Posted on 08/05/2024 7:15:22 PM PDT by Libloather
We’re barking up the wrong trees.
A new study reveals that a majority of the 7 million trees in New York City are emitting “volatile compounds” that do more harm than good for our air quality — especially during scorching heat.
“We’re all for planting more trees. They bring so many good things,” said study coauthor Róisín Commane, an atmospheric chemist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “But if we’re not careful, we could make air quality worse.”
The arbors in question include oaks and sweetgums which produce high volumes of a chemical composition called isoprenes — and they’re rooted in the Big Apple more than any other species.
“There is no reason to think that trees don’t play a role in what’s in the air,” said lead author Dandan Wei, of the local Columbia Climate School. “We just didn’t have the tools before this to understand this particular aspect.”
When that compound interacts with nitrogen oxide pollution, which is emitted from cars and building exhaust, the result is a key driver for respiratory illnesses.
Asthma and chronic bronchitis were listed as the most vulnerable conditions, according to the new report in Environmental Science & Technology.
And, if NYC continues its usual planting of those style trees, isoprene levels in Manhattan will surge about 140% with a 30% boost in ozone.
In the more lush borough of Queens, both isoprene and ozone are expected to quadruple, researchers note.
Oak trees, which already let out 800 times more isoprene than maples, emit in especially high volume when the city reaches boiling temperatures in the high 90s as well. They make up 37% of city trees while the sweetgums consist of 17%.
After analyzing satellite imagery that combined with Parks Department data, the research team found that local trees played a role...
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
There is a lot of herb in NYC. It produces a lot of smoke, though.
It’s related to the tone of your posts.
But like any garden variety narcissist you refuse to deal with it and instead try to deflect.
Typical.
L
I most certainly do not.
My defense of oaks in general was not because of cities, but oaks as a species that are native to our land, and because of the hysteria of cancel culture in today's media saturated world. Once a species is labeled "bad" for any reason, the campaign against all members of that species blows up and endangers all the perfectly innocent oaks whose roots are holding down large areas of earth from erosion, or whose canopies are providing shade or habitat in forests or groves.
Oaks in cities is a side issue that you have seized upon. City trees are not purposely harvested for timber. But oaks add immeasurable grace to city parks, university campuses, and riversides. Occasionally some city trees do get taken down because as they grow, tree roots can interfere with underground gas or water lines or building foundations; or they get split by lighting, are struck by cars, or fall over uprooted in flooding storms. Competent city works departments would attempt to sell the usable oak wood. Some woodworking outfits would do the retrieval in exchange for the material.
Hysteria over oaks supposedly poisoning the atmosphere would be a tragedy. So, back to my original point: the academic is going after the trees instead of the man-made car emisslions that supposedly combine with the tree exudate to make a toxic substance. I say, go after the car emissions rather than blame the trees.
“My defense of oaks in general was not because of cities, “
The OP topic is oaks in cities.
“Oaks in cities is a side issue that you have seized upon. “
ROTFLMAO! The topic of the thread is oaks in cities.
“Hysteria over oaks supposedly poisoning the atmosphere would be a tragedy. So, back to my original point: the academic is going after the trees instead of the man-made car emisslions that supposedly combine with the tree exudate to make a toxic substance. I say, go after the car emissions rather than blame the trees.”
What are you smoking?
———————Article-——————
said Wei. “We don’t want to convey the idea that trees pollute the air. It’s the cars.”
“But like any garden variety narcissist you refuse to deal with it and instead try to deflect.”
As I remember you have been trolling me with snide remarks for some time. The last being no exception.
I previously asked you why.
So therefore, no one is allowed to defend the oak from being cancelled in big cities, with the demonization of oaks everywhere to follow? Because that’s what I was saying, whereas your argument was that they inconvenience your allergies.
“So therefore, no one is allowed to defend the oak from being cancelled in big cities, “
You previously posted that your argument was not about the oaks in cities. Having been informed that the thread topic is just that you are implying you were discussing the oaks in cities.
And you just want an argument in which we both don’t have valid points, but one of us must lose. I hope this ridiculous exchange has plumped your sagging ego, because it’s just made me laugh.
“So therefore, no one is allowed to defend the oak from being cancelled in big cities,”
LOL!
Your VERY recent post:
My defense of oaks in general was not because of cities, “
Read it again sloooooowwwwly, and you may get it.
“My ... defense ... of ... oaks ... in ... general ... was ... not ... because ... of ... cities, “”
Yep.
You need a hobby. You are obsessed with me. I’m not available. Try a dating site.
“I previously asked you why.”
And I’ve previously told you why.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.