What will happen when our pets become critically endangered?

[brandon429]

When our captive corals become endangered and gone in the wild, the ones we keep in our homes will be a valuable source of study/reseeding and preservation for some lines which is why I think simplifying reefing is so important for mass participation

Simplify means thousands will take on aquaculture frags of no loss to any natural reef and produce clones

Clones put back in the wild, if conditions ever revert, begin meiosis and gamete production phasing and selection begins again.

Part of a coral’s innate adaptability is being so dang cool a human gives it favor. a tiny fraction of coral biome will persist even if they all die in nature. Same for cats

 

[Gareth elliott]

When our captive corals become endangered and gone in the wild, the ones we keep in our homes will be a valuable source of study/reseeding and preservation for some lines which is why I think simplifying reefing is so important vs teching it $

Simplify means thousands will take on aquaculture frags of no loss to any natural reef and produce clones

Clones put back in the wild, if conditions ever revert, begin meiosis and gamete production phasing and selection begins again.

Part of a coral’s innate adaptability is being so dang cool a human gives it favor. a tiny fraction of coral biome will persist even if they all die in nature. Same for cats

Why i hope as wild collection faces more hurdles where they were collected becomes part of the known as the collector end.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Just looking at transpiration and respiration cycles you have to wonder why we are not seeing explosive growth in plants in areas of higher C02 levels in the tropics and temperate forest around urban areas.

Are you sure thats not occuring?

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/change_in_leaf_area.jpg

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth. Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.

However, carbon dioxide fertilization isn’t the only cause of increased plant growth—nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight changes all contribute to the greening effect.

Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect

 

[biophilia]

I love science. Always have. Just not that good at it. I'm better at math. So I'll go back to what I said earlier. It's a math problem. Conceding that CO2 causes climate change how do we reduce it. Here is my formula: where x=population, y=per capita emissions and z= total CO2 emissions. (x)(y)=z . Lowering y without accounting for x is at best a zero sum game. You say most people have moved past the debate, but they haven't even began to debate the root cause.

I love the concept of re-framing the way problems are looked at into the language and lens of different disciplines. Fortunately population trends in both developed and developing nations make it pretty clear that women by-and-large favor K-selection when afforded agency over their own reproduction and education. I think sustainable development that focuses on human well-being can solve population overshoot issues organically that way, but totally agree with you that it’s an issue that is often overlooked when we talk about resource consumption.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

@biophilia
Some population studies indicate actual declines in birth rates in many developed countries. The population models suggest population declines world wide. I guess we are not all Guppies and Rabbits after all...lol. Perhaps we are hitting a population ceiling in the future?

 

[biophilia]

Just looking at transpiration and respiration cycles you have to wonder why we are not seeing explosive growth in plants in areas of higher C02 levels in the tropics and temperate forest around urban areas. It seems a question that should be studied. Are their other factors that could affect those cycles we are unaware of? How does methane affect these exchanges? What other factors are contributions to the assumptions we are making about the impact of Carbon and C02 levels? Is fear mongering at the core? I remember in my lifetime a news report that we were entering the next ice age in a 10-20 year span. That was over 40 years ago!

The bad thing about science is you can start out with the wrong assumptions and arrive at a wrong conclusion. You should start with an open mind and allow the observation and repeatable results to guide you to a conclusion. My father was a scientist and researcher who showed me many examples of this in his area of study. His conclusions led to the Surgeon General finally accepting the fact that smoking is hazardous to your health! He started in a time when some doctors prescribed smoking as a health benefit to their patient's. The science did not lead to the conclusion many had already accepted as settled science!

I think the more CO2 = more plant biomass issue is much more complicated than it appears on the surface because of issues like diminishing topsoil, changing of vegetative zones, the edge effect when wild lands become patchworked by slash-and-burn ag and development, etc.

As for the “coming ice age” stuff in the 70’s, even then it was sensational in the news media, but there are only a handful of mentions in the actual scientific literature at that time. One of my climate science professors was working on modeling global warming with Wally Broecker back at Columbia in the later 70’s and global warming was certainly not a novel concept at that point.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

As for the “coming ice age” stuff in the 70’s, even then it was sensational in the news media, but there are only a handful of mentions in the actual scientific literature at that time.

Most everything you write seems just propaganda.
Dangerous global cooling was the mainstream scientific belief at the time & the news media reflected exactly that. The BBCs The Weather Machine documentary aired in 1974, & In search of 'The Comming Ice age' in 1978 which showed it persisted.
As far as the scientific litreture at the time is concerned, neither the level of funding, nor the number of scientific participants can compare to what is happening now.
Funding for climate science at the time was less than a million dollars & year in the US, & the word climate scientist didn't exist. Those involved in various areas of climate study were far & few between as compared to today. Why?
Prior to James Hansen's (an astro & computational physisist) congressional testimony in 1988, a testimony which was the catalysis in the creation of the global warming funding gravey train, funding for climate research was $170 million a year. From there, yearly funding immediatly jumped to $2 Billion a year. Naturally, every scientist & his dog, who had no interest in climate at all, other than from the aspect of CO2, wanted to get as much of it as they could. And of course, even though many of them will preach that the science is settled, even more research funding is always necessary because further research is always needed. And if you make the people with the money believe that your area of research involves the worst of the comming catastrophy, then all the better.

One of my climate science professors was working on modeling global warming with Wally Broecker back at Columbia in the later 70’s and global warming was certainly not a novel concept at that point.

Really, & how many mentions in the scientific literature did that garner?

fast forward to 13 minutes
News articles*:

1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future(The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)

1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)

1970 – New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)

1970 – Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)

1970 – Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)

1970 – Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)

1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)

1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)

1970 – Dirt Will .Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)

1971 – Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)

1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)

1971 – Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)

1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)

1971 – Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)

1971 – Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)

1972 – Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)

1972 – Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)

1972 – Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)

1972 – British expert on Climate Change says Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)

1972 – Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, ‎September 11, 1972‎)

1972 – New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)

1972 – Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)

1972 – Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ‎September 12, 1972‎)

1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)

1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)

1972 – Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)

1973 – The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)

1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)

1974 – New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)

1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)

1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)

1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)

1974 – Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)

1974 – Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, ‎December 4, 1974‎)

1974 – Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, ‎December 5, 1974‎)

1974 – More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel – ‎December 5, 1974‎)

1974 – Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 5, 1974)

1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)

1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)

1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)

1975 – Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, ‎March 2, 1975‎)

1975 – Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator – ‎March 2, 1975‎)

1975 – Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)

1975 – New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, ‎March 2, 1975‎)

1975 – There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, ‎March 2, 1975‎)

1975 – Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, ‎March 3, 1975‎)

1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)

1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)

1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead(PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)

1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)

1975 – Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 11, 1975)

1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)

1977 – Blizzard – What Happens if it Doesn’t Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)

1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)

1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)

1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)

1977 – We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)

1978 – The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978)

1978 – Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)

1978 – Winters Will Get Colder, ‘we’re Entering Little Ice Age’ (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)

1978 – Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978)

1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, ‎January 17, 1978‎)

1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)

1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)

1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)

1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)

1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)

1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

 

[Gareth elliott]

In the immediate future personally I am more concerned with the lack of data on the less well known pollutants on the environment.

Flame Retardants for children’s sleep wear is almost ubiquitous in all wells and water supplies.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es902185u

As an example. But there are numerous others that are equally worrisome.

In the last several decades we have seen emergence of new afflictions on animal populations.

The only communicable form of cancer known anywhere in Tasmanian Devils.

White fungus disease in bats.

Chytridiomycosis in amphibians.

One of the longest duration red tides in recorded history is occurring right now in florida. The largest ever(by size) occurring between alaska and California

A region in China killed all of their native bees, and now they send people to pollinate their crops.

There is no conclusive data on why these have suddenly appeared. But they are occurring same time as the largest decline since the last mass extinction event in biota populations world wide.

Simply saying we are obviously doing somethings that we should find a better way to do them

 

[Scrubber_steve]

When our captive corals become endangered and gone in the wild

What do you base this fatalistic outlook on? Global warming?

http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/999525/Re_The_Science_in_AGW_Climate_

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_reef#History

Times of maximum reef development were

A. The Middle Cambrian 513–501 million years ago (CO2 over 5,000 ppm, average temperature 8°C above present

B. The Devonian 416–359 million years ago (CO2 3,000 to 4,000 ppm, average temperature 8°C above present

C. The Carboniferous 359–299 million years ago (CO2 at present level, temperature range 6°C above present to 10°C below present

D. Late Cretaceous 100–66 million years ago (CO2 1,000 ppm, average temperature 8°C above present

E. And all Neogene 23 million years ago to present), owing to order Scleractinia corals. (CO2 above, to well below present levels, temperature range 5°C above present to 10°C below present.


As seen in the graph calcareous reefs in one form or another have evolved & persisted through all the extremes of ocean & atmospheric temperatures ranges, & carbon dioxide level fluctuations imaginable.
CO2 levels from over 5,000 ppm to 150 ppm. Average high temperatures of 10°C above present to 10°C below present. And seal levels that have fluctuated by more than 300 metres, possibly more than 400 metres, over geologic time.

And yet they have persisted. And although reefs that existed during the Middle Cambrian period (513–501 million years ago) resulted from calcareous algae and archaeocyathids, they were still calcifying organisms like corals are today. What was the pH of the ocean at that time when atmospheric CO2 was over 5,000 ppm? 12.5 times higher than today, in water far warmer than now?

 

[brandon429]

That bait won't work. i wouldn't pretend to understand such a big picture item, surely many reef genera will survive a temperature increase regardless of the cause.
Things seem on a down trend in the wild. If not, that's great. Home reefs are good insurance

For example, it's a travesty that florida staghorn acropora isn't being farmed large scale in hundreds of thousands of simple nano reefs, its mass and gene line perpetuated. Currently blocked for trade in harvested specimens, it would be neat if we got a chance to work with it as an interesting ark by many with productive setups. The coral would not be hard to grow and it's strange how untrusted we are given the innovations posted everyday in reef tank forums. im pretty sure we could collectively outpace the scientists ability in raw mass production + mailed back new mass to florida given the chance.

That's a neat movement to envision, admit it. Researchers scout forums for productive home reef keepers, entrust them with rare frags hit me up in message, keepers and fed ex / ups hookup and get new frags en masse back to a destination for seeding as required. Our hobby practice will then payoff greatly.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

That bait won't work. Things seem on a down trend. If not, that's great. Home reefs are good insurance

For example, it's a travesty that staghorn acropora isn't being farmed large scale in hundreds of thousands of simple nano reefs, its mass and gene line perpetuated. Currently blocked for trade in harvested specimens, it would be neat if we got a chance to work with it as an interesting ark. The coral would not be hard to grow and it's strange how untrusted we are given the innovations posted everyday in reef tank forums.

Bait ??? You didn't even have time to read my post, & obviously didn't

What time frame are you predicting for the total demise of all coral reefs ?

& do you really believe that in that world a hobbie such as reef keeping will still exist

 

[Lowell Lemon]

@Scrubber_steve
I remember the winter of 1975-76 or was it 1976-77, anyway, I was attending high school at a boarding school in Mt. Vernon, OH. Snow so deep it buried semi trucks on the highway for over a week. I skied on the campus because classes were canceled. The school was closed for a month to handle the "energy" shortage and I was one of the last to leave campus to go home in KY. I guess that is why I am not particularly threatened by the current state of affairs. So many experts that were so wrong. Not to diminish what I don't know or understand but just to put it in perspective my past experience. We are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past unless we understand the history right? Thanks for that trip down memory lane! Thanks for all the history I was to lazy to document.

So where are we really in this conversation? Is the climate model that 30 plus nations correct or is it the Russian model that closely tracks our current experience? I guess it is above my pay grade. But I still ask the question and love the way you followed the money. Food for inquiry and further study.

I used to depend on the aquarium industry for a livelihood. As supply diminished I had to make a choice and move to other business models. I do love all the sea life and it's diversity. I also love freshwater planted tanks and the diversity of fish and inverts. I can never walk by a stream, pond, lake, or sea side without stopping to see what lives their. Aquatic life holds a particular attraction for me. Bodies of water are like magnets that draw me in for a closer look. Water is magic in my world view!

 

[MnFish1]

Well - There is no doubt that the climate changes. Is this more due to carbon emissions or more due to deforestation resulting in less carbon utilization? Or is it just part of a. natural cycle? Humankind is likely part of the problem (because humans are destroying natural habitat acre by acre). Its unfortunate that this has become (not here - but in the real world) a political rather than scientific discussion *(on both sides). But - I also know that the people that bemoan the fact that glaciers are disappearing in glacier national park seem to forget that glaciers covered much of what is now the US in the past. Im not a climate change denier - but I do think that until 3rd world countries stop destroying their environments (i.e. rainforest) The US and other countries impact with what we're trying to do will have a small - if any - impact on the problem. IMHO - and its IMHO, EVERYTHING is being blamed on climate change because its 'an agenda'. What is causing coral death? is it warming or acidification of the reefs? Or is it local customs regarding waste disposal? etc etc.

 

[MnFish1]

And - btw - completely relevant to 'our hobby'. There are MANY groups that suggest that keeping ANY type of aquarium should be banned because its cruel to the inhabitants. This is part of the reason for 'coral bans'. It has nothing to do with 'saving coral' or 'saving fish'. Its just that its a government 'doing something' so that it looks like they are 'doing something' - again with likely little or no benefit/effect. Especially the Hawaiian restrictions... again JMHO

 

[pshootr]

It's just a joke I remembered I'm not here to argue, I believe in climate change but I don't care enough to argue about that on the internet I just find the picture funny

Respect

My bad for failing to acknowledge the humor in that.

 

[pshootr]

Do folks think of fish and corals as pets? My dog is a pet, but I think of my reef tank as an ecosystem, a slice of nature. Maybe it’s just unsentimental me.

Forgive me if I misinterpreted this as being insensitive. I can see your point. I guess I think of fish having eyes, and responding to my presents as their lifeline. However you still have an interesting point I believe. On one hand I would say any living thing that relies on your care to survive is considered a pet. However, having said that, I would not consider a houseplant a pet for example. So perhaps I am being insensitive in that respect.

 

[biophilia]

Bait ??? You didn't even have time to read my post, & obviously didn't

What time frame are you predicting for the total demise of all coral reefs ?

& do you really believe that in that world a hobbie such as reef keeping will still exist

I think this a key example of the fundamental difference in outlook that is leading to this impasse. Brandon is not the person who is making predictions about the time-frame for the loss of reefs. The scientists who are experts in that field and have made it their life's work are. I appreciate that you're extremely passionate about your opinion here, but you're essentially proposing relatively simple explanations that go against some of the most fundamental understandings of an entire field of science going back a half century. I wish you luck on your grand theory -- and I look forward to reading your results paper once it passes the muster of peer review, but until then it just doesn't seem worth addressing this long list of points you keep posting.

I'm not a climate scientist and I have no desire to play one on TV. I'm not going to pretend to be qualified to distill the intricacies of incredibly complex natural systems with noisy signals, and hundreds of feedbacks and variables down into a simple explanation that fits in a post on a message board. For the same reason that I wouldn't dare stand up on a soapbox and lecture a room full of people about how all of the astrophysicists have it all wrong. I'm simply not qualified to challenge the work of tens of thousands of experts and have no interest in pretending to be. You're accusing me of pushing propaganda, but I haven't said anything that can't be found in the first chapter of an elementary school physical sciences textbook.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I think this a key example of the fundamental difference in outlook that is leading to this impasse. Brandon is not the person that is making predictions about the timeframe for the loss of reefs. The scientists who are experts in that field and have made it their life's work are.

I’m using the know science to make a point dear fellow. Example; its known that maximum reef development occurred during the Middle Cambrian, 513–501 million years ago. The organisms responsible, calcareous algae and archaeocyathids, were building these reefs through the mechanism of calcification despite atmospheric CO2 levels above 5,000 ppm, some 12.5 time higher than today, & with an average global atmospheric temperature 8°C above present. Whatever the pH of the water was, it posed no problem for them.

I appreciate that you're extremely passionate about your opinion here, but you're essentially proposing relatively simple theories that go against some of the most fundamental understandings of an entire field of science going back a half century.

Quite the opposite in fact. I’m actually copy & pasting the theory as it stands according to the IPCC and the science.

I wish you luck on your grand theory -- and I look forward to reading your results paper once it passes the muster of peer review, but until then it just doesn't seem worth addressing this long list of points you keep posting.

You would only be addressing the most fundamental understandings of an entire field of science as it presently stands

I'm not a climate scientist and I have no desire to play one on TV.

A fictional climate scientist on TV is your best chance

I'm not going to pretend to be qualified to distill the intricacies of incredibly complex natural systems with hundreds of feedbacks and variables down into a simple explanation that fits in a post on a message board.

Good, because you are having trouble accepting the basics

For the same reason that I wouldn't dare stand up on a soapbox and lecture a room full of people

But that’s exactly what you have been doing on here. But nothing I’ve seen you suggest has any truth to it. It’s just made up stuff, by you, to back up you opinion. Take for one example your quote “the remaining 7+ billion on Earth, who have mostly moved past the "debate" and are working on solutions across the political spectrum”
At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. So a significant percentage of that 7 billion live in poverty, & over a billion of them don’t have electricity. The last thing on their minds is climate change & they are not working on solutions. LOL.
But their governments are very happy to promote it, because they will receive lots of free money, from the UN climate Fund. A fund the UN expects to create from donation from the countries that became wealthy from using fossil fuels. An expected total contribution of $100 billion a year, upon year, upon year.
And the rest of the people in the world, well half of them don't agree, & are tired of it, & angry at the cost of living rising as a direct consequence of carbon mitigation attempts.

A United Nations global survey for citizens, guaging peoples concern for "action to be taken on climate change" shows that climate concern ranked dead last, 16th out of 16. From a total of 9,736,484 participants, covering All Countries & Country Groups / All Genders / All Education Levels / All Age Groups http://data.myworld2015.org/

For the same reason that I wouldn't dare stand up on a soapbox and lecture a room full of people about how all of the astrophysicists have it all wrong.

Well, their model spread for 2 x CO2 is 1.5°C to 4.5°C. So logically many of them are wrong.
They certainly got water vapour feedback wrong, & its easily proven!

 

[ca1ore]

For example, it's a travesty that florida staghorn acropora isn't being farmed large scale in hundreds of thousands of simple nano reefs, its mass and gene line perpetuated. Currently blocked for trade in harvested specimens, it would be neat if we got a chance to work with it as an interesting ark by many with productive setups. The coral would not be hard to grow and it's strange how untrusted we are given the innovations posted everyday in reef tank forums. im pretty sure we could collectively outpace the scientists ability in raw mass production + mailed back new mass to florida given the chance..

Interesting you should bring that up. I went diving in the keys this past summer and had a chance to see some of the cultivation ‘lines’ they are using to grow out Florida stag horn (did not see any elk horn) and thought to myself that the reef hobby could grow them out as well. In almost a week of diving we only saw healthy wild colonies once ... on the northern most dive interestingly.

 

[ca1ore]

On geological timescales there’s nothing to worry about, the planet will be fine. Calcifying animals will persist, mammals will get replaced just as the dinosaurs did; it’ll just take a few million years or so. No problem for the planet, a problem for us. Maybe that’s the answer to Fermi’s Paradox.