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.
I fully expect Gavin to state that “these findings are consistent with the models.”
I’ve discovered that the threads go much faster if I just ignore everything from Stephen Talbott. Try it, it works.
Reply:Inappropriate, especially in light of how everyone was accepting advice to be respectul. Could you please do the same?~charles the moderator
I’m sorry you think that, Pofarmer. I’ve only been posting here for a short time, but had gained the impression that many posters regretted the fact that they felt ‘AGWers’ (for want of a better term) weren’t inclined to debate. So, I’ve put some time into debating, hoping that it would be accepted, amongst reasonable people, that I have a rational point of view, even though it may be one that you disagree with. I’ve aimed to read everything you’ve written thoughtfully, and have responded with integrity, I believe. However, your recommendation that others should ignore those with whom they disagree does give me pause for thought.
And thinking about it, I guess I can find better things to do with my time.
My regards to you, I hope your crops grow well, and I hope your assessment of the future is the right one. Bye.
[…] story on Watts Up With That? today. 24 August, 2008 Alpine melt reveals ancient life “What fascinates scientists […]
Steven Talbot
I belive you bring a lot to the debate. I may not agree with your point of view, but it does make one think and ask questions.
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
Any historian worth his salt knows that. And knows that pollution got less and less all throughout the 20th century, long before any of those clean air laws. and knows that the biggest break was the invention of the internal combustion engine (which replaced the horse and most of the coal).
(Unfortunately there are not a lot of historians left that are worth their salt.)
Steve and Joel are okay in my book.
No, I don’t agree with them.
But they are in there fighting a relatively clean fight in the middle of enemy territory. I can respect that.
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
Tell NASA. They started it!
Actually it may correlate. We know there was significant ice melt in the early 2oth century. Maybe dirty snow from the NH contributed. Then there was a cleanup in the west. Ice re-formed. Then China and India emerged and started burning a LOT of dirty coal . . .
I definitely think the issue should be studied further using ice core data.
Do you agree with Smokey that this will swallow “most of the world’s GDP”?
No. But it could swallow up to half of economic growth. (I’ve seen stats on Kyoto and Stern.) That’s definitely enough to scare me.
Steven Talbot: Nuclear power? I think we’ve made a serious mistake not developing the technology for 4th generation breeder reactors well before now.
It’s the only thing I agree with Jim Hanson on, And that’s not easy!
Nuclear power? The biggest draw back is water. Water in water vapor out where it lands noboby knows.
Steven Talbot, all scientific predictions come from theories, not from models (except to the extent models are theories). My point was that all climate catastrophy predictions aren’t outcomes of generally accepted, or even hotly disputed, theories, and hence are not scientific predictions, which is what you claimed.
Otherwise, you are clearly better informed than most on the warming side of the aisle, and you may pleasantly surprise me by not indulging in what I call the culture of deception on the warming side.
A comment concerning the statement that planes were found deeper in the ice than predicted by ice core dating.
Even glass is fluid, as demonstrated by the bottom of old glass windows being thicker than the top. I suspect the planes just sunk through the ice!
demonstrated by the bottom of old glass windows being thicker than the top
Apparently that’s a myth. The glass was installed with the thinnest part upward to maximize sunlight through it.
Stephen Garland (00:30:52) :
I used to think glass was a liquid too. However, someone pointed out the source of this notion. It has to do with the observation glass panes installed in cathedrals were thicker on the bottom. Presumably, the glass thickness was constant when installed, but, over time, flowed downhill.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass#Behavior_of_antique_glass
The observation that old windows are often thicker at the bottom than at the top is often offered as supporting evidence for the view that glass flows over a matter of centuries. It is then assumed that the glass was once uniform, but has flowed to its new shape, which is a property of liquid. [25] The likely source of this unfounded belief is that when panes of glass were commonly made by glassblowers, the technique used was to spin molten glass so as to create a round, mostly flat and even plate (the Crown glass process, described above). This plate was then cut to fit a window. The pieces were not, however, absolutely flat; the edges of the disk would be thicker because of centripetal force relaxation. When actually installed in a window frame, the glass would be placed thicker side down for the sake of stability and visual sparkle.[26] Occasionally such glass has been found thinner side down or on either side of the window’s edge, as would be caused by carelessness at the time of installation.
I can’t really say anything about the behavior of ice with regard to the WW II planes found in Greenland. But it does remain a fascinating story. Someone actually tried to recover one of the planes.
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=297
However, did the planes sink in the ice, or, were they covered by snow and ice? Perhaps a combination of the two processes.
JP Rourke (15:14:11) :
“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.”
Have the positive thermal feedback parameters for CO2 been adjusted lower to accommodate the cooler than expected temperatures of the decade since 1998?
Michael Hauber (16:26:48) :
“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.”
Would you happen to have the URL for Dr. Hansen’s modeling?
Also, did he happen to extend this model out to sometime after 2000?
Steven Talbot,
in all the comments about Kyoto you’ve made (somewhat alarmist), are you aware that were Kyoto fully implemented, we’d only get 0.05 oC to 0.07 oC of temperature mitigation? It’s well within the noise level of temperature variability–i.e., we would never be able to tell if Kyoto accomplished anything at all.
Here’s a graph of the temperature variation from the time of Hansen’s first testimony before Congress in 1988 (which started the global warming alarmist movement) and his 20th anniversary temperature in 2008, during which he suggested that corporate leaders that opposed AGW be prosecuted for “crimes against humanity.” My only question is this–which end of the graph is coolest:
http://i30.tinypic.com/pc2yv.jpg
I wonder what caused the sudden need for idiotic statements like that when the temperature record could in no way justify such radical (desperate?) remarks. Perhaps the lack of warming/slight cooling of the last decade has him worried.
Ice does act as a viscous liquid when under pressure, but it doesn’t explain why the planes were much further under the ice than expected. Planes are just too light to sink into a very viscous liquid. The obvious answer is snow/ice accumulation is much higher than assumed, which I think is the real reason.
Steven Talbot (15:37:14),
given you’re somewhat alarmist view of the lack of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, I’m curious if you are aware that if Kyoto were fully implemented, the temperature amelioration would only be in the range of 0.05 to 0.07 oC by 2050AD–well within the “noise” level of natural temperature variation. In other words, were Kyoto fully implemented, there is absolutely no scientific method to determine whether or not its implementation made any difference whatsoever.
Someone actually tried to recover one of the planes.
They didn’t just try, it was at OshKosh this year.
However, did the planes sink in the ice, or, were they covered by snow and ice? Perhaps a combination of the two processes.
It’s solid ice, I don’t see how anything could “sink” in it.
“but because I am persuaded by the science.”
What science? All I can find behind the AGW scare is a couple of deeply flawed computer models. And computer models, even when they work, are not science.
“Nuclear power? The biggest draw back is water. Water in water vapor out where it lands noboby knows.”
Nuclear plants don’t use any more water than a coal plant does.
Should have said, “anything as light as an aircraft” could sink in it.
The pictures of them recovering that plane are just incredible.