On the plus side, they mention in the press release that CO2 boosts plant growth.
A look at tomorrow’s climate:
Pollen levels are rising across Europe
16.04.2012, Press releases
From Reykjavik to Thessaloniki, pollen levels are on the increase. A team of researchers headed by Prof. Annette Menzel at the Technische Universitaet Muenchen reports that pollen counts have already risen across Europe in recent years. Their findings are based on an analysis of pollen time series in 13 countries (PLoS ONE). This trend is more pronounced in urban areas, where pollen counts are rising by an average of around three percent per year compared with one percent per year in rural areas. And the scientists believe that climate change will strengthen this trend.
When trees and plants release their pollen, millions of hay fever sufferers are affected by sneezing fits and itchy, watery eyes. Today in Germany, roughly every fourth person suffers from allergies – and this figure is set to rise. Climate change is seen as one of the factors fuelling the increase in allergic responses. Lab experiments and a small number of open-air studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air can boost plant growth and subsequently pollen production. Warmer temperatures and invasive species are also leading to longer pollen seasons.
An international team of researchers headed by ecoclimatologist Prof. Annette Menzel at the Technische Universitaet Muenchen (TUM) has revealed just how much the pollen burden has increased across Europe.
The team of scientists evaluated 1,221 long-term pollen series from thirteen different countries, calculating normalized trends of annual pollen indices over a period of at least ten years. These indices can now be used to compare different key allergenic pollen species from different climates.
The researchers found that the concentration of airborne pollens has risen particularly sharply in cities in recent years. In urban areas across Europe, pollen concentration has risen by an average of three percent per year. In rural areas, they recorded a rise of one percent per annum. An increase in CO2 concentration is the most probable cause for the rise in pollen levels.
Prof. Menzel believes that allergy sufferers from Reykjavik to Thessaloniki will be exposed to even higher pollen levels in the future. “Even today, cities are warmer, dryer and more polluted places,” explains Prof. Menzel. The ecoclimatologist is therefore using urban areas as a testbed for developing more accurate predictions about the effects of climate change. Temperatures in dense, urban environments, known as heat islands, can be one to three degrees higher than the surrounding areas. Levels of CO2 and pollutants are also often higher in these environments. Ozone values, however, are usually higher in the regions surrounding larger cities. But this does not give the all-clear for rural areas, as the climatologist explains: “The conditions we are recording in urban environments today are expected to spread to rural areas in the future.”
Pollen, however, is only a carrier of allergens, making pollen count just one factor in the prediction of future allergy trends. Prof. Menzel is therefore working with allergologist Prof. Claudia Traidl-Hoffmann from the Center of Allergy and Environment (ZAUM) (TUM / German Research Center for Environmental Health) to research allergy trends in urban and rural areas. Their investigations have revealed that levels of allergens vary from year to year and that pollen counts also differ in rural and urban areas. More detailed research results will soon be available. What the scientists do already know, however, is that city dwellers will not be the only ones suffering from future climate trends.
Background:
The research took place within the framework of the Global Change focus group at the Institute for Advanced Study of the Technische Universitaet Muenchen.
Publication:
C. Ziello, T.H. Sparks, N. Estrella, J. Belmonte, K.C. Bergmann, E. Bucher, M.A. Brighetti, A. Damialis, M. Detandt, C. Galan, R. Gehrig, L. Grewling, A.M. Gutierrez Bustillo, M. Hallsdottir, M.-C. Kockhans-Bieda, C. De Linares, D. Myszkowska, A. Paldy, A. Sanchez, M. Smith, M. Thibaudon, A. Travaglini, A. Uruska, R.M. Valencia-Barrera, D. Vokou, R. Wachter, L.A. de Weger, A. Menzel (2012): Changes to airborne pollen counts across Europe, PLoS ONE
http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034076
Contact:
Technische Universitaet Muenchen
Prof. Annette Menzel Chair of Ecoclimatology
Phone: 08161 714740
Email: amenzel@wzw.tum.de
http://www.oekoklimatologie.wzw.tum.de
Arctic ice has been suspended as its getting to big and could affect jobs at the climate centres
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
Two weeks now. Just you watch for a little adjusting downwards after revisions LOL
OT, but clicking that link to the self-declared “progressive” running for Congress is a great way to send click money to this blog. Listening to the audio part of that link is a great way to hear an example of why certain people should notbe in politics, if the photo in the link is not enough.
I’m sure I read that inctreases in susceptibility to allergies has been strongly linked to cleaner homes and lifestyle changes that reduce exposure to things through which we would normally build immunities.
The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is not 1% per year.
Mike Jowsey says:
April 18, 2012 at 4:03 am
That was my immediate reaction at the top of the page.
Bursting as I was with self importance and ready to impart that pearl of wisdom to all assembled here, you can imagine my consternation on finding your post as I neared the Leave a Reply box at the bottom!
If the bee population crash is in fact as bad as reported, then it is reasonable to suppose that the profound reduction in young bees would result in a noticeable surfeit of their staple food, namely pollen.
Halfwits – all of them!
So UHI is real! And it leads to UPI (Urban Pollen Islands)!
Since when did pollen become a pollutant?
I blame all those inner city gardeners…
I’m doing my best to increase urban pollen count. Besides an extensive garden, there’s about a 10’x10′ patch of Dutch Clover left unmowed and going to seed in the back yard. There are so many butterflies and honey bees, etc. in the patch, at times, that they can’t be counted.
Honey bees are content to go about their business, but the butterflies seem to be quite territorial and fuss at each other incessantly.
The honey bees had all but disappeared around here until last year, when they began to reappear in the gardens. Now, they seem as prevalent as always. i can only speculate about their decline/resurgence.
This is a direct response to the “urban-greening” projects going on since most air-borne pollen is tree and grass pollen. Most flowers are insect pollinated and so little pollen gets into the air. When we had flower beds and lawns were manicured (meaning cut regularly) there was much less grass pollen.
At least we can say that this is “anthropogenic” – humans have certainly caused this!
If pollen is a pollutant, does that mean they’ll start taxing gardens and anyone who plants something that produces pollen? Might the EPA impose a cap on pollen production and set fines for exceeding it?
Increases in reported allergies are just that – reported and nearly all self-reported. True allergy rates remain around 1-3%of the population, while self-reported allergy rates are up to 50% (well, parents reporting child allergies anyway).
The conspiracy theorist in me sees this rise coming around the same time as many allergy medicines became available over the counter and thus no need to go and see a doctor to get access to them.
Sshhh….. Don’t tell the EPA or they’ll make a determination that pollen is a pollutant. Pollen recapture, anyone? /s
Kudos to “Prof. Menzel”. A direct relationship between “global warming”, pharmaceuticals, “people feeling miserable”, and “government funding”. A very impressive accomplishment!!!
/sarc
marchesarosa says:
April 18, 2012 at 1:25 am
It seems to me that at least two other causes needs to be considered, and those are quite possibly primary causes. One is the prohibition of herbicide use, and the other is the growing trend by city administrations to reduce and in some cases eliminate cutting of grass in parks, on boulevards and in road-side ditches.
Both of those policy changes cause the proliferation of weeds in European cities, especially in Germany. It should be noted that the policy changes were initially a result of pressure by greenies, but are now more a question of priorities in budgeting and lack of necessary finances.
There is a third cause of interest, especially in Germany, the planting of trees. Not only the pollen of weeds such as ragweed cause allergic reactions known as hay fever, but the pollen of certain trees does so as well.
“Anemophilous spring blooming plants such as oak, birch, hickory, pecan, and early summer grasses may also induce pollen allergies.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollen#Hay_fever
A simple pollen count will not provide insights into any of that. The pollen collected would have to be analyzed over the years to determine which type of plants, trees or grasses produced it, to determine which specific types of pollen increased over time.
I believe that trends in the volume of a specific variety of pollen collected would more likely point to the consequences of horticultural practices in cities than to rising atmospheric CO2 levels.
Last year, here in the San Francisco Bay area, we suffered through a severe spring pollen season. The greatest pollen load was coming from trees that were responding to an abundance of rain. It seems that trees are not as likely to attempt propagation when there is insufficient water to actually produce offspring, but look out when the water is available. Kind of like sailors going on shore leave? Since the type of pollen was not discussed in the article, could it possibly be that the alleged researchers are actually measuring a tree response to the wetter conditions across Europe over the past few years? Wasn’t it only two years ago that we were reading about and watching the ‘unprecedented’ flooding in Europe? Just might be that the trees liked it…and produced more pollen? Who’d a thunk it?
Rob Potter says:
April 18, 2012 at 6:06 am
Sorry for not reading all of the comments first before I posted my long reply.
Rob, you are exactly right! Unfortunately, such a reasonable explanation is not politically-correct and will not serve to create research funding.
This was a bomb even as an M. Night Shyamanlan movie.
This is about the first warmist article I have read that is likely to be correct – Higher CO2 – More plant-life = More Biodiversity and a healthier world.
Thats the trouble with all this alarm. CO2 is causing more pollen, precisely because the biosphere is being enriched. The jury is still out for the long term on how big or small the impact of CO2 is on temperature, but there is no reasonable argument against the beneficial effects of CO2 on plants and plants provide food and cover for critters. Maybe coal fired utilities should get a green badge and a Nobel Prize if this much depreciated honour is still worth something.
Since the earth as a whole has been “greening” over the last few decades, increasing amounts of pollen shouldn’t be a surprise.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
Lab experiments and a small number of open-air studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air can boost plant growth and subsequently pollen production.
I knew this 40 years ago since my cousin, who was an agronomy major in college at the time, told me all about augmenting CO2 in greenhouses and problems with corn growth in Iowa on windless days due to lack of sufficient CO2.
(By the way, this whole study is analagous to augmenting men with testosterone and then suddenly discovering that the birth rate went up–how odd!)
Beating head against desk just so he can finish reading . . . .
Carrie says:
April 18, 2012 at 3:59 am
It’s not rocket science, doh!
I’m afraid we may not be able to use that term much longer,Carrie,at least not in NA. After the last “flight” of the shuttle to its final display spot,the dumbimg down of our school kids,and the out-sourcing of future space flights so NASA can concentrate on eco-fraudulent science,we here in NA will be lucky if our weather guys/gals can even launch a weather ballon in a few years!
Never misunderestimate the important role of cherry pickers in the realm of climate science.
I’ve only read a portion of the comments, but no one (and especially not the study authors) seems to be paying any attention to the fact that urban areas all across the West have placed a huge emphasis in recent years on actually “greening” their environments: more parks, more trees, more grassy areas (such as between and along train tracks!!) more rooftop garden oases (such as on high rises)… Who is surprised that, when you intentionally increase the amount of vegetation, you increase the pollen count?
I would venture that (1) the study authors did nothing to control for the volume of greenery and (2) the greenery trend explains 100% of the difference between the urban and rural pollen increases (3% vs. 1%). Explaining the 1% increase is harder – maybe some of that can be attributed to CO2, or maybe the causes are similar but since there are more trees to start, adding one here or there makes a lot less difference?
But I bet explaining the +2% in urban areas is not hard. It is likely due to deliberate actions taken in the name of improving the living experience – actions which, by and large, I suspect everyone is “for” (depending on cost).
Damn. I thought thy liked the trees and plants and animals?
They are quite perplexing.