
Eric Worrall writes: We’re all set to sneeze more often as the globe warms, according to a new study published in PLOS One.
According to the abstract;
“One expected effect of climate change on human health is increasing allergic and asthmatic symptoms through changes in pollen biology. Allergic diseases have a large impact on human health globally, with 10–30% of the population affected by allergic rhinitis and more than 300 million affected by asthma. Pollen from grass species, which are highly allergenic and occur worldwide, elicits allergic responses in 20% of the general population and 40% of atopic individuals. Here we examine the effects of elevated levels of two greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), a growth and reproductive stimulator of plants, and ozone (O3), a repressor, on pollen and allergen production in Timothy grass (Phleum pratense L.). We conducted a fully factorial experiment in which plants were grown at ambient and/or elevated levels of O3 and CO2, to simulate present and projected levels of both gases and their potential interactive effects. We captured and counted pollen from flowers in each treatment and assayed for concentrations of the allergen protein, Phl p 5. We found that elevated levels of CO2 increased the amount of grass pollen produced by ~50% per flower, regardless of O3 levels. Elevated O3 significantly reduced the Phl p 5 content of the pollen but the net effect of rising pollen numbers with elevated CO2 indicate increased allergen exposure under elevated levels of both greenhouse gases. Using quantitative estimates of increased pollen production and number of flowering plants per treatment, we estimated that airborne grass pollen concentrations will increase in the future up to ~200%. Due to the widespread existence of grasses and the particular importance of P. pratense in eliciting allergic responses, our findings provide evidence for significant impacts on human health worldwide as a result of future climate change.”
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111712
As someone who suffers asthma and hay fever, and who lives on the edge of a large tropical botanic garden, I’ve got some simple advice for anyone worried about rising pollen levels in a warmer world. Rather than shutting down industrial civilization, buy the full strength anti-histamine pills.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well I have a simple solution. Kill all the plants. There, thats done.
You may laugh. Extreme Green holds that all life is a ghastly mistake and the planet should be returned to sterile simplicity.
Good idea lets start with extreme geens. 🙂
If that’s the case, “Extreme Green” isn’t green at all. Instead of green, they should refer to themselves as a brown movement.
Extreme Brown would be more appropriate, since papers like this one are huge steaming ploppers. Published in PLOPPER One.
I thought they said global warming would kill the plants and put us in the desert. At least they came to the realization that CO2 fosters the flora… Oh, forgot, anything with potential negative effects is undoubtedly AGW. After all, that’s the consensus. That settled my science, huh…
Removing all CO2 “pollution” from the atmosphere would do just that — kill all the plants, and then all the animals, too. On the bright side, there would be no more allergies. So, in that sense, CO2 does cause allergies, but the cure is worse than the disease.
Pssst! Don’t tell mankind that CO2 is essential plant food. This information is not political correct any more!
I don’t kid you! Did read it just yesterday in a modern European science school book for “freshman”-age pupils: “Plants need for their growth sunlight, minerals, water and AIR (sic!)”. Obviously the authors did not like telling the truth, that plants need especially the CO2 in the air. But the very same book claims on other pages without any doubts that CO2 is a dangerous greenhouse gas which must be reduced most urgently…
Well, that’s a striking example of the ruling climatism ideology of our age – unfortunately!
“Kill all the plants.”
Hey, they are already trying to starve them.. what’s one step further !!
Total rubbish. I have been a hayfever sufferer since birth. You do not ”catch it” you are born with it. It can be easily controlled with a tablet a day.
Not quite. It’s an immune system response that’s acquired by exposure to an allergen. From personal experience, medication isn’t always a help, but the reaction can diminish over time.
I agree there are some people who have a severe reaction to allergens. However all but the most extreme alarmists understand we won’t be hitting 800ppm for at least a few decades. If the science of treating immune response disorders hasn’t advanced dramatically, long before the CO2 levels described in the abstract become a reality, I shall be very surprised.
Eric
I have sufferd from asthma since a child and it was bad enough that I used the relevant puffers severl times a day.
Twelve years ago I went into hospital for a minor operation and went under the anaesthetic.
From that day to this I have not suffered from asthma . During the peak of the hay fever season I will be aware of runny eyes sometimes which, tragically, prevents me cutting the grass, but that’s it.
How this happened I do not know and no doctor has seemed interested in investigating.
Tonyb
My experience.
I grew up on the outskirts of London [to the NWxW 1/2 N – I’m not doing quarter points!], and I had no ‘hay fever’ symptoms.
I went to sea. Fine.
I did a summer at HQ (EC2Y 9BR), so pretty central. I found I had ‘hay fever’ – probably more related to diesel particulates than pollen.
I still suffer mildly (Thank goodness it is only mildly)
Auto
… and killer poison ivy. You’re gonna need an ocean, of calimine lotion.
Poison ivy! That’s a good one!
I can see the headlines now:
POISON IVY TO SPREAD UNDER GLOBAL WARMING. AP. Scientists say…..
stocks of Calamine lotion are expected to disappear…forecast mass epidemic of itching
You laugh? From the well known science journal “Golf Digest”…. http://www.golfdigest.com/blogs/the-loop/2014/07/poison-ivy-gets-performanced-e.html?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_218942&mbid=synd_zergnet
Frank/Ric Here’s the actual study on poison ivy-
http://mohanlab.uga.edu/pdfs/Ziska_Rising%20atmospheric%20carbon%20dioxide%20and%20potential%20impacts%20on%20the%20growth%20and%20toxicity%20of%20poisen%20ivy_Weed%20Science_2007.pdf
what’s “funny” is that the MSM articles say that the urushiol (the poison or skin reacts too) is also stronger- “There was a nonsignificant (P = 0.18) increase in urushiol concentration “. However,(Duh), C02 causes more plant growth, and the bigger plants have more urushiol per plant…..
(Of course this assumes that distribution of manmade C02 is even amongst all the plants of the world , (and that some plants don’t use up more of it). (Ie would poison ivy growing nearer to a freeway, be bigger than the stuff in the middle of the forest?)
Warmer and more CO2 means more pollen.
Seems reasonable to me.
It also means more plant life and thus more food.
Yes they found a negative in the fact that global crop production increases 20 percent with no increase in water or land, and they only talked about the potential increase in hay-fever. (But what the hey, on the other hand it may be their first confirmed negative from abundant CO2.)
And all this alarmist propaganda pseudo-science horse dump gives me diarrhea.
Another symptom of AGW.
Goodness it’s getting deep. We need a new band wagon!
Atishoo atishoo we all fall down!
I think the green horse throo a shoo on this one.
Hey, this one may even make some sense! But it comes with a negative feedback that they conveniently ignore. As more and more people suffer more and more from more and more severe allergic responses, more and more would be investigated on that field until a better solution was found and nobody had allergies any more, therefore reducing the sneezes. See?
“Global warming will make you sneeze more”
That should be “Global warming Hysteria will make you sneeze more”. I am allergic to the stupidity of the alarmists.
Ringo Starr was talking about global warming in his song “no thank you please”?
That’s a Hoyt Axton song, son.
It sounds like they’re running out of things caused by CAGW.
Here’s some new topics that might keep them going for a while. How about:
Road Rage/Melanoma/Athletes’ Foot/Marriage Breakup/Alcoholism/Flea Infestation/Mental Illness/Petrol Prices/Voting Irregularities/Homelessness.
There you go. Plenty for at least 12 month’s supply of Press Releases.
I can picture a group of scientist grant seeking wannabes sitting around discussing what to work on next. ‘How about CAGW causes lice? No already a paper on that. Syphillis? No, already a paper on that. Early menopause? No already a paper on that’
Don’t forget legal Marijuana.
Who ever forgets that?
Well, here in MD, the way to lower gas prices is raise the gas tax. I kid you not, our current esteemed Lt. Governor (soon to be Ex Lt. Governor) said so during the just ended campaign! So, taxing CAGW should lower the temp if we extrapolate correctly.
You forgot dog poop from the LA.Times. The EPA says we should flush it. Just google L.A. Times dog poop for yet more stupidity.
You omitted the most important one: inflamed hemorrhoids (because they surely are a pain the the rear).
Did the dinosaurs sneeze a lot? Pollen is found as far back as the Devonian. I think it got really warm back then….
: > )
“carbon dioxide (CO2), a growth and reproductive stimulator of plants”
and pollutant
/sarc
Monty Python was on to it… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs
Nice to see basic factorial/replicated experimental science still happens. I wonder though about their assumptions on the health impact.
Given pollen is fairly ubiquitous in areas with grasses, is the health response to more pollen really expected to be linear? It would seem there is at least a diminishing returns function, and in some areas may already be functionally saturated from a health perspective.
Besides, I thought all these plants were maladapted to a changing climate. How will they produce more pollen if they are dead?
Perhaps the learned scientists can tell us what causes asthma.
The simple fact is that the cause and cure of asthma remains unknown. Trying to tie a disease to climate change, when the cause of the disease is unknown is the worst kind of rubbish science.
Perhaps global warming holds the cure for asthma. Not saying it does, only that since no one knows the cure, you can’t rule out any possibility.
The Mayo Clinic says this about asthma:
Asthma triggers
Cold air
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/asthma/basics/causes/con-20026992
So, it could easily be said that global warming could reduce asthma.
Don’t the CAGW hopeful say the Climate Change is going to bring about more droughts and heatwaves, that will kill off the plants and thus reduce pollen?
So is this another case of global warming causing more/less snow/ice/whatever? What next. Global warming will cause people to grow taller/shorter? Clearly it isn’t making them any smarter.
Amazing. $100 billion in climate research to discover that CO2 makes plants grow faster.
That was my thought exactly. So what is new about this??? Nothing!!
The modern science culture is SO screwed up. Fortunately we now have a congress which can put an end to this kind of useless research.
Does Al Gore have stock in Kleenex?
He should be looking to buy the company that makes the Dollar General Substitutes.
yet my allergies act up more in cooler weather, 38- 40’s (F) and raining kill me.
Exactly why this generalization is so ludicrous, since people tend to react to various allergens in different manners under different conditions, if there is a reaction at all.
These folks are committing credibility suicide. Soon even those with below average IQ will begin to find discrepancies.
2014 House of Representative Election Map – what a landslide looks like
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2014/11/2014-house-of-representative-election.html
ps. Can you add CC to your blogroll??
Lets hope is does not affect the nearly extinct polar bears and beached walruses, and make the Emperor penguins cough on their way across the vast areas of disappearing ice. Might get that damn snail that refuses to go extinct when told though.
I wish climate change could wipe out the Chinese Carp that jump from the Mississippi River and smack me in the face before landing in my beer cooler! One of these days one’ll knock me overboard… or worse yet the beer…
and that is the mega problem- the spread of non -indigenous species causing the problems usually blamed on climate change- more fires, decline in indigenous species.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/01/environmental-and-economic-costs-associated-non-indigenous-species
Nothing new and plenty of cited references in this very good article. See here the video and read the article:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/30/climate-change-allergies-asthma/2163893/
Remember, allergic individuals started moving to a mostly desert Phoenix city to avoid asthma, then they started planting grass and trees shedding ………….Then they moved to Tucson and started….. Same results.
CO2 is also widely used for greenhouse enrichment in Colorado and Washington and soon will be started in other States to grow……
CO2 is our only gaseous fertilizer.
Unless the level of global CO2, climate, temperature etc are at some sort of optimal level for all living organisms (unlikely!!) then it must be the case that there are advantages and disadvantages to a changing climate.
Continual scare stories about the dire consequences of increased CO2 and associated temperature rises is fundamentally unbalanced. They further assume that no adaptation take place despite the ability of living organisms to evolve naturally, and (over varying timescales) are mobile.
Feeding the public with ever more negative impacts is clearly failing to materially change public perceptions on the issue. Greater balance in the research and arguments may lead to a more informed debate that a case for action is sensibly being made on the balance of probabilities. We are “all gonna burn” and in this research “all start sneezing” are clearly not effective arguments.
We still have not conclusively demonstrated that increased CO2 is responsible for climate change. Nor does model performance against actual data increase confidence that all the feedback loops and natural processes have been fully understood and properly incorporated into models.
Indeed, as you mentioned, we adapt. Changes were made in Phoenix and it is no longer considered a very high pollen city. We can plant trees, etc. with less impact as given here:
http://forestry.about.com/od/difficultissues/a/tree_allergy.htm
However, I don’t think the issue here is climate warming or climate change. The issue is CO2 itself. Clearly it has been increasing.
I will not speculate on the source of this increase or if it is responsible for climate change.
The increase in CO2 concentration is clear and the beneficial effects on plants are clear also. However, too much of a good thing can begin to induce detrimental effects. I don’t really care about being quoted that much higher CO2 concentrations existed before, this is irrelevant to plant growth and food production under the conditions we have today.
When following the increase in CO2 concentration, I always see the graph from the one location in Hawaii.
NASA will start publishing CO2 concentrations distribution from satellite measurements early next year. We may get some surprises.
The is one flaw in all the “global warming will cause” prophecies. Moving towards the equator a bit will raise the ambient temperature of your surroundings. Instant global warming.