[flagged]
> Elephants are highly sociable animals, and also were likely stressed due to the drought conditions at the time, which made such an outbreak more likely.
> Scientists believe the Pasteurella bacteria generally lives harmlessly in the tonsils of some, if not all, of the antelopes. An unusual temperature increase to 37C, however, caused the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream, where it caused septicaemia.
> Pasteurella bacteria has previously been linked to the sudden death of about 200,000 saiga antelopes in Kazakhstan – an incident that researchers believe could shed light on what happened to the elephant herds. Scientists believe the Pasteurella bacteria generally lives harmlessly in the tonsils of some, if not all, of the antelopes. An unusual temperature increase to 37C, however, caused the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream, where it caused septicaemia.
I read it as the effect of body temperature, but the parent has interpreted it as air temperature. I am not sure which interpretation is correct.
> They concluded that a rise in temperature to 37C and an increase in humidity above 80% in the previous few days had stimulated the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream where it caused haemorrhagic septicaemia, or blood poisoning.
Not at all. The whole point of warm-blooded organisms is to maintain a constant temperature, to a really good level of accuracy.
A change in body temperature is not needed for this sort of things to happen, though. A warmer environment is enough. See for example the headlines about flesh eating bacteria creeping north in the US.
"... except because it will be efficiently removed by its immune system (that knows perfectly what is a Pasteurella)" is the part of the phrase that is missing here.
It this does not happen... the question is why this year is not happening.
https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/scientists-uncover-cause-myste...
Paper link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41987-z
Climate change is something that happens and will continue to happen long before and after humanity.
If we want to preserve our world we want to focus our energy into conservation and not resource politics.
Everything is not fine, but without clear cut research linking two completely different problems is not a scientific way of understanding why what happened. Fear mongering is what the original commenter is doing.
Then my apologies. The hand-wavey 'climate change happened before and will happen again' sounded like you thought it wasn't a critically important challenge facing us, frequently being down-graded by people with vested interests in understating the problem via dismissive 'this has happened before and we're okay' style comments.
The 'we need more science' refrain is also often heard from that quarter, so I expect you'll continue to spark a certain reaction when you use that phrase.
The problem in TFA definitely seems to be related to small rises in temperature leading to a much more favourable environment for pathogens. That it happened in elephants is profoundly sad, but what's genuinely frightening is we probably have close to zero coverage on what pathogens we're susceptible to are about to reach a viability threshold with a 2 degree rise.
In another comment you ignored TFA findings and said:
> But I am probably going to point out increased commercial farming in Africa as a potential culprit. The use of fertilizers are an issue with algae and bacteria growth.
It would be convenient for climate change apologists if that were the case, but as per TFA the event seems to be pretty clearly attributable to Pasteurella bacteria.
You quote, and say but you're an apologist. Please check your privelege. This isn't an apologist stance. One of the largest influencers of climate change is the growth of crops not deomestically supported by the environment. Agriculture in Africa has raised drastically over the last 5 years and the use of fertilizers in Africa is among the highest in the world.
I think we're done with this conversation because you don't understand someone who would rather take the scientific approach of analyzing a problem when you'll foot in mouth take the emotional route.
You said you thought we should 'look into fertilisers' as the root cause.
Perhaps you could argue your well-reasoned case with the authors of the paper published in Nature:
TLDR fertalizers increase bacterium growth study done on bowvine. Fertalizer use in Africa as a content is up 300% and 33% higher than most developing countries. For example while USA uses a lot of fertilizer a small country like South Africa uses half. That is a lot in terms of land.
It's just that this isn't caused by _that_ problem.
TFA, and more importantly the upstream scientific paper they're citing, determine a different cause here - increase in temperature.
However I would suggest that it is not an existential threat to humanity. It IS a threat to an enormous number of individuals (literally billions) but humans will continue to populate the earth long after the climate has changed.
Humans have proved to very adaptable, living sustainably in the deserts of the Sahara as well as the ice of Alaska. I don't think we'll see the decision of humanity here.
Life as we know it? Civilization? Sure I can see cataclysmic change there over the next 100 years. Then again life now is completely different to 100 years ago, so that's no surprise.
The planet has been hotter and there was still wildlife. I am not going to rule out climate change as a problem.
But I am probably going to point out increased commercial farming in Africa as a potential culprit. The use of fertilizers are an issue with algae and bacteria growth.
Guarantee you the elephants dying are more in alignment of increased use of fertilizers.
What the poster you replied to wrote, is a true statement. No fear mongering required
Humans are the factor, but the planet has been warming up for a long time. I guarantee this bacterial growth is more connected to fertilizers uses in crops nearby.