Significant acceleration in the upper-ocean circulation of the equatorial Pacific Ocean over the past 30 years is impacting global weather patterns, according to a new study.
West-east near-surface current trend between 1993–2022. The blue colors show increased westward currents; red colors show increased eastward currents. The largest trends are observed in the central tropical Pacific Ocean (black box). Current velocity data from three equatorial moored buoys (yellow diamonds) provide a subsurface view on long-term upper-ocean current velocity trends. Credit: Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans (2024). DOI: 10.1029/2024JC021343
The acceleration is driven by strengthening atmospheric winds. The oceanic currents are becoming stronger and shallower. Among the effects are increased frequency and intensity of El Niño and La Niña events.
The study is published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans.
Researchers used data collected between 1993–2022 from satellites, mooring buoys and ocean surface drifters.
They reanalysed wind data and satellite altitude measurements to create a high-resolution gridded map of ocean currents over time.
Among the findings is the roughly 20% acceleration of westward near-surface currents in the central equatorial Pacific.
North and south of the equator, currents going toward the poles have also accelerated. Currents going to the north pole have intensified by 57%, and the currents heading southward have increased 20%.
“The equatorial thermocline – a critical ocean layer for El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) dynamics – has steepened significantly,” says first author Franz Phillip Tuchen, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Miami’s Ronenstiel School of Marine Atmospheric and Earth Science.
“This steepening trend could reduce ENSO amplitude in the eastern Pacific and favour more frequent central Pacific El Niño events, potentially altering regional and global climate patterns associated with ENSO.”
The new and comprehensive study provides a benchmark for climate models which have had limited success in accurately representing Pacific circulation and sea surface temperature trends.
The research helps explain why, for example, global mean sea surface temperatures have risen but parts of the tropical South Pacific have seen a cooling trend of more than –0.5°C over the past 3 decades.
Deep in the forest lies a wildflower that defies expectations. Often mistaken for a fungus, the plant is a pale, translucent white in bloom—sometimes tinted pink or, rarely, a deep red. The ephemeral flower blackens if touched and quickly decays if plucked from the earth.
This month, as we celebrate all things spooky and supernatural, it’s only fitting to spotlight a species that is both ghost and vampire: Monotropa uniflora.
This peculiar plant can be found throughout much of North America, East Asia, and in northern regions of South America. It typically grows in moist, shaded areas of mature forests, springing from the soil to flower between June and September. Each plant has only one cup-shaped flower per stem, which droops toward the ground at first bloom. This downward orientation is thought to protect its nectar and pollen from rain. Carl Linnaeus had these properties in mind when he classified the plant as Monotropa uniflora in 1753. “Monotropa” is Greek for “one turn,” a reference to the arched stem that supports the nodding flower, and “uniflora” means “one-flowered” in Latin. Once pollinated and fertilized, the flower gradually turns upright, eventually maturing into a dry, woody capsule filled with thousands of seeds.
Monotropa uniflora’s hooked appearance has also inspired its common names. “Indian pipe,” for instance, derives from the flower’s resemblance to ceremonial smoking pipes used by many North American Indigenous communities. Other common names are more closely linked to the plant’s eerie coloration, including “ghost pipe,” “ghost plant,” “corpse plant,” and “ice plant.”
Monotropa uniflora’s ghostly presence has just as much to do with what’s happening beneath the surface as above ground. Like any plant, Monotropa uniflora needs sugar to grow and reproduce. Most plants meet this need through photosynthesis, but Monotropa uniflora lacks chlorophyll, the pigment that gives plants their green color and powers the process by absorbing energy from light. It must seek sugar from another source.
The solution? Mycoheterotrophy: a form of plant nutrition in which plants obtain nourishment through networks of mycorrhizal fungi rather than photosynthesis. In this case, tiny threads of fungi in the Russulaceae family act as an underground bridge between the roots of Monotropa uniflora and those of nearby trees. The mycorrhizae deliver water and essential minerals to the trees in exchange for sugar. Monotropa uniflora takes advantage of this relationship by acting as a parasite on the fungal network, taking sugar and nutrients and giving nothing in return.
Monotropa uniflora seed capsules by Ryan Hodnett via Wikimedia Commons
Mycoheterotrophy is a stroke of evolutionary genius. Monotropa uniflora essentially cheats the mycorrhizal fungi and trees from which it receives sustenance.
“The photosynthetic host cannot select against the mycoheterotroph without selecting against its own mutualist mycorrhizal fungi,” explain scientists Sylvia Yang and Donald H. Pfister. Additionally, because mycoheterotrophs aren’t dependent on light for photosynthesis, Monotropa uniflora can flourish in dark environments where many plants would fail.
Monotropa uniflora in Lore and Literature
All of these curious traits have made Monotropa uniflora an object of fascination for generations of storytellers. The plant is woven into oral histories and written narratives across cultures.
Cherokee storyteller Lloyd Arneach chronicles the plant’s creation as a product of human selfishness. As the legend goes, the chiefs of two quarreling nations smoked a pipe together before resolving their weeklong dispute. According to Arneach, “[The Great Spirit] decided to do something to remind all people to smoke the pipe only when making peace. So He turned them into grayish-looking flowers we now call ‘Indian Pipes’ and made them to grow wherever friends and relatives have quarreled.”
Cover of the first edition of Poems by Emily Dickinson via Wikimedia Commons
One of the most prominent storytellers to depict Monotropa uniflora was Emily Dickinson. Although widely recognized for her poetic prowess, Dickinson was also an amateur botanist. While taking botany courses at Amherst Academy and Mount Holyoke Female Seminary, she assembled more than 400 plant specimens in an herbarium that resides in Harvard’s Houghton Library today. Monotropa uniflora is among the hundreds of pressed plants that fill the book’s pages.
Plants provided constant inspiration for Dickinson’s literary works.
“Like flowers in an herbarium, the odd little poems are a faithful inventory of the natural world,” writes Barbara C. Mallonee. Monotropa uniflora is no exception, appearing in a number of Dickinson’s poems and letters. In one quatrain, she writes:
White as an Indian Pipe Red as a Cardinal Flower Fabulous as a Moon at Noon February Hour—
Scholars including Yanbin Kang are working to decipher the symbolism of Monotropa uniflora in Dickinson’s poetry. The plant’s white color could represent purity. Its nodding flower could suggest humility. Its ability to thrive where other plants cannot calls to mind both strength and loneliness—qualities that might have resonated with Dickinson, who lived reclusively at her family’s homestead later in life.
In 1882, Dickinson received a painting of Monotropa uniflora from Mabel Loomis Todd, a family friend who would become the poet’s first posthumous editor. In her letter thanking Todd for the gift, Dickinson wrote “[t]hat without suspecting it you should send me the preferred flower of life, seems almost supernatural, and the sweet glee that I felt at meeting it, I could confide to none.”
Eight years later, Todd shared Dickinson’s words with the world by publishing the first collection of her poems. Todd’s illustration of the poet’s beloved “preferred flower of life” graced the front cover.
Dickinson wasn’t the only poet to pay homage to this otherworldly plant. Sylvia Plath, another Massachusetts resident with botanical interests, mentions Monotropa uniflora in her poem “Child.” She wrote this poem in January 1963, only two weeks before her death. It’s addressed to an infant discovering the world, unburdened by the darkness that casts a shadow over the narrating mother. Immersed in “the zoo of the new,” the child learns of “Indian pipe” along with “April snowdrop”—two white, nodding flowers linked with the fleeting innocence of childhood.
More recently, Christine Butterworth-McDermott’s 2019 poem “Monotropa Uniflora” plays with the plant’s simultaneous embodiment of force and fragility. The employment of bold, active language (“you feast off other hosts”) and softer expressions (“how pale! how delicate!”) reminds us of the complex nature of Monotropa uniflora’s existence. It’s both a skillful parasite and a sensitive species that begins to decompose upon separation from the fungal network that provides its nourishment.
Medicinal Benefits and Modern Use
Monotropa uniflora’s significance isn’t only poetic, it’s practical. Several Indigenous groups in North America used the plant to treat ailments including inflamed eyes, epileptic fits, and toothaches. These properties were later echoed in books on the medicinal benefits of plants. In 1887, Monotropa uniflora was even deemed “an excellent substitute for opium,” easing pain and inducing sleep.
Today, tinctures made with Monotropa uniflora are sold on various online platforms. Foragers have also taken to social media to share the process of gathering the plant and making tinctures of their own. Their posts often advocate responsible harvest practices, namely leaving pollinated flowers untouched and collecting only in regions where the plant is abundant. Monotropa uniflora is at risk of local extinction in states including California, Nebraska, and South Dakota. It faces increasing pressure from wild collection for medicinal use, although more research is needed to determine the scope and severity of this existential threat.
With ties to ecology, poetry, medicine, and more, the ghost of the forest has several stories to tell. If you spot Monotropa uniflora in bloom, bright against the darkness of the forest floor, take a moment to contemplate the many ways in which humans have interacted with it for centuries. This is the mission of the Dumbarton Oaks Plant Humanities Initiative: to appreciate the unparalleled significance of plants to human culture.
The stakes in United States v. Skrmetti are even higher than most Americans realize and could have wide-reaching consequences if the court rules to keep the ban on gender-affirming care in place.
This piece was published in partnership with The 19th, a nonprofit newsroom covering gender, politics, and policy. Sign up for their newsletter here.
A Supreme Court case that will decide whether Tennessee can continue to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth could imperil the ability of all Americans to make decisions about their health care, experts say. The outcome depends on how far the court is willing to stretch its ruling that overturned federal abortion rights.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the court has agreed to take up the question of whether gender-affirming care bans for trans youth are unconstitutional, in response to the Biden administration petitioning on behalf of trans youth and their families in Tennessee — one of 26 states that has bannedsuch care for minors. The outcome of the case will grant much-needed clarity in a political landscape that has thrown the lives of trans people across the country into turmoil, as hospitals turn patients away, pharmacies deny prescriptions and families travel hundreds of miles to find care.
But with the case set for oral arguments on December 4, the stakes are even higher than most Americans realize, legal and policy experts say. Tennessee has banned gender-affirming care, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy, for a specific demographic — trans youth — while allowing those same treatments for cisgender youth. If the Supreme Court allows the state to keep its ban in place, that could imperil everyone’s access to health care.
“What the state of Tennessee is arguing is really dangerous for any person who has any sort of medical condition,” says Ezra Young, a civil rights lawyer and constitutional scholar. Tennessee is dictating what medical treatments people should or should not be allowed to have, Young said; that goes well beyond states’ authority to regulate medicine, specifically because giving health care to trans people is not a public health concern.
“The state can make sure that the doctor you see has a medical degree and has an active medical license, for instance,” he says. “What the state can’t do is micromanage the medical decision-making of patients or doctors, and that’s for good reason. Bureaucrats or lawmakers aren’t medical experts.”
Yet in half of U.S. states, Republican lawmakers have banned or restricted medical care that many trans people need to live, over the protests of the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and other leading medical groups. Federal judges have attempted to block these bans from taking hold, finding them to be likely unconstitutional. Appeals court judges have disagreed and overturned those decisions. Now, the Supreme Court will have the final say.
“If we don’t win here, it’s going to be open season on any health care related to transgender people,” says Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. If the Supreme Court holds that banning gender-affirming care is not discriminatory, then trans people would no longer be protected under the Affordable Care Act, he argues. States and private insurers would be able to exclude gender-affirming care from coverage plans.
“It would be devastating. I mean, absolutely catastrophic,” Minter says.
Ultimately, the outcome of this case will have a wider impact beyond gender-affirming care. A Supreme Court ruling endorsing Tennessee’s argument that the state can ban safe medical care — just because it disagrees with who that treatment is being given to — would enable the government to control people’s health decisions and enact other blatantly discriminatory policies, legal experts say.
“I think this case has bigger and broader implications than a lot of people realize, even frankly within the legal community,” says Michael Ulrich, an associate professor of health law, ethics and human rights at Boston University’s School of Public Health and School of Law. If the Supreme Court agrees with Tennessee’s ban, there’s nothing stopping states from banning or restricting other kinds of health care, he said — like what gets covered under Medicaid.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar’s office, representing the Biden administration, will split argument time before the Supreme Court with Chase Strangio, co-director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBTQ & HIV Project.
The United States v. Skrmetti case is focused on whether Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The state insists that its ban has nothing to do with sex and that it does not target trans people. Instead, the law “sets age and use-based limits,” Tennessee’s attorney general argues. Minors can still access hormones and puberty blockers for medical purposes, as long as those treatments are not being used as part of a gender transition or to alleviate gender dysphoria. The state claims such a distinction is not based on sex because “neither boys nor girls can use these drugs for gender transition.”
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court found that there is no constitutional right to an abortion in the United States. This ruling overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that had guaranteed the right to an abortion since 1973. When writing the majority opinion in Dobbs, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito briefly addressed a theory that suggests abortion could be covered under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. This idea is not part of Roe, or at issue in Dobbs, but was invoked in a separate “friend of the court” brief. Alito dismissed it, saying that state regulations on abortion do not discriminate based on sex.
“So that’s what the state of Tennessee is now latching on to, this passing reference, this brief statement in Dobbs, and they’re pinning their whole argument on it,” says Minter. “Everything hinges on it.”
In Dobbs, Alito wrote that abortion cannot be protected under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, citing the arcane Geduldig v. Aiello — a case about pregnancy-related disability benefits — and Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, a case dealing with the rights of anti-abortion protesters. These rarely cited cases found that state regulations on abortion and pregnancy, or opposing abortion, are not sex discrimination. Tennessee is now using this framework to argue that “any disparate impact on transgender-identifying persons” caused by its law does not single trans people out for discrimination in ways covered by the 14th Amendment.
If the state’s gender-affirming care ban is found by the Supreme Court to be discriminatory under the 14th Amendment, it is subject to heightened scrutiny — a more rigorous review to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. In that scenario, Tennessee is more likely to lose.
Using abortion case law to support bans on gender-affirming care is especially dangerous, experts say. Tennessee is taking the Supreme Court’s own decision in Dobbs out of context, according to lawyers who have worked in LGBTQ+ rights cases for decades. And, if the justices read Tennessee’s law, it is obvious that banning gender-affirming care for trans people is discriminating based on sex, they say.
The United States v. Skrmetti case is focused on whether Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The state insists that its ban has nothing to do with sex and that it does not target trans people. Instead, the law “sets age and use-based limits,” Tennessee’s attorney general argues. Minors can still access hormones and puberty blockers for medical purposes, as long as those treatments are not being used as part of a gender transition or to alleviate gender dysphoria. The state claims such a distinction is not based on sex because “neither boys nor girls can use these drugs for gender transition.”
But, although the question before the court has become more specific, this ruling still has the potential to broadly set back LGBTQ+ rights.
Tennessee argues that the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that employment discrimination against LGBTQ+ workers is sex-based discrimination prohibited under the Civil Rights Act, has nothing to do with this case. But going down this road leads to more questions, Ulrich says: Is discriminating due to sexual orientation also not considered sex-based discrimination?
“Then you can see just a proliferation of discriminatory laws that are coming out thereafter,” he says. “That’s a really dangerous proposition for the entire LGBTQ+ community and it’s setting us back significantly.”
Sruti Swaminathan, an ACLU staff attorney who has been counsel in this case from the beginning, said United States v. Skrmetti will test how far the Supreme Court is willing to stretch its Dobbs decision. They are well aware that the outcome of this case could curtail bodily autonomy for everyone. And taking this challenge before a conservative-majority Supreme Court has stoked fears among trans people of worst-case scenarios.
“We’re already at the place where half the country has banned this care. We need to not let the 6th Circuit decision stand idly and be utilized in the way it has,” Swaminathan says.
But Tennessee’s tactics, and the consequences that they could have during a time when laws targeting reproductive and transgender health care are proliferating, still worry them.
“I’m terrified. What we learned from Dobbs is that these attacks won’t stop with abortion,” Swaminathan says. “Banning abortion seems to be one pillar of an effort to write outdated gender norms into the law.”
U.S. v. Skrmetti began as a lawsuit against Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
Tennessee’s argument in this case illustrates a larger coordinated effort to attack abortion access alongside gender-affirming care, says Logan Casey, director of policy research at the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit that tracks LGBTQ+ legislation.
States across the country have attempted to define sex based on reproductive capacity at birth. These efforts open transgender people up to discrimination and ignore the realities of intersex people, as well as cisgender women with conditions like primary ovarian insufficiency. Proponents of gender-affirming care bans inaccurately portray the effects of hormone replacement therapy on trans people’s reproductive ability by conflating the treatment with sterilization.
This Supreme Court case exemplifies a much larger argument that’s been a through line across attacks on transgender care and trans issues across the country, Casey says: What is sex, and who is protected when we think about that?
“Many of these state actors and politicians and extremists are clearly very invested in the concept of sex and defining sex in a very restricted and extraordinarily old-fashioned way that focuses only on people’s reproductive capacity, and then they use that argument in whatever context they can to advance the policies that would match that worldview,” he says.
(I don’t know if this is gonna work; I’m not on Instagram, but I went there, and could see, hear, read, and got the embed link. MomsRising is asking for shares, so if anyone cares to share, thank you!)
November 2, 1920 Socialist Party candidate Eugene V. Debs received nearly one million votes for President though he was serving a prison sentence at the time for his criticism of World War I and his encouraging resistance to the draft. More on Debs
November 2, 1982 Voters in nine general elections passed statewide referenda supporting a freeze on testing of nuclear weapons. Only Arizona turned it down. Dr. Randall Forsberg, a key person behind the Freeze movement Dr. Randall Forsberg
November 2, 1983 A bill designating a federal holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (to be observed on the third Monday of January) was signed by President Ronald Reagan. King was born in Atlanta in 1929, the son of a Baptist minister. He received a doctorate degree in theology and in 1955 organized the first major protest of the civil rights movement: the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott. Influenced by Mohandas Gandhi, he advocated nonviolent civil disobedience of the laws that enforced racial segregation. The history of Martin Luther King Day (pdf)
I’m not on Facebook; never have been. I do order from Penzey’s, and because of that, I get their emails, which are awesome. Here is the body of today’s email with links, and another shout-out to any Facebook users who are called to help out with this. And, I think anyone in a position to share in some fashion is welcome to do so!
(Here should be a photo of a veteran who may be the subject of this. I’m sorry it won’t post.)
This really isn’t a standard email, it’s a Facebook post sent by email. But with one week to go and everything seemingly all tied up, sharing a glimpse of our past that’s at risk of becoming our future seems right. Please read and share.Thanks.
October 25, 2024 George Mullins voted. June 6, 1944 George came ashore in Normandy. He voted by mail. He insisted that the ballot needed to be taken to the post office and handed directly to the postal worker. “Can’t take any chances in these times.”
It was LST #311 that brought him 100 yards from the shore of Utah Beach on D-Day. The water was cold and up to his neck. He kept an eye on the shorter soldiers to make sure their heavy packs would not drag them under. Together they all made it ashore. So many of those George went ashore with never made it home.
George Mullins lived through the unfathomable violence it took to face down fascism. He made it home but left so much behind. Forever since he has had to carry a hurt and a loss that thankfully most of us have never known.
His experience has left him with thoughts on this election and about those who would once again intentionally unleash the unspeakable horrors he had hoped were forever in the past.
Two weeks ago George posted his thoughts on his Facebook page for the book he wrote of his WWII experience, Foxhole.
As is the nature of Facebook, and social media, and the times we live in, one of the most valuable pieces that will ever be written about this election now sits there with just 72 likes.
George’s daughter and longtime Penzeys customer, Sheila, wrote hinting that maybe I could bring more attention to his words. Yes. A very big Yes. Coincidentally enough (if there are coincidences) his were exactly the words I was then searching for.
Not eight hours before Sheila’s email arrived I had just finished rewatching Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. I’m convinced it is in the unspeakable sacrifice of so many Americans eighty years ago where the key to understanding just how much is at stake on 11.5.24 lives or dies.
But where to find the words? I looked to Saving Private Ryan because Spielberg has good words, and there are good words there but his, like mine, are of an outsider looking in. Where could I find the words I needed? And as fate would have it they arrived all tied neatly with a bow and accompanied by a breathtaking photo.
And I won’t give away all George Mullins’s words, please read all of them for yourself. But in short, today he is deeply troubled by the direction he sees our country heading.
“I didn’t fight in World War II, standing on the front lines of history, so that we could one day find our country on the brink of dictatorship or authoritarian rule. The freedoms I defended, and believe in, the sacrifices my comrades and I made, were for the preservation of democracy—of freedom, fairness, and the right to live without fear of tyranny.”
There’s so much we take for granted, but all that George and those he fought alongside achieved came at a terrible cost. And as much as we know words like fascism, and Nazi, and even freedom, how much do we really understand this is about the difference between living free and having to live in fear of your government?
By 1944 everyone understood, but today it’s something we’ve forgotten, something we take for granted. George Mullins went ashore shoulder to shoulder with men like him willing to give their lives so that others may live free. Let that sink in.
And now the leaders of the Republican party are not only throwing that sacrifice away, they are forcing our children to relive it. Why? Because they don’t have the strength to stand up to Donald Trump’s never-ending need for ever greater power. We must do better. We must share George Mullins’s warning. (snip; an offer I’m not sure is appropriate to include here, but I can put it in comments if someone’s interested. I’m trying to stay on topic, without appearing to advertise, though advertisement is not the author’s intent. -A)
And two outstanding Steven Spielberg words. I’ve seen Saving Private Ryan several times since its release. Each time I’ve seen something new in it. This time I was struck by Tom Hanks’s Captain Miller’s words to Matt Damon’s Ryan. “Earn this.”
This time against the backdrop of this election it hit home more than before that these two words weren’t between two people but between all those who gave so much and all of us who have lived our lives with the gifts their terrible sacrifice brought. Earn this. We truly do owe them that much.
And I did ask George’s daughter Sheila about what was going through his mind as he cast his vote in this election. She asked him over dinner. He told her this: “When I voted I felt happy to place my signature on a ballot against the Dictator. I was hoping more people wake up and check the right box.”
That one of those white men struggling ashore on the 6th of June so many years ago should live to vote for America’s first Black woman President is a testament to this country and to all who serve.
And I admit that at first I felt uncomfortable with George’s word Dictator. It felt over the top. But then it set in that he is the one who knows, not me.
He is the one with the knowledge, and the experience, and the words we all must learn if we are to go through what his generation went through and re-emerge once again as America on the other side.
So much to earn. So much at stake. Please help us help George Mullins’s message reach everyone while it can still make a difference.
And please visit George’s Facebook page and share a like, a hug, or even a heart. He has already earned it and so much more. What a life.
Not taking this personally, but: I do not read every link in every post every time. I do read at least one link from each post with a link, as soon as I get there. I admire that you can do that! And if you’re ready to quit, I don’t blame you. Do as you will, but you are not unappreciated, FWIW. 🖖 ☮ 🌞 I hope we still get to see ya around!
Scottie's Playtime 
_-_Algonquin_Provincial_Park,_Ontario.jpg){kind=link}
