RAGWEED POLLEN: Climate change is extending the pollen season for plants like ragweed in northern North America--bad news for allergy sufferers.
Image: © iStockphoto.com / Melinda Fawver
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Bad news for—achoo!—those who sniffle, er suffer their way through ragweed—sniff, snort, itch—season: A team of researchers has found that increased warming, particularly in the northern half of North America, has added weeks to the fall pollen season.
It's enough to make you grab a tissue: Minneapolis has tacked 16 days to the ragweed pollen season since 1995; LaCrosse, Wisc. has added 13 days, Winnipeg and Saskatoon in Canada have added 25 and 27 days, respectively.
The new research, published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, finds the longer pollen seasons correlate with the disproportionate warming happening around the planet and attributed to greenhouse gas emissions.
Upper latitudes are warming faster than mid-latitudes, and the pollen season is lengthening in proportion. Scientists and health officials found no appreciable warming in Texas, Arkansas or Oklahoma.
"It's not just theoretical," said Lewis Ziska, the study's lead author and a plant physiologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's crop system and global change laboratory. "We are seeing a signal based on what in fact the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is predicting."
The impact goes far beyond mere sniffles and inconvenience. Some 50 million Americans have allergies, according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. Of those, 35 million suffer nasal allergies, known broadly as hay fever, said Mike Tringale, the association's vice president.
For 75 percent of those 35 million, ragweed is the primary allergen, he added.
And in many cases, allergies can trigger a bout of asthma, or make it worse.
Dr. Nancy Ott, a physician with Southdale Pediatrics in Edina, Minn., has seen "a lot more desperate calls" over the past four to six years. "These longer seasons can be a problem" particularly for those with asthma, she said. "I try to get patients in early, make sure they have a red 'X' on Feb. 28 or whenever the pollen season starts."
The findings correlate with analysis last year by the National Wildlife Federation that found ragweed growth rates and pollen counts increased with global warming. In one study, accelerating spring's arrival by 30 days prompted a 54 percent increase in ragweed pollen production.
The danger with a lengthening season—and perhaps a more intense one—is pollen's potential to overwhelm immune systems that, up till now, have withstood the onslaught, Tringale said.
Much as water in a bathtub is not a problem until it starts to overflow, pollen for many is not an irritant until it crosses a particular threshold, he said.
"With the longer season, with the creeping breadth of the geographic footprint of the season, and with more powerful plants producing more pollen, it's a triple threat," he added. "Now you've got yourself a much wider population that could potentially be affected that might not have been affected before.'
See what we're tweeting about
28 Comments
Add CommentVendicar- Your statement is actually an untruthful use of statistics. Arctic ice levels are no lower than they were in 2006 and are actually higher than that year overall. A reasonable person would point out that over the last 5 years that there has been zero lessening of arctic ice. That seems strange given how CO2 levels have risen over that time. Why no correlation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us see what the professionals at the National Sea Ice Data Center have to say:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/092710.html
"The 2010 minimum ice extent was the third-lowest recorded since 1979. The 2010 minimum ice extent was 37,000 square kilometers (14,000 square miles) above 2008; 470,000 square kilometers (181,000 square miles) above the record minimum in 2007; and 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) below 2009, previously the third lowest extent since 1979. The 2010 minimum ice extent was 2.11 million square kilometers (815,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average and 1.74 million square kilometers (672,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2009 average"
Now let us all keep in mind that we are only talking of extent, not volume.
All me to put this in bullet points.
Lowest Sea Ice Extent:
1. 2007
2. 2008
3. 2010
Then again what we should all be paying attention to is the multi-decade trend in sea ice extent and volume. When we do that, well, it looks even worse:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100927_Figure2.png
And volume:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
Now what about the January 2011 sea ice extent report? Once again, going to the source, I find:
"Arctic sea ice extent averaged over January 2011 was 13.55 million square kilometers (5.23 million square miles). This was the lowest January ice extent recorded since satellite records began in 1979."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/020211.html
Now tell me: Whose honesty should we be calling into question?
Mememine Says: You know it's not a trust worthy news source when it's news editors are still spewing support for the CO2 mistake, that they knowingly lied to us about for 25 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis message brought to you by: Exxon-Mobil
@Ninny 69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLearn to use paragraphs. No one reads a wall of text.
@Ninny69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Ah,have you SEEN an IPCC report?"
It is reports and it uses paragraphs. It already is one up, on you, on the coherence front.
"Read them, then you can see why the planet is not warming out of control"
This makes no sense. Also the planet is warming. Just as was predicted back in 1896 it would.
See?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif
No matter how many times you repeat the lie it is still warming. Get over it. It only serves to instantly discredit you.
Trent and Vendicar have glanced at the IPCC reports- they superficially know the science, but just get it wrong and try to be dramatic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are facts that are correct.
1. Increased GHG's (CO2) will result in warming on earth if all other factors remain unchanged. Unfortunately, (from a prediction standpoint) all factors do not remain unchanged on the real earth. Science is not yet able to fully understand fully understand the coralation between CO2 levels and worldwide temperatures. There are other factors besides the basic physics of GHG's affecting the temperatures on earth.
2. There is almost no reliable evidence that a warmer earth is actually worse for humanity in the long term. Yes the climate will change. It will change over decades not months.
3. There is no evidence to support taking the actions suggested by people like James Hansen and others who want immediate reductions in US CO2 emissions levels by shutting down all coal fired power plants. That would cost the US $1.5 Trillion and would potentially result in a change in tempertures of .08 C
And Sisko comes in with a distraction tactic. I wonder why in a three paragraph reply he not once mentions the Arctic Sea Ice extent? Could it be that he knows he has been caught out and thus disjointedly starts a new talking point? Sure it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdmit it, Sisko. You are wrong on sea ice extent. Come on. You will feel so much better and improve everyone's opinion of you if you can admit the error.
I challenge someone to point out a potential future problem identified in the IPCC reports that you think will be dire and that could not very easily be managed or mitigated via proper infrastructure construction over the time periods involved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk Vendicar and Trent I challenge someone to point out a potential future problem identified in the IPCC reports that you think will be dire and that could not very easily be managed or mitigated via proper infrastructure construction over the time periods involved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent--I happen to check the Arctic ice levels very frequently as I have it bookmarked. 2010/2011 is similar to 2006/2007 but certainly not worse overall.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Vendicar- your statement “the peak Arctic sea ice extent will reach the lowest level ever recorded in human history” will be proven to be statistically WRONG in early March. The low peak ice levels this year will be statically equivalent to 2006/2007 given the margin of error in the two years. If you were to say there has never been a year with less ice you would be correct, but to say 2010 is the lowest is not correct. I know you are looking at the chart and seeing it below the prior line but it is within the margin of error.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLowest in the satelite record, not in human history except for those humans born in the past three decades. Typical lies of the AGW preisthood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat *haven't* you global warming fanatics tried to scare us with yet?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGive it a rest.
These are the levels of inteligence exhibited by the self apointed high priests of the AGW movement. Ignore the content if you don't like it, attack the messenger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it that after getting caught in lie you persist in it? You have been shown the data and your response is from a blog well know for its lies. Why?
@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The low peak ice levels this year will be statically equivalent to 2006/2007 given the margin of error in the two years."
You do know that one, two or even for data points do not make a trend, right?
Carlyle Says: Lowest in the satelite record, not in human history except for those humans born in the past three decades. Typical lies of the AGW preisthood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle Translated: I am going to ignore the record.
@Joe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The ALGORE timeclock to distruction has 5 years left. AlGORE said we only had 10 years left, that was in 2006. Remember this date. The year is 2016. Thats it!"
Where did he say that? Please provide primary sources for this assertion. What is the context? Please no blogs or editorials, just give me the unedited source.
There are dozens of printed records of interviews with Al Gore from 2006 endorsing the claim that we may only have 10 years left before catastrophe. We did not have the Youtube facilities of today to provide video playback but would so many interview records lie?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishere is one: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/special_events/green_week/article1065876.ece
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour link does not support your assertion. From the link:
"Mr Gore added: ?I have to say the situation has not improved since I made the movie in 2006. Sure, awareness has grown and more people are concerned since scientists said we had just ten years to take action to halt rising sea levels."
Nothing controversial about that unless you dismiss the science. Oh, wait....
Why are the climate change headlines always about bad things. This one is typical: "Climate Change Makes X Worse", where X is a bad thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about accentuating the positives for a change: "Climate Change Extends Growing Season" or "Climate Change Leads to Lower Home Heating Cost for the Elderly". The effects, if there are any, will not be uniformly bad. There will be winners & losers.
Trent--the data is the data-- the fact that you do not the wuwt site is just your own prejudice not science. You have been shown not to care much about real data though
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, Trent---my comment to Vendicar was exactly correct, it is unfortunate that your understanding is limited about statistics
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Trent--the data is the data-- the fact that you do not the wuwt site is just your own prejudice not science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisListen to what you are saying. You prefer a blog that demonstratively uses lies and distortions to the place that actually produces the data and has real scientist.
"You have been shown not to care much about real data though"
Irony: You are doing it right.
"Again, Trent---my comment to Vendicar was exactly correct, it is unfortunate that your understanding is limited about statistics"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRepeating a lie does not make it more true. Now tell me. How many data points do you need to decide a trend:
One? Two? Three? More? Inquiring minds want to know.
Trent--so you never answered the question- What are the problems identified by the IPCC that could not be easily managed by infrastructure planning, construction, maintenance???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko Says: so you never answered the question
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Actually I have every time you asked it. You just seem to conveniently forget every time.
Sisko Says: What are the problems identified by the IPCC that could not be easily managed by infrastructure planning, construction, maintenance???
1. Ocean Acidification
2. Weeds and disease moving into now warmer climates. Hello, Bark Beetle!
3.The extinction of species that will be unable to move further north in the Northern Hemisphere and further south in the Southern Hemisphere and those species that will be unable to go higher in altitude.
4. The inability of some crops to cope beyond a limited temperature range. Go ahead and look up what the optimum temperature is for a good rice harvest is, for example.
5. The increased frequency of extreme rain patterns and drought in different areas.
6. The movement of precipitation patterns further North in the Northern Hemisphere thus disrupting agriculture practices.
7. The diminishment of glacial run off for drinking, industrial and agricultural purposes.
8. The inability of the world's economy to build dikes around every coastal city, every inhabited coast on the planet.
There is more but this right off the top of my head.
Thanks for the updates Vendicar. I understand that you are demonstrating that Sisko is one more member of the militantly ignorant moron brigade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this