Slashdot Mirror

Sea turtles under threat as majority being born are female....

THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST NEWS WE'VE HEARD ABOUT SEA TURTLES IN YEARS!!!!

Why?

Okay, let's just use our brains. And for a moment, in order to simplify, I am going to use humans in order to reduce the variable set (as sea turtles lay batches of eggs).

Lets say there are a 100 people. What is the maximum number of new babies that can be born?

Let's say, it was a 50/50 population of male/female. The maximum with typical births is 50 babies born.

The maximum births would be achieved by a population of 99 females, and 1 male. Yes, a single fertile male human being could fertilize 99 human females (and likely enjoy it too). Giving 99 new babies, though the human race would suffer from genetic diversity issues.

The nightmare scenario is not more females being born, but more males. If we had 99 males, and only 1 female...the birth rate is 1.

What this report really points too, is a potential rebound for sea turtles. If we have 10 to 90 ration, we are looking at potentially seeing a lot lot more sea turtles. Why might this be? Okay, they blame the warmer sea temps. And they may in fact be a factor, but lets look at the standard life equation. Population increases occur when there is habitat and food. Presently, there is talk about a increase in jellyfish populations, with some regions seeing a 40%-60% increase.
http://www.isciencetimes.com/a...

This means more availability of sea turtles prime food. Okay, so now consider the correlation. More food, turtles not having to range as far, so they're staying in the warmer regions. Big glut of jellyfish, saw one article exclaim that global warming was going to cause jellyfish to take over the ocean. So now, one of the prime predators of jellyfish is setting the stage to take advantage of this jellyfish bloom.

THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!!

***
As for the coral reef die offs/bleaching. Yes, that gets blamed on global warming. However, there are a number of scientists who have said that is a mere secondary issue. The primary cause is extremely high levels of agricultural pesticides, (designed to kill arthropods and invertebrates), that are affecting the reefs - particularly off the coast of Australia.

Similar to the bee die offs, which were repeatedly blamed on global warming, until strong evidence began showing that pesticides, such as nicotides and others were largely responsible. And with both colonies (bees and coral) what we see is a conjunction of issues. Pesticides weaken the species, which become more susceptible to illnesses (parasites particularly with bees, and a herpes virus with coral reefs).

http://e360.yale.edu/features/...

https://www.realnatural.org/dy...

***
IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, you need to STFU about global warming. Because whether it is occurring or not is irrelevant. (Trust me, the earth has been much warmer, life thrived, vegetation increased, deserts shrunk, granted human coastal villages and cities may be under water...but humans adapt.) However, global warming is being used to mask the multitude of real and threatening environmental problems.

> Deforestation used to be a topic. We've not stopped cutting down rainforests, nor looked at using rapid renewables such as hemp for paper or bamboo to replace our 2x4's.

> Pesticides and herbicides used to be a topic. Now, all the die off of species are blamed on global warming. Some of these chemicals are genetically destructive and can persist for decades, centuries, perhaps even milleniums.

> We used to talk about waste, landfills, etc. But we don't...we only talk about global warming.

Global warmin

http://www.isciencetimes.com/a...

" the doomsday is coming" - it is coming, no matter what we do as it has done over the billions of years this planet has had hot/cold cycles. Its just at what speed it arrives and the scientific consensus is that the human race is accelerating it. Its only another 1.75 billion or so years before the sun burns so hot its going to destroy the earth anyway. http://www.isciencetimes.com/a...

The deniers do not put forward any scientific arguments that contradict what is actually happening, most deniers are linked to the fossil fuel industry and a renewable agenda affects their pocket (unless they get on board). Being a sceptic is fine, it promotes discussion, being a denier doesn't. A denier is like a child sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "I can't hear you"

I'm sure that in 1985, plutonium is available in every corner drugstore.
D'OH!

Actually, in the Puget Sound, caffeine comes courtesy of a Starbucks on every corner: http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/3617/20120807/caffeine-pollution-pacific-waters.htm. Artificial flavor esters are also found in the water.