From the UOW, nice to see that man isn’t the culprit in this case.
UOW data confirm surprising atmospheric findings

By Melissa Coade – Satellites showing that nature is responsible for 90% of the earth’s atmospheric acidity shocked researchers from the Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy, whose findings have just been published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Stunned, the scientists approached a team from the University of Wollongong’s Centre of Atmospheric Chemistry (CAC) to confirm what satellite readings were telling them.
By providing data from a ground-based solar Fourier transform spectrometer instrument at the University, CAC used 15-years worth of information to verify the satellite’s story: all existing global models had substantially misjudged the main source of formic acid levels on earth – its forests.
UOW Physical Chemistry lecturer Dr Clare Murphy (Paton-Walsh) made the first measurements of formic acid with the instrument as part of her PhD looking at the atmospheric emissions of bushfires.
“The instrument provides a spectral record, of which you can analyse for a whole number of different gases, and formic acid is one that is relatively new,” Dr Murphy said.
“The modelling shows, particularly, that natural forest emissions have been highly underestimated. Our forest areas are producing more formic acid than we ever thought,” she said.
Dr Murphy said the unexpected results might well mean forests are responsible for most of the acidity in rainwater in areas other than highly-polluted inner-cities.
“Our instrumentation has global significance because the number of facilities in the region are very limited. In order to capture some of the major forests of the Southern Hemisphere this machine was crucial,” she said.
In the atmosphere, formic acid impacts a number of important pH-sensitive chemical reactions such as the production and loss of radicals affecting the ozone. Quickly absorbed by microbes, formic acid is not associated with the harmful effects of acid rain.
According to CAC coordinator and co-contributor Professor David Griffith, the results provide a whole new angle to existing knowledge about our atmosphere.
“When it comes to understanding the fundamental chemistry that goes on and the whole oxidiative cycle, where formic acid has an important impact is that it is one component of the soup which controls the ability of the atmosphere to oxidise pollutants and get rid of them,” Professor Griffith said.
“Normally you take your measurements and might make a 10 or 20 percent adjustment to an estimate of a source but here we’ve proven by several factors that our understanding was wrong,” he said.
The study showed that terrestrial vegetation accounts for 90 percent of annual formic acid production. Other sources include fossil fuel combustion, agriculture and biomass burning.
Alongside UOW co-authors Dr Murphy and Professor Griffith worked CAS members Dr Nicholas Jones and Dr Nicholas Deutscher.
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard


I wonder why scientists would be shocked or stunned by the results of their observations.
Seems to me that one would just accept the results one gets, and report them, without having to psychoanalyse the results.
OhOh. Good thing this hasn’t got out into the MSM. Just think what it would do to the CAGW/AGW whatever meme in fashion now!!
A model is wrong? Couldn’t be! Must be a man made acidic atmosphere denier.
Well, that’s a shocker….. ‘we’ve proven by several factors that our understanding was wrong,”
Still, I’m going to need an atmospheric chemist to explain the implications. Isn’t formic acid simply hydrogenated CO2? And then if it gets gaseous doesn’t that make a whole host of implications? How much are we really talking about? My experience with it is limited to allergies and anaphylaxis considerations. Can we desensitized people by having them walk around in the woods?
Those darn termites!
and it was reported by the bbc that the ipcc was appalled that two groups of scientists worked together and actually shared information to help prove their findings were accurate. mike mann was quoted as saying “imagine giving someone else your hardwork and data, not on my watch”….hehe
Does atmospheric acidity = formic acid content?
I would have thought formic acid is one component of atmospheric acidity.
The Belgian study last month actually shocked Fred Pearce of New Superstitionist into admitting a bit of truth for once:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21298-trees-do-bear-some-blame-for-acid-rain.html
I seem to recall that the specific acid-rain scare in NE USA was disproved quite a while ago by a study of wind patterns; the forests in question couldn’t have gotten the pollution from the accused power plants.
Now it’s especially good to see the whole theory, not just the specific distribution, disproved twice!
Formic acid has long been known to be a result of the oxidation of natural methane formed during the anaerobic decomposition of organic matter. Formic acid as an air pollutant is generally an indoor problem – and is especially of concern to museums. This research is interesting, but doesn’t seem to have much significance to climate change.
“The modelling shows, particularly, that natural forest emissions have been highly underestimated.”
I don’t have a problem with models.
They must be on the payroll of Big Acid.
Now that strikes a note in the old grey cells..
when designing timber (lumber ) drying sheds for European Woodland use, the 2 biggest problems for the shed materials always was the gases given off during drying; to cut a short story even shorter, you get Formic Acid and Lactic Acid, which sort of caused problems with cement based structures, (except for the fact that they had half dismantled themselves by the time the timber in the area had been cleared)
So it seems quite realistic.
I haven’t imagined ever that “atmospheric acidity” is one of the environmental concerns.
Perhaps “environmental scientists” have been busy finding “the next problem”?
oh stop…..the science is settled and we know it all
Is it going to rain tomorrow or not……..
I think a man named Reagan said something like this 30 years ago.
Mmmmmm, models confirmed by satellite data….trying to think where I have heard of that before. Aren’t these technically referred to as “computer games” here?
I too am having trouble understanding the language of these scientists. Shocked? New data observed. Experiment developed to test long standing hypothesis . Hypothesis falsified. Another perfectly reasonable hypothesis developed and is not falsified. Kudos. Where is the shocked bit? It is as if for the reporter finding out humans are not the villains is of itself shocking.
I remember when the doctor (played by Edmund Gwenn) held the bottle of formic acid under the nose of the catatonic girl and she came to yelling, Them! Them!
Maybe it’s not trees but ants.
“Killer Trees!”
Consider just how serious this is……..Co2 only comprises 0.03% and look at the damage that’s causing…..
We are causing ten percent of the damage in this case….more than 300 times the damage…….
sarc.
New bumper sticker.
Stop Acid Rain
Chop Down A Tree
I once stirred up a large nest of red ants, and after they were frantically scurrying about, I leaned over their nest and took a deep breath. Wow! My nose had never ever before smelled anything as acrid as formic acid fumes! I don’t know if this was a coincidence or not, but that night I had the most vivid dreams of hand-to-hand combat with all kinds of people and animals.
Wait… are they saying nature, or Nature?
Enquiring minds need to know. /sarc
Mark
Yeah, right. Next thing you know these researchers will be trying to have us believe that North America is a net CO2 sink.
Nick Kermode says:
January 11, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Mmmmmm, models confirmed by satellite data….trying to think where I have heard of that before. Aren’t these technically referred to as “computer games” here?
===================================================
No, in this case empirical observations via satellite confirm the models. These models are actually validated by empirical observation … which the climate computer games can’t seem to master.
JackWayne says:
January 11, 2012 at 6:11 pm
I think a man named Reagan said something like this 30 years ago.
===============================================
Good that you remembered. I also remember that. And I recall the scorn he got for such a statement. I’m trying to find a link to it, but have been unsuccessful so far.