Dying bees indicate mass murder of Fauna and Flora by Tropospheric SRM!

Let us dissect the propaganda from the university of dumbest rich kids.

How Rising CO2 Levels May Contribute to Die-Off of Beeshttp://e360.yale.edu/feature/bee_collapse_co2_climate_change_agriculture/2991/ by lisa palmer

Dissection is done piece by piece. The propaganda claims are abbreviated as „PC:“ and answers follow with an „DA:“ for dissecting answer.

PC: „As they investigate the factors behind the decline of bee populations, scientists are now eyeing a new culprit — soaring levels of carbon dioxide, which alter plant physiology and significantly reduce protein in important sources of pollen.“

DA: CO2 level is not soaring. If there was more CO2 in air and also sunlight was not blocked by TSRWM (Tropospheric Solar Radiation and Water Management) the plants would absorb the CO2 from air very quickly as it is essential food for them. CO2 doesn’t „alter the pysiology“ of plants but the lack of sunlight and the pollution of air with fine SRM dust does.

The newer samples look much like the older generations. But scientists testing the pollen content from goldenrod collected between 1842 and 2014, when atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide rose from about 280 parts per million to 398 ppm, found the most recent pollen samples contained 30 percent less protein. The greatest drop in protein occurred from 1960 to 2014, when the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose dramatically. A field experiment in the same study that exposed goldenrod to CO2 levels ranging from 280 to 500 ppm showed similar protein decreases.

More than 100 previous studies have shown that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide decrease the nutritional value of plants, such as wheat and rice. But the goldenrod study, published last month, was the first to examine the effects of rising CO2 on the diet of bees, and its conclusions were unsettling: The adverse impact of rising CO2 concentrations on the protein levels in pollen may be playing a role in the global die-off of bee populations by undermining bee nutrition and reproductive success. 

“Pollen is becoming junk food for bees,” says Lewis Ziska, a plant physiologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Research Service in Maryland and lead author of the study. The study itself concluded that the decline of plant proteins in the face of soaring carbon dioxide concentrations provides an “urgent and compelling case” for CO2 sensitivity in pollen and other plant components. 

Elevated CO2 levels affect plant physiology by enabling the plant’s starchier parts to grow faster and bigger, since atmospheric carbon dioxide is a building block for plant sugars. For goldenrod, this growth essentially dilutes the plant’s total protein, 

From 2006 to 2011, losses from managed honeybee colonies averaged 33 percent per year in the U.S.

rather than concentrating it in the grain, which makes a starchier pollen. 

“I knew there was work done on insects about how rising CO2 would reduce the protein content of leaves, and so insects will need to eat more leaves to get the same amount of protein,” says Ziska. “But until now, we didn’t know about how CO2 affects protein content in pollen.” The study is a synthesis of the knowledge about what is happening to bees and how CO2 impacts the quality of plants, and it brings those two disparate ideas together. 

A number of new and accumulating pressures are threatening bee populations. From 2006 to 2011, annual losses from managed honeybee colonies averaged 33 percent per year in the United States, according to the USDA. Beekeepers have had to replace 50 percent of their colonies in recent years. Factors such as mite outbreaks and the use of neonicotinoid pesticides have been implicated in so-called “colony collapse disorder.” 

“I am not saying that understanding neonicotinoids or Varroa mites is not important, but I am saying that how bees respond to these stressors might have something to do with their nutrition,” says Ziska. “If we are mucking around with their nutrition, all these other responses could be affected.” 

Bees eat two foods to keep them alive, nectar and pollen, which are fundamentally sugar and protein. Bees can scout a good source of nectar and tell the rest of the hive where it can be found. But bees don’t have a communication strategy for protein. They cannot recognize whether the pollen they consume is a good protein source or not. And by late fall, when bees begin to store food for the winter, the pollen choices are limited. 

Goldenrod records kept in the Smithsonian’s botany archives. Enlarge image.
Photo: Smithsonian NMNH

“It’s not like honeybees and native bees have a menu of lots of different species to choose from,” says Joan Edwards, a pollen ecologist at Williams College in Massachusetts and co-author of the goldenrod study. “Because goldenrod and asters are the only food available for bees [in late season], it limits their ability to adapt. They can’t turn to another food source.” 

Some beekeepers have turned to supplementing food for honeybee populations, but native bees like bumble bees don’t have that option, explains Edwards. “Native bees do the lion’s share of pollination,” says Edwards. “Bumble bees and solitary bees provide a free ecosystem service for our food supply. Lack of protein is threatening native pollinators, which has huge public health consequences.” Roughly 35 percent of global crop production depends on pollination to produce fruit, vegetables, seeds, nuts, and oils. 

Unlike other insects, which will eat more leaves to compensate for lower protein levels in their food, bees will eat a quantity of pollen, but will not adjust consumption based on nutritional inferiority, says entomologist Jeff Pettis, research leader at the USDA’s bee laboratory. However, at least one laboratorystudy indicates that bees can be resilient to nutritional stress. The laboratory bees foraged for a broader diet, if one is available, to compensate for a nutrition imbalance by identifying complementary types of pollen — similar to how vegetarians balance legumes and grains to get a complete protein. 

“Overall the diet of pollinators is going down due to land degradation, pesticide use, and habitat destruction, and now the protein content of their pollen is less,” says Pettis. 

With all of these other stresses on bees, it may just be the straw that breaks the beehives‘ back,‘ says a scientist.

Scientists know that inferior-quality pollen has an immediate effect of shortening the lifespan of bees because it directly affects the size and strength of the bee colony that will survive until spring. The lack of nutrition may alter bee behavior and vigor and contribute to colony collapse and degraded health of pollinators. 

May Berenbaum, professor of entomology at the University of Illinois, says that bees are having a hard time getting enough protein as it is. “A declining quality of protein across the board almost assuredly is affecting bees,” she says. “Like humans, good nutrition is essential for bee health by allowing them to fend off all kinds of health threats. Anything that indicates that the quality of their food is declining is worrisome.” 

By itself, the relative effect of lower nutrition might be small, but it still might be important, says David Hawthorne, associate professor of entomology at the University of Maryland. “It’s like death by a thousand blows,” Hawthorne says. “With all of these other stresses on bees, it could still matter because it may just be the straw that breaks the beehives’ back.” 

The findings that the nutritional quality of plants is changing and affecting pollinators fits squarely with a new field of interdisciplinary research called Planetary Health, which has emerged to assess the links between a changing planet and plant and human health. 

Samuel Myers, a senior research scientist at Harvard’s School of Public Health, has published groundbreaking studies on how rising CO2 levels lower the nutritional quality of foods that we eat, like rice, wheat, and maize, which lose significant amounts of zinc, iron, and protein when grown under higher concentrations of CO2. Plant composition depends on a balance between air, soil, and water. As CO2, the source of carbon for plant growth, proliferates quickly in the atmosphere, soil nutrients — such as nitrogen, iron, and magnesium — remain the same. As a result, plants produce more carbohydrates, but dilute other nutrients. 

In one study, Myers estimated that lower nutritional values in crops will push an estimated 132 million to 180 million people into a new risk of zinc deficiency.

The loss of pollinators would place 71 million people into vitamin A deficiency and 173 million into folate deficiency.

“Low levels of micronutrients are already an enormous health burden today and where people get iron and zinc is primarily from these kinds of crops,” says Myers. “With rising CO2, they get significant further reductions. That is a big deal from the global nutritional standpoint.” 

Myers — director of the Planetary Health Alliance, a new trans-disciplinary consortium aimed at understanding and addressing human health implications of Earth’s changing natural systems — also modeled how the complete decline in pollinators would affect human health. He calculated that the loss of pollinators would place 71 million people into vitamin A deficiency (which is linked to child mortality) and 173 million into folate deficiency (which is associated with birth defects). An additional 2.2 billion people already lacking in vitamin A would suffer more severe deficiencies, he projected. Overall, there would be 1.4 million excess deaths annually from complete pollinator decline. 

Now, new research questions are emerging to connect Myers’ research with Ziska’s with the goal of improving understanding of where this reduced pollen protein content is occurring globally and whether it is altering the nutritional status and health of bee populations. “One could imagine there are new nutritional impacts yet to be discovered,” Myers says. “If it is happening in goldenrod, there is no reason to believe this is not happening in other plants.” 

Myers said that a core principle in the field of planetary health is the element of surprise, which Ziska’s study illustrates. “We are fundamentally transforming all of the biophysical conditions that underpin the global food system,” said Myers. “Global food demand is rising at the same time the biophysical conditions are changing more rapidly than ever before. 

 Declining Bee Populations Pose A Threat to Global Agriculture

The danger that the decline of bees and other pollinators represents to the world’s food supply was highlighted this week when the European Commission decided to ban a class of pesticides suspected of playing a role in so-called “colony collapse disorder.” 

Chances are there are more surprises coming down the road. This is the tip of the iceberg in our understanding of changing health in a system that is changing rapidly.” 

Beyond the pollen–bee nexus, the extent and rate of multiple interacting environmental changes — including global warming, biodiversity loss, freshwater depletion, ocean acidification, and land use change — are unprecedented in human history. “The research showing how loss of pollinators could have serious adverse effects on nutrition and health outcomes is an important example of how environmental change can undermine human health,” Sir Andy Haines, a professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an email. 

Researcher Lewis Ziska thinks plants will adapt and change to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. But gesturing to the stacks of specimens at the herbarium at the Museum of Natural History, he says, “Here are 450,000 plant species, and every other living organism depends on plants as a food source. The fact that they are changing, all at different rates in an unprecedented time — it is pretty remarkable in trying to assess how the entire food web is changing.” 


The U.S. Can’t Afford To Keep Losing Honeybees Like This

It’s been another rough year for honeybees.
On Tuesday, the Bee Informed Partnership released its annual report on total losses of managed honeybees — those kept by beekeepers — across the country. The survey, which asked beekeepers about bee losses between April 2015 and April 2016, showed that U.S. beekeepers lost 44 percent of their colonies in that timeframe. That means that total losses worsened compared to last year’s survey, which reported losses of 42.1 percent.
These losses are a big deal for beekeepers, who collectively say that 18.7 percent is about the maximum amount of bees they can lose without serious economic impacts. They’re also a big deal for the country’s food supply: Crops like almonds, cherries, and blueberries are heavily dependent on honeybees, and the pollination services the insects provide come to $10 to $15 billion in total per year.

The survey, which gathered data from 5,700 beekeepers from 48 states, also found that summer bee losses were elevated for the second year in a row. That’s unusual: As Dennis vanEngelsdorp, co-author of the report and assistant professor of entomology at the University of Maryland, told ThinkProgress last year, summertime should be “paradise” for bees, with plenty of blooming plants to forage from. Some losses in the winter, when temperatures drop and plants aren’t in bloom, are expected — losses in summer aren’t.
VanEngelsdorp said Tuesday that scientists think pesticides could be playing a role in these summer losses — but that’s just a theory, he added via email to ThinkProgress. Poor nutrition may also be part of the problem: In some regions, there aren’t as many flower-rich meadows as there used to be — instead, they’re being plowed to make room for crops and other development. These wildflower fields provide a good source of nutrition for bees, so without them, bees may be becoming less healthy. Researchers are still trying to determine just what is causing bees to die in the summer.
A variety of factors are likely contributing to losses overall. The survey singled out the varroa mite, a tiny parasite that’s been ravaging bee colonies over the last several years. The mite attaches itself to bees and sucks out their circulatory fluid, weakening the bees and spreading diseases, including the deformed wing virus, which causes young bees to develop useless, crumpled-up wings.
“Many backyard beekeepers don’t have any varroa control strategies in place. We think this results in colonies collapsing and spreading mites to neighboring colonies that are otherwise well-managed for mites,” Nathalie Steinhauer, a graduate student in the UMD Department of Entomology and co-author of the report said in a statement. “We are seeing more evidence to suggest that good beekeepers who take the right steps to control mites are losing colonies in this way, through no fault of their own.”
Small-scale beekeepers do have some methods of controlling mite populations — for instance, some dust bees with powdered sugar, which prompts bees to increase their grooming activity and causes the mites to fall off. Beekeepers can use miticides to control the pests, but varroa mitesbreed extremely quickly and thus build up a resistance to chemicals rapidly. So efforts to combat the mite haven’t been completely successful. Some scientists, however, are trying to find other ways to control the mite: One beekeeper and entomologist in Washington is doing experiments to determine whether mushroom juice could help bees build up a resistance to the mite.
VanEngelsdorp said he and other researchers think that „pesticides that kill some bees, but not the entire colony may cause varroa to be more problematic.“ The theory behind that is that these pesticides reduce the number of bees in a colony, but don’t reduce the number of mites, meaning that there’s more mites per bee.
Pesticides have long been considered one of the contributing factors in bees‘ decline, though like most things surrounding honeybee health, they’re still being studied. This year, the Environmental Protection Agency released its first findings on neonicotinoids, a widely-used class of pesticide that’s been found in other research to affect bees‘ brains. The EPA is looking at four neonic pesticides this year, to see how they impact bees. Its first study was on imidacloprid, and it found that the pesticide is harmful to bees in high enough concentrations. Since concentrations differ from crop to crop, the agency found that some crops, like like cotton and citrus, were harmful to bees, but others, like like corn and berries, weren’t.
In addition to publishing assessments on three other forms of neonics, the EPA plans to do an assessment of the overall ecological effects of imidacloprid by December of this year. The agency may choose to take action on one or all of these pesticides once the commenting period for them ends. One state hasn’t waited for the EPA, however — last month, Maryland became the first statein the nation to enact a partial ban on neonics in an effort to protect honeybees and other pollinators in the state.