Guest essay by Eric Worrall
University of Michigan models suggest that increased rates of plant growth due to warmer temperatures will boost pollen allergies.
Pollen season is getting longer and more intense with climate change – here’s what allergy sufferers can expect in the future
Published: March 16, 2022 3.08am AEDT
Yingxiao Zhang
Ph.D. Student in Atmospheric Science, University of MichiganAllison L. Steiner
Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of MichiganBrace yourselves, allergy suffers – new research shows pollen season is going to get a lot longer and more intense with climate change.
Our latest study finds that the U.S. will face up to a 200% increase in total pollen this century if the world continues producing carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, power plants and other sources at a high rate. Pollen season in general will start up to 40 days earlier in the spring and last up to 19 days longer than today under that scenario.
As atmospheric scientists, we study how the atmosphere and climate affect trees and plants. While most studies focus on pollen overall, we zoomed in on more than a dozen different types of grasses and trees and how their pollen will affect regions across the U.S. in different ways. For example, species like oak and cypress will give the Northeast the biggest increase, but allergens will be on the rise just about everywhere, with consequences for human health and the economy.
…
How much pollen is produced depends on how the plant grows. Rising global temperatures will boost plant growth in many areas, and that, in turn, will affect pollen production. But temperature is only part of the equation. We found that the bigger driver of the future pollen increase will be rising carbon dioxide emissions.
The higher temperature will extend the growing season, giving plants more time to emit pollen and reproduce. Carbon dioxide, meanwhile, fuels photosynthesis, so plants may grow larger and produce more pollen. We found that carbon dioxide levels may have a much larger impact on pollen increases than temperature in the future.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/pollen-season-is-getting-longer-and-more-intense-with-climate-change-heres-what-allergy-sufferers-can-expect-in-the-future-179158
The abstract of the study;
Projected climate-driven changes in pollen emission season length and magnitude over the continental United States
Yingxiao Zhang & Allison L. Steiner
Nature Communications volume 13, Article number: 1234 (2022) Cite this article
Abstract
Atmospheric conditions affect the release of anemophilous pollen, and the timing and magnitude will be altered by climate change. As simulated with a pollen emission model and future climate data, warmer end-of-century temperatures (4–6 K) shift the start of spring emissions 10–40 days earlier and summer/fall weeds and grasses 5–15 days later and lengthen the season duration. Phenological shifts depend on the temperature response of individual taxa, with convergence in some regions and divergence in others. Temperature and precipitation alter daily pollen emission maxima by −35 to 40% and increase the annual total pollen emission by 16–40% due to changes in phenology and temperature-driven pollen production. Increasing atmospheric CO2 may increase pollen production, and doubling production in conjunction with climate increases end-of-century emissions up to 200%. Land cover change modifies the distribution of pollen emitters, yet the effects are relatively small (<10%) compared to climate or CO2. These simulations indicate that increasing pollen and longer seasons will increase the likelihood of seasonal allergies.
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28764-0
For starters, I’m pretty sure allergies will not be a problem in the future. Medicines today are far better than what was available when I first developed symptoms. I would be very surprised if allergies are still a significant issue a few decades from now, let alone by the end of the century.
But there is a more immediate counter to this claim. As an asthmatic who also suffers pollen allergy, I have personally observed this issue is more complex than the scientists are suggesting.
There is a reason older people move to warm places like Florida or Queensland, even if they are asthmatic or have allergies.
When I moved from cold Britain to the Australian subtropics, my allergies became easier to manage.
Why? Even though the pollen season is longer in my new home, it seems more spread out.
The pollen explosion in cold places like Britain tends to be short duration but extremely intense. It has to be intense, because the growing season is short. Pollination for many plants must occur right at the start of the growing season, or fruits and seeds might not mature fast enough to be ready before the frost arrives.
In warmer places, there is much less pressure on plants to seize every precious day of growing season. Plants flower most of the year, and fruits like citrus comfortably continue growing through winter, usually maturing the following Spring.
Overall my experience is the move to a warmer climate helped me manage my asthma and hay fever. I encounter my other major trigger, cold air, a lot less frequently in Australia than I did in Britain. The reduced exposure to cold air, and the lack of violent changes in pollen exposure, makes it much easier to manage my asthma and hay fever with medications.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More pollen allergies, bad!
Less starvation, worse!
Only the green blob could take a positive, like increased greening of the planet, and spin it until it was a negative. They really are a bunch of manipulative, money-grubbing morons.
Oh no. Dr. Joseph Goebbels was a pioneer. His methods are widely used today.
They are overlooking the distinct possibility (or probability) that the increased vegetation growth is the cause of the atmospheric CO2 growth, especially the growth of broadleaf vegetation. Some OCO-2 mapping has indicated this, but it seems to be ignored. Since the generally accepted contribution to the atmospheric CO2 level by human activity is only five percent or less then blaming that for the CO2 increase appears to be without foundation. Vegetation would seem to be a natural pathway for carbon and oxygen to combine and CO2 to enter the atmosphere.
We need to remember that the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5 years (from numerous studies by real scientists), which means it turns over quite rapidly. [Not the 200 or 1000 years claimed by the IPCC and NASA, respectively.] The same is true of methane. There is no way that we can have an influence on atmospheric CO2 with such a short half-life and small contribution.
Very simply the whole world should be run according to people with pollen allergies, just like they think we should design society to pretend transpeople are normal and should be celebrated.
They simply can’t make up their minds, can they?
Plants – GOOD! Oh, wait – Plants = allergies = bad!
I’ve run into earthworms that are smarter than those people. 🙂
Finally we have a permanent solution for allergies. Just bring on the ice age.
Win Win situation
Those that make feeble and pithy excuses to dismiss the great benefits of higher CO2 levels are behaving like tyrants. See Aesops Fable the lamb and the wolf. It describes the behaviour.
The problem is they get the funding because the new religion of the left must been tithed.
No doubt it will also create man-eating plants.
Feed Me, Seymour!
And triffids. More doom.
Triffids would solve the oil shortages and ‘global warming’.
Where do I apply for my grant?
Now there’s an idea. How about selecting them on a preference for alarmists?
Isn’t that the definition of a vegetarian? 😉
Thanks, Eric, I like the sequence of the tree growing better in increased CO2. What I’m wondering is, can you put a lizard in the greenhouse with + 1,000 ppm CO2 and get a dinosaur? That would be cool, err, hot.
Maybe not lizards, at least not quickly, but insects might be interesting. I wonder if anyone has ever tried growing giant insects in a high oxygen terrarium? After 10-20 years I would be surprised if there was no change.
See the Carboniferous, when high O2 meant that the atmosphere over whole continents could catch fire. But Earth enjoyed dragonflies with the wingspans of F-16s.
OK, I exaggerate slightly.
F-15s?
Checks NYT style guide…
Nope, the narrative requires all airplane references now must be made utilizing the MiG-29!
Well the Mig 29 does have a shorter wingspan than the F-15!
Eric I am not a scientist, but if you could arrange a grant – of say a couple of hundred thousand – I feel sure I could russle up a “Scientific study” showing how CO2 makes tadpoles into edible trout – or something.
You have my e-mail address.
I prefer the meat is vegetarian because cows eat grass. So more CO2 gives more grass gives more cows….
AGW is capable of all things. Or so we are told. No joke!
“Climate change driving evolution so fast that animals are changing in weeks”
you can measure distinct evolutionary change in just six weeks
What is the lifespan of these lizards, and how long is their reproductive cycle? This seems rather farfetched.
Considering the fact that there has been no change in either the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, it would be very surprising to find out that lizards are adapting to changes that aren’t occuring.
“Climate change doesn’t speed up the process of evolution, per se. But it does create conditions where rapid evolution is more more likely,” he says.”
The whole article is a poorly reported piece. The words they were desperately searching for were “natural selection” not evolution but there hopelessly absent.
“University of Michigan models suggest that increased rates of plant growth due to warmer temperatures will boost pollen allergies.”
Models, models, models. When are academics going to show us some hard science?
Sorry, this reminds me of a true story. There’s a “Hands on Museum” in downtown Ann Arbor a couple of blocks from UM’s campus. The museum has been there a long time.
I saw Emo Philips give a comedy show in Ann Arbor and he said he went to that museum and asked to be directed to the breasts exhibit.
Oh come, pull the other one.
They could by comparing pollen allergies in Maine with those in Florida. The temperature difference between these States far exceeds 6K. But that would take no more than an excel spreadsheet. No model, no money.
Is there a model that investigates the reliability of models?
My models show that all models are wrong…
The post begins, “University of Michigan models suggest that increased rates of plant growth due to warmer temperatures will boost pollen allergies.”
[sarc on] Time to invest in antihistamines. [sarc off]
Then from the paper abstract we have “As simulated with a pollen emission model and future climate data…”
Future climate data? What is “future climate data”? The output of climate models IS NOT data.
It also sounds as though they’re stacking models; i.e. using the output of climate models as inputs to their “pollen emission model”. Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
The climate research community becomes more distant from reality with every passing year. Oy vey!
Regards,
Bob
Now if only they will take the restrictions off pseudoephedrine allergy tabs.
“models” is the 4th word in. No need to read further. It is a great time saver when these garbage articles are presented with “models” right up front.
Everybody, let’s use the new acronym.
YAPOG – Yet another Piece Of Garbage
Future climate data? What is “future climate data”?
To go along with my data correction algorithm, “pasturization”, I am working on a trio of data creation algorithms which produce past data, current data, and future data.
These algorithms have the following advantages:
1) The data set you want is the one which will be produced. No need to put up with actual measurements which may not provide the data you want.
2) Faster, the data programs run very quickly. These is no need to take months or even years collecting data.
3) Cheaper, no need for special instrumentation or extensive field work.
4) Easier, just sit at your desk with a computer. No need to even go outside with all the inconvenience that involves.
Note: These algorithms should only be used in Climate Science. Their use in any field of real science is considered to be career ending misconduct.
I hope this clarification helps.
Model data could be re-acronymed as
POOMA numbers.
“Pulled Out Of My Arse”
I was going to make the same points, but you got there before me.
Thank you for that excellent summary of the utter drivel which passes for Science these days, and shame on Nature Communications for publishing it.
This is from Steiner’s The Conversation bio.
“Her research focuses on understanding how emission from the biosphere can affect atmospheric chemistry and air quality, as well as understanding how changes at the land surface can affect regional climate.”
It sounds like a native CCP member wrote it.
More like word salad Bob or Pete Butipedge (spell).
Shouldn’t we expect the evolution of plants to better use longer growing seasons to take some time so the plant doesn’t hold back pollen production in a cold year, ‘expecting’ an extended opportunity? That is, they have adapted conservatively to variations in Last Killing Frost (LKF) variations in a manner that doesn’t put them at a reproductive disadvantage if the LKF isn’t consistent. The production of pollen is a Spring event, so the First Killing Frost probably isn’t relevant for pollen, only the ripening of seeds. I’m not sure what kind of evolutionary pressure would result in mid-latitude plants extending their pollen phase much beyond what it currently is because, ultimately, most plants will be constrained by available sunlight to effectively photosynthesize.
This seems to be another of the kind of article that is reaching for something else undesirable to add to the growing list of things that could happen, without any ability to associate a probability.
They already do it with the economics, Bob.
Imagine, taking the model outputs of the first and second most dismal of all sciences and multiplying them together!
Something about a boy and a wolf.
More plants, more pollen. Woo that’s deep! Is that your best shot at the Exxon-Mobil Great Greening Project?
“(greening) due to warmer temperatures”
That’s The Big Lie they use to not credit CO2 for The Great Greening Miracle ^тм, attendant global bumper harvests and expansion of ocean productivity. Well even NOAA couldn’t stomach such a big lie:
https://www.noaa.gov/news/study-global-plant-growth-surging-alongside-carbon-dioxide
U Michigan should be called out on this with a tag ‘shame on you’. The most Greening is occurring in arid regions where there has been no warming at all!
Like the Sahel. It has pushed the Sahara Desert 500 km north in the past 40 years.
Good point!
I remember that, in my university years, along with the “climate cooling” catastroph there was also the Sahel catastroph: Sahara desert growing south and menacing life in the Sahel.
““(greening) due to warmer temperatures”
That’s The Big Lie they use to not credit CO2 for The Great Greening Miracle ^тм, attendant global bumper harvests and expansion of ocean productivity.”
I noticed they avoided gving CO2 credit for the additional plant growth around the world.
They are fixated on temperatures. So fixated, they haven’t noticed it has been cooling lately, not warming.
Once again, “studies have shown” that CO2 is e-e-e-vil.
Quelle surprise.
So, we must get to Net Zero as fast as possible. But if we do that, then we’re all gonna DIE!
*Sprained an eyeball there rolling my eyes*
I have several pollen allergies, but trees and other plants growing better? Good.
I identify as being allergic to propaganda.
There are usually both positive and negative effects to changing situations. Therefore, the questions that needs to be addressed are, ‘Do the total negative effects outweigh the total positive effects, or vice-versa, and can the negative effects be reduced or cancelled using the latest developments in technology?’
For example, we should all be aware that increased CO2 levels increase the growth of most plants and food crops, which are of the C3 type. However, the AGW alarmists tend to concentrate only on the negative effects, and claim that such crops grown in elevated levels of atmospheric CO2, will be less nutritious, ignoring the fact that the nutritional value of food depends on farming practices, soil quality, and the processing of food crops, all of which can be addressed if the nutritional value is a concern.
Good comment. Dessler illustrates your points in just the first couple of minutes of his opening statement in the following “debate.” He is so severely biased and ignorant that it’s painful to listen to him.
Agreed concerning Dessler, yet Epstein is worth listening to. He makes
the moral case quite well. And some of the questions suggest that there were a few skeptics in the audience.
Run it at 1.5x speed.
Yes, if the pollen phase should be stretched over a longer time, might it be that allergy sufferers are not affected as severely, or not at all if under a certain threshold?
The unstated, and unexamined assumptions are always a problem.
Commercial growers inject extra CO2 into their greenhouses. Are their fruit and vegetable less nutritious that those grown outdoor? Answer: No.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the nutritional value of any crop is dependent on the nature of the farm practices and the soil quality. Therefore, it must be obvious that the nutritional content of any specific crop will vary significantly according to the location where it is grown, the amount and type of fertilizers applied to the soil, and/or the type of farming practice used, such as ‘so-called’ Organic Farming, or Permaculture, or Conventional Till Farming, which strives to produce the maximum yield at the lowest cost.
Some time ago, when I learned that Brazil nuts were a good source of Selenium, I did an internet search to find out how many Brazil nuts are required to provide the recommended daily amount of Selenium. I came across a number of scientific studies which had examined the Selenium content of Brazil nuts grown in many different areas around the globe. What amazed me was that the Selenium content of the average sized nut, say 5 grams, varied by a factor of 10, depending on where the tree was grown.
In other words, if the Brazil nut you are eating was grown in good conditions with plenty of Selenium in the soil, then just one Brazil nut should provide you with the recommended daily dose of Selenium. However, if the tree was grown in an area where there is very little Selenium in the soil, the lack of Selenium will not prevent the tree from growing, but the nuts will contain so little Selenium that you might need 10 nuts to provide your daily allowance of Selenium.
Likewise, the nutritional quality of crops grown in Greenhouses with an increased level of CO2, will vary depending on the amount of fertilizers and the range of minerals applied to the soil in the Greenhouses.
In other words, CO2 is not the controlling factor.
Before we measure whether the positive effects outweigh the negative effects we should come to a consensus on whether particular effects are positive, negative, or don’t matter in the slightest?
This is a huge problem because people’s personal preferences vary considerably. Experiments have shown that whilst doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere produces about a 35% increase in C3 crop production, when grown in the same types of soil with the same amount of minerals and the same amount of water, sunshine and temperature, there is a slight decrease in the mineral, vitamin and protein content of the crops grown in elevated CO2 levels.
However, this decrease in mineral and vitamin content is not nearly as much as a 35% decrease, so the total amount of minerals, vitamins and proteins, in the full crop, is still greater when the crop is grown in elevated CO2 levels, and that slight deficiency in minerals can be removed by adding more minerals to the soil, although the issue is very complex because of the role the soil microbiome, such as bacteria, insects and worms.
Is there a consensus on the value of nutrition? If so, why is white rice the preferred choice for most people in the world who eat rice? It’s a well-established scientific fact that stripping the brown husks off rice seeds, to produce white rice, removes significant amounts of vitamins and minerals. As a result, a few countries around the world, including the USA, have made it mandatory to fortify white ice with certain vitamins and minerals before it is sold.
Vitamin and mineral supplements in general can address the problem of nutrient deficiency in the foods we eat, but the problem is, the vitamin and mineral content of any particular crop can vary significantly, so we don’t necessarily know which vitamins and minerals we are deficient in.
“If so, why is white rice the preferred choice for most people in the world who eat rice?”
My guess is simply because it stores better. Good for shipping and for keeping on the shelf. No nutritional value at all in food that you can’t use.
Total lunacy but it still rears its ugly head every now and then. Sure pinched grains are more nutrient-dense than full grains, but the total nutrition available is greater.
But whatever you do, don’t raise the obvious analogy or the morons will start campaigning to ban irrigation because irrigated produce is less nutrient dense than produce raised under water-stress conditions.
New Study: The CO2-Drives-Global-Warming ‘Concept’ Is ‘Obsolete And Incorrect’ (notrickszone.com)
“The IPCC concept that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes global warming is three decades out-of-date.”
− Lightfoot and Ratzer (2022), Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences
A nice thing about that paper is provides testable projections. If it’s correct we may know it in 3 years or certainly by 2030.
Will alarmists become apologists?
New Study: The CO2-Drives-Global-Warming ‘Concept’ Is ‘Obsolete And Incorrect’ (notrickszone.com)
This paper is ok – it is essentially a review of the IPCC reports, and of recent work by the Russians and Soon et al, etc. It reflects limited predictive skill because most of the papers that predicted cooling were written after the big El Nino spike of 2016 – thus an observation, not a prediction. More interesting is the predictive skill of MacRae and Paterson (2002) and Landscheidt (2003), who both predicted cooling based on solar activity more than a decade before it started.
I suggest that we don’t have to wait until 2030 to answer the question – cooling is here now – as evidenced by the hundreds of significant very-cold events worldwide, documented by Cap Allon at Electroverse.net.
Some say global cooling started in Feb2016 but that was the peak of a huge El Nino, so I prefer Feb2020. In either case my 2013 prediction of global cooling starting within ten years is still correct.
Even the moderate cooling observed to date can be dangerous, because global cooling is accompanied by deviations of the polar vortex that destroy humans and crops – such as the extreme cold in south-central USA in Feb 2021 and the current extreme cold in India and China that I expect will cost many lives.
Our cooling predictions from 2002 and 2013 are described in these papers:
SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT October 20, 2021. Update February 11, 2022
https://correctpredictions.ca/
CLIMATE CHANGE, COVID-19, AND THE GREAT RESET – A Climate, Energy and Covid Primer for Politicians and Media March 21, 2021, Update 1e May 8, 2021
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/climate-change-covid-19-and-the-great-reset-update-1e-readonly.docx
THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW) AND THE HUMANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISES ARE PROVED FALSE January 10, 2020
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-cagw-and-the-humanmade-climate-change-crises-are-proved-false.pdf
THE REAL CLIMATE CRISIS IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS COOLING, AND IT MAY HAVE ALREADY STARTED October 27, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/27/the-real-climate-crisis-is-not-global-warming-it-is-cooling-and-it-may-have-already-started/
One factor this “study” ignored. If more people have allergic reactions, they will use more Kleenex, thus requiring more harvesting of trees and largely eliminating the original problem.
You really need to include the blow-back factor whenever analyzing climate’s effects on allergies. My own climate model indicates this with near certainty. There’s even a tipping point, beyond which sniffling is no longer tolerated by family members and friends, and that’s nothing to sneeze at.
I have several pine trees and when they pollinate I occasionally collect some pollen to snack on. After getting past its dry powdery texture, it actually has a pleasant taste sort of like pine nuts, perhaps not surprisingly. It’s reported to be nutritional.
Do inspect the pollen for mites and other small bugs, though they probably taste about the same.
Eric I agree about the warmer being better scenario. I lived in tropical and subtropical countries, and in Ontario, Canada. Which is worst?
Seeing as we are all believers in science, I expect allergies to be a thing of the past by 2100.
The study is based on a 6K rise in 80 years? Dream on! That is 0.75 degrees per decade. Gimme a break.
Apart from having a longer season to have pollen diluting the source, there aren’t all that many bothersome plants that flower multiple times per year. I am going to have to get my head around the argument that longer warm periods means the total mass produced per annum will increase lock-step with temperature. Let’s see some data. It doesn’t work like that in Africa.
i am continuously surprised that people try to make warming into a Bad Thing. There is nothing better about being colder.
For the bean counters: If it was 6K warmer, imaging the reduction is CO2 emissions from space heating!
So I suppose that pollen levels in the lower 48 will not change because for the past 17 rears our temperature has not changed. Refer to the Climate Reference Network.
The pollen levels should be decreasing in the United States then, because the U.S. has been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s, according to Hansen
The years 1998, and 2016, are tied for the warmest year in the satellite era, (1979 to present). It was warmer in the United States in the 1930’s than either of those two years.
The authors take pains to note that they are atmospheric scientists. Yet they are modeling plants as if they know something. They should leave plant biology to soil and crop and plant scientists. And leave allergies to allergists and biomedical researchers. These boys are out of their league, but of course they are from the wrong school in Michigan. Should have been Michigan State.
More high school science projects masquerading as dissertation topics. Gotta get those degrees somehow.
lots of pollen from better growing plants due to CO2 = bad.
lots of pollen from lots more trees planted due to green initiatives to soak up CO2 = good……
CO2 is amazing. The man gets bigger with rising CO2 levels as well.
Amazing innit – the power of magical thinking ans preconceived ideas.
Exactly as the article/story here
Then it gets really rather sad/poignant/stupid or angrifiying.
The guy in the picture (Idso I think his name is) has spent the whole rest of his life and built a career pursuing the claim he makes there and expanding on it.
There is precedent, John Tyndall = the father of all modern climate science.
He did an experiment, got a result and then went on to make One Epic Awful Assumption and an Olympian Leap of Conclusion Jumping
(Ancel Keys did something very similar while Andrew Dessler follows that lead. Dessler wouldn’t know an original thought if one bit his arse)
The guy in the photo doesn’t really actually *know* what experiment he’s done.
Yes he’s got an amazing result but that result was not caused by what he thinks it was caused by.
What is the sad part = the Junk Science, the Kindergarten Experiment, the Primary-School Oversimplification, the Confirmation Bias is that soooooo many other folks cannot see what’s wrong.
Why…..
Because they’re looking up at the sky – not down at the ground.
Literally, that’s the reason.
Just why the zooming camera shots, a primitive attempt at Photoshopping, were needed rather suggests that the guy himself wasn’t quite sure of his own result.
But was too dim to work it out
‘Dim‘ being the understatement – we really are now in a scientific Dark Age
The guy in the photo doesn’t really actually *know* what experiment he’s done.
Yes he’s got an amazing result but that result was not caused by what he thinks it was caused by.
Peta, can you tell me more??…..
I can’t wait for the next fantasy attribution to be global warming causes ED. I guess they can always add some yellow and make the little blue pill green
Apparently there’s a study saying air pollution does: https://www.airclim.org/acidnews/air-pollution-may-cause-erectile-dysfuntion
Pollen! We’re doomed!
Truly. It is worse than you thought.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/03/08/who-or-what-turned-up-the-heat/
How did pollen suffers survive all the other times in the past the the earth was warmer? somebody do something!!!!
So according to the U of M scientists we need to stop burning fossil fuels & kill all the plants? 🤔
These people and their indomitable pessimism lament a ruined lump of coal while everyone else enjoys the beauty of a diamond. They must be a joy at dinner parties.
Yet more unadulterated tosh