jimpeel
Well-Known Member
The problem is she's not continuing as she has. Eons ago I don't think there was this pollution I can see driving around here. What you have there is a faulty premise.
Wrong. There are many examples of Indian tribes calling certain valleys the "Valley of the smokes" and other similar names long before the White settlers arrived.
Although most photochemical air pollution (smog) comes from anrthropogenic sources, there are many natural sources of photochemical air pollution not the least of which are trees.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010109223032.htm
Trees And Air Pollution
ScienceDaily (Jan. 11, 2001) — Australia's native plants emit chemical compounds that can interact with other air pollutants to exacerbate smog formation over Australian cities, researchers have found.
Scientists from Australia's federal science agency, CSIRO have been commissioned by the state of New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to investigate emissions of organic compounds from Australian eucalypt trees and grasses that contribute to the formation of photochemical smog.
"It's not just cars and industry that cause air pollution," says Mr Ian Galbally, from CSIRO Atmospheric Research.
"Plants release highly reactive hydrocarbons that can add significantly to photochemical smog problems. That is, smog caused by the reaction of sunlight with chemical compounds like those from industry, car exhausts - and now, as we've discovered, plants," he says.
"The blue haze you often see over the Dandenong Ranges in Victoria and in the Blue Mountains near Sydney is caused in part by the gases released by vegetation. We found that grasses, particularly when cut, are potent emitters of reactive hydrocarbons."
"Plants release these compounds into the atmosphere in large quantities. These volatile compounds add to the photochemical smog in the same way as emissions from human sources - there is no discrimination," says Dr Peter Nelson, senior research scientist with CSIRO Energy Technology.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6526
In the past few decades, the introduction of more efficient engines and catalytic converters has dramatically reduced these emissions.
But trees also produce VOCs, which tend to be ignored by scientists modelling the effects of ozone on pollution. So a team led by Drew Purves at Princeton University investigated the impact of newly planted forests on VOC levels in the US.
The researchers used the US Forest Service Industry Analysis, a database of 250,000 randomly sampled forest plots around the country, and the known VOC emission rate for each tree species for the study.
They calculated that vegetal sources of monoterpenes and isoprene rose by up to 17% from the 1980s to the 1990s – equivalent to three times the industrial reductions.
Farmland reverting to scrub, pine plantations and the invasive sweetgum tree were behind most of the increases in the US.
Journal reference: Global Change Biology (vol 10, p 1737)