- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
- Messages
- 975
- Reaction score
- 1,199
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
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yet you posted their statistics to support your point.
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.
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.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.
Is this a joke? If so, good one, if not, I can’t believe this is real life, and/or that you’d feel the need to write that here...Fake news! I wouldn’t believe anything printed by this entity.
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.
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.
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.
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
is directly attributable to human activity.
Hi. I am an active, peer-reviewed-research-publishing, Ph.D. climate scientist. @TexasReefer82 , do you have any specific questions you’d like to ask?
I’m happy to address them on this thread or a new one you begin.Yes, I do! But let's either take it off line or start a new Thread.
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.
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.