From: ScienceDaily (Aug. 20, 2008)
Coal burning, primarily in North America and Europe, contaminated the Arctic and potentially affected human health and ecosystems in and around Earth’s polar regions, according to new research.
The study was conducted by the Desert Research Institute (DRI), Reno, Nev. and partially funded by the National Science Foundation.
Detailed measurements from a Greenland ice core showed pollutants from burning coal–the toxic heavy metals cadmium, thallium and lead–were much higher than expected. The catch, however, was the pollutants weren’t higher at the times when researchers expected peaks.
“Conventional wisdom held that toxic heavy metals were higher in the 1960s and ‘70s, the peak of industrial activity in Europe and North America and certainly before implementation of Clean Air Act controls in the early 1970s,” said Joe McConnell, lead researcher and director of DRI’s Ultra-Trace Chemistry Laboratory.
“But it turns out pollution in southern Greenland was higher 100 years ago when North American and European economies ran on coal, before the advent of cleaner, more efficient coal burning technologies and the switch to oil and gas-based economies,” McConnell said.
In fact, the research showed pollutants were two to five times higher at the beginning of the previous century than today. Pollution levels in the early 1900s also represented a 10-fold increase from preindustrial levels.
Continuous, monthly and annually averaged pollution records taken from the Greenland ice core dating from 1772-2003 produced the results. And although data showed heavy-metal pollution in the North Atlantic sector of the Arctic is substantially lower today than a century ago, McConnell and his research partner, Ross Edwards, an associate research professor at DRI, said there is still cause for concern.
“Contamination of other sectors may be increasing because of the rapid coal-driven growth of Asian economies,” they wrote in the report. They argued the consequence may be greater risk to the food chain as toxic heavy metals from industrial activities in Asian nations are transported through the atmosphere and deposited in the polar regions.
Food chain contamination through toxic metal absorption from both the environment and from consumption of contaminated food sources could make its way to humans, who feed on long-lived land and marine animals such as caribou, seals and whale.
“Impacts on human health in the Arctic region haven’t been determined,” said McConnell. But he suggested cleaner burning coal technologies, or better yet reduced reliance on coal burning, may head off the potential problem.
“Gosh, really? That sounds very alarming!” Steven Talbot
Well, economic miscalculations by the government resulted in the Great Depression and World War II. Yeah, I would say it is alarming that governments are seeking to reduce the use of our most important energy sources.
Finally: I read analysis of Orsat.
Clark : “Wouldn’t it be nice if the scientists doing these experiments would focus on their scientific results, and not feel the need to be policy advocates.”
Agree — Science is going to realize the folly here too late and is likely to be forever moved to the outcast bin by average people. Letting the media lie about science is going to be very bad. It’s sad to see, especially when the people involved in the research do not speak up and say “hey wait a minute” …
We are already seeing the laugh reaction whenever there is a pronouncement of doom from a hurricane that never shows up … Weather forecasters need to pay attention, hyping ‘tiny tims’ is not doing any good. People just turn off after a few — And tragically, that causes another Katrina, where people refuse to evacuate. They simply quit listening … Case in point, they tried for days to turn the rain storm that was Fay into a Florida hurricane that never was.
Science should stick to science and get out of political science as soon as possible.
I like this little hint of the coming global eco-reparations:
“potentially affected human health”
Nothing will change until oil is exhausted.
Glad I won’t be around then!
If you’re an alarmist, you’d love the notion of devolving people…into animals…fighting wars over food supplies and limited resources…people dying like flies in the zapper. It’s sounds almost like a good thing to some…like it’s “a return to equality”…aka every man for himself.
edcon, my Dad retired form a Southern Company coal fired power plant. So, I was pretty much aware of what went on there.
When the precipitators are online, what comes out the smoke stacks is just about invisible. I could always tell when one of them was down…the visible smoke. It’s slick, how well they work. I’m sure they’re costly. Though, bang for the buck, seems like a good deal.
One of the things I find distrubing is global warming ads will often have images of power plants allegedly belching smoke. When the truth is, what they are holding out a smoke is, in fact, steam from the cooling towers.
StatePoet,
Yeah, I would say it is alarming that governments are seeking to reduce the use of our most important energy sources.
Well, indeed, that is most alarming! D’you mean people might have to make adjustments, if governments have their way?
Do you agree with Smokey that this will swallow “most of the world’s GDP”? I accept that’s very scary indeed! This seems really crazy to me, so obviously everyone should do everything they can to stop it! Government’s plan to get rid of GDP so they can raise taxes from what’s left, yes? That’s pretty fiendish!
Actually, it seems the scientists are doing what they’ve always done (and what they are paid to do) – create a hypothesis, determine the data to collect to test it, analyze the test results, and change the model as appropriate; rinse and repeat. They’ve been doing it ever since the 70s especially, but even before then. Why anyone would fault them for using the data to update the models, I have no idea.
As for ‘conventional wisdom’ saying the recent decades ought to be the worst for pollution, I don’t know where you are getting your wisdom, but I’d always heard the bad old days were in the 1800s to early 1900s, when the industrial revolution was hitting its peak and no one knew (or cared) about the effects of pollution. We’ve come a long way, baby, does anyone here dispute that is a good thing?
Why, Steven Talbot, you sneaky devil, you. You took a piece of my sentence out of context, to put a spin on it. Can’t have that, can we? So, here’s the whole thing, unsnipped:
Only a fool would fail to be alarmed at that.
Jack Simmons:
“It would appear economically appealing technologies are also cleaner technologies.”
Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand at work.
It would appear economically appealing technologies are also cleaner technologies.
—-
This is true. It’s also true that capitalists aren’t the heartless pigs that they are made out to be in the media.
Smokey,
“Only a fool would fail to be alarmed at that.
I agree.
Sadly, I think that a significant part of the world’s GDP will be forfeited in dealing with the consequences of the fact that I don’t think there is any real chance we are going to satisfy even Kyoto. I don’t think governments will agree to act significantly upon mitigation, not any time soon.
I very much hope that your view of the climate is right, but I do fear that you are wrong. This is not because I am part of an ‘enviro lobby’ seeking power, and not because I have any designs upon your paycheck (or mine), but because I am persuaded by the science. As I say, I hope that I am wrong.
“Do you agree with Smokey that this will swallow “most of the world’s GDP”?” Steven Talbot
No maybe not. But the world’s economy is in no condition for serious tampering with one of it’s most basic components, energy.
BTW, what do you think of nuclear power?
Maybe now that it is inblackand white the rediculous folly of blaming soot for the rapid melting at the north pole will finally be tucked up and put to sleep….forever
“Persuaded by the science”??? There is no science in “Playstation Climatology”. And the “PlayStation Climatologists” don’t want any. Go read Chris comment of 25/08/08.
“Why anyone would fault them for using the data to update the models, I have no idea.”
Permitting me modest license:
On the fable of the blind Hindu sages interpreting the evidence of
an elephant, the great John von Neumann said to the effect-
“Grant me 5 degrees of freedom and I will specify the creature down to the wrinkles on the bottom of his feet.
Grant me 6 degrees of freedom and I will have him dance ‘Swan Lake'”.
Reproducing the past tells us nothing important about the predictive competence of a model. Indeed, it was an indication of startling incompetence that MBH98 diverged from the final 20 odd years of data. Lindzen has written on this very failing of climate models a number of times.
Have an idea?
“Playstation climatology”??
When they did some of the first climate models I’m sure they wished they had computers with as much processing power as a playstation.
In 1981 Hansen did a modelling exercise. He predicted that between 1980 CO2 would contribute around 0.2 to 0.4 degrees of warming. Actual change in temperature between 1980 and 2000? Just under 0.4 degrees. As measured both by the possibly corrupted surface record, and by satellite.
I could write a very short model that perfectly predicts the past using just a read statement and lots of data. But I suppose that would be cheating too much.
Perhaps these guys shouldn’t have been surprised. In Britain, the all-time high in per capita carbon emissions was 3.2 tons in 1913. Most things were driven by coal or wood, and much more inefficiently than today. Along with the emissions, there were much higher levels of pollution. London was notorious for ‘pea-souper’ smogs from the 19th century up to the 1950s; one such event in 1952 killed over 4000 people.
Total emissions in Britain were significantly higher in 1970 than today. From 1970 emissions dropped, until about 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was signed, at which point they plateaued or started to rise again. I think this was the opposite of what was supposed to happen.
Steven Talbot, while there is a case to be made that AGW has and will continue to occur ( I think it’s a not very good case, but that’s beside the point), most of the projected consequences of warming, should it occur, are just alarmist claptrap. There is no science in these projected future consequences. And to claim otherwise is misleading to say the least.
Prove me wrong, by pointing to just one scientific paper that demonstrates any future catastrophy from global warming. Models don’t count.
statePoet,
Nuclear power? I think we’ve made a serious mistake not developing the technology for 4th generation breeder reactors well before now.
Could you have done that to predict temperature changes between 1980 and 2000 in 1981??
“I think we’ve made a serious mistake not developing the technology for 4th generation breeder reactors well before now.” Steven Talbot
Agreed. We might be synthesizing carbon neutral gasoline by now with hydrogen produced by nukes. That might have bought us enough time to not be in a panic abut CO2.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
NSIDC says the thickness of the ice is an indication of ice “health”. I wonder if they are talking about “Baby Ice”?
Philip_B,
Prove me wrong, by pointing to just one scientific paper that demonstrates any future catastrophy from global warming. Models don’t count.
It is impossible to make a scientific projection without applying a model, so thus it is impossible to prove you wrong without one (and even with one, it wouldn’t be proof!