This alarming missive just in from the: University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
As oxygen-deprived waters increase, they emit more greenhouse gasses into atmosphere
Above graphic from NOLA.COM click for details.
Cambridge, Md. (March 11, 2010) – The increased frequency and intensity of oxygen-deprived “dead zones” along the world’s coasts can negatively impact environmental conditions in far more than just local waters. In the March 12 edition of the journal Science, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science oceanographer Dr. Lou Codispoti explains that the increased amount of nitrous oxide (N2O) produced in low-oxygen (hypoxic) waters can elevate concentrations in the atmosphere, further exacerbating the impacts of global warming and contributing to ozone “holes” that cause an increase in our exposure to harmful UV radiation.
“As the volume of hypoxic waters move towards the sea surface and expands along our coasts, their ability to produce the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide increases,” explains Dr. Codispoti of the UMCES Horn Point Laboratory. “With low-oxygen waters currently producing about half of the ocean’s net nitrous oxide, we could see an additional significant atmospheric increase if these ‘dead zones’ continue to expand.”
Although present in minute concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere, nitrous oxide is a highly potent greenhouse gas and is becoming a key factor in stratospheric ozone destruction. For the past 400,000 years, changes in atmospheric N2O appear to have roughly paralleled changes in carbon dioxide CO2 and have had modest impacts on climate, but this may change. Just as human activities may be causing an unprecedented rise in the terrestrial N2O sources, marine N2O production may also rise substantially as a result of nutrient pollution, warming waters and ocean acidification. Because the marine environment is a net producer of N2O, much of this production will be lost to the atmosphere, thus further intensifying its climatic impact.
Increased N2O production occurs as dissolved oxygen levels decline. Under well-oxygenated conditions, microbes produce N2O at low rates. But at oxygen concentrations decrease to hypoxic levels, these waters can increase their production of N2O.
N2O production rates are particularly high in shallow suboxic and hypoxic waters because respiration and biological turnover rates are higher near the sunlit waters where phytoplankton produce the fuel for respiration.
When suboxic waters (oxygen essentially absent) occur at depths of less than 300 feet, the combination of high respiration rates, and the peculiarities of a process called denitrification can cause N2O production rates to be 10,000 times higher than the average for the open ocean. The future of marine N2O production depends critically on what will happen to the roughly ten percent of the ocean volume that is hypoxic and suboxic.
“Nitrous oxide data from many coastal zones that contain low oxygen waters are sparse, including Chesapeake Bay,” said Dr. Codispoti. “We should intensify our observations of the relationship between low oxygen concentrations and nitrous oxide in coastal waters.”
The article “Interesting Times for Nitrous Oxide” appears in the March 12, 2010 edition of the journal Science.
US carbon traders fear pink slips
(THE GOOD NEWS)
At least one bank with carbon trade assets has already been hit. EcoSecurities, a clean energy project developer and carbon trader, bought by JP Morgan Chase last year has closed its New York-based US office leading to a loss of up to 20 jobs.
JP Morgan has said a senior carbon trader, who had recently moved to Washington, is leaving the bank this month…
“It’s like all-out war,” Peter Fusaro, an expert at Global Change Associates in New York, said about the political and market odds stacked against creation of a big carbon market. Many in green groups, banks and the government had hoped the United States would anchor a global market worth up to $US2 trillion ($2.2 trillion) a year by 2020…
The problems extend to would-be carbon traders abroad. As the world struggles to agree a new pact to fight global warming, prices in the EU’s carbon market have fallen to about half of what they were in 2008. Australia’s national carbon plan is stalled and faces a third defeat in May.
Without creation of a US market on emissions from tailpipes to smokestacks, the Obama administration must find different ways to meet President Obama’s goal of cutting emissions 17 per cent by 2020 under 2005 levels…
(THE BAD NEWS) Even if a carbon market fails in the climate bill, the Obama administration could still cut emissions through the Environmental Protection Agency. Some lawyers and traders believe EPA could even craft a limited cap-and-trade program, though the agency’s chief Lisa Jackson said on Monday the agency has not laid out a plan.
Indeed, Barclays hired Kedin Kilgore, who once managed carbon at JP Morgan, in January to keep it ready in case cap-and-trade prospects swing back. Still, it has kept its US team to just a few.
And state programs could eventually toughen if the federal plan..
Prudential has two people in New York focused on carbon.
Banks such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley would not give details about their teams…
“I get young people coming to me saying they are looking into oil and gas trading. Carbon jobs just aren’t out there,” said Global Change’s Fusaro.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/us-carbon-traders-fear-pink-slips-20100312-q2cr.html
Next it will probably be argon, the most abundant inert gas (circa 0.9%) in the atmosphere.
Is there anything which does not produce ‘global warming’?
But at 0.3ppm, nitrous oxide levels in our atmosphere are not significant.
Warmists prefer to report its concentration in ppb (parts per billion) – after all, 280 is a much more scary number than 0.3.
GMO and excessive ferts on our lands DO NOT and WILL NOT do this wondrous ‘feed the earth’ campaign.
The point of many GM crops is to reduce the amount of fertilizer and pesticide. They are better for the environment than most present crops.
I don’t call present crops “natural” because not a single one is – every crop raised today is artificial. They’ve all been hybridized and cross-bred to the point where people wouldn’t recognise them from their original stock. Try living on wild wheat!
The only reason for “organic” farmers to oppose GM crops is because they are, at heart, anti-progress and anti-science. No matter how safe and nutritious GM food is, the organic community is not interested in science. Only the bugbear of “natural”. Yet how many natural rice paddies do you reckon there are?
Doug in Dunedin (12:23:05) :
Six ‘mays’ and seven ‘cans’ in this article. As a measure of scientific value such a measure scores a fail in my new assessment system
“said Dr. Codispoti. “We should intensify our observations”
I think he “May” be looking for grant money so he “Can” fund his research.
He “May” want a Nobel, “Can” he get one?
Let’s hope not
Ben
We’re doomed.
They tried nitrous oxide in the dentist’s office, but it didn’t work on me.
Other than the additional fertilizer in the Mississippi outflow, how has that changed in the last ten thousand years?
Gawd I get soooooo weary of all the bright eyed, save the world, do-gooders and their endless prognostications of impending doom if the world doesn’t do what they say. Here’s a little apocalyptic overload for those who feel the need: http://bigthink.com/
Joe Romm writes off the IPCC ??
“I don’t think the IPCC is going to have a lot of credibility in this country with people it needs to have credibilty with.”
(see about 34 min. mark)
http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?videoid?71574234001
Is this increase caused by improved detection?
B.S. Detector on FULL TILT!
This “scientific” article is pure BS.
Full of “what ifs”.
I suggest contacting Lucinda Basset of the “Fear and Anxiety Institute”.
She specializes in neutralizing “what if” thinking.
Max
So we can clean up our industrial agriculture runoff or we can implement a carbon tax …..
I know which one makes sense and will actually address the problem and I also know which one will likely be done even though it is worse than useless 🙁
Oh, the dead zone story again.
Just like the first robbin of spring, the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science trots out a bay dead zone story.
Its part of the “bay is dying” repertoire. The similarites between the dead zone predictions and global warming predictions have one thing in common, They are rarely correct. When they predict massive dead zones due to runnoff, it does not happen. Dead zones have not materialized for the past two years.
Like climate change advocates, the Bay is dying advocates tend to only focus on man made causes such as chicken farm runnoff and crop runnoff, sewage treatment, and home runoff.
I have read these studies and studies from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Chesapeake Climate Action Network and other bay/environmental groups and they never, ever discuss natural causes or natural variability.
Natural causes are completely ignored. Wind direction and velocity has a huge impact on the Chesapeake bay. Cloud cover and water temperature affect sea grasses. The Susquehanna river contributes 50% of the fresh water to the Chesapeake. Daily flows are measured in the billions of gallons per day, from 2B to 250B gallons per day. I never hear anything about that variabitly. Its always mentiond as the transport mechanism for polutants, but the correlation is weak.
This natual variabiltiy is virtually ignored, sound familiar?
Here is the rest of the rest of the bay alarmist repertoire.
Crabs are dying, Oysters are dying, Striped bass are dying, Submerged Auquitic vegitation is dying.
If man is to be blamed for the fishery problems, blame overfishing.
This is what Alarmism funded research gets you.
What a bogus article. Actually I want to say what a crap article. What crap science. Louis Codispoti should be ashamed. Where is the “proof”, where is the careful research, for any one of his claims. I seem to remember “oldwhathisname”, director of NCAR, wants to use dangerous N2O as one of the elements to enforce his dicatorial powers over all science and all public policy — so we all will all know the correct science and do the right things!
Doug in Dunedin (12:23:05), as well as the other commenters, clearly sees the many problems — the 6 “mays” and the 7 “cans”, e.g.
Upon close reading, I found:
7 mays
3 cans
4 coulds
3 shoulds
3 suggests
1 are likely
1 are indications
“Some MODELS predict a deeper thermocline (lower respiration) as a result of global warming; others [MODELS] suggest the opposite.”
In his citation list of 17, 4 are from Science Mag, 1 is from Nature.
1. It [N2O] is also becoming a key factor in stratospheric ozone destruction” — Science, Wuebbles 2009.
2. “Recent observations and models suggest that marine hypoxic and suboxic regions are likely to expand and shoal….” FN 7-9. 7 is his conclusion; 8 is Science, Stramma ea 2008; 9 is Global Biochem, Oschlies 2008.
3. “The Gulf of California provides an interesting case study. Here, phytoplankton blooms correlate with runoff from terrestrial fertilizer applications….” Nature, Beman ea 2005.
4&5. “Observations suggest an increase in eastern boundary upwelling and thermocline shoaling.” Science, Chan ea 2008; Science, McGregor ea 2007.
I don’t think Science or Nature can be trusted. What about the other publications. Are they all on the take, too?
No more time, but I imagine others can be more precise than I. Latitude (12:25:16) expresses my thoughts: ” But it’s not the open ocean. Making a comparison to the open ocean just inflates their numbers for hysterical effect.
The problem is silt and fertilizer run-off. Things that are being ignored with all this global warming crap.”
Most of our greatest environmental problems – we pay to create via subsidies. If one was truly interested in controlling eutrophication we could do a couple of things that would actually save us money.
-First cut off the more outrageous agriculture subsidies– rice, sugar and ethanol (The source of much of the Phosphorous and Nitrogen loadings)
-Allow for more genetically engineered crops (higher yield less land less fetilizers)
-And perhaps most importantly irradiate our food supply- it could double the food supply by reducing the massive losses in storage and transport due to mold insects etc. The result would be significantly reduced food prices and/or a massive reduction in the amount of land needed for agriculture (the number one source of water pollution)
The perversity of most environmental problems is the “cure” comes by spending less money not more…..But if you are on the receiving end of the spending why would you ever fix the problem? Problems become more economically valuable than any solution.
First it was CO₂ that was gonna get us, then CH₄. Now it’s N₂O. Can’t anyone do real science without invoking the AGW bogeyman? The matter of agricultural run-off with its attendant problems are deserving of attention; including the standard global warming talking point diminishes this.
And for other schools out there, you too can have your very own mini-IPCC — just call it something along the lines of Center for Environmental Science and all your activists can gather there to launch their very own crusade to save the planet.
Well they should just get the nitrogen out of the atmosphere; that’s the source of the problem.
How many millions of lightning strikes are there every single day on earth converting nitrogen into fertilizer.
somebody in Washington state (I believe) is suing the EPA to get the State of Washington to stop the acid sea water they have off the sate of Wshington.
In a related story, the San Jose Murky News, has “Local News” story today; March 12 reporting on the immediate inundation of the Farallon Islands sea bird rookeries, 30 miles off San Francisco.
John Fitzpatrick, Executive director Of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology says “There are a significant number of Birds that are facing real, immediate threats.”
Heading says:- Scientists: Rising seas expected to inundate habitat.”
The story is under Paul Rogers’ byline, the environmental editor for the Murky News.
OK, Scientists, given the “immediate threats” why don’t you tell us, by sundown today; what you plan to do about those threatened birds. Well hell, it’s a weekend coming up; Monday Morning will do.
Tell you what Mr Fitzpatrick, why don’t we give you till the end of this year to make good on your prediction, as to those immediate threats.
Last time I checked, the atmosphere extends all the way down to the water, and/or all the way down to the land, so birds; specially sea birds, are quite capable of exiting the atmosphere, any where such an interface occurs.
If Peregrine Falcons can nest every year on a ledge on San Jose’s City Hall, and Spotted Owls can nest in the illuminated letetrs on a K-Mart Store; what is the likelihood that sea birds, can find a place to land and nest, that is above water.
I have two words to describe such Scientific predictions:-
“Criminally Insane.”
Paul Rogers is a Democrat Party shill who masquerades as a climate expert on the San Jose Mercury News Local News pages; he also show up on the weekend Democrat conflab on PBS local stations, with his latest political issues to harangue us with.
Is there some reason why fishes don’t discharge Nitrogen or Phosphorous Wastes in the ocean like sea birds do.
Anybody know what the principal natural product of Niue Island in the South Pacific is; sea bird shirt is what it is.
So don’t blame humans, blame the sea birds, and the fishes.
” Mooloo (14:05:27) :” – You can’t be serious.
1) The point of many GM crops is to reduce the amount of fertilizer and pesticide. They are better for the environment than most present crops.
Then why are more herbicides being used than ever before?
Why are superweeds appearing in GMO based agriculture?
2) I don’t call present crops “natural” because not a single one is – every crop raised today is artificial. They’ve all been hybridized and cross-bred to the point where people wouldn’t recognise them from their original stock. Try living on wild wheat!
You obviously have no idea of the huge differences in cross breading and genetically modifying crops.
3) No matter how safe and nutritious GM food is,
They only do minimal tests on them because they were ASSUMED to be “substantially equivalent”. The only tests that are done were done by the companies. Like Monsanto “proving” that RBGH was safe for milk production because any residuals were destroyed by pasteurization temperatures. Except they “pasteurized” them for 30 minutes! That is like baking a turkey for 2 weeks!
4) the organic community is not interested in science.
It is Monsanto that is not interested in science when it comes to safety testing.
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/MediaCenter/index.cfm
One last question for you. If GMO foods are so safe and great why not label foods that have GMO ingredients and let the consumers make a choice? You know that free market thing that only gets lip service from companies like Monsanto.
Peter Miller (14:05:06) :
Next it will probably be argon, the most abundant inert gas (circa 0.9%) in the atmosphere.
(…)
Oh No! Argon is used as a shielding gas for many types of arc welding, thus it is tied to warming (the metal gets very hot).
The Argon will kill us all!
A result of home schooled fish and benthic racism.
One wonders how much nitrogen runoff there was when there were tens of millions of buffalo roaming the plains, dumping in every river and creek…
Re: Wayne Delbeke (13:57:43) :
Everyone should be concerned about our oceans, rivers, lakes, and land…
How much, exactly, I “should be” concerned? Just a little? Greatly? Or “should I” run in circles, screaming and shouting?
Who decides, how much “everyone should be concerned” about this or that? You? Politicians? Green fanatics?
And what if I am not going to be concerned as ordered? What are you going to do? Tax me more and more at the point of a gun?
Is this — taxing people against their will at the point of a gun — is what you are trying to sell as a moralistic reproach?
Wayne Delbeke
Quote: ” but it would be nice to see a few more positive ideas on how we might provide redirection and solutions instead of sarcasm and denigration.”
Easy enough
Stop all this CO2 ‘settled science’ that’s taking up all the time, money, and attention.
I’m sure you’ve noticed since all this started there has not been one word about real pollution, real problems, or real solutions.
“every crop raised today is artificial. They’ve all been hybridized and cross-bred to the point where people wouldn’t recognise them from their original stock”
Yes, we do naturally cross via pollination and the like… of course. Injecting animal dna into plant dna is NOT quite the same.
GMO = AGW… same shite. Obviously you don’t know anything about Monsanto, or you work for them. It has NOTHING to do with nutrition and everything to do with profit and control.
GMO is fun and games, experimentation and profit. Before GMOs food was just fine; funny how non-gmo eaters are now anti-science as you would say… LOL. That is funny. Do you know rockefeller and his ilk were experimenting with animal/plant gmos in the 1940s? It is NOT new and it is NOT about bettering the human.
“We should intensify our observations of the relationship between low oxygen concentrations and nitrous oxide in coastal waters.”
Yep. Grant Forcing.
Pascvaks (12:49:09) :
“Note: Not everything is a joke, nor to be made light of without consequence. Think before you laugh too hard, you may just choke to death. AGW sounds like a hoax, smells like a hoax, looks like a hoax, and feels like a hoax. Dead fish and dead seas are not a hoax, don’t smell like a hoax, don’t look like a hoax, and don’t feel like a hoax.”
We have red tide that kills LOTS of fish. Totally natural. We have the Floridian trench that upwells from time to time. Lots of dead fish. Dead fish are not a hoax, but the “We’re-all-going-to-die” disaster porn most definately IS.
When I read that: “…waters can elevate concentrations in the atmosphere, further exacerbating the impacts of global warming and contributing to ozone “holes” that cause an increase in our exposure to harmful UV radiation.” I wanted to stop reading. I wish I had.
Has anyone told Dr. Codispoti that NO2 and other NOx are sinks for chlorine so they would be acting as “reducers” of the infamous ozone hole? Obviously the Gravy Train that runs on the old Grant Rail Road Line is behind all this junk.