Inyan

We need more good songs that provoke a real understanding and emotional connection with this great planet of ours.

I've grown mine in what I call bog-ponics. I can tell you... I do have to toss a very large percentage of my Trichocereus hybrids with bridgesii in the mix due to them not being able to take the excess water or humidity. It seems that black and red growth/ infections are very easy for that lot to get when you grow them in a continual bog like environment. For other hybrids/species I find that some that seem robust and grow fast in water/bog type environments still occasionally submit to the same types of infections... just many more months down the road. My personal suggestion, if you grow specimens that can take the water load and keep wet feet... don't ever assume they won't succumb to infections later on down the road. Keep a back up clone if it is a very important or rare specimen. With that said, I'm still experimenting with my own cacti with seeing how much they can take, but I've allowed all of my cacti to dry up for a brief spell as my losses were getting too high for even my own comfort after growing my cacti through the winter months this year. My experiments/cacti this year were all pushed to grow in water at temps in the upper 30's... just a wee bit over freezing with just light dips into freezing for very short periods of time. Many came out with light freeze damage after that and I lost many more. I feel like what I have left is fairly hardy after all of that, but I still have to cull some that are looking sickly.

This little Trichocereus scopulicola x Trichocereus terscheckii is quickly becoming one of my favorites. It is still very young yet and to be honest, I've neglected this one... still once I found her growing I had to water immediately and post.

Some scopulicola x terscheckii hybrids

I'd also add, a shade cloth or only introducing your cacti to direct sunlight for an hour at a time and slowly increasing exposure over time works great if you have slipped up and not grown your cacti in full sunlight or can't for whatever reason. Everything in moderation so to speak. I really should have put that information in my first post. Hope this helps.

I grow my variegated Trichocereus in full sun from the day they are sown as seeds. Seems to work just fine for me that way. If you don't grow your cacti in full sun however, you can burn them regardless of whether they are variegated or not when you first move them out to the sun. Adaptation to a new environment takes time to say the least.

No two ways about it, there simply isn't a lot of posting of factual information as we are seeing many resources are simply one persons opinion. 1880 -0.19 -0.11 1881 -0.1 -0.14 1882 -0.1 -0.17 1883 -0.19 -0.21 1884 -0.28 -0.24 1885 -0.31 -0.26 1886 -0.32 -0.27 1887 -0.35 -0.27 1888 -0.18 -0.27 1889 -0.11 -0.26 1890 -0.37 -0.26 1891 -0.24 -0.27 1892 -0.27 -0.27 1893 -0.32 -0.27 1894 -0.32 -0.24 1895 -0.22 -0.23 1896 -0.11 -0.21 1897 -0.12 -0.19 1898 -0.28 -0.17 1899 -0.18 -0.18 1900 -0.09 -0.21 1901 -0.15 -0.24 1902 -0.3 -0.27 1903 -0.39 -0.3 1904 -0.49 -0.32 1905 -0.28 -0.35 1906 -0.23 -0.37 1907 -0.4 -0.38 1908 -0.44 -0.4 1909 -0.48 -0.41 1910 -0.44 -0.41 1911 -0.43 -0.39 1912 -0.36 -0.35 1913 -0.35 -0.32 1914 -0.16 -0.3 1915 -0.12 -0.29 1916 -0.33 -0.28 1917 -0.43 -0.28 1918 -0.28 -0.28 1919 -0.27 -0.28 1920 -0.25 -0.26 1921 -0.17 -0.25 1922 -0.27 -0.24 1923 -0.24 -0.22 1924 -0.25 -0.21 1925 -0.21 -0.21 1926 -0.09 -0.2 1927 -0.2 -0.2 1928 -0.19 -0.19 1929 -0.35 -0.18 1930 -0.15 -0.19 1931 -0.1 -0.19 1932 -0.17 -0.18 1933 -0.3 -0.18 1934 -0.14 -0.17 1935 -0.21 -0.15 1936 -0.16 -0.12 1937 -0.04 -0.08 1938 -0.03 -0.03 1939 -0.03 0.01 1940 0.11 0.05 1941 0.18 0.08 1942 0.05 0.09 1943 0.07 0.09 1944 0.21 0.07 1945 0.09 0.03 1946 -0.07 0 1947 -0.04 -0.04 1948 -0.11 -0.07 1949 -0.11 -0.09 1950 -0.19 -0.08 1951 -0.07 -0.08 1952 0.01 -0.08 1953 0.07 -0.08 1954 -0.15 -0.07 1955 -0.14 -0.06 1956 -0.2 -0.05 1957 0.04 -0.04 1958 0.07 -0.01 1959 0.03 0.02 1960 -0.02 0.03 1961 0.06 0.02 1962 0.04 0 1963 0.07 -0.02 1964 -0.2 -0.03 1965 -0.1 -0.04 1966 -0.05 -0.05 1967 -0.02 -0.04 1968 -0.07 -0.03 1969 0.07 -0.01 1970 0.03 0 1971 -0.09 0 1972 0.01 0 1973 0.16 -0.01 1974 -0.08 0 1975 -0.02 0.01 1976 -0.11 0.03 1977 0.17 0.07 1978 0.06 0.12 1979 0.16 0.16 1980 0.27 0.19 1981 0.33 0.21 1982 0.13 0.22 1983 0.31 0.21 1984 0.16 0.21 1985 0.12 0.23 1986 0.18 0.25 1987 0.33 0.28 1988 0.41 0.31 1989 0.28 0.34 1990 0.44 0.34 1991 0.41 0.33 1992 0.22 0.33 1993 0.24 0.33 1994 0.31 0.34 1995 0.44 0.37 1996 0.33 0.4 1997 0.47 0.43 1998 0.62 0.45 1999 0.4 0.48 2000 0.4 0.5 2001 0.54 0.52 2002 0.62 0.55 2003 0.61 0.58 2004 0.53 0.6 2005 0.67 0.61 2006 0.62 0.61 2007 0.64 0.61 2008 0.52 0.62 2009 0.63 0.62 2010 0.7 0.62 2011 0.57 0.63 2012 0.61 0.67 2013 0.64 0.71 2014 0.73 0.77 2015 0.86 0.83 2016 0.99 0.89 2017 0.9 0.95 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Seriously though, does it hurt pretending to be that slow or does it really just come naturally to you?

https://climate.nasa.gov Seems all the evidence is to the contrary. Of course, I think you must be much more intelligent than that guys over at NASA and the many other scientific groups over the world.

I simply believe in providing factual information, but if you want to believe I'm a secret agent man... then go right ahead my friend. The amount of effort you don't put into providing proofs or evidence for your claims leads me to conclude you are perhaps just trolling. Suffice it to say, I'd like to believe you don't actually believe the nonsense spewing forth from your lips, but I may never know that for certain.

See your below posts. Bottom line, some people will probably continue to believe that the Earth is flat even if you take them into outer space and fly them around the globe. I'm hoping your not one of those people, but I would not be surprised.... When you refer to science that has a 97% consensus as being bs... I have to question your understanding of science as you appear to be either smarter than 97% of the scientists out there or lost in a world of confirmation bias. My money is on confirmation bias, but I'm open to other possibilities as well. Again, the overall scientific consensus on the acidification of the ocean is that it is indeed real. We can actually measure the acidification of the ocean after all. Arguing against this one is about as lame as arguing against the fact that evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.

Funny enough, our President Trump aka the Orange Anus, thinks global warming is a Chinese hoax. With that said, the majority of scientists all over the world are in agreement on the subject of Ocean Acidification and Global Warming. So... take that for what its worth. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. American Association for the Advancement of Science "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3 American Chemical Society "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 American Geophysical Union "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5 American Medical Association "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6 American Meteorological Society "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7 American Physical Society "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8 The Geological Society of America "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9 SCIENCE ACADEMIES International academies: Joint statement "Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10 U.S. National Academy of Sciences "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11 U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES U.S. Global Change Research Program "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12 INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13 “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14 OTHER RESOURCES List of worldwide scientific organizations The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action. http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php U.S. agencies The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change. https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2012/02/climate-change-adaptation-what-federal-agencies-are-doing.pdf https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ " "Current Scientific Understanding My comments on our state of knowledge about ocean acidification are based on a broad scientific consensus as represented in the current scientific literature and recent in scientific assessments compiled by the scientific community, in particular the United Kingdom Royal Society (Royal Society, 2005), the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) (Schuster et al., 2006), and a U.S. science workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United States Geological Survey (Kleypas et al., 2006). The current rapid rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, due to our intensive burning of fossil fuels for energy, is fundamentally changing the chemistry of the sea, pushing surface waters toward more acidic conditions. Greater acidity slows the growth or even dissolves ocean plant and animal shells built from calcium carbonate, the same mineral as in chalk and limestone. Acidification thus threatens a wide-range of marine organisms, from microscopic plankton and shellfish to massive coral reefs, as well as the food webs that depend upon these shell-forming species. Rising CO2 levels will also alter a host of other marine biological and geochemical processes, often in ways we do not yet understand. Ocean acidification is a critical issue for the 21st century impacting on the health of the ocean, the productivity of fisheries, and the conservation and preservation of unique marine environments such as coral reefs. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increased by nearly 40%, from pre-industrial levels of about 280 ppmv (parts per million volume) to nearly 384 ppmv in 2007 (Solomon et al. 2007). This rate of increase, driven by human fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is at least an order of magnitude faster than has occurred for millions of years, and the current concentration is higher than experienced on Earth for at least the last 800,000 years and likely the last several tens of millions of years (Doney and Schimel, 2007). About 1/3 of this excess, anthropogenic carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean, where it forms carbonic acid and a series of dissociation products. The release of hydrogen ions from the breakdown of carbonic acid lowers the pH of seawater, shifting the normally somewhat alkaline seawater (surface pH about 8.2) toward more acidic conditions. As important for many organisms is the simultaneous reduction in carbonate ion concentration, which is used in the construction of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) shells. Ocean acidification is a predictable consequence of rising atmospheric CO2 and does not suffer from uncertainties associated with climate change forecasts. Absorption of anthropogenic CO2, reduced pH, and lower calcium carbonate saturation in surface waters, where the bulk of oceanic production occurs, are well-verified from models, hydrographic surveys and time series data (Feely et al 2004; Orr et al 2005). Since preindustrial times, the average ocean surface water pH has fallen by about 0.1 units, from about 8.21 to 8.10 (Royal Society, 2005), and is expected to decrease a further 0.3-0.4 pH units (Orr et al., 2005) if atmospheric CO2 concentrations reach 800 ppmv (the projected end-of-century concentration according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) business as usual emission scenario; Solomon et al. 2007). The most sensitive areas may be the subpolar North Pacific, the Southern Ocean, and along the Pacific continental shelf and margin where waters are already near or at corrosive levels for some carbonate shells (Feely et al., 2008). The problem of ocean acidification will be with us for a long time because it takes centuries to thousands of years for natural processes, primarily mixing into the deep-sea and increased dissolution of marine carbonate sediments, to remove excess carbon dioxide from the air. Ocean acidification appears to have a significant, and often negative impact on many ocean plant and animal species. The magnitude and even the sign of the biological effects, however, differ from organism group to group and on the specific biological processes involved. Rising atmospheric CO2 alters seawater chemistry in several different ways---reducing pH, increasing the partial pressure of dissolved CO2 gas (pCO2), increasing total dissolved inorganic carbon, and reducing carbonate ion and the saturation state of calcium carbonate minerals. Because of the reduction in calcium carbonate saturation state, much of the research emphasis has been on shell-forming plants and animals that use calcium carbonate including some plankton (coccolithophorids, foramaniferia, and pteropods), benthic mollusks (clams, oysters and mussels), echinoderms (sea urchins), corals and coralline algae. Laboratory experiments show that ocean acidification and changes in ocean carbonate chemistry directly harms many of these calcifying species by reducing shell formation, slowing growth rates and hindering reproduction (Fabry et al., 2008a). The degree of sensitivity varies among species, however, and some organisms may show enhanced calcification at CO2 levels projected to occur over the 21st century (Iglesias-Rodríguez et al., 2008). However, calcification-CO2 response studies exist for a limited number of species in many calcifying groups, and currently, we lack sufficient understanding of calcification mechanisms to explain species-specific differences observed in manipulative experiments. "https://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=8916&tid=282&cid=43766

I think there is a clear misunderstanding here... " Devolution, de-evolution, or backward evolution is the notion that species can revert to supposedly more primitive forms over time. The concept is related to the idea that evolution has a purpose (teleology) and is progressive (orthogenesis), for example that feet might be better than hooves or lungs than gills. However, evolutionary biology makes no such assumptions, and natural selection shapes adaptations with no foreknowledge of any kind. It is possible for small changes such as in the frequency of a single gene to be reversed by chance or selection, but this is no different from the normal course of evolution." Evolutionary biology does not make these assumptions...

I'm really sorry, but you saying science is bs doesn't make science bs. Just like someone saying the world is flat doesn't make the world flat. https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification With that said, " Fundamental changes in seawater chemistry are occurring throughout the world's oceans. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from humankind's industrial and agricultural activities has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean. Initially, many scientists focused on the benefits of the ocean removing this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. However, decades of ocean observations now show that there is also a downside — the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is changing the chemistry of the seawater, a process called OCEAN ACIDIFICATION." https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification "For tens of millions of years, Earth's oceans have maintained a relatively stable acidity level. It's within this steady environment that the rich and varied web of life in today's seas has arisen and flourished. But research shows that this ancient balance is being undone by a recent and rapid drop in surface pH that could have devastating global consequences....Scientists now know that about half of this anthropogenic, or man-made, CO2 has been absorbed over time by the oceans. This has benefited us by slowing the climate change these emissions would have instigated if they had remained in the air. But relatively new research is finding that the introduction of massive amounts of CO2 into the seas is altering water chemistry and affecting the life cycles of many marine organisms, particularly those at the lower end of the food chain."https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/ http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification "Since the beginning of the industrial era, the ocean has absorbed some 525 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, presently around 22 million tons per day. At first, scientists thought that this might be a good thing because it leaves less carbon dioxide in the air to warm the planet. But in the past decade, they’ve realized that this slowed warming has come at the cost of changing the ocean’s chemistry. When carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater, the water becomes more acidic and the ocean’s pH (a measure of how acidic or basic the ocean is) drops. Even though the ocean is immense, enough carbon dioxide can have a major impact. In the past 200 years alone, ocean water has become 30 percent more acidic—faster than any known change in ocean chemistry in the last 50 million years....Many chemical reactions, including those that are essential for life, are sensitive to small changes in pH. In humans, for example, normal blood pH ranges between 7.35 and 7.45. A drop in blood pH of 0.2-0.3 can cause seizures, comas, and even death. Similarly, a small change in the pH of seawater can have harmful effects on marine life, impacting chemical communication, reproduction, and growth.".http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification https://www.epa.gov/ocean-acidification/understanding-science-ocean-and-coastal-acidification

https://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html "Earth's atmosphere is leaking. Every day, around 90 tonnes of material escapes from our planet's upper atmosphere and streams out into space. Although missions such as ESA's Cluster fleet have long been investigating this leakage, there are still many open questions. How and why is Earth losing its atmosphere – and how is this relevant in our hunt for life elsewhere in the Universe?Given the expanse of our atmosphere, 90 tonnes per day amounts to a small leak. Earth's atmosphere weighs in at around five quadrillion (5 × 1015) tonnes, so we are in no danger of running out any time soon."Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html#jCp I don't believe the vast majority of us are more knowledgeable than the experts (majority consensus) who are in agreement that we are indeed having an effect on our climate. The acidification of our oceans is a very real phenomenon. Man is indeed polluting the environment. Now, when I see efforts being made to use more solar, wind, i.e. renewable sustainable sources of energy that are much healthier to the environment I get excited.

As you can see DualWieldRake, that post you quoted was indeed about the acidification of the ocean.

That post was not about hot or cold, it was about the acidification of the ocean and as such it was dead on target as the ocean has never been more acidic ever.

Crested variegated Zelly hybrid. I can't wait to see this one sporting a colorful flower when it gets a bit older. Having a variegated crested with red flowers is going to be nice to carry forth all three of those phenotypes in the offspring.