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
Our electric energy companies has spent a few billion dollars on SO2 and NOx reduction in the Ohio Valley. The rate payers have shouldered these costs through some tough economic times. The science of Acid Rain was thought to be fairly solid. Any lessons we can learn from this?
If the observations do not mesh with the models output, don’t you just “adjust” the observations? This is climate science after all.
kwik says:
January 11, 2012 at 10:12 pm
So, Acid Rain comes from the Forest? SAY AGAIN??????
So the Acid Rain scare was indeed a hoax then. Good grief.
Not at all. Clearly it was an attempt at arboreal suicide!
“confirm surprising atmospheric findings”, “shocked” !!
That why it is called pre-analytic confirmation bias.
When bias is used as the basis for policy, it is called opinion. When the bias is the projection of an overarching worldview, it is called ideology. When bias is suppressed and the facts are allowed to speak no matter how it relates to opinion, ideology or bias, it is called science. I just call it being intellectually honest.
Oh darn, I so wanted the burning of fossil fuel to be the villain
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 12, 2012 at 12:37 am
“A similar finding was that most aerosols found in the free troposphere (above the inversion layer and up to 7 km height) are from natural origin.”
So when someone say that raindrops tends to condensate on aerosols, this might e.g. be pollen, right? Interesting. Cosmic rays does not create pollen……hmmmmm.
So when there are’nt much pollen, what happens then, when waterwapour condensate? Just askin out of pure ignorance.
Geoff Sherrington says:
January 12, 2012 at 1:47 am
“That is one reason why so many scientists now downplay the formerly held view that CO2 was the main driver of temperature change by man.”
It is my opinion that only a few scientist held this opinion. The rest was busy doing their job, and avoided trouble by not saying anything. When push came to show, the house of cards tumbled down.
From what I have read, its not the acidity from the rain that’s the issue.. but the acidity the rain water picks up as it passes through rotting vegetation. Lake acidification in the Adirondacks corresponded not with increased acidity of rain, but with reforestation of the region. The Adirondacks are a relatively young mountain range and is not composed of sandstone, limestone, or other sedimentary rocks that would allow the water to absorb into the ground, helping to buffer out the acidity.
from the article:
“The study showed that terrestrial vegetation accounts for 90 percent of annual formic acid production.”
And this is you head-line
“New study confirms that nature is responsible for 90% of the Earth’s atmospheric acidity”
Anthony, you can read, but do you comprehend?
REPLY: Yes, but you can also blame physorg.com (where Dr. Svalgaard gace the tip) then for the headline inspiration:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-nature-responsible-earth-atmospheric-acidity.html
– Anthony
Conclusions based on a specific forest type in a warm/hot dry climate look a bit too specific for me. I’d like to see this replicated in cooler and wetter areas with a range of forest types.
JC
Formic acid is not a GHG and has an atmospheric concentration around 300 ppt (yes, that’s parts per trillion). CO2 is a GHG and has an atmospheric concentration around 390,000,000 ppt and rising.
So which do you suppose has more effect on climate?
I think the problem is that the labs and entrepreneurs are trying to use chemistry and bacteria. Nature has, however, done such a good job of engineering cellulose and its lignin armor to resist exactly this that it takes more energy in than you get out.
Solution: termites. They’re the reason wood rots, after all — they chew and gut-process it till it’s ready to decompose. So tame termites is the way to go! (One problem: the CO2 byproduct. Termites out-CO2 humans globally by an order of magnitude.)
Formic acid, huh?
Ants. Lots and lots of ants.
Yeah, so let’s trust climate scientists so we can give away tens of trillions of our dollars, our tech, and our jobs to other nations.
to buffer out the acidity.
MFKBoulder says:
January 12, 2012 at 8:24 am
from the article:
“The study showed that terrestrial vegetation accounts for 90 percent of annual formic acid production.”
And this is you head-line
“New study confirms that nature is responsible for 90% of the Earth’s atmospheric acidity”
Anthony, you can read, but do you comprehend?
REPLY: Yes, but you can also blame physorg.com (where Dr. Svalgaard gace the tip) then for the headline inspiration:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-nature-responsible-earth-atmospheric-acidity.html
– Anthony
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
o.k., you can’t.
That’s fine, too.
“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.”
So is this statement just a nod and a wink to the established “consensus” that acid rain is real and we’re still the problem?
And exactly what sort of “loss of radicals affecting the ozone.” are we talking about here?
My favorite ‘scientific consensus’ phrase is this one:
The scientific consensus is overwhelming
Seems like I’ve been hearing it over and over for the last 10 or so years…
Clearly we must send trillions of dollars to developing nations to cut down all their trees to address this horrible problem. I know, because the solution to every problem is we must send trillions of dollars to developing nations. . . .
Wasn’t it Reagan who first broke the forest story?
The role of isoprene in forest atmosphere acidity was an inconvenient topic at the height of the acid rain crisis. Martin et al in 1991 found the tree produced isoprene’s were photo-oxized to formic, acetic, pyruvic acids among others. tp://www.springerlink.com/content/g6w82815x40xj001/
The authors cautioned:
“These data indicate that oxygenated organics comprise a large fraction of the total volatile organic carbon containing species present in rural, forested regions of the United States. Consequently these compounds need to be included in photochemical models that attempt to simulate oxidant behavior/and or acidity in these forested regions.”
So how much isoprene is being emitted by US forests? From 2009 Caltech study:
“Isoprene is no minor player in atmospheric chemistry, Wennberg notes. “There is much more isoprene emitted to the atmosphere than all of the gases—gasoline, industrial chemicals—emitted by human activities, with the important exceptions of methane and carbon dioxide,” he says. “And isoprene only comes from plants. They make hundreds of millions of tons of this chemical… for reasons that we still do not fully understand.”
And the most important take away from Caltech:
“Much of the emission of isoprene occurs where anthropogenic emissions are limited,” adds Caltech graduate student Fabien Paulot, the paper’s first author. “The chemistry is very poorly understood.” http://linde.caltech.edu/articles/caltech-researchers-show-how-organic-carbon-compounds-emitted-by-trees-affect-air-quality
And it is these natural epoxides that create smog and why the Smoky Mountains are called the Smoky Mountains. The only way the National Parks can meet EPA’s haze regulations is to chop down the trees.
One last take away– the acidification of the soils and waters however has more to do with formation of organic acids in the soil/bogs than rainfall. A simple test- pour distilled water through peat moss and measure the pH -should be about 3.5-4.0. (Bogs plants biologically drive down pH -its how they prevent being overtaken by the macrophytes.)
Remember when it was terrible for government to “censor” scientists like James Hansen. Well, the government’s ritual defamation of Ed Krug and Larry Kulp was OK during the Acid Rain crisis because the scientists then were simply propaganda instruments of the Reagan Admin. The interim Acid Rain report (NAPAP) released in 1987 did not find a crisis- a finding politically unacceptable.
Representative James Scheuer (D-NY), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and the Environment, skewered both NAPAP director J. Laurence Kulp and the report in hearings. Kulp resigned a week later.
When James Mahoney became NAPAP director in 1988, he “assured” Scheuer’s subcommittee that he “would not subscribe…at this time” to the view that acid rain would not harm any more Northeastern lakes.
The new Acid Rain director basically promised Scheuer that the science would not contradict politics again. How much press did a statement promising a politically correct scientific finding get in the Press? None!
Yet despite these assurances the final NAPAP report found the acid rain hysteria was unfounded with some very minor exceptions. (Try and find the final NAPAP report online- good luck)
The 60 minutes with the NAPAP lead scientist Ed Krug was followed up by a coordinated EPA smear:
“In the meantime, Rosenberg ordered his aides to prepare a response, which the EPA released on January 10, 1991. The document, which consisted of statements made in the story followed by the EPA view, was sent on request to interested parties. Said the response, “It is unfortunate that CBS chose Dr. Krug as its only scientific expert on acid rain, because Dr. Krug has limited scientific credibility even in the limited area of surface water acidification.” On the next page, the EPA document gave selected damning quotes from the secret review, presenting them as the views of unnamed “eminent” scientists.” Reason’ Magazine, January 1992 Acid Test: Edward Krug Flunks Political..
The most interesting quote?
“One NAPAP scientist, who for obvious reasons wishes to remain anonymous, warns that in the future the EPA will not go through the pretense of research and debate: “There is no NAPAP for global warming.”
Acid Rain and the uncontrollable NAPAP scientists is why EPA outsourced climate to IPCC.
A paper that deserves perhaps a post here is “Science, Policy, and Acid Rain: Lessons Learned” by Lackey and Blair:
“Appreciate that research budgets follow fear! Successful researchers, especially those operating in the American “free market approach” to deciding what research to fund, are great opportunists when seeking funding: “good news” or “old news” does not result in financial support for research, but fear does! Researchers, especially those dependent on “soft” money are often very effective at marketing their own research priorities and frequently “hang their research on whatever (funding) hook is there.” Elected officials and political appointees are apt to funding.”
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/fw/lackey/ACID-RAIN-SCIENCE-POLICY-LACKEY-BLAIR-JOURNAL-REPRINT-1997.pdf
Some things never change.
whats REAL noticeable is the LACK of reporting on it here in Aus.
almost every CO2 and anything humans do item from any aussie uni hits the headlines…
but then, this doesnt fit the green juLiars agenda or the controlled press.
kramer says:
January 12, 2012 at 2:34 pm
The Palm Beach Post, Jan 8, 1986
“There is some scientific consensus that acid rain has destroyed life in some freshwater lakes and streams, particularly in the northeastern US and Canada and has damaged buildings and other structures. ……..
Just to mke this clear: in the study it was stated:
“The study showed that terrestrial vegetation accounts for 90 percent of annual formic acid production.”
Formic acid is measured in ppt-s SO2 is ususlly observed in the ppb-scale. And SO2 is just one of the anorganic pullutants acidifying our atmosphere.
Guess what makes the atmosphere more acidic?
Presumably, formic acid is an insignificant contributor to acid rain (as suggested by MFKBoulder above), which is mostly sulfuric and nitric acid. Sulfuric acid comes mainly from buring sulfur-containing coal. So, scientists have been surprised by the source of formic acid, which is not a significant contributor to acid rain. Acid rain has been reduced by “scrubbers” on the stacks of coal-fired power plants so it is not as serious as it once was. Reduction of acid rain by the cap and trade program successfully applied market forces to reduce this form of pollution.