Is climate change causing allergies?

May 26, 2011

Apocalyptic images of global climate change include drought, rising sea levels, suffocating coral reefs and emaciated, drowning polar bears. But a new study points to some of the more immediate and mundane side effects of global warming: runny noses, itchy eyes and persistent coughs. [CaliforniaWatch]

Researchers at Quest Diagnostics say allergies are on the rise, and it’s the result of warmer temperatures and happier allergens, like ragweed and mold.

The company has tests, used by doctors, to sample blood for markers indicating whether a person is allergic to a specific item. More than 2 million blood specimens were tested.

They found that over four years of sampling, there was a nearly six percent increase in overall allergies, a 12 percent increase in mold allergies and a whopping 15 percent increase in ragweed allergies, California Watch said.

California, Nevada and Arizona had some of the largest increases in ragweed sufferers, climbing 21 percent.

“The rapid rise in common ragweed and mold is consistent with other research linking climate change to greater sensitization to select environmental allergens,” wrote the authors.

Lewis Ziska, a researcher with the United States Department of Agriculture, told California Watch he is not at all surprised by the findings.

In 2010, he and a team of scientists showed that fungal spore growth – a common allergen – increased with rises in carbon dioxide.

Ziska and another team of researchers, earlier this year, showed that the ragweed pollen season has increased by nearly a month since 1995. The team’s data, he told California Watch, “demonstrate a clear correlation between frost-free days and ragweed pollen season” and therefore, to higher exposure to the ragweed allergen.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Rubbish, and please tell me when the climate wasn’t changing. Love the scam. By the way, the call was “global warming” not “Climate Change”. Quit moving the goal posts.

NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries.

how do you spell consensus?

I spell it like this: Article written claims “near record retreat of Arctic sea ice” is how we must view this “hottest decade” news in context of. OK.

This was stated even AFTER miscalculations in 2009 and again in early 2010. Some months, the ice will melt (as it does every summer, and re-forms in winter) quicker, other months it melts slower.

So depending on WHEN you want to analyze your data and put a report together, one can say “Hoes Noes! It’s all melting fast” – or, waiting for a slow-down – “A HA! More ice than originally thought!”

I don’t care either way, this is such a social, non-science issue. It’s easy to spot, all you have to do is say something scientifically stupid like “the debate is over!”

The earth is warming but there is much more to it then just a rise in temps. It is causing more than just a need for more sunscreen.

The only rubbish is that article. I don’t know who that guy is and it really doesn’t matter. Other than ONE guy from Israel I’ve debunked every anti global climate change so called scientist or expert thrown my way. I’ll take the thousands of reputable scientists over that one any day. So you found one guy, no biggie.

The whole article is silly. It states that the weather hasn’t gotten warmer since 1996 when in reality the hottest years recorded were 2005 and 2010. 2000-2009 was the hottest decade in recorded history. You can’t just make up your own facts, facts are facts and you can’t just say all the instrumental evidence is wrong with a straight face. WHO, NASA, NOAA every major university will back up these facts. Who do you believe over these experts, please give me some of your experts so I may try and debunk them.

Is climate change causing allergies?

…I don’t know, but start giving me government grants to say it is, and I will! I got “friends” (or peers) who can agree… for a price.

This is one of those non-issues. Pollution is bad and we should, as a society, constantly strive to reduce waste of all kinds – that is conservatism at it’s core. Reduce, reuse, recycle, etc.

That said, even Mars has climate change – and everyone knows the martians are eco-friendly! (that was a joke, btw).

Some believe it’s a change in interstellar plasma, others believe it’s those eeeevil S.U.V.’s. I don’t like junk science nor the people who profit from it any more than the next level-headed, non-ideologue. Unfortunately, I seem to be in a minority.

I think it’s a Republican plot. Blame Bush :-)

Well of course it’s the result of climate change. Isn’t everything the result of climate change? Let’s just give some more of this “free money” to these people to exploit their ideas, Didn’t they all learn this from Al Gore.

I’m over 60 years old and have always suffered from allegies, from pollen not from global warming. Since these allergies are seasonal can’t you come to a conclusion of what the cause is. Or are you now trying to tell me that global warming is seasonal?

Just watch this. It explains it all very nicely:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Oh geez, another flat earther. I sat through 4 minutes of that link but life’s too short to waist on nonesense.

If one chooses not believe all of the scientific data ie NOAA, NASA, countlesss studies on this (other than a few hacks like in that link) then one only needs to use common sense. The cr@p we put in the air has no place to go, that cr@p is toxic. Sit in your garage with the door closed and the engine of your car on for awhile and spray some weed killer from a bunch of aerosol cans and tell me later how good that stuff is for you. The atmosphere is like a giant garage except the the toxins are eating through the garage walls. Really, where do you think that nasty stuff goes? Due to us cutting down the rainforest causing a lack of photosynthesis please tell me where the junk is going? Perhaps the garage is a bad analogy but it’s the most simple one that I can come up with.

I beg to differ. The video has nothing to do with ‘flat earth’ and I find it patently offensive that after only 4 minutes of a video full of details, valid statistics and solid science, that you dismiss it as cr@p!

Your argument that the rainforests are the source of photosynthesis made soda come out of my nose, which isn’t good for you, either! Most of the CO2 in the air you breathe is consumed by the oceans, which is why CO2 makes up such a small percentage of atmospheric gases.

Your view of the issue is very narrow-minded. The video maintains that global climate change (also known in the popular lingo all the cool kids are using as ‘weather’) is NOT caused by man, nor is changing levels of CO2 causing said change. The video divides the discussion – man-made climate change vs. climate change. Climate changes all the time, and the facts simply do not back up the claims that mankind is to blame.

We can agree that your garage analogy was a bad one. Besides, we all know Al Gore is responsible for global climate change. (KIDDING!)

Let me give you some advice ds_gray before you condescend to someone like that you should really know what the difference between weather and climate is. You just made yourself look like one of the biggest fools on the internet. Congratulations, thats certainly no small feat.

I did not read condescension into ds_gray’s reply… not like he called her a “flat earther” or something…

Besides, you say you’re going to give advice, but you stopped just short of a teachable moment to make a personal attack. Not a good combo, in my opinion.

However, since you brought it up, let me put my $0.02 worth in on Climate vs. Weather.

Weather is a snapshot of what’s happening, whereas Climate is the longer film-version. It’s all about time. Weather is a short-term, climate is long-term. Wow. We’re all edumacated now.

Now, I will have to assume when ds_gray said “climate changes all the time” – that’s where you thought he confused climate with weather? In case you were interested, climate DOES, in fact, change all the time – just not daily, of course. You do know we once had an ice-age (or five) didn’t you? Sometimes they were so cold, glaciers were all over North America! Now we have, what, nine or something?

You might want to hold off on name-calling, and put more effort into understanding what is being said.

Flat earthers.. yes. Just as some of you still don’t believe that we are contributing to global climate change some people still believe that the earth if flat. No amount of facts will change your minds. Facts are facts and it is absoulty a fact not a theory that we are contributing to global climate change.

Thanks for keeping the discussion civil, osokid. Sadly, the difference, on a global geophysical scale, between ‘climate’ and ‘weather’ in this discussion is nil – as is trying to make a point when minds have already been brainwashed – er- made up. We have only been burning ‘fossil fuels’ for a very brief time in this planet’s history , and the ‘climate’ (weather) has changed for better or worse despite our best efforts to screw things up. And the allergy problem is in fact SEASONAL – that is clearly related to our recent wet WEATHER (I use caps here to emphasize a point).

The people in that video ‘gimlet’ linked to who claim to be climate scientists ARE climate scientists. That cannot be said of the vast majority of the members of the IPCC – including Al Gore. Rather than discredit the messenger, or try and hurt my feelings, why not discuss the FACTS for once on this comment section?

And so that we’re clear, and not getting into ‘new math’ typoqueen, the oceans represent the single largest consumer of CO2, 50% *IS* most of the CO2 at that scale, so you made my point by quibbling over the numbers. And as for the ‘flat earthers’ not having open minds, once again you have made my point that yours is quite closed on this subject – just as the video suggests. Thank you.

The people in that video ‘gimlet’ linked to who claim to be climate scientists ARE climate scientists

get a load of what they say after they saw the “documentary”

more evidence of how deceptive the program is PURE PROPAGANDA – THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

The Scientists Are The Bad Guys

and it has been subject of the crock of the week

Uh oh, zap busted them again..ouch.

In the past in this forum as well as the Trib I debunked every so called expert that they used to prove that there is no man made global climate change. Yet when posting real experts, real people with real reputable backgrounds they put their hands over their ears and refuse to listen. In the past I posted tons of info from NOAA, NASA, Stanford U. and many others but no matter what is right in front of their faces they won’t believe it. That is why I tried the simple garage analogy. I keep thinking that if I make it simple enough that perhaps they’ll get it, but they won’t because they don’t want to. Human caused climate change is a fact not a theory, it is what it is.

Nobody gets to ride for free. I don’t get this mentality that it’s mans job is to divide, conquer and destroy. There are consequences to our actions, you can’t just take take take and expect that all will be fine.

I hope it didn’t hurt when your soda came out of your nose. I didn’t say that the rain forest is the only source of photo synthesis. I was simply trying to keep my post short as they always go on way too long. And CO2 is not our only issue regarding global climate change.

The ocean cleans 25 to 50% of released CO2, not most as you claim but perhaps half. That is why our oceans have become so much more acidic over the past 100 years, as a matter of fact the acidity in our oceans has risen higher in the past 100 years than the prior 100,000 years, score 10 for man 0 for earth. We’ll show that ocean who the boss is! Who cares if this added acidity is damaging our shellfish and coral reefs, we don’t need no stinkin shellfish, I never liked them anyway. Now that the ocean is getting warmer it’s getting much more difficult for it process our released CO2.

I could go on and on about what what CO2 is doing to the ocean. The only sane answer is to cut back as much as possible on our use of anything that releases carbon dioxide. It’s simple common sense. Until our govt. cracks down on this we will continue to destroy the oceans and the air.

I found this old comment about CO2

and from 2009 NOAA

more recent trends from NASA

Come on zap, lets not muddy this discussion with facts.

Yes facts, not theory facts. NOAA and NASA deal with facts. There is pure unarguable evidence that we are contributing to global climate change.

One thing that I tend to believe is the Milankovitch cycles theory. According Milankovtch the earth should be cooling, moving towards another ice age but because of what we are doing the earth is warming up.

hehe, just the fact that NASA has setup their server structure to “” gives me a few red flags. I am hesitant to trust agencies with “National” in the title now-a-days. It is in their financial interest to have an issue worth studying (aka earmarks and grants – you know, PORK!)

Both NASA and NOAA come in for stimulus bill appropriations that properly belong in the regular budget, but this spending apparently qualifies for the stimulus bill because part of the money from each allocation is reserved for climate-change research. For instance, the bill grants NASA $450 million, but it states that the agency must spend at least $200 million on “climate-research missions,”

Hmmm… very interesting. I’d say NASA has 200,000,000 good reasons to continue on with “climate change” crap. Similar with NOAA except it’s $600,000,000. Would they have to give it back (or not get it year after year) if Climate Change, as it’s politically/socially propagated today, was untrue?


So we should trust this research to who, you mean private corps like how we trust pharmaceutical companies or insurance companies to have nothing but our best interest in mind? Or should we just expect the Goddard Institute, NOAA, Stanford etc to pay for this research out of the goodness of thier hearts?

Not at all, I’m just saying have as much skepticism for government agencies as you do for big companies. Let’s not be so one-sided, if a proponent of an argument is getting a lot of money to propagate said idea, and the other side is getting (basically) nothing, then that fact should be taken in consideration when weighing both sides of the argument.

It’s ok to say “follow the money” only when it fits our personal ideology? I’m trying to break out of that mold, personally.