Another one bites the dust!

[westwall]

Remember the meme that global warming would cause greater spread of malaria? Looks like that is yet another in a long list of failed concerns....




21 December 2011


A common assumption is that rising global temperatures will increase the spread of malaria — the deadly mosquito-borne disease that affects millions of people worldwide. But a study out today in Biology Letters finds that warmer temperatures seem to slow transmission of malaria-causing parasites, by reducing their infectiousness1.

The study was done with rodent malaria, but the researchers, at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, expect the pattern to apply to human malaria and possibly to other mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever and West Nile virus.

Malaria transmission may actually fall, rather than rise, at higher temperatures.

James Gathany / CDC

Studies predicting that warmer climates will increase malaria infections commonly assume that the disease-causing parasites will develop faster and that the ability of the mosquito to acquire, maintain and transmit the pathogen will remain constant. They conclude that as temperature rises, mosquitoes become infectious quicker and therefore malaria transmission increases.

But the latest study shows that temperature has a more complex effect. As temperature rises, parasites do develop faster, but fewer of them become infectious.




Global warming wilts malaria : Nature News & Comment

 

[syrenn]

Truthfully, if malaira is on the rise i would not blame warming... but the outlaw of DDT. Its just rebounding to where it was before the use of it.

 

[Dragon]

That's interesting. Fairly good news, too. (Your title reveals you as a denialist dupe, but this is still interesting and still good news.)

 

[westwall]

That's interesting. Fairly good news, too. (Your title reveals you as a denialist dupe, but this is still interesting and still good news.)

No, my title reveals me as a sceptic. The only dupes are those who still bow to the alter of AGW as it is currently preached. Come up with some legit empirical data and I will pay attention once again. But, until that time comes I will simply stay with the scientific method.

 

[konradv]

Remember the meme that global warming would cause greater spread of malaria? Looks like that is yet another in a long list of failed concerns....

21 December 2011

A common assumption is that rising global temperatures will increase the spread of malaria — the deadly mosquito-borne disease that affects millions of people worldwide. But a study out today in Biology Letters finds that warmer temperatures seem to slow transmission of malaria-causing parasites, by reducing their infectiousness1.

The study was done with rodent malaria, but the researchers, at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, expect the pattern to apply to human malaria and possibly to other mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever and West Nile virus.

Malaria transmission may actually fall, rather than rise, at higher temperatures.

James Gathany / CDC

Studies predicting that warmer climates will increase malaria infections commonly assume that the disease-causing parasites will develop faster and that the ability of the mosquito to acquire, maintain and transmit the pathogen will remain constant. They conclude that as temperature rises, mosquitoes become infectious quicker and therefore malaria transmission increases.

But the latest study shows that temperature has a more complex effect. As temperature rises, parasites do develop faster, but fewer of them become infectious.

Global warming wilts malaria : Nature News & Comment

That's the parasite. Any info on the mosquito? The parasite may be slowed down, but if the population of mosquitoes goes up significantly due to warmer weather, it may not matter at all. If the parasite is slowed down 50% but the population goes up 10-fold, for example, it would be a disaster. Sorry, haven't had the chance to to read the article yet, but my concern isn't addressed in the blurb. If they haven't considered that point, the study is incomplete and not really that helpful.

 

[Old Rocks]

Truthfully, if malaira is on the rise i would not blame warming... but the outlaw of DDT. Its just rebounding to where it was before the use of it.

Never ceases to amaze me how absolutely ill informed and stupid you 'Conservatives' truly are. DDT is being used in areas where malaria is endemic. Used to the point that the health of humans is being endangered by that very dangerous pesticide.

You might consider listening less to obese drug addicts and more to scientists and doctors.

Should DDT Be Used to Combat Malaria?: Scientific American

A panel of scientists recommended today that the spraying of DDT in malaria-plagued Africa and Asia should be greatly reduced because people are exposed in their homes to high levels that may cause serious health effects.

The scientists from the United States and South Africa said the insecticide, banned decades ago in most of the world, should only be used as a last resort in combating malaria.

The stance of the panel, led by a University of California epidemiologist, is likely to be controversial with public health officials. Use of DDT to fight malaria has been increasing since it was endorsed in 2006 by the World Health Organization and the President's Malaria Initiative, a U.S. aid program launched by former President Bush.

In many African countries, as well as India and North Korea, the pesticide is sprayed inside homes and buildings to kill mosquitoes that carry malaria.

 

[westwall]

Truthfully, if malaira is on the rise i would not blame warming... but the outlaw of DDT. Its just rebounding to where it was before the use of it.

Never ceases to amaze me how absolutely ill informed and stupid you 'Conservatives' truly are. DDT is being used in areas where malaria is endemic. Used to the point that the health of humans is being endangered by that very dangerous pesticide.

You might consider listening less to obese drug addicts and more to scientists and doctors.

Should DDT Be Used to Combat Malaria?: Scientific American

A panel of scientists recommended today that the spraying of DDT in malaria-plagued Africa and Asia should be greatly reduced because people are exposed in their homes to high levels that may cause serious health effects.

The scientists from the United States and South Africa said the insecticide, banned decades ago in most of the world, should only be used as a last resort in combating malaria.

The stance of the panel, led by a University of California epidemiologist, is likely to be controversial with public health officials. Use of DDT to fight malaria has been increasing since it was endorsed in 2006 by the World Health Organization and the President's Malaria Initiative, a U.S. aid program launched by former President Bush.

In many African countries, as well as India and North Korea, the pesticide is sprayed inside homes and buildings to kill mosquitoes that carry malaria.

The use of DDT use was banned worldwide by the Stockholm Convention in 2001, that being said not everyone signed the convention. As olfraud notes it is being produced illegally in South Africa and North Korea. China is also producing it. However, its widespread use was banned and there are at least 2 million deaths per year that are directly attributable to that ban.

So, the question is, would more people die from it's use or its non use?

 

[Old Rocks]

Two million deaths? Source? Your ass?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

global warming would cause greater spread of malaria
global warming would cause decreased spread of malaria
global warming would cause deadlier strain of malaria
global warming would cause harmless strain of malaria
global warming would cause greater spread of malaria
global warming would cause tree ring malaria
global warming would cause hockey stick malaria

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What are we calling it these days? Global Warming? Manmade Global Warming? Climate Change? Climate Disruption? Global WarmerCoolering? Global CoolerWarmering?

 

[Old Rocks]

Go back to your hollow moon, Franky.

 

[konradv]

What are we calling it these days? Global Warming? Manmade Global Warming? Climate Change? Climate Disruption? Global WarmerCoolering? Global CoolerWarmering?

DenierHotAirTheory: It's a definite contributor.

True story!

 

[Oddball]

What are we calling it these days? Global Warming? Manmade Global Warming? Climate Change? Climate Disruption? Global WarmerCoolering? Global CoolerWarmering?

The Great Climatic Googly-moogly.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Go back to your hollow moon, Franky.

Real scientific instruments reported back a resonance that may have indicated the Moon did not have a solid interior, Dear. It's such a concern that NASA was still analyzing the data as recently as this year. It's genuine science, where the below clearly isn't

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes..

"We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" -- Phil Jones

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy." -- IPCC

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What are we calling it these days? Global Warming? Manmade Global Warming? Climate Change? Climate Disruption? Global WarmerCoolering? Global CoolerWarmering?

DenierHotAirTheory: It's a definite contributor.

True story!

I forgot to add "Abrupt Climate Change"

You can tell someone is lying when they can't even pick a name for what is it they're supposedly studying

 

[Oddball]

Go back to your hollow moon, Franky.

Real scientific instruments reported back a resonance that may have indicated the Moon did not have a solid interior, Dear. It's such a concern that NASA was still analyzing the data as recently as this year. It's genuine science, where the below clearly isn't

I've peer reviewed this post and....Ooooo!...Let's spin the wheel and see if Michael can win the new car!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What are we calling it these days? Global Warming? Manmade Global Warming? Climate Change? Climate Disruption? Global WarmerCoolering? Global CoolerWarmering?

The Great Climatic Googly-moogly.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate.

And funny too.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Go back to your hollow moon, Franky.

Real scientific instruments reported back a resonance that may have indicated the Moon did not have a solid interior, Dear. It's such a concern that NASA was still analyzing the data as recently as this year. It's genuine science, where the below clearly isn't

I've peer reviewed this post and....Ooooo!...Let's spin the wheel and see if Michael can win the new car!

Tell him what he's won, Vanna!

A trip to the EnviroMarxist Mecca Carbon Footprint Capital of the world, North Korea!!

 

[Oddball]

...where he'll be staying at the fabulous eleventy-six-star Ryugyong Hotel of Doom!...Which hasn't really been completed yet....or has any furnishings....or any staff....

But what the fuck!...Free trip to Pyongyang, right?

 

[Dragon]

No, my title reveals me as a sceptic. The only dupes are those who still bow to the alter of AGW as it is currently preached. Come up with some legit empirical data and I will pay attention once again. But, until that time comes I will simply stay with the scientific method.

But that's not what you're doing. If you were, you'd get your information from peer-reviewed sources, and you would understand that there are still mysteries about global warming to be solved (like whether or not a warmer climate will result in more malaria cases) and that this in no way casts doubt on the main idea.

It's not science to bring up things like that as an argument against the AGW model. It's the kind of thing that's done by the well-funded disinformation campaign put out by the fossil-fuel industry to create the impression of doubt where there is, in fact, no doubt. Which is why I try to stick with peer-reviewed material. (There's some propaganda put out on the other side, too, although it pales by comparison both in volume and in shameless distortion of the truth.)