Effects of Acid Rain - Forests | Acid Rain | US EPA

 

Soil-Net.com - Acid rain

 

Acid Rain Effects - Forests

Just because the media hypes something certainly does not mean that that it is scientific fact.

 

Just because the media doesn't hype something does not mean that it is NOT scientific fact.

ThinkProgress? Now that's real science for ya...

:laugh: I would like to hear how you like it.

 

So far a bit on the dry side.

See, you are just simply wrong;

http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Administrative+Resources/Testing+and+Reporting+/District+Support/End-of-Course+Information/

 

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Science-type stuff

 

Killing the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus | ThinkProgress

 

 

I wasn't wrong, I remember in the 70's watching news casts that said things along the lines of "science say we are heading for an ice age".

 

I also remember in the 80's watching similar news casts that said something along the lines of "acid rain is a health concern".

 

Now, I was wrong on the werewolves and vampires, apparently that was just rumors and had no scientific evidence.

I don't care what anyone believes, one way or another. The FACT is we are stewards of our planet. We impact our environment in many ways: industrialization, emissions, deforestation, filling landfills with non-renewable trash, chemical waste....the list goes on. The responsible thing to do is reduce our negative impact. Does it matter whether the Earth is getting warmer or cooler? In my opinion, it's selfish of us to not be as concerned about the condition we leave this planet for our future generations.

I don't care what anyone believes, one way or another. The FACT is we are stewards of our planet. We impact our environment in many ways: industrialization, emissions, deforestation, filling landfills with non-renewable trash, chemical waste....the list goes on. The responsible thing to do is reduce our negative impact. Does it matter whether the Earth is getting warmer or cooler? In my opinion, it's selfish of us to not be as concerned about the condition we leave this planet for our future generations.

 

This.

I don't care what anyone believes, one way or another. The FACT is we are stewards of our planet. We impact our environment in many ways: industrialization, emissions, deforestation, filling landfills with non-renewable trash, chemical waste....the list goes on. The responsible thing to do is reduce our negative impact. Does it matter whether the Earth is getting warmer or cooler? In my opinion, it's selfish of us to not be as concerned about the condition we leave this planet for our future generations.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

We've got folks who yammer on about how the debt is going to keep piling up and reduce the quality of life for future generations, but there is no such concern on this issue.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

We've got folks who yammer on about how the debt is going to keep piling up and reduce the quality of life for future generations, but there is no such concern on this issue.

 

Thanks for finishing my thoughts. I thought I had included that part (thus the "as responsible" clause).

I wasn't wrong, I remember in the 70's watching news casts that said things along the lines of "science say we are heading for an ice age".

 

I also remember in the 80's watching similar news casts that said something along the lines of "acid rain is a health concern".

 

Now, I was wrong on the werewolves and vampires, apparently that was just rumors and had no scientific evidence.

 

Ram,

 

I am not a climate scientist, but I do have some knowledge of sulfur dioxide. Acid rain in the northeast was a direct result of discharges of sulfur dioxide, primarily from power plants. During the early 70s EPA proposed controlling sulfur dioxide from power plants. The response from most of the power industry was immediate. They stated that control of sulfur dioxide was beyond our technical capabilities, would cause massive economic disruption by raising electricity costs beyond what anyone could afford and would result in massive mounds of toxic sludge (calcium sulfate is produced by removing the sulfur dioxide). One notable exception was Louisville Gas & Electric that put an SO2 scrubber on one of their small plants (Paddy's Run if memory serves) to test the process. It worked and the utility was a national leader on SO2 control. An LG&E VP at the time, Bob Van Ness, was a national leader and deserves a lot of praise for pushing the issue. The debate over control of SO2 gave rise to the first debate over cap and trade. A version of cap and trade was proposed by Republicans as a more economically viable way to control SO2. Environmental groups were against cap and trade for SO2 because they thought overall emisions would be lower using a best available technology (BAT) approach. SO2 controls were implemented nationally and were a big success. That is why acid rain is not near the problem in the northeast that it was. As an footnote, acid rain was a worse problem in the northeast due to a combination of prevailing wind patterns and the soil and rock types in the northeast that give the runoff in that part of the country little buffering capacity.

 

So, cite acid rain if you want to, but it is strong evidence for just the opposite of what I think you were trying to say. Acid rain was a significant environmental problem that was identified, a solution proposed amid great denial from those opposed, implemented in a bipartisan way and a great success. WOW! Sounds like just the way it is supposed to work.

Ram,

 

I am not a climate scientist, but I do have some knowledge of sulfur dioxide. Acid rain in the northeast was a direct result of discharges of sulfur dioxide, primarily from power plants. During the early 70s EPA proposed controlling sulfur dioxide from power plants………………………...

 

I understand rain has acidity, all water has a pH of 7.0 at least (and I know a lot about pH). I don't deny that some, if not most, of the problems reported exist, to an extent. What I question, and loath, is the way it is presented to the people, the scare tactics and threat of immediate demise. I feel that the information should be presented and the people should be trusted to come to a logical conclusion. At this point, I strongly question anything that is reported to me due to the manner in which previous information has been presented.

I understand rain has acidity, all water has a pH of 7.0 at least (and I know a lot about pH). I don't deny that some, if not most, of the problems reported exist, to an extent. What I question, and loath, is the way it is presented to the people, the scare tactics and threat of immediate demise. I feel that the information should be presented and the people should be trusted to come to a logical conclusion. At this point, I strongly question anything that is reported to me due to the manner in which previous information has been presented.

 

Well, I'm not a fan of apocolyptic language, but that doesn't change the facts. (see post 12) The I don't like the messenger, so the message must be wrong attitude of the right coupled with a lnow nothing attitude toward all science is dangerous.

Well, I'm not a fan of apocolyptic language, but that doesn't change the facts. (see post 12) The I don't like the messenger, so the message must be wrong attitude of the right coupled with a lnow nothing attitude toward all science is dangerous.

Yea, I'm on the right, but to be honest my view of the topic at hand is not one based on politics, even thought I feel that the left defiantly did a disservice by jumping on the apocalyptic band wagon. Again, just present the information, don't politically or media spin it, report it let the people decide they are smarter then some give them credit for.

Well, I'm not a fan of apocolyptic language, but that doesn't change the facts. (see post 12) The I don't like the messenger, so the message must be wrong attitude of the right coupled with a lnow nothing attitude toward all science is dangerous.

 

One of the more bigoted posts I can remember. Nothing like a little ignorance to start the day.

Well, I'm not a fan of apocolyptic language, but that doesn't change the facts. (see post 12) The I don't like the messenger, so the message must be wrong attitude of the right coupled with a lnow nothing attitude toward all science is dangerous.

You're wrong. It's the message that has so many people anymore tired of the apocollyptic message.

 

The problem is the message seems to be that man is behind the global warming and wwe will all die because of it sooner than later. It's the message of unproven theories that they try to make you believe is fact and ignore other proof that doesn't ssupport their beliefs.

 

 

So the message is the problem, add to that the people who spread that message makkes it tough when they are using the message as political collateral. So you are hhalf right, both the message and some of the messengers make me laugh.