From the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill one wonders why they have not thrown the PM10 hammer (or ax) at trees to save humans from their terrible effects /sarc.
Researchers pinpoint how trees play role in smog production
After years of scientific uncertainty and speculation, researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill show exactly how trees help create one of society’s predominant environmental and health concerns: air pollution.
It has long been known that trees produce and emit isoprene, an abundant molecule in the air known to protect leaves from oxygen damage and temperature fluctuations. However, in 2004, researchers, contrary to popular assumptions, revealed that isoprene was likely involved in the production of particulate matter, tiny particles that can get lodged in lungs, lead to lung cancer and asthma, and damage other tissues, not to mention the environment.
But exactly how was anybody’s guess.
Jason Surratt, assistant professor of environmental sciences and engineering at the Gillings School of Global Public Health, now reveals one mechanism by which isoprene contributes to the production of these tiny, potentially health-damaging particles.
The study found that isoprene, once it is chemically altered via exposure to the sun, reacts with man-made nitrogen oxides to create particulate matter. Nitrogen oxides are pollutants created by cars, trucks, aircrafts, coal plants and other large scale sources.
“The work presents a dramatic new wrinkle in the arguments for reducing man-made pollutants worldwide,” said Surratt, whose work was published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “Isoprene evolved to protect trees and plants, but because of the presence of nitrogen oxides, it is involved in producing this negative effect on health and the environment.”
“We certainly can’t cut down all the trees,” Surratt adds, “but we can work on reducing these man-made emissions to cut down the production of fine particulate matter.”
With the precise mechanism now revealed, researchers can plug it into air quality models for better predicting episodes of air pollution and potential effects on earth’s climate. The advance would allow researchers and environmental agencies to evaluate and make regulatory decisions that impact public health and climate change.
“We observe nature’s quirks, but we must always consider that our actions do have repercussions,” said Surratt. “It’s the interaction between these natural and man-made emissions that produces this air pollution, smog and fine particulate matter – and now we know one reason for how it happens.”
Apparently, mankind with its current technology supporting billions of human beings is not welcome here anymore.
That first sentence needs some polishing. I suggest lemon oil.
[Fixed, thanks. ~ mod.]
It looks like another effect of increasing CO2 will be to fertilize trees to produce more isoprene which will lead to increased air pollution. Oh no!
Wait. Ronald Reagan was right?
Didn’t President Reagan alert us to the possible polluting effects of trees to much derision from the left?
But, but, but, the mountains were already “smokey” back in the 1750s, and uncle Nicolaus didn’t improve the internal combustion engine until a century later.
The green plants (I’m also thinking of you, trees) are responsible for all the oxygen in the atmosphere. Doesn’t that lead to ozone? And what about fire? Isn’t that from a chemical reaction with oxygen? Were it not for the trees (and other green plants) we wouldn’t have any fires. Without fire we wouldn’t have to worry about carbon (ok, carbon dioxide) to warm the planet up. Without those damn trees everything would be perfect. Perfect. Perfect I tell you. Where’s my executive order pen?
A few decades ago scientists discovered that evergreen trees are acidifying the streams, lakes and ground waters as the needles decompose. The acid level in the water was blamed on industry and still is today but yet no one mentions the evergreen – why – oh yes full grown forests give off more C02 than they use so they are a AWG contributor as they are a living thing like humans.
We are in big trouble, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoprene
“Isoprene is the most abundant hydrocarbon measurable in the breath of humans,[8] .[9] The estimated production rate of isoprene in the human body is 0.15 µmol/(kg·h), equivalent to approximately 17 mg/day for a person weighing 70 kg. Isoprene is also common in low concentrations in many foods.”
Until we clear this matter up do not, repeat, do not have face to face interactions with any family member or workmates.
Oh.. and no tree hugging!
JC
…. not to mention all the methane they produce.
For example:
http://www.fondriest.com/news/wetland-trees-produce-more-methane-than-expected.htm
Oh no, not something else we have to worry about?
An event sure to be full of “open” minds from “Peope Who Know”:
On Closing Night, June 15, we confront the most significant environmental issue facing our planet in “Our 11th Hour: Straight Talk on Climate Change from People Who Know,” a candid conversation with award-winning climate scientists Kevin Trenberth and Richard Alley and award-winning New York Times journalist Andrew Revkin at the Seattle Repertory Theatre. We’ll cap the evening with an uplifting, 30-minute opera for audiences of all ages, Heron and the Salmon Girl. Set in the Northwest, it focuses on environmental stewardship and will be performed by Seattle Opera and Seattle Opera’s Youth Chorus.
http://www.seattlesciencefestival.org/Science-Festival/2013-opening-closing-night-events
Tom J says:
April 25, 2013 at 8:55 am
The green plants (I’m also thinking of you, trees) are responsible for all the oxygen in the atmosphere. Doesn’t that lead to ozone? And what about fire? Isn’t that from a chemical reaction with oxygen? Were it not for the trees (and other green plants) we wouldn’t have any fires. Without fire we wouldn’t have to worry about carbon (ok, carbon dioxide) to warm the planet up. Without those damn trees everything would be perfect. Perfect. Perfect I tell you. Where’s my executive order pen?
———————————————
Go easy now. Remember you’re dealing with the type of people who thought it was a good idea to kill 40,000 elephants to save the planet.
One never knows what they will progress to next.
cn
I agree with performixbiz. Can you clean it up: “one wonders why they have throw the PM10 hammer (or ax) at trees” I think you mean “why they have NOT THROWN”
“The study found that isoprene, once it is chemically altered via exposure to the sun, reacts with man-made nitrogen oxides to create particulate matter. Nitrogen oxides are pollutants created by cars, trucks, aircrafts, coal plants and other large scale sources.”
I guess the isoprene molecules have learned not to react with nitrogen oxides from natural sources such as wildfires, underground coal fires, and lightning strikes. /s
Not only do they pollute the air, they also poison soils and waters of the world. They are at WAR with all other species. Where did you think cyanide, ricin, cardiac glycosides, juglans, and all sorts of allelochemicals come from. Plants have been poisoning the species they live with and those that feed on them for hundreds of millions of years.
They certainly should be banned !!
Understand that Carolina (UNC Chapel Hill) is the bed-wetting, liberal arts college in North Carolina. The College of Forestry is located at NC State.
Go Wolfpack!
Aren’t trees a natural source of the large portion of airborne mercury as well?
Jeff
Quinn:
You beat me to it.
Richard
I would venture a guess that almost everyone who reads this blog would agree that cleaning our air of REAL pollutants is a desirable goal. So sad that a political agenda has sucked billions of dollars out of that effort and wasted it on the false premise of AGW by CO2. Some people just need a hockey stick up side the head.
Good job beating me to the punch, Quinn. 😉
Folks what we are witnessing is an EPA that is out of control and has that has lost touch with basic science.
We have an EPA that wants a cleaner environment that what the earth produces.
Every March and April portions of the Flint Hills in OK and KS are burned to destroy the woody vegetation that competes with the native grass. (trees are weeds…). Since Mankind has walked on the Great Plains fire has been used to promote the growth of grass and the mammals that feed off it. Think of the environmental damage a herd of bison do when the Republican River has so many bison drinking it’s water – that the river ceases to exist for a short time. The bison drink the river dry.
Somehow the EPA calls the smoke from the range fires ‘pollution’. Yet, for thousands of years the earth has dealt with pollution. The EPA has no idea what the ‘natural’ amount of loading from smoke the atmosphere deals with from natural sources yet alone smoke from man.
Yet they want an environment that is cleaner than what is normal, without that cockroach called man defacing her face.
The Brits have a solution for this. They are converting some of their largest coal fired power plants to biomass (wood pellets). I’ve heard it will take a forest the size of Rhode Island to grow a sufficient amount of wood on a “sustainable” basis. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
Mother Gaia scratched her head. “Where did I put those pea-sized rocks with U.N. personhood?”, she wondered. In a lightening flash she found them. “Oh what potentialities they hold!” she thought and she slapped Her left knee and burst out laughing.
One more piece of actual science the AGW crowd will ignore. I like their new phrase – climate disruption. Disruption from what? Some individuals have stated that the climate should be something specific and never change. Any change…and they can claim ANY change….will fall under their Climate Disruption label. Oh well – at least there are some sane questionning individuals around and our numbers are increasing. Those nasty nasty trees.