Look: You’re the one that opened up this can of worms again by taking a cheap shot at me in another thread (“This coming from the guy who thinks the Smoky Mountains got their name from pollution from the trees.”)
I answered that charge in detail, with many cites from academic and governmental web sites.
Then you open this thread, with a specific question, which I answered with cites.
I think somewhere in your last message you admitted that maybe, perhaps, the smoky mountains did indeed get their name from the bluish haze caused by terpene emissions from trees.
The rest of it we hashed out a long time ago, and I have no interest in getting into that debate again.
You started all this by insinuating that I was stupid or ill-informed because I thought the Smoky Mountains were named for this natural haze. I have sufficiently shown that I was right. The question in the OP has been answered.
Well, certainly one problem is that neither Sam nor I have presented or agreed upon a working definition of pollution. My point is that that Reagan and Sam, among others, employ the word “pollution” in a rhetorically disingenuous manner. After all, if I were to arbitrarily define oxygen as a pollutant, I would also be able to claim that trees pollute more than cars. So I guess this might be a semantic debate to a certain extent, but if so, then it is a case in which the semantics are important.
As far as that goes, you might be right. As soon as I get the chance, I’m going to see what I can dig up with regard to the origin of the name. Sam:
If you still stand by this statement – as the rest of your post seems to imply – then why on earth would you consider the above to be a “cheap shot?”
Thus far, most of the cites you’ve presented are either irrelevant, or have been misconstrued by you.
*Then you’ve misread once again.
? What exactly did we hash out?
*Oh, I see. First it was pollution, smog, and ozone – now it’s a “natural haze.” Gotcha.
Actually, I insinuated that you were stupid/ill-informed because you claimed that Reagan was “absolutely right,” and that the Smokey Mountains were named after the pollution produced by all the trees. As far as I can tell, you have not recanted those claims, but still stand by them. In your next-to-last post, in fact, you’ve presented several cites to support your contention that terpenes can be rightly characterized as pollutants.
Great! Sam’s decided that he is right again! One wonders, does he ever decide that he is wrong?
Sorry to be confusing you with all these facts, now that your mind is made up and all.
Go ahead. Refute the cites I posted. Don’t just wave your hand and declare them irrelevant. The notion that the Smoky Mountains got their name from the bluish haze hanging over them from natural terpene emissions seems to me to be the accepted viewpoint. Pretty much every cite I found that discussed the origin of the Smoky Mountain name said that that was the reason. I posted plenty of academic cites stating that in fact terpene emissions DO result in such a haze. You keep telling me I’m ‘misinterpreting’, but you haven’t provided any specifics as to how I misinterpreted them.
I have now repeated the relevant quotes from those cites THREE times. I’m sick and tired of going around in circles on this. So, buh-bye.
Oh, and this cheap shot was completely unwarranted:
I have no trouble admitting when I’m wrong. In fact, in THIS THREAD I said,
*Well, for example, I explained in detail the way in which you misinterpreted the TVA report. I’ve tried to demonstrate that your attempt to categorize isoprene/terpene as a “pollutant” is misleading, which is the reason I started the thread in the first place. I’ve pointed out that the cites you’ve provided connecting the name “Smoky Mountains” with a mythical bluish smog, exuded by trees, are anecdotal, without evidential backing. I’ll provide one more example, taken directly from one of the quotes you’ve provided, but with a slightly different emphasis:
Not to mark words, but the idea that the natural release of isoprene during the carbon cycle can contribute to haziness, or to an occasionally-observed bluish tint to the air, is a far cry from claiming:
You know, I agree there isn’t much point turning this discussion into a pissing match between the two of us. But lookit: I grew up in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains, spending the first half of my life there. I’ve hiked its trails extensively – usually staying out for at least two or three days at a time, once hiking solo for a full 5 day stretch. I’ve wandered the backcountry, Brushy Mountain and Rich Mountain Trail, overgrown from disuse; I’ve been up LaConte and the Chimneys many a time; I’ve picked blueberries for breakfast at Spence Field and Gregory’s Bald; I’ve followed the AT along the ridgeline, from Newfound Gap to Icewater Springs, to Derrick’s Knob, past Mt. Kephard and Charlie’s Bunyon; I’ve been down at Walnut Bottoms to see bear. I’ve played tag with a red fox in the fields near Tremont, watched a bear eat a guy’s pack at backwoods site I don’t even remember the name of anymore, had raccoons steal my oatmeal cookies and skunks crawl over my feet. But in all that time, I have never seen anything in the Smokies resembling a blue smoke, blue smog, or blue haze, steaming off the trees, as it were. Maybe I’m colorblind to certain shades of blue?
What I have seen regularly, on the other hand, is fog. And I’m convinced that if you were to follow me on a hike, when the weather was right, we’d come to an overlook on a trail somewhere backcountry and you’d peer down at the forests and crags, overrun with wisps and whorls of smoke-like clouds of fog, and you’d think, “Holy shit! Look at all this fog! (It fornicates!) No wonder they call this place the Smoky Mountains!” As xeno pointed out earlier, the Smokies receive about 70 inches of rain a year, and the forests release about a million gallons of water vapor per square mile, every day. Warm, moist air from the lower elevations is constantly moving up as well, with water vapor condensing out of it as it goes. But xeno was wrong about one thing, at least as far as my experience goes: the fog isn’t bluish. It’s white, like fog and clouds usually are.
An admirable quality. Then you will no doubt be quick to admit to the following:
You were wrong when you wrote, “Reagan did NOT say that trees pollute more than heavy industry. He said that some trees cause pollution.”
You were wrong to claim that Reagan’s statements were “absolutely correct.”
You were wrong to claim that isoprene, taken alone, can be correctly classified as a “pollutant.”
You were incorrect to imply that trees emit ozone.
You were less than accurate when you claimed, “The Smokey mountains are covered by a constant haze of these types of pollutants.”
I anxiously await your recantation on these points, so that we may put this matter behind us.
Mr. Svinlesha, I applaud your continued diligence in this thread, but I hasten to point out one thing: there is a difference between the ubiquitious fogs of the Smokies and the bluish haze which hangs in the air on spring and summer days. You may very well be right that the name “Smoky Mountains” springs from the fogs. It’s just as likely as not; there’s hardly a time during the year when you can’t see wisps of the stuff clinging to valleys and shady slopes, just like smoke might do. However, in addition to the fogs, there’s a typical bluish haze above the hills from mid spring to early fall, and it’s that haze which is produced by the water vapor and chemicals released by the trees.
Quite frankly it’s a possibility. The blue haze Sam is referring to is not really a fog but more a shimmering “miragey” type effect.
Here is a good description of the phenomenon.
You guys can beat each other over the head all day long about what is and is not particulate “pollution”, but you seem to be not able to see or or otherwise perceive the “blue haze” phenomenon, which is evident to many (including myself) above many forest treelines when viewed from a distance at elevation, and especially where there are a lot of conifers.
It is not beyond the range of reason that complex hydrocarbons released from trees (and well away from industrial pollution sources) could produce this light scattering effect.
Technically Sam appears to be correct in that the turpenes and the dust etc, can combine to form this particulate blue haze. As to whether the haze is blue uniquely because of terpene particulates being a good scatterer of light for that color frequency effect vs atmospheric dust in general is something I don’t think either one of you have a definitive answer to.
You guys can go back to flogging each other now, but this argument is really getting kind of silly at this point. Unless there is a common definiton of “pollution” on the table you are both just talking past each other.
Wrong, (sort of). Isoprene is a VOC (volatile organic compound) and the EPA regulates VOC emissions. But, in general, the EPA regulates these emissions based on specific industries and obviously they haven’t gotten around to regulating trees (though they may yet!!).
So, isoprene from trees isn’t regulated, but if you took that same molecule of isoprene (and despite what Dseid thinks, an isoprene is an isoprene is an isoprene……) and used it in a commercial product, say in a paint or cleaning solvent, or produced it as a byproduct of some industrial process, say the cracking of naphtha, then it would be regulated and considered as being officially a “pollutant,” if anything can ever be said to be an “official” pollutant. Let’s just say that if you released too much of it into the atmosphere you would be in violation of EPA regulations. In some other countries (Russia, for instance) isoprene is directly regulated.
In addition, the EPA monitors atmospheric VOCs in many areas. Isoprene is not exempted, so it’s presence would contribute to the total VOC level. This means that it is counted right along with all of the other “pollutants.” (In all fairness, I should point out that all such monitoring that I’m aware of either happens in large cities or near outlying industrial operations where natural terpene levels would tend to be lower than manmade VOCs, but given the very high levels of natural terpenes in general, this is tricky.) And when these communities and industries are in violation of VOC levels they are expected to act and if they fail to reduce VOC levels they are subject to fines.
Isoprene is also listed as a “proven” carcinogen in animals and “anticipated” carcinogen in humans. (Hope you didn’t spend too much time hiking around in those mountains!)
I’m not sure where Sam “implied” that trees emit ozone, but you yourself gave us this little gem:
isoprene + nitrous oxide = alkyl nitrate (a so-called “NOx,” in this case more specifically, isoprene nitrate); alkyl nitrate + ultraviolet radiation = ozone, nitrous dioxide, and peroxyacetylnitrate (i.e., “photochemical smog”)*
I have no idea where you got this though, since NOx is not shorthand for an alkylnitrate, it’s shorthand for NO, NO[sub]2[/sub] and NO[sub]3[/sub]. Also, isoprene doesn’t particularly react with nitrous oxide, which is N[sub]2[/sub]O, it reacts with NOx (this is good for you because we get more N[sub]2[/sub]O from the “tailpipes” of cows than cars). Your scheme is also way, way too over-simplified. Try this if you want to even begin to understand the chemistry of isoprene and take especial note of the comments “….oxidation of isoprene involves many thousands of reactions….” and “….a reduced isoprene oxidation scheme will be briefly presented here……”
I’ve been working with terpenes for years and I have only the tiniest notion of what’s really going on out there in the real world.
But…….even you admit that isoprene reacts to form O[sub]3[/sub], NO[sub]2[/sub] and PAN. And you seem to admit that this is smog. (I suspect that you have already discovered that the definition of smog changes from site to site, but I think we can both agree that smog is almost synonymous with ozone.) That makes isoprene an ozone precursor, just like NOx and all the other VOCs.
And it doesn’t matter if “80% of the isoprene produced by trees is oxidized into CO[sub]2[/sub].” Sooner or later every carbon atom on Earth ends up as CO[sub]2[/sub]” (except for diamonds, diamonds are forever). What’s important is what happens along the way. And what happens is that isoprene undergoes a series of reactions that produce such nasties as PAN, methyl vinyl ketone, formaldehyde, etc. etc. And one of the byproducts of it’s many reactions is ozone.
Maybe I am colorblind to blue after all. I’ve certainly never noticed the blue haze you’re both referring to.
On the other hand, at the risk of sounding stiff-necked (again), we note that astro’s cite is from Cook County, Illinois. If the blueness is as ubiquitous as this cite makes it sound, then we still need to explain why the Smokies or the Blue Ridge have been singled out for special mention. There are many other large forests in the world, even in the US…why aren’t the Rockies called the “Blue Rockies,” the Everglades called the “Blueglades,” or the particularly piney Ozarks called the “Blue Ozarks?”
In addition, your cite states that the haze is particularly predominant in October and early November. By contrast, the TVA study quoted earlier speculates that trees release their terpenes/isoprene primarily in the late spring and early summer, which in turn accounts for the increase in “modern” carbon micro-particles in the atmosphere. So this also doesn’t quite seem to go together… samclem:
*Yes, well the author seems well aware that science deals with theories, and that the vast majority its of factual claims are suppositional. Nothing wrong with that.
The OP is not refuting the idea that natural pollutants do not exist, rather that the claim made by Reagon is a grossly distorted vision which has an obvious political purpose.
The main claim by the OP is that another poster has used cites that use Reagons claim, and those of others who follow the same view, with either little or no science to prove it, or that those same cites are so disingenuous as to be worthless.
Volcanoes are not part of this debate and cannot be considered analagous in any way, they are not relevant in this context.
I am not taking sides particularly one way or the other, though the OP has made the better case, and I await with interest, a view from the other side of the debate which would be just as convincing.
Regarding my chemistry: I derived the formula from reading some cites and trying to figure out the terminology on my own. I have only a layman’s understanding of this stuff, so thanks for the correction. I look forward to reviewing your cite with great interest.
My point was that practically all of the cites Sam posted, and that I have reviewed, indicate that in order to produce “smog,” i.e., ozone, one needs a combination of isoprene and man-made NOx – thus implying that to claim 80% of the world’s air pollution comes from trees, rather than cars, was a disingenuous simplification designed to support a specific conservative political agenda.
Mr. S. that’s a good point about the place names. I suspect it has as much to do with the particular vantage point(s) from which the popular or official name was developed. For instance, a blue haze obscuring a line of mountains is much more noticeable from the populated hills some distance away than a similar haze over a swamp is from the flat land next door.
Shodan: I was pretty sure someone would be along to supply the old canard that goes “environmentalists all think ‘natural’ means ‘good and clean’ every time, and it just aint so!” That’s a strawman. The reason that the natural contributions of forests (or grasslands, or swamps) to the atmosphere aren’t considered “pollution” is that they are accounted for, integral to, and in most cases critical parts of their particular ecosystems. Unlike the products of volcanic eruptions, non-recurrent floods, meteoric strikes or other cataclysmic but natural events, the releases of these chemicals from forests cause no disruption or corruption of natural processes within the local environment. That is why the characterization of them as “pollutants” is disingenuous. M’kay?
I don’t think there’s such a simple answer. It depends a lot on what Reagan actually said and how one interprets it.
I think we both understand at this point that in order to get “real” pollution (rather than just the precursors) you need two things, volatile hydrocarbons (like isoterpene) and NOx (from cars (and factories)). So, if Reagan said “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do” then he is flat-out wrong. Both are required to produce smog.
But if he said “….approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation….” then he is roughly correct………sort of. We can argue about the exact percentage, the fact is that this is a question that is still being studied and the one thing you can depend on is that the numbers are going to change as more studies are done, but it is generally recognized today that well over 50% of the VOCs in the US (and I assume the world) come from vegetation (not just trees).
But………it’s not enough to talk about nation-wide or world-wide concentrations. To get smog, or at least to get a “smog problem,” you need a lot of VOCs and a lot of NOx in the same place at the same time. Isoprene undergoes different reactions in low NOx environments than in high NOx environments. That’s why we associate smog with cities rather than with Iowa. And in big cities much more of the VOCs are likely to be manmade than in the countryside.
But………it’s not clear that isoprene in the countryside undergoes some sort of “good” reactions, it’s just that the products of those reactions are formed more slowly and don’t build up such heavy concentrations. And for that matter the same reaction can sometimes be considered good in one place and bad in another. For instance, ozone formed on the ground is smog while ozone formed in the upper atmosphere is the “ozone layer,” which is a good thing.
And I’m not even going to go into the fact that nature also produces NOx. Nobody really knows how much (according to extreme estimates natural NOx accounts for about 75% of the total, but it’s mostly upper atmosphere, etc. etc. more confusion etc.) And of course I’m totally ignoring things like acid rain, is acid rain an air pollution problem or a water pollution problem? Your opinion is as good as mine. And carbon monoxide is not a hydrocarbon, so we’ve completely ignored it.
But back to Reagan, if you interpret his remarks as meaning that pollution is not a problem and should be ignored then I disagree. But if you interpret his remarks as meaning that it is possible to go too far in setting limits then I agree. Keep in mind that the EPA is not completely anti-business and they do take the “real world” into consideration when they set various regulatory limits. The debate is generally along the lines of “how much – how fast.”
Without getting into the whole Reagan debate again, the original “80% of pollution” quote actually came from Ted Kennedy at the Democratic National Convention.
If Mr. Svinlesha provides links to the Reagen cites he made in the OP it will become clear what he did said and did not said. Personally i wouldnt be suprised if the old loony said some loony things
Per Zigaretten’s detailed discussion here is an excellent article on that touches directly on a lot of the items and issues being discussed in this thread.
You’re right – and in that spirit, I’ll point out that Reagan was wrong. Indeed, greater than 99% of pollution is biogenic in source, comprising decaying biomass mixed with vegetatively eroded minerals.
It’s absurd to ask industry to clean up their pollution, with all this dirt covering the planet.
Hmmm… this discussion is becoming more complex by the minute. I think I’ll start by tackling this:
RandySpears:
…and, in response to my last query, zig:
Regarding the accuracy of the Reagan quotes I’ve supplied, then. The first, in which Reagan references an API suit against the EPA, can be found on any number of anti-conservative web pages, including the Democratic Underground, but I assume that the Canadian Avenger will simply dismiss these sources as biased and unreliable. Aside from them, it can located here, on a page that seems dedicated to the simple pleasure of collecting unusual quotes. (To locate the quote on the page, use Ctrl + F and type in “American Petroleum Institute”).
The other two quotes, one on trees causing more pollution than automobiles, and the more ambiguous “air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation…” can be found here, at The American President website. I hope this source is reputable enough even for Sam.
Despite the fact that this information is readily available, and has been presented in previous threads, Sam, apparently, continues to deny the evidence of his own senses. Instead, Captain Canadian prefers to rely on Reagan’s own unsubstantiated version of events, which is never a good idea. This is the second time I’ve seen Sam dismiss my accusations against Reagan with the same quote; and to be honest, I have no idea whether Reagan ever said anything at all about oxides of nitrogen or not, but it doesn’t matter, since the issue is a red herring. Piteously, Reagan’s inane defense – that he had actually said that trees and vegetation cause 92 or 93% of the “oxides of nitrogen” found in the atmosphere – is even more ludicrous than his original assertions.
In addition, I want to comment on zig’s assessment of Reagan’s claim that “Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation,” which zig classified as “roughly correct…sort of.” Actually, the other two quotes are really throwaways, obviously wrong and laughable (if not downright embarrassing) coming from an American President. But this last one really exemplifies the idea I was trying to express in my OP, regarding the manner by which scientific findings can be selectively exploited to promote a political agenda. At the heart of it, there’s always a grain of truth to these claims. My point is that Reagan (and Sam) twist this the unholy shit out of this grain in the service of their political convictions. I would hardly have started this thread if Sam had merely mentioned in passing that some scientists suspected that the Blue Ridge Mountains got their name from isoprenes released by trees, which sometimes results a blue hue over them. Instead, Sam originally claimed that 50 - 90% of the “smog” in the Smokies comes steaming out of frickkin’ trees, for God’s sake.
Sam:
I envy you your ability to easily admit that you are wrong; would that I possessed such a noble characteristic. Nevertheless, having read over the last few posts by astro, xeno, and zigaretten, I’ve come to realize that isoprene is regulated by the EPA as a VOC, and that it can therefore be technically classified as a “pollutant.” In addition, as the map on this page clearly shows, the highest levels of atmospheric isoprene in the US during the summer are found directly above the Southeast. Even though I’ve never noticed a blue hue, astro and xeno have seen it, and I’ll take their word that it’s up there.
Much of this debate actually centers around how one defines the word “pollution.” We’ve both wisely avoided attempting to do so. But, it seems wrong to label isoprene a pollutant when it is produced in some industrial process, on the one hand, and to label it a non-pollutant when its produced by trees. So, in a technical sense, you could be right when you state that the Blue Ridge Mountains got their name from the pollution (i.e., isoprene) emitted by the trees. I remain skeptical, and I think you’ve grossly overstated your case, but I must admit there is a grain of truth to it. I was wrong to claim that isoprene can be categorically defined as a non-pollutant.
I don’t have much respect for your all-time favorite President, but since we’re quoting him anyway, I’ll close now with one of the few wise things he did say, and one that sums up my views regarding US actions in the current war as well:
*(I tossed that one in for free, just because I happened to find it on American Presidents webpage.)
