BeltwayBandit

Just tagging on to YBeNormal's post.. In addition to 'personal' attacks, please refrain from bringing arguments here from other forums. We have a very cordial relationship with our sister clubs throughout this area and the rest of the country. We would like to keep it that way. I know that sometimes it is tempting, but please lets all take the high road here. We can't control what happens on other forums, but we can control what is said here. I will not tolerate any more negative comments about the way CMAS or any other reef clubs handle their own business. So, this is a warning to everyone, lets talk about reefs not each other. Thanks. BB Moderator

when I had my tank.... :( I would feed a mixture of flake and pellets every day. Every other day, or third day, I had a frozen mix of mysis, silverside, cyclopeeze, shrimp, and a few other meaty bits that I would thaw in some tank water. Then take a turkey baster and target feed my hammer, torch, acans, haddoni, and blastos. Most of the food ended up in the water column and the fish ate it. But, a good bit got caught by the various corals and they did very well. It worked out for everyone.

My recommendation is a ranco controller and a titanium heating element (get the ones that do not incorporate a thermostat). I had far better temperature stability with the Ranco than with any previous combination of heaters. The ranco allows you not only to set the temperature, but also the differential (when it kicks on) so you can easily maintain water temp within half a degree if you need to. Just my 2 cents. BB

Carpets are very difficult to split manually. To date, I know of no one who has had long term success with splitting them in this manner. There was a post on RC about someone who tried it. He was a very experienced reefer, but even then neither of the clones lived for more than ~6 months. I would not try it. BB

You don't know what that is? I could tell you, but you would feel silly for not knowing.

The first article is the typical uninformed anti-aquarium rant. It makes some salient points, but it also interjects a lot of falsehoods. For example stating that a yellow tang will only live ~2 years in an aquarium under perfect conditions. That is patently untrue. It is this type of behavior that I find reprehensible with the so-called environmentalists. The fact that they routinely resort to blatant lies in order to scare people to make their points. You can make a very strong argument for conservation without resorting to lies. When you lie you destroy all credibility. (This is not a rant against all environmental organizations, it is a rant against sea shepherd and the other extreme groups out there. FYI sea shepherd are the folks that go out and ram/sink whaling ships and the like and they think that Greenpeace are a bunch of wimps. Just for some perspective on the source.) The bill that you linked to is probably necessary. I know of no industry where wild/native stocks are harvested that will not be overexploited without some government intervention. Its sad, but true. There are people out there who will catch/kill/cut down every exploitable item without regard to future use. Thus, government regulation is necessary. In the long run it will mean more expensive fish, but it will also hopefully mean that we will still have access to them. Catch limits are better than an outright ban.

It is entirely plausible. Inverts are more susceptible to low salinity than fish. It could have been the change in salinity, and not necessarily the low salinity that did him in. Again, inverts are more susceptible to fast changes in water chemistry than vertebrates. Hard to say which one, but everything else being the same I would bet that the water change was responsible for his demise. BB

Well, the earth is approximately 4.5 Billion years old. 115 years is hardly even a drop in the bucket, so to speak. When you consider that the earth has been in a warming cycle longer than the length of the temperature record, it is very significant. Our record only captures the most recent upward swing. Say you start measuring temperature in February. You observe the temperature increasing every month, should you get alarmed? Its the same thing with the temperature record. We started keeping accurate records at the tail end of a period known as the Little Ice Age (winter in my metaphor). We are now in the dog days of summer (look at the HADCRUT3 temperature reconstruction for the last 6 years it is basically flat). So yes, looking at a very short temperature record and getting alarmed is simply tilting at windmills. Your argument is an appeal to authority. There are many examples of where the scientific consensus was wrong. Having numbers on your side does strengthen the argument, but it does not mean that their conclusions are infallible. Regardless, in a discussion of Science opinions do not matter. Its the facts that matter. If you explore the available scientific papers, not the press releases but the actual papers, you will find that there is still a great deal of uncertainty in this whole arena. Why is pointing out that these organizations are dependent on funding a red herring? If skeptical positions can be derided for any real or imagined link to industry, why shouldn't we examine the funding of the alarmist positions. Think about it. The US government is spending Billions of dollars for research in this area. What happens to that money if the problem suddenly goes away? How many scientists have built their careers on this research and are dependent on its continued funding? These are all legitimate questions to ask. Why do those ringing the alarm bells have such a visceral reaction when such questions are asked? I remain unconvinced because I have gone beyond the media and press releases and actually read the underlying research papers. I read the IPCC 4AR-WG1 report. I read the authors correspondence for the IPCC WG1 report. Professionally, I have worked with computer modeling of three dimensional heat transfer operations. I know how difficult it is to match a model to reality on even a small scale. Here is a recent comment by Roy Spencer with regards to cloud feedbacks in computer models. This is just one example of uncertainty in the computer modeling. I have also followed some of the issues with the authors of various articles failing to archive data and code sufficient to reproduce their work (in violation of journal policies) and the failure of the journals to enforce those policies. These are just some of the issues that have me unconvinced that AGW really is a threat.

Wow.. I have to admit that I am surprised to see this piece in the New York Times. I won't spoil it, but it is a must read IMO. (Ok, a little tease. It points out the media bias in reporting of global warming, and how the tired argument with vague references to more 'extreme weather events' is really a canard.) NY Times Article

Please provide a reference where I made denigrating or ad hominem comments about someone for being an 'environmentalist'. I have pointed out the flaws and hypocrisy of some environmentalist propaganda, but in principle I generally do support sound science based environmentalism. 1. Correlation does not equal causation. 2. Yes there is some link to the increase in CO2 from man. There is also a natural increase in the CO2 due to the warming climate. Separating the two sources of the increase is difficult. So,

DING DING DING DING we have a winner! That is the real dirty little secret of AGW. The alarmists love to paint anyone who disagrees as some industry funded stooge, however the truth is all of the 'scientists' who support AGW depend on it for their livlihood far more than the ones who offer contrary positions. This is one of my favorite half-truths of the alarmists. Yes, the years are the 'hottest' on record, however the historical record that they are measured against is only 115 or so years long. The earth has been warming since the little ice age for over 200 years. So, getting worked up over the last several years being the hottest on record is akin to being alarmed when the temperature in July is warmer than February. Actually, I believe it was a 1975 Newsweek article. Science isn't a popularity contest. If the science is wrong, its wrong. You also have to look beyond the science when dealing with governments and explore the politics. AGW is far more a political issue than a scientific one. As far as the national scientific bodies, AGW is their gravy train. Would you like to be known as the body that killed the goose that is laying the golden eggs of research funding? Dig a little deeper and go beyond what is selectively fed to you by the environmentalists and the media and you will find that there are far more questions than answers in this debate. You almost made it, yet then you shoot yourself in the foot and destroy your credibility with this last statement. People can and do disagree with the science, based on science. There is no need for blanket ad hominem attacks on people just because you disagree with them.

In my experience, peppermints are absolutely reef safe. You just have to make sure you don't have anything that might make a meal out of them! As far as CBB vs. Peppermint. I have used both. The key is to not let the aiptasia get to the giant stage. When they are small the CBB and peppermint both seem to munch away. It is my preference to use the shrimp before the fish. Here is my logic, with both the fish and the shrimp you are hit and miss weather an individual specimen will actually eat the aiptasia. It is far cheaper to get 5-6 shrimp as opposed to 5-6 CBBs. Also a word of warning about CBBs they are clam nippers. If you have clams I would highly recommend against going the cbb route. If you want another opinion on CBBs and clams just ask John at BRK. [moderator] Ok folks remember it takes two to tango. If someone posts something that you find offensive or annoying please use the report this post button and myself or one of the other officers/moderators will look into it ASAP. Please let us handle it, so that we don't get flame wars between members. Honestly, I think it speaks volumes to the quality and character of our members that these incidents are few and far between. So lets keep it friendly and remember if you read something and it irks you, go back and reread it it probably wasn't the intent of the poster to irk, it is just sometimes difficult to convey tone in a text based environment. Ok back to moderator lurking mode. (I still have 2 tests left)[/mod]

Button fixed.

I think Tim hit the nail on the head. There is a lack of empirical data comparing the two methods. The contact time, if I have this correctly, is the amount of time a specific volume of water remains in the skimmer chamber and exposed to the microbubbles. In a regular skimmer the net flow through the skimmer is higher than that of a recirculating skimmer, therefore it has a lower 'contact time' than the recirc. So you end up with: recirc: less volume cleaned per hour, but returns cleaner water to the system standard: higher volume cleaned, but returns less clean water to the system A test that I would like to see is have identical 'organic loads' placed on a recirc and a nonrecirc skimmer. Run them for a set period of time and then measure the resulting 'organic load' in the system. My gut feeling is you will initially get a quicker knockdown of the 'organic load' with a nonrecirc skimmer because you move more of the water volume per time through the skimmer but that over time the recirc skimmer will settle out at a lower 'organic load' because it is capable of greater organic removal. This is just my assumption based on knowledge of how each skimmer works.

Just another perspective on photography, and how its not just about making pretty pictures. It is also a very useful tool for documenting the progression and growth of all of your critters. That way if something 'seems' amiss, you can refer to your older photographs for some helpful perspective. For example, a coral that used to grow like a weed suddenly doesn't seem to be growing as fast, with photo documentation you can go back and estimate growth rates over time. Not to mention, our reefs are ever changing and it is nice to be able to look back and see how that evolution has progressed. Or, heaven forbid, the dreaded tank crash. Even though my tank didn't crash, I had to break it down and am very glad for the pictures that I have to remember my favorite critters.

If you do a search you will find many folks here who have had issues with WON heaters. I too suffered a malfunction of the 250W digital heater. Fortunately I discovered it before it did any damage. I have found that the titanium heaters are very durable and trustworthy. Another strategy that I employ is the use of two undersized heaters in different locations (for me one in the main and one in the sump). That way neither one is capable of catastrophic heating in the event of a failure. I also switched to the Ranco controller, as the thermostats on most hobby heaters are not that rugged IME.

I think I just saw a ghost... or was that really EricS posting here... Welcome back!

Thanks. I figured that since Haloween was coming I needed to get a 'scary' avatar.

I get the first and last part, but how do filters enter into the equation? "We can fix him. We have the technology...." Just say the word and it shall be done.

BeltwayBandit, while technically a term for government contractors. I work for the government, and I thought it was a good nickname.

"Would everyone agree that the bleaching is due to the fast salinty drop?" Its hard to say. I would say the combination of rapid changes in salinity, pH, DKH, etc. all contributed to the loss. The last time I had a kalk storm in my tank I just took the CO2 bottle off of my calcium reactor and blew shots of CO2 directly into the skimmer to keep the PH from spiking too high. Then I just left everything alone and let the cloudiness settle out on its own. BB

In a fish only system they are not a problem, I think. The problem with them in a reef tank is that they spread rapidly and will sting and kill your corals.

1. Most likely 2. Hyposalinity is common treatment for ICH. You need to run this for at least 28 days or so to make sure you have gone through a complete life cycle. You could also run a commercial copper based treatment, since it is in the hospital tank. You can even do this in conjunction with the hypo. Just make sure that you buy a test kit that is compatible with the copper solution that you are using so you can monitor the copper (or cupramine depending on the treatment) level in the tank. 3. Most likely, however since it is a FOWLR you could try to lower the SG in the main tank and run it in hypo too. Then watch the fish to see if there is an outbreak. If it does show up in the main tank, quarrantine and treatement will probably be required.

I believe you are probably right. From the looks of it the thread was moved to the moderator discussion/deleted threads area. Just because a thread gets 'deleted' doesn't mean it is "deleted." We do the same thing from time to time here. BB

...and then a better idiot will evolve. That's my theory of how common sense met its demise.