to doubt, which makes discussion very difficult.

The Climate Change community has an insurmountable credibility problem stemming from a 30+ year record of failed predictions. I was told as a kid that snow would no longer fall, that Miami would be underwater by now, that there would be no ice in the Arctic.

Yes that is and was unfortunate. Smoking tobacco was also publicized as being healthy for decades, but turned out it was unhealthy - do you also not think that to be the case because we were told the opposite?

The previous name, Global Warming, being a fine example. The Climate Change community never owns their failed predictions - when world-wide warming turned out clearly to not be the case the name was quietly changed to Climate Change, but no one ever came clean and said "we were wrong, something else is happening."

I think that is a popular narrative, but is not true. Almost everyone in climate science has said Gore scare tactics were unfortunate and inaccurate. They weren't really wrong, but the picture they were painting was not complete. It is more complete now. The world is changing, but it is more complicated than just temperature. Climate change more accurately reflects the issues.
That is how science works right? It changes based on new evidence. That should be seen as a good thing, not a bad one.

Just because someone's a scientist doesn't mean that they have all the answers. A scientist welcomes challenges to his conclusions and data as opportunities to strengthen his understanding and credibility.

Absolutely.

You appear to have prejudged questions as something that should not be entertained - how arrogant! Can the evidence you hold not take the pressure of questioners?

Some questions. This is where the rock salt for reef tanks part comes in. How much time would you spend with someone insisting that rock salt is fine for reef tanks or ginger cures ich while ignoring any counter evidence you share with them? How seriously do you take such claims? Are you arrogant for rejecting them?
I think it isn't that the evidence can't take the pressure of questioners, it is that the questioners seem to reject the evidence almost out of hand, and I don't think there is much to do to get them to not reject it.

If you claim to have all the answers on this topic and you also want everyone to agree with your conclusions you will have to address questioners in a profoundly different manner.

I don't claim to have all the answers.

Don't assume that the only people who question you are unscientific idiots - there are plenty of well educated, well informed, and intelligent people who don't believe in Anthropogenic climate change - and some of them are climate scientists.

I have never made such assumptions.

Understand that many of the questioners have a well-founded distrust in large institutions - the UN, IPCC, Federal government, and academia among them. This distrust is often a bipartisan issue and has much broader implications than just climate change. Simpy referring to the latest IPCC report is not convincing.

Right - I think there is nothing that will get the people you are talking about to hear what is being said. Instead of looking at the science, people reject because of some distrust. I don't know of any way to fight that kind of distrust, so lately I have not been trying too. What I am doing here is akin to saying 'No, rock salt is not good for reef tanks' and 'ginger doesn't cure ich'. I would also point out that I haven't referred to any reports at all in this discussion.

Thanks for the discussion

 

[Thales]

You are exactly right. I do not trust any of them anymore.

Yet you posted their statistics to support your point.

 

[TexasReefer82]

I think of myself more as a heretic than a denier.

You are exactly right. I do not trust any of them anymore.

I'm 100% for getting rid of feral cats! Referencing the feral cats is the classic comeback to the wind turbines... as though what the feral cats kill is completely okay. It's not okay either.

 

[Thales]

I'm 100% for getting rid of feral cats! Referencing the feral cats is the classic comeback to the wind turbines... as though what the feral cats kill is completely okay. It's not okay either.

That is partially my point too. It wasn't a comeback, it was a comparison for the relative scale of what causes bird deaths. The comeback was the coal numbers.