The terrifying phenomenon that is pushing species towards extinction

[good guy]

Scientists are alarmed by a rise in mass mortality events – when species die in their thousands. Is it all down to climate change

here was almost something biblical about the scene of devastation that lay before Richard Kock as he stood in the wilderness of the Kazakhstan steppe. Dotted across the grassy plain, as far as the eye could see, were the corpses of thousands upon thousands of saiga antelopes. All appeared to have fallen where they were feeding.

Some were mothers that had travelled to this remote wilderness for the annual calving season, while others were their offspring, just a few days old. Each had died in just a few hours from blood poisoning. In the 30C heat of a May day, the air around each of the rotting hulks was thick with flies.

The same grisly story has been replayed throughout Kazakhstan. In this springtime massacre, an estimated 200,000 critically endangered saiga – around 60% of the world’s population – died. “All the carcasses in this one of many killing zones were spread evenly over 20 sq km,” says Kock, professor of wildlife health and emerging diseases at the Royal Veterinary College in London. “The pattern was strange. They were either grazing normally with their newborn calves or dying where they stood, as if a switch had been turned on. I’ve never seen anything like that.”

The saiga – whose migrations form one of the great wildlife spectacles – were victims of a mass mortality event (MME), a single, catastrophic incident that wipes out vast numbers of a species in a short period of time. MMEs are among the most extreme events of nature. They affect starfish, bats, coral reefs and sardines. They can push species to the brink of extinction, or throw a spanner into the complex web of life in an ecosystem. And according to some scientists, MMEs are on the rise and likely to become more common because of climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ity-events-animal-conservation-climate-change

 

[good guy]

sixth mass extinction is here

 

[DeadBall]

Nobody (the layman at least) is taking it seriously as it won't probably affect them in their lifetimes. Governments are taking it seriously though apart from hick Trump, although I think it is too late to do much about it. We can still limit the damage but the damage WILL be done.

 

[sweep_shot]

Insects and spiders are declining in forests and grasslands across Germany, according to new research.

Scientists have described the findings as "alarming", saying the losses are driven by intensive agriculture.

They are calling for a "paradigm shift" in land-use policy to preserve habitat for the likes of butterflies, bugs and flying insects

Recent studies have reported widespread declines in insect populations around the world.

The latest analysis, published in the journal, Nature, confirms that some insect species are being pushed down the path to extinction.

It is becoming clearer and clearer that the drivers of insect decline are related to farming practices, said Dr Sebastian Seibold of the Technical University of Munich in Freising, Germany.

"Our study confirms that insect decline is real - it might be even more widespread then previously thought considering, for example, that also forests are experiencing declines in insect populations," he told BBC News.

"I think it's alarming to see that such a decline happens not only in intensively-managed areas but also in protected areas - so the sites that we think are safeguarding our biodiversity are not really working anymore."

The research team recorded data on more than a million individual insects and spiders (2,700 different species) at hundreds of grassland and forest sites in three regions of Germany between 2008 and 2017.

They found that a marked decline in abundance and the number of species in both grasslands and forests, with the main drivers (at least for grasslands) associated with intensive agriculture.

Many other studies in recent years have shown that individual species of insects, such as bees, have suffered huge declines, particularly in developed economies.

However, some insect species, such as houseflies and cockroaches, appear to be on the up.

The general insect decline is linked to intensive agriculture, pesticides and climate change.

The loss of insects has far-reaching consequences for entire ecosystems.

Insects provide a food source for many birds, amphibians, bats and reptiles, while plants rely on insects for pollination.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50226367.

 

[hussain.r97]

Unfortunately, enough is still not being done to mitigate against climate change. There are many dangers of climate change that aren't even being highlighted by the media yet including soil and ocean acidification, clouds vanishing, etc. All these extinctions have unfortunately now being inevitable, the question now is that will humans be able to control the damage? Or are we going to keep emitting greenhouse gases? The big danger is of developing nations in Asia and Africa industrializing in an unsustainable way, and pushing GHG emissions even higher than they are now.

 

[msaaim89]

Unfortunately, enough is still not being done to mitigate against climate change. There are many dangers of climate change that aren't even being highlighted by the media yet including soil and ocean acidification, clouds vanishing, etc. All these extinctions have unfortunately now being inevitable, the question now is that will humans be able to control the damage? Or are we going to keep emitting greenhouse gases? The big danger is of developing nations in Asia and Africa industrializing in an unsustainable way, and pushing GHG emissions even higher than they are now.

The steps that need to be taken are nothing short of radical. It will cause a lot of inconvenience to all. On this basis, the leadership will not push for major action.
[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION] any chance of flies being wiped out?

 

[sweep_shot]

The steps that need to be taken are nothing short of radical. It will cause a lot of inconvenience to all. On this basis, the leadership will not push for major action.

[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION] any chance of flies being wiped out?

Number is definitely decreasing. Some species are currently endangered. You may want to read this article: https://www.cornucopia.org/2019/02/dropping-flies-over-30-of-insects-now-endangered/.

 

[ahmedzee]

There were several ice ages in our history. I wonder if all of those were caused by climate change. That's one answer I would really like to get from scientists. There are forests and frozen mamoth grave below some of the glaciers. How did it happen?

 

[hussain.r97]

The steps that need to be taken are nothing short of radical. It will cause a lot of inconvenience to all. On this basis, the leadership will not push for major action.

[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION] any chance of flies being wiped out?

I understand that acting too radically would put the world's food supply at risk. The problem is that even the most basic steps aren't being taken, nor do people seem to understand that soil and ocean acidification through climate change would also wipe out a great part of the world's food supply.

 

[hussain.r97]

There were several ice ages in our history. I wonder if all of those were caused by climate change. That's one answer I would really like to get from scientists. There are forests and frozen mamoth grave below some of the glaciers. How did it happen?

The climate does constantly change in cycles due to various factors. However, the amount of greenhouse gases we have put in the atmosphere means that the peak of the warming cycle we're in might potentially be so high that it will cause a worldwide mass destruction and extinction.

 

[sweep_shot]

Letters are being sent to 30,000 households across the UK inviting people to join a citizens' assembly on climate change.

Once participants are selected, the assembly will meet next year, with the outcome of their discussions reported back to Parliament.

The initiative, set up by cross party MPs, will look at what members of the public can do to reduce CO2.

The UK government has committed to cut carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.

Rachel Reeves, chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Committee, one of six select committees who commissioned the climate assembly, said a clear roadmap was needed to achieve this goal.

"Finding solutions which are equitable and have public support will be crucial," she said.

"Parliament needs to work with the people and with government to address the challenge of climate change."

Random selection
The invitees to Climate Assembly UK have been selected at random from across the UK. From those who respond, 110 people will be chosen as a representative sample of the population.

They will meet over four weekends from late January in Birmingham, and will discuss topics ranging from transport to household energy use.

A citizens' assembly has been a key demand of the environmental campaign group Extinction Rebellion, whose protests caused widespread disruption this year.

The group said they welcomed this as a first step, but warned that the assembly should be focussing on cutting carbon emissions to net zero by 2025 not 2050.

Spokesperson Linda Doyle said: "Waiting 30 years to reach zero net carbon emissions is a death sentence to people around the world and in the UK - it gives us a higher chance of breaching irreversible tipping points as the climate breaks down and it only serves short term 'business as usual'."

Complex issues
Environmental group Friends of the Earth said citizens' assemblies could play an important part in policy-making.

Dave Timms, head of political affairs at FOE, said: "Tackling the climate emergency with the speed required will require radical changes to our economy, infrastructure and even to society so it's important that there is a consensus among citizens.

"Much of what needs to be done already commands widespread public support and it is politicians that just need to bloody-well get on with it now."

Citizens' assemblies have been used in a number of countries around the world.

In Ireland, a panel of 99 people was established in 2016 to look at a range of political questions, including abortion.

They recommended that the country should overturn its ban and suggested a referendum, which went on to support repeal.

In Canada and the Netherlands, the approach has been used to discuss electoral reform.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50264797.

 

[Robert]

There were several ice ages in our history. I wonder if all of those were caused by climate change. That's one answer I would really like to get from scientists. There are forests and frozen mamoth grave below some of the glaciers. How did it happen?

Natural warning and cooling cycles on a roughly 100,000 year beat. Increased heat means more forest fires meaning more carbon dioxide emitted and less sequestered. We are in the warm part of the cycle now.

But since the Industrial Revolution we have knocked the carbon cycle out of whack and levels are double where the should be. Then add in methane levels which are far too high due to cattle farming.

We can do something fairly fast by decarbonising our economy with renewable energy and switching to a lower meat diet. That should push back ecosystem collapse.

 

[ahmedzee]

Natural warning and cooling cycles on a roughly 100,000 year beat. Increased heat means more forest fires meaning more carbon dioxide emitted and less sequestered. We are in the warm part of the cycle now.

But since the Industrial Revolution we have knocked the carbon cycle out of whack and levels are double where the should be. Then add in methane levels which are far too high due to cattle farming.

We can do something fairly fast by decarbonising our economy with renewable energy and switching to a lower meat diet. That should push back ecosystem collapse.

The issue is that use of oil and natural gas is not going to stop as it’s byproduct is used in literally every single thing, including the computer and phone you are using.

If we are thinking of renewable, there are unfortunately only two choices and they are completely inefficient. It’s solar and wind.

Lithium batteries are worse than anything else and with increase in demand due to phones and battery powered cars, that’s going to be a problem. Lithium mining is probably the single most culprit in the world right now for CO2 emissions. A lithium powered car has 8 - 10 years worth of carbon emissions behind it even before it hits the road, even if it won’t emit any carbon post production (depending on the electricity source).

Maybe for the world the future holds in what China and Canada are trying, with direct aur intake CO2 absorption. It doesn’t have any economical justification but it is equal to 400,000 trees that will absorb CO2 from air and convert it into pellet that can finally be injected into the ground. I hope this technology receives funding so every city has a few of them.

Future of the world doesn’t depend on how we can eliminate our CO2 emissions. It depends on what technology can be used to give us net negative CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[hussain.r97]

The issue is that use of oil and natural gas is not going to stop as it’s byproduct is used in literally every single thing, including the computer and phone you are using.

If we are thinking of renewable, there are unfortunately only two choices and they are completely inefficient. It’s solar and wind.

Lithium batteries are worse than anything else and with increase in demand due to phones and battery powered cars, that’s going to be a problem. Lithium mining is probably the single most culprit in the world right now for CO2 emissions. A lithium powered car has 8 - 10 years worth of carbon emissions behind it even before it hits the road, even if it won’t emit any carbon post production (depending on the electricity source).

Maybe for the world the future holds in what China and Canada are trying, with direct aur intake CO2 absorption. It doesn’t have any economical justification but it is equal to 400,000 trees that will absorb CO2 from air and convert it into pellet that can finally be injected into the ground. I hope this technology receives funding so every city has a few of them.

Future of the world doesn’t depend on how we can eliminate our CO2 emissions. It depends on what technology can be used to give us net negative CO2 in the atmosphere.

There is no single solution, and nor can we absolutely stop emitting CO2. What we can realistically do is become net-zero. In terms of renewables, there is also hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal, and more. With time, solar and wind technology will also improve and being more efficient, maing them more viable. New Zealand already generates about 85% of energy through renewable sources such as hydro and wind. There is also nuclear of course, which can be used in areas which aren't prone to natural disasters, such as France.

In terms of vehicles, it's looking more and more likely that the way we move is fundamentally going to change. There is a huge push towards public transport and shared autonomous vehicles. There will also be a reduction in air travel when we eventually see more commuter rail and Hyperloops rolled out, similar to and probably better than the rail system in Europe. All these transport changes mean we can significantly cut transportation emissions.

Then of course another big contributor is the agricultural industry, with livestock emitting huge amounts of methane. So what is the solution to this? First of all, there are new products being rolled out such as methane inhibitors and vaccines that will prevent methane from being formed in the gut of farm animals, significantly reducing their emissions. In addition to this, lab grown meat is now close to a reality, and we are also seeing a big push towards reducing consumption of meat and dairy, and moving towards plant based alternatives. This shift to lab grown and plant based products would also free up land, allowing for the plantation of forests.

Finally, we can offset our own emissions by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. This can of course be done by planting trees, as well as through artificial Carbon sequestration, allowing us to absorb and store carbon from the atmosphere at will.

If serious efforts are put into making a plan to fight climate change smartly and implement the above solutions, there is definitely a path for us to save ourselves before we reach the point of no return.

 

[Robert]

The issue is that use of oil and natural gas is not going to stop as it’s byproduct is used in literally every single thing, including the computer and phone you are using.

If we are thinking of renewable, there are unfortunately only two choices and they are completely inefficient. It’s solar and wind.

Lithium batteries are worse than anything else and with increase in demand due to phones and battery powered cars, that’s going to be a problem. Lithium mining is probably the single most culprit in the world right now for CO2 emissions. A lithium powered car has 8 - 10 years worth of carbon emissions behind it even before it hits the road, even if it won’t emit any carbon post production (depending on the electricity source).


Maybe for the world the future holds in what China and Canada are trying, with direct aur intake CO2 absorption. It doesn’t have any economical justification but it is equal to 400,000 trees that will absorb CO2 from air and convert it into pellet that can finally be injected into the ground. I hope this technology receives funding so every city has a few of them.

Future of the world doesn’t depend on how we can eliminate our CO2 emissions. It depends on what technology can be used to give us net negative CO2 in the atmosphere.

Petrochemical products will stop when the oil runs out mid-century. We will have to switch to ceramics and bamboo.

I agree, lithium battery storage is a problem, and they are hard to dispose of due to thermal runaway causing fires in recycling facilities.

Hydrogen cells should be the way forward, but the auto industry is not picking this up for some reason.

I foresee a time when we stop flying, mostly, and sailing ships come back.

 

[sweep_shot]

The Sumatran rhino is now officially extinct in Malaysia, with the death of the last known specimen.

The 25-year-old female named Iman died on Saturday on the island of Borneo, officials say. She had cancer.

Malaysia's last male Sumatran rhino died in May this year.

The Sumatran rhino once roamed across Asia, but has now almost disappeared from the wild, with fewer than 100 animals believed to exist. The species is now critically endangered.

Iman died at 17:35 local time (09:35 GMT) on Saturday, Malaysia's officials said.

"Its death was a natural one, and the immediate cause has been categorised as shock," Sabah State Tourism, Culture and Environment Minister Christine Liew is quoted as saying.

"Iman was given the very best care and attention since her capture in March 2014 right up to the moment she passed," she added.

Sumatran rhinos have been hard hit by poaching and habitat loss, but the biggest threat facing the species today is the fragmented nature of their populations.

Efforts to breed the species in Malaysia have so far failed.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50531208.

 

[Captain caveman]

Scientists are alarmed by a rise in mass mortality events – when species die in their thousands. Is it all down to climate change

here was almost something biblical about the scene of devastation that lay before Richard Kock as he stood in the wilderness of the Kazakhstan steppe. Dotted across the grassy plain, as far as the eye could see, were the corpses of thousands upon thousands of saiga antelopes. All appeared to have fallen where they were feeding.

Some were mothers that had travelled to this remote wilderness for the annual calving season, while others were their offspring, just a few days old. Each had died in just a few hours from blood poisoning. In the 30C heat of a May day, the air around each of the rotting hulks was thick with flies.

The same grisly story has been replayed throughout Kazakhstan. In this springtime massacre, an estimated 200,000 critically endangered saiga – around 60% of the world’s population – died. “All the carcasses in this one of many killing zones were spread evenly over 20 sq km,” says Kock, professor of wildlife health and emerging diseases at the Royal Veterinary College in London. “The pattern was strange. They were either grazing normally with their newborn calves or dying where they stood, as if a switch had been turned on. I’ve never seen anything like that.”

The saiga – whose migrations form one of the great wildlife spectacles – were victims of a mass mortality event (MME), a single, catastrophic incident that wipes out vast numbers of a species in a short period of time. MMEs are among the most extreme events of nature. They affect starfish, bats, coral reefs and sardines. They can push species to the brink of extinction, or throw a spanner into the complex web of life in an ecosystem. And according to some scientists, MMEs are on the rise and likely to become more common because of climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ity-events-animal-conservation-climate-change

Sounds like a load of rubbish to me!
Why would climate change cause instant mass mortality? If climate change was the cause, you would get a steady increased death rate, not instant. This would happen by some industrial pollution or some type of mass weapon testing!

 

[Captain caveman]

Lol!
Nature will always correct an inbalance.
7.5billion people on earth, about 3 billion too many.
The only faint chance humans have is to reduce the number of children they have, this is specially a big issue in the indian subcontinent.
And secondly, we need to plant 100s of billions, if not trillions of trees!
This will have an affect on the amount of land available for humans to live on and to farm food and animals. This is why we need to reduce the worlds population by at least a third.
The earth should be nearly 50% forrest.
This is the only solution to global warming, your recycling and renewable energy are not going to make a jot bit of difference to global warming/climate change, but the hippies will continue to feel superior and preach to the uneducated about recycling, veganism(causes huge amount of greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere) and renewable energies. Solar power, wind and water are the only genuine renewable and non damaging energies to the environment, after an initial cost for the construction of the facilities to make use of these renewables. Hence, it can take 20 plus years before these renewables even become carbon zero effectively.

Just something to think about - america, india and china are the biggest contributors to global warming with their huge population and industrial pollution. America may have a relative smaller population compared to india and china, but the average american consumes many many times the amount of energy and food then the chinese and indian counterpart.
If these 3 countries had no human population, approx. a reduction of 3 billion people on earth and their huge land mass was all forrest were possible, then climate change and global warming would not exist!
So blame america, india and china for the predictament we are in!

 

[Robert]

Lol!
Nature will always correct an inbalance.
7.5billion people on earth, about 3 billion too many.
The only faint chance humans have is to reduce the number of children they have, this is specially a big issue in the indian subcontinent.
And secondly, we need to plant 100s of billions, if not trillions of trees!
This will have an affect on the amount of land available for humans to live on and to farm food and animals. This is why we need to reduce the worlds population by at least a third.
The earth should be nearly 50% forrest.
This is the only solution to global warming, your recycling and renewable energy are not going to make a jot bit of difference to global warming/climate change, but the hippies will continue to feel superior and preach to the uneducated about recycling, veganism(causes huge amount of greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere) and renewable energies. Solar power, wind and water are the only genuine renewable and non damaging energies to the environment, after an initial cost for the construction of the facilities to make use of these renewables. Hence, it can take 20 plus years before these renewables even become carbon zero effectively.

Just something to think about - america, india and china are the biggest contributors to global warming with their huge population and industrial pollution. America may have a relative smaller population compared to india and china, but the average american consumes many many times the amount of energy and food then the chinese and indian counterpart.
If these 3 countries had no human population, approx. a reduction of 3 billion people on earth and their huge land mass was all forrest were possible, then climate change and global warming would not exist!
So blame america, india and china for the predictament we are in!

I agree that Europe is leading the way in fighting climate change. Britain was leading the way for Europe during the a Coalition, but the Tories have given up that leadership role.

Renewable energy is part of the solution. It is a key component of how to stop things getting worse.

The other key component is a plant-based diet because we have to reduce the global cattle herd - methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Trees are being felled to make grazing land and then surface water runs off and increases desertification. Making one kilo of beef takes a tonne of water. Meat = BAD.

Yes, we have to plant billions of trees to try to carbon out of the air. This is the way to reverse climate change in the long run, and partially reverse desertification,

 

[Robert]

Sounds like a load of rubbish to me!
Why would climate change cause instant mass mortality? If climate change was the cause, you would get a steady increased death rate, not instant. This would happen by some industrial pollution or some type of mass weapon testing!

It can also happen if a key part of a food web vanishes and takes the web down with it. Like pulling one too many bricks out of a wall. Eventually the wall collapses instantly.

 

[Captain caveman]

I agree that Europe is leading the way in fighting climate change. Britain was leading the way for Europe during the a Coalition, but the Tories have given up that leadership role.

Renewable energy is part of the solution. It is a key component of how to stop things getting worse.

The other key component is a plant-based diet because we have to reduce the global cattle herd - methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Trees are being felled to make grazing land and then surface water runs off and increases desertification. Making one kilo of beef takes a tonne of water. Meat = BAD.

Yes, we have to plant billions of trees to try to carbon out of the air. This is the way to reverse climate change in the long run, and partially reverse desertification,

3 billion less people in the world would mean no need to change our diets.

Interesting fact -: the first time the world had a population of 1 billion was approx 1880.
Within 140 years we have almost septuple that figure, which took 300, 000 years to reach!

The world is overpopulated, we are as a species too successful, but there is an optimum figure the world can support, we have gone way past that, now nature will rebalance the books.
There is no escape, nature has to reduce the human population!

Planting billions of trees is the only solution to global warming and that will only work once there is a significant reduction in the human population. Some people have predicted that by 2050 the worlds population will be 10 billion, just 170 years after reaching the fist billion, this is unsustainable.

8% of greenhouse gases come from the production of cement, do we stop building houses to populate the 10 billion people on earth predicted by 2050, as well as stop eating beef?

 

[Captain caveman]

It can also happen if a key part of a food web vanishes and takes the web down with it. Like pulling one too many bricks out of a wall. Eventually the wall collapses instantly.

I understand what you are saying, but i dont think even then it will be instant. It would be like a famine, where many will die everyday, but not all at once.

 

[Technics 1210]

The cause of climate change is well known, and we humans have zero control over the moon and our Sun.

Though for those of you who subscribe to Darwinian Evolution, accept this is Natural Selection.

 

[Robert]

The cause of climate change is well known, and we humans have zero control over the moon and our Sun.

Though for those of you who subscribe to Darwinian Evolution, accept this is Natural Selection.

That's a component of it. Since the Industrial Revolution we have been knocking that natural cycle out of whack.

The geologists say we have left the Holocene epoch and entered the Andropocene. We have changed the reflective qualities of the planet, silted up river estuaries, extended the deserts. You can see this from space.

We are also a natural selector, and we are selecting out a huge number of species, pushing food webs to collapse. When that happens we will start selecting Homo sapiens out too.

 

[Technics 1210]

That's a component of it. Since the Industrial Revolution we have been knocking that natural cycle out of whack.

The geologists say we have left the Holocene epoch and entered the Andropocene. We have changed the reflective qualities of the planet, silted up river estuaries, extended the deserts. You can see this from space.

We are also a natural selector, and we are selecting out a huge number of species, pushing food webs to collapse. When that happens we will start selecting Homo sapiens out too.

It is the largest component of it, the moon is drifting away from the Earth, this is not only having an effect on the oceans, but more importantly the rotation of the earth which has an effect on the magnetic field. Top this up with solar winds etc, and climate change is happening but it is out of our control.

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/earth-rotation.html

 

[Robert]

It is the largest component of it, the moon is drifting away from the Earth, this is not only having an effect on the oceans, but more importantly the rotation of the earth which has an effect on the magnetic field. Top this up with solar winds etc, and climate change is happening but it is out of our control.

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/earth-rotation.html

That part is out of our control but don't you think we should control that part which is caused by the human species and therefore is within our control? - before the food webs collpse, the deserts expand, the dispossessed and desperate march on the still-fertile areas and there is mass starvation and war?

 

[Technics 1210]

That part is out of our control but don't you think we should control that part which is caused by the human species and therefore is within our control? - before the food webs collpse, the deserts expand, the dispossessed and desperate march on the still-fertile areas and there is mass starvation and war?

This is the point, we humans can do nothing in face of the Moon and the Sun. Why are we trying to prevent the inevitable? It doesn't stop here. If we talk about CO2 in the atmosphere, how do we stop volcano eruptions? We cannot. Billions of tonnes of CO2 are releases into the atmosphere thanks to natural volcanic eruptions, and people think by going carbon neutral, getting rid of plastics, voting for the Green party is going to stop all of this?

If Humans really want to make a difference lets start by building waters systems so that every human has access to the basics of life, water. Let's start by creating Nuclear power stations so that we do not have to rely on Fossil Fuels etc for power. We can strive to live in a cleaner environment, but cannot stop climate change.

Mass starvation and war has been happening since the dawn of mankind - this humans can change, but will not, because it has nothing to do with climate change but has everything to do with money and power.

 

[Captain caveman]

This is the point, we humans can do nothing in face of the Moon and the Sun. Why are we trying to prevent the inevitable? It doesn't stop here. If we talk about CO2 in the atmosphere, how do we stop volcano eruptions? We cannot. Billions of tonnes of CO2 are releases into the atmosphere thanks to natural volcanic eruptions, and people think by going carbon neutral, getting rid of plastics, voting for the Green party is going to stop all of this?

If Humans really want to make a difference lets start by building waters systems so that every human has access to the basics of life, water. Let's start by creating Nuclear power stations so that we do not have to rely on Fossil Fuels etc for power. We can strive to live in a cleaner environment, but cannot stop climate change.

Mass starvation and war has been happening since the dawn of mankind - this humans can change, but will not, because it has nothing to do with climate change but has everything to do with money and power.

What are you going to do with the nuclear waste?
The reality is an ever increasing exponential population is doomed. The resources required to maintain such a population, will eventually destroy that population. Nature will always reset the balance.

Not only the sun and the moon, but the whole universe is expanding, so when these eco scientists make claims on previous weather conditions in the past, its irrelevent, because we are physically not in the same orbit of space we were in the past!

 

[Technics 1210]

What are you going to do with the nuclear waste?

Strap it to an ACME rocket and fire towards the moon!

The reality is an ever increasing exponential population is doomed. The resources required to maintain such a population, will eventually destroy that population. Nature will always reset the balance.

Not only the sun and the moon, but the whole universe is expanding, so when these eco scientists make claims on previous weather conditions in the past, its irrelevent, because we are physically not in the same orbit of space we were in the past!

Agree, nature will always re-balance - and to think life has survived for billions of years in conditions which make the current climate look like a love story!

 

[Robert]

This is the point, we humans can do nothing in face of the Moon and the Sun. Why are we trying to prevent the inevitable? It doesn't stop here. If we talk about CO2 in the atmosphere, how do we stop volcano eruptions? We cannot. Billions of tonnes of CO2 are releases into the atmosphere thanks to natural volcanic eruptions, and people think by going carbon neutral, getting rid of plastics, voting for the Green party is going to stop all of this?

We can't stop a natural forest fire. But if the forest isn't on fire yet, we can avoid chucking petrol about and striking matches in it.

If Humans really want to make a difference lets start by building waters systems so that every human has access to the basics of life, water. Let's start by creating Nuclear power stations so that we do not have to rely on Fossil Fuels etc for power. We can strive to live in a cleaner environment, but cannot stop climate change.

One way to build water systems is stop farming cattle that takes vast amounts of water, and start rebuilding forests to keep the water local instead of letting it wash across deforested areas and silting up the oceans.

Nuclear power stations have their place in the interim, but create by-products which are inimicable to life, so these should be phased out within thirty years and replaced by renewables. Look at the ocean - unlimited clean power that we are not tapping.

Mass starvation and war has been happening since the dawn of mankind - this humans can change, but will not, because it has nothing to do with climate change but has everything to do with money and power.

Money and power is what is driving the human-made component of climate change.

Hopefully the market (stimulated by government policy instruments) will soon switch to green tech options. There is a culture change happening andf the market will respond. It started in the 1970s but is at least taking hold. The millenials and the Gen-Zedders are giving up meat en masse, and looking for life choices to minimise environmental impact. And not a moment too soon.

 

[Captain caveman]

Exactly!
What makes me laugh is when i hear people say we must save the world! What they mean is we must save the human race. This wont be able to happen completely, without a reset of the human population, which is spirallying out of control.

Fun fact - the earths atmosphere before the industrial revolution 200 odd years ago had only 0.03% carbon dioxide and it now has a 0.04% of carbon dioxide, an increase of 0.01% of carbon dioxide! This tiny increase is really going to kill the human civilisation?

Obviously other factors are at work here, such as the expanding universe, causing the slow drifting apart of the moon and the sun.
The earth will survive for another 5 billion years, til the dying sun engulfs it, but the human race is at a real threat from our own success of overpopulation and the ever increasing need for land and food, resulting in the destruction of the worlds forrests and its the cutting down of these trees, which are effectively the earths lungs, that is to blame for the increase of carbon dioxide in the air.

 

[Robert]

What are you going to do with the nuclear waste?
The reality is an ever increasing exponential population is doomed. The resources required to maintain such a population, will eventually destroy that population. Nature will always reset the balance.

Not only the sun and the moon, but the whole universe is expanding, so when these eco scientists make claims on previous weather conditions in the past, its irrelevent, because we are physically not in the same orbit of space we were in the past!

Not destroy it, but reduce the numbers as per the Malthusian Checks.

Some academics believe that as the developing world catches up with the Old World and North America, the birth rate will slacken off and the planet's population stabilise at about eleven billion. The biosphere can support that, as long as all nations cooperate and take long-term decisions about the production and distribution of food, water and electrical power.

 

[Robert]

Exactly!
What makes me laugh is when i hear people say we must save the world! What they mean is we must save the human race. This wont be able to happen completely, without a reset of the human population, which is spirallying out of control.

Fun fact - the earths atmosphere before the industrial revolution 200 odd years ago had only 0.03% carbon dioxide and it now has a 0.04% of carbon dioxide, an increase of 0.01% of carbon dioxide! This tiny increase is really going to kill the human civilisation?

No, but it can cause enormous damage, and as I pointed out, methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Obviously other factors are at work here, such as the expanding universe, causing the slow drifting apart of the moon and the sun.
The earth will survive for another 5 billion years, til the dying sun engulfs it, but the human race is at a real threat from our own success of overpopulation and the ever increasing need for land and food, resulting in the destruction of the worlds forrests and its the cutting down of these trees, which are effectively the earths lungs, that is to blame for the increase of carbon dioxide in the air.

Universal expansion is not causing the Sun and Moon to drift apart. The galaxies hold themselves together with gravity. The Solar system does too. There are slight variations over aeons of time where the Earth is a bit closer or further from the Sun, and the Moon is slighty closer or further from the Earth.

 

[Captain caveman]

No, but it can cause enormous damage, and as I pointed out, methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.



Universal expansion is not causing the Sun and Moon to drift apart. The galaxies hold themselves together with gravity. The Solar system does too. There are slight variations over aeons of time where the Earth is a bit closer or further from the Sun, and the Moon is slighty closer or further from the Earth.

It is a fact that the moon is drifting very slowly apart from the earth. This is true for all celestral bodies. The moon billions of years ago was much closer to the earth and in the sky would have looked many many time larger than it does now, due to the closeness of the moon.
Universal expansion is pulling everything in the universe further apart, gravity can not withstand this expansion either.
Gravity is the force of two objects working upon each other, but if a stronger force is pulling these two objects apart(no matter how slowly) such as universal expansion, then the gravitational force between those two objects will weaken.

 

[Captain caveman]

No, but it can cause enormous damage, and as I pointed out, methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.



Universal expansion is not causing the Sun and Moon to drift apart. The galaxies hold themselves together with gravity. The Solar system does too. There are slight variations over aeons of time where the Earth is a bit closer or further from the Sun, and the Moon is slighty closer or further from the Earth.

Methane is a natural gas which arises from animals(particulary cows) flatulence.
Yes, methane can also be a waste product of industry, but do you think nature cannot handle a gas which was going to.be produced naturally?
Yes the overfarming of livestock for human consumption will ultimately lead to a rebalance of nature, just like the overpopulation of any species, like human beings.
The point is the population of humans is too much and no matter what we try to do, nature will reset the balance.

 

[Technics 1210]

Methane is a natural gas which arises from animals(particulary cows) flatulence.
Yes, methane can also be a waste product of industry, but do you think nature cannot handle a gas which was going to.be produced naturally?
Yes the overfarming of livestock for human consumption will ultimately lead to a rebalance of nature, just like the overpopulation of any species, like human beings.
The point is the population of humans is too much and no matter what we try to do, nature will reset the balance.

The Ozone hole has contracted! This is nature re-balancing!

https://www.axios.com/nasa-ozone-ay...ica-f897d1aa-45db-43c2-93b0-7ab84269ffbb.html

 

[Captain caveman]

The Ozone hole has contracted! This is nature re-balancing!

https://www.axios.com/nasa-ozone-ay...ica-f897d1aa-45db-43c2-93b0-7ab84269ffbb.html

Yes but we humans cut out alot of the gases that caused the hole in the ozone such as CFCs.
The point is in any gcse biology lesson you would be taught about populations pyramids and food chains and how an overpopulation of one species will lead to an increase in predators to rebalance the population.
If the species is on top of the pyramid or foodchain like humans are, then this will cause dwindling populations of the species in the lower part of the pyramid or chain. Leading to a decrease of this dominant species.
Add to this the environmental aspects of overpopulation, then a rebalance in nature is a certainty.

 

[Technics 1210]

Yes but we humans cut out alot of the gases that caused the hole in the ozone such as CFCs.
The point is in any gcse biology lesson you would be taught about populations pyramids and food chains and how an overpopulation of one species will lead to an increase in predators to rebalance the population.
If the species is on top of the pyramid or foodchain like humans are, then this will cause dwindling populations of the species in the lower part of the pyramid or chain. Leading to a decrease of this dominant species.
Add to this the environmental aspects of overpopulation, then a rebalance in nature is a certainty.

Ahhhh, so what you are saying is that we need to rebalance the human specie. 3rd World War coming right up!

 

[Captain caveman]

Not destroy it, but reduce the numbers as per the Malthusian Checks.

Some academics believe that as the developing world catches up with the Old World and North America, the birth rate will slacken off and the planet's population stabilise at about eleven billion. The biosphere can support that, as long as all nations cooperate and take long-term decisions about the production and distribution of food, water and electrical power.

Nobody knows what population the earth can support, it does look though as we have passed the threshold with all the environmental problems we face.

Even if every country became a modern technological and advanced country(which is highly doubtful as this will lead to the downfall of many current powers in the world) and these countries reduced the number of children their citizens had, this will only lead to these citizens demanding more resources per person such as meat, energy etc and having an even greater impact on the earth than when these countries were third world countries or developing countries.
e.g.
The USA makes up 4% of the worlds population but consumes 25% of the worlds resources.
Its unsustainable!
My opinionis with the ever increasing advancements of human beings, the lower the population of humans can be sustained by the earth. Effectively, the more abldvanced we get, the more we are closer to destroying ourselves.
Another example, before penicillin, the worlds population would not come anywhere as close to what it is now, like what i said earlier, the human population had almost septuple in the last 140 years due to the advancements in technology, including medicines such as penicillin.
How has nature reacted, by producing penicillin resistant bacteria such as MRSA.
Nature will always try to rebalance the ecosystem.

 

[troodon]

Climate change is natural and it has happened hundreds of times before in the history of Earth. Each time it happens, species that are specialized to certain environments and cannot adapt will get eliminated by nature.

However, the pollution and green house gasses are accelerating the climate change. Its more like human induced climate change.

One thing that humans need to think is that they are not threatened by extinction. As population keeps on increasing the stress on already stressed out nature will keep increasing even more. Human encroachment on pristine nature reserves will push wildlife to extinction.

But hey, God created Earth for humans. Who cares about wildlife?

 

[Captain caveman]

Ahhhh, so what you are saying is that we need to rebalance the human specie. 3rd World War coming right up!

Funny you say 3rd world war. You are highly intelligent! Though i am completely against war except for absolute self defence, a global mass war , killing billions not millions, not only by weapons but food shortages would be one way of culling the human race. I call it "the thanos solution', from the avengers movie.
After the two world wars many advancements in technology, especially in medicine were made, so war can have its advantages as well as its obvious disadvantages.
A major global war could also alternatively iead to the degeneration of the human race, to a pre industrial revolution stage, even stone. bronze or iron age, which would allow the earth to sustain more human beings as less resources will be required.

 

[Captain caveman]

Climate change is natural and it has happened hundreds of times before in the history of Earth. Each time it happens, species that are specialized to certain environments and cannot adapt will get eliminated by nature.

However, the pollution and green house gasses are accelerating the climate change. Its more like human induced climate change.

One thing that humans need to think is that they are not threatened by extinction. As population keeps on increasing the stress on already stressed out nature will keep increasing even more. Human encroachment on pristine nature reserves will push wildlife to extinction.

But hey, God created Earth for humans. Who cares about wildlife?

Sort of agree with most of what you are saying apart that humans will not go extinct. A lack of food and water resources can lead to famine, war and disease. The unholy trinity!
Humans are not immune to extinction!
Just look at what happened to our cousins, the nederthals!

 

[Technics 1210]

Funny you say 3rd world war. You are highly intelligent! Though i am completely against war except for absolute self defence, a global mass war , killing billions not millions, not only by weapons but food shortages would be one way of culling the human race. I call it "the thanos solution', from the avengers movie.
After the two world wars many advancements in technology, especially in medicine were made, so war can have its advantages as well as its obvious disadvantages.
A major global war could also alternatively iead to the degeneration of the human race, to a pre industrial revolution stage, even stone. bronze or iron age, which would allow the earth to sustain more human beings as less resources will be required.

I do not advocate war at all.

However, we are in the midst of a war which the likes no one has ever seen. The weapon of choice works silently, destructively and effectively, and dwarfs all weapons of war, past and present, including nuclear bombs. This weapon destroys all traces of human life, BUT preserves nature, land, infrastructure, buildings, institutions, you name it - all are preserved but Humans. Can you guess what weapon this is?

 

[Captain caveman]

I admire the attitude of environmentalists, trying to do the right thing by the earth, but their lack of genuine knowledge of how nature works is worrying!

The only solution for the human race is a drastic population reduction, at least by a third and planting billions of trees, maybe trillions of trees.
Along with the above two fundamentals, we need to restrict technology and move back to a more basic lifestyle as pet pre indusrial revolution.
This is never going to happen!
We are advancing as a species, technologically, that our demise is inevitable.
Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 200million years plus, with no technological advancements, but ultimately got destroyed by nature(asteroid hitting the earth and causing environmental disaster).
We humans have become so dominant and so advanced technologically, that we have brought our own demise within 300,000 years, if we were not so technologically advanced, we may have survived for 200million years as well.

 

[Captain caveman]

I do not advocate war at all.

However, we are in the midst of a war which the likes no one has ever seen. The weapon of choice works silently, destructively and effectively, and dwarfs all weapons of war, past and present, including nuclear bombs. This weapon destroys all traces of human life, BUT preserves nature, land, infrastructure, buildings, institutions, you name it - all are preserved but Humans. Can you guess what weapon this is?

Very intetesting.
Theres the unholy trinity that i mentioned before - famine, war and disease.
If you take out war, then you are left with famine and disease.
Famine is caused by lack of food and water, mainly due to environmental reasons.
And disease can be caused by both famine and the evolution of bactetia and viruses to nature and man made medicines.
So, in answer to your question, i would say enviromental issues and the evolution of bacteria and viruses.
Whats the answer?

 

[Captain caveman]

Very intetesting.
Theres the unholy trinity that i mentioned before - famine, war and disease.
If you take out war, then you are left with famine and disease.
Famine is caused by lack of food and water, mainly due to environmental reasons.
And disease can be caused by both famine and the evolution of bactetia and viruses to nature and man made medicines.
So, in answer to your question, i would say enviromental issues and the evolution of bacteria and viruses.
Whats the answer?

I would class overpopulation as an environmental issue and hence associated with famine.

 

[Technics 1210]

Very intetesting.
Theres the unholy trinity that i mentioned before - famine, war and disease.
If you take out war, then you are left with famine and disease.
Famine is caused by lack of food and water, mainly due to environmental reasons.
And disease can be caused by both famine and the evolution of bactetia and viruses to nature and man made medicines.
So, in answer to your question, i would say enviromental issues and the evolution of bacteria and viruses.
Whats the answer?

Currency.

Debase a currency.

Argentina, Russia, Venezuela, Mexico - some examples on how to destroy society without firing a missile! Wiemar Germany is a brilliant example too, hyper inflation, society destroyed. Elevated once a new currency was issued.

Now currency debasement is on a world wide scale, it is the race to the bottom, nations cannot prop up their currencies through higher rates as it would mean higher payments on national debts. USA is holding most of the cards as USD the world's reserve currency - though not for long.

This is why nations are now considering moving towards actual money (not currency - currency is the means to transport money), but bona fide money that has value which can neither be destroyed nor created - Gold.

 

[Captain caveman]

Currency.

Debase a currency.

Argentina, Russia, Venezuela, Mexico - some examples on how to destroy society without firing a missile! Wiemar Germany is a brilliant example too, hyper inflation, society destroyed. Elevated once a new currency was issued.

Now currency debasement is on a world wide scale, it is the race to the bottom, nations cannot prop up their currencies through higher rates as it would mean higher payments on national debts. USA is holding most of the cards as USD the world's reserve currency - though not for long.

This is why nations are now considering moving towards actual money (not currency - currency is the means to transport money), but bona fide money that has value which can neither be destroyed nor created - Gold.

You have opened a whole new subset of overpopulation (environmental) and war debate.
With overpopulation, you will get people finding new ways to trade, to increase their access to resources.

Once the world moved away from the gold standard and moved to the dollar as reserved currency, it meant that money was in reality worthless, just pieces of paper dependent on the USA, who could print as much of it as they liked. People will disagree and bring inflation into the debate, but inflation is a good thing for market based economies, as you want prices to increase and the value of money to decrease. A very poor system to adopt, as countries think that they are wealthy, but in reality are only paper rich, which can be taken away from them as you described above.

But the fundamental risks to human survival is the so called unholy.trinity of faimine, war and diseaes.

 

[Technics 1210]

You have opened a whole new subset of overpopulation (environmental) and war debate.
With overpopulation, you will get people finding new ways to trade, to increase their access to resources.

Once the world moved away from the gold standard and moved to the dollar as reserved currency, it meant that money was in reality worthless, just pieces of paper dependent on the USA, who could print as much of it as they liked. People will disagree and bring inflation into the debate, but inflation is a good thing for market based economies, as you want prices to increase and the value of money to decrease. A very poor system to adopt, as countries think that they are wealthy, but in reality are only paper rich, which can be taken away from them as you described above.

But the fundamental risks to human survival is the so called unholy.trinity of faimine, war and diseaes.

Gold has been money since the dawn of mankind. It has worked for 1000s of years. It is literally bestowed upon humans from the heavens [our Sun doesn't have the mass to create Gold, so the Gold on earth is from a Supernova].

Now think about this. How many stock markets went boom then bust, when Gold was the standard? Economic growth was stable, secure, and trustworthy. Now compare to how many stock markets went boom then bust since Nixon abolished the Gold standard? Not just people, but nations and governments destroyed.

Today's war is all about distribution of wealth. Libya & Iraq were working on the Gold dinar. Gaddafi and Hussain were going to trade oil in Gold. We all know what happened next. Everything you see from the USA perspective, everything, from politics, to war, is all about preserving and protecting the USD. Russia and China have other plans though.

 

[Captain caveman]

Gold has been money since the dawn of mankind. It has worked for 1000s of years. It is literally bestowed upon humans from the heavens [our Sun doesn't have the mass to create Gold, so the Gold on earth is from a Supernova].

Now think about this. How many stock markets went boom then bust, when Gold was the standard? Economic growth was stable, secure, and trustworthy. Now compare to how many stock markets went boom then bust since Nixon abolished the Gold standard? Not just people, but nations and governments destroyed.

Today's war is all about distribution of wealth. Libya & Iraq were working on the Gold dinar. Gaddafi and Hussain were going to trade oil in Gold. We all know what happened next. Everything you see from the USA perspective, everything, from politics, to war, is all about preserving and protecting the USD. Russia and China have other plans though.

Yes gold standard should have remained as the standard to value currency.
But USA being a superpower, like all empires before it, wants to control the worlds money and wealth.
This is part of the war in the unholy trinity of famine, war and disease.
The unholy trinity is a beautiful concept that encompasses all the risks to human beings survival on this earth.

 

[Technics 1210]

Yes gold standard should have remained as the standard to value currency.
But USA being a superpower, like all empires before it, wants to control the worlds money and wealth.
This is part of the war in the unholy trinity of famine, war and disease.
The unholy trinity is a beautiful concept that encompasses all the risks to human beings survival on this earth.

Have you seen this documentary?

If you have not seen it, then it is right up your street!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fbvquHSPJU

 

[Captain caveman]

Have you seen this documentary?

If you have not seen it, then it is right up your street!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fbvquHSPJU

No i havent. I dont get much time to watch things these days, only post on here while i am working.

 

[Technics 1210]

No i havent. I dont get much time to watch things these days, only post on here while i am working.

Watch it when you can, you will not regret it, and let me know what you think!

 

[Robert]

Methane is a natural gas which arises from animals(particulary cows) flatulence.
Yes, methane can also be a waste product of industry, but do you think nature cannot handle a gas which was going to.be produced naturally?
Yes the overfarming of livestock for human consumption will ultimately lead to a rebalance of nature, just like the overpopulation of any species, like human beings.
The point is the population of humans is too much and no matter what we try to do, nature will reset the balance.

It cannot if there are a million times too many cows for the current balance, due to humans liking to eat beef and wear leather.

The way the balance will be reset under your paradigm is ecosystem collapse and billions of people dying. I don’t want to see that and find it hard to be philosophical as you seem to. We can prevent that cataclysm if we apply a new paradigm of cathedral thinking about how we eat and use resources in a sustainable way as per Brundtland Definition.

 

[Captain caveman]

It cannot if there are a million times too many cows for the current balance, due to humans liking to eat beef and wear leather.

The way the balance will be reset under your paradigm is ecosystem collapse and billions of people dying. I don’t want to see that and find it hard to be philosophical as you seem to. We can prevent that cataclysm if we apply a new paradigm of cathedral thinking about how we eat and use resources in a sustainable way as per Brundtland Definition.

No, i dont want to see billions of people dying either, i dont want one person to die.
But the idea that we can change our lifestyle and avert an environmental disaster is naive at best, foolish at worse.
Everything we do as humans has an effect on the environment, from the lithium mining for the batteries in mobile phones, tablets and laptops, to the limestone used to make cement(contributes 8% of carbon dioxide emissions) and the breeding of cows for beef, as you mentioned.
And no electric car or everyone turning vegan is going to help, because these things them selves have environmental costs , batteries for the cars and the electricity used to recharge the batteries, to cutting down forrest land to grow crops such as palm oil.
By 2050, it is predicted that the worlds population will be 10 billion, an increase in ten fold in approx. 170 years. This is not sustainable.
Nature will make the necessary changes to rebalance the ecosystem. Billions will die , not something i want but something that is inevitable and irreversible and no changing of habits will do anything to prevent this from occuring.

 

[Captain caveman]

No, i dont want to see billions of people dying either, i dont want one person to die.
But the idea that we can change our lifestyle and avert an environmental disaster is naive at best, foolish at worse.
Everything we do as humans has an effect on the environment, from the lithium mining for the batteries in mobile phones, tablets and laptops, to the limestone used to make cement(contributes 8% of carbon dioxide emissions) and the breeding of cows for beef, as you mentioned.
And no electric car or everyone turning vegan is going to help, because these things them selves have environmental costs , batteries for the cars and the electricity used to recharge the batteries, to cutting down forrest land to grow crops such as palm oil.
By 2050, it is predicted that the worlds population will be 10 billion, an increase in ten fold in approx. 170 years. This is not sustainable.
Nature will make the necessary changes to rebalance the ecosystem. Billions will die , not something i want but something that is inevitable and irreversible and no changing of habits will do anything to prevent this from occuring.

In the news today(bbc news) the amount of plastic used for carrier bags has actually increased since shops started to charge for carrier bags.
The reason is bags for life are much thicker and hence use more plastic to make then the flimsy disposable carrier bags.
Like i said above, no matter what you try to change things to improve the environment, it will only result in alternative environmental issues.
We are far too advanced technologically and far to overpopulated for nature to sustain us at the present levels.

 

[sweep_shot]

'Toxic chemical cocktail' passed to baby porpoises

Spoiler

Baby porpoises in waters off the UK are being exposed to a cocktail of chemicals in their mother's milk.

Research found the most potent pollutants, which may be toxic to the brain, are passed from mother to calf.

The chemicals are among the 200 or so polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which accumulate in the bodies of dolphins, porpoises and whales.

PCBs were once used in plastics and paints. Banned decades ago, they hang around in the environment.

The toxins that linger longest in a mother's body - and are considered more poisonous to the brain and nervous system - are transferred to infants in milk, a study found.

"It's a tragic irony that juvenile porpoises are being exposed to a toxic cocktail of chemicals during feeding - when all they're supposed to be getting are the vital nutrients they need for the crucial developmental stage of their life," said Rosie Williams of ZSL's Institute of Zoology and Brunel University London.

What is the legacy of PCBs?
PCBs have been linked with a number of risks to whales and dolphins, particularly in the early stages of life. A recent study found dolphins living in the English Channel were exposed to a "cocktail of pollutants", which are passed down from mother to calf.

Meanwhile, one killer whale (orca) found dead off Scotland in 2016 contained among the highest levels of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, ever recorded. PCBs could lead to the disappearance of half of the world's populations of killer whales from the most heavily contaminated areas within a period of just 30 to 50 years, scientists concluded last year.

What did the research find?
The study looked at levels of more than 200 chemical pollutants that are collectively known as PCBs in hundreds of harbour porpoises stranded off the coasts of Scotland, England and Wales.

Juveniles had the highest levels of chemicals thought to be most toxic to the brain and nervous system.

It's vital to learn more about PCB exposure in juvenile animals "to mitigate the impact of these dangerous chemicals on populations", said Prof Susan Jobling of Brunel University London.

Populations of harbour porpoises around the UK are believed to be stable, though they face threats from pollution, accidental fishing and infection. The situation is much more dire for killer whales, which are down to a handful of individuals.

"We only have eight killer whales left of our resident population," said Rosie Williams. "This kind of work can be used to inform policy and conservation for those much more threatened species."

The latest research is published in the journal Science of the Total Environment.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50631664.