Wit's End

Forethought of Grief

2012-02-11T20:54:00.001-05:00

A headline predicts: "Earth Summit is Doomed to Fail, Say Leading Ecologists". Twenty years after the original convocation to save biodiversity, the next, scheduled for this June, is expected to be an accounting of abject failure.

"What's most discouraging is a loss of feeling that government would help us," said Harold Mooney, a veteran biologist from Stanford University.

And there it is, in a nutshell. Scientists thought if only they did the research, and published the results, ~~governments~~ multinational corporations would respond: Oh my goodness! Species are going extinct!! We are over-extracting and over-fishing and over-polluting and over-breeding and destroying habitat and catastrophically altering the climate and acidifying the oceans and We. Must. Stop. Now!

You could read this analysis of corporate greenwashing. Or this story about the collapsing population of cod, and the infantile idiocy of the fishing industry, which refuses to restrain the catch, because it tells you all you need to know about exactly how clever people are going to be when confronted with Nature's implacable pitchfork. Or perhaps this horrific description, complete with tragic video, of the callous bulldozing of ancient forests - including their hapless, defenseless indigenous inhabitants, human and otherwise - which tells you all you need to know about how compassionate our superior species will be when we are competing over environmental services that have been exceded by our ravenous burgeoning numbers.

I'm afraid this particular post is not going to be very entertaining. Only aficionados of ozone disaster need read further!

Mired as I am in a sort of perpetual state of pre-traumatic stress syndrome, and the reverberations of cognitive dissonance that echo in my mind - even as I reside in comfort unimaginable to anyone just a few decades ago, and to a large proportion of people on the planet today - I was glad to find these words of wisdom:

“When despair for the world grows in me and I wake in the night at the least sound in fear of what my life and my children's lives may be, I go and lie down where the wood drake rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds. I come into the peace of wild things who do not tax their lives with forethought of grief. I come into the presence of still water. And I feel above me the day-blind stars waiting with their light. For a time I rest in the grace of the world, and am free.”

~ Wendell Berry

Five-year average 1999-2003 of ambient ozone exposures in the US using SUM60

Given the map above which originated at the EPA (I tried to find the original link, but when I saw that Volume I of III of the "2006 Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants", is 821 pages, all by itself, I gave up instantly...is it any wonder that nothing gets done?) - it should not come as a surprise that in the study "Ozone Injury in West Coast Forests: 6 Years of Monitoring" by the Forest Service, they found some issues. Here's their summary, which covers years 2000 - 2005 (and you can be sure that the situation has deteriorated since then):

• Ozone injury occurs frequently (25 to 37 percent of sampled biosites) in California forested ecosystems demonstrating that ozone is present at phytotoxic levels.

• The California air basins having the highest percentage of biosites with injury were the South Coast, San Joaquin Valley, and San Diego County.

• The group of biosites in the areas with the highest ozone exposures (SUM601 ≥25,000 parts per billion) had corresponding highest mean percentage of injured biosites (52 percent) and highest mean biosite index.

• In 2005, new areas (previously unreported) of ozone injury were detected in northern California (Trinity, Plumas, and Lassen Counties) as well as in the Mojave Desert area (San Bernadino County).

• Although ozone exposure is moderate to high over much of California, forested areas with the highest risk were estimated (via our plant response model) for the area east of Los Angeles, the southern Sierra Nevada, and portions of the central coast.

• In California, an estimated 1.3 million acres of forest land and 596 million cubic feet of wood are at moderate to high risk to impacts from ozone.

• Despite reports of increasing ozone production and exposure in Oregon and Washington, ozone injury was observed only in the Columbia Gorge.

• Air quality as indicated by the FIA ozone bioindicator shows no consistent pattern of increases or decreases in any of the three states between 2000 and 2005. More years of data are needed to discern any trends."

Cumulative hourly ozone concentrations exceeding 60 parts per billion (SUM60)
June 1–August 31, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., 2001 through 2005 average.

Since I'm still fuming that Tamino won't even allow a comment about ozone on his post about wildfires, I found this passage from the report illuminating...fancy that!

Ozone also has a variety of ecological effects on forested landscapes, with the potential to alter species composition, soil moisture, and fire regimes and influence pest interactions (McBride and Laven 1999; Miller et al. 1982; Smith 1974; Treshow and Stewart 1973; US EPA 1996b, 2006). Ozone predisposes trees to bark beetle (Dendroctonus spp.) attacks, especially where ozone exposure is high (Pronos et al. 1999). In the highly impacted San Bernadino Mountain forests, reduction of fine-root mass and carbon cycling at both the tree and ecosystem levels has been attributed to ozone exposure (Fenn et al. 2003, Grulke et al. 1998). Arbaugh et al. (2003) reported shifts in mixed-conifer stand composition in the San Bernadino Mountains from predominantly ponderosa pine to predominantly white fir (Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindley ex Hildebr.). Similarly, simulations of the physiological and ecological responses of ponderosa pine and white fir to elevated ozone exposure in conifer forests in California showed a decrease in individual tree carbon budgets as well as a subsequent decrease in abundance of

ponderosa pine (Weinstein et al. 2005).

Ponderosa pine with ozone-induced needle loss and discoloration.

I might add that EVERY SINGLE PINE TREE in New Jersey looks just like this, or worse.

Ponderosa pine with severe ozone injury symptoms (chlorotic mottle)

"Elevated ozone concentrations also occur downwind of Pacific Northwest urban areas such as Vancouver, British Columbia; Seattle, Tacoma, and Vancouver, Washington; and Portland, Oregon (Bohm 1989, Brace and Peterson 1998, Cooper and Peterson 2000, Edmonds and Basabe 1989, Fenn et al. 2005). Visible injury or other effects on tree health have not been observed, however, in forests in these areas (Campbell et al. 2000, Duriscoe and Temple 1996, USDI NPS 2006)."

Well, I was in the Pacific Northwest on a wonderful trip in 2010 and unfortunately, I observed PLENTY of visible injury of which I photographed dozens of leaves that have identical damage:

1. Blue elderberry, with light ozone injury symptoms (interveinal necrosis), California

Blue elderberry with moderate ozone injury symptoms (interveinal necrosis)

Blue elderberry with severe ozone injury symptoms (interveinal necrosis)

Mugwort with artificially induced ozone injury symptoms (chlorosis and premature senescence)

Skunkbush with artificially induced ozone injury symptoms (necrotic stippling)

"Tropospheric Ozone, a Growing Threat" was published in 2006 by the Asia Center for Air Pollution Research. While it is focused on ozone in Japan, it draws on research from all around the world and is certainly relevant. Sometime long ago I posted a link to this report, but it bears revisiting and also, turns out, has some references I didn't follow last time that lead to interesting places. They include this luscious graph that demonstrates the wicked things we are doing in the atmosphere without even being able to actually see any of it:

Generation and transformation process of ozone and nitrogen compounds. O3 is formed through the photolysis of NO2. The production of NO2 is caused by O3 and peroxide radicals. NO2, reacts again to become HNO3 and PAN. Note: R indicates alkyl group, aryl group, etc. PAN indicates peroxyacetylnitrate.

If you want a full explanation of the chemistry, go to page 6 of the report, which also describes with great clarity the issues of continental transport and effects on human health. You can see from the chart below why the Japanese are a little concerned about pollution from China wafting their way.

Distribution of NOx emissions in Asia in 1980 (left) and 2000 (right). Units: Tons year-1 per grid cell

Modeling prediction on geographical distribution of ground-level ozone concentrations in 1993 above (average from May to August) and 2025 below. (Lelieveld and Dentener 2000)

A reader of Wit's End (Catman) forwarded a link to a mystifying paper, and I'm happy to report that one of the authors, Dr. Pollack, was kind enough to translate the abstract this way:

"It does seem counter-intuitive that lower emissions could lead to higher ozone on weekends, but that is what makes the 'weekend ozone effect' such an interesting phenomenon to study.

In essence, ozone is formed by a chain of chemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. This process is often refereed to as 'photochemical ozone production', and is a significant contributor to ozone levels observed on weekends in the California South Coast Air Basin. The relative abundances of the ingredients that go into these chain reactions, specifically nitrogen oxide (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), play a key role in determining how fast the chemistry proceeds and how efficiently the reactions form ozone. Measurements in the South Coast Air Basin during a field study in 2010 show little change in VOC emissions between weekdays and weekends, yet large decreases in NOx emissions on weekends. Weekday-to-weekend differences in emissions in the South Coast Air Basin have been widely attributed to differences in activity of gasoline-fueled versus diesel-fueled vehicles. Large reductions in NOx on weekends compared to small changes in VOCs result in a relative increase in the ratio of VOCs to NOx on weekends. The increased relative abundance of VOCs compared to NOx makes the chemistry proceed faster and produce ozone more efficiently on weekends compared to weekdays, thereby leading to higher observed ozone levels on weekends."

So there you have it, all you Ozonistos and Ozonistas!

Next, I'm going to reproduce the entire Section 6 of the report from Japan, because it is specifically about trees and forests:

"Forests act as a life-support system on the Earth. Through photosynthesis, trees, a main component of
forest ecosystems, supply the oxygen that is indispensable to support life. Forests also preserve our
environment by fixing carbon dioxide, a major cause of the global warming, and by absorbing air pollutants. Unfortunately, forest decline and tree dieback are being observed in many areas of Japan."

"In the Tanzawa Mountains of Kanagawa Prefecture, the decline and dieback of Japanese beech
(Fagus crenata) have been observed at Mt. Hinokiboramaru and Mt. Hirugatake, and decline of Japanese
fir (Abies firma) has been observed at Mt. Ohyama. In the Oku-Nikko area of Tochigi Prefecture, Veitch’s fir (Abies veitchii), Maries fir (Abies mariesii) and Erman's birch (Betula ermanii) are in a state of decline. In the Sanyo Region, which includes Hiroshima Prefecture, the decline of Japanese red pine (Pinus densiflora) has been observed. In some areas along the Sea of Japan, including Ishikawa, Tottori and Shimane Prefectures, the decline and dieback of konara oak (Quercus serrata) and mizunara oak (Quercus mongolica) have also been observed."

"Several hypotheses have been presented on the causes of forest decline or tree dieback in Europe
and North America. Possible causes differ with each site. Ozone, soil acidification due to acid deposition
and excess nitrogen deposition from the atmosphere have been suggested as causes in northern
Europe; ozone, acid deposition such as acid mist and fog and sulfur dioxide have been suggested in
western Europe; and sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone and acid deposition such as acid mist/fog
have been suggested in eastern Europe."

"In North America, meanwhile, ozone is thought to be closely related to the forest decline and tree dieback. For example, in the Sierra Nevada-San Bernardino Mountains, ozone is regarded as the main cause of the decline of pine species such as ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and Jeffrey Pine (Pinus jeffreyi). In the northern Appalachian Mountains, where the decline of red spruce (Picea rubens) has been observed, relatively high concentrations of ozone have been recorded. In the southeastern part of the United States, it has also been suggested that ozone is a factor in the decline of eastern white pine (Pinus strobus)."

"In Japan, tropospheric ozone concentrations have been increasing in recent years, and concentrations of ozone high enough to cause harmful effects on forest tree species have been recorded. Based on these facts, ozone is considered to be one of the main factors relating to forest decline and tree dieback in Japan. In fact, relatively high concentrations of ozone over 100 ppb have been recorded in the Oku-Nikko area and at Mt. Hinokiboramaru in the Tanzawa Mountains, where the decline and dieback of Japanese beech (Fagus crenata) have been observed. Thus, adverse impacts of ambient ozone on growth and physiological functions such as photosynthesis of forest tree species are matters of concern."

"Ozone in the atmosphere is absorbed into the leaf tissues of trees through the stomata, and causes
visible damage on the leaves, as well as a reduction of growth and suppression of physiological
functions such as photosynthesis. Based on the results obtained from several studies conducted in
Japan, there are great differences in ozone sensitivity among Japanese forest tree species, in terms of
growth and net photosynthesis. To clarify the sensitivity of growth of forest tree species to ozone, in one
study, seedlings of 16 tree species were exposed to either charcoal-filtered air or ozone for several
years."

"The study ranked various species for ozone sensitivity of the whole-plant dry mass with accumulated ozone exposure over a threshold of 40 ppb at 20 ppm･h [from high to low sensitivity: Japanese poplar (Populus maximowiczii) > trident maple (Acer buergerianum) > Japanese beech (Fagus crenata) and eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) > Japanese ash (Fraxinus japonica) > Japanese red pine (Pinus densiflora) > Nikko fir (Abies homolepis) > yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) > Japanese larch (Larix kaempferi) > Japanese white birch (Betula platyphylla var. japonica) and mizunara oak (Quercus mongolica) > konara oak (Quercus serrata) > Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) and Norway spruce (Picea abies) > Japanese black pine (Pinus thunbergii) > Japanese cypress (Chamaecyparis obtuse)]. The AOT40 values corresponding to a 10 percent reduction in the whole-plant dry mass were approximately 8 ppm･h for Japanese popular, the most sensitive species, and 12-21 ppm･h for Japanese red pine, eastern white pine, Japanese beech, trident maple and Japanese ash."

"In Maebashi City of Gunma Prefecture, the site of the study described above, AOT40 values for six
months were 10-24 ppm･h. At Inukoeji in the Tanzawa Mountains of Kanagawa Prefecture, relatively
high concentrations of ozone over 0.12 ppm were observed, and the AOT40 value from March to June
in 1997 was approximately 30 ppm･h (Aso 1999). Taking these observations and results of
experimental studies into account, it can be deduced that ozone causes harmful effects on relatively
sensitive tree species such as Japanese beech. Since tropospheric ozone concentrations are expected
to increase steadily in Japan, ozone has the potential to adversely affect many Japanese forest tree
species in the future."

I was excited to find some research where controlled fumigation experiments were performed. One, from Japan was just published in 2007:

"Growth and photosynthetic responses of Fagus crenata seedlings to O3 under different nitrogen loads"

"To obtain the basic data for evaluating the critical level of ozone (O₃) to protect Japanese deciduous broad-leaved forest tree species, the growth and photosynthetic responses of Fagus crenata seedlings to O₃ under different nitrogen (N) loads were investigated. The seedlings were grown in potted andisol supplied with N as NH₄NO₃ solution at 0, 20 or 50 kg ha⁻¹ year⁻¹ and were exposed to charcoal-filtered air or O₃ at 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 times the ambient concentration for two growing seasons. The interactive effect of O₃ and N load on the whole-plant dry mass of the seedlings at the end of the second growing season was significant. The O₃-induced reduction in the whole-plant dry mass of the seedlings was greater in the relatively high N treatment than that in the low N treatment. This interactive effect was mainly due to the difference in the degree of O₃-induced reduction in net photosynthesis among the N treatments. The degree of O₃-induced reduction in N availability to photosynthesis was greater in the relatively high N treatment than that in the low N treatment. In conclusion, the sensitivity of growth and photosynthetic parameters of F. crenata seedlings to O₃ become high with increasing amounts of N added to the soil. Therefore, N deposition from the atmosphere should be taken into account to evaluate the critical level of O₃ to protect Japanese deciduous broad-leaved forest tree species."

Getting back to damage done to annual crops, a link led to research from 2004 by a Princeton professor, Dr. Mauzerall, which is a bit shocking. She actually describes yield reductions with an emotionally-laden term, "tremendous losses" and no wonder - the percentages of loss predicted for grains and for the economy are staggering:

"Characterizing distributions of surface ozone and its impact on grain production in China, Japan and South Korea: 1990 and 2020"

"Using an integrated assessment approach, we evaluate the impact that surface O3 in East Asia had on agricultural production in 1990 and is projected to have in 2020....We ﬁnd that given projected increases in O3 concentrations in the region, East Asian countries are presently on the cusp of substantial reductions in grain production....We conclude that East Asian countries may have tremendous losses of crop yields in the near future due to projected increases in O3 concentrations....Between 1990 and 2020 grain yield loss due to O3 exposure is projected to increase by 35%, 65% and 85% in Japan, Korea and China, respectively, with resulting economic costs increasing by approximately the same amount."

Relative yield loss for 4 crops, from 1990 (L) to 2020 (R) due to ozone

I went to Professor Mauzerall's webpage at Princeton and found this engaging toy - animations of emissions. You can change dates, regions and timeframes, it's such fun! Below is a screenshot - but you should absolutely click here and play around with it yourself. It's amazing.

Here's the description of how the projections were modeled...and note - the 2020 outcomes are NOT worst case scenarios because they assume, among other variables, "increased concern for environmental and social sustainability". Ha! I guess this was written well before the ascent of the Tea Party, Mittens, Santorum, Gingrich and even Sarah Palin - AND the story at the top, about governments taking no heed whatsoever of actual science when establishing policy.

"The B2 scenario family is intended to represent one where there is moderate population growth, intermediate levels of economic development, increased concern for environmental and social sustainability. Hence, it is not a “worst-case” scenario."

"Both the 1990 and 2020 animations include the global distributions of total O₃, CO, PAN, HNO₃ and NO_x. In addition, for each region (North America, Europe, East Asia, Former Soviet Union, Tropical Asia, Africa, and South America), and emission type (fossil fuel combustion and biomass burning) we have conducted “tagged” simulations. In these tagged simulations, the emissions of CO and NO_x (including its oxidation species HNO₃ and PAN) from one region of the world are separately identified and tracked through their chemical transformations and global transport. The distribution of tagged tracers are shown in two panels – the top panel shows, at any given location, the percentage of the chemical species that originated from the particular region as a fraction of the global total, and the bottom panel shows the actual concentration of the tracer."

It turns out that in Bavaria there was a fumigation experiment on mature trees similar to the FACE sites in the US, which ran from 2002 to 2006, called CASIRO3Z, an acronym derived from: The Carbon Sink Strength of Beech in a Changing Environment: Experimental Risk Assessment of Mitigation by Chronic Ozone Impact - whew!

This is a photo from their colorful poster, which can be viewed here

Personally I think their overall results are a bit sunnier than reality, but keep in mind they were comparing the condition of trees exposed to twice the ambient ozone level to that of trees AT ambient level - and NOT to trees in clean air. Nevertheless, several interesting studies derived from that project - way too many for me to read and post each one. But here are some abstracts:

A study from Germany published in 2007, "Root parameters and types of ectomycorrhiza of young beech plants exposed to different ozone and light regimes":

"Tropospheric ozone (O(3)) triggers physiological changes in leaves that affect carbon source strength leading to decreased carbon allocation below-ground, thus affecting roots and root symbionts. The effects of O(3) depend on the maturity-related physiological state of the plant, therefore adult and young forest trees might react differently. To test the applicability of young beech plants for studying the effects of O(3) on forest trees and forest stands, beech seedlings were planted in containers and exposed for two years in the Kranzberg forest FACOS experiment (Free-Air Canopy O(3) Exposure System, http://www.casiroz.de to enhanced ozone concentration regime (ambient control and double ambient concentration, not exceeding 150 ppb) under different light conditions (sun and shade). After two growing seasons the biomass of the above- and below-ground parts, beech roots (using WinRhizo programme), anatomical and molecular (ITS-RFLP and sequencing) identification of ectomycorrhizal types and nutrient concentrations were assessed...."

"In the ozone fumigated plants the number of types, number of root tips per length of 1 to 2 mm root diameter, root length density per volume of soil and concentration of Mg were significantly lower than in control plants. Trends to a decrease were found in root, shoot, leaf, and total dry weights, total number of root tips, number of vital mycorrhizal root tips, fine root (mass) density, root tip density per surface, root area index, concentration of Zn, and Ca/Al ratio. Due to the general reduction in root growth indices and nutrient cycling in ozone-fumigated plants, alterations in soil carbon pools could be predicted".

Another study, "Tree and stand growth of mature Norway spruce and European beech under long-term ozone fumigation" that came out of that open-air fumigation had the following interesting result:

"In a 50- to 70-year-old mixed stand of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in Germany, tree cohorts have been exposed to double ambient ozone (2xO(3)) from 2000 through 2007 and can be compared with trees in the same stand under the ambient ozone regime (1xO(3)). Annual diameter growth, allocation pattern, stem form, and stem volume were quantified at the individual tree and stand level. Ozone fumigation induced a shift in the resource allocation into height growth at the expense of diameter growth. This change in allometry leads to rather cone-shaped stem forms and reduced stem stability in the case of spruce, and even neiloidal stem shapes in the case of beech. Neglect of such ozone-induced changes in stem shape may lead to a flawed estimation of volume growth. On the stand level, 2xO(3) caused, on average, a decrease of 10.2 m(3) ha(-1) yr(-1) in European beech.

"Neglect of such ozone-induced changes in stem shape may lead to a flawed estimation of volume growth"....Well, I suppose that could explain why the Smithsonian and Harvard foresters are able to claim the forest is growing!!!

WWF Cavorts in MonsantoLand!

2012-02-10T18:20:00.000-05:00

Following is a documentary originally produced in Germany. The English translations are posted on youtube in four parts, so they are all linked sequentially below. I'm not sure why they have clock numbers running on the top but ignore them and watch anyway. Your perception of the world will never be the same - the pillaging villains and their crimes against victims of corporate injustice become ever more stark as the investigation deepens. There are some heros who brave ostracism and worse. In the later episodes, pay particular attention to the horrendous condition of the bare crowns of trees apparent from aerial filming. And if that's not enough to break your heart and enrage you, then later, read this account of a young girl from a Paraguayan tribe kidnapped into domestic slavery, who finally after years, finds her way home.

Tamino's Closed Mind

2012-02-10T15:01:00.000-05:00

I avoid reading certain blogs run by imperious autocrats because they only annoy me, but every now and then someone will send me a link and I'll feel compelled to visit. That's what happened this morning. Tamino has an absolutely tortured post about wildfires and bark beetles and dead trees in the Black Hills. Here is one of his graphs indicating an increase in frequency of large fires of over 200 acres:

"Clearly, the Black Hills region, like most Western U.S. forests, is at greater risk of wildfire than during most of the 20th century. But there is little, if any, evidence to implicate pine beetle infestation as the culprit in that increased risk. Other factors, including drought, changing climate conditions, and perhaps changes in forest management (including fire suppression) are at work, and their impact seems to overwhelm the results of pine beetle infestation."

I relented to temptation and wrote the following comment and - shock! shock! - he didn't let it out of moderation:

At the top of page 4 in this report is a graph that also correlates with the increase in wildfires.

It's from Japan, I chose it at random. There are endless versions from any number of government agencies and academia.

Also, you might want to consider this new research published in January from Princeton which investigates the global reductions in annual crop yield and quality from transboundary ozone pollution.

It seems worthy of consideration that since ozone is toxic to vegetation, and the rising constant background concentrations are responsible for diminishing annual crops by significant amounts, that wild perennial plants and trees will sustain cumulative damage by absorbing it season after season. This explanation offers far more than mere correlation, after all. It explains causation, specifically, two proven facts from repeated controlled fumigation experiments:

1. plants and trees with compromised immunity from exposure to ozone are more susceptible to attacks from insects, disease and fungus; and

2. plants and trees injured by exposure to ozone allocate less energy to their roots, making them more vulnerable to drought and wind.

Also pertinent is the now-documented fact that, indeed, forests are in decline everywhere on earth. See [New York Times article "With Deaths of Forests, a Loss of Key Climate Protectors"]

Tamino's post is based on his own research paper, Pine Beetle Infestation and Fire Risk in the Black Hills, which he was commissioned to write by the Friends of the Norbeck. It's quite fascinating that he couldn't find a link between bark beetle damage and wildfires, meaning something else is definitely causing an increase in fires. From the conclusion:

"Why then the extreme public fear of re hazard due to pine beetle tree kill? An obvious reason is simple intuition, the notion that standing dead trees under any circumstances create a "tinderbox primed for wildfi re" which is destined for conflagration. This intuition is shared by a number of professionals in forestry and fi re fighting. Yet in the specifi c case of mountain pine beetle infestation, the available data do not support this interpretation and much recent research actually contradicts the idea. Another is the recent increase in wildfi re activity within the Black Hills National Forest. Yet this increase is not unique to the Black Hills region. Its occurrence in the mid-1980s coincides with a similar increase in wildfi re activity throughout the Rocky Mountain region, at a time which is well before the latest pine beetle attack. Yet another is the fact that the increase in wildfi res during the mid-1980s was followed by a further increase in the early 2000s, which is strongly perceived as coinciding with a strong increase in pine beetle infestation. However, the extreme wildfi re seasons of the early 2000s commence in the year 2000 itself, which is a year before the dramatic increase in pine beetle tree kill observed in 2001."

Well! I don't know what would persuade Mr. Tamino to actually "Open" his mind and think about the possibility that the rise in toxic air pollution has been killing trees (and other vegetation!) making burns more frequent, since I thought the comment was polite, brief on topic and linked to impeccable sources.

I had actually intended to write about something very different before I got caught up in that, which is a disturbing article called "Way Beyond Greenwashing - Have Corporations Captured Big Conservation?" I sent a comment to a group of people who were discussing the video embedded in the prior post, about Robert Bryce, as to whether he could possibly believe in his own preposterous denialist screed. I said, people usually believe what they are paid to believe, don't they? It was pointed out that could just as well be said for climate change activists who are employed by "green" groups. Exactly.

Oil on Canvas by Judith Fouser

I was thinking about this parallel this morning while looking at a painting I bought many years ago. It occurred to me that the visage mirrored in the head reminds me of the inescapable dictates of human nature as expressed by the the parallels between the "Merchants of Doubt" of Oreskes fame - those professionals paid to thwart regulations by first casting doubt on the science of tobacco, then acid rain, and more recently climate change - and the "Merchants of Hope". By that I refer to those environmentalists, scientists, and activists (the vast majority of them) who carefully avoid reference to the truly dire results we can expect to dominate the future, and instead slant their writing to encourage people to believe in that feathered thing that perches on the soul. They promise their donors that they will work with them to develop clean energy. They run campaigns to persuade us to change our lightbulbs, recycle, write our senator, protest and be arrested, as though that will save us. The needle on the clock is always just before midnight, and we have five years left to avert catastrophe. Right.

Then What??

2012-02-09T18:24:00.003-05:00

This is such a sweet, sentimental video. Barack and Michelle look like they came out of Hollywood Central casting and it's so touching, it makes even me feel a little weepy though I realize it is treacle. In the next video, also adorable and amusing, in a cloying, premeditated fashion, Michelle promotes her program to combat childhood obesity. Exercise is good, and sitting on your butt watching teevee eating junk food is bad, of course. But to focus on that is a convenient way of blaming the victim. It's likely that the obesity epidemic has quite a bit to do with endocrine-disrupting chemicals that permeate our environment. What about the growth hormones given to dairy cattle that get into the milk and cheese kids eat? Where is that issue, or the fact that Barack appointed a vice president from Monsanto to head the FDA???

I won't copy it here, but I would like to highly recommend an essay from Mother Jones about a rare breed, a courageous iconoclast scientist named Tyrone Hayes, who defiantly refuses to be intimidated by industry threats. He works ceaselessly, with a refreshingly perverse sense of humor, to expose the dangers to our ecosystem from chemical pollution.

Following is a video of professional denier Robert Bryce, during which he is asked whether he receives money from the fossil fuel industry. You can find the background at the ChecksandBalances project.

Bryce is a perfect example of what I wrote about after the denialpalooza Heartland Conference in Washington last July - that deniers are essentially correct in that climate change activists and scientists aren't honestly leveling with us. Almost uniformly, they try to make out like it's possible to effect a transition relatively painlessly to clean fuel, if only we would, collectively as a society, invest in it. Deniers know the idea that we can replace fossil fuels with green energy - without simultaneously severely curtailing consumption - won't be nearly sufficient to control climate change to the extent necessary to avoid catastrophe, presuming the science is accurate. Peak-oilers know it can't be done, and that's why so many of them are climate deniers, as well.

However, that lack of candor - or wishful thinking - doesn't negate the contention that climate change is real, and caused by human activity, which is the other side of the coin Bryce advocates, quite stupidly, but lucratively. He's obviously a tool of the fossil fuel industry, parroting what they want to advertise. Here is part of his biography in wikipedia:

"In an October 6, 2011 op-ed published in the "Wall Street Journal" and entitled "Five truths about climate change"^[20] he wrote: "The science is not settled, not by a long shot. Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein's theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth's atmosphere".

By the way, that analogy he makes to neutrinos is about the most sophomoric imaginable. Jeez!

The science IS settled, in the sense that, although there are still endless details to ascertain, it is demonstrably proven that climate change is occurring, and humans are causing it. Unfortunately many climate scientists and activists shy away from the mass extinctions that inevitably occur when climate changes and the infernally complex web of interdependent species becomes unravelled.

The most pertinent quote from him, in wiki:

"The key issue about global warming – and the one that precious few are willing to discuss in depth – is this: if we are going to agree that carbon dioxide is bad, then what? "

The question he frames "then what?" is actually despicably immoral, because essentially he's saying, well, even if you're right that CO2 is changing the climate, and there's no way to slow it short of jeopardizing a well-oiled, luxurious lifestyle, who wants to do that? SOMEONE is going to ~~adapt~~ sacrifice, and so the "key issue" is only masked as "then what?", it is really "WHO"??? His answer may be implicit but it is clear - let it be the poor, and the children.

Which makes him a deeply, profoundly cynical, and pathologically heartless criminal.

The Impeded Stream Is the One that Sings

2012-02-09T10:55:00.003-05:00

I've lost track of how many times I have struggled through reading scientific research, posting the most relevant sections here on Wit's End and thought, whew, I'm done now! Surely, this study proves definitively that ozone is causing trees to die and crops to shrivel - no more new expert reports required...we can start conserving fuel in earnest, post-haste, before we destroy the ecosystem and starve, right? And then immediately along comes some fresh, even more definitive clarification that I feel impelled to parse and copy excerpts on this blog, since, well...no, there's been zero progress, and the vast majority of people remain just as uninformed and unconcerned.

The latest reluctant foray began with a link (forwarded by a determinedly persistent Highschooler) to an accusatory article in the UK DailyMail published a little over a week ago, the headline blaring furiously that American pollution is reducing European crop yields. Oh, the shock of it! It neatly sums up, in single lines, the problem. Pictures on this post are views of our resplendent National Parks (the ones Mitt Romney doesn't know the purpose of other than to satisfy "extreme environmentalists").

"Pollution from America causes Europe to lose a million tonnes of wheat a year

Man-made ozone can travel thousands of miles
Pollution on one continent can affect others
Loss in Europe is biggest worldwide
Separate from damage to ozone layer - caused by chemicals from combustion and power plants

Man-made air pollution from north America causes Europe to lose 1.2 million tonnes of wheat a year, a new study has found.

Ozone pollution - produced by coal fired power stations and cars - travels between continents much more easily than thought, traveling thousands of miles on the wind.

Crops on every continent are damaged by pollution from others.

The wheat loss in Europe is the biggest worldwide.

The chemical - a powerful air pollutant - is produced when pollutants near the ground react with sunlight.

The researchers say that the pollution could even endanger the security of the food supply in future.

Ozone pollution in all of the northern hemisphere's major industrialised regions - Europe, America and southeast Asia - harms major crops such as wheat, maize, soy, cotton, potato and rice on other continents."

"The scale of the impact has previously been unknown.

Ground-level ozone pollution is produced from chemicals released during high temperature combustion, for example by combustion of fossil fuels by motor vehicles and in coal fired power plants.

It's separate from the ozone layer, a protective layer around the outside of our atmosphere. Ground-level ozone is harmful to humans as well as plants."

"The study also suggests that increasing levels of air pollution from one continent may partly offset efforts on another.

The findings have important implications for international strategies to tackle global food shortages, as well as climate.

Dr Steve Arnold, a senior lecturer in atmospheric composition at the University of Leeds, who led the study, said: 'Our findings demonstrate that air pollution plays a significant role in reducing global crop productivity.

'It shows that the negative impacts of air pollution on crops may have to be addressed at an international level rather than through local air quality policies alone.'

Michael Hollaway, a PhD student at the University of Leeds, used a computer model to predict reductions in global surface ozone if man-made emissions of nitrogen oxide from the three continents were shut off."

"Using crop location and yield calculations, he and the research team were able to predict impacts on staple food crops, each with their own unique sensitivity to ozone pollution.

Dr. Lisa Emberson, a senior lecturer from the University of York: 'This study highlights the need for air pollution impacts on crops to be taken more seriously as a threat to food security.'"

"'Air quality is often overlooked as a determinant of future crop supply. Given the sizeable yield losses of staple crops caused by surface ozone, coupled with the challenges facing our ability to be food secure in the coming decades further coordinated international efforts should be targeted at reducing emissions of ozone forming gases across the globe.'"

Note that, while it's an exaggeration to say that the "scale of the problem has been previously unknown" since there are countless studies going back to the 1970's about serious crop damage, the emerging conclusion that we will need international agreement to curb pollution that crosses borders, or face global instability in the food supply, is really quite sufficient to make your average right-winger's head explode.

The research that was the basis for the story is somewhat less indignantly titled "Intercontinental transboundary contributions to ozone-induced crop yield losses in the Northern Hemisphere". Oddly enough this report comes from the same Princeton scientists whose two, 2011 papers I had just linked to so exhaustively a few days ago! Where previously they examined the current and projected crop yield reductions, and then compared expectations based on various future emissions scenarios, this newest study analyzes where precursors originate, traces where they end up producing ozone, and determines how much six different staple crops are most impacted by imported ozone. Fun, no?

From the abstract:

"...Using these metrics, model calculations show that for wheat, rice, cotton and potato, 100% reductions in SE Asian anthropogenic NOx emissions tend to produce the greatest global reduction in crop production losses (42.3–95.2 %), and a 100% reduction to N American anthropogenic NOx emissions results in the greatest global impact on crop production losses for maize and soybean (59.2–85.9 %). A 100% reduction in N American anthropogenic NOx emissions produces the largest transboundary impact, resulting in European production loss reductions of between 14.2 % and 63.2 %. European NOx emissions tend to produce a smaller transboundary impact, due to inefﬁciency of transport from the European domain."

They phrase this in correct, but upside-down language, by showing where reductions in emissions would increase crop yields...as opposed to more straight-forwardly stating where emissions are already causing damage, and how much. The contortions in the double negative phrasing is perplexing. I suppose that enables the fantasy that emissions will be reduced, thus increasing yields. Ha! Even the Daily Mail could see through that ruse!

"In addition to AQSs adopted to protect human health, AQSs for the protection of vegetation have been adopted in Europe. Compared to those for vegetation, human exposure AQSs tend to focus on acute ozone pollution episodes rather than longer-term chronic exposure. As such, it is questionable whether human health AQSs will protect ecosystems. The AOT40 (accumulated exposure over a threshold of 40 ppbv) metric has been adopted in Europe, to assess risk to vegetation from ozone exposure, and has been used to estimate changes in crop yield losses due to ozone exposure in different global regions."

"The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) set a critical threshold value of AOT40 at 3 ppm h daylight hour accumulated ozone exposure, which should not be exceeded during the plant growing season. In the United States, as of 2007, the USEPA has set equal primary and secondary standards for the protection of human health and human welfare (including damage to crops) respectively, with a peak 8 h mean ozone concentration not to exceed 75 ppbv more than three times a year. The USEPA is currently in the process of revising these AQSs (USEPA, 2010a)."

Of course we all know that it is highly questionable whether the EPA will be permitted to revise the Air Quality Standards and even if they do, it's doubtful that they would adequately protect trees - and that's presuming stricter standards could be met without extreme reductions in patterns of consumption. Anyone who wants a headache should look at page 273 where the report delves into an extensive discussion of various incredibly complicated and mysterious (at least to me, in my ignorance) ways of modeling ozone exposure and uptake, each lending a different approach to regulation...or else just read this, which strikes me as the significant and certainly most comprehensible part:

"An important aspect to consider is that the AOT40 index was designed to capture the most harmful effects from episodic ozone pollution. However now that background levels of ozone are increasing these threshold indices are starting to become less useful. It has also been highlighted in previous modelling studies that large uncertainties can arise in using these exposure based indices to estimate yield loss from model ozone ﬁelds. A more accurate approach is to develop plant response relationships that are based on the ﬂux of ozone into the plant. However, at present ﬂux-response relationships are only available for wheat and potato, and more recently tomato. Not all of these have been parameterised for global application. As there is a much more comprehensive set of exposure-response relationships available to predict crop yield losses from the exposure based metrics, we have employed these here so that we can include a range of major crops, and compare our results across ozone-tolerant and ozone-sensitive crops. However, it should be noted that it is difﬁcult to assess the suitability of these concentration based indices for application in regions different from those in which they were developed."

It also should be noted that if all we have is flux-response relationships for three annual crops, who is finding out what the flux-response relationship is for native perennial vegetation and trees that are living in the real world with multiple stressors?? As convoluted as these studies on annual crops are, you'd still think they would represent formidable evidence that trees and other plants that are exposed to ozone for season after season would suffer cumulative damage, that results in a decline not necessarily linear, and eventually will kill them - even aside from the well-known increase in susceptibility to attacks from fungus, disease, insects and drought.

This baffling lack of coordination between agronomists and foresters, and just as importantly the seemingly total lack of mutual awareness between scientists who study ozone and those who study the nitrogen cascade (never mind climate change) is further evidence that science is fragmented beyond usefulness, at least, it's obsolete by the time it is published considering the grave and urgent implications that require drastic public policy revisions. Although it is a huge subject I intend to take up on another day, there is some evidence this giant gap in communication is part of an almost deliberate philosophy, which, to digress briefly, is expounded upon at an intriguing website, A Prosperous Way Down. The authors articulate the problem in what is, for me, a novel and illuminating discussion that I intend to investigate further.

"Whatever happened to the idea of ecological thinking as a unifying concept for science? Click on the map of science below [or the link underneath if that doesn't display] for an expanded view of a network that suggests that many scientific disciplines have reduced themselves into specialized, competitive silos, protected from each other by separate terminology and reductionist theories."

from Wired

"The lenses through which many scientists view the world are microscopic in nature, focusing on analysis using statistical tools that break things down into smaller and smaller pieces. While analysis is a useful and important subset of the overall process, synthesis and evaluation of policies requires using an instrument such as a macroscope to view the world from a systemic perspective, as the ordering of thinking skills in the Bloom’s digital taxonomy map below suggests. Application and analysis are not enough when one wants to evaluate complex systems. The lack of synthesis prevents us from seeing and evaluating the relationships, processes and structures inherent in the whole."

"The failure to view problems at a larger scale sometimes prevents us from asking the right questions in framing problems. And if we fail to ask the right questions, and focus instead on fragmented pieces of the issues in science, can we ever address the problems wrought by waning resources impacting very complex human economies that reside within a global energetic system? Which are the biggest problems, and how are they related to each other? Does our worldview about how the global economic system runs and what drives it impact our scientific viewpoint? If we fix one problem, are there unintended consequences that impact other parts of the system? Which choices in using waning resources are best for the the system as a whole? How does my science fit into the global scale at one level up, that of human economies residing within nature?"

"We can illustrate the problem using climate change as a hot-button example, since peak oil and climate change are basically the two ends of the same snake,the inputs and outputs of our global energy problem. While climate scientists focus on the waste CO2 buildup caused by consuming fossil fuels as primary, resource experts focus on the disappearing fossil fuels. Is either problem, climate change or peak oil, really a separate issue that can be isolated as a problem within human economies, thus having economic solutions? If the problems are separated, then are the solutions separate and different also?"

"Can single issues that are subsets of 'a safe operating space for humanity' be prioritized as 'the most important issue' and what is our metric for that? If we view the problems from one scale up at the global level, what is the real root cause of both of these problems ? Who is molding our cultural debates about priorities in science, and why? Who decides our policies and is the policy based on unbiased science? Why do we focus on one issue out of many environmental problems in science, and does this focus lead us to solutions that are also reductionist and potentially harmful?'"

Their discussion is restricted mainly to the perspective of peak oil and climate change and not surprisingly includes less recognition that the devastation to the environment from pollution is an existential threat...but it's an excellent basis from which to segue to a horrific article at the Guardian, which displays the same error of omission. Unfortunately it turns out that Bill Gates, among others, is providing massive funds for geoengineering research, which is being eagerly received by some highly respected scientists at major academic institutions. Aside from black swans and unintended consequences that simply boggle the mind, tossing aerosols or sulphates in the atmosphere will be utterly worthless in reining in ocean acidification. As Desdemona Despair, where I saw that article, laments, "So the leaders of men conceived of their most desperate strategy yet".

I have forgotten the path but somehow reading the new paper from Highschooler about crop losses led me to more data from the US National Park Service. From their webpages and reports it would appear the NPS is somewhat less disingenuous than the Forest Service, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the lumber industry. The Park Service is genuinely concerned with preserving the trees, as opposed to logging them - and they want to restore the clear vistas that attract visitors, without whom they have no raison d'être. Plus of course, the parks are not the source of the poor air quality that plagues them, nor do they profit from it, so the Service is well aware that it is the result of emissions that travel in from populated, industrial areas and they genuinely wish it would improve. It's also embarrassing for them to have to warn visitors who are about to embark on a hike that the mountain air has been deemed unsafe - and even healthy people in good physical condition are advised to avoid athletic exertion and stay indoors!

Thus their 2009 report, Air Quality in National Parks, is only somewhat misleading, due to optimism bias. They at least, however, seem capable of considering ozone and nitrogen in the same publication!

In addition to measuring and modeling, the Park Service uses biomonitoring to assess injury. This comparative set of aspen leaves has a healthy sample on the left, and an ozone injured leaf on the right. I have it on good authority from an organic gardener in Colorado that all the aspen leaves last summer were considerably more blackened that this specimen, and the green was not nearly so bright. Just sayin'...! Following are excerpts from the Park Service report. Watch for it...they say the data only goes to 2008...and we know the background level is constantly rising...

"The National Park Service (NPS) measures progress toward improving park air quality by examining trends for key air quality indicators, including:

• visibility—which affects how well and how far visitors can see;
• ozone—which affects human health and native vegetation; and
• atmospheric deposition—which affects ecological health through acidification and fertilization of soil and surface waters.

For this annual performance report, ozone, visibility, and deposition data collected between 1999 and 2008 were examined."

"The NPS exceeds air quality performance goals for 2009, with 97 percent of the reporting parks showing no trends or improving trends in visibility, 100 percent showing no trends or improving trends in ozone concentrations, and 93 percent showing no trends or improving trends in atmospheric deposition.

While improving trends certainly show progress, the lack of a worsening trend in air quality may not be sufficient to protect an area already experiencing poor air quality.

Using an index for each type of air quality data collected (visibility, wet deposition concentrations, and
ozone concentrations), park air quality is characterized as good, moderate (or cautionary), or of significant concern."

"• With respect to visibility, 57 percent of the parks are in good or moderate condition. None of the parks with significant visibility concerns have improving trends.

• With respect to ozone, 35 percent of the parks are in good or moderate condition. Among the parks where current ozone conditions are of significant concern, 12 have improving trends, 89 have no trends, and none have degrading trends."

"• For nitrogen deposition, only 29 percent of the parks are in good or moderate condition. Of the parks where nitrogen deposition is a significant concern, three parks have degrading trends, 35 have no trends, and two have improving trends.

Air quality in parks is expected to improve as regulations aimed at reducing tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles and pollution from electric-generating facilities take full effect over the next few years."

[Note: there is nothing to indicate that air will improve since whatever emission controls the US puts in place - presuming it does - will be easily overtaken by internationally generated precursors.]

Fig. 8 Air Quality Condition Assessments for Nitrogen Deposition.
Condition assessments derived from interpolations of wet nitrogen deposition 2004 - 2008

Figure 10. Air quality condition assessments for ozone.
Condition assessments derived from interpolated values of the mean annual 4th-highest 8-hour ozone concentrations
2004-2008

"The NPS exceeded these goals with 97 percent of the reporting parks showing improving or no trends in visibility, 100 percent showing improving or no trends in ozone concentrations, and 93 percent showing improving or no trends in atmospheric deposition."
["no trends" means it isn't getting any better]

"Six total measures are used in calculating the goal percentages: two are used to measure progress toward the visibility goal, one measure is used for the ozone goal, and three measures are used for the atmospheric deposition goal."

"Ozone Condition
The ozone standard was used as a benchmark for rating current ozone air quality. This standard was revised in 2008 in order to be more protective of human health. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 75 parts per billion (ppb). To derive an estimate of the current ozone condition at parks, the five-year average of the annual 4th-highest 8-hour ozone concentration was determined for each park from the interpolated values described above."

Figure 11. Long-term ozone trends in parks at or above the ozone standard.

The annual 4th-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration

at these parks has been consistently at or above the ozone standard of 75 ppb.

Figure 12. Long-term ozone trends in parks likely to exceed the

new ozone standard [which Obama prevented last fall].

Ozone levels at these parks have been generally below the current

standard of 75 ppb, but are within the EPA’s proposed range

(60–70 ppb) for a new ozone standard.

[Note that the levels of exposure are all - including those in compliance - well above what is recognized to damage plants]

"If the resulting five-year average was greater than or equal to 76 ppb the park was assigned to the
significant concern category. Parks with average five-year 4th-highest 8-hour ozone concentrations from 61 to 75 ppb (concentrations greater than 80 percent of the standard) were assigned to the moderate condition for ozone. The good condition for ozone was assigned to parks with average five-year ozone concentrations less than 61 ppb (concentrations less than 80 percent of the standard)."

p. 38

"In addition to the standard, vegetation sensitivity was considered for park condition. Data show that some plant species are more sensitive to ozone than humans and the ozone standard is not protective of parks, including Great Smoky Mountains NP, Shenandoah NP, and Sequoia and Kings Canyon NPs. A risk assessment completed in 2004 rated parks at low, moderate, or high risk for ozone injury to vegetation, based on presence of sensitive plant species, ozone exposures, and environmental conditions, i.e., soil moisture. For this report, parks that were evaluated at high risk were moved into the next condition category (e.g., a park with an average ozone concentration of 72 ppb, but judged to be at high risk for vegetation injury, would move from the moderate condition for ozone to the significant concern condition)."

There are pages and pages of charts like this one, which is fairly representative - and it's obvious that when other issues are factored in as described above, so many parks are shifted into higher categories of risk such that almost none of them are considered "good" (the rare blue dot). They single out "environmental condition, i.e. soil moisture", as a reason to place a park at a higher level of risk...because ozone increases the vulnerability to drought. These negative designations beg the question, how has the situation fared since 2008? I found one report, from California Air Watch dated September 2011, that provides an ominous inkling in the title, oops: "Air Pollution Rising at National Parks".

2011 National Park air quality ozone exceedences

"Air pollution in national parks is at a three-year high, and two California parks have recorded the worst readings, according to a report by the National Parks Conservation Association.

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, located next to each other, exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency standard for ozone pollution 68 days so far this year, the most of any of the national parks that monitor air quality. Joshua Tree National Park came in second, with 49 days above the EPA standard."

I decided to look up the National Parks Conservation Association to locate the original source, and it turns out to derive from a "Code Red" appeal to Congress to allow EPA to tighten regulations, last fall. Well, we all know how that worked out...Congress didn't have to do a thing...Obama vetoed EPA action. It's also even worse than the article indicated in the headline "3-year high" - rather, it's a trending increase - 2011 exceeded 2010, which in turn exceeded 2009. The calculations run from April to October, and last September, a month shy of finishing the timeframe, the days of violations of the [inadequate] standards stood at 196 for 2009, 223 in 2010, and 234 in 2011, not counting another month's worth...a very bad direction!

I also came across some notes that are cryptic but worthy because they are from an April 2011 meeting called the "Greater Yellowstone Area Critical Loads Science Workshop". The participants are attempting to adapt the criteria of "critical loads" as a method to analyse impacts of pollution on the ecosystem, a practice that has been recognized in Europe as more fully reflecting reality, and is only beginning to gain traction in the US. Following are a few points from the summary of conclusions, "based on the data and information presented":

1. Nitrogen deposition is increasing (statistically significant trends) in many regions of the GYA:

*Wet deposition of total inorganic nitrogen (N-NH4 + N-NO3) is increasing in most areas (6/8 NADP monitoring stations);

* Ammonium (NH4) concentrations in precipitation are increasing in all areas (11/11 NADP monitoring stations);

* Nitrate (NO3) concentrations in precipitation are increasing in some areas (3/11 NADP monitoring stations);

* IMPROVE data trends at the Bridger site shows increasing nitrate in the winter, and at the Yellowstone site shows increasing annual trends;

*Bulk deposition collectors at high elevation sites in the Wind River Range both show increasing trends in annual nitrogen deposition (Total N, NH4, and NO3);

* CASTNet data estimating dry deposition at Yellowstone and Bridger do not show any trends.

Some GYA lakes show statistically significant changes in water chemistry:

* Nitrate (at inlets) is increasing at Ross and Saddlebag lakes (Shoshone NF), and ammonium (at outlets) is increasing at Black Joe and Hobbs lakes (Bridger-Teton NF), indicating that beginning stages of lake eutrophication may be occurring in Wind River Range lakes;

* Lakes are beginning to acidify (ANC is declining) in Ross and Saddlebag lakes (Shoshone NF) and Hobbs Lake (Bridger-Teton NF);

* Lakes in the Beartooth and Teton ranges and Yellowstone NP can be sensitive but generally have adequate buffering to maintain stability with current low deposition levels;

* Lake sediment cores in the Grand Teton NP all show (7/7 lakes) depletion of N 15 which indicates increasing influence of anthropogenic sources of nitrogen to lakes.

I won't bother to pile on more of their statistics; the point is, the trends are generally going badly - in Montana and Wyoming!! Maybe that is why citizens there are suing the EPA over a lack of stringent controls, as described in this article from Common Dreams, which says:

"A group of local Wyoming citizens today demanded that the Environmental Protection Agency act immediately in confronting the unhealthy ground-level ozone pollution that has resulted from an extraordinary rise in oil-and-gas activity within the state’s Upper Green River Basin."

"Citizens United for Responsible Energy Development (CURED) served EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson with notice that it will file a lawsuit in sixty days unless the Environmental Protection Agency formally designates the Upper Green River Basin as an area not meeting national ozone standards. Such a designation will trigger needed protections under the Clean Air Act. CURED is a grassroots organization dedicated to ensuring that energy development in and around Sublette County Wyoming does not compromise human health or environmental quality."

"In recent years, oil-and-gas development within the Upper Green River Basin has escalated at an exceptional pace. The resulting decline in the region’s air quality has been dramatic. Before the oil-and-gas boom, Sublette County’s residents enjoyed some of the best breathing in the country. Today, thousands of federally approved oil-and-gas wells pollute the region’s air with significant amounts of ozone’s ingredients—volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). As a result of this development, those living in Wyoming’s rural Upper Green River Basin have recently suffered some of the nation’s highest ozone levels."

"Ozone, a primary component of smog, damages lungs, worsens asthma, reduces lung capacity, triggers respiratory-related hospital admissions, and increases premature deaths. These health impacts are disproportionately felt by the most vulnerable—children, the elderly, and persons already suffering from respiratory ailments."

"During Sublette County’s winter months—when sunlight, still air, and snow-cover spur ozone formation—residents face repeated warnings about elevated ozone levels and the resulting risks of going outside. On such days, some are left to stay indoors—including the children that take part in Pinedale Elementary School’s “alternative recess.” Others venture outside only to suffer burning eyes and difficulty in breathing. The stress and uncertainty resulting from these conditions have further diminished the quality of life in Wyoming’s Upper Green River Basin. As the Sublette County Commission emphasized in a March press release, the region’s residents have become “‘alarmed and concerned with so many alerts and spikes in ozone levels.’”

“'After years of unhealthy air and government delay, it is now up to the citizens who live, work, and recreate in Sublette County, Wyoming, to take a firm stance for the restoration of the region’s air to its prior, pristine state,' said Elaine Crumpley, Chairperson of CURED. 'CURED is taking such a stance today.'”

“'The health of individuals who live, work, and recreate in Sublette County is of paramount importance and actions need to be taken to ensure that our air is safe and healthy for all to breathe,' said CURED board member Mary Lynn Worl. 'We don’t believe that public health and the quality of life in our communities need to be traded away for economic activity. We can have both. Industry has made improvements in reducing emissions and they have the expertise to continue these innovations.'”

"More than two-and-a-half years ago, then Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal recommended designating the Upper Green River Basin as an area in violation of national ozone standards. Under the federal Clean Air Act, this 'nonattainment' designation would have triggered critical requirements and deadlines for bringing the Upper Green River Basin back into compliance with the EPA’s air-quality standards for ozone."

"The Clean Air Act required the EPA to finalize a 'nonattainment' designation for the Upper Green River Basin by March 12, 2010. For one and a half years, the EPA has unlawfully failed in its duty to take such action. In this time, Wyoming’s ozone problem has not abated. While the EPA has now announced an intention to publish its ozone designations nearly a year from now—“by mid-2012”—such further delay cannot be allowed."

“'With today’s letter, Citizens United for Responsible Energy Development has given the Environmental Protection Agency notice that further foot-dragging is unlawful and intolerable,' said Earthjustice lawyer Sean Helle, who is representing CURED. 'If the EPA fails to begin confronting the air pollution in Wyoming’s Upper Green River Basin within sixty days, CURED will seek a court order compelling the agency to act.'”

Apparently, the EPA relented shortly after the threat of a lawsuit and in December agreed to designate the area in non-attainment, opening the way for increased surveillance of emissions that in 2010 amounted to: "...ground-level ozone at 78 parts per billion (ppb) according to the data from the Boulder air monitoring station. Area-wide, including parts of Lincoln and Sweetwater counties, the analysis found 68,451 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 58,738 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) per year...".

Ultimately this will require steps be taken by oil and gas producers as well as other industrial categories. If you read the article though, it's very clear that actual compliance is a far, far distance and many layers of bureaucratic forms away from merely designating non-attainment status and furthermore, it's quite possible that - as contrarians claim with some validity - there is so much pollution arriving from Asian sources that any improvements made in emissions locally will be more than offset by those imported.

Believe it or not, there is now another issue of Issues in Ecology, the Winter 2012 edition, "Excess Nitrogen in the U.S. Environment: Trends, Risks and Solutions". Sadly, the cover features the dwindling Joshua Trees. There are many pictures of the magnificent Joshua Tree National Park in better days from last year's post here, if you missed them. Following are some highlights from the new report (the fall edition, "Setting Limits: Using Air Pollution Thresholds to Protect and Restore U.S. Ecosystems" is excerpted in this post from December):

"Humanity has disrupted the nitrogen cycle even more than the carbon (C) cycle. We present new research results showing widespread effects on ecosystems, biodiversity, human health, and climate, suggesting that in spite of decades of research quantifying the negative consequences of too much available nitrogen in the biosphere, solutions remain elusive."

I have to give them credit. On the first page they ask the question I had been wondering as I read the above introduction - albeit a bit more crudely...why do they bother to keep writing the same dreck since 1997 when nothing changes?:

"Fifteen years later, we now ask: “Has scientific awareness of the growing problems of nitrogen pollution fostered progress in finding solutions?” In some respects, the answer is a disappointing “no.” Atmospheric nitrous oxide is still increasing, the number of aquatic ecosystems experiencing eutrophication and hypoxia (low oxygen waters) has grown, and biodiversity losses due to air pollution have continued. Indeed, these problems have been exacerbated by unanticipated new demands for biofuel crops, which created further demand for agricultural expansion and fertilizer inputs."

"Biodiversity losses due to air pollution" = deaths of species. From there, they launch the happy talk about how much they've learned, and how there are ways to mitigate if only we would implement them, and there will be new technology, blah blah blah. I will leave it to readers to go directly to the report to see more detail, because frankly, I'm feeling a little disgusted and so instead of posting even more of the same repetitive verbiage, I'm going to close instead with two bits of poems, because I like them.

The first I saw at MamaStories.

It may be that when we no longer know what to do
we have come to our real work,
and that when we no longer know which way to go
we have come to our real journey.
The mind that is not baffled is not employed.
The impeded stream is the one that sings.

~ The Hard Work, Wendell Berry

And this by the same author I saw, coincidentally, at the aforementioned blog, A Prosperous Way Down

Go with your love to the fields.
Lie down in the shade. Rest your head
in her lap. Swear allegiance
to what is nighest your thoughts.
As soon as the generals and the politicos
can predict the motions of your mind,
lose it. Leave it as a sign
to mark the false trail, the way
you didn’t go. Be like the fox
who makes more tracks than necessary,
some in the wrong direction.
Practice resurrection.

~ Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front” from The Country of Marriage, Wendell Berry

The Great Blinding

2012-02-07T17:56:00.002-05:00

Some say it is an Orwellian world now - others say it's like going Through the Looking Glass...or Down the Rabbit's Hole. Some call it, Cognitive Dissonance. One thing is certain. We are being lied to, not just by those you would expect, who sponsor thinktanks, and obviously profit...but by those who pretend to be in opposition to those who profit! Just...creepy. You can read about it at The Wrong King of Green, where this terrific film about fracking illustrates the duplicity of supposed environmental advocates...and don't miss this earlier article, which lists the incredibly, ridiculously, sickeningly high salaries (copied below) paid to certain heads of "environmental" non-profits (and that doesn't even begin to include, no doubt, the travel perks and so forth). I hardly know how to respond to this insidious savaging of genuine ecological activism...other than to try to expose it.

Oh and this fracking controversy doesn't even begin to account for the escaped methane from drilling, which adds to tropospheric ozone, which is killing trees!

Together, the top six big greens in the US received nearly $2.1 billion in total revenue from all sources in 2008. But not to worry, the average of $160 million per group that was government funded using your tax dollars wasn’t critical to the financial health of the six. This is just a drop in the bucket in the elitist non-profit industrial complex; Frederic Krupp, President of Environmental Defense Fund, $496,17; Cater Roberts, President of World Wildlife Fund, $486,394; Frances Beinecke, President of Natural Resources Defense Council, $432,959; David Yarnold, Executive Director of Environmental Defense Fund, $365,773; David Festa, V.P. West Coast Environmental Defense Fund, $360,872; Stephanie Meeks, Acting President of Nature Conservatory, $349,873; Larry Schweiger, President, National Wildlife Federation, $345,004; Eileen Claussen, President, Pew Centre on Global Climate Change, $335,099; Roger Shlickeisen, President, Defenders of Wildlife, $312,896; William Meadows, President, The Wilderness Society, $308,465.

The Little Things That Rule the World - from secretive insects to mysterious whales

2012-02-06T10:18:00.004-05:00

I have kept the house at Wit's End at a very frosty temperature this winter...partly because I feel guilty burning fuel, but also because it's become prohibitively expensive to heat, now that I'm officially a pauper. As a precautionary measure in the fall, to avoid running out of propane, I hung a heavy cloth curtain as a barrier across the kitchen door to the hallway, and turned the thermostats as low as they go. As insulation it has worked quite well - the AGA keeps the kitchen toasty enough for the tropical birds to be comfortable...and I spend all of my waking time there so it doesn't matter that the rest of the house is frigid. It's not too bad to sleep either, because I have a really thick down puff.

Now that it's getting light a bit earlier in the mornings when the sun pierces through the woods to wake me, a little exciting frisson heralds spring's traditional fecundity...even though I worry the trees are going to be barren, and fear that this winter's balmy temperatures portend an unbearably hot summer. But for now, just the glimmer of the early rays slanting across the room and making a halo on the wall across from my pillow reminds me of springs in the past, when prospects were so much more congenial, and even innocent. Or perhaps, just happily ignorant.

Still, it's a pleasure to cheer myself with recollections of days when it was just barely warm enough to leave a window open all night, allowing the cool dewy air to waft through at dawn, heralding sunrise and the joy of rejuvenation in the garden. I think I could almost hear the rustle of life waking up, the leaves unfurling and tiny buds popping open, the skitterings of squirrels and the songs of the birds and the hum of insects.

If it were May when the jack in the pulpits were opening their hooded, inner sanctums, I might think of how, as soon as I had a chance that day, I would take my basket and knife and prowl though some special patches in the forest, hunting for morels. The cranky old man who owned this farm before I did had told me they were out there, but he had foolishly never even tried eating any. The first time I found one was in the very late afternoon when the sun was low, its blinding beams shooting straight into my eyes from the top of a crest.

Far off at the edge of the rise, I could see what looked like a glowing lantern and as I walked towards it my heart was beating fast. Morels are hollow fungi, and the sun had lit a huge specimen, bigger than I had ever seen, like a beacon. As soon as I found that one, there was another and another, and for almost 30 years, every spring, I gathered and prepared them for my family and friends, sauteed with shallots, in butter, wine and cream.

They have been absent for about three years now, and it dawned on me gradually yesterday morning as I was still gazing at the sunshine coming through the windows and pondering that, in addition to the bee losses causing such consternation - widely noticed because they have economic value in agriculture - I haven't seen any spider webs in the casements in quite a while.

Then the memory intruded in a rush, that I once had to routinely clean webs from the windowframes and corners of the ceilings every week...and now I never need to. Also the pesky hated swarms of pantry moths that sneak in on the birds' food and peanuts have all but vanished. I realized, kind of shocked, that I know small children who have no idea what a daddy-long-legs is - they have never seen a single one! And then, there was a recent comment on a post here on the blog, mentioning that years ago, cars used to be plastered with bugs in the summer...but no longer. I do remember the chore of scraping multitudes of dried squashed yellow splats off the windshield and grill of the car. Those days are long gone.

These revelations rushed into my consciousness even though I was barely awake - along with the thought that many of the imperiled birds rely upon insects for their food...so as soon as I had my coffee brewing I started to google and straight away came a host of links, the first from the UK Independent, all the way back in 2003. Scientists were already concerned that insect eating birds were dying off because the source of their food was dwindling away, and had even constructed a "splatometer" to attach to the hood of cars, to measure a baseline and then periodically track the trends. I will have to get in touch with them and the other scientists I found later, to see what the latest evidence has revealed.

"Experts believe falling insect numbers explain a decline in some bird species"

"Do you remember? Windscreens were covered once, at the end of a car trip in high summer, with an insect massacre: splattered moths and squashed flies and wasps and gnats and God knows what. But in recent years more and more drivers seem to be finding their windscreens clear."

"Is it just a vague perception? Or might it correspond to something real and serious, the widespread disappearance of insects in general? Conservationists are starting to think the latter proposition is true, and scientists at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have devised a simple but original device to test it."

"The splatometer, a piece of PVC film that attaches to the front of your car, will start to give a proper statistical basis to the increasing feeling that insects are vanishing, which is shared by many of Britain's senior entomologists."

"'Anecdotal evidence pointing to the decline of British insects abounds," said Dr George McGavin, acting curator of entomology at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. "Most people over the age of 50 talk of seeing many more species of moths, butterflies and other insects when they were children.'"

"With a colleague, Dr McGavin in 2000 examined insect records in Warwickshire from 100 years ago and the present day, and found that about 20 per cent of the species surveyed (including beetles, bees, dragonflies and butterflies) had disappeared or were in marked decline. A closer examination showed that 394 beetle species alone had been lost, a decline of 24 per cent."

"Britain's best insect records are kept by Rothamsted Research, the former government agricultural research station at Harpenden in Hertfordshire. Rothamsted supervises a network of 16 insect suction traps around Britain, which have been emptied daily, with the insects kept, for more than 30 years. This year a pilot project for English Nature assessed how much change there had been in the total weight of insects caught in four traps since 1970."

"There had been no change in the trap at Rothamsted itself, slight declines in traps in Devon and Kent, but a 60 per cent decline in the trap in Herefordshire. 'That was a very dramatic drop, but it is not yet possible to speculate on the reasons,' said the scientist running the project, Dr Richard Harrington.

When specific records for six moth species at Rothamsted were examined last year, five were found to have suffered substantial declines; many more are now being examined. It is a situation paralleled with butterflies; with bumblebees; and with mayflies, the upwing flies of rivers on which trout feed. The trend seems to be especially serious with Britain's 4,000 beetle species: many, such as ladybirds, are tumbling in numbers."

"But although these individual declines are becoming well known, there is a lack of data that might indicate general declines across Britain as a whole, which is where the splatometer comes in. It consists of a simple, postcard- sized piece of transparent PVC film, which sticks to the front of the car - on the bumper, number plate or body - and traps the insects that collide with it."

"At the end of a given journey, an identical piece of film is slipped on top of the original to protect its spattered haul, and the whole is peeled off (without leaving a sticky residue) and sent for analysis.

The beauty of the system, and the aspect that makes it possible to use on a large scale, is that each plate can be analysed quickly and automatically by a computer picture scanner, which can give an accurate reading of the marked area. The mindboggling task of trying to count the insects by hand never arises.

For the past few weeks the splatometer has been tested on the cars of RSPB staff based at the society's headquarters in Sandy, Bedfordshire, supervised by two young scientists, Dr Richard Bradbury, an expert in the decline of farmland birds, and Dr Mark Telfer, an entomologist."

"They gave The Independent an exclusive demonstration - Dr Bradbury's 20-mile car journey to work produced a boldly splattered plate - and they are convinced now that the splatometer will work, will be easy to use, very popular, and can be rolled out for mass use, very probably next summer."

"Once operating, it will produce a statistical baseline for insect abundance against which declines in future years can be accurately measured. And straight away it will yield some really significant results, such as regional variations, and date variations."

"The widespread disappearance of such once-common farmland birds as yellowhammers and grey partridges is what has set the ornithologists of the RSPB on the trail of insect decline; the one is thought to be caused by the other. But what is causing such widespread insect decline remains to be established. It is probably a combination of factors, including habitat loss, changes in land management practice, and climate change."

"The phenomenon has hitherto received virtually no publicity. This may be because many people see insects as "creepie-crawlies", and feel the fewer the better. But it may also be because a conservation community, which long ago alerted the world to threats to the giant panda, the tiger and other "charismatic megafauna", is only now waking up to the fact that things appear to be going badly wrong with insects and other invertebrates, or, as the great Harvard zoologist Edward O Wilson famously called them, the 'little things that rule the world'".

"SPECIES IN DECLINE

BEETLES

Large numbers of Britain's 4,000 beetle species are thought to be declining in abundance and range.

This applies especially to the larger ones and those associated with rotten wood, such as the stag beetle, the subject of a biodiversity action plan. The loss of large beetle species may be behind the extinction of one of Britain's most attractive birds, the red-backed shrike, which fed on them."

"BUTTERFLIES

About three quarters of Britain's 55 butterfly species have declined in recent decades, according to Britain's leading authority, Dr Jeremy Thomas. Two have become extinct - the large tortoiseshell and the large blue (although the large blue has been successfully reintroduced). Several more species, including the high brown fritillary, the pearl-bordered fritillary, the wood white and the Duke of Burgundy, have virtually gone."

"MAYFLIES

The numbers of mayflies and the other 50 aquatic upwing fly species on which trout feed may have declined by as much as about 60 per cent since the Second World War, according to a study organised three years ago. The Millennium Chalk Streams Fly Trends Study was based on the records and recollections of 365 experienced anglers on the chalk streams of southern England. The anglers said that they thought the numbers of flies were plunging.

MOTHS

Many of Britain's 900 or so larger moths are thought to be rapidly declining. When records for six species, caught in the moth trap network run by Rothamsted Research over 30 years, were examined, five, including once-common species such as the garden tiger and the magpie moth, were found to be plummeting in number. A large number of other moth records are now being scrutinised."

The next account about disappearing insects comes from Canada - and also is the result of a concern for birds. Published in OnNature Magazine, "Plight of the Bug Eaters" describes a complex detective endeavor, that involved excavating an old chimney and poking through meters of bird poo. It's a riveting and well-written article so I recommend the whole thing, but following are the parts that matter most to this blog. The scientists have considered all sorts of influences, including habitat loss...but look at this:

“'Frankly, most of the avian insectivores are declining in northeastern North America,' says Mike Cadman, a songbird biologist with Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), Ontario region, in Burlington. He quickly reels off a list of species: 'Swallows, nightjars, a lot of the flycatchers and the swifts … We have no clue why that would be, and it seems fairly consistent across the group.'"

"The steady decline that has affected the guild since the 1960s, and which has been approaching freefall since the mid 1980s, has landed some of the birds on both the provincial and federal lists of species at risk."

"The causes are multi-faceted and have proven difficult to identify, and sometimes are little more than educated guesses. “It makes you think there might be something consistent and pervasive across the group,” says Cadman. 'But one thing that is fairly noticeable is that you can come up with a reason for each species that is not the case across the group.'"

"Indeed, new evidence suggests a connection to environmental factors much larger than the woes of any particular bug-eating bird. In the process of trying to solve the riddle of what has laid low one of these species, we may be on the verge of learning fundamental truths about the plight of this entire group of birds, as well as about broader environmental issues."

"One expert, at least, has had a significant change in perspective recently. Joe Nocera, a research scientist at the Ministry of Natural Resources and adjunct professor at Trent University, became interested in aerial insectivores after chimney swifts were listed as threatened in Ontario has occurred at only one. While research into nesting boxes continues, their discouraging lack of use to date has led Nocera to conclude that something beyond habitat is causing the plunge in swift numbers."

"McCracken’s study outlines two interesting spatial patterns for aerial insectivore populations. One shows that the largest drops have occurred in the east and north. 'The more severe declines are in eastern Canada, from Ontario eastward, and they’re more pronounced in Quebec and the Maritimes,” he says. “We don’t know why, but it opens plausible research hypotheses.' For instance, the declines correlate with the environmental pattern of the impact of acid rain. Acid rain, McCracken notes, is associated with the loss of calcium in the environment, which could affect birds’ eggs and reproductive viability. There also may be a connection to the way contaminants such as mercury and lead are transported through the atmosphere and deposited far from their industrial source points."

“'There is something about this guild,” McCracken further reflects. 'I suspect it has something to do with the food supply.'"

"If he is right about that, the answer may lie in a chimney in the heart of the Queen’s University campus."

"The discovery started with Chris Grooms’s desire to do something for chimney swifts after they were listed as threatened federally in 2008. Grooms, who was then president of the Kingston Field Naturalists, is a technician with the Paleoecological Environmental Assessment and Research Laboratory (PEARL) at Queen’s University. The lab is especially well known for its groundbreaking work in the Canadian Arctic, where its lake sediment studies have shown that migratory birds are introducing industrial contaminants to nesting areas. They are ingesting the contaminants when feeding in the Arctic ocean and depositing them via their guano."

"While speaking with one of the naturalist club’s older members, Grooms was surprised to learn that swifts once congregated in the massive chimney of the university’s Fleming Hall. It turned out that a banding study was even conducted there between the 1920s and the 1950s. Researchers banded about 2,000 birds daily and the flock at one point was estimated at 4,000. Grooms discovered that the chimney was sealed with wire mesh in the early 1990s, but by then the swifts were well into their steep decline."

"The university agreed to have the mesh removed to again provide habitat for the birds. (Swifts built a nest the very first year.) Grooms and the naturalist club also decided to investigate what was in the massive chimney. When it was built between 1902 and 1904, Fleming Hall housed the plant that provided heating for most of the campus. Grooms was hoping the chimney might contain unrecovered bands from birds that died in the chimney. Instead, when club members opened the inspection door at the chimney base, about a metre square in area, they found a two-metre-deep column of organic matter."

"What at first appeared to be more than a half-century of accumulated guano turned out to be something else entirely. Swifts cough up the hard bits of the insects they eat, much like owls do pellets of animal bones. While there was some guano, virtually all the material that had piled up in the chimney was insect remains. Grooms was planning to excavate and sift the material to find old bands when he realized its value as a research opportunity analogous to PEARL’s lake sediment cores. Soot and roof material at the base of the deposit appeared to mark 1933 as the year of a catastrophic fire in the building, and the top of the deposit had to date to 1992/93, when the mesh was installed. Ergo, about 50 years of sequential insect remains were deposited between those two dates; material below the fire layer dated back to 1928, when the heating plant was taken out of service."

"In 2009, Grooms shaved off one-centimetre strips of a vertical section of the material to compile the 'core sample.' The lab dated the sample strata and identified 1963 as the last year of atmospheric atomic testing."

"Preliminary findings were revealed at the annual conference of the Ecological Society of America in Pittsburgh last August [2010]. The team found that the crash in the swift population in the mid-1960s correlated with a dramatic change in diet. 'True' bugs (insect species of the order Hemiptera) and beetles were replaced by flies, and nitrogen levels in guano deposits plunged. The swifts’ diet changed, a change the authors stated 'could easily affect individual survival and brood rearing.'

In other words, kill off the bugs and beetles, and you kill off the aerial insectivores."

"The findings suggested that swifts shifted their feeding behaviour because of a dramatic change in bug and beetle populations that may be related to the use of pesticides and other contaminants. They are now examining the samples for changes in contaminants such as metals, PCBs, DDT and hope this will be a way to gauge environmental change that hasn’t been done before."

"'We can’t illustrate causation,' says Nocera, 'but there is correlation between diet and the population drop. It’s the first historical evidence of what may be affecting other aerial insectivores.'"

"While the findings in the Fleming Hall chimney don’t knock all other causes out of contention – after swifts’ nitrogen levels recovered between 1977 and 1988, their depleted numbers continued to fall – they could go a long way to explaining why an entire guild of birds has been disappearing. Individual species, placed under stress by severe diet shifts and challenged by habitat loss, could have become more susceptible to a host of other factors, including pollutants."

[In a side bar, this is summed up]

"World decline

Aerial insectivore populations are declining not only in North America, but globally, which makes pinpointing a common cause for their plight a difficult task."

Hmmm...what could be a global influence??? Well, what would an Ozonista do upon reading that, but look for a connection between tropospheric ozone and insect decline?

An article from 2003 describes research investigating the impact of ozone on insects:

"Linda Mason, a Purdue entomology associate professor and co-author of the study, said ozone gas killed all of the adult insects it was tested against - the maize weevil, rice weevil, red flower beetle, Indian meal moth and lesser grain borer."

"But the gas was ineffective against immature weevils, which develop within grain kernels. Mason said unlike chemical fumigants, ozone does not penetrate deep enough into kernels to kill young weevils."

"It isn't clear how the ozone kills the insects, but Mason said the bugs may inhale the gas, which then could act like a neurotoxin.

She began studying ozone's insecticide potential after hearing anecdotal evidence that vents connected to hospital surgical wards where ozone gas was used to kill airborne bacteria were free of cockroaches.

Mason and her colleagues devised a two-phase process for killing the insects with two separate waves of the gas."

"The Purdue team is now trying to devise a way to use ozone gas as a vaporous barrier within silos to prevent insects from gaining a foothold.

Ironically, the work that led to Purdue's ozone gas discovery arose from a push for alternatives to potent insect fumigants that contribute to the depletion of the Earth's ozone layer.

Starting in 2005, one such chemical, methyl bromide, will be banned in the United States as part of a 1989 treaty signed by 165 nations aimed at reducing levels of ozone-damaging chemicals. Ozone in the upper atmosphere protects life on earth by absorbing short wave length ultraviolet radiation."

"Maier said Purdue's ozone insecticide process uses such low concentrations of ozone that it rapidly dissipates. It would not add to ground-level ozone, which is a component of smog, he said.

Despite Purdue's success, ozone gas will never be a substitute for methyl bromide - it simply isn't as effective as that chemical. But Mason said it could be paired with other techniques to be nearly as efficient."

More recent research, published in 2011, also from Dr. Linda Mason:

"Ozone is a highly reactive gas with insecticidal activity. Past studies have indicated that ozone technology has potential as a management tool to control insect pests in bulk grain storage facilities. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of short periods of exposure to high ozone concentrations to kill all life stages of red flour beetle , and Indian meal moth, adult maize weevil and adult rice weevil. Insects were treated with six ozone concentrations between 50 and 1800 ppm. The specific objective was to determine minimal time needed to attain 100% mortality. The most ozone-tolerant stages of T. castaneum were pupae and eggs, which required a treatment of 180 min at 1800 ppm ozone to reach 100% mortality. Eggs of P. interpunctella also required 180 min at 1800 ppm ozone to reach 100% mortality. Ozone treatments of 1800 ppm for 120 min and 1800 ppm for 60 min were required to kill all adult S. zeamais and adult S. oryzae, respectively. The results indicate that high ozone concentrations reduce the treatment times significantly over previously described results. Our results also provide new baseline information about insect tolerance to ozone treatment."

Well, it looks like short, high levels of exposure to ozone are quite effective in killing insects, at least, certain types. The question remains, whether constant, lower background levels are also effective in killing insects. Of course, we know that habitat is being destroyed, that climate change is almost certainly disrupting the synchronization of migration and food availability, plus the soil, rain and water are full of pesticides, heavy metals and other toxins. Not so much on my ceilings, though. How peculiar that in all my ruminations that ozone is killing trees - and knowing it causes fatal disease in humans - I have given so little thought till now what it might do to "the little things that rule the world". Unfortunately, it looks like bark beetles and stinkbugs are immune!

Skipping from the smallest to the largest among us, I've been wondering lately also, about what could possibly underlie the many reports of whales and other sea mammals obstinately beaching themselves, whereupon they die more often than not. I think it's pretty clear that massive fishkills occur because waters are eutrophic, and full of algae, which thrives on nitrogen pollution. But the beachings are more mysterious. An article in the Daily Mail went extensively into the extraordinary qualities possessed by the sperm whale, and ended with a horrible, likely explanation. I won't reproduce the entire thing, it's long and detailed, but full of astounding anecdotes if you're interested. Following are some excerpts:

"It has the biggest brain of any animal — a massive 18lb to our human 3lb — yet we really have no idea what it does with it.

This magnificent predator — at 65ft long, the greatest that has ever existed — spends 90 per cent of its life in the profound depths, able to dive deeper than any other animal."

"The sperm whale is a natural submarine, a miracle of evolutionary engineering. It is actually able to change the physical shape of its body to accomplish its dives.

At the surface, it will breathe deeply, like an athlete getting ready for an event. It exchanges all the carbon dioxide in its body for oxygen, storing it in its muscles."

"Humans do this to a certain extent, but the whales’ muscles are far more efficient at the process, as demonstrated by their almost black colour, an indication of how supercharged they are with myoglobin, which binds the oxygen to their blood."

"As it prepares to dive, the sperm whale undergoes one of nature’s most amazing transformations. Its characteristically square head is in fact an extended nose. Fifteen feet long from nostril to shoulder, it contains a massive reservoir of spermaceti oil.

This waxy oil has remarkable bio-acoustical properties. It is used to amplify the sonar clicks that echo along the animal’s head and out into the ocean."

"The result is the loudest noise created by any animal — 230 decibels, as loud as a jet engine and powerful enough to be heard six miles away.

As the whale dives, its massive nose, which is plump and bulbous when at the surface, is squeezed into a narrow, hydrodynamic wedge shape — the better to allow the animal’s plunge into the abyss.

The whale then shuts down every organ in its body, except heart and brain, in order to conserve energy and oxygen."

"Its lungs collapse as the animal’s ribs close in on bony hinges, lubricated by special mucus. If they did not, the increased pressure below would snap its ribcage.

Any air left in its body is confined to its nasal passages, where it is needed to generate the sonar clicks the animal uses to hunt. Its flippers fit into its sides like an aircraft’s undercarriage. Everything is streamlined.

Finally, the whale uses the rippling muscles in its tail to jack-knife downwards with an astonishing power.

A sperm whale can dive down for more than a mile, to depths which would crush a human being’s internal organs at a pressure of 500lb per square inch."

"In just five minutes, it can reach a depth of 500 metres, the limit at which a human diver can work.

Soon it will far exceed that, reaching 1,000m — its favoured hunting ground. We do not know exactly how the whale’s body resists such pressure. But it must be comfortable down there, since it can spend two hours underwater.

In the inky darkness, the whale hunts by using its sonar as a sweeping scan, in search of its favourite food: squid.

For centuries man has hunted the sperm whale, principally for that precious oil in its pugnacious head. Before the discovery of mineral oil, sperm whale oil burned in street lights and oil lamps. It lubricated the machines of the Industrial Revolution."

"It was even used in the NASA space missions as lubrication for space probes, since it does not freeze in sub-zero temperatures.

In 200 years we managed to reduce their population from two million to 360,000.

Luckily, most of the world no longer hunts these beautiful creatures. But now, tragically, there are new dangers to their wellbeing.

By virtue of its position at the top of the marine food chain, the pollution we dump in the sea affects sperm whales more than any other creature."

"One of the greatest problems faced by any marine species is the sheer amount of plastic in the ocean, especially plastic bags, as has been highlighted by the Daily Mail’s campaign against the profligate use of them.

...a minke whale recently stranded itself on the French coast. Its stomach was clogged with 800kg of plastic, including British supermarket bags.

One problem for the sperm whale is, ironically, its awesome success. It inhabits every ocean and almost every sea, from the vast Pacific to the enclosed Mediterranean. This is because it has evolved to find the perfect feeding niche, albeit a mile below the surface of the ocean."

"It is a staggering fact that sperm whales eat more squid and fish each year — 100 million tons, than the 70 million tons we humans catch and consume per annum.

The sperm whale has to eat so much to fuel its huge brain, which is highly expensive, in calorific terms, to run.

Given the size of their brains, sperm whale society is remarkably complex. Like the African elephant, it is matriarchal. So much so that females which are unrelated genetically will ‘baby-sit’ each other’s calves when they dive to feed."

"The whales also travel almost inconceivable distances. Every year, male sperm whales migrate towards the poles, returning toward the equator to breed. One male may travel more than 1,000km a month.

They communicate in a complex system of Morse-code-like clicks, and each ‘clan’ has a different dialect, in the way a Yorkshire accent differs from a Devon one.

Individual animals may be miles apart but they are always in intimate contact, through their extraordinary sense of hearing.

Such supreme adaptability means that sperm whales live to great ages, at least 100 years old. Bowhead whales, their cousins, live to even greater ages — up to 300 years and perhaps even older, making them the planet’s longest living mammal."

"In another recent and tragic case, a group of seven sperm whales stranded themselves on a Mediterranean beach. They had been driven into shallow waters, possibly by military sonar exercises. There they were unable to feed on squid. And since whales get their liquid from their food, they began to dehydrate.

Then, their starving bodies began to break down fat — to deadly effect. The pollutants they’d absorbed from the ocean and had been deposited in their fat were released."

"They included heavy metals such as mercury, lead and cadmium, and organochlorines like PCBs and DDTs, even fire-retardants used on modern furnishings.

In effect, the whales were poisoning themselves. Fatally weakened, they stranded themselves together on the shore, demonstrating the unswerving loyalty to each other for which their species is renowned.

And when their carcases were dissected, it came as no surprise to discover an unusual amount of plastic, including the dreaded plastic bags, in their stomachs."

It's discouraging to contemplate just how much plastic we use and discard, especially plastic packaging that is completely unnecessary, and containers for things like make-up, which is also unnecessary. Oh well, I suppose soon enough, hardly anybody will have money to buy wasteful things, and production will cease. That's it for today - except this brief video. If you aren't weeping by the end then you might want to check with a cardiologist in case your heart has turned to stone.

Photo credits here, here, here, and here, and here and here

"When Vegetation Rioted the Earth and the Big Trees Were Kings"

2012-02-04T12:36:00.006-05:00

I rarely venture outside anymore - only under duress...if I must. The contrast between the profusion of life that existed, in the vibrant world that I was born to - which was still lush with promise until fairly recently - has lately become, with the current hideous decay, almost unremittingly grim. This is the time of year I used to pore over seed catalogs, and plot new floriferous additions to the ornamental garden.

Boxwood shrubs turning a lurid orange, and it's not because they are in a parking lot.

Now I know that's a waste of time, effort and money, because I cannot escape the evidence that trees are dying, even in winter when the leaves are gone. The evergreens - cedars, yew, pine, boxwood - are turning dull yellow, garish coppery, or a gruesome purply bruised hue. Other symptoms - cracking bark, leaky holes in trunks, and cankers - are insistently present as well.

This is my boxwood hedge around the house at Wit's End, situated in the middle of the woods, far from cars, salt, or pavement.

It is impossible to avoid the signal that Rachel Carson's calamitous warning is about to be realized, perhaps as soon as this spring - and so I tend to cower in my kitchen these days, reading, assiduously avoiding a look out the window at the silent deterioration that surrounds.

But, one morning this week I was asked to drive beloved first daughter to the Newark airport, so of course I happily complied. She was returning to her winter sojourn in Florida, where she is subjecting her fabulous dressage stallion to rigorous training.

The pictures in this post (other than graphs from linked research) were taken along my journey back to Wit's End. The felled trees I happened to notice in a fleeting glimpse, piled between the parking lot of a dentist's office, and a decrepit farm, in the tiny enclave of Liberty Corner. I stopped and climbed through thorns to see just how many there were.

Some of them were enormous trunks and since there is no logging industry in New Jersey, they can only be the remains of trees taken from neighborhoods, trees that died or were dying...deemed hazardous, and removed by a tree service which happens to be headquartered a short distance down the road.

It was shocking that there is such an overabundance of huge logs, from valuable hardwood species, that they aren't even being used for lumber, let alone firewood...they are just tossed onto the field at the back of an old farm, and left to petrify, like bones in a open graveyard.

The trees standing around the lot where I parked to take the pictures will have to be cut down soon, too.

On the left, is a pine tree with absolutely no needles remaining, next to it a pine tree very thin, and on the right a deciduous tree losing bark, with stumpy broken branches.

Across the street, a cryptomeria is turning bronze.

The photos that follow are from a little park on the way home, called Buck Gardens. The arboretum is nestled deep in a ravine carved out from bedrock by the southernmost tongue of a glacier, with wonderful outcroppings of granite. A small creek runs through it, dammed into a shallow pond.

There were a few flowers blooming ridiculously early, but mostly, what follows will be evergreen leaves that are exhibiting the stippling and chlorosis typical of ozone damage.

The Hellebores were just starting to open - over a month early!

After I deposited first daughter for her flight, I began thinking about the month following her bar exam, in August 2005, when she was diagnosed with cancer. I can remember sitting, stunned and incredulous, in front of a television shortly thereafter, mindlessly staring at the news, which was inundated with the swirling white satellite images of a menacing Hurricane Katrina. I was so numb with horror at the thought that my daughter might die (she didn't) that the catastrophe unfolding in New Orleans seemed like a surreal and almost unsurprising backdrop to my family's own personal calamity.

Many unwelcome lessons ensued in the course of her diagnosis and treatment in the following months... lots of stupidly obvious ones like carpe diem. But as this blog is about trees dying from air pollution, I'm going to mention just two, since they happen to be pertinent, about doctors. Because doctors are really scientists, they are ~~indoctrinated~~ trained to think in certain ways - for very good reasons. Or at least, reasons that used to be good, back in the days when science wasn't quite so essential for setting sane public policy - and things weren't changing so fast that predictions based upon meticulous gathering of data, testing in controlled experiments, and designing models, are swiftly rendered dangerously obsolete.

Lesson One. Scientists and doctors are ~~egomaniacal douchebags~~ arrogant know-it-alls. When first daughter was initially admitted to the hospital, there was uncertainty as to what was wrong with her. First, ludicrously, it was pneumonia, a few days later, Hodgkin's Disease, then the next, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Interminable minutes dragged by in agonizing ignorance. My then-boyfriend did some googling and sent me an email, suggesting I ask her doctor whether she might possibly have "Mediastinal Large B-cell Diffuse Lymphoma".

I wrote it down because I knew I wouldn't be able to remember it all, and the next day at our morning meeting in her hospital room I read each syllable carefully from the card. Her doctor waved his hand, as if to brush it aside. No that's not it, he said, and reassured us that after a few more tests they would have the diagnosis and be able to begin treatment. Which would be a good thing, since she was considered to be, by then, in an "oncological emergency". Indeed, it turned out to be Mediastinal Large B-cell Diffuse Lymphoma after all.

I bring this up not because I think he was a bad man or a bad doctor, au contraire, he was a nice person, and went out of his way to help us. I mention it to illustrate that doctors and scientists generally assume a layperson knows precisely nothing at all, and they give no credence to unsolicited outlier inferences. In much the same way, virtually every scientist or other "expert" I have approached about trees dying from air pollution has dismissed the implication without ever seriously considering it, or even attempting the slightest effort to refute any of the unimpeachable evidence. Not one of them has ever bothered to explain why annuals or young saplings being watered regularly have the exact same injured foliage and corroded bark as indigenous trees anchored in the ground, which are supposedly dying from long-term climate-change drought.

At any rate, this first doctor was akin to saintly compared to the next, a researcher at Manhattan's Sloan Kettering who accepted her case, once she was finally diagnosed. He is conducting a clinical trial, and so alienated from empathy as to be classified borderline sadistic. He has as much compassion for his patients as he might for microbes he is studying under a microscope. I suppose that's a prerequisite when you are dealing with people every day, who may not survive, and are traumatized. But still.

Lesson Two. Scientists and Doctors have tunnel vision. They are trained to specialize but in order to do that, they become incapable of thinking outside the box, or of putting their particular research into a broader context in relation to other fields. In many instances, they don't even want to know about other fields and the influence that might have on their own field (think how climate change physicists refuse to factor the loss of the forest carbon sink into calculations). Case in point, early on, I asked this new doctor why he thought first daughter might have gotten the cancer. He shot me a withering look and said, "What difference does it make? I'm going to treat it the same way!" Well, I would submit it makes a hell of a lot of difference, but unfortunately although there are enormous sums of money to be made in treating cancer, there is nothing to be made in figuring out what toxic soup is creating so much of it.

When I was growing up, cancer was almost unheard of. It was a terrifying prospect, but very rare, about as likely an attack as being mauled by wolves or eaten by a shark. I will never forget when the first mother at my children's school got breast cancer, and died. Everyone was in complete shock that could happen to someone we knew...someone our age. Nowadays, is there anybody who doesn't know someone in their inner circle, or maybe several, who hasn't been affected by cancer?

Similarly, when I was young, a favorite pastime was climbing trees. They were considered to be as sturdy as stones, I never gave a thought to any danger of a branch breaking. Now, branches break and fall constantly, it is commonplace, we are inured to it. And still, although there are at last some (by no means all) scientists and foresters who admit trees are dying - because the evidence is incontrovertible and becoming overwhelming - it's almost always blamed on drought, or insects, or diseases or fungus or salt or wind. Anything but the pollution that is a byproduct of our industrial lifestyle, and the consumption that is so often enabled by exploiting the poorest people in the world, as often as not at the end of a gun.

One scientist who has made the leap wrote an article for the current edition of New Scientist magazine. Dr. William Laurance, a scientist from Australia, began "Big Trees in Trouble, How the Mighty are Falling" with a quote:

"Going up that river was like travelling back to the earliest beginnings of the world, when vegetation rioted on the earth and the big trees were kings." - Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness (1902)

Dr. Laurance surveyed the panoply of invasive species, logging, climate change and so forth, and investigated how those impact ancient large trees. He cited a variety of studies, including this one from 2007 of Panama and Malaysia, "Decelerating Growth in Tropical Forest Trees". It warns ominously: "While the underlying cause(s) of decelerating growth is still unresolved, these patterns strongly contradict the hypothesized pantropical increase in tree growth rates caused by carbon fertilization. Decelerating tree growth will have important economic and environmental implications."

And in 2009, from Costa Rica, researchers reported: "Tree growth in this Tropical Wet Forest was surprisingly sensitive to the current range of dry season conditions and to variations in mean annual night-time temperature of 1–2°. Our results suggest that wood production in the lowland rainforests of NE Costa Rica (and by extension in other tropical regions) may be severely reduced in future climates that are only slightly drier and/or warmer."

Yet another quote indicating "surprise":

"Long-term studies in Africa, Central America and the Amazon have shown many large trees succumbing to severe droughts. Many ecologists are surprised at just how devastating droughts can be for big trees. 'Old trees must have survived numerous droughts over the centuries, but more recent, harsh droughts are killing lots of them,' says Richard Condit of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama."

Exactly - they must have survived numerous droughts over the centuries!! No wonder the ecologists are surprised they are dying - and so sensitive to drought. I went to Costa Rica in June of 2010, and I personally saw that even on a fancy, meticulously maintained resort, where all the shrubs and trees are watered as well as of course all the ornamental flowers in pots, every plant had symptoms of exposure to ozone. You can see pictures here - and another post about foresters reluctantly recognizing global tree death here, if you can't get your fill. The next picture shows just how tough and resilient trees are:

Naturally I wrote Dr. Laurance my usual letter asking why ozone didn't make the cut in his litany of tree threats, and he was kind to reply:

"Thanks for your message. That’s a very good point to make—I only wish it had occurred to me when I wrote the article. The fact that sulfur dioxide pollution has generally declined in places like the eastern US and Europe made me think air pollution impacts on trees had waned somewhat. But on reflection I think you are quite right, as there are many other pollutants (e.g. ozone) out there that might predispose trees to opportunistic pathogens or pests."

"I’m hoping my article will begin to sensitize people to be more aware of the potential dangers for trees, especially the big, long-lived ones."

So that was decidedly nice except that he doesn't seem prepared to actually do much of anything about it. Perhaps he thinks the problem is limited to old-growth trees, and doesn't perceive it as an urgent existential threat to all ages of trees...because he wished me luck and ended by suggesting that I ought to "alert journalists and environmental organizations" !!! - as if there's anything else I do, day in day out!

However, in a 2009 paper, "Widespread Increase of Tree Mortality in the Western United States", the authors explicitely ruled out old age as the source, and report that young trees are dying as well. Here are two of their graphs:

They ruled out other natural, biotic causes - insects and disease - and conclude "...our results are inconsistent with a major role for endogenous causes of increasing mortality rates. Instead, the evidence is consistent with contributions from exogenous causes, with regional warming and consequent drought stress being the most likely drivers." They say "most likely" because 1. they have no other explanation which is because 2. they didn't consider ozone, even though the western US is constantly receiving increasing doses of pollution from China.

Description of the above graph: "Locations of the 76 forest plots in the western United States and southwestern British Columbia. Red and blue symbols indicate, respectively, plots with increasing or decreasing mortality rates. Symbol size corresponds to annual fractional change in mortality rate."

Pine trees going bare.

Equally compelling is newly published research about the boreal forest in Canada, whose principal author, Dr. Peng, is from the University of Montreal. I couldn't obtain the original paper so he generously emailed me not one, but two.

One of the reasons these papers are so fascinating is that he and his colleagues from China selected a huge number of plots, choosing only those not influenced by insects or impacted by wildfire. Thus, they too believe the primary variable affecting the 96 forest permanent sampling plots they included to be drought from climate change. Their sampling was based on two periods of measurements, the first census from 1963 to 1994, and the second from 1990 to 2008, so it's quite a large timeframe.

The measurement of carbon sink is important to Canada because they want to be able to use their vast forests to count in international negotiations over emission reductions. As far as I can tell, any notion that background tropospheric ozone might be influential is not reflected in the papers, nor is there any recognition of the well-established fact that ozone leads to a reduction in root systems, which in turn leads to greater susceptibility to drought.

The first paper, published in Nature Climate Change in November 2011 is titled, "A drought-induced pervasive increase in tree mortality across Canada's boreal forests" and says:

"Our results showed that mortality rates increased significantly in 83% of the PSP's, including 91% of these plots in western Canada, and 62% of the plots in eastern Canada...Mortality rates also increased for small, medium and large trees, and at low, medium and high elevations...All four [of the most abundant species] showed increasing mortality rates, as did trees of all the remaining species."

Gawd! How often have I been ridiculed for saying: all species of trees, of all ages, in all habitats are dying? And yet that's exactly the trend they discovered. Minus any insects. Hm.

This is a magnificent old sycamore. The trunk, sadly, is infested with cankers. These fungal lumps are like malignant tumors that will expand wildly, girdling the tree and swiftly killing it.

The authors speculate on why the scientific community has failed to account for the loss of forests as carbon sinks in climate modeling (another observation that has embroiled me in controversy):

"...both because data on tree mortality over large areas are expensive and are therefore not widely available, and because the physiological mechanisms of drought-induced tree mortality are still poorly understood."

This is really quite astonishing when you think about it. Clearly, if a drought is severe and prolonged enough, it will kill trees. And yet these researchers - and the folks in New England speculating about the decline of sugar maples - simply assume, with NO EVIDENCE other than correlation, that climate change drought is killing trees...even though they really don't even know how that might work. Yet they cling to the idea, ignoring the fact that trees are experiencing increased mortality in areas where there hasn't been drought, AND there exists abundant evidence that ozone is toxic to vegetation, plus that it makes plants more vulnerable to drought - oh, and the background levels of ozone are inexorably increasing. Now, that is a glaring omission that is just bizarre.

Everywhere around the park there are stumps from dead and dying trees that have been cut down.

Wait you say, isn't air pollution improving? According to this study from 2000 (and many others since, ho hum), while episodic high peaks have decreased, the constant background level is increasing. This Harvard team doesn't get into it explicitly, but it's quite possible that chronic exposure without any period for recovery is far worse for trees than occasional, transitory highest peak levels. The paper is titled "Increasing background ozone in surface air in the United States":

Several trees are marked with orange tape for removal.

"Ozone concentrations have decreased at the high end of the probability distribution (reflecting emission controls) but have increased at the low end. The cross-over takes place between the 30th and 50th percentiles in May-August and between the 60th and 90th percentiles during the rest of the year. The increase is statistically significant at a 5% level in spring and fall, when it is 3-5 ppbv. The maximum increase is in the Northeast. A possible explanation is an increase in the O3 background transported from outside the United States....Although Altshuller and Lefohn [him again!] view this background as natural, there is in fact good evidence that it includes a major anthropogenic component associated with intercontinental transport of pollution. The lifetime of O3 in the free troposphere is sufficiently long (several weeks) that anthropogenic O3 pollution can circumnavigate the globe and enhance O3 over the entire northern midlatitudes belt."

Along one side of the park is the unfortunately placed freeway, Route 287. When I first started walking in this park, 30 years ago, it was disappointing that the roar of the cars and trucks marred the tranquility of the gardens. But the noise was the only way you would know it was so close, even in winter. There was no hint through the thicket of trees and shrubs that a road was there. Now, so much has died away that the straight line of the shoulder is plainly visible.

Keep in mind this paper used data up to 1998, and the background level has been continuing to increase, not just from the fuel emissions from China, but the increasing emissions of reactive nitrogen from crop fertilization, and methane, both precursors to ozone, neither of which are regulated. Their impact on the environment and contribution to ozone formation is thus potentially grotesquely underestimated. For example, see this ~~amazing~~ terrifying report about methane leaks, "The emission of methane from natural gas activities includes both purposeful venting of gas and accidental leakage. The exact magnitude remains somewhat uncertain, but despite industry assertions, most estimates for both conventional natural gas and shale gas fall in a reasonably narrow range...any of these estimates are cause for alarm, and the lowest numbers are clearly biased, or in error..." And that's not even considering the melting of the permafrost and release of methane in the Arctic due to climate change, which has been declared a planetary emergency.

More trees designated to meet the chainsaw.

It is ceaselessly perplexing that there is no recognition that trees exposed to ozone are more vulnerable to drought. This can be extrapolated from the fact that their root mass shrinks. Here's a lovely quote I had posted over on the DeadTrees...DyingForests website: "The most curious result obtained appears to me to be that relating to the effect of a highly ozonized atmosphere upon the roots of plants." – M. Carey Lea, 1864".

Yep, that's right. It's been known for well over a hundred years that ozone shrinks rootmass, and yet foresters studying tree decline and comparing it to temperature and drought NEVER make the connection! Consider - there are trees on earth that have lived for over 7,000 years. Surely they have survived many droughts over the millennia. What hasn't been a significant influence in the atmosphere before...what's different now, in this fraught moment in geologic time when a massive, rapid die off is occurring...is tropospheric ozone.

The second version of this paper, published in January in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, is attributed to the same authors but edited by Steven Wofsy, a Harvard professor who fervently claims Eastern forests are "growing strong". The same data is referenced, but the emphasis is altered.

Lichens on rocks!

Compare the title of the first:

"A drought-induced pervasive increase in tree mortality across Canada's boreal forests"

which, remember, says the following:

"Our results showed that mortality rates increased significantly in 83% of the PSP's, including 91% of these plots in western Canada, and 62% of the plots in eastern Canada...Mortality rates also increased for small, medium and large trees, and a low, medium and high elevations...All four [of the most abundant species] showed increasing mortality rates, as did trees of all the remaining species."

Whereas the later, Wofsy-edited iteration is titled:

"Regional drought-induced reduction in the biomass carbon sink of Canada's boreal forests"

and interprets the date like this:

"Our analysis shows that the rate of biomass change for all plots combined and for the western region showed significant decreasing trends, but there was no significant change for the eastern region."

Caption for this graph: "Locations of the 96 Forest PSP's in Canada's boreal forests. The black and red circles represent plots with decreasing and increasing mortality rates, respectively. The circle size corresponds to the magnitude of the annual change in mortality rates."

Personally, I see an awful lot of red circles in the Eastern section, and what's more, there are simply fewer sample plots in the Eastern section, which could skew the comparison to the western area.

The above graph comparing Eastern (pink) and Western (blue) increases in mortality rates was omitted from the second paper. What it shows is that the increase in mortality is faster in the west, however the upward trend in the East, although not as steep a trajectory, is still pronounced. I find this anything but reassuring, and certainly not "insignificant"! A trend is a trend.

I'm also not quite sure how "no significant change" can be reconciled with the many reports that sugar maples are dying off, supposedly from drought from climate change, because the vast majority of them are in Eastern Canada and US, and they often dominate the forests there. In any event, it seems the trend revealed by both regions, and other places all over the Earth, is indicative of a march towards disaster. There dataset stopped in 2008, which happens to be the year that I noticed a dramatic and abrupt decline begin, so that isn't reflected in the survey. This lack of recent data is reminiscent of a study published by the Smithsonian Institute Research Institute in Maryland, reporting that Eastern forests are growing faster. It took a while to extract the information, but it turned out that the data they relied upon for their assessment ceased in 2007. There's a somewhat comical account of my attempt to do a more current followup the same forest they studied at their plot, in April 2010 (but only if you want to massively digress).

Another stump

By way of illustration of just how pig-headed this fixation on drought is (unless it's a ruthlessly deliberate attempt to withhold frightening statistics, who knows?), following are links, chosen pretty much at random, to just a few from the avalanche of studies about the damage done to annual crop yield and quality, from researchers all over the world, with their abstracts. There is a dizzying number of others, just go to the "related articles" column on the right of any link and you will be down the rabbit's hole.

By the sheer volume of studies dating back decades, it ought to be evident that there has been a serious problem for some time, and that it is inevitably worsening as more and more precursors are emitted by a growing population living a more polluting lifestyle. The critical question to ask, since ozone diminishes annual plants so badly, is what does it do to trees that are exposed to cumulative injury season after season, for years? If you slog all the way to the end, there's very pretty little video that will help you forget everything you've read here!

Yes, this is a pine tree.

1982, the UK, Effects of air pollutants on agriculture and forestry
Abstract: Historically, studies of the effects of the main phytotoxic gases (SO₂, O₃, NOx and HF) have focused on determining the threshold for onset of visible foliar injury. More recently, research has focused on determining the thresholds for effects on economically important yield parameters irrespective of foliar injury. The implication is that long-term seasonal or annual standards may be required to prevent yield losses particularly for the primary pollutants in diffuse-source regions and for secondary pollutants. This paper reviews the literature on thresholds for yield effects of SO₂ and O₃ and concludes that

1.(a) the current EEC standard for SO₂ is adequate to protect most crops and trees and

2.(b) more work is required to determine whether the U.S.A. threshold for O₃ effects are applicable to the climate and crops of Europe.

Recent results suggest that yield responses vary so much with climatic factors that broad regional standards may not be acceptable. In addition, the effect of one phytotoxic gas must now be assessed against the background of the other gases.

Future research on effects of SO₂ and O₃ in particular, will be increasingly influenced by the use of cost-benefit analysis in the regulating process and the consequent demand for dose-response relationships. This approach is fraught with difficulty and particular problems arise

1. when ‘hypothetical’ relationships are assumed in the absence of good data and

2. when the linearity of dose-response relationships are presumed to justify the extrapolation from effects at high concentrations to lower ambient concentrations.

The evidence for nutritional effects of low levels of SO₂ and NOx abrogates this assumption and suggests that for some gases at least, there should be a threshold below which no detrimental effects occur. This paper reviews the recent work aimed at producing dose-response relationships for economically important yield parameters.

1983, Brookhaven National Laboratory - Quantifying effects of oxidant air pollutants on agricultural crops

Abstract: Estimating risks of air pollution damage to agricultural crops requires identifying crop location and size, likely doses, models for translating dose to response, and measures of response appropriate for economic analysis. Assessment of risk requires compatible data sets for each of these variables. Analysis of air pollution mixtures suggests that oxidant crop damage is caused by three compounds: ozone, nitrogen oxides, and peroxyacetylnitrates. The phytotoxicity of ozone, the most prevalent photochemical oxidant, has been studied more extensively than the other two oxidants, and its effects on vegetation are best understood. Response of vegetation to air pollutants was first characterized by foliar or visible injury. Subsequent research indicated that foliar injury did not translate directly into reduced plant growth or yield, which can be measured. Response to air pollutants may be influenced by physical, biological, and environmental factors. Inherent genetic resistance is probably the most important single factor affecting plant response, although environmental factors influencing stomatal aperture may also be important. For several crops open-top chamber studies and cross sectional analyses of field data provide adequate information to develop dose-response functions. All of these studies have both strengths and weaknesses. Although a number of different models exist for selected crops, there is no single biological or statistical criterion which identifies the best or most accurate model.

1986 US EPA - The Impact of Ozone on Agriculture and its Consequences

Abstract - Given its high level of phytotoxicity and distribution of elevated concentrations over broad geographic areas, O3 is considered the most critical air pollutant affecting vegetation in the United States. Diverse experimental methods have been used to assess the impacts of O3 on the crop yield. Comparisons of plant growth and yield in charcoal-filtered or unfiltered air and the use of chemical protectants show that ambient O3 levels will reduce the growth and yield of numerous plant species. Ozone studies in open-top field-exposure chambers have provided exposure-response functions needed to evaluate the economic impacts of O3 on agriculture. Exposure-response functions have been developed for a range of legume, grain, fiber and horticultural crops. Yield reductions (10%) were predicted for several crop species when the 7-hr seasonal mean concentration exceeded 0.04 to 0.05 ppm. for some sensitive cultivars of wheat, kidney bean and soybean, 10% yield reductions occurred at 7-hr mean concentrations of 0.028 to 0.033 ppm. Recent studies, using exposure-response functions developed in open-top chambers, have attempted to assess the national economic consequences of O3 effects on agriculture. These studies indicate that elevated O3 concentrations are costing U.S. agricultural producers and consumers between 1.2 and 2.4 billion dollars annually.

1987 - U CA, Air pollutant yield-loss assessment for four vegetable crops
Abstract: Crop loss was evaluated for leaf lettuce, green onion, turnip and beet in a field chamber system using a gradient of ambient pollutants. The nine-chamber gradient had air flows adjusted to filter pollutants to 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, 35, 20 and 0% of ambient or ambient plus added ozone. Dose-response functions were calculated for the four crops using both a 12-h seasonal mean dose statistic and a 0.10 μl l−1 threshold dose summary. Yield-loss functions were generated from yield equations. Crop yield-loss functions for green onion, turnips and beets were significant with 12-h seasonal mean ozone dose. Yield-loss functions based on the 0.10 μl l−1 threshold were significant for onion, lettuce and beets. Multiple regression analysis using both dose summary statistics did not produce a better predictive model of yield loss for any of the four crops examined.

The pussywillows are out!

1989, Germany - Current Knowledge of Ozone on Vegetation/Forest Effects and Emerging Issues

Abstract: In consequence of increased emissions of nitrogen oxides and reactive hydrocarbons as precursor substances as well as in respect of phytotoxicity, range of concentration and spatial distribution, ozone is today the most important phytotoxic component among photochemical oxidants and besides sulfur dioxide probably the most important air pollutant in Europe today. While its importance to forest decline was first discovered in California 25 years ago, new impetus in effects research was caused by the appearance of novel forest decline in Europe and United States of America. Former research was emphasizing more the acute effects, especially in connection with agricultural and horticultural crops. Now, the central point of discussion are chronic effects. By this, the problem has become increasingly difficult, since other environmental stresses, such as pathogenes, soil, and climate very often mimic ozone effects under field conditions.

Given that winter neglected to arrive this year, I thought this admonition was funny!

1993, Pakistan - Air pollution and its impacts on wheat yield in the Pakistan Punjab

Abstract: A study using open-top chambers ventilated with ambient or charcoal-filtered air in the vicinity of Lahore, Pakistan, has demonstrated a reduction of 46·7% and 34·8% in the grain yield for two cultivars of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). The 6-h daily mean O3 concentrations were 25–45 nl litre−1 and on the basis of experience in North America and Europe, reductions in yield in the present study are substantially greater than might be predicted. The reasons for this discrepancy are discussed, together with implications for the suitability of a simple, relatively cheap, open-top chamber system for developing-country studies on the effects of air pollution on crops.

2000 Italy, Spain, Belgium - Evidence of ozone-induced adverse effects on crops in the Mediterranean region
Abstract: The impacts of ambient ozone pollution on crops in the Mediterranean countries have been recorded regularly in the so-called “grey literature” of UN/ECE Workshop Reports for the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, and less frequently in the peer-reviewed literature. This short communication reviews such records and shows that ambient ozone episodes have been reported to cause visible injury on 24 agricultural and horticultural crops grown in commercial fields including three of the most important crops in the region (wheat, maize, and grapevine). On one occasion, the damage was so extensive that complete crop loss occurred in commercial glasshouses of Butterhead lettuce in one area of Greece. Experiments with open-top chambers have indicated that ambient ozone caused 17–39% yield loss in crops such as wheat, bean, watermelon and tomato.

2007 Wood's Hole, MIT - Impacts of ozone on trees and crops
Abstract: In this review article, we explore how surface-level ozone affects trees and crops with special emphasis on consequences for productivity and carbon sequestration. Vegetation exposure to ozone reduces photosynthesis, growth, and other plant functions. Ozone formation in the atmosphere is a product of NO_x, which are also a source of nitrogen deposition. Reduced carbon sequestration of temperate forests resulting from ozone is likely offset by increased carbon sequestration from nitrogen fertilization. However, since fertilized croplands are generally not nitrogen-limited, capping ozone-polluting substances in the USA, Europe, and China can reduce future crop yield loss substantially.

2008 Italy, UK, Austria - The global impact of ozone on agricultural crop yields under current and future air quality legislation
Abstract in part: Translating these assumed yield losses into total global economic damage for the four crops considered, using world market prices for the year 2000, we estimate an economic loss in the range $14–$26 billion. About 40% of this damage is occurring in China and India. Considering the recent upward trends in food prices, the ozone-induced damage to crops is expected to offset a significant portion of the GDP growth rate, especially in countries with an economy based on agricultural production.

Bees - on the first of February!

2010 Princeton U - Global crop yield reductions due to surface ozone exposure: 1. Year 2000 crop production losses and economic damage
Abstract: Exposure to elevated concentrations of surface ozone (O₃) causes substantial reductions in the agricultural yields of many crops. As emissions of O₃ precursors rise in many parts of the world over the next few decades, yield reductions from O₃ exposure appear likely to increase the challenges of feeding a global population projected to grow from 6 to 9 billion between 2000 and 2050. This study estimates year 2000 global yield reductions of three key staple crops (soybean, maize, and wheat) due to surface ozone exposure using hourly O₃ concentrations simulated by the Model for Ozone and Related Chemical Tracers version 2.4 (MOZART-2). Our results indicate that year 2000 O₃-induced global yield reductions ranged, depending on the metric used, from 8.5–14% for soybean, 3.9–15% for wheat, and 2.2–5.5% for maize. Global crop production losses totaled 79–121 million metric tons, worth $11–18 billion annually (USD₂₀₀₀). Our calculated yield reductions agree well with previous estimates, providing further evidence that yields of major crops across the globe are already being substantially reduced by exposure to surface ozone – a risk that will grow unless O₃-precursor emissions are curbed in the future or crop cultivars are developed and utilized that are resistant to O₃. [note - crop cultivars developed to be resistant to ozone, even assuming it's possible to do so, will do exactly nothing to save indigenous plants and forests!]

from the contents: (uploaded to googledocs)

"Surface ozone (O3) is a major component of smog, produced in the troposphere by the catalytic reactions of nitrogen oxides (NOx NO ␣ NO2) with carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) in the presence of sunlight. In addition to having a detrimental effect on human health, field experiments in the United States, Europe, and Asia demonstrate that surface ozone causes substantial damage to many plants and agricultural crops, including increased susceptibility to disease, reduced growth and reproductive capacity, increased senescence, and reductions in crop yields. O3 penetrates leaves through the stomata, where it reacts with various compounds to yield reactive odd-oxygen species that oxidize plant tissue and result in altered gene expression, impaired photosynthesis, protein and chlorophyll degradation, and changes in metabolic activity."

"Based on the large-scale experimental studies of the National Crop Loss Assessment Network (NCLAN) conducted in the United States in the 1980s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that the yields of about one third of U.S. crops were reduced by 10% due to ambient O3 concentrations during this time. Results from the European Open-Top Chamber Programme in the 1990s similarly suggest that the European Union may be losing more than 5% of their wheat yield due to O3 exposure. Although comparable large-scale studies have not been conducted in developing countries, the potential risk of ambient O3 exposure to agricultural production has been documented through both small-scale field studies and modeling efforts in East Asia, the Indian subcontinent, Egypt, and South Africa."

"With over one billion people in the world currently estimated to be undernourished, the impact of O3 pollution on present-day and future global food production deserves attention. This is especially true as both population and O3-precursor emissions are projected to increase in most developing nations over the next few decades. Rising emissions of O3-precursors in these countries pose a risk to not only their national and regional food security but also to global food production as O3 and some of its precursors are sufficiently long-lived to be transported between continents."

public policy implications:

"Our study highlights the need for such a secondary O3 standard, with O3-induced agricultural losses already estimated to cost an annual $11e18 billion globally and over $3 billion in the U.S. alone. For context, these damages are 2-3 times larger than estimated global crop losses due to climate change since the 1980s ($5 billion annually). While the selection and development of crop cultivars with O3-resistance is therefore a worthwhile addition to efforts to increase crop resilience to climatic stresses, strategies aimed at mitigating global O3 concentrations would provide additional co-benefits for human health and climate change. Ozone is a noxious air pollutant in the troposphere and the third most potent greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane. Reductions in CH4 in particular have been shown to decrease surface ozone concentrations globally with significant health benefits while also generating the largest net reduction in radiative forcing of all the O3-precursor species."

[note: "Our study highlights the need for such a secondary O3 standard..." is precisely what Obama told the EPA they can't do!]

Comparison of regionally-averaged monthly mean surface ozone concentrations from monitoring sites (black diamonds) and MOZART-2 (grey squares).

Following is their companion paper, which compares models of future crop loss based on different amounts of ozone pollution.

2010 Princeton - Global crop yield reductions due to surface ozone exposure: 2. Year 2030 potential crop production losses and economic damage under two scenarios of O₃ pollution
Abstract: ...Because our analysis uses crop data from the year 2000, which likely underestimates agricultural production in 2030 due to the need to feed a population increasing from approximately 6 to 8 billion people between 2000 and 2030, our calculations of crop production and economic losses are highly conservative. Our results suggest that O₃ pollution poses a growing threat to global food security even under an optimistic scenario of future ozone precursor emissions. Further efforts to reduce surface O₃ concentrations thus provide an excellent opportunity to increase global grain yields without the environmental degradation associated with additional fertilizer application or land cultivation.

Total crop production loss, left panels, and economic, right, under the 2030 A2 scenario

Highlights: (full text on googledocs) ► Surface O₃ will have an increasingly detrimental impact on future crop yields. ► Yields of wheat, soybean, and maize could be reduced by up to 26% globally in 2030. ► Global losses up to 17% are possible even in an optimistic scenario of future O₃. ► Agricultural losses worldwide may be worth $17–35 billion annually by 2030.

2010 Greece - Economic damages of ozone air pollution to crops using combined air quality and GIS modelling
Abstract: This study aims at presenting a combined air quality and GIS modelling methodological approach in order to estimate crop damages from photochemical air pollution, depict their spatial resolution and assess the order of magnitude regarding the corresponding economic damages. The analysis is conducted within the Greater Thessaloniki Area, Greece, a Mediterranean territory which is characterised by high levels of photochemical air pollution and considerable agricultural activity. Ozone concentration fields for 2002 and for specific emission reduction scenarios for the year 2010 were estimated with the Ozone Fine Structure model in the area under consideration. Total economic damage to crops turns out to be significant and estimated to be approximately 43 M€ for the reference year. Production of cotton presents the highest economic loss, which is over 16 M€, followed by table tomato (9 M€), rice (4.2 M€), wheat (4 M€) and oilseed rape (2.8 M€) cultivations. Losses are not spread uniformly among farmers and the major losses occur in areas with valuable ozone-sensitive crops. The results are very useful for highlighting the magnitude of the total economic impacts of photochemical air pollution to the area’s agricultural sector and can potentially be used for comparison with studies worldwide. Furthermore, spatial analysis of the economic damage could be of importance for governmental authorities and decision makers since it provides an indicative insight, especially if the economic instruments such as financial incentives or state subsidies to farmers are considered.

These gaping holes that leak fluid have become ubiquitous.

One of the most interesting symptoms of decline is this corrosion of bark. It becomes uncharacteristically rough, breaks up in patches or ribbons, and ultimately falls off. I don't know if it's from an internal process, or actually from caustic action on the surface. The trunks look like they've had acid thrown on them.

2010 NASA - An investigation of widespread ozone damage to the soybean crop in the upper Midwest determined from ground-based and satellite measurements

Abstract: Elevated concentrations of ground-level ozone (O3) are frequently measured over farmland regions in many parts of the world. While numerous experimental studies show that O3 can significantly decrease crop productivity, independent verifications of yield losses at current ambient O3 concentrations in rural locations are sparse. In this study, soybean crop yield data during a 5-year period over the Midwest of the United States were combined with ground and satellite O3 measurements to provide evidence that yield losses on the order of 10% could be estimated through the use of a multiple linear regression model. Yield loss trends based on both conventional ground-based instrumentation and satellite-derived tropospheric O3 measurements were statistically significant and were consistent with results obtained from open-top chamber experiments and an open-air experimental facility (SoyFACE, Soybean Free Air Concentration Enrichment) in central Illinois. Our analysis suggests that such losses are a relatively new phenomenon due to the increase in background tropospheric O3 levels over recent decades. Extrapolation of these findings supports previous studies that estimate the global economic loss to the farming community of more than $10 billion annually.

One last thing, harkening back to an earlier post about the Nitrogen Cascade, here's another graph from the review by UNEP and Woods Hole Research Center "Reactive Nitrogen in the Environment", with the description beneath, estimate the costs of pollution around the Chesapeake Bay, including to forests.

description: "Diagram of economic nitrogen cascade, illustrating the damage costs associated with nitrogen from each source type as it cascades through the various systems in the watershed. Cost estimates in boxes are the estimated costs per tonne of nitrogen emitted by each source type for each ecosystem type. Monetarized costs include reduced recreational and residential visibility, mortality, hospitalization and work loss caused by particulate and ozone exposure, materials damage via corrosion, loss in agricultural productivity due to ozone exposure, reduced crab fisheries and impacted recreational use. These costs are summed for each source type to provide a total economic damage estimate (in monetary terms) for each source type. In addition to the monetary damage estimates, the types of economic damage for which monetary estimates were not available are also identified, including nine such types of damage for nitrogen from energy production and seven types each for food and fibre production and wastewater."

Finally now - the sweet, happy video - as promised!

Ocean Acidification

2012-02-02T09:26:00.000-05:00

What does this mean? Cassandra explains:

Collateral Damage

2012-01-31T14:30:00.000-05:00

The last line from the newscaster is classic: "Experts at the scene today don't think anyone killed the birds intentionally." Right. We killed them unintentionally.

According to a review issued jointly by the UN Environment Programme and Woods Hole Research Center, "Reactive Nitrogen in the Environment", pollution from burning fuels, sewage, and excessive fertilization in industrial agriculture triggers algal blooms in lakes, rivers and coastal waters, which take oxygen out of the water resulting in hypoxic or anoxic regions. This loss of oxygen causes other forms of life to expire, and then again, some of those algal blooms are toxic, like the red tide in the picture above, poisoning whatever eats contaminated seafood. Like those birds on the beach in Moss Landing.

"Global map of 199 coastal oxygen depletion zones related to anthropogenic eutrophication. Updated from Diaz et al., 2004, by personal communication from R. Diaz, 2007."

"Diagram of the biogeochemical nitrogen cascade, showing the major fluxes of reactive nitrogen among atmospheric, terrestrial, freshwater and estuarine systems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These inputs of reactive N to the Bay are attributed to three source types: energy production, food and fiber production, and wastewater. Arrow width varies according to flux size. Adapted from Moomaw and Birch, 2005." This model is applicable to other estuaries as well.

Thanks to the Coming Crisis for posting the newscast

But...I Thought Global Warming Is A Hoax!

2012-01-31T10:20:00.002-05:00

to Traffic Cleverly in the Soulful Poetry of Ruination

2012-01-30T17:41:00.000-05:00

Before we get to the abundantly amusing source for the title to this post, we'll take a quick look at a recent example from the news, of dying trees. A Florida story is so ghastly that I almost wasn't going to mention that the dieback of vegetation is already leading to more frequent and worse wildfires, in the context of the smoke that caused a total lack of visibility across a freeway Sunday, leading to multiple crashes and at least 10 deaths. "Visibility was so poor that when rescuers first arrived, they could only listen for screams and moans to locate victims, police said."

"'You could hear cars hitting each other. People were crying. People were screaming. It was crazy,' a Gainesville man said hours later. 'If I could give you an idea of what it looked like, I would say it looked like the end of the world.' All around them, cars and trucks were on fire, and they could hear explosions as the vehicles burned."

Of course I know that just because ozone is bathing plantlife in a poisonous chemical brew, doesn't mean that particular horrific incident is in any way related. It could be, just not necessarily.

Giant trees falling over for no good reason though, I would say that definitely does have something to do with a rotting root system, as in this story from Ohio:

"Heather Rhoads wasn't home when a 90 foot white oak tree came crashing down in gusty winds over the weekend, but when she arrived home on Midland in Bay Village she took a huge sigh of relief.

That's because the backyard tree missed crushing her house by only a few feet."

"Power of 5 meteorologist Jason Nicholas says the peak wind gust in Cleveland was 41 mph at Hopkins Airport Saturday and the wind was gusting to 39 mph at Burke around 6 Saturday night when the tree came crashing down. Part of the tree hit the back porch, but other trees surrounding the oak played an instrumental role in holding the tree off the home."

The best part was this comment left by a very sensible person named Terri: "wow ! glad it did not hit the home and no one was home. How hard was the winds blowing to blow this big tree over? It has way too many leaves left on it which leads me to believe the tree was dead or been dying for awhile. I mean it would take some high winds to bring that out the ground."

And the carnage continues: for mysterious reasons, there has been an "irruption" of snowy owls from their normal home closer to the Arctic. Various speculations are made as to why thousands have descended to the northern US, but the article ends with an observation from the head of the Owl Research Institute of Montana, who has studied them for two decades: "...snowy owl populations are believed to be in decline possibly because a changing climate has lessened the abundance of vegetation like grasses that lemmings rely on".

St. Isidore, Canada

My comment: A lack of grasses due to climate change? Nonsense! The northern latitudes are warming much faster than the lower latitudes - why do scientists persist in attributing dying plantlife to climate change when it's well known that vegetation is highly sensitive to ordinary, invisible but toxic air pollution.

We should all wake up to this existential threat. Plants are at the bottom of our food chain, too!

Exploded Peaches on Picnic Blanket - all artwork by Valery Hegarty
This is my favorite - I have a thing about peaches

Is it any wonder with such forebodings rampant in the world that I find it to be delightful when I come across such meager macabre beauty as can be found? All the tedious science and depressing conclusions that follow will be interspersed by photos of the work of an artist, Valerie Hegarty, who explores themes uncannily close to my heart...

...Distorted, zombie trees bursting through man-made architecture; sloppily exploding fruit; black crows - insidiously taking over much of the avian world - ripping what's left of nature asunder; woodpeckers destroying fine antique furniture and artworks with such obsessive pecking they leave something that looks suspiciously like bullet holes in the wood, glass and plaster; faux interiors in remorseless decay...Great Stuff! Here are a few of her pieces with comments from critics who reviewed her shows.

"Damage is romantic. Our hearts go out to the broken, wounded and wrecked. The works in this evocative exhibition are not literally but only apparently damaged. The 20 artists included in “Perfectly Damaged” (selected by Isaac Lyles) traffic cleverly in the soulful poetry of ruination."

"Some pieces involve carefully contrived illusions of damage. For “George Washington Melted 2,” Valerie Hegarty created a convincing simulation of a Gilbert Stuart-type portrait of the first president and, at the same time, made it appear as if a fire had burned through the upper edge of the canvas and turned half the subject’s face into an sagging, oozy mess." - Ben Johnson, NYTimes 7/7/2011

This is a marvelous photo of the show's opening reception, where patrons wander the gallery, sipping wine and chatting, and meanwhile, the crows swarm and viciously attack.

"...Similar combinations of darkness and excess stuck out elsewhere. .... and, most pleasingly allegoric of all, Valerie Hegarty’s Still lives with Crows at Guild & Greyshkul, a paper assemblage resembling a flock of crows tearing bloody hunks of meat out of a painting of a steak -- a goof on the old Greek myth of Zeuxis and Parrhasios, and a picture of image culture cannibalizing itself."

I'm sorry I missed this installation, but through the magic of teh intertubes, we can get a sense of it:

"Valerie Hegarty's installations create dream-like transitional spaces that expand and fracture the austerity of an exhibition space while dismantling the constructs of image making. For her first solo exhibition in New York, Hegarty will present Landscaping, a new installation in which an idyllic woodland scene, seemingly alive and growing, overcomes the gallery in a collision of exterior and interior views."

"Working solely with paper and paint, Hegarty exploits a scrupulous mimicry of all of the elements of Landscaping- the ladder left in midst of an attempted repair of the situation, the trees, the cabin- that can render the viewer into a state of euphoric confusion. On one level the viewer can become overwhelmed with an inquisitive desire to determine what is real and what is constructed and on another, reveling in the make believe – they may wish to remain in her escapist fantasy of secret forests and hidden lands forever." - Solo Show at Guild & Greyshkul, NY, 2005

Her multi-media installation for the Brooklyn Museum Artist Ball, called "The Table", was described as:

"...sculptural recreations of five still life paintings from the American Wing of the Brooklyn Museum. In addition Hegarty has created a flock of crows that are attacking and decimating the recreated still lives. Hegarty’s insertion of the flock of crows humorously plays on the genre of vanitas paintings, in which still lives contain objects that serve as symbolic reminders of life's impermanence (such as skulls, candles, or fruit showing signs of decay)."

"Often depicted in literature and paintings as harbingers of death, the crows activate the still lives at the same time as they serve to demolish the tableau."

Crows are smart, adaptable omnivores. In future, we will have more of them, and jellyfish, and apparently, stinkbugs. In the process of embellishing the deadtrees-dyingforests website with a new page about the Nitrogen Cascade - which underlies the increase in tropospheric ozone - I took another look at the EPA Science Advisory Board's Report, published in August 2011, and decided to reproduce Appendix H here on the blog.

"NR Saturation and Ecosystem Function

There are limits to how much plant growth can be increased by N fertilization. At some point, when the
natural N deficiencies in an ecosystem are fully relieved, plant growth becomes limited by availability of other resources such as phosphorus, calcium, or water and the vegetation can no longer respond to further additions of Nr."

"In theory, when an ecosystem is fully Nr-saturated and its soils, plants, and microbes cannot use or retain any more, all new Nr deposits will be dispersed to streams, groundwater, and the atmosphere."

"Nr saturation has a number of damaging consequences for the health and functioning of ecosystems."

"These impacts first became apparent in Europe almost three decades ago when scientists observed significant increases in nitrate concentrations in some lakes and streams and also extensive yellowing and loss of needles in spruce and other conifer forests subjected to heavy Nr deposition."

"In soils, most notably forest soils because of their natural low pH, as NH4+ builds up it is converted to nitrate by bacterial action, a process that releases hydrogen ions and contributes to soil acidification. The buildup of NO3ˉ enhances emissions of nitrous oxides from the soil and also encourages leaching of highly water-soluble NO3ˉ into streams or groundwater. As negatively charged NO3ˉ seeps away, positively charged alkaline minerals such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium are carried along."

"Thus, soil fertility is decreased by greatly accelerating the loss of calcium and other nutrients that are vital for plant growth. As calcium is depleted and the soil acidified, aluminum ions are mobilized, eventually reaching toxic concentrations that can damage tree roots [this is highlighted in red for Plovering - this could be why the trees have what the Californians call "tube socks" and white deposits on their bark] or kill fish if the aluminum washes into streams (Vitousek et al., 1997a,b)."

"Forests, grasslands, and wetlands vary substantially in their capacity to retain added nitrogen. Interacting factors that are known to affect this capacity include soil texture, degree of chemical weathering of soil, fire history, rate at which plant material accumulates, and past human land use."

"However, we still lack a fundamental understanding of how and why N-retention processes vary among ecosystems, much less how they have changed and will change with time and climate change (Clark and Tilman, 2008)."

"An overarching impact of excess Nr on unmanaged terrestrial ecosystems is biodiversity loss. In North
America, dramatic reductions in biodiversity have been created by fertilization of grasslands in Minnesota and California. In England, N fertilizers applied to experimental grasslands have led to similarly increased dominance by a few N-responsive grasses and loss of many other plant species."
["...biodiversity loss" means species are dying off.]

"In formerly species-rich heathlands across Western Europe, Nr deposition has been blamed for great losses of biodiversity in recent decades, with shallow soils containing few alkaline minerals to buffer acidification (Vitousek et al., 1997a,b; Bobbink et al., 2010)."

"Losses of biodiversity driven by Nr deposition can in turn affect other ecological processes. Experiments in Minnesota grasslands showed that in ecosystems made species-poor by fertilization, plant productivity was much less stable in the face of a major drought. Even in nondrought years, the normal vagaries of climate produced much more year-to-year variation in the productivity of species-poor grassland plots than in more diverse plots (Vitousek et al., 1997a,b)."

I can only imagine the feelings that went into creating this. She is like the Edgar Allen Poe of modern art.

First Harvest of the Wilderness with Woodpecker

I wonder if she drilled the holes or just got a submachine gun.

The violation is ferociously ruthless and unsentimental. It looks almost methodical, like a serial killer.

There is more of a laypersons description of nitrogen saturation at a blog, titled, "Artificial Nitrogen Fertilizers - Dangers of Man Playing God" that included a wiki chart to illustrate the problem, which is cute because it has a little bunny. Following are excerpts, lucidly written by Laura du Toit:

"There should be a law against mankind playing God over nature. Human beings are superior but they are also greedy. Never satisfied with what nature has to offer. We want more and because we are superior we find ways to imitate nature and trick her into doing what we want."

"We make decisions and never stop to ask ourselves what the consequences of these decisions will be. A classical example of mankind playing God is the introduction of synthetic fertilizer in the form of artificial nitrogen just over a century ago. Nature could not provide us with a big enough crop yield so we went and found a way of imitating what nature does and forced her to give us bigger crops. Now 100 years later we wake up to the realization that by doing so we have poisoned our environment."

Brick Wall with Branch

"What is Nitrogen?

The Earth's atmosphere consists of 70-80% nitrogen. It is essential to all life and is a crucial element of food production. Most biological processes are dependent on nitrogen as it is an essential ingredient needed to build amino acids which form proteins."

"Nitrogen in its natural state is mainly unusable by plants and needs to be converted from gaseous nitrogen into reactive nitrogen. The conversion of gaseous nitrogen to reactive nitrogen is known as fixation. Reactive nitrogen is a vital nutrient in soil and its abundance or scarcity will determine the fertility of the soil."

Break-Through Miami

"Nitrogen cycle

The nitrogen cycle is the continuous flow of nitrogen through the biosphere by the processes of nitrogen fixation, ammonification (decay), nitrification and denitrification.

Nitrogen fixation

In order for nitrogen to be absorbed by the soil nitrogen must be “fixed” by adding hydrogen or oxygen which converts the nitrogen into compounds such as ammonia or nitrates that plants can utilize. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria are the only micro-organisms that are capable of absorbing nitrogen from the air and transforming it into nitrates. These are then absorbed by plants to build essential proteins."

Autumn on the Wissahickon with Tree

"A certain amount of atmospheric nitrogen is fixed by lightning and by some blue-green algae (cyanobacteria). The great bulk of nitrogen fixation however, is performed by soil bacteria. The are two kinds of soil bacteria. Those that live freely in the soil use the energy from decaying organic matter in the soil to stimulate soil processes including nitrogen fixation. The other type of soil bacteria, known as rhizobia, live in the nodules of leguminous plants such as Lucerne, peas, beans, clover, soybeans, and peanuts. When animals consume these plants the plant protein is converted into animal protein."

Teetering Trees

"Nitrifying bacteria

When an organism produces waste or dies, the decomposing matter returns organic nitrogen to the soil as ammonia. Nitrifying bacteria then oxidize the ammonia into nitrites and then into nitrates, a process known as nitrification. The nitrates can then be absorbed from the soil water by the roots of the plant and used to make proteins."

"Denitrification occurs in the absence of oxygen in the soil and is not common in well-cultivated soils. During this process a third group of bacteria turn nitrates back into nitrites and ammonia and sometimes even back into nitrogen gas. This is harmful to plants as they need nitrates to make protein."

Fog Warming with Barnacles

"The Introduction of Artificial Nitrogen

Soils recycle nitrogen for re-use in organic waste such as animal dung. In the past some countries improved the fertility of their soils by adding guano and saltpetre, which are sources of geological nitrogen. Until 1908 the only way of adding more atmospheric nitrogen to soils was through capture by the bacteria that live in a small number of nitrogen-fixing plants such as clover and beans."

Break-Through Miami

"In an effort to increase the fertility of soil an appeal was made to scientists to find a way of producing nitrogen in a form that plants could absorb. In 1908 Fritz Haber invented a cheap new source of nitrogen fertilizer when he discovered how to make ammonia, a molecule made of hydrogen and nitrogen atoms from the inert nitrogen gas in the air."

Shipwreck

"This was welcomed throughout the world and Haber received the 1918 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work. Unfortunately nobody thought of the consequences of adding massive amounts of artificially-made nitrogen into the planet’s ecosystems."

"Any High School chemistry student will recall having heard about the Haber Process for the synthesis of ammonia (NH₃) gas from its elements nitrogen (N₂) and hydrogen (H₂) as this is often referred to as one of the best examples of chemical equilibrium. The Chemistry texts however very rarely give any indication of the effects that the discovery of this process has had on history or society."

Hotel Lobby

"The Path Of Destruction

The benefits that artificial nitrogen have of boosting the quantity of crops can not be denied but this has come at a price as far as quality is concerned. Artificial nitrogen fertilizers increase the level of potentially toxic nitrates, and other non-protein nitrogenous compounds as well as the sugars in the crops while decreasing the fibre content in the plants. Artificial nitrogen also impoverishes the soil by lowering the levels of trace minerals in the ground. The result is that these valuable nutrients are also substantially less in these crops."

Hotel Lobby

"These fertilizers also increase nitrates in our drinking water and damage vital soil micro flora. It reduces plant diversity in pasture land and contributes to reducing the quality of habitat for many insects. As a result birds that depend on these species of insects can not survive and need to migrate to other areas. It also influences the quality of the food we eat and is not the ideal for our fruit, vegetables and cereals."

"The production of artificial nitrogen is now being linked to the dramatic spikes in population growth, energy use, and carbon production during the last half of the 20th century. All species flourish and multiply when food is abundant – mankind is no different. The introduction of artificial nitrogen fertilizers helped the human population multiply from 1.9 billion in 1900 to nearly 6.87 billion in 2008."

Autumn on the Hudson Valley with Branches

"Nitrogen is to the Earth's Water as Carbon Dioxide is to its Air

Each year an average of 80 million tons of Haber’s fertilizer is spread onto fields around the world. Only 17million tons actually goes into food and the rest gets washed into the ecosystems."

Green Bathroom [made of paper!]

"Until recently people clearly refused to acknowledge the long-term damage that the use of artificial nitrogen is doing to water bodies, ecosystems, agricultural lands and human health. The observed increases in short-term crop yields derived from using artificial nitrogen can not make up for the long-term damage. We also fail to consider the carbon footprint and massive energy inputs of agrochemicals."

"Artificial nitrogen has become as much a pollutant of the Earth’s water as carbon dioxide is to the air. It is accumulating in rivers around the world and is present in underground water reserves. This over-fertilization of the water produces large volumes of algae which consume all the oxygen present in the water, causing ecosystems to crash."

"On land, nitrogen over-saturation has disrupted soil chemistry and created a depletion of other critical nutrients including calcium, magnesium, and potassium. Ironically, the addition of one nutrient out of balance with others can result in an overall decline in soil fertility, leading to diminished productivity of both cultivated and natural landscapes."

Still Life with Half-Eaten Fruit

"Crossing the Planetary Boundary

Denitrification is nature’s way of reversing man-made fixing of nitrogen by converting it back to an inert gas but we have crossed the boundary and many of the rivers have become so nitrogen-saturated that they are losing their ability to denitrify pollution. The excess nitrogen ends up in the ocean causing oxygen-depleted “dead zones” where it is killing entire ecosystems."

In the Woods, of the Woods

"According to a report by Johann Rockstrom and 27 scientists a safe boundary of nitrogen in the environment would be 35 million tons of nitrogen. Human activity currently releases 121 million tons of nitrogen into the environment creating serious distortions in Earth’s natural nitrogen cycle. Most of this ends up in the Earth’s waterways resulting in irreversible damage and loss of ecosystems. Based on current trends, global nitrogen use on farmland is set to double to 220 million tons a year by 2050 – more than six times the safe threshold."

Exploded Watermelon on Picnic Blanket

"The danger is that nature’s ability to process this excess nitrogen and return it to the atmosphere will be overwhelmed, and we will end up inhabiting a nitrogen-saturated planet, with nitrogen killing the oceans, driving global warming, acidifying air, depleting the ozone layer and reducing biodiversity."

Ms. du Toit ends by linking to the study posted on yale 360 which depicts the nine boundaries that we must maintain, the safe limits of which we are rapidly exceeding, particularly, as the graph demonstrates, the nitrogen cycle. The concept of boundaries is based on the frightening notion that gradual change can build up in a system until there is a sudden, and essentially irreversible jolt.

Following is a short (1 minute) video from the EPA back in 1991, before they realized how drastically we would have to alter our habits of consumption and transportation if we wanted to be serious about protecting the environment...before they decided to start ~~covering up~~ regulating pollution and ~~sugar-coating~~ investigating and reporting on exactly how bad the damage is.

Chest of Drawers (Early American) with Woodpecker

I would like to see a video of her "making" this rampage!

In blunt language that is no longer used today, the narrater says that scientists discovered that "a major problem for the Chesapeake may be atmospheric deposition of nutrients like nitrogen"...with images of industrial plants belching emissions...rather than just the more readily controlled, localized effluent from manufacturing.

For those who are gluttons for doom, here's a video from 2008 indicating that things have done the opposite of improve since that video in 1991.