That was it! Thanks!

You're welcome, and I should have pointed out that it was anecdotal, so thank you.

hehe, don't get me started! Fascinating observation and question. Something I've thought about many times.

Let me start off with a couple points (all my questionable knowledge - research further if interested):

1. Corals, well, *MOST* corals (especially in the shallower ranges) are symbiotic creatures. They host a type of algae called zooxanthellae. The zooxanthellae use respiration (nutrients) and light to create simple sugars which provide energy to the corals. Oftentimes reefkeepers rely almost 100% on this relationship to feed corals and never actually feed them directly.

zooxanthellae are also largely responsible for the corals gorgeous florescent coloration under certain lighting (around 420nm wavelength if memory serves)

2.Corals reproduce by two means; fragmentation, just breaking off a piece - or cutting of soft-bodied, and sexually (releasing ova and sperm into the water column). Corals release MASSIVE amounts of sperm and ova when they breed, but mortality is high - alas, filter feeders (inlcluding themselves) are effecient. Interestingly - at least as of the last time I studied it about a decade ago - we don't know how to trigger sexual reproduction in captivity, so we just use "fragging". It's something to do with temperature, moon-phase, blah blah, who knows? hehe

3. Unrelated trivia: Had to look it up because I hated that I forgot the exact numbers - IN THE HOBBY, we shoot for a ph between 8.0-8.4. I don't think I've ever exceeded 8.2 for any extended amount of time.

Ok, now to your questions, I think the answer is, for the most part, adaptation, within the bounds of chemistry, anyway. No skeletal material is going to survive for long under 7 or so. Terminators notwithstanding.

So let's talk about bleaching - bleaching isn't actually the coral dying - it's the zooxanthellae dying - thus the loss of color and the term bleaching. That said, corals typically don't last long after, and I'm not aware of any success in reseeding the algae in a bleached coral. Being an algae zooxanthellae can reproduce fairly quickly (assumption) and therefore mutations can happen on a more rapid basis. As long as the negative environmental factors doin't outpace, timewise, the ability/chance of an appropriate mutation then they can adapt and go on to breed more resilient zooxanthellae themselves.

As mentioned earlier corals also reproduce (sexually) pretty prolifically, even with the high mortality rate. So plenty of chance to mutate there as well and add onto that an increased growth of zooxanthellae population of a new coral and you're chances get even greater (within context).

So yes, coral bleaching is disastrous, especially en-mass. However, there are populations that are gaining resilience to some of the environmental pressures.

The environmental runoff factor is an entirely different discussion and as I haven't thought about it as much I'll just make a couple points but avoid any strong conclusions.

The primary environmental runoff into the oceans (that I'm addressing, anyway - sulfuric acid is sulfuric acid, after all - are fertilizers and sewage. Both are extremely high nutrient sources (by definition). Look up the "nutrient cycle" if you're interested in more - same processes work on solid ground as well . Specifically the migration of ammonia to nitrite to nitrate. If your at all familiar, these are the components of fertilizer and biological waste.

Plants (including zooxanthellae) consume these nutrients and use them for growth and energy. This is why you can see algae blooms in stagnate areas or areas of high runoff.

So, I would think that too much of a good thing could be an issue. Or, perhaps, algae blooms cutting off light to more benthic organisms?

Definitely a very interesting question that I haven't thought about before - and the above is very much my thought-train first ramblings on the subject.

Temperature also, of course, plays a part. Increased temperature means increased metabolism, etc.

Thanks for the interesting discussion, now I'm going to have to go down a rabbit hole! hehe

Please, just don't. I have zero beef with you or your point of view. I won't even argue with YOUR POINT. However, please show me the same respect and not use my post as a forum for your unrelated points - I said absolutely nothing about the fossil fuel industry - and yes I have thoughts, but didn't need them to make my point.

What I said is to be taken at face value. The strategy the anthropomorphic climate change proponents employed was a losing strategy, sadly. Full-stop.

The fossil fuel industry may have (I'll even nod to probably) employed the strategies (or adjacent) that you mention, but that didn't force a bad strategic choice on the opposing side - it was a choice, IMHO, the wrong one. Other's may disagree - I'm down, that's healthy. And I'm happy to learn and argue my point. Over a beer and a game of darts - not here.

@SlashbotAgent - I had a great reply written up for you but go side-tracked and closed it. Will redo it in a bit.

So, glad this place is for geeks and nerds 'cause I'm about to double down. Not only am I a programmer/tech leader (ret.) but I've also been a reefkeeper for even longer - and I started out on trash-80 mod I and PDPs. In laymans terms I have aquariums and I keep corals, fish, inverts, etc.

Now, I neither push the climate panic or climate denier line. I, personally, think it's something to pay attention to - I don't think (hope?) any of us would argue that chemistry actually exists. However, I do think the climate scientists made a HUGE strategic error yelling that the sky is falling from every rooftop they have access to and now Mr & Mrs J. Doe are bored and numb.

I've said for the past 20 years or so that modeling the climate on the level and timeframes they've been claiming is absolutely impossible from a resource and compute standpoint - see all the revised predictions. For the same time, though, I've been saying I *AM* concerned about the interaction of CO2 with the planets oceans - and that's something I do know something about.

Ocean chemistry is pretty well known, fascinating, and pretty accessible, frankly (after all, I get it). I have seen, first hand, in my own home(s), on multiple occasions the effect that a surplus of CO2 on ocean life. Most modern houses are far too well sealed to allow for gas exchange with the atmosphere at large. So with people, kids, dogs, cats, etc consuming the oxygen and filling the place up with CO2 you have to be careful caring for reefs in a house. There are many times I've had to bake baking soda (sodium bi-carbonate) into sodium carbonate to deal with some emergency or another (add to water to capture carbon and it precipitates out). Or, and I don't remember what the material is, off the top, but there's a material that you can run air through on the way to a protein skimmer or other piece of equipment that injects air into the water to remove CO2 (think it's the same stuff that CO2 scrubbers use).

Anyway, the effects that I have personally seen are that corals do struggle to build skeletal material, and can, in fact, lose material as can other inverts (think snails, shellfish, etc). The ideal for marine water is a little north of 8 (8.1-8.2 if I remember correctly - I'm not running a reef right now). And, of course, if the PH is low enough, long enough, mortality goes up across the board.

Anyway, not screaming that the sky is falling, but this is a VERY easy piece of science to check up on yourself - can even run a cheap experiment at home (my daughter did for an elementary science fair project). My only point is that it IS something to pay attention to, definitely. And it's relatively easy to understand, and even see it yourself in action.

(sorry for the text wall, it's been years since I've posted anything, so : b)

Here's the deal. My answer is HELL NO! BUT! With personal freedom comes personal responsibility which includes an amount of emotional maturity seriously lacking in the US (on all sides, and in other places) right now. Personal freedom is also freedom to make the RIGHT choice, to choose to wear a mask, to choose not to go have thanksgiving your 90 y/o grandmother. We've lost sight of that and it's all about acting like a 10 year old (which my son is, so not guessing ; ) lashing out against having to eat their broccoli. They're not not wearing masks as an exhibition of personal freedom, their not wearing them as a tantrum of defiance against being told what to do. Which - if they'd made the correct decision in the first place - they wouldn't have to be told what to do. Thus - my answer. I'm philosophically against that sort of federal power, however, if we're not smart enough to understand the responsibility of personal freedom, then I guess we do have to let the federal government do what it can to save lives. And those of us that do understand can keep watching for the time to change our address as the country becomes unrecognizable due to increasing federal power.

*takes a moment to appreciate your lawn and morn my own*

*TPs your house*

Take that grandpa!

Meh! You've only got a year on me. Lighten up : b

Don't think there's enough oil man. . .sadly.

Ahhh, you're one of those serious types. Apologies, please ignore my previous post.

Ahhh, I DO see your logic. . .see billionaire, shoot, give money to homeless, homeless person now billionaire, see them, shoot them, give money to next homeless person R&R. I guess that IS one way of taking care of the homeless problem - not sure it's exactly what society has in mind though.

Damn those unintended consequences!

So, I can't help but wonder if Galileo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair/ was more into Duran Duran or Dead Kennedys?

Inquiring minds want to know!

(Sorry all, just couldn't help myself)

Please slow down and THINK! If you are a company are you going to spend a huge chunk of money on R&D if the product can immediately be copied and sold as cheaply or cheaper than you can bring it to market? I think not - or, rather, I (and everybody else) wouldn't invest in your company if you did.

Intellectual property laws are absolutely essential for innovation. The company fronting the cost of the research should be able to recoup R&D investment and make a bit of profit. That incentivizes innovation. In this current age of hating capitalism the progressive philosophy is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There's a TON of abuse that need to be addressed - and best without legislation if possible ( https://news.slashdot.org/stor... ). But it's still, VERY far and away, the most effective and proven means of creating innovation, opportunity, and spreading wealth (i.e. creating a middle class).

That said, our current IP laws have been extended far beyond their original (and intelligently designed) intent and need to be reigned in. But honestly, that's more of a problem with lobbying and term limits rather than expecting companies to act non-rationally (ostensibly). After the company recoups investment and makes a little profit the IP should become public domain as to be used as the basis for further innovation. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work.

Not necessarily disagreeing with your assessment of the efficacy of protests. However, it is a bit short-sighted to presume incentives as being the most effective policy for the greater good.

Speculation. Money pouring into market cap in the hopes of making more money. If there were no exchanges to facilitate speculation you may very well be right. But once people start trading it the value based on production cost is out the window.

P.S. This is sold as the Netgear N600.