Lexinverts

Climate change and ocean acidification are far more dangerous to ocean life than the reef hobby. Notwithstanding this, effective and reasonable regulation is important for protecting threatened species and reefs. There definitely should be some regulation of the animals taken off the reef in Hawaii, just as there is for sport and commercial fishing. However, efforts such as this movie strike me as being more along the lines of PETA activism, which I do not support.

Dosing and/or setting up a calcium reactor.

Go to the http://forum.cerebra.club/ This is a Cerebra-user-only forum that is absolutely necessary for getting up and running.

It's 10 minutes closer to my house.

Looks like a great location, Jeff! I can't wait until you have it up and running.

Not carpet Lobos? They seem too rough to be trachys to me.

Sniper. ????

Good to know!

I'm not sure about that. The Vertex ones are not too badly priced and seem to be high quality. I think that it will be possible to use other brand probes, but we probably won't know more about that until there is a larger community of people using the controller.

Here is one of the papers: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 It's an analysis based on no less than 11,944 research papers in climate science.

I already did, Fish. Scroll to the top of the page.

Of course, this guy is not a climate scientist, and is 87 years old. He is a novice when it comes to climate science, and he didn't start his contrarian effort until he was 79, and long retired from research. But, he technically makes up part of the 8% of all scientists (not just climate scientists) that do not believe in the science behind climate change. http://time.com/4051338/climate-change-scientists/ Here is a detailed response to Igor's claims in the video: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

Sweet!

Here's mine. It's still doing well. It has really nice color and is starting to expand laterally.

I've also found the Vortechs to be quality equipment. I have 4 of them running on my systems. I also have Jebaos, and have found them to be a good value. They usually do not last as long as the the Vortechs, though. I have also heard good things about the Tunzes, so I am considering trying out a nanostream on my new seahorse tank.

Why certainly. Below is a graph that shows increasing C02 levels for the past 40 yrs from 4 different monitoring stations around the world. Next is a graph of pre-historical C02 levels from ice core data, along with current levels superimposed on the graph. You can see how much higher atmospheric C02 is relative to anything in the last 800,000 years on this graph, but we actually have data going back 1 million years. When I say that humans have "disrupted" the natural C02 cycle I mean that we have brought levels up far above anything that is observed as part of the pre-historical cycle. Does that make sense?

No, we are currently in an interglacial or warming period, and we have been for 20,000 years or so, which is long before humans disrupted the natural C02 balance in the atmosphere. The pre-historical oscillations in temperature and C02 that we can see in the ice core records---ice ages and warming periods---are due to small deviations in the orbit of the earth around the sun call Milankovitch cycles.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/#.V6KqOa3ZXys You'll see from the above link that 97% of climate scientists agree with the argument that I posted above. The disagreement is no longer regarding whether it is happening and if humans are responsible, but is more focused on what we should do about it.

Pretty much everything you have posted is incorrect, so it isn't really worth responding to. I'm curious if you 'believe' in coral bleaching, and if so, why you do?

I did answer your question. The reason that it is not meaningful to talk about a correlation coefficient for C02 and Temp is because the model is much more complicated than that. There are dozens of parameters in addition to C02 that explain current temperatures. You cannot perform a simple regression or correlation analysis on those data. By the way, did you read any of my post? Do you really think that 1,000s of climate scientists are all activists that have made up their data? Enough said.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I will say that climate science is extremely complicated, since many factors are involved. Climate scientists use computer models with many parameters to explain current temperature patterns. The most important parameter in their models is carbon dioxide. Let me take a moment to walk you through some of the basic science behind the scientific consensus on climate change and CO2. Firstly, let's take a look at pre-historical patterns of C02 and temperature. The data come from ice cores. You can drill down deeper into glaciers and retrieve bubbles in the ice and directly measure the % of C02 in this preserved atmosphere. You can also reliably estimate the global mean temperature by looking at the ratio of isotopes of H20 in the ice. Heavy water is more prevalent in the ice in warm years. What we see is every 150,000 years or so is an oscillation of temperature and C02. Temperature and C02 are related by something called the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap IR radiation and keep the earth warm. In fact, it is a good thing we have some greenhouse gases, since without them, our planet would be too cold for life. We have a problem when humans release large amounts of greenhouse gases like C02 into the atmosphere, on top of what is already there. This causes an enhanced greenhouse effect and global warming / climate change. Now, what is responsible for the 150,000 year oscillations in temperature in C02 before humans were driving around in cars? There are small changes in the orbit of the earth around the sun that happen every 150,000 yrs or so that are called Milankovitch cycles. Because of a slight shift in the orbit, the earth will receive more solar radiation, which initiates warming. This causes the ocean to warm and release dissolved C02, and the tundra to melt, which releases stored C02, which thickens the C02 blanket in the atmosphere. This enhanced greenhouse effect then causes more warming, and subsequent more release of C02 from sinks in the ocean and arctic and this increases warming still more. Eventually an equilibrium is reached for some time (100,000 years or so). Then the Milankovitch cycle reduces the amount of solar radiation that gets to the earth, this causes the ocean to cool and absorb C02 from the atmosphere, this thins the atmosphere and reduces the greenhouse effect, leading to still more cooling. Now, if you look at where we currently are in the global historical cycle, we are near the end of a warming period. This is why scientists in the 70's were concerned that we were headed into an ice age. People who would argue that we are simply in a current natural cycle of warming should look to see if we are actually getting more solar radiation as a result of the Milankovitch cycle---We are not. In fact, because of a phenomenon called "global dimming" we are getting less solar radiation now. This is because of particulate pollution in the atmosphere that reflects solar radiation back into space before it even reaches the earth. Below is a graph that shows declining surface solar radiation (global dimming) while at the same time global warming. Here is another graph of historical and recent C02 levels. See how high our current C02 levels are? Now take a look at recorded temperatures below. We are going up and up. (The red bars are mean annual temperatures above the overall mean since 1880.) Why isn't there a simple plot of temperature and C02 like you referred to? The reason is that the relationship is not so simple. There are dozens of other parameters besides C02 in the climate change model. C02 is the most important "driver" of current warming, but it is not correct to just plot temperature on C02 because it oversimplifies the model. Now, why hasn't temperature gotten as high as we would expect based on the current levels of C02? The ocean. The ocean has absorbed most of this excess C02, and this is what is causing the current critical issue of ocean acidification. Without the help of the ocean, our current temperatures would certainly be much higher than they are today. The ocean can only absorb so much C02, however, and there are other side effects of this on corals, as we should all recognize in this forum.

Lancetfish! Cool.

Two main ways. 1) Climate change. An enhanced greenhouse effect due to 100% higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than observed in the last 800,00 years has led to warming in the oceans, which stresses corals and leads to bleaching. 2) Ocean Acidification. Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere causes more to dissolve into the ocean, which forms carbonic acid and causes the ocean's pH to drop. This is the same thing that happens when you let too much CO2 dissolve from your Ca reactor into your tank. Ocean acidification reduces the ability of stony corals to form their skeletons.

Thanks!

The egg, yes. It has been fairly consistent for me. I also use the Salifert PO4 test.