Global Warming = More Poison Ivy

[Newb]

If you're planning a hike...do it before 2050! Apparently global warming will increase the growth of poison ivy by 3-fold. After 2050 we may have to scratch our hiking plans, but let's not get tangled up in the details. It's a creeping issue, one that is sure to cause a rash of problems.



THE TEXT BELOW IS QUOTED FROM:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

Global Warming = Itchy Ivy

Researchers have identified another unwanted effect of global warming (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/global+warming): bigger and itchier poison ivy (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Poison-ivy). Scientists conducted experiments in a forest at Duke University (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/global+warming), increasing carbon dioxide (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Carbon+dioxide) levels to those expected in 2050. The atmospheric conditions caused poison ivy plants to produce more-- and a more allergenic form-- of its rash-causing chemical, urushiol (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/urushiol). The vines also grew to about three times the size of those grown in normal atmospheric conditions

[The Solemates]

If you're planning a hike...do it before 2050! Apparently global warming will increase the growth of poison ivy by 3-fold. After 2050 we may have to scratch our hiking plans, but let's not get tangled up in the details. It's a creeping issue, one that is sure to cause a rash of problems.



THE TEXT BELOW IS QUOTED FROM:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

Global Warming = Itchy Ivy

Researchers have identified another unwanted effect of global warming (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/global+warming): bigger and itchier poison ivy (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Poison-ivy). Scientists conducted experiments in a forest at Duke University (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/global+warming), increasing carbon dioxide (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Carbon+dioxide) levels to those expected in 2050. The atmospheric conditions caused poison ivy plants to produce more-- and a more allergenic form-- of its rash-causing chemical, urushiol (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/urushiol). The vines also grew to about three times the size of those grown in normal atmospheric conditions

i ran into some this weekend in the ozarks and have been scratching all week

[Amigi'sLastStand]

Glad CO2 can selectively decide what plants will breathe. Why just poison ivy? Why not all? This is one of the gaping holes in Global Warming Theory. Not meant to be a political debate here, but plant growth worldwide had not appreciably increased since the "discovery of global warming." Where's the ice age we were gaurenteed to get in the 90's by the scientists in the 70s?

[leeki pole]

Ummm, my prof in my Geology class back in the 70's, if my memory serves correctly, said we were coming out of the last Ice Age and we were going to experience some significant warming over the next few decades. Looks like he was pretty accurate in his prognostication. :cool:

[Peaks]

Just what Pennsylvania needs: more poison ivy.

[Just Jeff]

Man - I just spent $50 on poison oak stuff the other day - Ivy Block, Technu and Zanfel...to have just in case, since I've gotten it so bad since we moved to California. Global warming induced poison ivy (GWIPI)? Bring it on!

[fiddlehead]

Ummm, my prof in my Geology class back in the 70's, if my memory serves correctly, said we were coming out of the last Ice Age and we were going to experience some significant warming over the next few decades. Looks like he was pretty accurate in his prognostication. :cool:

My History teacher told us in 1964 that the world would be out of oil by the year 2000. What was he smoking?

[Tin Man]

My History teacher told us in 1964 that the world would be out of oil by the year 2000. What was he smoking?

I think he meant we would be out of affordable oil and wasn't too far off. :-?

[DLFrost]

Glad CO2 can selectively decide what plants will breathe. Why just poison ivy? Why not all? This is one of the gaping holes in Global Warming Theory. Not meant to be a political debate here, but plant growth worldwide had not appreciably increased since the "discovery of global warming."
Actually, it has. Every study of the effects of increased CO2 have shown a marked improvement in plant growth and resistance to disease & pests. Quite a bit of time and money has been spent in various experiments on this one issue, no doubt in the hope that CO2 would turn out to be some kind of poison. It is in fact, and as common sense would suggest, a vital ecological resource. Satellite survey measurements of such things as forest regrowth seem to support this understanding.

What you're reading in that article is pure spin. Since they can't refute the fact that plants (and all the creatures in a biome that depend on them) are better off with more CO2, all that's left is to tell selective lies and exaggerations in the ongoing attempt to spook people. Of course there'll be more poison ivy... just like there'll be more of everything else--including trees. The lie here is in the convenient assumption that poison ivy will not have to compete with other plants also enjoying enhanced growth. But in the real world it does. So relax, there's no real problem.

Doug Frost

[Alligator]

It's been a while, but I remember there being some difference in the degree of response between C4 and C3 plants under elevated CO2 levels.

I agree with Doug in that competition certainly would need to be considered closely. I wouldn't expect poison ivy to suddenly start outcompeting it's neighbors.

Please consider however, that while there will very likely be increases in biomass, the possibility of disruptions in species composition is very possible. Rapid climate change, say faster than forest successional patterns, makes it difficult for forests to "migrate". In other words, if climate changes too quickly, a forest type may not be able to seed into a new area, establish, then march north while the climate continues changing.

Worse, trees are adapted to certain soil types. Soils too are affected by climate, but on an even slower scale than forests. Try to push those forests into the wrong soil types and the trees will just balk. The soils won't quickly change to accomodate the trees.

Maybe slowling down these CO2 additions might be a good thing no? Better not to be hasty. Hroom:sun .

[Green Bean]

[quote=Peaks]Just what Pennsylvania needs: more poison ivy.[/quot

I agree.
Poison in this state is terrible. Not saying in other states its not but it just seems everytime I go into the woods and I'm not careful I will end up witha a bad case of the poison ivy rash. Not considering that there is lots of poision oak and sumac around also. ~GB

[Skidsteer]

Maybe slowling down these CO2 additions might be a good thing no? Better not to be hasty. Hroom:sun .

Treebeard wisdom:

"Decided? No, we have just finished saying 'Good Morning'."

"They come with fire, they come with axes... gnawing, biting, breaking, hacking, burning. Destroyers and usurpers, curse them. "

"We Ents cannot hold back this storm. We must weather such things as we have always done."

[TJ aka Teej]

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes


Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref1)). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref2)). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref3)). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref4))].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref5))]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref5))].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref6)), the American Geophysical Union (7 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref7)), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref8)).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref9)).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)

[mark777]

you might need a boat then if you believe the hype...but get your own...don't trust the navy to save you...

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~bgmark_quik/canadanavy[1].jpeg

[Gaiter]

does that include poison oak and sumack? could care less about poison ivy (knock on wood)

[smokymtnsteve]

i shore am glad we don't have poison ivy in AK, ain't got no ticks and fleas either.;)

[RockyBob]

Time to stock up on the Rhuli Gel

[Slosteppin]

It would make sense to me that an increase in CO2 would increase the growth of poison ivy (and all other plants) because they breathe CO2 about the same way we (animals) breathe oxygen.

I do not believe any apparent spread of poison ivy at this time is due very much to the increase in CO2.

One of the reasons I was glad to move to northern Lower Michigan a few years ago was that there is so much less poison ivy. But I have been seeing a spread and increase in some areas. Just those areas mostly visited by tourists from more southern areas. Generally popular fishing and camping places. I think that, somehow, visitors carry seeds of poison ivy from one area to another.

Just my observation. We might be able to mitigate or lessen the effects of Global Warming but it is going to happen. Whether good or bad will largely be a matter of perspective.

Slosteppin

[bfitz]

Finally, something annoying about global warming.

[leeki pole]

i shore am glad we don't have poison ivy in AK, ain't got no ticks and fleas either.;)
yep, but you got BIG skeeters;)