From the “weather is not climate”
department and AGU
WASHINGTON, DC — More children could wind up in hospital emergency rooms suffering from allergy-induced asthma if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and cause longer oak pollen seasons, according to a new study.
The new research finds that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase through the end of this century, the oak pollen season in some areas could extend by up to eight days. People with oak pollen allergies, particularly children, will have longer exposure to pollen that can induce allergic asthma. That could increase the associated hospital emergency room visits for allergic asthma by 10 percent in the Midwest, Southeast, and Northeast combined, the new study finds.
Allergic asthma associated with oak pollen sends more than 20,000 people to emergency rooms every year, and the increase in pollen could result in a 10 percent increase in hospital ER visits by 2090, according to the study’s authors.
These additional ER visits would add an estimated $10.4 million to the $346.2 million cost that would be expected under baseline conditions through 2090, according to the new study published in GeoHealth, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.
“We found that the severe climate change scenario had a substantial impact on public health,” said Susan Anenberg, an environmental scientist at Environmental Health Analytics, LLC, in Washington, D.C., and lead author of the new study.
The study is part of a growing area of research on the health impacts of climate change and the economic burden to individuals. Previous research has already shown that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused ragweed, another strong allergen, to produce higher concentrations of pollen, according to the study’s authors.
The new study could help doctors anticipate changes in allergic asthma as the climate changes, said Samantha Ahdoot, a pediatrician in Alexandria, Virginia, and assistant professor of pediatrics at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, who was not involved in the study.
“I would hope that this research would help the public and policymakers to understand that changes that occur in the environment, whether it is plant life or climate, trickle down and ultimately affect the health of people,” she said.
In the new study, Anenberg and her colleagues calculated the number of emergency room visits for allergic asthma across the Southeast, Midwest, and Northeast today and in the future using observed relationships between oak pollen and asthma ER visits in Atlanta, Cincinnati, and New York City.
They found that there were 21,200 oak pollen-related allergic asthma ER visits in 2010. Of those visits, 70 percent were children under the age of 18, indicating that children may be more vulnerable to climate change-related health impacts, according to Anenberg.
The study’s authors used climate models and known relationships between temperature, precipitation, and oak pollen to estimate the oak pollen season length under both a moderate climate change scenario and a severe climate change scenario.
Combining the emergency room visit and climate model information, the study’s authors found that the most severe climate change scenario would increase ER visits in the three regions by 5 percent in 2050 and by 10 percent in 2090. Under a moderate climate change scenario, the number of visits would only increase by 4 percent, avoiding more than half of the emergency incidents in the severe scenario, the study found.
“The impact of oak pollen on human health in the United States is extensive and likely worsening over time with climate change,” Anenberg said. “Our results could be underestimating a much bigger problem, since environmental changes could also affect other pollen types and other health outcomes.”
###
More of the “In search of $90 Trillion Dollars” of Arctic infrastructure affected by Global Warming for the next 20 years.
Jajajajajajajajaja
Hmmm 5% increase by 2050…20,000 annual cases x .05 = 1000 per year / 365 = <2.75 additional cases daily 10% by 2090 would be <5.5 additional daily cases. 1 extra case per every 10 states. What an epidemic potential /sarc
My first thought was, have they factored in the possible/potential population increase of the region by 2090?
Have they factored in the possibility that there may be a cure for asthma by 2090?
I’d like to know how they determined that the asthma attacks were specifically due to oak pollen. I went to the hospital twice for asthma attacks as a child, and as far as I know they didn’t bother attributing it to a single cause.
I’m living proof that global warming has NOT increased the incidence of Asthma attacks.
At one time, I was certifiably helpless, as a consequence of pollen and other irritant (humidity), physical exercise initiated asthma attacks. My younger sister was me^2, and our Mother succumbed to it.
If it had been otherwise, I would now be a wealthy long since retired former sheep farmer, in a nice resort fishing Eden.
But necessity forced me (and sis too) to become educated in the finer things, that enabled both of us to earn a living in a less corrosive environment; that for me, continues to this day.
And I have not had an asthma attack since we finally prevailed, and got that MTBE poison out of the California re-formulated gasoline for automobiles. Before we achieved that, I could not drive on the freeways in California, with my car window open.
So no; climate change has not exacerbated asthma sensitivity. But other crap like ethanol in the gasoline may have.
G
Well. Why didn’t they use known relationships between CO2 and temperature?
Ice core proxies clearly show that CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle.
IOW: humans can do nothing to shorten the oak pollen season.
(What humans CAN do something about is making effective inhalers available to people with asthma!!!!!!!!! (<– well, I am so sick of the CFC propellant lie that I could SCREAM))
Thank you, Anthony, for giving the AGWers yet another chance to condemn themselves out of their own mouths. Boy, do they look bad. JUNK science.
Dead easy. Just cut down all the oaks. 🙂
And ship them to Drax where we can turn them into CO2 and energy.
“I am so sick of the CFC propellant lie that I could SCREAM”
I agree . The banning of over the counter Primatene inhalers for the couple of grams of CFCs they used was one of the most certainly deadly irrational acts these charlatans have committed . The hypocrisy of speculating a downside to a longer growing season for one particular plant species is disgusting .
( I have occasional seasonal asthma and laid in a supply of inhalers before they destroyed the remaining inventory . )
^^ THIS ^^
No doubt they have already compared the relative incidence of oak allergies in areas of different climatic/temperature regimes to support this hypothesis. Sarc.
Actually, allergies are on the rise not because of climate but because of decreased exposure of young kids to important microbial flora early in life.
exactly. children instinctively eat dirt. or they used to before they were raised in super sterile conditions. yet modern medicine largely ignores this behavior in children, seeing instead as some sort of aberration.
when an animal does something instinctively, it is almost always because the activity is important to its survival. when society prevents children from eating dirt we are harming their immune systems, preventing them from developing properly.
the result, a huge increase in allergies and asthma as our immune systems search for something to protect us from. without an enemy to attack, our immune systems never learn to recognize friend from foe. as a result, our immune systems start attacking harmless tourists along with the terrorists.
I would instead, point out that we didn’t EVER “eat dirt” (deliberately)…
We, as normal children before today’s sanitized, TV-obsessed, handi-wipe-protected kindergarten-nurtured sterile government-housed and bagged culture, PLAYED in the dirt and sand and grass and “natural” playground equipment and swings and tether-balls left all spring on the pole outside. Then we ate sandwiches and banana’s and apples and cookies and drank from the garden hose … (Which fell back in the mud.) “Dirt” was a part of life outside. You washed hands later.
@RACookPE1978
Yep, that’s pretty much how I remember it.
Zurab, while I typically agree with the hygiene hypothesis, I would like to point out that it’s just that, a hypothesis. It’s never been proven to any degree that we would accept on this site if it were climate.
And, of course, there’s the requisite pitch about the impact on children. You know, if for no other reason, we’ve got to change our ways to save the children.
What is the estimated severe senario for CO2 content? Likely close to 550, 600 PPM. So, assuming this does not result in more rain to keep pollen particultes lower, and assuming no advances in allergy medicine for 100 years, there may be 800 to 2000 more ER visits in a population of 400 million.
On the other hand we are quite certain that our crops will grow 40 percent more food, on the SAME amount of land with zero additional water. Globals millions of malnurished children will be fed and spared illness and death. All nature reserves will be more drought tolerant.
Hum??? decisions, decisions…
The climate alarmist version goes; Always look on the dark side . .
Absolutely! Always the Eeyore’s. With every change there is good and bad, but with these downers its always doom. A warming climate will allow automobiles to last longer, but the gloomy Gus’ will note that will cause auto sales to fall and push factory workers onto the street. With all these new plagues that the doomsayers are predicting, there ought to be an increase in medical employment. 🙂
Read and follow my blog…
https://hometuitionguwahati.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/iit-jee-mainadvanced-and-neet
Anthropogenic climate change – is there anything bad it can’t do?
Waiting for the increasing Dental problem and the effervescent hemorrhoid problem to be tied to it.
Also waiting for them to start picking on the carbonated beverage industry. Those bubbles release CO2 with every pop
Apparently drinking too much beer can have a negative effect on, shall we call it, male libido (to be polite). Obviously this is because of the excess co2 ingested.
I’m sure they will add this to the list soon…..
and champagne, and beer. OMG, OMG. OMG, … not beer!!!
I am sure that it will cause increase dental caries. You see the increased CO2 will cause more productivity in the sugar fields and corn plantations. This will push down the cost of sweeteners. This will mean that more sugar and sweet food will be consumed. The solution to avoid this is another tax on sweet foods!
One thing for certain, Climate Change has sure improved the ability to spot idiots in the crowd. It seems to affect the ability of some to think clearly.
I think I’ll apply for a grant to determine the effect of Climate Change on stupidity.
Here is your title
The deleterious effect of a CO2 enriched environment on the intelligence level of the average Climate Scientist with the delusional thought processes that are incurred and the similar effect it has on Psychologists and how it induces irrational conspiracy ideation in their research papers.
Abstract:
So far, I haven’t seen it tied to an increase in ED, but maybe I just missed it.
In fact, I’m more than a little surprised someone hasn’t tried to make that link — talk about scare value.
The poor people with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are being negatively affected by environmental legislation. The banning of CFCs led to a massive increase in the price of inhalers back in the 90s directly impacting people on low incomes who have children with asthma.
Yes. This REALLY burns my biscuits. My inhaler went from $5 a month to $60. All because penguins might get a sunburn.
[But the good news is, the new, more expensive inhalers do not work as well as the older, cheaper ones. .mod]
Human comfort is related to temperature, relative humidity and wind [speed & direction]. All the three vary with year to year. These variations are far higher than the so-called global warming. The impact of pollen on allergy is more related to such a year to year variation. The impact under colder temperatures is high. In fact under Chinese Vastu, Feng-Shu, which means wind and water. In six month night condition, yellow pollen from north blows to south and north side of the building is closed and in six month day, the sun’s rays enter the house from the south and to avoid the heat in front of the house a stream of water allowed to flow and thus the moisture evaporated from this steam cools the house.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
These variations are far higher than the so-called global warming
Quite so, Dr. Reddy, a point I’ve been making to Warmistas continuously. Yearly variations in temperature in Ottawa are 60C, 2C is rather trivial, less than a daily variation. So where’s the big deal?
Worst case, we have a longer growing season – yeah!
2C is rather trivial
=======
40 years ago house thermostats were set to 22C. Then to conserve energy we changed them all to 20C. That is global warming. How did we survive?
People think it is 2C warmer outside because our houses are 2C colder.
The odds are that by 2050 and more so by 2100, medical science will have a cure or treatment available that ensures this problem was a thing of the past and therefore there will be no emergency room visits. Assuming that the climate will change significantly over the next 50-100 years causing more allergies, and not assuming that science will find cures for such is sort of short sighted and disingenuous.
So this is a complete failure as a publication of science having anything to do with the future. Another publish or perish moment for some poor students or recently graduated having to come up with some future hypothetical problem. Now that they think they know what the problem will be, start finding a cure for allergy induced asthma. Or find out why some kids never suffered from asthma to begin with. Like me, but then I grew up playing in the dirt on a farm and eating carrots out of the garden with the dirt still on them.
Climate change “could” get me l@id too. Doesn’t make it any more likely
Many more African countries plan to build over 100 new coal plants backed up by Chinese and Kenyan finance. Outside of Sth Africa this is an increase of at least 8 times the current capacity of those countries.
http://www.thegwpf.com/african-nations-plan-more-than-100-new-coal-power-plants/
And the WSJ also makes the case for Trump withdrawing from Paris COP 21.
http://www.thegwpf.com/the-wall-street-journal-makes-the-case-for-pulling-out-of-obamas-paris-deal/
“The Wall Street Journal Makes The Case For Pulling Out Of Obama’s Paris Deal
Date: 10/05/17
Editorial, The Wall Street Journal
We Shouldn’t Always Have Paris
“President Trump is expected as soon as next week to order the Environmental Protection Agency to rescind its Clean Power rule that is blocked by the courts. But the President faces another test of political fortitude on whether to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord.
That’s suddenly uncertain. Mr. Trump promised to withdraw during the presidential campaign, correctly arguing that the accord gave “foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use.” His transition team even explored strategies for short-cutting the cumbersome, four-year process of getting out of the deal.
But the President’s is now getting resistance from his daughter, Ivanka, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who are fretting about the diplomatic ramifications. No doubt many countries would object, and loudly, but this risk pales compared to the potential damage from staying in the accord.
President Obama committed as part of Paris to cutting U.S. emissions by 26% compared with 2005 levels by 2025. Even Mr. Obama’s climate regulatory programs—all imposed without Congressional votes—would only achieve about half that commitment. Mr. Trump is killing those Obama programs, which means the U.S. may not reach that Paris promise. Why stay in an agreement that the Trump Administration has no interest or plan for honoring?
Another risk is that the U.S. might at some point be coerced into compliance. Mr. Obama joined the accord without congressional assent and endorsed the lengthy withdrawal process precisely to bind future Administrations to his climate priorities. Since Mr. Trump’s election, the international climate lobbies have debated ways to muscle the new Administration to comply.
These include imposing punitive tariffs on U.S. goods or requiring the U.S. to hit targets in return for other international cooperation. Mr. Tillerson might consider that Paris will be used as leverage against him in future international negotiations.
Lawyers and domestic environmental groups are also exploring how to use lawsuits to enforce the deal. Greens are adept at finding judges to require environmental regulations that Congress never intended. Such sympathetic judges today pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and include Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in 2007 joined four liberals to redefine the Clean Air Act to cover carbon as a pollutant.
Remaining in the Paris pact will invite litigation to impose the Paris standards and direct the EPA to impose drastic carbon cuts that would hurt the economy. Energy companies are aware of this threat, and despite Exxon ’s recent pledge to pour $20 billion into Gulf Coast facilities, other companies remain wary of U.S. regulation. They will be warier if Mr. Trump looks like he’s waffling on his climate positions.
Mr. Trump’s best bet is to exit the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which could be done in a year and would result in a simultaneous withdrawal from Paris. That would quickly end the litigation risk.
Mr. Tillerson said at his confirmation hearing that he believes the U.S. should remain in the Paris pact to have a “seat at the table” for the climate debate. But the U.S. doesn’t need Paris to have a say in global energy policy.
America has already done more to reduce CO2 emissions with its natural-gas fracking revolution than has most of the world. Many of the Paris signers want to use the pact to diminish any U.S. fossil-fuel production. Mr. Tillerson will also be on the back foot in Paris discussions as he tries to overcome his past as an oil company executive.
The best U.S. insurance against the risks of climate change is to revive economic growth that will drive energy innovation and create the wealth to cope with any future damage—if that day arrives.
Policy details aside, the worst part of Mr. Obama’s climate agenda was its lack of democratic consent. He failed to persuade either a Republican or Democratic Congress to pass his regulation and taxes. So he attempted to impose that agenda at home through the EPA and abroad via Paris to use international pressure against domestic political resistance.”
So climate change MAY cause this effect according to models. Then again maybe it won’t. And of course, a warmer world means ‘the children’ will spend less time cooped up because of cold winter temperatures where cold and flu are spread. So climate change MAY cause fewer colds and flu which affects much more than 20,000 people annually. But a study finding less health impact and less health care costs due to climate change will never be done.
Asthma can be triggered by cold weather. link The prevalence of asthma in a cold state (New York) is somewhat greater than it is in a warm state (Florida). link
Scientists have an amazing ability to ignore the bloody obvious.
I remember that my cold season asthma was usually worse than my warm season asthma. I could always us antihistamines to alleviate the warm season asthma triggers, but nothing helped the cold season events, except that humidification at night could let me sleep without sounding like a tea pot on permanent boil.
Could easily be fixed with some decent chainsaws.
If we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs — if we had some eggs.
F U N E X?
IMO exposure to potential allergens soon after birth appears to teach the immune system what not to react to while it is in its initial stage of development. It could be that highly filtered, sterile air homes are causing the surge in asthma.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1508749?query=featured_home&
“The results of our studies in humans and mice indicate that the Amish environment provides protection against asthma by engaging and shaping the innate immune response.”
Turn off the air cleaner and open the windows for newborns.
They have very little idea as to why asthma has become so prevalent in the past 50 years. They thought it was pollution at one point, the only problem there is that Norway has one of the worst rates of childhood asthma in Europe. Another thing was dust, again the problem there is that people living in the Sahara don’t get asthma.
Before making these amazing predictions which link asthma to very specific things – like oak trees – they should check out what is it in modern living that brings it about.
This is what a book from 1878 had to say about it
“”ALL early historical traces of the affection at present called asthma are lost. Although the disease is said to be mentioned in the Bible, and described by Hippocrates, Areteaus, Galen, and Celsus, there is not the least evidence that those remarks apply to the asthma of to-day. For in the former systems of medicine, all cases presenting the same conspicuous symptoms were, regardless of their anatomical differences, considered as of a kindred nature, and grouped into classes according to imaginary types”
In a related study, researchers believe rising greenhouse gases could result in an increase in obesity related deaths.
“A extra 8 days of growing season per year could have profound effects on the food supply,” explained Dr. Obvy Uss, a researcher at the prestigious Snoutintrough Institute. “With so much extra food in the supply chain, children who would otherwise have been thin may well become fat. That has profound negative effects on health that we haven’t currently understood, and need to research in more detail. This is FAR more serious than asthma, it could cause premature deaths in millions, not the paltry 20,000 per year who suffer from oak pollen. Steps may need to be taken to curtail the food supply.”
+1
Get the kids outside and stop using leaf blowers year ’round for everything but Fall leaves, better yet, put the rake in their hands.
Apart from chopping down all the oaks as commieBob suggested there is another solution: Vaccination.
Vaccines for many allergens are already available, birch pollen is one of them. and a vaccine for oak pollen is on the way.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4041320/
It will cost money, sure, but it is cheaper than chopping down trees (I know you were joking) and cheaper than complying with Paris.
what every kid needs huh?
more thiomersol and aluminium +adjuvants..
apart from the scary super hygienic mode most mums are in, keeping kids away from reality and the real grubby world we live in/on. 60+ vaccines with assorted muck in em wouldnt have ANY effect on allergies or autoimmune issues would it?
hmm
or would it?
Just keep “planting” solar “farms” and all the trees will go away. Asthma is skyrocketing and it is not caused by a lack of allergy vaccinations anymore than the explosion of AIDS was caused by a lack HIV vaccinations.
This is an admission that more CO2 is good for plant life isn’t it?
Yep, it’s no different than trying to scare people that warming will cause an increase of the bug population.
That is true but our addition of carbon back into the carbon cycle is benefiting ALL life … which includes bugs. There is now DOUBLE the amount of food for “everybody” than there was 50 years ago as measured by a doubled amount of gross primary productivity than what there was 50 years ago, from soil microbes to bugs to humans.
Makes sense to me, actually. The more plant life, the more pollen.
But they’re attributing it to a lengthened pollen season. I have plenty of oak trees in my neighborhood, both red and white, they sprout catkins every spring and the pollen is distributed by wind as soon as the flowers bloom. The entire process only lasts a few weeks and then the trees put on leaves. They don’t put on more catkins at any time of the year and the length that the catkins are on the tree distributing pollen is the same every year regardless of the weather. I’d like to see the paper and their evidence showing how warmer climates have longer pollen seasons for specific plant types. Pollen seasons are longer in warmer climates because those areas have a higher diversity of plants, not because individual plants produce pollen longer.
Here (NorCal) our oaks are all over the map year to year. The trigger is winter and early spring moisture and the damping factors are high winds, late Arctic outbreaks and certain pests. But this year, moisture ruled, even though we’ve had many wind events and late Arctic outbreaks. There was pollen everywhere and I do mean everywhere.
There COULD also be an increase in visits to clinics and dr.’s offices for such things as hives and heat rash — IF the temperature actually increases in June – July – August. But on the other hand, if the temperature increase happens in the Dec., Jan, Feb quarter, such things as snowmobiling may have some tough sledding on un-groomed tracts.
There are two Fargos that I think can be used as a moral to the story: 10 degrees warmer morning lows in Fargo, ND in January, well glory be and hallelujah, bring it on. 10 degrees warmer in Fargo, GA in the afternoons in July and August: Oh, Hell.
It’s far more likely that a change in the definition of allergy-caused asthma will cause an increase in the reporting of such ER visits.
How about rectifying the high concentration of filthy diesel engines now in urban environments everywhere first, all a direct result of numbskull green willy waggling in the recent past. Who needs experts when the outcome was blatantly obvious from day one, eh? Never listen to the religious machinations of myopic green zealots. Religion cloaked in science is deceit, impure and anything but simple and straightforward. Vorsprung dirt Technik in Europe, Truth was Engineering (forget the fallout) in the US. In the modern world truth is apparently some maniacal search engine owner’s flaky talk show take on basic morality and revenue generating advertising opportunity. Mass media manipulation rules OK, let’s all get off on that. At least until the opening bars of Foxtrot Oscar can be heard in the distance above the noise of all those inhalers. Suck it up.
Talk about reaching for climate change boggy man scenarios.
boggy man, do you mean this guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_body
Facts on the ground:
No one knows what actually causes asthma. The doctors have found many things that are associated with increased asthma, but those things only cause a portion of the asthma cases. For each association the rest of asthmatics are largely unaffected. Possible allergens include just about anything including proteins and many chemicals that modify proteins, causing some people to react to that particular chemical. Literally hundreds of chemicals can cause allergy in some people.
Allergy tests are only moderately successful in determining which allergens affect a patient. Whether skin prick tests or more modern immunoassays the tests only inidcate which allergens the immune system responds too, but the disease process in asthma and other allergic reactions includes many other factors, so an individual may react to oak pollen in a test but may be actually reacting in the spring to any of dozens of other flowering plants.
The only known way to improve actual relief of symptoms is the use of “allergy injections”, stimulating the immune system for a period of time. I can attest to the effectiveness. I got allergy shots, mainly for ragweed and tree pollens for over four years. At the end of the procedure my symptoms were much reduced and skin prick tests showed the same. But I still had lots of problems during pollen seasons. The use of lab produced antigens, as urdura mentions, could be more effective but biologicals, such as lab produced cell immunomodulators are called, are horribly expensive at tens of thousands of dollars a dose.
The bottom line is go back to natural child rearing, letting all kids from infants an pre-teens play outside and get dirty. It’s no guarantee there will be fewer allergy problems. Just watch out for nasty things such as elephantiasis, malaria, Zika, tapeworms, cestodes, pinworms, ascariasis, hookworms, ghiardia and on and on. Some, like pin worms, are thought to be beneficial in training the immune system, as long as they don’t get out of control.
Or perhaps greater exposure to pollen in infancy will reduce allergies, or greater time outdoors due to better weather will make kids healthier, or reduced cold in winter will reduce exposure to indoor allergens, and reduce cold induced asthma when outside, or any number of other totally unfounded conjectures, but let’s just stick to the conjectures that help people fear natural changes in climate.
1) There is no way for CO2 to cause asthma. CO2 is around 40,000 ppm in the lungs and there isn’t a human in history that is allergic to CO2. CO2 is necessary for the human body to survive.
2) Most allergies are due to natural causes, ie dust and pollen, not pollution.
Occam here … there are more allergy ridden and asthmatic people now than 100 years ago. Because … a lot more such people survive childhood than they did 100 years ago. 100 years ago, allergy shots were nearly unknown, acute and ongoing management of asthma bare existed and what they had was crude and dangerous and Epipen? Fugedaboudit at any price. This is true for so many other things.
Excerpted from above commentary:
Me thinks the touting of “silly science” is far worse than not touting any science at all.
One has to assume that the above cited “greenhouse gas emissions” is obviously in reference to atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities …… and their “iffy” claim that …… “an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the oak pollen season” …… is nothing more than “fear-mongering” in an attempt to garner more Grant monies and/or scare the bejesus out of the miseducated “gullibles”.
The literal fact is, atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities has nothing whatsoever to do with the “start”, the “length” or the “end” of the per se “pollen season” of the different deciduous tree species. Even the “cones” of the conifer tree species produce “pollen”, ….. the “male” cones, that is.
“Wind-pollinated flowers of broad-leaved trees are characterized by a lack of showy parts (flowers), no scent and a copious production of pollen, often with separate male and female flowers, or separate male and female trees.”
If it is an “early Spring” …. the deciduous trees will “flower” or “blossom” early and thus the pollen season begins early ….. and ends early.
If it is a “late Spring” …. the deciduous trees will “flower” or “blossom” late and thus the pollen season begins late ….. and ends late. To wit:
I was wondering the same thing. I suspect there is no actual data showing either more pollen produced or a longer period of production in warmer years.
I’ve had asthma ever since I was a little kid. I’m 57. When I was a kid I’d describe my asthma as moderately severe; frequent attacks, constant epinephrine inhaler companion, occasional scary runs to the ER. Now? Barely noticeable. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased steadily during the interim period. Ergo CO2 improves asthma, no?
Some very remarkable science here. They estimate the length of the oak-pollen season from a formula based on the January through March temperature and the September through August precipitation.
This means that it is possible to predict summer precipitation by observing the length of the spring oak pollen season. This implies that oak trees can see into the future. Sounds quite interesting.
I took a look at the paper. They merely cite a couple of references to support their contention that climate change could produce longer pollen seasons. I looked at the references. One appeared to be some kind of alarmist publication with no original experimental data, and the other one was based on- wait for it- a model. But hey, who am I to be a science denier?
Want to help kids have fewer allergy problems? Get them some pets, stop using all these “anti-bacterial” soaps and dirty up their home environment a bit, get them OUTSIDE and dirty at the earliest ages. Let’em roll around in the dirt with the dogs and chase the chickens and play hide&seek in the hay maw and pick AND eat stuff right out of the garden. Children are not petri dishes, you can’t keep them sterile and trying to screws up their immune systems.
Thus endeth the rant. Carry on.
Asthma sufferers suffered a big loss with the passage of international laws that banned HFCs. Twenty five years ago, my wife was able to purchase an asthma inhaler refill for $25. Good for 6-12 months. Those old inhalers used CFCs to push the albuterol into the patients lungs. If one suffered an asthma attack, a quick spray from the old inhalers brought instant relief, and in many cases saved the person’s life.
But, those days are long gone. The new environmentally friendly inhalers are absolutely worthless. The emergency inhalers do the job, but not cost 8-10 times as much as the old ones. In many cases, the person suffering from asthma attacks must be sent to an ER and receive expensive breathing treatment ($200 and up).
Most effective shutdown of the term “denier” is to refer to it is “climate change blasphemer.”
We all need to learn to live healthier lifestyles. Eat organic, reduce pollution, recycle just to name a few things to help to live a greener life.
Most important we should take climate change serious and do as much as possible to protect our planet. Allergies have dramatically increased since the last 20 years, the only way to change that is to live a sustainable lifestyle. Easier said than done, but it has to start somewhere.