University of Wollongong Study confirms natural emission is responsible for 90% of the Earth's atmospheric acidity.

[BethesdaWX]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/new-study-confirms-that-nature-is-responsible-for-90-of-the-earths-atmospheric-acidity/#more-54630

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.

[on_wx]

I saw a documentary with Leonardo Dicaprio narrating a couple years ago at a local theatre that said Earth was facing 80% deforestation or something

[BethesdaWX]

I saw a documentary with Leonardo Dicaprio narrating a couple years ago at a local theatre that said Earth was facing 80% deforestation or something

Really? When these timber companies log older forests the young trees they plant in place of the old ones are actually much more efficient at removing CO2 from the atmosphere but I'd suspect acidification of the atmosphere would be less as an indirect result of tree age.

[donsutherland1]

Several quick points:

1. Watt's headline is misleading. Natural causes account for 90% of atmospheric formic acid produced each year, not 90% of atmospheric acidity. One such journal article (abstract): http://www.nature.co...l/ngeo1361.html

2. The implication from the exaggerated headline is that humans have little impact on atmospheric acidity. That implied thesis was disproved by the acid rain that was produced from sulfur dioxide emissions. Moreover, when the Clean Air Act was amended to slash sulfur dioxide emissions over a decade (and further over another decade) and limit nitrogen oxide emissions, the acid rain problem was significantly reduced. This "cap and trade" approach proved remarkably successful, both in terms of reducing the emissions and in being less costly than originally estimated.

In sum, human activities are at such a scale that they can have an impact e.g., on atmospheric acidity. They have in the past and there were adverse implications (acid rain). Formic acid is merely one component of atmospheric acidity. That 90% of annual formic acid production is due to natural causes does not mean that human activities cannot impact atmospheric acidity.

[skierinvermont]

Always amazes me ppl still fall for this crap

[donsutherland1]

Always amazes me ppl still fall for this crap

Unfortunately, many Americans are not sufficiently scientifically literate. Reliance on the Internet for information is growing and, although many Americans have tried to check the reliability of information, I suspect that a lack of scientific literacy may impede how effective that process is. In the case of the Watts blog (not a scientific journal or portal but opinion that draws selectively from science developments), there is a lot of overgeneralization (e.g., as in the case of the piece related to this thread where a percentage of a specific atmospheric acid was exaggerated as a percentage of all atmospheric acid) and confirmation bias. In the absence of adequate scientific literacy, those flaws are missed.

[WeatherRusty]

Watts and Bethesda have demonstrated the political right to have been correct afterall. The Clean Air Act, acid rain agreements and the Montreal Protecol were overreactions to bad science. Have I got that right Bethesda?

[Vergent]

http://wattsupwithth...ity/#more-54630

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.

Check this out BX;

https://smp.uow.edu....ervlet/Student/

What a tower of science.

[quote}

Postgraduate

• Clinical Exercise Physiology
  
• Psychology
  
• Nutrition and Dietetics
  
• Nutrition and Dietetics & Exercise Science
  
• Nursing
  
• Graduate Diploma in Education - see http://www.uow.edu.au/educ/courses/graddiped/index.html
  
• Graduate Diploma in Adult Education
  
• All Creative Arts Coursework Degrees - see http://www.uow.edu.au/crearts/futurepostgrad
  

https://smp.uow.edu.au/app/servlet/Student;jsessionid=8CC8FAE635A1D144FB171C9480A35039

Did this come from the creative arts department?

[skierinvermont]

Unfortunately, many Americans are not sufficiently scientifically literate. Reliance on the Internet for information is growing and, although many Americans have tried to check the reliability of information, I suspect that a lack of scientific literacy may impede how effective that process is. In the case of the Watts blog (not a scientific journal or portal but opinion that draws selectively from science developments), there is a lot of overgeneralization (e.g., as in the case of the piece related to this thread where a percentage of a specific atmospheric acid was exaggerated as a percentage of all atmospheric acid) and confirmation bias. In the absence of adequate scientific literacy, those flaws are missed.

Yes, people always say how great the Internet is but I am afraid it has enhanced the the ability of certain power groups to spread misinformation and led to growing divisions and a fracturing of public opinion.

[PhillipS]

Formic acid is not a greenhouse gas, nor is it monitored as a trace gas by ESRL so I oculdn't find any trend data. So far as I could find, atmospheric formic acid is not does not play any significant role in climate, possibly due to its very low concentration (under 1 ppb). I did find two recent papers on atmospheric formic acid with a cursory Google search. One is by Grutter et al 2010, Global distribution and variability of formic acid as observed by MIPAS-ENVISAT. Here is the abstract:

Formic acid (HCOOH) vertical profiles have been retrieved from MIPAS-ENVISAT satellite data in the upper troposphere for the first time. Based on new spectroscopic line-strength measurements by Vander Auwera et al. (2007) of HCOOH, a retrieval setup was developed and optimized to study its global distribution between 2002 and 2008. A strong seasonality, directly associated to plant growth and corresponding biogenic emissions, is observed and dominates in the middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Here, the mean monthly volume mixing ratios (VMR) at 8 km altitude typically reach 100–110 parts per trillion in volume (pptv) during the summer and decrease to about 45 pptv in the early winter. At 16 km and higher altitudes, the VMRs remain under the 20 pptv level and have a much smaller amplitude (<10 pptv). In the Southern Hemisphere, strong signals (up to 1 ppbv at 10 km in a single measurement) are detected from biomass burning during the August–October time period and can enhance the monthly mean background levels above specific tropical and midlatitudinal regions by a factor of 2 or more. In-plume production of HCOOH through photochemical processes has been identified during an extreme event in September 2006, although it is not likely to contribute significantly to the overall upper tropospheric abundances of formic acid.

source: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012980.shtml

The second is by Abad et al 2009, Global distribution of upper tropospheric formic

acid from the ACE-FTS. Its abstract:

We present the first near global upper tropospheric distribution of formic acid (HCOOH) observed from space using solar occultation measurements from the Fourier transform spectrometer (FTS) on board the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE) satellite. Using a new set of spectroscopic line parameters recently published for formic acid by Vander Auwera et al. (2007) and Perrin and Vander Auwera (2007), we have retrieved the concentrations of HCOOH between 5 km and the tropopause for ACE-FTS observations from February 2004 to September 2007. We observe a significant seasonal dependence for the HCOOH concentrations related to vegetation growth and biomass burning. We estimate an emission ratio of 0.0051±0.0015 for HCOOH relative to CO for tropical South American fires using a selected set of data for September 2004. Results from the balloonborne MkIV Fourier transform spectrometer are also presented and compared with the ACE measurements.

source: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/9/8039/2009/acp-9-8039-2009.pdf

Most of the formic acid reading are below 300 ppt, with isolated 500 ppt readings being considered 'hotspots'.

Hard to understand why the WUWT fringe is excited by formic acid with concentration around 300 ppt when many of them say that CO2, with concentration around 390,000,000 ppt, is an insignificant trace gas.

[SBUWX23]

Scientifically illeterate? How about the emails that were relased? Talk about scientists not following the correct scientific method because data is not proving their cause.

[BethesdaWX]

Scientifically illeterate? How about the emails that were relased? Talk about scientists not following the correct scientific method because data is not proving their cause.

But is it following the scientific method to accuse them of fraud without proof? I don't know much about climategate since I haven't read the emails but it sounds just like the first one.

As for this thread 'yearly emissions' [as should have been recognized but apparently wasn't] being 90% sourced from forests is just---how it is, and the warmistas will just have to deal with it.

[Snow_Miser]

Check this out BX;

Did this come from the creative arts department?

That's the wrong Dr. Claire Murphy... the one that came out with this study is an atmospheric chemist, not a psychologist. You can tell right away that's the wrong Claire Murphy because the one you linked is from the University of San Diego... the one that produced this paper is from the University of Wollongong...

Before one makes silly arguments to try and disprove something, it is advisable they check their facts first.

[Vergent]

New study confirms that nature is responsible for 90% of the Earth’s atmospheric acidity?????

What about SO2 and NO2?

The comments are hilarious, they will eat anything Watts cooks up. What a sci-fi site.

[PhillipS]

Your addled opinion is noted. But you started this thread so please tell us why you feel that formic acid, a 300 ppt gas, is significant when you have repeatedly posted your opinion that CO2, which is a GHG currently at about 390,000,000 ppt, is not.

[BethesdaWX]

Your addled opinion is noted. But you started this thread so please tell us why you feel that formic acid, a 300 ppt gas, is significant when you have repeatedly posted your opinion that CO2, which is a GHG currently at about 390,000,000 ppt, is not.

Except no one said that, it's in your imagination

[BethesdaWX]

New study confirms that nature is responsible for 90% of the Earth’s atmospheric acidity?????

What about SO2 and NO2?

The comments are hilarious, they will eat anything Watts cooks up. What a sci-fi site.

Apparently someone doesn't know what the definition of acidity is Thats sci-fi.

90% of the Earth's atmospheric acidity + = emissions.

[Vergent]

Apparently someone doesn't know what the definition of acidity is Thats sci-fi.

90% of the Earth's atmospheric acidity + = emissions.

Molecules whose Lewis structures indicate an atom to have an octet as a result of

the formation of one or more multiple bonds will often function as Lewis acids.

Examples are CO2, SO3, SO2.

http://ww2.chemistry.gatech.edu/~barefield/1311/recognizing_lewis.pdf

I'm not the one who needs a chemistry lesson.

[PhillipS]

Except no one said that, it's in your imagination

So you started this thread for what, exactly? If it was to impress anybody . . . well, you'll have to put this in the FAIL column.

[BethesdaWX]

So you started this thread for what, exactly? If it was to impress anybody . . . well, you'll have to put this in the FAIL column.

The point I was trying to make that no one has caught on to yet, is that observations > models, and this is 100% true. If that were to be argued against I have a whole arsenal of debate building in me.

Reading the posts from the usual crew missing the point required no response from me.

all existing global models had substantially misjudged the main source of formic acid levels on earth – its forests.

[donsutherland1]

The point I was trying to make that no one has caught on to yet, is that observations > models, and this is 100% true.

Not necessarily.

From the abstract I quoted:

Satellite observations and model simulations suggest that terrestrial vegetation accounts for around 90% of the formic acid produced annually.

The major objection to Mr. Watt's headline is that it suggests annual formic acid production = earth's atmospheric acidity. He is wrong. His headline is wrong.

[PhillipS]

The point I was trying to make that no one has caught on to yet, is that observations > models, and this is 100% true. If that were to be argued against I have a whole arsenal of debate building in me.

Reading the posts from the usual crew missing the point required no response from me.

but the quote is not talking about global CLIMATE models - did you miss that? Here's the abstract from the Nature paper the UOW confirmed in the WUWT post you linked to:

Nature Geoscience

Volume: 5,

Pages: 26–30

Year published: (2012)

DOI: doi:10.1038/ngeo1354

Received05 July 2011 Accepted17 November 2011 Published online18 December 2011

Formic acid contributes significantly to acid rain in remote environments1, 2. Direct sources of formic acid include human activities, biomass burning and plant leaves. Aside from these direct sources, sunlight-induced oxidation of non-methane hydrocarbons (largely of biogenic origin) is probably the largest source3, 4. However, model simulations substantially underpredict atmospheric formic acid levels5, 6, 7, indicating that not all sources have been included in the models. Here, we use satellite measurements of formic acid concentrations to constrain model simulations of the global formic acid budget. According to our simulations, 100–120 Tg of formic acid is produced annually, which is two to three times more than that estimated from known sources. We show that 90% of the formic acid produced is biogenic in origin, and largely sourced from tropical and boreal forests. We suggest that terpenoids—volatile organic compounds released by plants—are the predominant precursors. Model comparisons with independent observations of formic acid strengthen our conclusions, and provide indirect validation for the satellite measurements. Finally, we show that the larger formic acid emissions have a substantial impact on rainwater acidity, especially over boreal forests in the summer, where formic acid reduces pH by 0.25–0.5.

Subject terms: Atmospheric science Biogeochemistry

Do you notice down at the bottom the subject terms for the paper? Atmospheric science and Biogeochemistry? Do you see Climatology on the list? Did it even occur to you that this is not a climate related paper? No? I didn't think so.

[BethesdaWX]

but the quote is not talking about global CLIMATE models - did you miss that? Here's the abstract from the Nature paper the UOW confirmed in the WUWT post you linked to:

Do you notice down at the bottom the subject terms for the paper? Atmospheric science and Biogeochemistry? Do you see Climatology on the list? Did it even occur to you that this is not a climate related paper? No? I didn't think so.

I think you're taking things way too literally here. Same problems that inhibit other models inhibit climate models, our limited understanding of atmospheric processes is what goes into climate models, while observations = everything we know and don't know.

Observations will do the hypothesis test, not the models. Models didn't predict the flat-lining in temps over the past 10 years, magnetic solar theorists did including myself. Magnetic Sun: 1, AGW : 0

Magnetic solar theorists predict a drop in global temps beginning in 2013, climate models based on CO2 influence forecast continued warming. If we begin a cooling trend in 2013, dropping 0.25C by 2020-2025, AGW theory bites the dust, goodbye.

[BethesdaWX]

Not necessarily.

From the abstract I quoted:

Satellite observations and model simulations suggest that terrestrial vegetation accounts for around 90% of the formic acid produced annually.

The major objection to Mr. Watt's headline is that it suggests annual formic acid production = earth's atmospheric acidity. He is wrong. His headline is wrong.

Model simulations were based off new satellie observations, yes...if they inter-relate and verify one another that is a successful hypothesis test. Guess where we haven't seen that agreement? We have 1 year left before the wheels fall off the climate bandwagon.

As for the headline, that wasn't really important to my point, but I agree it is wrong.

[WeatherRusty]

I think you're taking things way too literally here. Same problems that inhibit other models inhibit climate models, our limited understanding of atmospheric processes is what goes into climate models, while observations = everything we know and don't know.

Observations will do the hypothesis test, not the models. Models didn't predict the flat-lining in temps over the past 10 years, magnetic solar theorists did including myself. Magnetic Sun: 1, AGW : 0

Magnetic solar theorists predict a drop in global temps beginning in 2013, climate models based on CO2 influence forecast continued warming. If we begin a cooling trend in 2013, dropping 0.25C by 2020-2025, AGW theory bites the dust, goodbye.

AGW does not even attempt to predict climate on the decadal scale. Why do you assume it does?

[BethesdaWX]

AGW does not even attempt to predict climate on the decadal scale. Why do you assume it does?

If it doesn't then that is a major major problem. The magnetic sun hypothesis can explain why the AMO and PDO oscillate, all temperature change since 1850, the flat-lining since 2001, and the step change from 1998 to 2001, in direct manner. AGW can't. Magnetic sun hypothesis also accounts for the lack of cooling in recent La Ninas.

And from 2013 to 2020, we cool at least 0.2C/decade by the magnetic sun hypothesis. If that happens, will you accept AGW as a disproven hypothesis?

[Vergent]

No results found for "magnetic sun hypothesis".

[donsutherland1]

Interesting tidbit...

For the all years with ENSO Region 3.4 anomalies of -0.75°C or colder, the following are the 5 warmest globat temperature anomalies:

1. +0.52°C*, 2011 (January-November) -- highest reading for a moderate/strong La Niña was noted by the WMO

2. +0.33°C, 2000

3. +0.32°C, 1999

4. +0.31°C, 1988

5. +0.19°C, 1989

The remaining 5 years with such anomalies occurred prior to 1976. All of them had negative global temperature anomalies.

I keep hearing how the globe is about to fall off the proverbial cliff when it comes to global temperatures. The ongoing two-year La Niña should, if anything, have caused a much sharper downturn than what occurred. It didn't. In fact, 2011's temperature anomaly exceeds a number of those during or immediately following El Niño events.

It will be interesting to see how the global temperature rebounds when the next El Niño event unfolds. My guess is that an El Niño event that rivals 2004-05 would probably lead to a global temperature anomaly that would exceed 2005's record of +0.63°C. Something stronger e.g., along the lines of 2002-03 could push the global anomaly close to +0.70°C.

[WeatherRusty]

If it doesn't then that is a major major problem. The magnetic sun hypothesis can explain why the AMO and PDO oscillate, all temperature change since 1850, the flat-lining since 2001, and the step change from 1998 to 2001, in direct manner. AGW can't. Magnetic sun hypothesis also accounts for the lack of cooling in recent La Ninas.

And from 2013 to 2020, we cool at least 0.2C/decade by the magnetic sun hypothesis. If that happens, will you accept AGW as a disproven hypothesis?

If that happens for any reason other than a massive series of equatorial eruptions then I will acquiesce. AGW will not have been disproven because 3.7W/m^2 = 1.2C can not be wiped away that easily. Gravity always wins.

[BethesdaWX]

http://ww2.chemistry...izing_lewis.pdf

I'm not the one who needs a chemistry lesson.

Think again...re-read the study and then my post, and you'll hopefully find what you're missing.