The current science behind attempting to save coral reefs

Status
Not open for further replies.

NotFishyFishGuy

There’s a reason I’m broke now...
View Badges
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Messages
922
Reaction score
1,054
Hmmm if the corals are dying off, soon it will be the fish then everything living in the ocean. We need to stop this before one day, living things in the “ocean of trash” will just be a myth :(
 

WVNed

The fish are staring at me with hungry eyes.
View Badges
Joined
Apr 11, 2018
Messages
3,799
Reaction score
14,013
Location
Hurricane, WV
Yet you posted their statistics to support your point.
My mistake. I apologize. The older I get the less I know because I found out some one made it up.
I now know nothing. I should keep my mouth shut.
 

LARedstickreefer

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
989
Reaction score
1,078
I honestly believe that the real issue with climate change science isn’t so much the facts, but the delivery.

For example:

Greta Thunberg didn’t do Climate Change science a lot of good by coming to the USA and fussing at Congress; she isn’t a credible source for facts.

Climate Change facts are going to make the most sense to Climate Change scientists. You need to come off as credible and reasonable to the rest of society.

I’m an Engineering Manager for a utility. Do you really need to know how I sized your transformer? Or, do you care that I seem credible, reasonable, and competent?

I think that it’s time to start thinking about viable solutions that can work to lessen the effects.

Getting rid of gas engines or heavy taxation isn’t going to work.
 

TheGulag

Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
49
Reaction score
43
Location
TN
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.
I don't know if you are at the LBA/Distributor level or the Transmission Level but that is not true on solar being cheaper than gas, not even close. The only reason that solar may be somewhat close to gas is because of gov subsidies and incentives. This is definitely not true for the Eastern Interconnect.

CVR just shaves peaks to create a semi lower sudo-artificial peak because most distributors are billed for their usage as well as a peak usage hour. This saves them and the customers a little because they can shave the MW's(Real power) slightly.


From my perspective in the Power Industry wind as solar are a good thing but they cant replace certain things that coal/gas/nuclear bring to the table. The electrical grid is more complex then turn fossil fuel generation off and bring on wind and solar. Things like post fault recovery, harmonic dampening, and on-demand response are just a few of the things that wind and solar have problems with in its current state.
 

CubsFan

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 9, 2018
Messages
345
Reaction score
506
I honestly believe that the real issue with climate change science isn’t so much the facts, but the delivery.

For example:

Greta Thunberg didn’t do Climate Change science a lot of good by coming to the USA and fussing at Congress; she isn’t a credible source for facts.

Climate Change facts are going to make the most sense to Climate Change scientists. You need to come off as credible and reasonable to the rest of society.

I’m an Engineering Manager for a utility. Do you really need to know how I sized your transformer? Or, do you care that I seem credible, reasonable, and competent?

I think that it’s time to start thinking about viable solutions that can work to lessen the effects.

Getting rid of gas engines or heavy taxation isn’t going to work.
Did you read my link? It’s from nasa and noaa. It has citations. It’s a simple read. There is no conspiracy theories or scary 16 year old foreigners. The link is on page 5. I can post it again if you like. It’s just a stepping stone to a better understanding. You need to start somewhere. If you won’t read it, there’s no reason for the discussion to continue.

Btw, getting rid of gas engines will help. Please show me some reason to think lowering emissions from gas engines won’t reduce the co2 in our atmosphere. You’re also welcome to show me that increased co2 in the atmosphere is beneficial or at least benign.
 
https://www.omegasea.net/
OP
Brian1f1

Brian1f1

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
1,262
Reaction score
829
If anyone would seriously like to discuss coral sustainability in the anthropocene (the current epoch, shaped by man, e.g. climate change, pollution, environmental destruction) and the role/responsibility we can/should/might play as hobbyist now and into the future, this thread is for you.

I’ll ask one more time that man influenced/created/exacerbated climate change deniers save their breath and stop disrupting this discussion with that hollow point.

This discussion presumes that climate data and its interpretations/implications, as very very nearly universally accepted by the scientific community, are indeed reliable. That is a prerequisite to discuss the topic any further. If you cannot get past that, please please do not derail this thread any further. I’d really appreciate it.
 

TexasReefer82

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
282
Reaction score
297
Location
Houston
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.

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.

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?

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.

Absolutely.

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.

I don't claim to have all the answers.

I have never made such assumptions.

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
I unfairly grouped some of your comments in with comments from the broader Climate Change community - I didn't mean to put some of those words in your mouth, that was my error - my apologies.

Thank you for your response. I think that we have found some understanding and common ground here, at least speaking for myself.

It's correct that we haven't presented or discussed data at all - and the data is where my skepticism starts. I would indeed like to see some data presented in this forum but I won't just accept it at face value. I'll want to have a discussion about: what exactly is being measured, how was it measured, what are the error bars on the data points, what variables are confounded with the data, what is the meaning of the data, with what does the data correlate, are the data replicable? etc.

I think it's this type of discussion from which the non-climate change community is excluded that would serve to garner much support and buy-in from the general public.
 
OP
Brian1f1

Brian1f1

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
1,262
Reaction score
829
I unfairly grouped some of your comments in with comments from the broader Climate Change community - I didn't mean to put some of those words in your mouth, that was my error - my apologies.

Thank you for your response. I think that we have found some understanding and common ground here, at least speaking for myself.

It's correct that we haven't presented or discussed data at all - and the data is where my skepticism starts. I would indeed like to see some data presented in this forum but I won't just accept it at face value. I'll want to have a discussion about: what exactly is being measured, how was it measured, what are the error bars on the data points, what variables are confounded with the data, what is the meaning of the data, with what does the data correlate, are the data replicable? etc.

I think it's this type of discussion from which the non-climate change community is excluded that would serve to garner much support and buy-in from the general public.
I’m all for it. Start a thread for it though. Let’s keep this thread focused if we can.
 

Thales

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
1,365
Reaction score
3,053
Location
SF BA
I unfairly grouped some of your comments in with comments from the broader Climate Change community - I didn't mean to put some of those words in your mouth, that was my error - my apologies.

Thank you for your response. I think that we have found some understanding and common ground here, at least speaking for myself.
Thanks!

It's correct that we haven't presented or discussed data at all - and the data is where my skepticism starts. I would indeed like to see some data presented in this forum but I won't just accept it at face value. I'll want to have a discussion about: what exactly is being measured, how was it measured, what are the error bars on the data points, what variables are confounded with the data, what is the meaning of the data, with what does the data correlate, are the data replicable? etc.

I think it's this type of discussion from which the non-climate change community is excluded that would serve to garner much support and buy-in from the general public.
I am not sure how anyone excluded from that kind of discussion - anyone can read the papers, or read the articles aimed at the layperson. All the information you mention seems to exist. What am I missing about what you are asking for?
 
Top Shelf Aquatics

TexasReefer82

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
282
Reaction score
297
Location
Houston
If anyone would seriously like to discuss coral sustainability in the anthropocene (the current epoch, shaped by man, e.g. climate change, pollution, environmental destruction) and the role/responsibility we can/should/might play as hobbyist now and into the future, this thread is for you.

I’ll ask one more time that man influenced/created/exacerbated climate change deniers save their breath and stop disrupting this discussion with that hollow point.

This discussion presumes that climate data and its interpretations/implications, as very very nearly universally accepted by the scientific community, are indeed reliable. That is a prerequisite to discuss the topic any further. If you cannot get past that, please please do not derail this thread any further. I’d really appreciate it.
Fair enough - let's change gears...

I think what Ted Nedimeyer is doing with the Coral Restoration Foundation is fantastic.
 

saf1

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
4,515
Reaction score
6,805
I wish that were the case. I have yet to see much evidence that the hobby as a whole places value on the reefs and corals themselves. Some in the hobby do, but I have never seen any campaign or fundraiser grow any kind of legs. It is possible it could but it hasn’t yet
Very interesting comment here. I'm not ignoring the others but this is what caught my attention. I tend to be a negative Nancy and say we as hobbyists don't care (as I type this I'm seeing a picture of Oddball talking to me as if I'm Moriarty , always with the negative waves).

If we did then we would be trying to promote more aquaculture (there are some yes) and hobbyist to hobbyist exchanges. I think dollars and cents start to get in the way or blur things and the boutique and chop shops are not helping.

I like the point you raise. I don't have anything other than I think we could do something but don't because of the side hustle.
 

saf1

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
4,515
Reaction score
6,805
is directly attributable to human activity.
Math is fun (no, it really isn't to me anyway) but as population grows so does the basic requirements to support said population. Food, water, clothing, and shelter. Still boggles my mind that most can't see the simple match that we, as humans, are part of the problem.

Back to the simple math then we as humans can do our part, as being responsible educated adults, to control and do our part. What we can, financially also, to conserve. Be it solar, stay home one day a week and drive less, recycle what makes sense, and support practical regulations to grow and manufacture things we need.

Then hopefully we have done our part and we attribute less to the problem. Maybe it will work, maybe not. I really don't know but that is how I see it anyway.
 
Corals.com

LARedstickreefer

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
989
Reaction score
1,078
I don't know if you are at the LBA/Distributor level or the Transmission Level but that is not true on solar being cheaper than gas, not even close. The only reason that solar may be somewhat close to gas is because of gov subsidies and incentives. This is definitely not true for the Eastern Interconnect.

CVR just shaves peaks to create a semi lower sudo-artificial peak because most distributors are billed for their usage as well as a peak usage hour. This saves them and the customers a little because they can shave the MW's(Real power) slightly.


From my perspective in the Power Industry wind as solar are a good thing but they cant replace certain things that coal/gas/nuclear bring to the table. The electrical grid is more complex then turn fossil fuel generation off and bring on wind and solar. Things like post fault recovery, harmonic dampening, and on-demand response are just a few of the things that wind and solar have problems with in its current state.
I’m at the distribution level. I should have clarified that the rates that WE see are nearly cheaper for solar than they are natural gas. I could care less about what the providers are seeing; I just care what my purchase contract says.

Peak shaving can most certainly help. Obviously it wouldn’t be the answer, on its own, but can allow a G&T to hold off on new plants for a time. Don’t forget that CVR also applies to resistive line loss. We have thousands of miles of it.

The issue with wind and solar are clouds and lack of wind. Yeah, I know that. I didn’t say solar would be able to replace gas, but that it’s going to be widespread in 10 years. Battery storage is holding it back. 10 years from now, solar won’t need any subsidies because it will be much cheaper and much more efficient than it is now.

Much of the issues related to the grid can be solved at the inverter and down line equipment. Most utilities are preparing as we speak for the effects that solar would have as well as widespread electric car use.

I recently saw a 30 year PPA offer of $.035/kWh for a 20MW solar array. That’s almost half of what the utility was paying per kWh to its G&T. Remove subsidies and you’re a little above the G&T rate. Give it time....

As for gasoline engines: I’m not giving up my flat 6 N/A until after WW3!
 

Thales

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
1,365
Reaction score
3,053
Location
SF BA
Fair enough - let's change gears...

I think what Ted Nedimeyer is doing with the Coral Restoration Foundation is fantastic.
Ken is great, but he is no longer with them, but still a great organization. I did spawning work with them for 6 years or so. One of the interesting things about this kind of restoration is that the corals grow great on the 'trees', but the survivorship of the outplants seems poor. In other words, despite 50,000 corals being outplanted, there seems to very little restoration occuring.
 

TexasReefer82

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
282
Reaction score
297
Location
Houston
Ken is great, but he is no longer with them, but still a great organization. I did spawning work with them for 6 years or so. One of the interesting things about this kind of restoration is that the corals grow great on the 'trees', but the survivorship of the outplants seems poor. In other words, despite 50,000 corals being outplanted, there seems to very little restoration occuring.
I didn't know that. I had read, I think in their informational flier, that they had ~70% 1 year survival of outplants. I thought that was pretty darn good, but maybe there's more to the story.

Why do you think there's the difference in growth from the trees to the rocks?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

What's the "sweet spot" in spending for a SINGLE fish?

  • $25 or less

    Votes: 37 6.6%
  • $50 or less

    Votes: 210 37.4%
  • $75 or less

    Votes: 132 23.5%
  • $100 or less

    Votes: 91 16.2%
  • $150 or less

    Votes: 19 3.4%
  • $200 or less

    Votes: 17 3.0%
  • If I like it I buy it no matter the cost!

    Votes: 56 10.0%

Online statistics

Members online
2,128
Guests online
8,219
Total visitors
10,347
Top