Trees causing ozone pollution - coppice that !

From Wikipedia:

Isoprene is produced and emitted by many species of trees into the atmosphere (major producers are oaks, poplars, eucalyptus, and some legumes). The yearly production of isoprene emissions by vegetation is around 600 teragrams, with half that coming from tropical broadleaf trees and the remainder coming from shrubs.[1] This is about equivalent to methane emission into the atmosphere and accounts for ~1/3 of all hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere. After release, isoprene is converted by free radicals (like the hydroxyl (OH) radical) and to a lesser extent by ozone [2] into various species, such as aldehydes, hydroperoxides, organic nitrates, and epoxides, which mix into water droplets and help create aerosols and haze.[3][4] While most in the field acknowledge that isoprene emission affects aerosol formation, whether isoprene increases or decreases aerosol formation is debated. A second major effect of isoprene on the atmosphere is that in presence of nitric oxides (NOx) it contributes to the formation of tropospheric (lower atmosphere) ozone, which is one of the leading air pollutants in many countries. Isoprene itself is normally not regarded as a pollutant, as it is one of the natural products from plants. Formation of tropospheric ozone is only possible in presence of high levels of NOx, which comes almost exclusively from industrial activities. In fact, isoprene can have the opposite effect and quench ozone formation under low levels of NOx.


By no means a scholarly article, but it sounds like Nitrous Oxide is the real problem, as Isoprene is naturally occuring and NOx is not (in the levels we see today) I think newsdaily.com (or whomever they stole the information from) is just looking to discredit biofuel production by coming up with a problem.

You might as well say water causes pollution because it is needed to create Methane!

Dave Turpin wrote:I think newsdaily.com (or whomever they stole the information from) is just looking to discredit biofuel production by coming up with a problem.

I'm still not convinced that biofuels will help us or the planet in the long run. Running the risk of sounding like a terrorist(I found no right way to say this next bit), but I think lowering the populations in industrialized countries(ie: consumers of industrial products) would do more for the environment than anything else. To be honest, I wouldn't really care if only the rich people had access to industrial agriculture, industrial medicine, gasoline/oil, an electrical grid and refiltered drinking water that has too much chlorine in it. 99% of the population can easily offset the pollution of the 1% if the rest of us lived right and didn't try to emulate the rich(I realize that's easier said than done since we're born in to this insane civilization, yet we all know something ain't right since we're on Permies.com). Tonight might not be my night to type things, I hope that didn't come off as snobby or malicious. It wasn't meant to be.

could also be why there are "mists" around so many of these deep stands.

if throwing up aerosols to allow water to nucleate around to form liquid water, it might be a directed response, to form moisture near the trees. possibly to get ground dew up to leaf surfaces ?
leaf stomals? are thought to be open in the morning before there is enough heat for transpiration, maybe the outgassing of the terpenols is greatest then.

I don't know if gum trees have mists up in northern austrailia.

that forest smell, of alkenes. ahhh.

here they have found kelp outgassing stuff to increase clouds.

http://phys.org/print129314334.html

http://phys.org/print277297404.html

always more integrated than we can appreciate at first, eh?