1306-ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? | View Thread

Beastly weed called Palmer amaranth creeping out of South's cotton country into Midwest fields

By Steve Karnowski, Associated Press | Associated Press – 19 hours ago

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- It's a beast of a weed, creeping north into the Midwest from cotton country.

Palmer amaranth can shoot up as high as 7 feet, and just one plant can produce up to a million seeds. Herbicide is increasingly futile against it, and the weed's thick stems and deep roots make it hard work to clear by hand. It can slash yields and profits when it gets out of control.

Midwestern weed scientists are sounding the alarm because the plant recently turned up in Iowa and can cause deep losses in corn and soybean yields.

"This is not just a nuisance. This is a game-changer," warned Purdue University weed scientist Bill Johnson, whose state has well-established pockets of the plant.

Cotton growers in the South already spend about $100 million a year to try to keep it out of their fields, University of Georgia scientist Stanley Culpepper said.

"This is a crop robber," said W.C. Grimes, who farms 1,600 acres of cotton, peanuts and corn near Twin City in eastern Georgia. "It will steal your profit. It will choke your cotton out, and anything else you're trying to grow."

Grimes said he was losing up to 200 pounds of cotton per acre until farmers learned the key to overcoming Palmer amaranth's resistance to glyphosate — sold under brand names like Roundup — was to continuously change herbicides.

His advice to Midwesterner farmers: Keep your eyes open and do whatever it takes to kill the weed as soon as it turns up.

One thing that makes Palmer amaranth so much tougher than other weeds is that one plant can produce 500,000 to 1 million seeds. A combine can scatter seeds from a couple plants across an entire field, Johnson said, and the untrained eye can't tell the difference between Palmer amaranth and more common but less aggressive Corn Belt weeds, such as waterhemp and other kinds of pigweed.

Palmer amaranth probably took root in Kendell Culp's fields near Rensselaer in northwestern Indiana last year, but he wasn't aware of it until a seed salesman spotted it this summer. Culp pulled it up by hand — filling a pickup truck bed from one spot and a half load from another.

"Unfortunately I think it's going to be a pretty difficult weed to control for us," Culp said. He's working with a consultant on strategies for deploying herbicides on his 1,750 acres of corn, soybean and wheat.

Palmer amaranth often hitches a ride on dirt stuck to farm machinery. It may also hide in grass seeds planted as cover for conservation programs, experts say. But they disagree on whether the seeds spread through animal feed containing cottonseeds or hulls, which are commonly added to dairy cattle rations.

Johnson said the weed is often seen near dairy farms, and the presumption is that when manure from those cattle is spread on fields, the seeds can spread with it. But Culpepper said the research he's seen doesn't back up that theory, adding that spreading the idea without proof could hurt demand for cottonseeds — and the entire cotton industry.

The infestation found this August in two western Iowa soybean fields probably got there by truck, Iowa State University weed scientist Bob Hartzler said.

Despite those fields being adjacent to a stretch of flood plain with poor soil where sludge from a Nebraska company has been spread as fertilizer, he said there's no reason to think the sludge contained Palmer amaranth seeds. His suspicion is that the seeds were stuck in mud on trucks that hauled the sludge.

But Hartzler's not convinced the weed will be as difficult to manage as many fear. Farmers who already take a proactive approach to common waterhemp should be able to control Palmer amaranth, as long as they try new strategies, he said.

Given the weed's resistance to glyphosate, which is typically applied after weeds sprout, farmers need pre-emergent herbicides to kill the weed earlier in its growing cycle. Those have a much narrower window of time when they can be applied.

Palmer amaranth likes long growing seasons and hot, sunny weather, Culpepper said, so it may not be quite as aggressive in colder states. However, he said it's still going to be "the baddest boy on the block."

The weed isn't known to have a beachhead as far north as Minnesota, but University of Minnesota Extension researchers have already advised their farmers to be vigilant.

"I'd like to say we're not going to have the problem, but we're not going to say that," weed scientist Jeff Gunsolus said.

___

Follow Steve Karnowski on Twitter at http://twitter.com/skarnowski

Report: Wildfires & Air Pollution, A Hidden Hazard

Published: October 25th, 2013

By Climate Central

Across the American West, climate change has made snow melt earlier, spring and summers hotter and fire seasons longer. One result has been a doubling since 1970 of the number of large wildfires raging each year. And depending on the rate of future warming, the number of big wildfires in western states could increase as much as six-fold over the next 20 years.

RELATED CONTENT

Full Report
PDF

Methodology
PDF

Beyond the clear danger to life and property in the burn zone, smoke and ash from large wildfires produces staggering levels of air pollution, threatening the health of thousands of people, often hundreds of miles away from where these wildfires burn. The critical component of a fire’s smoke is so-called “fine particle” air pollution, which is a direct threat to human health even during relatively short exposures. And the pollution levels produced by these wildfires are extremely high: high enough to potentially increase mortality in susceptible populations, like the elderly and those with heart conditions, and increase emergency room visits for asthma sufferers and others with respiratory conditions.

This analysis looks at air pollution from some of the largest wildfires in the West over the past 12 years.

We found that:

Wildfires caused the worst air pollution day of the year in the affected areas, for all of the fires analyzed. And the worst day of the year was bad, often as bad or worse than air pollution levels in Beijing. In 9 of the 11 fires analyzed, particulate pollution from the fire made the air unhealthy to breathe for anyone, not just children and sensitive populations.

Wildfires burning within 50-100 miles of a city routinely caused air quality to be 5 to 15 times worse than normal, and often 2-3 times worse than the worst non-fire day of the year.

Reno, during the Rim Fire, August 2013

Beijing, average pollution, September 2013

This year has seen particularly bad examples. Grants Pass, Ore., experienced hazardous air quality this summer, caused by the Douglas Complex and Big Windy Complex fires burning in Southern Oregon. For nine days this summer, Grants Pass had air quality so poor that it was unhealthy for anyone to be outside. On five of those days, fine particle pollution was literally off the charts — higher than the local air quality meter could read.

Big metro areas are also susceptible to wildfire pollution. At least twice in the past 12 years, cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside, Calif., have seen Beijing-level air pollution caused by wildfires burning in southern California.

Rapidly warming spring temperatures and a shrinking snowpack make for a longer fire season, up to two months longer on average across the West. Hotter summers dry out the forest more rapidly and intensely than in the past, and fire suppression practices have increased the fuel supply, further increasing the risk of large, intense fires. Exposure to fine particulates in wildfire smoke – particles about 30 times smaller than the width of a human hair – pose a significant health risk for anyone, but particularly children, the elderly, and people with existing respiratory problems. They can penetrate deep into the lungs, increasing the mortality risk and health and lung problems, according to the U.S. EPA. As we continue to warm the planet, wildfires will increase in intensity and size, causing an increasing number of severely unhealthy air pollution days that in turn increase mortality in the elderly and those with heart conditions, while sending a growing number of children and sensitive people to emergency rooms in respiratory distress.

Posted in Basics, Causes, Impacts, Trends, Climate, Extremes, Wildfires, Health, Weather, Extreme Weather, Landscapes, States of Change, United States, Midwest, Southwest, Pacific Northwest, West, Reports

IPCC’s ‘Carbon Budget’ Will Not Drive Climate Talks

Published: October 26th, 2013

By Fiona Harvey, The Guardian

A key finding of the UN climate panel's latest report on climate change is too politically "difficult" to drive international climate talks in November, according to the UN's climate chief.

Last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculated how much carbon dioxide the world could emit in future without going over 3.6°F of warming – and showed that, at current rates, this "budget" would be exhausted within 30 years. It effectively put a limit on the amount of CO2 that the human activities such as burning fossil fuels can produce, without risking what scientists regard as dangerous climate change.

Christiana Figureres, the UN climate change chief, said it would be too 'politically difficult' to negotiate allocations of carbon emissions based on the carbon budget laid out in the IPCC.
Credit: lisboncouncil/flickr

But Christiana Figueres, executive director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said carbon budgets were a good scientific exercise but said that they could not be the basis for negotiations. "I don't think it's possible," she told the Guardian in an interview. "Politically it would be very difficult. I don't know who would hold the pen [in setting out allocations of future budgets]."

Figueres said the IPCC findings, which set out starkly that climate change is unequivocal, should be "a huge wake-up call" to the world.

She said there were also strong practical reasons for not basing the negotiations on allocations of future emissions to nations. "It treats carbon budgets as though it is a zero sum game, and would presume that there is no advance in technology [to reduce emissions]," she said. "We have made tremendous advances in the past 10 years."

Governments will meet in Warsaw next month for the next round of international climate talks. This will be a staging post on the way to crunch negotiations in Paris in 2015, aimed at producing a new global agreement on dealing with emissions.

Figueres said the question of equity between developed and developing nations would be central to the talks. "It requires a concerted effort … we are all in this together," she said. "Countries will be guided by their national circumstances, but at the same time they need also to be guided by our collective needs and collective interest."

She added that the implications of the research, and of studies by the International Energy Agency and others, were that a significant portion of the world's fossil fuel reserves would be "unburnable" if dangerous climate change is to be avoided.

But Figueres rejected claims that nations, including developing countries, could be compensated. "It's not the first time that someone has come to the table with expectations of compensation. I don't see space for that kind of measure. It remains to be seen."

She said a draft negotiating text for a new agreement would be set out next year. National governments will be asked to set out how they intend to reduce emissions.

Other developed country climate negotiators agreed with Figueres' stance, telling the Guardian privately that it was not practical to attempt to allocate emissions based on estimates of future emissions. Instead, nations should set out their own targets for cutting their carbon and these could be subject to review.

The U.S. has made it clear that it will take a leading role, as President Barack Obama has made global warming a priority.

This year's climate talks in Warsaw will be a bellweather of what to expect when more crucial negotiations for a new global agreement on dealing with emissions take place in Paris in 2015.
Credit: Ian Britton/flickr

Todd Stern, special envoy on climate change undersecretary of state John Kerry, told a conference at Chatham House in London that he was speaking to the White House "almost daily" and that the current talks offered "a historic opportunity" to meet the threat of warming. In the past, the U.S. has sometimes been accused of being lukewarm on an international agreement. But Stern, while rejecting the rigid approach that defined the Kyoto protocol, whereby countries set out firm targets and timetables on emissions but some never met them, had strong words on the need for a global agreement to guide and spur action on carbon.

He said: "National action will only rise to the level of ambition we need if it takes place within a strong and effective international system. Effective international climate agreements serve three vital purposes: they supply the confidence countries need to assure them that if they take ambitious action, their partners and competitors will do the same. They send a potent signal to other important actors [including] sub-national governments and the private sector … and they prompt countries to take aggressive action at home to meet their national pledges."

But he stressed that all nations would be required to play a part, and that countries previously classed as developing would have to take on national commitments on emissions.

He set out a vision of a new global agreement that would require governments to fix national targets that would then be subject to review against progress, perhaps every five years.

Reprinted from The Guardian with permission.

Posted in Causes, Greenhouse Gases, Impacts, Projections, Climate, Carbon Storage, Policy, Energy, Efficiency, Biofuels, Fossil Fuels,Nuclear, Renewable Energy, Global, International

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 10/27/2013 10:47:36 AM
	Beast of a weed creeping across Midwest from south Beastly weed called Palmer amaranth creeping out of South's cotton country into Midwest fields By Steve Karnowski, Associated Press \| Associated Press – 19 hours ago RELATED CONTENT View Photo In this Aug. 16, 2013 photo provided by Iowa State University, graduate student Meaghan Bryan stands near a Palmer amaranth plant found in a farm field near Modale, Iowa. Midwestern seed scientists are sounding the alarm about Palmer amaranth, a scourge of the South that is now moving north. The weed can shoot up as high as 7 feet, scatter a million seeds from a single plant, is tough to clear by hand and is increasingly resistant to herbicides. (AP Photo/Iowa State University, Bob Hartzler) MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- It's a beast of a weed, creeping north into the Midwest from cotton country. Palmer amaranth can shoot up as high as 7 feet, and just one plant can produce up to a million seeds. Herbicide is increasingly futile against it, and the weed's thick stems and deep roots make it hard work to clear by hand. It can slash yields and profits when it gets out of control. Midwestern weed scientists are sounding the alarm because the plant recently turned up in Iowa and can cause deep losses in corn and soybean yields. "This is not just a nuisance. This is a game-changer," warned Purdue University weed scientist Bill Johnson, whose state has well-established pockets of the plant. Cotton growers in the South already spend about $100 million a year to try to keep it out of their fields, University of Georgia scientist Stanley Culpepper said. "This is a crop robber," said W.C. Grimes, who farms 1,600 acres of cotton, peanuts and corn near Twin City in eastern Georgia. "It will steal your profit. It will choke your cotton out, and anything else you're trying to grow." Grimes said he was losing up to 200 pounds of cotton per acre until farmers learned the key to overcoming Palmer amaranth's resistance to glyphosate — sold under brand names like Roundup — was to continuously change herbicides. His advice to Midwesterner farmers: Keep your eyes open and do whatever it takes to kill the weed as soon as it turns up. One thing that makes Palmer amaranth so much tougher than other weeds is that one plant can produce 500,000 to 1 million seeds. A combine can scatter seeds from a couple plants across an entire field, Johnson said, and the untrained eye can't tell the difference between Palmer amaranth and more common but less aggressive Corn Belt weeds, such as waterhemp and other kinds of pigweed. Palmer amaranth probably took root in Kendell Culp's fields near Rensselaer in northwestern Indiana last year, but he wasn't aware of it until a seed salesman spotted it this summer. Culp pulled it up by hand — filling a pickup truck bed from one spot and a half load from another. "Unfortunately I think it's going to be a pretty difficult weed to control for us," Culp said. He's working with a consultant on strategies for deploying herbicides on his 1,750 acres of corn, soybean and wheat. Palmer amaranth often hitches a ride on dirt stuck to farm machinery. It may also hide in grass seeds planted as cover for conservation programs, experts say. But they disagree on whether the seeds spread through animal feed containing cottonseeds or hulls, which are commonly added to dairy cattle rations. Johnson said the weed is often seen near dairy farms, and the presumption is that when manure from those cattle is spread on fields, the seeds can spread with it. But Culpepper said the research he's seen doesn't back up that theory, adding that spreading the idea without proof could hurt demand for cottonseeds — and the entire cotton industry. The infestation found this August in two western Iowa soybean fields probably got there by truck, Iowa State University weed scientist Bob Hartzler said. Despite those fields being adjacent to a stretch of flood plain with poor soil where sludge from a Nebraska company has been spread as fertilizer, he said there's no reason to think the sludge contained Palmer amaranth seeds. His suspicion is that the seeds were stuck in mud on trucks that hauled the sludge. But Hartzler's not convinced the weed will be as difficult to manage as many fear. Farmers who already take a proactive approach to common waterhemp should be able to control Palmer amaranth, as long as they try new strategies, he said. Given the weed's resistance to glyphosate, which is typically applied after weeds sprout, farmers need pre-emergent herbicides to kill the weed earlier in its growing cycle. Those have a much narrower window of time when they can be applied. Palmer amaranth likes long growing seasons and hot, sunny weather, Culpepper said, so it may not be quite as aggressive in colder states. However, he said it's still going to be "the baddest boy on the block." The weed isn't known to have a beachhead as far north as Minnesota, but University of Minnesota Extension researchers have already advised their farmers to be vigilant. "I'd like to say we're not going to have the problem, but we're not going to say that," weed scientist Jeff Gunsolus said. ___ Follow Steve Karnowski on Twitter at http://twitter.com/skarnowski
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 10/27/2013 10:51:46 AM
	Pesticides, obesity linked? Pesticide Exposure Linked to Obesity Across Generations By Brian Krans sáb, oct 26, 2013 While many people have a genetic predisposition to obesity, new research suggests that the use of a controversial pesticide may make us more susceptible to it, as well as other diseases. Michael Skinner, founder of the Center for Reproductive Biology at Washington State University, says widespread exposure to the pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) in the 1950s continues to affect the health of humans today. Previous research has linked DDT to increased rates of diabetes, developmental problems, reproductive harm, miscarriages, and certain cancers. In the 1970s, it was also shown to have impacted bald eagle and peregrine falcon populations. Studying the Effects of DDT Generations Later In a new study published in the journal BMC Medicine, Skinner tested how exposure to DDT affected pregnant rats. But while the rates of obesity showed no difference in the first or second generations of rat offspring, in the third generation half of the rats were obese. “Interestingly, in the first generation, we didn’t see any obesity. We saw many diseases, but not obesity. It took three generations to ramp up,” Skinner said. “What this ancestral exposure does is increase a person’s susceptibility for obesity. This is probably the case with most diseases.” Know Your History: The 10 Worst Outbreaks in the U.S. The process is called transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. While DDT doesn’t mutate genes, exposure to it during key points in development—namely when sex organs are forming in the womb—can affect which genes are expressed. “This doesn’t promote the disease, but it increases the susceptibility to develop a disease,” Skinner said. During the 1950s, the U.S. obesity rate was below three percent. Now, more than one third of Americans are considered obese, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Upside of Epigenetic Inheritance Trangenerational epigenetic inheritance essentially means that what our grandparents were exposed to during their lifetimes can affect us today. Knowing how this mechanism works, Skinner says, means that looking at epigenetic biomarkers early in a person’s life can help determine what diseases they might face later. “That’s call preventative medicine,” Skinner said. “We’ve never been able to do preventative medicine in the past because we’ve never had these kinds of biomarkers.” Previously, Skinner’s lab tested the epigenetic effects of other environmental toxins, including plastics, fungicides, and other pesticides besides DDT. “The reason we did this one was because around four years ago the World Health Organization and the Gates Foundation pushed to remove the ban on DDT so they could use it for malaria treatment, mainly in Africa,” he said. The History of DDT and Why It's Used First synthesized in 1939, DDT was hailed as an effective insecticide to control malaria and typhus, and was used heavily during World War II. It was so highly regarded that Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Müller was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948 for synthesizing an effective version of DDT. DDT’s use dropped drastically after the 1962 book Silent Spring was published by biologist Rachel Carson. That book, which discussed the health and environmental impact of DDT, started a movement to get the substance banned. Before it was banned in 1972, DDT was the most commonly used insecticide in the U.S. While it continues to be banned in many countries, its use in Africa has increased since the WHO backed its use in 2006 to combat malaria and the beginning of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's program to control malaria. DDT is a preferred insecticide in developing countries because it is cheap and can typically control malaria outbreaks with a single treatment. Its effectiveness is due to its long half-life, which prevents it from breaking down easily. Learn More About Pesticides and How They're Regulated Because DDT was such a prominent insecticide in the 1950s and 60s, it is still present in lakes and rivers in the U.S., and continues to affect the ecosystem. “Literally, DDT is around for hundreds of years,” Skinner said. “This is something that just doesn’t go away.” Skinner hopes that his research will spur policy makers to reconsider the use of DDT in Africa and other developing countries because other pesticides with a shorter half-life are available. “Now we need to concern ourselves and reevaluate using DDT,” he said. Read this article on Healthline.com Are pesticides and obesity linked? A lab study of rats finds DDT exposure correlates with obesity in offspring generations later. Can affect which genes are expressed
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 10/27/2013 10:54:03 AM
	IPCC’s ‘Carbon Budget’ Will Not Drive Climate Talks Published: October 26th, 2013 By Fiona Harvey, The Guardian A key finding of the UN climate panel's latest report on climate change is too politically "difficult" to drive international climate talks in November, according to the UN's climate chief. Last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculated how much carbon dioxide the world could emit in future without going over 3.6°F of warming – and showed that, at current rates, this "budget" would be exhausted within 30 years. It effectively put a limit on the amount of CO2 that the human activities such as burning fossil fuels can produce, without risking what scientists regard as dangerous climate change. Christiana Figureres, the UN climate change chief, said it would be too 'politically difficult' to negotiate allocations of carbon emissions based on the carbon budget laid out in the IPCC. Credit: lisboncouncil/flickr But Christiana Figueres, executive director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said carbon budgets were a good scientific exercise but said that they could not be the basis for negotiations. "I don't think it's possible," she told the Guardian in an interview. "Politically it would be very difficult. I don't know who would hold the pen [in setting out allocations of future budgets]." Figueres said the IPCC findings, which set out starkly that climate change is unequivocal, should be "a huge wake-up call" to the world. She said there were also strong practical reasons for not basing the negotiations on allocations of future emissions to nations. "It treats carbon budgets as though it is a zero sum game, and would presume that there is no advance in technology [to reduce emissions]," she said. "We have made tremendous advances in the past 10 years." Governments will meet in Warsaw next month for the next round of international climate talks. This will be a staging post on the way to crunch negotiations in Paris in 2015, aimed at producing a new global agreement on dealing with emissions. Figueres said the question of equity between developed and developing nations would be central to the talks. "It requires a concerted effort … we are all in this together," she said. "Countries will be guided by their national circumstances, but at the same time they need also to be guided by our collective needs and collective interest." She added that the implications of the research, and of studies by the International Energy Agency and others, were that a significant portion of the world's fossil fuel reserves would be "unburnable" if dangerous climate change is to be avoided. But Figueres rejected claims that nations, including developing countries, could be compensated. "It's not the first time that someone has come to the table with expectations of compensation. I don't see space for that kind of measure. It remains to be seen." She said a draft negotiating text for a new agreement would be set out next year. National governments will be asked to set out how they intend to reduce emissions. Other developed country climate negotiators agreed with Figueres' stance, telling the Guardian privately that it was not practical to attempt to allocate emissions based on estimates of future emissions. Instead, nations should set out their own targets for cutting their carbon and these could be subject to review. The U.S. has made it clear that it will take a leading role, as President Barack Obama has made global warming a priority. This year's climate talks in Warsaw will be a bellweather of what to expect when more crucial negotiations for a new global agreement on dealing with emissions take place in Paris in 2015. Credit: Ian Britton/flickr Todd Stern, special envoy on climate change undersecretary of state John Kerry, told a conference at Chatham House in London that he was speaking to the White House "almost daily" and that the current talks offered "a historic opportunity" to meet the threat of warming. In the past, the U.S. has sometimes been accused of being lukewarm on an international agreement. But Stern, while rejecting the rigid approach that defined the Kyoto protocol, whereby countries set out firm targets and timetables on emissions but some never met them, had strong words on the need for a global agreement to guide and spur action on carbon. He said: "National action will only rise to the level of ambition we need if it takes place within a strong and effective international system. Effective international climate agreements serve three vital purposes: they supply the confidence countries need to assure them that if they take ambitious action, their partners and competitors will do the same. They send a potent signal to other important actors [including] sub-national governments and the private sector … and they prompt countries to take aggressive action at home to meet their national pledges." But he stressed that all nations would be required to play a part, and that countries previously classed as developing would have to take on national commitments on emissions. He set out a vision of a new global agreement that would require governments to fix national targets that would then be subject to review against progress, perhaps every five years. Reprinted from The Guardian with permission. Posted in Causes, Greenhouse Gases, Impacts, Projections, Climate, Carbon Storage, Policy, Energy, Efficiency, Biofuels, Fossil Fuels,Nuclear, Renewable Energy, Global, International
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Menu

Forums

Protesters march in Washington against NSA spying

Beast of a weed creeping across Midwest from south

Beastly weed called Palmer amaranth creeping out of South's cotton country into Midwest fields

Pesticide Exposure Linked to Obesity Across Generations

Studying the Effects of DDT Generations Later

The Upside of Epigenetic Inheritance

The History of DDT and Why It's Used

Report: Wildfires & Air Pollution, A Hidden Hazard

IPCC’s ‘Carbon Budget’ Will Not Drive Climate Talks