"It’s well known that increased ozone levels – particularly downwind of cities – can be harmful to plants, and in this new study with a carbon-climate model, they quantify how by how much increasing ozone levels make it more difficult for carbon to be sequestered by the land biosphere."
"Actually it’s even more complicated. Methane emissions are one of the principal causes of the rise of ozone..."
Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, I don't know of any pollution issue that would be responsible for this, and I am inclined to follow the statements of the people quoted in the piece that this is a combination of effects related to pests and drought. Sorry I can't be more help.Gavin
First, and painfully, I gave up on the NYT, my bible for everything from movie and book reviews to recipes to news - because of the lies about WMD in Iraq...and even MOSTLY, that egomaniacal mountebank and environmentalist poseur, Andy Revkin of dot.earth infamy.
Shortly thereafter, having become enlightened as to the dire and obvious threat of climate change to human civilization, not to mention every other species on earth, I got a tad disillusioned about the objectivity of NPR, which is doing an abysmal, nay criminally negligent job, of reporting on the science of global warming.
Thank you for this honest - and entertaining! - blog.
"Honeybees, bumblebees and many other insects are being slowly poisoned to death by persistent insecticides used to protect agricultural crops. Small doses of the toxic chemicals accumulate over time, meaning that there is no safe level of exposure...
The researchers found that the total dose of insecticide required to kill the insect was smaller if administered over a longer time period (Ecotoxicology (2009) 18:343–354). In the case of honeybees, up to 6000 times less insecticide was required to kill them if it was administered in multiple tiny doses over a long time period.
According to Henk Tennekes, a researcher at Experimental Toxicology Services (ETS) in the Netherlands, these findings make perfect sense. “Start by considering a high exposure level,” he said. “It may cause an early effect, such as cancer or mortality. At a much lower exposure level you may get a late effect. However, as it turns out, in the latter case you need much less of the stuff (in total) to produce the effect.”
Here was my comment after watching the video:
What I would ask climate "skeptics" or "deniers" is: if your doctor and 2000 other doctors you consulted, other than 3 quacks, told you you had a lethal brain tumor that had to be removed, would you go with the quacks and take herbal supplements? Or would you undergo all the pain and trauma and expense of surgery?