Climate Change [Archive] - Page 2

jayreynolds

04-17-2005, 06:34 AM

Re: atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in the eastern New England region:

The average CO2 level has not in fact been around 380 ppmv for quite some time now. For the last two summers (2003 and 2004) atmospheric CO2 concentration as measured every 15 minutes around the clock averaged well over 380 ppmv, frequently over 400 ppmv, occasionally spiking as high as 450 ppmv and even higher.

When I checked, it was 393. Spikes mean nothing except that the wind blows sometimes, and none of these levels are anything to worry about AT ALL. CO2 isn't toxic AT ALL, and it isn't an issue at all, as the ASHRAE occupational recommendations for continual exposure levels are 700 ppm above outdoor levels "in order to minimize human odors and maintain comfort."

So there is in fact an issue.
NOPE

Otherwise the Bush administration would not be so invested in implementation of R&D for the purpose of extracting excess CO2 from power plant emissions and burying it underground or under the ocean. To say there "is no issue" at this late date is ignorant at best and just plain spurious at worst.

Those are typical boondoggle 'make-work' programs for two reasons, one of which is to extract MORE oil, the other is simply a mollification ploy.
http://www.pttc.org/tech_sum/ts_v94/ts_v94_21.htm
"DOE's Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center (RMOTC) will manage a large-scale, multiple-partner CO2 sequestration/ enhanced oil recovery project in DOE's Teapot Dome Field. The carbon sequestration potential from the project is projected to be at least 2.6 million tons of CO2annually with a concurrent rise in related oil production of about 30,000 Bopd, a six-fold increase over current production level."
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2004/tl_weyburn_phase2.html
"In a multinational project that includes the Department of Energy, more than 110 billion cubic feet of 95 percent pure CO2 have been injected in the field, producing more than 6 million barrels of oil."

None of these projects use atmospheric CO2 capture, they use fossil fuel recovered CO2.
The ocean sequestration experiment by the Monterrey Bay Aquarium released SEVERAL LITERS[/u] of CO2.

Further experiments at sequestration of canned CO2 were cancelled, due to "green" opposition:
http://www.esemag.com/0902/co2.html
http://www.pacificwhale.org/alerts/CO2.html
http://archive.greenpeace.org/earthsummit/news_july9.html

As for molds, the fact is that individual mold species have varying oxygen requirements and some species require considerably less oxygen than others to propagate and grow. And some mold species actually do best in a low-oxygen or even anaerobic environment. Mold propagation in a building structure isn't exactly a sign of health. It's a sign that ambient environmental conditions are unfortunately conducive to this sort of infestation. Certain molds make people sick. They make some people [b]very sick.

Mold propagation is most strongly related to moisture, NOT some CO2 red herring. I saw no mention of low oxygen levels in the article you cited, anyways. The recommendation was to open the windows and let in some of that fresh outside air in, and to stop rebreathing human-produced CO2. Perhaps they should construct a network of masks & breathing tubes so the students's exhalations can be 'sequestered', eh? Ha!

So there you have it. You were proven wrong, 'footsoldier', the CO2 sequestration projects you hope for produce millions of barrels MORE oil, they don'tb capture atmospheric CO2, and you greens were successful in stopping even small scale ocean experiments. I hope that makes you happy!

jayreynolds

04-17-2005, 06:36 AM

http://airmap.unh.edu/data/data.html?site=AIRMAPTF
Current Data
(15 min. avg.)
Carbon Dioxide - CO2 (ppmv) 387 08:30 AM

QED
Ha!

OK, I looked at yesterday's plot, and hopefully the link will work. It looks like exactly as would be expected, since temperatures are hovering around freezing during the night at Thompson Farm, CO2 rises during the night, only to settle around 380-390 during the day as the temp rises and plant life begins anew. Like my buddy algore would say, "Earth In the Balance"!
Hey!
http://soot.sr.unh.edu/airmap/archive/hf/20050416TF_CO2.png
http://soot.sr.unh.edu/airmap/archive/hf/20050416TF_OUTT.png

halva

04-17-2005, 07:03 AM

Your Nobody........

You Know It....

Everyone Who Post's Here Knows It........

Jay Reynolds likes Wayne And Wayne Likes Jay......

These Two Idiots are the cause of all of the strife on this thread and others in the Science section......

On One Hand You Have Jay Reynolds........

Whose only claim to fame is to incite chemmies........

but lets take a look at this a little closer............

for almost 6 years.......

Jay Reynolds has stalked numerous people all over the Internet......

based upon what he deems a hoax.............

which are Chemtrails........

anyone who even has a passing interest in this unproven subject........

is earmarked as a KOOK.......

and must be dealt with accordingly .....BY Jay "Jihad" Reynolds........

Usually through the use of slander and outright lying..........

He Says he is a debunker.......

But How Can That Be......When He Has never Debunked Himself.........?

If He Did He Would realize That He Is Human........

Not The Walking Debunker Automaton he has become......

Talk About A Waste of time and energy.....

Then There Is Wayne Hall Jay's arch nemesis......

Who Has A Love/hate relationship going on with jay......

The Battle Wayne Keeps refering to is one that they both have waged since wayne showed up on this site............

with jay his stalker in tow.........

That's RIGHT JAY.........STALKER..........

Because Thats What You Truthfully Have Become.......

you have compromised your ability to rationally reason.......

by the way....

when are you getting that divorce so you and wayne can get hitched.......

You see Folks.......

all of the problems that have effected this science forum are due to these two culprits......

who have been locked in a passionate embrace since the beginning.......

it's a tit for tat game they like to play......

But Not Anymore........

Because I Think The Membership has had it's fill of the Jay reynolds of the world........

and of the Wayne Hall's of the world........

The Jig Is up.......

Both Of You Are In Need of some serious psychiatric help.......

And Jay....Have The Balls To Respond.......

Just Like You Wayne.......

Have The Balls To Respond........

Because I Don't Fear You ........Jay.....

Or You Wayne......

So Let's do something interesting.........

lets have it out......

because these threads are not your fucken personal GRAND CHESS BOARD.......

My hard work is worth more than you two playing fucking mind games day in and day out.......

I am sure the others that have contributed their valuable time and energy to these threads will concur...........

And If any REAL MODERATORS are watching..........

If You Think I Am Full Of Shit.........

Just Read The Threads.....

Their little Love Dance that i like to call Jay And Waynes Mindfuck games.......

are evident throughout.....

It's Time To Scrutinize them both...........

and make them Accountable.....

For their Actions......

WMM

BC has not taken a position on this posting by WMM.

whitemajikman

04-17-2005, 10:32 AM

BC has not taken a position on this posting by WMM.

Of Course Boomer Hasn't......

Boomer Has Nothing To Do with This.......

In Fact .....

What Do You Think YOUR Doing Trying To Get Boomer Involved.......

This Is Between Me...You And Jay Jay.......

Remember The Battle Wayne.........

The One You Think Is GOING ON........

Well I HAVE Decided TO JOIN........

Why Should You And Jay Jay have all the fun......?

of playing mental mind games.......with the posters of this board.,......

and obviously it must be O.K. with the REAL Moderators........

Because for some reason they won't intervene........

And Since Jay Says He Is A Somebody.....

And Has The audacity to imply that he is someone to be reckoned with.......

And you think your somebody to be reckoned with......since you got your Mod Gig.....

I TOO AM SOMEBODY tO BE RECKONED WITH.......

SO LETS START RECKONING........

But Really ......

When It Comes To You TWO.......

Don't You Mean WRECKONING............?

WMM

foot_soldier

04-17-2005, 11:25 AM

April 17, 2005

Rowan Williams: A planet on the brink
The Archbishop of Canterbury warns that the price of our continued failure to protect the earth will be violence and social collapse
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=630141

Too often in recent decades, the two big "e" words - ecology and economy - have been used as though they represented opposing concerns. Yes, we should be glad to do more about the environment, if only this didn't interfere with economic development and with the liberty of people and nations to create wealth in whatever ways they can.

Or, we should be glad to address environmental issues if we could be sure that we had first resolved the challenge of economic injustice within and between societies. So from both left and right there has often been a persistent sense that it isn't proper or possible to tackle both together, let alone to give a different sort of priority to ecological matters.

But this separation or opposition has come to look like a massive mistake. It has been said that "the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment". The earth itself is what ultimately controls economic activity because it is the source of the materials upon which economic activity works.

That is why economy and ecology cannot be separated. Ecological fallout from economic development is in no way an "externality" as the economic jargon has it; it is a positive depletion of real wealth, of human and natural capital. To seek to have economy without ecology is to try to manage an environment with no knowledge or concern about how it works in itself - to try to formulate human laws in abstraction from or ignorance of the laws of nature.

It is time to look seriously at the full implications of this. We need to start by recognising that social collapse is a real possibility. When we speak about environmental crisis, we are not to think only of spiralling poverty and mortality, but about brutal and uncontainable conflict. An economics that ignores environmental degradation invites social degradation - in plain terms, violence.

It is no news that access to water is likely to be a major cause of serious conflict in the century just beginning. But this is only one aspect of a steadily darkening situation. Needless to say, it will be the poorest countries that suffer first and most dramatically, but the "developed" world will not be able to escape: the failure to manage the resources we have, has the same consequences wherever we are. In the interim, we can imagine "fortress" strategies (with increasing levels of social control demanded) struggling to keep the growing instability and violence elsewhere at bay and so intensifying its energy.

And we are not talking about a remote future. There are arguments over the exact rates of global warming, certainly, and we cannot easily predict the full effects of some modifications in species balance. But we should not imagine that uncertainty in this or that particular seriously modifies the overall picture. On any account, we are failing.

It is relatively easy to sketch the gravity of our situation; not too difficult either to say that governments should be doing more. But governments depend on electorates; electors are persons like us who need motivating. Unless there is real popular motivation, governments are much less likely to act or act effectively. There are always quite a few excuses around for not taking action, and, without a genuine popular mandate for change, we cannot be surprised or outraged if courage fails and progress is minimal. Our own responsibility is to help change that popular motivation and so to give courage to political leaders. And this means challenging and changing some of the governing assumptions about ourselves as human beings..... (continued)

foot_soldier

04-17-2005, 11:28 AM

AIRMAP New England

Thompson Farm, NH

Real-Time Air Quality Data
April 17, 2005 - 12:45pm EDT
CO2 - 393 ppmv

http://airmap.unh.edu/data/data.html?site=AIRMAPTF

halva

04-17-2005, 11:43 AM

Why Should You And Jay Jay have all the fun......?

of playing mental mind games.......with the posters of this board.,......

and obviously it must be O.K. with the REAL Moderators........

Because for some reason they won't intervene........

What action would you like to see from those you describe as the REAL Moderators?

whitemajikman

04-17-2005, 12:10 PM

What action would you like to see from those you describe as the REAL Moderators?

Wayne.....

I Would Totally Destroy You In A Game Of Chess.......

Quit Trying To Play These little Gambits......

Do I Want You And Jay Banned.....?

NO...

But How About You And Jay Disappear For A Few weeks......

Take a break from This Board.....

and actually communicate with each other.....

smooth out all of the differences you two have with each other.....

That Way Upon Both Of You Returning.......

THERE IS NO BATTLE......

Only Intellectual Argument......

Because quite Frankly Wayne.....

You And Jay Have Lost Site Of Why This section is so important....

It Has nothing To Do with Your Private Battle Of Who Is The Biggest Dick.....

You Both Have That Distinction......

And We Are Not Talking About Bodily Appendages Here.....

So Do You think The Moderators Will Be Fair.....?

In Veiwing My assessment of the situation......

Because Really Something needs To be Done.......

WMM

foot_soldier

04-17-2005, 05:55 PM

AIRMAP New England

Thompson Farm, NH

Real-Time Air Quality Data
April 17, 2005 - 7:30pm EDT
CO2 - 398 ppmv

http://airmap.unh.edu/data/data.html?site=AIRMAPTF

foot_soldier

04-17-2005, 09:33 PM

AIRMAP New England

Thompson Farm, NH

Real-Time Air Quality Data
April 17, 2005 - 11:15pm EDT
CO2 - 432 ppmv

http://airmap.unh.edu/data/data.html?site=AIRMAPTF

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 12:04 AM

Mother Jones
May-June 2005

Some Like It Hot

Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html

Excerpt:

.....ON FEBRUARY 16, 2005, 140 nations celebrated the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. In the weeks prior, as the friends of ExxonMobil scrambled to inoculate the Bush administration from the bad press that would inevitably result from America’s failure to sign this international agreement to curb global warming, a congressional briefing was organized. Held in a somber, wood-paneled Senate hearing room, the event could not help but have an air of authority.

Like the Crichton talk, however, it was hardly objective. Sponsored by the George C. Marshall Institute and the Cooler Heads Coalition, the briefing’s panel of experts featured Myron Ebell, attorney Christopher Horner, and Marshall’s CEO William O’Keefe, formerly an executive at the American Petroleum Institute and chairman of the Global Climate Coalition.

But it was the emcee, Senator Inhofe, who best represented the spirit of the event. Stating that Crichton’s novel should be “required reading,” the ruddy-faced senator asked for a show of hands to see who had finished it. He attacked the “hockey stick” graph and damned the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment for having “no footnotes or citations,” as indeed the ACIA “overview” report—designed to be a “plain language synthesis” of the fully referenced scientific report—does not.

But never mind, Inhofe had done his own research. He whipped out a 1974 issue of Time magazine and, in mocking tones, read from a 30-year-old article that expressed concerns over cooler global temperatures. In a folksy summation, Inhofe again called the notion that humans are causing global warming “a hoax,” and said that those who believe otherwise are “hysterical people, they love hysteria. We’re dealing with religion.”

Having thus dismissed some 2,000 scientists, their data sets and temperature records, and evidence of melting glaciers, shrinking islands, and vanishing habitats as so many hysterics, totems, and myths, Inhofe vowed to stick up for the truth, as he sees it, and “fight the battle out on the Senate floor.”

Seated in the front row of the audience, former ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol looked on approvingly..... END excerpt.

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 12:08 AM

jayreynolds

04-18-2005, 04:59 AM

Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank

ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe. Herewith, a representative overview.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html

"President Clinton’s FY 2001 budget is proposing over $2.4 billion (a more than 40 percent increase over FY 2000 enacted levels) in funding to combat global climate change."

$8 million against billions?
Sounds like a fair fight to me.
How much did your people ante up for a "chemtrail" sampling flight?
Oh, I forgot, that one never got off the ground.
Ha!

jayreynolds

04-18-2005, 05:50 AM

NOAA-
CO2 Increase Rate Back to Normal,
No Need For Alarm

This story entered on 31st Mar, 2005 12:53:43 PM PST

A spike in the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere between 2001 and 2003 appears to be a temporary phenomenon and apparently does not indicate a quickening build-up of the gas in the atmosphere, according to an analysis by NOAA climate experts. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is released into the atmosphere by the burning of wood, coal, oil and gas. Increases in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are of special interest to scientists because carbon dioxide is a significant heat-trapping greenhouse gas. (Click NOAA image for larger view of carbon cycle greenhouse gases monitoring programs around the world.

As measured in air samples collected from more than 60 sites in the NOAA Global Cooperative Observing Network, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by nearly 5 parts per million (ppm) between 2001 and 2003. The increase in 2002 was 2.43 ppm; the increase in 2003 was 2.30 ppm. In other words, more than two additional carbon-dioxide molecules were added to each million molecules of air each year during that period. The annual increase was higher than the long-term average annual CO2 increase of approximately 1.5 ppm.

Included in the global average carbon dioxide measurements are those from the NOAA Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii where the CO2 record is the world's longest continuous observations of atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels, having begun in 1958.

The increased CO2 levels interested scientists who questioned whether some unknown mechanism might be causing the atmosphere to retain higher levels of CO2.

However, according to David Hofmann, director of the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., the rate of carbon-dioxide increase returned to the long-term average level of about 1.5 ppm per year in 2004, indicating that the temporary fluctuation was probably due to changes in the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Global combustion of fossil fuels and other materials places almost 7 billion tons of carbon, in the form of CO2, into the atmosphere each year. On average, Earth's oceans, trees, plants and soils absorb about one-half of this carbon. The balance remains in the air and is responsible for the annual increase.

Most of the variability in the year-to-year CO2 uptake is related to natural processes, including droughts and fires as well as such factors as global temperatures, rainfall amounts and volcanic eruptions.

Understanding these processes is key to forecasting annual CO2 increases, thus providing important information for future CO2 management. NOAA's Carbon Cycle Research Program, which includes surface-, ocean- and space-based measurements of CO2 and other important atmospheric gases, is aimed at developing a comprehensive picture of how CO2 is stored and released. The carbon-cycle studies are a part of NOAA's Climate Program, an integral part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

"Reducing scientific uncertainties of carbon sources and sinks is a priority for the Climate Change Science Program, as carbon dioxide is the single largest forcing agent of climate change," said James R. Mahoney, NOAA deputy administrator and CCSP director.

NOAA scientists have been tracking CO2 levels around the world for more than 25 years. The oldest record comes from the Mauna Loa Observatory, which is located atop a Hawaiian volcano. There, Charles Keeling began CO2 measurements in 1958. Following NOAA's formation in 1970, measurements continued at Mauna Loa and began at other places around the world. There are now more than 60 monitoring sites worldwide.

Mahoney adds, "The measurement capabilities established at NOAA's Mauna Loa and other sites around the world demonstrates the importance of observational networks as a contribution to understanding the complexities of the carbon cycle."

Each year since global measurements of CO2 began, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased.

Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hotitems/storyDetail_org.php?sid=2782

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 11:32 AM

Dear BC,

you are so vulnerable. I am very sorry for that. I confess I might be in part (very) ignorant but on the other hand I did notice that in this forum are two climate related threads with many knowledgable posts of people who tremendously care for the matter.

I really got confused and upset about Jay´s suggested favorite website:

"Well, we have this website which keeps track of all the good stuff Kyoto is doing!

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm" (end of quote)

This website is rather cynical. I did not realize immediately, as I should have and as you correctly point out, that Jay is the advocatus diabolus -voice of the thread.
It really got me upside down reading the statements on that website.

I did have a look now at your website, too, BC. California is just a region of hope!
Again, please come over my posts. It is a bit too much to suppose that I would only answer to posts of men. I usually answer to someone whose statement catches my eye or just simply to the last person in the thread. There are many issues in which I trust more in women and that I would rather speak about with them. - As you noticed, I am not sufficiently learned and know little about the US. I am sorry that I touched a woman-issue vene there.
Also, my words were not meant in any way critical or said in a superior tone. I was just wondering aloud and that s all. You don t need to suppose that a person who is not US citizen would always mean their statement as an offence to the US. In the Czech Republic we adore the US more than anything! Look at the many US expats living here and the good social life that Czechs and US expats are having together. It is marvelous. On the other hand the general tone in Europe is that the US is far behind in environmental programs and citizen awareness if we compare it with European standards. It was as well under the impression of such repetitive statements that are taken here for "common ground" that I made my statements in the post.
Lastly, I found funny that you say if I "were the person I say I am". I don´t remember presenting myself extensively which maybe I should have done. But why should I give so much importance to myself? All the more I am surprised by your statement. I am just a student of philosophy, I have travelled quite a lot within Europe and Asia and am struggling my way forward. Sure, there are plenty of subjects I am ignorant of. I try my best to find a remedy for it. And I find this experience in an American Board very rewarding.
Thank you, too, for helping me understand a bit better the US and helping me acknowledge the widespread caring of a majority citizens for the environment!

peace.

"The world lies in the hands of those who have the courage to dream and who take the risk of living out their dreams - each according to his or her own talent." The Valkyries

Dear Peace Fries,

Thank you so much for your sharing sentiments. It helps all world relations to communicate in full and with great heart, whether communicating on a board with a small membership or communicating in the U.N., or other multi-national social structures.

My direct passionate action with you on this board was to dispel misconceptions about our country and our people in general regarding environmental concerns. And now you and I have reached a greater understanding and in that have increased understanding and realizations within all who read this forum, and out beyond into our social circles.

When anyone of any nation enters a board or ongoing discussion, it's best not to present any kind of judgment statements. I suppose you learned that lesson? It simply puts the posters in a defense position especially if the statements refer to a wide swath of people or the posters themselves. "It is a pity......" " Americans are....." are examples of such kinds of opinion statements that require defense. So, it's not that I, personally, am particularly vulnerable, no.... it is that I must take the time out to educate someone who obviously does not possess the information needed in order to form an accurate picture regarding their judgment.

I'm so glad my effort paid off. Do contribute .... and if you have any more questions, please ask!

You are more than welcome to visit and post here! WELCOME!!!

BC ;)

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 11:52 AM

Well, I read it yesterday and have thought about it. Had heard some of it before, but it was nice to see what the authors had to say.
"We've got to get rid of the "Medieval Warm Period"....."
Looks like Mann etal. were successful.
See it here?
http--news.bbc.co.uk-nol-shared-spl-hi-pop_ups-04-sci_nat_enl_1092666337-img-1.jpg
I found this BBC news article on the controversy from one month ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4349133.stm

So, we have claims made which turn out to be false, we have dta which is labeled "censored" being witheld, and we have media giving short shrift to the story, and by and large, a 'scientific' community which practices censorship and groupthink.

The parallels with that of the 'chemtrails" debate are amazing.

In the case against "chemtrails" we have many of the same elements:

-anonymous "researchers" hiding from criticism ["Chemtrails Over America"(editor 'foootsoldier')] making claims about barium, etc being sprayed yet showing no proof of it

- a "deep shield atmospheric scientist" [an admitted liar named David G. Stewart] purporting to tell us things later shown to be plagiarized from online dictionaries.

-people like Brian Holmes posting photos of ordinary contrails misattributed and purported to be spraying, and claims about USAF newsletters called "chemtrails" proven false yet remaining

-a preposterous racist grand conspiracy theory by a disgruntled low-level DOE employee with delusions of grandeur[Jim Phelps] being promugated as fact

-a cult-like atmosphere wherein these people refuse to show their sources, indeed to show any eveidence whatsoever, and yet get away with it

-a groupthink cooperative which allows them to remain silent, refrains from self-criticism, yet censors counter-arguments

Yes, some amazing stuff there. Most people woul just be satisfied to sit and think, "Somebody ought to do something about that."

Guess I'm "somebody".

Jay.... you use excellent comparative skills here and I would disagree with only one of them. Well, I would disagree with one specific and another rather general assumption of yours. First of all, and I've mentioned it before, using the word "cult" is simply an exagerrated and twisted form of word usage. In fact, in the dictionary definition of cult NEITHER the global warming theorists nor the chemtrail theorists can with academic precision wear the label of "cult." It simply does not apply. In comparative terms regarding the general global warming theory and their scientists verses the chemtrail theory and their people exists a huge gap in expertise and scientific inquiry. While many sham scientists with NO DEGREES and NO scientific backing support the chemtrail theory, legitimate DEGREED scientists debate the global warming issue. There is really no comparison in the global warming group verses the chemtrail group in terms of scientific inquiry and legitimate scientific credentials..... NO COMPARISON. The superior? Global Warming!

Comparing a Phelps to an IPCC scientists is like comparing Dr. Wendell Cory to Dr. Robert Muller. :p

IPCC scientists may be inaccurate in their computer models and might be politically motivated and prejudiced in their desire to find correlations.... but they attempt to verify their science in an ongoing and responsible way and that will be verified through their next upcoming report.

In general one can say the legitimate scientific debate regarding Global Warming is ongoing and research to substantiate the theories continues as well.

In terms of chemtrails, the community of theorists is confined to those who have no resources, have no funding, aren't legitmate scientists and within the range of theorists exists conspiracy theorists of a wide range of philosophic backgrounds.... some more credible others ridiculously not credible or plausible. Still, I value the freedom for all researchers in the chemtrail theory to prove to themselves and others whether their theories are valid or not.

So, these are the areas of which I basically disagree with your comparative analysis.

If you wish to present the opposing side to either theory, that is your freedom as well, within the confines of considerate academic response and activism. There are no "cults" involved.

I will not waste my time posting the definition of a "cult." Anyone can google search the definition and read it for their own edification.

Thanks.

BC :p

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 11:57 AM

masher

04-18-2005, 01:16 PM

> "As for molds, the fact is that individual mold species have varying oxygen requirements and some species require considerably less oxygen than others..."

A nice bit of misdirection, but you're still skirting the issue. Increased CO2 levels do not cause higher mold growth...in fact, quite the opposite. This is why you rarely open a can of soda and find mold inside. All the O2 in normal air has been replaced with CO2. There is an entire field of food packaging (known as MAP) which consists of replacing the air in a can, bottle, or bag with a neutral gas such as CO2.

There are molds which are obligately or facultatively anaerobic, and will grow without oxygen. However, their metabolism doesn't utilize CO2 either, so any increase in carbon dioxide levels wouldn't affect their growth rate either.

I realize the facts don't sit will with your fear-mongering attitude, so feel free to ignore them if you wish.

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 01:54 PM

.....I realize the facts don't sit will with your fear-mongering attitude, so feel free to ignore them if you wish.....
Take it up with the EPA.

Also, I might add that if you have no long-term direct experience with the specific region being referenced then you don't know what's going on there.

Thank you.

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 01:57 PM

Boomer Chick wrote:
.....I would also add that insects respond to temperature and atmospheric gas composition and we must be aware of the whole biosphere in regard to CO2, other gases, and temperature as well.....
Absolutely, yes. And changes in insect populations can be directly observed. No computer models to fight about there!

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 03:02 PM

Just some interesting facts regarding allergies, molds, and fungi :

Lower level ozone negatively affects asthma:

http://allergies.about.com/cs/asthma/a/blniehs09082003.htm

Evolutionary planetary cycles involving climate change and related systems:

http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=18336

More on fungi and plants and how they affect us:
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?
fuseaction=news&doc_id=9267&start=1&control=219&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1

Molds in the home:

http://allergies.about.com/cs/molds/a/aa020501a.htm

Mycotoxins in corn:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2004/041221.htm

ABOUT MOLD, MILDEW AND MOISTURE

What is Mold?
Molds, which are currently classified as inactive fungi, are simple, microscopic organisms, and are present virtually everywhere, indoors and outdoors. There are hundreds of thousands of known species of mold with thousands of these species being common in the United States. Some of the most commonly found are species of Cladosporium, Fusarium, Stachybotrys, Cephalosporium, Trichoderma, Penicillium and Aspergillus. Molds, also mushrooms and yeasts, are needed to break down dead material and recycle nutrients in the environment. Molds and mildew are currently classified as fungi and protistans that grow on surfaces of objects, within pores, and in deteriorated materials. Molds are very adaptable and can colonize dead and decaying organic matter (e.g., textiles, leather, wood, paper) and even damp, inorganic material (e.g., glass, painted surfaces, bare concrete) if organic nutrients such as dust or soil particles are available. Mold is most likely to grow where there is water or dampness, such as in bathrooms, basements, kitchens and damp or moist crawl spaces. However, mold can grow almost anywhere. Because various genera grow and reproduce at different substrate water concentrations and temperatures, molds occur in an extremely wide range of habitats. Molds and mildews can cause discoloration and odor problems, and lead to allergic reactions in susceptible individuals, as well as other more serious health problems.

How does mold grow?
It was previously believed that for mold growth to occur, it needed a temperature range of above 40 degrees Fahrenheit and below 100 degrees Fahrenheit. We now know that it can grow well below and above that range, depending on a variety of other conditions. Human comfort constraints limit the use of temperature control to check mold growth.

Mold needs a nutrient base to grow, specifically cellulose particles. Because molds grow by digesting the by-products that other organisms leave behind on organic material, they can grow almost anywhere. Sometimes new molds grow on old mold colonies. Mold growth on surfaces can often be seen in the discoloration, frequently green, red, gray, brown or black, but also white and other colors. Spores are almost always present in outdoor and indoor air, and almost all commonly used construction materials and furnishings can provide nutrients to support mold growth. Dirt on surfaces provides additional, easily consumed nutrients. Cleaning and disinfecting with non-polluting cleaners and antimicrobial agents provides some protection against mold growth, but is not a guarantee. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to eliminate all nutrients.

And finally, mold needs moisture to grow. Moisture control is the single-most important strategy for reducing mold growth, as it is the most easily maintained or eliminated of the growth sources. Mold growth does not require the presence of standing water; it can occur when high relative humidity or the hygroscopic properties (the tendency to absorb and retain moisture) of surfaces allow sufficient moisture to accumulate. However, relative humidity and the factors that govern it are often misunderstood.

Climate and Molds
Fungal species that are allergenic have been identified virtually everywhere they have been measured. They are common around 3,000 feet and are found at altitudes as high as 7,000 to 10,000 feet. They are found in surprisingly high concentrations in clouds and in the air during almost every type of climactic condition. Hormodendrum, Alternaria, Fusarium, Helminthosporium, and the yeasts are considered to be universal dominants, and with some variation are found in worldwide surveys. There are seasonal patterns and indoor mold concentration is dependent on the outdoor concentration. Aspergillus and Penicillium are usually non-seasonal and regularly found indoors.

Natural Climates:
Barometric Pressure and Relative Humidity
Temperature and Relative Humidity
Hot Wind (above body temperature) and Cold Wind (wind chill)
Positive Ions
Precipitation and Fog
Type and Amount of Atmospheric mold
Local and Non-local Vegetation
Inversion Layers and Stagnant Conditions
Rapid Changes in All Variables
Man-Made Climates:
Indoor Cooling Devices (humidifiers, air conditioners)
Atmospheric Dust from Auto Traffic on Unpaved Roads
Heating Ducts containing Dust and Spores
Damp Basements, Walls and Shower Curtains
Mold Substrates from Agriculture, Imported Trees and Shrubs, House Plants

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 03:03 PM

Fungi and molds are found in soil, in water, on animals, on vegetation, in humans and in almost every part of the environment. They are frequently found in many foods and beverages, as they are incorporated during processing and manufacturing of these items. Molds float freely in the air. A mere 20 m.p.h. breeze can cause mold spores to travel 200 miles in 10 hours. When there is snow on the ground for at least five days there is a significant decrease in airborne molds. Molds can produce large numbers of spores from a microscopic amount of growth. Aspergillus, Penicillium, Rhizopus, Mucor, Fusarium and Gliocladium are molds that do this and they are found in large amounts in both the indoor and outdoor environments at all times. The most common airborne molds include, in order: Hormodendrum, Alternaria, Penicillium and Aspergillus. Others are: Helminthosporium, Aureobasidium, Phoma, Nigrospora, Rhizopus, Mucor, Epicoccum, Stemphyllium, Curvularia, Fusarium, Scoplariopsis, Cephalosporium, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, Streptomyces, Candida, Cryptococcus, Rhodotorula, Rusts and Smuts.

Mold can form spores and resist heat and cold. Molds have been isolated on rocks in the Sahara desert. Mold can even be found in outer space! It has been found on the Russian space station "Mir" and other orbiting bodies, and has prompted NASA to investigate how to deal with the problem. Dryness and ventilation are keys (but light as a factor is a common misconception), as the mold will be endless if the conditions that encourage it are not changed. Removing mold should be done by someone other than a sensitive individual.

Can mold become a problem in my home or work environment?
Yes! Mold will grow and multiply whenever conditions are right; such as when there is sufficient moisture availability and when organic nutrients are present. Poor indoor air quality is associated most often with inadequate ventilation, but investigations are linking microbial growth with occupancy problems, construction problems, moisture control problems and maintenance problems. Watch for the most common sources of indoor moisture that may lead to mold problems in your home or workplace:

Flooding
Leaky roofs
Sprinkler systems adding moisture to the structure
Plumbing leaks
Repeated toilet back-ups
Overflow from sinks, sewers, tubs
Damp basements or crawl spaces
Steam streams from showers or cooking areas
Humidifiers
Wet clothes drying indoors or clothes dryers exhausting indoors
Indoor saunas, hot tubs or Jacuzzi areas
Water heater leaks
Poor drainage systems
Improperly installed, repaired or replaced HVAC systems
Warping floors and discoloration of walls and ceilings can be indications of moisture problems. Condensation on or in walls and floors and around window sills is also an important indication, but it can sometimes be caused by an indoor combustion problem! Have burning appliances routinely inspected by your local utility or a professional SCMAA heating contractor.

So what IS the concern about mold?
Molds have been recognized for centuries. From Biblical times through today, we find references to its existence and the problems it creates. Maimomedes in the 12th century described the frequent occurrence of wheezing in damp weather. In 1726, Sir John Floyer noted violent asthma related to a wine cellar visit. In 1873, Blackley suggested that Chaetomium and Penicillium were related to bronchial secretions. Van Leeuwen, in 1924, noted the relation of climate to asthma and made a definitive correlation of mold spores to asthma. It was that same year that the first case of asthma due to a mold was reported and that involved wheat rust.

Molds are typically filamentous, spore-bearing organisms without chlorophyll. They do not require sunlight to thrive, which enhances their insidious nature. They depend on outside sources for nourishment. There are tens of thousands described species and predictably more species awaiting discovery. Low temperatures and aging can favor the filamentous forms, while glucose, blood or the absence of oxygen favor the yeast form. Living organisms constantly evolve. Taxonomic categories need to be reassessed by a consensus of biologists. Intermediate forms of fungi and molds are bound to exist and rise by hybridization and mutation. The SCMAA supports the
belief that molds should be classified in their own kingdom.

Fungi and protistans function to enrich human existence by maintaining the ecology. But they can also serve to do the exact opposite and risk human well-being. They are present in large numbers and fungi disintegrate organic matter. They damage food, fabrics, leather, and consumer goods. They cause the majority of plant diseases. They certainly cause significant human and animal diseases. Certain mushrooms and fungi are well known to be poisonous.

When moldy material becomes damaged or disturbed, countless lightweight spores (reproductive bodies similar to seeds) are released to travel freely through the air. When mold grows in one area, it can emit particles that travel through the air. Generally, these particles will settle into one area if there is little air movement. But some of the particles will inevitably stay airborne, so that inhabitants can be exposed not just in the room where the mold is growing, but throughout the entire house or workplace. If spores enter the return air duct, the mold will be dispersed throughout the entire structure. We recommend using HEPA filters to help trap and reduce the amount of mold spores being dispersed; however, they will not completely eliminate the dispersal of mold spores.

Exposure occurs if people inhale the spores, directly handle moldy materials, or accidentally ingest it. If indoor mold contamination is extensive, it will cause very high and persistent airborne mold exposures. Those who are exposed to high spore levels will become sensitized and develop allergies to the mold or other health related problems. Under certain metabolic conditions, many molds produce and then carry mycotoxins, natural organic compounds that initiate a toxic response in vertebrates. The primary mode of human exposure to mycotoxins is inhalation of spores and mold-contaminated material. Molds that are important potential producers of toxins indoors are certain species of Fusarium, Penicillium, and Aspergillus. In water-damaged buildings Stachybotrys chartarum (a.k.a. Stachybotrys atra) and Aspergillus versicolor may also produce toxic metabolites. A wide variety of information is available on the human and animal health effects from ingestion of certain mycotoxins, and researchers have been exploring the health implications of inhalation exposure to these substances since 1970. Two classes of mycotoxins have been isolated from house dust samples: aflatoxins from some strains of Aspergillus flavus and trichothecenes from some species and strains of Fusarium, Cephalosporium, Stachybotrys and Trichoderma. In laboratory animals, inhalation of trichothecene mycotoxins causes severe inhibition of protein synthesis and immunosuppression. Several case reports have associated overgrowths of trichothecene-producing fungi with human health effects such as cold and flu-like symptoms, sore throats, headache and general malaise.

However, isolation of a toxigenic mold from a structure does not imply the presence of mycotoxins, since the physical conditions necessary for mycotoxin production are very specific, and are often different from those required for growth of the parent mold. Likewise, failure to produce toxins in vitro (in the laboratory) does not mean that a mold known to be toxogenic will not produce toxins in a field situation. These rare but life-threatening problems tend to overshadow the importance of allergy problems to molds as a pervasive aggravating factor in chronic illness and disability in medical school education.

Molds also produce a large number of volatile organic compounds, known as VOCs. These chemicals are responsible for the musty odors produced by growing molds. The most common VOC, ethanol, is a potent synergizer of many fungal toxins.

***
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic104.htm

Outdoor molds

Atmospheric conditions can affect the growth and dispersion of a number of molds; therefore, their airborne prevalence may vary depending on climate and season.

For example, Alternaria and Cladosporium are particularly prevalent in the dry and windy conditions of the Great Plains states, where they grow on grasses and grains. Their dispersion often peaks on sunny afternoons. They are virtually absent when snow is on the ground in winter, and they peak in the summer months and early fall.

Aspergillus and Penicillium can be found both outdoors and indoors (particularly in humid households), with variable growth depending on the season or climate. Their spores can also be dispersed in dry conditions.

masher

04-18-2005, 03:36 PM

> "Take it up with the EPA..."

Take what up with the EPA? The fact that molds refuse to grow faster when exposed to more CO2? What do you want the EPA to do about it? Pass a law to force molds to behave as you wish?

> "I might add that if you have no long-term direct experience with the specific region being referenced then you don't know what's going on there..."

A curious response. Do you feel the laws governing fungi metabolism vary from California to New York? Or that molds in other nations greedily consume CO2, even though our own local molds refuse to do so?

I don't have any direct experience with Tasmania. But I'm sure the basic laws of physics and biology apply there, just as they do everywhere else.

Why not just admit the truth and accept you were wrong? You'd save a great deal of embarrassment in the long run.

masher

04-18-2005, 03:43 PM

> "Aspergillus and Penicillium can be found both outdoors and indoors (particularly in humid households)..."

Given the known dangers of certain toxic molds, when is the EPA going to stop bowing to corporate interests and do something about "humid households"? Allowing showers, toilets, and running water in people's homes is far too risky, and endangers not only our health, but that of our children as well!

We need government to step up and take action. Just yesterday I noticed a speck of mold on my shower wall. I never would have installed one in my home had I been properly advised of the risks involved. Plumbing equipment must be properly regulated and installed only in government-supervised locations, and the profit-hungry manufacturers of shower heads and bathubs must be brought to task for their reckless actions.

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 03:51 PM

BINGO!

http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/86/99014.htm?z=1728_00000_1000_ln_01

Researchers Say Increased Greenhouse Gases Cause Increased Levels of Pollen and Other Allergens

By Todd Zwillich
WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD
on Thursday, April 29, 2004

April 29, 2004 -- Rising greenhouse gas levels may be contributing to expanding rates of asthma in U.S. cities and worsening allergies in millions of urban and suburban people, a new Harvard Medical School report shows.

Researchers say that carbon dioxide emissions from cars, trucks, and industry are causing plants and molds to boost pollen and spore production. More pollen in the air is likely worsening allergic diseases such as asthma and may be to blame for the rise in cases among children, they conclude.

Soot from diesel engines may also contribute to the problem by irritating the lungs of asthma suffers, in effect weakening their defenses to the pollen, according to the report, which was funded by the Civil Society Institute, a nonprofit organization funding research in environmental and health issues.

"We are seeing some very troubling new evidence that may be exacerbating the allergies and allergens and the assaults on our respiratory systems," says Paul R. Epstein, MD, the report's co-author.

"Frankly it is a new problem that we do not know how to solve," says Epstein, who is associate director of the Center for Health and Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.

Asthma on the Rise

Approximately 14 million U.S. adults and 9 million children have asthma, according to 2001 CDC figures. Childhood asthma rates have more than doubled in the U.S, since 1984 in a trend that has largely baffled scientists. Some cite improved diagnosis for the increased numbers, while others blame worsening pollution and crowded living conditions that expose children to asthma-causing cockroach dander and dust mites.

Researchers say that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) may be a main culprit. Recent studies identified CO2 levels in large U.S. cities including Phoenix and Baltimore, Md., that are at times up to 60% higher than in rural areas. Burning fossil fuel -- coal, oil and natural gases -- is the greatest contributor to the continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

A 2003 study published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology suggested that ragweed, which produces one of the most common allergens, is responding to the higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere by producing more pollen.

"Ragweed grew faster, flowered earlier, and produced significantly greater above-ground biomass and ragweed pollen at urban locations than at rural locations," an abstract of the study concludes.

Not Just Asthma, Not Just Cities?

Experts warned that the pollen problem may spread beyond inner cities. Global atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) at the start of the industrial revolution to 379 ppm today, according to the report.

It means that ragweed could thrive in suburban and rural areas as well, says Christine Rogers, PhD, a Harvard researcher and the study's other co-author. Up to 40 million Americans suffer from ragweed allergies, also known as hay fever.

"All Americans certainly are at risk for this," says Georges Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association.

But not everyone is convinced of the connection between CO2, pollen, and asthma. While CO2 has been shown to boost growth and pollen production in plants, no studies, including this Harvard report, have been able to find a hard link between increased pollen and asthma, says Bill O'Keefe, president of the Marshall Institute, a Washington think tank that regularly questions the extent humans' impact on CO2 levels and climate change.

"No one debates that CO2 levels are going up," says O'Keefe, who adds that his group receives funding from petroleum producers and industry groups. But of the link between those levels and rising rates of asthma, he says, "I think it's a stretch."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES: "Inside the Greenhouse: The Impacts of CO2 and Climate Change on Public Health in the Inner City, Center for Health and the Global Environment," Harvard Medical School, April 29, 2004. Paul R. Epstein, MD, associate director of the Center for Health and Global Environment, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Ziska L. "Cities as harbingers of climate change: common ragweed, urbanization, and public health," Journal of Allergy Clinical Immunology, February 2003; vol 111: pp 290- 295. Georges Benjamin, MD, executive director, American Public Health Association. Bill O'Keefe, president, Marshall Institute.

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
.....BINGO!

http://my.webmd.com/content/Article...0000_1000_ln_01

Researchers Say Increased Greenhouse Gases Cause Increased Levels of Pollen and Other Allergens

By Todd Zwillich
WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD
on Thursday, April 29, 2004

April 29, 2004 -- Rising greenhouse gas levels may be contributing to expanding rates of asthma in U.S. cities and worsening allergies in millions of urban and suburban people, a new Harvard Medical School report shows.

Researchers say that carbon dioxide emissions from cars, trucks, and industry are causing plants and molds to boost pollen and spore production. More pollen in the air is likely worsening allergic diseases such as asthma and may be to blame for the rise in cases among children, they conclude.....
Exactly.

Thank you kindly.

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 04:12 PM

http://www.desertusa.com/wildflo/images05/Mariposa_Lilly.jpg
.

masher

04-18-2005, 04:48 PM

Lol...pollen, mold...whats the difference, especially when you have such a poor grasp of biology and science in general, eh?

Also, allow me to quote from you own link:
no studies, including this Harvard report, have been able to find a hard link between increased pollen and asthma...
Face facts. CO2 isn't causing increased mold growth. And faster plant growth is, in general, a very good thing for us humans.

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 05:30 PM

Ah, I see. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is actually good for us. You sound like a supporter of the Greening Earth Society. Your privilege of course.

The Greening Earth Society VS. the State of the World
- by Ian Smith, in collaboration with NOAA Scientist Pieter Tans
http://cem.colorado.edu/archives/sp1999/ian.html

For several years now, scientific groups around the world have been warning the general public about the dangers of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Most of these gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, have been building up in the atmosphere as a result of the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

By now, there is a general consensus among the general population and political institutions of the world that the large increase of these gases is destructive to the atmosphere and that actions must be taken to mitigate it. In addition, it is becoming more and more obvious, both through research and common sense, that Earth and oil fields are not going to last forever. During the past few decades, we have come to realize how much our society depends on oil and oil by-products and have begun to discover new sources of energy that will sustain us after the oil is gone. Most, if not all of these sources, are much cleaner than oil as well (solar cells, electric motors, wind energy, etc.), which is nice, because gases like CO2 must be minimized.

But could this all be for naught? Could it be that there is nothing to worry about? Allow me to introduce the Greening Earth Society: a Virginia-based organization dedicated to spreading the claim that increases in CO2 levels is good. They say that the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are actually beneficial to plants around the world because, with more CO2, plants grow better and faster.

In their welcoming, innocent looking web page, the group points out specific examples of pastures in New Zealand, forests in Africa and crop fields around the world that have shown positive results as an effect of increased CO2 levels. The page also points out a review done by the New Hope Environmental Services entitled, "A Defense of Carbon Dioxide," which was aimed directly at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Clean Air Act. The review stated that CO2 should not be defined as a pollutant, and that the increase of carbon dioxide in the air has nothing to do with the theory of global warming.

So, why is the Greening Earth Society going to such lengths to teach us all of this? Well, their belief is that there is no need to worry about releasing an excess amount of carbon dioxide. They believe that humankind's industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels is good and "as natural as breathing." They proclaim that the amount of CO2 grows with the human race, and that nature and CO2 levels can grow together in harmony.

A while back, an article in the Colorado Daily entitled, "Is CO2 Your Friend?," written by Brian Hansen, told us about the Greening Earth Society (GES) and its president, Fredrick Palmer. In Hansen's article, Palmer referred to a study put out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), right here in Boulder, to bolster his side of the story. In the study, it was found that the North American continent, as a whole, is actually acting as a type of "landsink" for CO2. In other words, parts of the continent are taking in more CO2 than they are producing. For Palmer, this study simply reinforces his beliefs that nature is capable of dealing with CO2 increases and that the government agencies that warn us about global warming as a result of high CO2 levels are wrong..... (continued)

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 05:34 PM

Jay clone:

"Researchers say that carbon dioxide emissions from cars, trucks, and industry are causing plants and molds to boost pollen and spore production. " (from above article)

And the reference to asthma and pollen was not the information we were seeking.

CO2 tends to increase the pollen and spore production of both molds and plants!

Hello? Anybody there... inside your brain? :p

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 06:47 PM

http://www.desertusa.com/wildflo/images05/Mariposa_Lilly.jpg
.

3 Petals !!! :D

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 07:26 PM

Climate of Denial

One morning in Kyoto, we won a round in the battle against global warming. Then special interests and pseudoscience snatched the truth away. What happened?

By Bill McKibben

May/June 2005 Issue

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/mckibben_introduction.html

It was around eight in the morning in the vast convention hall in Kyoto. The negotiations over a worldwide treaty to limit global warming gases, which were supposed to have ended the evening before, had gone on through the night. Drifts of paper—treaty drafts, industry talking points, environmentalist press releases—overflowed every wastebasket. Delegates in suits and ties were passed out on couches, noisily mouth breathing. And polite squadrons of workers were shooing people out of the hall so that some trade show—tool and die makers, I think—could set up its displays.

Finally, from behind the closed doors, word emerged that we had a treaty. The greens all cheered, halfheartedly—since it wasn't as though the agreement would go anywhere near far enough to arrest global warming—but firm in their conviction that the tide on the issue had finally turned. After a decade of resistance, the oil companies and the car companies and all the other deniers of global warming had seen their power matched.

Or so it seemed. I was standing next to a top industry lobbyist, a man who had spent the last week engineering opposition to the treaty, huddling with Exxon lawyers and Saudi delegates, detailing the Venezuelans to change this word, the Kuwaitis to soften that number. Right now he looked just plain tired. "I can't wait to get back to Washington," he said. "In Washington we'll get this under control again."

At the time I thought he was blowing smoke, putting on a game face, whistling past the graveyard of corporate control. I almost felt sorry for him; it seemed to me (as sleep-deprived as everyone else) that we were on the brink of a new world.

As it turned out, we both were right. The rest of the developed world took Kyoto seriously; in the eight years since then, the Europeans and the Japanese have begun to lay the foundation for rapid and genuine progress toward the initial treaty goal of cutting carbon emissions to a level 5 to 10 percent below what it was in 1990. You can see the results of that long Kyoto night in the ranks of windmills rising along the coast of the North Sea, in the solar panels sprouting on German rooftops, and in the remarkable political unanimity in most of the world on the need for rapid change. Tony Blair's science adviser has repeatedly called global warming a greater threat than terrorism, but that hasn't been enough for Britain's Conservatives; the Tory leader (the equivalent of, say, Tom DeLay) rose last summer to excoriate Blair for moving too slowly on carbon reductions.

In Washington, however, the lobbyists did get things "under control." Eight years after Kyoto, Big Oil and Big Coal remain in complete and unchallenged power. Around the country, according to industry analysts, 68 new coal-fired power plants are in various stages of planning. Detroit makes cars that burn more fuel, on average, than at any time in the last two decades. The president doesn't mention the global warming issue, and the leaders of the opposition don't, either: John Kerry didn't exactly run on solving the climate crisis. The high-water mark for legislative action came in 2003, when John McCain actually managed to persuade 43 senators to support a bill calling for at least some carbon reductions, albeit much lower than even the modest Kyoto levels. But given that it takes 60 votes to beat a filibuster and 66 to override a veto, and given that the GOP has since added four hard-right senators to its total, it's safe to say that nothing will be happening inside the Beltway anytime soon.

IT WAS NEVER going to be easy. Controlling global warming is not like the other battles (dirty water, smog) that environmentalists have taken on, and mostly won, over the years. Carbon dioxide, a.k.a. CO2, or just "carbon" for short, is not a conventional pollutant. It's tasteless, colorless, odorless. Unlike carbon monoxide, which is what kills you if you leave your car running in the garage, CO2 doesn't do anything to the human body directly. It does its damage in the lower atmosphere by holding in heat that would otherwise escape out to space. And even more unfortunate, there's no easy way to get rid of it, no catalytic converter you can stick on your tailpipe, no scrubber you can fit to your smokestack. To reduce the amount of CO2 pouring into the atmosphere means dramatically reducing the amount of fossil fuel being consumed. Which means changing the underpinning of the planet's entire economy and altering our most ingrained personal habits. Even under the best scenarios, this will involve something more like a revolution than a technical fix.

You would think the Europeans would have had a harder time making reductions; after all, they were already fairly energy-efficient, thanks to decades of high taxes on coal and oil. Their low-hanging fruit had long since been plucked. For the United States, there were loads of relatively easy fixes. We could have quickly reduced our emissions by trimming the number of SUVs on the road, for instance, while the French were already in Peugeots. However, in certain ways, America was more firmly locked into coal and oil than our European peers: sprawling suburbs, oversized houses, abandoned rail lines. We had the single hardest habit to break, which was thinking of energy as something cheap. This staggering inertia meant that even when our leaders had some interest in controlling energy use, they faced a real challenge. Al Gore wrote a book insisting that the future of civilization itself depended on battling global warming; during his eight years as vice president, Americans increased their carbon emissions by 15 percent.

What makes the battle harder still is the tangibility gap between benefits and costs. Everyone is, in the long run, better off if the planet doesn't burn to a crisp. But in any given year the payoff for shifting away from fossil fuel is incremental and essentially invisible. The costs, however, are concentrated: If you own a coal mine, an oil well, or an assembly line churning out gas-guzzlers, you have a very strong incentive for making sure no one starts charging you for emitting carbon.

At the very least, the "energy sector" needed to stall for time, so that its investments in oil fields and the like could keep on earning for their theoretical lifetimes. The strategy turned out to be simple: Cloud the issue as much as possible so that voters, already none too eager to embrace higher gas prices, would have no real reason to move climate change to the top of their agendas. I mean, if the scientists aren't absolutely certain, well, why not just wait until they get it sorted out?

The tactic worked brilliantly; throughout the 1990s, even as other nations took action, the fossil fuel industry's Global Climate Coalition managed to make American journalists treat the accelerating warming as a he-said-she-said story. True, a vast scientific consensus was forming that climate change threatens the earth more profoundly than anything since the dawn of civilization, but in an Associated Press dispatch the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change didn't look all that much more impressive than, say, Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute or S. Fred Singer, former chief scientist at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Michaels and Singer weren't really doing new research, just tossing jabs at those who were, but that didn't matter. Their task was not to build a new climate model; it was to provide cover for politicians who were only too happy to duck the issue. Their task was to keep things under control.

It was all incredibly crude. But it was also incredibly effective. For now and for the foreseeable future, the climate skeptics have carried the day. They've understood the shape of American politics far better than environmentalists. They know that it doesn't matter how many scientists are arrayed against you as long as you can intimidate newspapers into giving you equal time. They understand, too, that playing defense is all they need to do: Given the inertia inherent in the economy, it's more than sufficient to simply instill doubt.

IN SHORT, the deniers have done their job, and done it better than the environmen- talists have done theirs. They've delayed action for 15 years now, and their power seems to grow with each year. How, even as the science grew ever firmer and the evidence mounted ever higher, did the climate deniers manage to muddy the issue? It's one of the mightiest political feats of our time, accomplished by a small group of clever and committed people. It's worthwhile trying to understand how they work, not least because some of the same tactics are now being used in debates over other issues, like Social Security. And because the fight over global warming won't end here. Try as they might, even with all three branches of government under their control, conservative Republicans can't repeal the laws of chemistry and physics.

Bill McKibben is a contributing writer to Mother Jones and the author of several books, including his most recent, Wandering Home: A Long Walk Across America's Most Hopeful Landscapes, Vermont's Champlain Valley and New York's Adirondacks.

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 07:34 PM

http://i-newswire.com/pr15463.html

-Newswire, 2005-04-18 - Professor James Gustave Speth, Dean of Yale University's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, urged the scientific community to make its case to the public, which remains unconvinced of the crisis despite decades of first-rate science and policy analysis, he said.

Temperatures at the Arctic are already climbing, and there will be "irreparable damage in the decades ahead due to our negligence" in addressing climate change. U.S. policy makers and citizens must be spurred into action, Speth said in his talk, "Some Say by Fire: Climate Change and the American Response," held Wednesday, April 6.

"If I had a hundred million dollars," Speth said, "I think I'd put almost every penny of it into a public service advertising campaign…because we've got to reach lots of people quickly with this issue."

Speth is a founder of the World Resources Institute, co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council and former advisor to Presidents Carter and Clinton. His lecture was sponsored by the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.

Climate-change research results and forecasts appear repeatedly in the scientific literature--some information "startling in its significance"--but Speth said good climate science rarely reaches the public in a "forceful and meaningful way." Indeed, the mainstream American press persists in portraying global change as controversial and uncertain, he said.

There is now clear consensus among scientists that Earth's climate is being affected by the greenhouse gases generated by human activities. "We've seen these credible forecasts and credible warnings coming from the scientific community for the better part of three decades," Speth said. "But the influence of all the good science on policy and action has been puny compared with the need."

Noting MIT's phenomenal capacity to help tackle this critical global problem, Speth called for scientists at MIT and elsewhere to actively engage in public policy debates and issues. "Only the scientific community has the credibility to take the climate issue to the public and to the politicians," he said.

Given the lack of action at the federal level, he called for building a broad network of civic, scientific, environmental, religious, business and other communities to demand action and to take concrete steps to reduce emissions.

What can universities do? He recommended that they join together and commit to reducing their own emissions, which are often significant.

As it happens, MIT is collaborating with the City of Cambridge to implement its Climate Protection Plan, which calls for a reduction of citywide greenhouse-gas emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. To set an appropriate emissions-reduction goal, MIT recently completed a detailed analysis of its emissions. For more information on MIT's environmental commitment and activities, visit web.mit.edu/environment.

A version of this article appeared in the April 13, 2005 issue of MIT Tech Talk ( Volume 49, Number 24 ).

If you have questions regarding information in these press release contact the company listed below. Please do not contact us as we are unable to assist you with your inquiry. We disclaim any content contained in this press release.

Company Details
Nancy Stauffer, Laboratory for Energy and the Envi
Press Release Date
2005-04-18

***

Yes, it did seem familiar but I thought I'd post it anyway!

;)

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 07:42 PM

http://www.ucsdguardian.org/cgi-bin/features?art=2005_04_18_02

UCSD offers understanding on global warming issues
Models of global warming provide scientists with wealth of information, but no solution

By LAURA CANTER
Staff Writer

UCSD, considered to be one of the most prestigious research institutions in the country, has been acknowledged for its breakthrough research in global warming study thanks to some of the most dedicated atmospheric scientists in the field. Most recently, research at UCSD has focused on changing weather patterns and the particles and gradients affecting such changes. In the ongoing debate on the causes of global climate changes, evidence found by these scientists is considered to be the most convincing.

Concern over global warming dates back to Roger Revelle’s discovery of how sea water controls the amount of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Revelle's discovery caused a massive reorganization within the fields of environment and earth sciences. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes to global warming by making it more difficult for solar radiation to escape into space, causing an increase in air pollution and rising sea levels due to melting glaciers. Changes in weather patterns and temperature in certain areas have also verified that the temperature of the atmosphere has increased. These problems, in part, are due to the emission of aerosols released from cars, trucks and coal-burning power plants. Fossil-fuel use in the United States is responsible for more CO2 emission than any other country, and though the amount of fossil fuel is finite, there is still plenty left to cause more irreversible damage to the atmosphere.

read more....

excerpt:

“The damage has been done, but the longer people wait to do something about it, the more severe it is going to get,” Kennel said. “We need to limit CO2 to twice or three times the current level.”

BC

masher

04-18-2005, 07:52 PM

> ""Researchers say that carbon dioxide emissions from cars, trucks, and industry are causing plants and molds to boost pollen and spore production. " (from above article)..."

This gets more amusing with each post. Lets look at the source of your article. It was written by the "Center for Health and the Global Environment". Their own admitted mission statement is not to conduct research, but to (I quote from their site), "to promote a wider understanding of the [effects of humans on the environment] among physicians, scientists, policy-makers, and the general public...and to motivate them to protect it".

In other words, not a dispassionate research organization, but an admitted propaganda machine. Still, that doesn't neccesarily mean they're wrong, right? Let's look at the credentials of the study's author: Paul Epstein. Dr. Epstein isn't a Ph.D. researcher...he's an MD only. His training is in "medical tropical health", though for the last 15 years he's done nothing but make write "bulletins" on how people are destroying the environment, along with media appearances and press releases to support them. His latest claim to fame? A paper trying to link the active 2004 hurricane season to global warming, despite the fact this flies in the face of both fact and academic mainstream opinion.

Still again, it doesn't mean he's wrong about THIS topic, does it? Before we reply, lets look at what he actually said. Your media report is, unsurprisingly, an incorrect quote. His actual statement is:

Evidence for climate change effects on fungal growth and reproduction is less well documented...Long term field experiments with elevated CO2 show that some fungi - those in arbuscular micorrhizal assocations with trees -- have enhanced growth and sporulation. While more evidence is needed to establish the certainty of these effects for a wider range of fungi...

Not exactly a definitive statement, now is it? And what exactly is an "arbuscular micorrhizal" fungi. Its a fungus that forms underground...on the roots of trees. Underground. Tthe spores formed by such fungi stay in the soil, and are not normal airborne in any form. Still worse, even if they were-- there is zero research at all linking them to asthma or any widespread human allergy or health condition. There are only 150 species of such fungi, a tiny and unrepresentatitive fraction of the 11,000+ fungal-based molds we know of, much less the non-fungal molds (slime molds, water molds, etc).

The most telling statement against Epstein and his "research" paper is that he fails to cite the actual study or studies that link elevated CO2 to increased growth of these particular, specialized fungi. So I went looking myself...and immediately found several studies, all of which came to the same general conclusion. Here's an abstract of one:

We investigated the influence of elevated CO2 and soil N availability on the growth of arbuscular mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal fungi...CO2 concentration did not significantly affect percentage infection of Populus roots by mycorrhizal or non-mycorrhizal fungi. However, the extra-radical hyphal network was altered both qualitatively and quantitatively, and there was a strong interaction between CO2 and soil N availability. Under N-poor soil. conditions, elevated CO2 stimulated hyphal length by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, but depressed growth by non-mycorrhizal fungi....

I'll summarize for you in plainer english. In high-nitrogen soil, elevated CO2 doesn't tend to affect either type. In low-nitrogen soil, it tends to increase growth of one type of fungi, but retard the growth of the other type.

Oops. Poor Dr. Epstein. If he were a researcher, he'd get his hand slapped for such a boo-boo...but he's just a policy wonk, so he's free to distort at will. Interestingly enough, what do you think the "elevated CO2" level tested was? 700 ppm...far higher than one would expect to find under even the most dire global warming scenerario. Oops again.

In closing, little Paulie Epstein is a quack, with no research experience or training in the relevant fields, and with the stated goal of attempting to influence public opinion to adress his political goals. You can find his original bulletin at :http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/bulletin/Bulletinurban.pdf.

Again, feel free to disregard these facts in order to keep your Falling-Sky scenarios intact. I don't expect to reach you with the truth, but hope springs eternal to the human breast.

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 08:45 PM

masher wrote:

.....This gets more amusing with each post. Lets look at the source of your article. It was written by the "Center for Health and the Global Environment". Their own admitted mission statement is not to conduct research, but to (I quote from their site), "to promote a wider understanding of the [effects of humans on the environment] among physicians, scientists, policy-makers, and the general public...and to motivate them to protect it"..... POST # 288
Hey, masher - you dropped something.

Center for Health and the Global Environment
Harvard Medical School
http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/

The mission of the Center is to understand the human health consequences of global environmental change, and to promote a wider understanding of these consequences among physicians, scientists, policymakers, the media, and the general public.

Through interdisciplinary research and its educational and policy programs, the Center seeks to help people recognize that their health is dependent on the health of the global environment, and thereby to motivate them to protect it.

***
Quit wasting our time, masher.

I lived right across the street from Harvard Medical School/School of Public Health for 16 years and I know a little bit about their programs.

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 08:53 PM

masher

04-18-2005, 09:11 PM

"Quit wasting our time, masher. I lived right across the street from Harvard Medical School/School of Public Health for 16 years.."

Oh my god, this is too good to be true. You're an expert in the field, because you lived across the street from the Harvard Medical School? I can't believe you managed to type that out without spraining a finger. Did you stop after each paragraph to give the propeller on your hat a little spin?

Just because Paulie Epstein says he's a researcher doesn't make it true. He admits to pushing a political agenda, and he claims to be an expert on everything from ragweed to hurricane formation and ocean currents to the chemistry of the stratosphere. He's got quack written all over him....and even if he didn't, it took all of five minutes to debunk these particular fear-mongering statements on mold growth.

whitemajikman

04-18-2005, 09:12 PM

Researchers Say Increased Greenhouse Gases Cause Increased Levels of Pollen and Other Allergens

By Todd Zwillich
WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD
on Thursday, April 29, 2004

April 29, 2004 -- Rising greenhouse gas levels may be contributing to expanding rates of asthma in U.S. cities and worsening allergies in millions of urban and suburban people, a new Harvard Medical School report shows.

Researchers say that carbon dioxide emissions from cars, trucks, and industry are causing plants and molds to boost pollen and spore production. More pollen in the air is likely worsening allergic diseases such as asthma and may be to blame for the rise in cases among children, they conclude.

Soot from diesel engines may also contribute to the problem by irritating the lungs of asthma suffers, in effect weakening their defenses to the pollen, according to the report, which was funded by the Civil Society Institute, a nonprofit organization funding research in environmental and health issues.

"We are seeing some very troubling new evidence that may be exacerbating the allergies and allergens and the assaults on our respiratory systems," says Paul R. Epstein, MD, the report's co-author.

"Frankly it is a new problem that we do not know how to solve," says Epstein, who is associate director of the Center for Health and Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.

Asthma on the Rise

Approximately 14 million U.S. adults and 9 million children have asthma, according to 2001 CDC figures. Childhood asthma rates have more than doubled in the U.S, since 1984 in a trend that has largely baffled scientists. Some cite improved diagnosis for the increased numbers, while others blame worsening pollution and crowded living conditions that expose children to asthma-causing cockroach dander and dust mites.

Researchers say that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) may be a main culprit. Recent studies identified CO2 levels in large U.S. cities including Phoenix and Baltimore, Md., that are at times up to 60% higher than in rural areas. Burning fossil fuel -- coal, oil and natural gases -- is the greatest contributor to the continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

A 2003 study published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology suggested that ragweed, which produces one of the most common allergens, is responding to the higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere by producing more pollen.

"Ragweed grew faster, flowered earlier, and produced significantly greater above-ground biomass and ragweed pollen at urban locations than at rural locations," an abstract of the study concludes.

Not Just Asthma, Not Just Cities?

Experts warned that the pollen problem may spread beyond inner cities. Global atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) at the start of the industrial revolution to 379 ppm today, according to the report.

It means that ragweed could thrive in suburban and rural areas as well, says Christine Rogers, PhD, a Harvard researcher and the study's other co-author. Up to 40 million Americans suffer from ragweed allergies, also known as hay fever.

"All Americans certainly are at risk for this," says Georges Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association.

But not everyone is convinced of the connection between CO2, pollen, and asthma. While CO2 has been shown to boost growth and pollen production in plants, no studies, including this Harvard report, have been able to find a hard link between increased pollen and asthma, says Bill O'Keefe, president of the Marshall Institute, a Washington think tank that regularly questions the extent humans' impact on CO2 levels and climate change.

"No one debates that CO2 levels are going up," says O'Keefe, who adds that his group receives funding from petroleum producers and industry groups. But of the link between those levels and rising rates of asthma, he says, "I think it's a stretch."

SOURCES: "Inside the Greenhouse: The Impacts of CO2 and Climate Change on Public Health in the Inner City, Center for Health and the Global Environment," Harvard Medical School, April 29, 2004. Paul R. Epstein, MD, associate director of the Center for Health and Global Environment, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Ziska L. "Cities as harbingers of climate change: common ragweed, urbanization, and public health," Journal of Allergy Clinical Immunology, February 2003; vol 111: pp 290- 295. Georges Benjamin, MD, executive director, American Public Health Association. Bill O'Keefe, president, Marshall Institute.

whitemajikman

04-18-2005, 09:15 PM

Description of Asthma....
An in-depth report on how asthma is diagnosed, treated, and managed in children.
Causes

Asthma occurs in about five million American children and each year about 200,000 are hospitalized. It is the most common chronic childhood illness. About half of all cases of asthma develop before the age of 10 and about 80% develop symptoms before age five.
General Causes of Asthma

The mechanisms that cause asthma are complex and vary among population groups and even individuals. For example, asthma in children is highly associated with allergies. However, only a minority of children with allergies has asthma, and not all cases of asthma can be explained by allergic response. Other factors, such as genetics or environmental conditions are likely to be involved in the development of asthma. Most likely several genes are involved that make a child susceptible to environmental triggers, not only allergens, but also possibly infections, dietary patterns, or air pollution. Physical factors, particularly having smaller lungs, affect the chances for later asthma.
Factors Contributing to the Worldwide Increase of Asthma

From 1980 to 1994, asthma increased 160% in American children younger than 4 years and has also dramatically risen worldwide. Experts are puzzling over the cause of this phenomenon. Among the causes and factors that are suspects in the dramatic rise in asthma in children are the following:

* One 2000 study suggested that Western dietary habits (which commonly include more fast foods and less fruits, vegetables, fiber, minerals, and other nutrients) may contribute to the development of childhood asthma.
* Some experts observe that children are spending more time indoors watching television, playing video games, or using the computer and are, therefore, overexposed to indoor allergens.
* The trend of making homes more energy-efficient may result in dust mites being trapped inside them.
* Survival rates are now higher in low-birth-weight babies, who may be more susceptible to asthma.
* Declining rates in nursing may be contributor. Breast milk contains important anti-inflammatory agents, such as omega-3 fatty acids, which might protect against asthma.
* Better hygiene and childhood immunizations have been associated with persistence of early immune factors that might increase the risk the risk for allergies and asthma. Important studies in 2002 and 2003, however, have found no association between vaccinations and allergic conditions or asthma.

The Allergic Response

Asthma and allergies often coexist, and the allergic response plays a strong role in childhood asthma. About 70% to 85% of children with asthma have allergies, with the risk being higher from seasonal allergies (e.g. hay fever) than perennial allergies (e.g., indoor allergies). (It should noted, however, that allergies are very common, and studies report that only 1% to 20% of children with allergic rhinitis actually develop asthma.)

An asthma attack can be induced or aggravated by direct irritants to the lungs. Studies indicate that the more indoor allergens a child is allergic to, the higher the risk for severe asthma. Important irritants or allergens include the following:

* Dust mites, specifically mite feces, which are coated with enzymes that contain a powerful allergen. These are the primary allergens in the home.
* Animal dander. Cats harbor significant allergens, which can even be carried on clothing; dogs usually present fewer problems.
* Molds.
* Cockroaches. Cockroaches are major asthma triggers and may reduce lung function even in people without a history of asthma.
* Pollen. An asthma attack from an allergic response to pollen is more likely to occur during extreme air changes, such as thunderstorms. Major weather changes, such as El Nino, can affect the timing of allergy seasons. For example, in 1998, when the effects of El Nino were very strong, allergy and asthma attacks were markedly increased and maximum tree pollen counts occurred two to four weeks earlier and mold counts two to three months earlier than in 1997.
* Food allergies. About 8% to 10% of children with asthma also have food allergies; these children also appear to have a high risk for very serious reactions to such foods. In infants and toddlers, allergy to eggs appears to be a major predictor of asthma.
* Fossil Fuels. Certain chemicals may trigger allergic rhinitis. Of particular note, some experts believe that refined fossil fuels, such as diesel fuel and particularly kerosene, may be important triggers for allergic rhinitis. And, in people who already have allergies or asthma, exposure to such fossil fuels may worsen symptoms.

The Allergic Response. The allergic process, called atopy, and its connection to asthma are not completely understood. It involves various airborne allergens or other triggers that set off a cascade of events in the immune system leading to inflammation and hyperreactivity in the airways. One description is as follows:

* The conductor in an orchestra of immune factors that contribute to allergies and asthma appears to be a category of white blood cells known as helper T-cells, in particular a subgroup called TH2-cells.
* TH2-cells overproduce interleukins (ILs), immune factors that are molecular members of a family called cytokines, powerful agents of the inflammatory process.
* Interleukins 4, 9, and 13, for example, may be responsible for a first-phase asthma attack. These interleukins stimulate the production and release of antibody groups known as immunoglobulin E (IgE). (People with both asthma and allergies appear to have a genetic predisposition for overproducing IgE.)
* During an allergic attack, these IgE antibodies can bind to special cells in the immune system called mast cells, which are generally concentrated in the lungs, skin, and mucous membranes. This bond triggers the release of a number of active chemicals, importantly potent molecules known as leukotrienes. These chemicals cause airway spasms, over-produce mucus, and activate nerve endings in the airway lining.
* Another cytokine, interleukin 5, appears to contribute to a late-phase inflammatory response. This interleukin attracts white blood cells known as eosinophils. These cells accumulate and remain in the airways after the first attack. They persist for weeks and mediate the release of other damaging particles that remain in the airways.

Remodeling and Causes of Persistent Asthma

Over the course of years the repetition of the inflammatory events involved in asthma can cause irreversible structural and functional changes in the airways, a process called remodeling. The remodeled airways are persistently narrow and can cause chronic asthma. Researchers are trying to determine how this process occurs:

continued.......

whitemajikman

04-18-2005, 09:16 PM

nterleukins. Some researchers are looking at potent immune factors, including interleukins 11 and 13. They have been linked to a number of processes possibly involved in remodeling, including overgrowth of cells in the smooth muscles that line the airways and scarring in the airways.

Growth Factors. Compounds known as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have been observed in the airways of asthma patients. VEGF is a powerful promoter of cell growth in blood vessel linings and some researchers believe it may be major factor in remodeling.
Genetic Factors

About one-third of all persons with asthma share this condition with another member of their immediate family. Asthma may be more likely to be passed to children from the mother than from the father. Both allergies and asthma are strongly associated with hereditary factors and they share certain genetic markers, but they are not always inherited together.

Research, then, on the genetics of these conditions is confusing and difficult. Of some significant promise, researchers have identified a gene (ADAM33), which has been linked to asthma. The gene regulates one of the enzymes called metalloproteases, which are involved with the smooth muscle in the airway. A mutation of this gene, then, could play a role in airway changes that occur after inflammation.
The Complex Role of Early Infections

The role of early childhood respiratory and intestinal infections is very complex. Viral respiratory infections certainly worsen existing asthma but the most common ones are unlikely to be causes of childhood asthma. In fact, early respiratory and intestinal infections may offer some protection against asthma.

Early Respiratory Infections as Causes of Asthma. Studies have found little evidence to suggest that most respiratory infections are important causes of asthma in children, except in certain cases. An important exception is the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which has been implicated in the development of asthma. RSV is the major viral cause of infant pneumonia. (Other respiratory infections may play an important role in many instances of adult-onset asthma.)

Common Respiratory Infections Worsen Asthma. It should be noted that even if the most common respiratory viruses, especially those that cause colds and flus, do not cause asthma in children, they can worsen asthma in children who have it.Rhinovirus, or the common cold virus, for example, has been reported to be the most common infectious agent associated with asthma attacks. In one study, it was associated with 61% of asthma exacerbations in children. Some research suggests that colds promote inflammation in patients with existing asthma and increase the intensity of airway responsiveness for weeks.

The Hygiene Theory: Early Infections as Protection Against Asthma. An increasingly important theory blames the dramatic increase in asthma on the reductions in childhood infections that have occurred with modern hygiene and antibiotic use. The basic theory rests on the idea that infections stimulate production of specific immune factors called TH1 cells. As these cells build up, they replace other immune factors called TH2 cells, which react to allergens--a less serious threat to the body. Without infections to stimulate the production of the TH1 infection fighters, then the TH2 allergen fighters are not replaced and they persist at high levels, making the growing child more susceptible to allergies and asthma.

A number of different studies support this theory:

* Some studies suggest that being part of a large family or attending day care increases the risk for early respiratory infections but reduces the risk of childhood asthma. The occasional cold, then, may be protective.
* In a 2002 study, researchers measured levels of bacterial byproducts called endotoxins in the mattress dust of 812 children. Those with the highest levels had an 80% lower rates in allergies and asthma.
* A 2001 Swedish study further found a strong association between allergy development and the absence of certain beneficial bacteria (called probiotics) carried in the infants intestines. Infants who were born in more hygienic environments tended to lack these bacteria. Antibiotic over-use and modern hygiene may specifically be reducing these helpful organisms. (Probiotics can be obtained in active yogurt cultures and in supplements, which are being studied for protection.)

The standard vaccinations against serious childhood infections, according to important studies in 2002 and 2003, pose no risk for asthma. One of the studies even reported some lower risk for asthma and allergies in the second and third years after vaccinations. Infections killed thousands of children every year before immunization became widespread. Asthma, although serious, is rarely fatal in children. No one should stop giving their children vaccinations against childhood killers.
Other Contributing Medical Conditions

GERD. At least half of asthmatic patients also have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), the cause of heartburn. It is not entirely clear which condition causes the other or whether they are both due to common factors.

http://adam.about.com/reports/000005_1.htm?terms=asthma

WMM

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by whitemajikman:

.....April 29, 2004 -- Rising greenhouse gas levels may be contributing to expanding rates of asthma in U.S. cities and worsening allergies in millions of urban and suburban people, a new Harvard Medical School report shows.....

.....Recent studies identified CO2 levels in large U.S. cities including Phoenix and Baltimore, Md., that are at times up to 60% higher than in rural areas.....
The statistics on pediatric asthma rates in major urban areas have been rising for over five years now. There are long-term studies in progress in many east coast cities the purpose of which is to identify as many cases of chronic pediatric asthma as possible and get these kids into comprehensive treatment to improve their lives.

***
AIRMAP New England

Thompson Farm, NH

Real-Time Air Quality Data
April 18, 2005 - 11:15pm EDT
CO2 - 410 ppmv

http://airmap.unh.edu/data/data.html?site=AIRMAPTF

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 11:19 PM

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 11:33 PM

AIRMAP New England

Thompson Farm, NH

Real-Time Air Quality Data
April 19, 2005 - 1:15am EDT
CO2 - 428 ppmv

http://airmap.unh.edu/data/data.html?site=AIRMAPTF

foot_soldier

04-19-2005, 12:13 AM

AIRMAP New England

Thompson Farm, NH

Real-Time Air Quality Data
April 19, 2005 - 2:00am EDT
CO2 - 422 ppmv

http://airmap.unh.edu/data/data.html?site=AIRMAPTF

masher

04-19-2005, 10:31 AM

I worked in two Harvard-affiliated bio-medical labs for 13 of those 16 years doing specialized surgery and cell culture and running protein purification protocols....

So you were a lab tech. And apparently you feel this gives you some academic credentials to comment on mycological research, allergens, asthmatic responses, or Epstein the quack?

Enough said.

But you've said nothing at all. On any relevant topic, that is. You've failed to counter the statements that Epstein is not a Ph.D'd researcher, that he has no training in the relevant fields, that his "study" uses a type of fungi that doesn't leave airborne spores and isn't even all allergen vector at all, or that half of even these particular fungi show retarded growth

All you've done is attempt to impress us with the fact that you were once a lab tech in a location near Epstein. The very fact that you feel this is relevant is ludicrous, and it demonstrates the logical fallacy of your entire position.

But hey, we're all suitably impressed to know you "keep up with things" at the lab. Rofl.

foot_soldier

04-19-2005, 11:27 AM

I’m not trying to “impress” anybody. I’m just pointing out that I have more than a passing interest in the issues being presented in this thread and that you’re not dealing with idiots here.

You’re quite the little screw-turner, aren’t you? Interesting that you suddenly appear on this forum just as a certain other party has been given a 10-day “vacation” by the forum moderator. Coincidence? I think not.

I don’t know what anyone else here intends to do but I will be ignoring you from now on. It’s one thing to be in disagreement with other posters. It’s entirely another to insult and degrade them at every opportunity. I think we’ve had enough of that here, thank you.

masher

04-19-2005, 12:30 PM

> "I’m not trying to “impress” anybody..."

You're succeeding admirably, then.

> "I’m just pointing out that I have more than a passing interest in the issues being presented in this thread..."

Unfortunately, having "an interest" in a subject doesn't make you an expert.

> "Coincidence? I think not...."

A nice bit of innuendo. If you're lucky, it will keep anyone from noticing you have again failed utterly and completely to rebut (or even to address) any of the points I brought up.

> "I don’t know what anyone else here intends to do but I will be ignoring you from now on..."

Well, since you've already been ignoring all the facts I've presented, I don't expect your decision here to make any great difference.

Boomer Chick

04-19-2005, 03:53 PM

Boomer Chick -

I'm glad you like the flower. It's a Mariposa Lily and you can see it here along with some of the other incredible flowers people have been photographing in central and southern Arizona this month:

Desert USA
http://www.desertusa.com/wildflo/az.html

:D It certainly looked like a desert flower, what with the rocky soil around it and greyish stem and leaves. The Maripose Lily, huh? Pretty and BRIGHT little thang!

We saw a special the other night on the blooming of Death Valley this year, due to such prolific rain! Naturalists are going crazy this year over the blooming deserts! Some seeds lie dormant for 10 and 20 years and when just the right amount of rain falls, they bloom in the race to reproduce their kind. They expect the blooming all the way through the summer!

Thanks for the pics!

Boomer Chick

04-19-2005, 04:15 PM

Hey, FS ! You impress me! Hehehe! If that's any consolation from the Jay clone, recently appearing like a cloned Jay-sheep! Hi! Jay!

Speaking of clones, did you read about the male race horse that was recently cloned? Darn, wish I had kept the link or remembered where I ran across it. The little guy really looks like he has potential. Guess a gelding can reproduce afterall! :p

I want to share what I learned on the Harvard site. Yes, there are interests involved globally on the site and they include a study with Evan Mills at Lawrence Berkeley Lab, and some Swiss scientists as well as the Harvard observations and studies. The main economic interest illiciting concern over climate change regarding this organization happens to be........ the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. Since the insurance industry globally concerns health, property, and life.... the statistics and the implications of climate change they study are based on credible information. Why would they fudge statistics? They want to prepare for increased losses through the obvious increase in weather-related catastrophes and claims. It makes sense, really, economic sense for them. The insurance industry is one of the biggest industries on the face of the planet and although we bemoan it, and rankle at its mere mention, it does offer protection if and when the claims are handled ethically. That's not the subject here, of course. The subject relates to the motivation and funding for the studies themselves. I find nothing wrong with insurance companies curious and studious as to what to expect in the overall global situation regarding their industry. The overall conclusion comes to an ethical grounding in their suggestions which involve mitigation of possible man-made contributions, increased non-fossil fuel based energy grids, and adaptive measures on all fronts which will mitigate damage to health, life, and property. Naturally, they don't like natural catastrophes or man-made or influenced ones regarding health, so, although motivated by the bottom line, like any business or industry, they serve the human populations and the biosphere in their proposed healthy environmental strategies.

The pdf. is 25 pages long, so I just included some of it:

http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/policy/policy.html

http://www.ruschlikon.net/INTERNET/rschwebp.nsf/(UID)/573063237377D464C1256EA1002CB7ED/$FILE/Executive%20Summary%20May%2027th.pdf

Carbon Dioxide and Aeroallergens
Allergic diseases are the sixth leading cause of chronic illness in the U.S., affecting
roughly 17% of the population, 6.3 million children. There were 4,487 deaths in 2000 due

to asthma and the asthma cost the health care system about $18 billion annually.
Ragweed pollen production is stimulated by carbon dioxide and the early arrival of spring
with climate change has advanced the allergy season. This is a global problem, severest
in the inner cities, where high levels of CO2 under domes accompanying the “heat island
effect” boost pollen and mold production. As CO2 levels continue to rise, this problem
can only increase. In addition, high levels of ground-level ozone (photochemical smog)
damage the lung sacs and cause asthma, and more smog is formed from tailpipe
emissions during heatwaves. Diesel particles, which help deliver aeroallergens deep into
the lungs and present them to sensitized immune cells, add to the allergic phenomena and
respiratory illness.

Emerging Infectious Diseases: Human
Malaria
Malaria is highly sensitive to climatic factors. Temperature affects its range via biting
rates and the maturation of parasites inside mosquitoes, and heavy rain (and drought
indirectly – see above) creates breeding sites. This case study reviews the General
Circulation Models and malaria transmission dynamic models that form the basis for
climate scenario projections. Projected changes include an expansion in latitude and
altitude, and, in some regions, a longer season during which malaria circulate. Such
changes could dramatically increase the number of people at risk for malaria.
Zoonotic Emerging Infectious Diseases: Wildlife, Livestock and
Humans
West Nile virus
Warm winters, spring droughts and summer heatwaves amplify the bird-mosquito cycle
of WNV. The disease has spread to 230 species of animals (including horses) and 138
spp. of birds, and WNV is spreading in the Americas. Lives have been lost, neurological
sequelae are common and the blood supply has been affected. Mortality of birds of prey
could have ecological ripples, giving rise to rodent-borne diseases, and reduction in bird
populations can affect mosquito predation, pollination, agriculture and can detract from
tourism.

Zoonotic Emerging Infectious Diseases: Wildlife, Livestock and
Humans
West Nile virus
Warm winters, spring droughts and summer heatwaves amplify the bird-mosquito cycle
of WNV. The disease has spread to 230 species of animals (including horses) and 138
spp. of birds, and WNV is spreading in the Americas. Lives have been lost, neurological
sequelae are common and the blood supply has been affected. Mortality of birds of prey
could have ecological ripples, giving rise to rodent-borne diseases, and reduction in bird
populations can affect mosquito predation, pollination, agriculture and can detract from
tourism.
Nipah virus
Nipah – a newly emerging virus – is carried by fruit bats. Extensive fires in Southeast
Asia accompanying the El Nino-associated drought in 1997/98 removed food sources for
bats, which were displaced onto pig farms. Over 100 people died and the pig industry
was devastated. Nipah virus re-emerged in Bangladesh in 2003 and 2004.
Note: Bats are most likely the reservoir for Ebola virus in Africa.

Rodent-borne diseases
Rodents