Are Natural Systems Smart

[Scrubber_steve]

Does anyone honestly believe that we are NOT causing imbalance to the planets ecosystems?

Climate change or not, burning of fuel is harmful to our health and a major pollutant (chemical emissions and oil spills as examples) so we need a long term clean and renewable solution to our power requirements.

Also we are stuck on this planet for a while yet so rather than run the dumbest experiment ever and continue to pump billions of tons of chemicals into our atmosphere every year and think we will get away with it we need to act before it’s potentially too late.

Would you rather be correct that the earth is not warming and have cleaner, cheaper, more reliable and renewable power or.. the alternative: be wrong and screwed because we were too busy debating climate change rather than acting?

It seems we embrace redundancy for our aquariums but don’t bother for our planet!

The first know major reef building event occurred over 55 million years before present. That means calcification. CO2 was 12.5 times higher than present & average temp was 8C higher than now.
Think about that.

 

[Jase4224]

The first know major reef building event occurred over 55 million years before present. That means calcification. CO2 was 12.5 times higher than present & average temp was 8C higher than now.
Think about that.

Yes but that was normal for that time period. It was stable for a long time and life then was well adapted. How do you think life on earth right now would fare in the event the temp rose 8 degrees in the next century or two?? Your facts may be correct but negligible relative to our current situation.

Look at the bleaching already on the GBR can you imagine if the temp was to rise 2 degrees in the next century the impact would be devastating.

Like I said would you rather be safe or sorry? Simple Sam as far as I’m concerned given I have a two month old daughter I feel partly responsible for what she inherits.

 

[Subsea]

While bacteria have a major role in health of a reef, without algae, inert gas from the atmosphere could not be converted into nutrients for the reef. Both carbon dioxide and nitrogen have a two way process with gas exchange controlled by Dynamic Equilibrium of gas partial pressure. Carbon dioxide gas dissolves readily in water to form carbonate & bicarbonate alkalinity which combines during photosynthesis to form glucose which is a carbon source to grow coral. Remember, coral zooanthelia is algae. Nitrogen gas is converted into ammonia by Cynobacteria in a process called “nitrogen fixation”. To summarize, both nitrogen and carbon are processed by algae and bacteria to grow the reef.

Are bacteria smart? It depends on your definition of smart. Read what science says about
“Quorum Sensing”.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11544353

Since we are talking about carbon dioxide emissions, I thought I would repost this again.

 

[Subsea]

I am not familiar with Scientific American publication. I found the read interesting as it shows the complexity of math modeling greenhouse gases when the formula constants change. The Redfied Ratio as a foundation for all carbon mapping in the ocean was found to be dramatically differrent at differrent temperatures.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-may-absorb-more-carbon-dioxide/

“How much carbon is attached to each molecule of nitrogen or phosphorus just used to be [considered] a constant," said Francois Primeau, a co-author on the paper and an associate professor of Earth system science at UC Irvine.”

“But that's not the case. For example, in warm zones near the equator that are low on nutrients, the ratio of carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus measured was 195:28:1; in cold, high-latitude regions with plenty of nutrients, the ratio changed to 78:13:1. Redfield's ratio is 106:16:1 oceanwide.”

 

[Jase4224]

I am not familiar with Scientific American publication. I found the read interesting as it shows the complexity of math modeling greenhouse gases when the formula constants change. The Redfied Ratio as a foundation for all carbon mapping in the ocean was found to be dramatically differrent at differrent temperatures.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-may-absorb-more-carbon-dioxide/

“How much carbon is attached to each molecule of nitrogen or phosphorus just used to be [considered] a constant," said Francois Primeau, a co-author on the paper and an associate professor of Earth system science at UC Irvine.”

“But that's not the case. For example, in warm zones near the equator that are low on nutrients, the ratio of carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus measured was 195:28:1; in cold, high-latitude regions with plenty of nutrients, the ratio changed to 78:13:1. Redfield's ratio is 106:16:1 oceanwide.”

I have a collection of Scientific American magazines it’s a quality publication. Definitely recommend..

 

[Lowell Lemon]

My concern with the carbon debate is the term "clean renewable energy ". Let me explain. In my area we have lots of water power because of rivers and dams with cheap hydro power. In the last decade, by executive order, wind farms were developed by government subsidy. The carbon footprint due to the petrochemicals necessary to produce, transport and install those wind farms was huge. We already had an over abundance of cheap renewable energy due to hydro power. Now local utilities are required to buy from the new wind farms at a higher kilowatt per hour cost to prop up the unneeded genertation of wind power. So our cost as consumers increased and so did the carbon footprint. This is just one example of a solution being wrongly applied when one was not needed. Now we often see the wind farms shut down because we have a glut of generation capacity. The other dirty secret is that it often takes power to start the wind turbines not just wind. Things that make you say what? Information provided by a friend in the local utility company.

Now the debate is in full swing to breach the dams to increase Salmon runs. No one wants to talk about why the dams were built in the first place. In the recent past spring floods often flooded Portland causing severe damage to what is now a major metropolitan area. Imagine what will happen when sea levels rise and the annual floods return to a large metro area no longer protected by upstream flood control. This is what happens when policy is driven by an agenda instead of practical decisions based on local needs.

Let's not talk about electric cars actual carbon footprint due to the carbon generated to create the electricity in the first place. Let's just ignore the impact of the batteries on the land fills due to the current inability to recycle the toxic waste from the battery packs. More unintended results caused by emotional decisions not based on actual need or good policy. Electricity is imagined by many as a perpetual motion machine with no input required. But a lot of electricity is generated by coal and nuclear generation plants especially near high population density areas. The necessary sources of our power requirements often increase not decrease our carbon footprint.

By the way China was the biggest winner in the wind generation build of President Obama's term in office. All those clean wind energy jobs he promised....all in China. All the major parts were produced in China and shipped here and installed. I watched thousands of trucks burning tons of diesel delivering "clean energy" all over the northwest.

We are often our own worst enemy in terms of good policy for protection of the environment.

 

[Jay Norris]

Not really sure about doomsday projections or Al Gore. I don't really pay much attention to either. But the science behind carbon emissions contributing to a majority of observed warming in recent decades is incredibly robust. If you have a significant body of peer-reviewed research that says otherwise I'd be happy to read it, otherwise it just doesn't really seem worth debating...

I still believe its all the water vapor in the air, caused by the warm oceans, after all isn't water vapor a major green house gas. On another note, isn't most of the temperature increases in the Arctic and Antarctic portions of the globe where water vapor would have the largest impacts.

 

[Subsea]

When policy is driven by an agenda, instead of practical decisions, that sounds like politics which effects our lives every day.

Back to the science of the coral holobiont.

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-micro-102215-095440?journalCode=micro

Abstract
[Corals are fundamental ecosystem engineers, creating large, intricate reefs that support diverse and abundant marine life. At the core of a healthy coral animal is a dynamic relationship with microorganisms, including a mutually beneficial symbiosis with photosynthetic dinoflagellates (Symbiodinium spp.) and enduring partnerships with an array of bacterial, archaeal, fungal, protistan, and viral associates, collectively termed the coral holobiont. The combined genomes of this coral holobiont form a coral hologenome, and genomic interactions within the hologenome ultimately define the coral phenotype. Here we integrate contemporary scientific knowledge regarding the ecological, host-specific, and environmental forces shaping the diversity, specificity, and distribution of microbial symbionts within the coral holobiont, explore physiological pathways that contribute to holobiont fitness, and describe potential mechanisms for holobiont homeostasis. Understanding the role of the microbiome in coral resilience, acclimation, and environmental adaptation is a new frontier in reef science that will require large-scale collaborative research efforts.]

My concern with the carbon debate is the term "clean renewable energy ". Let me explain. In my area we have lots of water power because of rivers and dams with cheap hydro power. In the last decade, by executive order, wind farms were developed by government subsidy. The carbon footprint due to the petrochemicals necessary to produce, transport and install those wind farms was huge. We already had an over abundance of cheap renewable energy due to hydro power. Now local utilities are required to buy from the new wind farms at a higher kilowatt per hour cost to prop up the unneeded genertation of wind power. So our cost as consumers increased and so did the carbon footprint. This is just one example of a solution being wrongly applied when one was not needed. Now we often see the wind farms shut down because we have a glut of generation capacity. The other dirty secret is that it often takes power to start the wind turbines not just wind. Things that make you say what? Information provided by a friend in the local utility company.

Now the debate is in full swing to breach the dams to increase Salmon runs. No one wants to talk about why the dams were built in the first place. In the recent past spring floods often flooded Portland causing severe damage to what is now a major metropolitan area. Imagine what will happen when sea levels rise and the annual floods return to a large metro area no longer protected by upstream flood control. This is what happens when policy is driven by an agenda instead of practical decisions based on local needs.

Let's not talk about electric cars actual carbon footprint due to the carbon generated to create the electricity in the first place. Let's just ignore the impact of the batteries on the land fills due to the current inability to recycle the toxic waste from the battery packs. More unintended results caused by emotional decisions not based on actual need or good policy. Electricity is imagined by many as a perpetual motion machine with no input required. But a lot of electricity is generated by coal and nuclear generation plants especially near high population density areas. The necessary sources of our power requirements often increase not decrease our carbon footprint.

By the way China was the biggest winner in the wind generation build of President Obama's term in office. All those clean wind energy jobs he promised....all in China. All the major parts were produced in China and shipped here and installed. I watched thousands of trucks burning tons of diesel delivering "clean energy" all over the northwest.

We are often our own worst enemy in terms of good policy for protection of the environment.

 

[ReeferReefer]

I have a collection of Scientific American magazines it’s a quality publication. Definitely recommend..

Great magazine for sure. That and Nat Geo are the only ones I read these days.

 

[Art2249]

Man! This thread has gone all over the place! I went back to the original question, are natural systems smart? I will answer that by posing another question. is my septic tank smart? You be the judge.

 

[Subsea]

Man! This thread has gone all over the place! I went back to the original question, are natural systems smart? I will answer that by posing another question. is my septic tank smart? You be the judge.

It depends on what you put in your tank. Garbage in / Garbage out was the montra for computer programmers.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

Man! This thread has gone all over the place! I went back to the original question, are natural systems smart? I will answer that by posing another question. is my septic tank smart? You be the judge.

While this discussion on natural systems takes many turns the simple fact is that one natural system over laps another natural system. Micromanagement does not work in the business environment nor in the management of natural systems. One creates a cascade of unintended consequences when ones focus is to narrow on one or two issues. We need some big picture views to keep us on a better track. It is often said "just because we can does not mean we should". I think we would all better off even in the management of our small natural systems if we could keep that comment in mind. Just because I can afford the latest and greatest tech does not mean my results will be any better than someone who has made a study of how to maintain a more natural system with less tech. Biology and tech do not seem to offer better long term results than good observation and husbandry. There I said it. Now let the discussion begin again.

 

[Art2249]

While this discussion on natural systems takes many turns the simple fact is that one natural system over laps another natural system. Micromanagement does not work in the business environment nor in the management of natural systems. One creates a cascade of unintended consequences when ones focus is to narrow on one or two issues. We need some big picture views to keep us on a better track. It is often said "just because we can does not mean we should". I think we would all better off even in the management of our small natural systems if we could keep that comment in mind. Just because I can afford the latest and greatest tech does not mean my results will be any better than someone who has made a study of how to maintain a more natural system with less tech. Biology and tech do not seem to offer better long term results than good observation and husbandry. There I said it. Now let the discussion begin again.

Taking what you just said into consideration, I will tell you a story. My first septic tank lasted 35 years. We had 4 sons so that was with 6 people. Plus it was a "weekender". That is a septic system installed for people camping out. At the time, it was a very rural area. Eventually the lid corroded and caved in. The system was still working well, as I simply put a tent over the tank and waited until the contractor could install a new one. We probably could have just cleaned the old tank out and put a lid on it.
Instead we decided to put a new system further on down the hill. Since we live on a limestone outcrop, I expect to be dead before this one fails. instead of rebar, the tank and lid is reinforced with fiberglass, so it will never rust.
Everybody in this area is on a well and I don't know how long it takes the "effluent" to reach the water table. But I figure it is a good way to "keep in touch" with your neighbors.

 

[Subsea]

Taking what you just said into consideration, I will tell you a story. My first septic tank lasted 35 years. We had 4 sons so that was with 6 people. Plus it was a "weekender". That is a septic system installed for people camping out. At the time, it was a very rural area. Eventually the lid corroded and caved in. The system was still working well, as I simply put a tent over the tank and waited until the contractor could install a new one. We probably could have just cleaned the old tank out and put a lid on it.
Instead we decided to put a new system further on down the hill. Since we live on a limestone outcrop, I expect to be dead before this one fails. instead of rebar, the tank and lid is reinforced with fiberglass, so it will never rust.
Everybody in this area is on a well and I don't know how long it takes the "effluent" to reach the water table. But I figure it is a good way to "keep in touch" with your neighbors.

Before moving to Texas, I lived in a rural area that had an anaerobic system, septic tank. I never smelled it and the grass was always greener over the field line. Here in Texas, none of our effluent is allowed to perculate in ground. Pop up sprinkler system distributes effluent to grass lawn where most of it evaporates. I smell this new system when it waters. Organic

 

[Jase4224]

My concern with the carbon debate is the term "clean renewable energy ". Let me explain. In my area we have lots of water power because of rivers and dams with cheap hydro power. In the last decade, by executive order, wind farms were developed by government subsidy. The carbon footprint due to the petrochemicals necessary to produce, transport and install those wind farms was huge. We already had an over abundance of cheap renewable energy due to hydro power. Now local utilities are required to buy from the new wind farms at a higher kilowatt per hour cost to prop up the unneeded genertation of wind power. So our cost as consumers increased and so did the carbon footprint. This is just one example of a solution being wrongly applied when one was not needed. Now we often see the wind farms shut down because we have a glut of generation capacity. The other dirty secret is that it often takes power to start the wind turbines not just wind. Things that make you say what? Information provided by a friend in the local utility company.

Now the debate is in full swing to breach the dams to increase Salmon runs. No one wants to talk about why the dams were built in the first place. In the recent past spring floods often flooded Portland causing severe damage to what is now a major metropolitan area. Imagine what will happen when sea levels rise and the annual floods return to a large metro area no longer protected by upstream flood control. This is what happens when policy is driven by an agenda instead of practical decisions based on local needs.

Let's not talk about electric cars actual carbon footprint due to the carbon generated to create the electricity in the first place. Let's just ignore the impact of the batteries on the land fills due to the current inability to recycle the toxic waste from the battery packs. More unintended results caused by emotional decisions not based on actual need or good policy. Electricity is imagined by many as a perpetual motion machine with no input required. But a lot of electricity is generated by coal and nuclear generation plants especially near high population density areas. The necessary sources of our power requirements often increase not decrease our carbon footprint.

By the way China was the biggest winner in the wind generation build of President Obama's term in office. All those clean wind energy jobs he promised....all in China. All the major parts were produced in China and shipped here and installed. I watched thousands of trucks burning tons of diesel delivering "clean energy" all over the northwest.

We are often our own worst enemy in terms of good policy for protection of the environment.

That’s pretty unfortunate when renewable energy sources are implemented completely wrong. Like I Oz there are still political parties that want to keep coal going.. the sun has been reliable for 4.5billion years and we are in the sunniest country in the world lol.

You brought up the carbon cost of actually making, transporting and starting the wind turbines which is an interesting point. I would like to think that these turbines at some point produce enough electricity to offset all that carbon.. ? Hopefully

In Oz we are WAY behind in terms of electric car uptake (and policy) and many people I talk to mention the carbon cost of charging batteries which is a good point, however given one in four houses in Australia has solar panels and the uptake of home solar is exponential here it’s not actually a concern. Who would by an electric car and NOT have solar on their roof that they would then use to charge their car for free/clean? Unless you live in a high rise building of course.

I would love an electric car. I also have a 6.5kw solar system on my roof that produces enough power during the day for 2-3 homes and has cut my power bill in half since I installed it 6 months ago.. in winter. In fact I have seen it produce 1.5kw whilst it was raining. More than my house uses.

The thing is though my solar cost me $5k installed which is not much more than a Red Sea Reefer XXL750. That’s quality components, 10yr warranty on the inverter and 25yr warranty on the panels. It produces an average of 22kwh per day so the cost of producing, transporting and instillation is nothing compared to the clean energy that they produce.

So clean, cheap and renewable energy for the price of a fish tank? No brainer.

It’s also satisfying knowing that when I build my next reef, the vast majority of power it uses will NOT be producing carbon that ultimately damages the actual coral reefs

 

[Scrubber_steve]

That’s pretty unfortunate when renewable energy sources are implemented completely wrong. Like I Oz there are still political parties that want to keep coal going.. the sun has been reliable for 4.5billion years and we are in the sunniest country in the world lol.

You brought up the carbon cost of actually making, transporting and starting the wind turbines which is an interesting point. I would like to think that these turbines at some point produce enough electricity to offset all that carbon.. ? Hopefully

In Oz we are WAY behind in terms of electric car uptake (and policy) and many people I talk to mention the carbon cost of charging batteries which is a good point, however given one in four houses in Australia has solar panels and the uptake of home solar is exponential here it’s not actually a concern. Who would by an electric car and NOT have solar on their roof that they would then use to charge their car for free/clean? Unless you live in a high rise building of course.

I would love an electric car. I also have a 6.5kw solar system on my roof that produces enough power during the day for 2-3 homes and has cut my power bill in half since I installed it 6 months ago.. in winter. In fact I have seen it produce 1.5kw whilst it was raining. More than my house uses.

The thing is though my solar cost me $5k installed which is not much more than a Red Sea Reefer XXL750. That’s quality components, 10yr warranty on the inverter and 25yr warranty on the panels. It produces an average of 22kwh per day so the cost of producing, transporting and instillation is nothing compared to the clean energy that they produce.

So clean, cheap and renewable energy for the price of a fish tank? No brainer.

It’s also satisfying knowing that when I build my next reef, the vast majority of power it uses will NOT be producing carbon that ultimately damages the actual coral reefs

Jase, renewable energy is not viable. It is intermittent & expensive compared to coal & gas. This is why China & india are building hundreds of new coal fired power plants.
India wants its people out of poverty & it said renewables are too expensive.
You'll have no electricity from your solar panels from late afternoon till mid morning & cloudy days. So your still connected to the grid.
Battery backup??? huge cost, & environmentally damaging.
It takes somewhere from 5 to 7 years of intermittent wind turbine output to break even on saved carbon emissions just on the massive concrete slabs to mount these monstrosities on.

If renewables are the answer, & so cheap & reliebale, why isn't every country converting???

Because its a lie.

 

[biophilia]

I still believe its all the water vapor in the air, caused by the warm oceans, after all isn't water vapor a major green house gas. On another note, isn't most of the temperature increases in the Arctic and Antarctic portions of the globe where water vapor would have the largest impacts.

On what research specifically are you basing this belief? Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing due to to short atmospheric residency time coupled with all of the thermal intertia of the system. So while it can certainly amplify warming, it alone can not explain the origin of the warming to begin with. I’m not aware of any research that finds something other than anthropogenic gasses is behind the majority of the recent warming, but if you’d like to provide some I’d love to read it!

If this is simply coming down to my “belief” vs. your “belief” absence actual evidence let’s just drop it and get the thread back on track.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Energy consumption in wind facilities

Large wind turbines require a large amount of energy to operate. Other electricity plants generally use their own electricity, and the difference between the amount they generate and the amount delivered to the grid is readily determined. Wind plants, however, use electricity from the grid, which does not appear to be accounted for in their output figures. At the facility in Searsburg, Vermont, for example, it is apparently not even metered and is completely unknown [click here].* The manufacturers of large turbines -- for example, Vestas, GE, and NEG Micon -- do not include electricity consumption in the specifications they provide.

Among the wind turbine functions that use electricity are the following:†

• yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) -- the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine
  
  
• blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)
  
  
• lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.
  
  
• heating the blades -- this may require 10%-20% of the turbine's nominal (rated) power
  
  
• heating and dehumidifying the nacelle -- according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, "power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds"
  
  
• oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox
  
  
• hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)
  
  
• thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) -- 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost
  
  
• magnetizing the stator -- the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a "large" amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous "cage rotor" that encloses the generator shaft; at the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine's rated capacity, in slower winds possibly much more
  
  
• using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not,‡ particularly during important site tours or noise testing (keeping the blades feathered, ie, quiet)) -- it seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning, along with the gears that increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind§

Continued

 

[Scrubber_steve]

On another note, isn't most of the temperature increases in the Arctic and Antarctic portions of the globe where water vapor would have the largest impacts.

Just on that, there's no warming in the Antarctic polar region

 

[Scrubber_steve]

On what research specifically are you basing this belief? Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing due to to short atmospheric residency time coupled with all of the thermal intertia of the system. So while it can certainly amplify warming, it alone can not explain the origin of the warming to begin with.

water vapour is 95% of the greenhouse gasses. Its not a feedback as such. Its in the atmosphere because the earth is two thirds covered in water & because of evaporation.

I’m not aware of any research that finds something other than anthropogenic gasses is behind the majority of the recent warming, but if you’d like to provide some I’d love to read it!

whatever these papers are, they are hypothesis. There is no way to measure, & thus distinguish between natural warming & greenhoused forced warming. You seem to want to ignor this fact?

If this is simply coming down to my “belief” vs. your “belief” absence actual evidence let’s just drop it and get the thread back on track.

Your belief is based on a hypothesis. There is no proof.