1. DISAGREEMENT OR ERROR ? Why is there a correction needed? What caused the misunderstanding? The best science carries all sorts of errors, flaws, absurd mistakes, misunderstandings, miscommunications, etc., sometimes down right ignorance - but, never a misrepresentation, never an intentional lie.
Watt, W. and E. Paasche. 1963. Physiologia Plantarum 16:674-681.
Hood, D. and K. Park. 1962. Physiologia Plantarum 15:273-281.
W & P invalidate H & P's procedures NOT their conclusions. Both these papers are cited as proofs for things they do not prove. This is the best example of the value of true peer review I have encountered. In this section you should read most of both papers. The figures (especially their captions) will really be all you need to understand the problem. (The figures are on next week's quiz (I will provide you with copies) - no sense in trying to memorize anything.)
There is a long term argument (probably splitting hairs) which concerns the ability of aquatic plants to use bicarbonate or free CO2 as a C-source (land plants use CO2 - but there is little CO2 in water at a pH around 7-8 - but all those biochemical pathways work with CO2 - but ---). H & P's paper was initially hailed as a proof that bicarbonate was used by algae. W & P's paper clearly castes doubt on H & P's methodology (not their conclusions--note that Lange's methodology was fine, but his conclusions were unrelated to his experiments--this is similar only in that it is flawed science--surely not with "similar" motives). What was the fatal flaw?
Enzyme work in later years has probably done the best job of explaining the situation. (Both forms are used.)
2. ACID RAIN (Not in vogue at the moment, things cycle.)
Try to satisfy yourself as to reasonable answers to the following - these are the only bases for questions on the quiz. So, try reading as
if the material were a novel - just decide on a reasonable answer to these questions. The answer is not written into one of the papers - so don't spend time scanning for an answer to some specific question. Your opinion is what counts. Just base it on reality.
- Is Likens correct? His original comments about the significance of acid rain easily identified in historic data was flawed. (We have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight). That flaw served some folks who kept insisting that serious damage from acid rain was a foolish idea.
- Cowgill definitely does NOT agree with him. Why? (Actually she does not like him... but is that the basis for the mismatched concepts?) She is a truly respected, truly eccentric, chemist employed by DOW. She worked for G. Evelyn Hutchinson for ~10 years.No one has found flaws in her comments (this is a pre-print, but the publication is identical in terms of words, etc.
- Does Krug disagree with either of them?
- What is it that Krug presents that bugs so many others?
- Are they all correct?
Patrick, R. Binetti, V. and S. Halterman. 1981. Acid lakes from natural and anthropogenic causes. Science 211:446-448. A most authoritative summary. (READ THIS ONE FIRST.)
Dr. Ruth Patrick, Curator Emeritus of Limnology, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, member of the National Academy of Sciences (buddy of Prof. Hutchinson) has earned the respect of both scientists and industry reps. (Note the dates of papers. Her most recent book is ~ two years old. Dr. Patrick is playing the role of a trusted historian in this (but the whole story is definitely not "in" yet).
Remember: 20/20 hindsight is not a rational basis for judgment about the legitimacy of someone's work. There is a great deal of misinformation re acid rain circulating. The story is neither simple, nor complete, and this problem is not currently in vogue. Some damage is obvious where it has occurred. Some of the causes are equally obvious, but some damage is not obvious, future damage is not easily predicted, and even those causes which have been clearly identified may not be amenable to the corrective measures which have been suggested. Then again, where should we invest finite sources in this infinite mess we are making? How much is the Parthenon worth? How about Mt. Rushmore? The forests of Bavaria?
Cowgill, U. 1984. Acid precipitation: A review. The Biosphere, Problems and Solutions (ed. T. Veziroglu) 233-259.
A biogeochemist of considerable renown, she just retired from DOW Chemical (I want to make sure you realize that some of the most ethical and competent scientists work in industry.) There is a great deal of nonsense about "evil" capitalists that I get a bit sick of hearing -- "good guys" and "bad guys" abound in every realm. Commonly, it pays a company to get the story straight. It costs far more to play games initially and then to find out later that genuine problems were ignored. Dow-Corning, Johns-Manville and Union Carbide have paid dearly for the results of unrecognized, or ignored, problems. --And such may, or may not, be a fair punishment for the crime. Then again, the tobacco giants considered politics to be a secure defense against the costs of indifference for profit, and -- they are still claiming that smoking is not really bad for you.
You should be familiar with Dr. Liken's work. He is one of the leading proponents of the theory that much of the trouble on the east coast is due to generation of acid components in the mid west. There are equally renowned scientists who are convinced that most of the trouble (that due to anthropogenic sources) is due to locally-generated materials.
Likens, G., Wright, R.; Galloway, J. and T. Butler. 1979. Acid rain. Scientific American 241:43-51.
Galloway, J; Likens, G., and M. Hawley. 1984. Acid precipitation: Natural versus anthropogenic components. Science 226:829-831.
You must know of Dr. Ed Krug's work. He does not see the situation in the same way that Dr. Likens sees it. (Krug is a soil-scientist; Likens is a limnologist)
(Johnson, Likens, Feller, Driscoll) (Seip, Dillon)(Wright)(Krug and Frink) 1984. Letters. Science 1424-1434. Can both sides of an argument be right?
Anderson, William. 1992. Acid test. (or "Edward Krug flunks political science") Reason (Canadian magazine) 23(8):20-26. (Ed was a student here about 18 years ago.)
*Krug. E. and C. Frink. 1983. Acid rain on acid soil: A new perspective. Science 221:520-525.This is what started the fight. Many meaningful comments have been published.
Kerr, R. 1981. There is more to "acid rain" than rain. Science 211:692-693.
This paper expresses well my concerns about newspaper coverage of fashionable environmental problems. This is a serious business. But, most scientific analysis and most scientifically valid, (hopefully) corrective, measures are too dull for headlines.
Stumm, W.; Sigg, L.; Schnoor, J. 1987. Aquatic chemistry of acid deposition. Environmental Science and Technology 21:8-13. For certain people around here who insist on enjoying the chemistry.
Schindler, D. 1988. Effects of acid rain on freshwater ecosystems. Science 239:149-157. Remember him? He was the fellow who blew his cork about Lange. A fine review. Has the problem gone away? Is a little extra ozone due to the extra nitrogen good for us?
You can tell when acid rain was popular by looking at the dates. The real problems of acid rain have not changed or gone away.
3. THE GREENHOUSE (Can you justify your opinion re global warming - note the included papers.)
One thing you can always hear/read is that the U.S. is the villain in any environmental scenario. Given enough time (and sufficient gray hair), you will realize that most of what you hear is a sort of guilt reaction. We have a remarkable, resource rich area which is the "United States", and as bad as it is on occasion, our political system favors individual citizens more than most political systems. We are said to be the producers of far more than our share of the CO2 (and all other environmental "evils") that will cause the Greenhouse to develop into a severe problem. We are not the worst offenders for all things bad when the entire picture is examined. But, any harm that we could correct, we should correct. And that is the responsibility of being so favored.
N. America (that's us) seems to be a sink for CO2, and Europe (they have faulted us for not going along with the industrial restrictions they are willing to accept??) seems to be a significant source of the excess.We are not all that perfect - but we are not always the worst offenders. Don't be too politically correct. It borders on stupid.
a) Where is the CO2?
Kerr, R. 1992. Fugitive carbon dioxide: It's not hiding in the ocean. Science 256:35.
Martin, Phillippe. 1998.Estimating the CO2 uptake in Europe. Science 281:1806. In 1998/1999 N. America proved to be a sink, but Europe proved to be a source, of excess CO2.
Kaiser, J. (science writer). 1998. Possibly vast greenhouse gas sponge ignites controversy. Science 282:386-287.
And ----
Fan, S.; Gloor, M.; Mahlman, S.; Pacala, J.; Sarmiento,J.; Takahashi, T., and P. Tans. 1998. A large terrestrial carbon sink in North America implied by atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide data amd models. Science282:442-446.
b) What harm will it do?
Herzog, H., Eliasson, B., and O. Kaarstad. 2000. Capturing greenhouse gases. Scientific American 282(2):72-79. Well, it will not go away by itself?? What do you think?
Monastersky, R. 1999. Acclimating to a warmer world. Science News 156:136-138. Just in case Herzog, et. al. offer 100% wishful thinking.
Kaufman, H. 1994. Storm warnings: Climate change hits the insurance industry. World Watch 7(6):10-20.
Editors, 1994. A problem as big as a planet. The Economist Nov. 83-85.
Gwynne, P. and S. Begley. 1978. Newsweek Jan.74-76.
c) The south pole has glaciers to melt. What about the north pole?
Kerr, R. 1999. Will the Arctic Ocean lose all its ice? Science 286:1828.
"R.M." 1999. Plumbing Anarctica for climate clues. Science News 156:351.
Compare the conveyor belt in these next two. The illustrations definitely do not agree. Who is more likely to be correct-the N.Y. Times or Science?
Arctic thawing may jolt sea's climate belt. 1999. N.Y. Times p3.
Driscoll, N. and G. Haug. 1998. A short circuit in thermohaline circulation: A cause for northern hemispehhre glaciation? Science282:436-438.
Vinnikov, K.; Robock, A.; Stouffer, R; Walsh, J.; Parkinson, C.; Cavalieri, D.; Mitchell, J.; Garrett, D., and V. Zakharov. 1999. Global warming and northern hemisphere sea ice extent. Science 286:1934-1937.(Yes, it is Dr.R.) ((missing at this moment!))
d) This question has been around for quite a long time. For historic perspective - take a look at the Plass paper, 1959! His concerns were finding the sources and sinks. He hails from a terrestrial perspective (as opposed to aquatic) and tends to play down the role of the oceans. The carbonate cycle is a critical factor in determining just what can grow and just what can stay in solution in a lake. CO2 levels are critical to the carbonate/bicarbonate cycle (and you thought the only thing it did was make plants grow and cause a greenhouse effect!) Think about it. In aquatic systems CO2 is not a controlling factor in terms of its carbon. It is, rather, a controlling factor in terms of many other inorganics and pH. Then again, it is a nutrient. (I have a great deal of current info. re the Greenhouse Effect if you want to browse some time.) You may need to know what El Nino, SST, and the southern oscillation are to appreciate the ocean's role in weather anomalies due to the greenhouse.
Plass, G. 1959. Carbon dioxide and climate. Scientific American Jul.3-9.
Post, W.; Peng, T.; Emanuel, W; King, A.; Dale, V. and D. DeAngelisl 1990. The global carbon cycle. American Scientist 78:310-325.
Not only is the atmosphere, but also the sediment, a necessary inclusion in any consideration of the true availability of nutrients. To make matters just a touch more difficult to predict, groundwater is also a contributor and a sink. -- Then, there's Perrier.
4. C3 and C4 plants. How do they differ?
Cowling, S. 1999. Plant and temperature-CO2 uncoupling. Science 285:1500-1501.So, you think plants will just grow us out of trouble? eh??