From the University of Tennessee at Knoxville where they think N2O is no laughing matter. It is another example of Nature’s adaptation. But I have to wonder though why they think this is “unexpected”, because denitrification(bacterial conversion to N2) has been well known to science and agriculture for decades. This PR looks like code for “more studies are needed, please send money”. And it is another sloppy press release without the name of the paper or the DOI given.
– Anthony
Unexpected microbes fighting harmful greenhouse gas
Nature has a larger army than previously thought combating nitrous oxide — according to a study by Frank Loeffler, University of Tennessee, Knoxville — Oak Ridge National Laboratory Governor’s Chair for Microbiology, and his colleagues
The environment has a more formidable opponent than carbon dioxide. Another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide, is 300 times more potent and also destroys the ozone layer each time it is released into the atmosphere through agricultural practices, sewage treatment and fossil fuel combustion.
Luckily, nature has a larger army than previously thought combating this greenhouse gas—according to a study by Frank Loeffler, University of Tennessee, Knoxville–Oak Ridge National Laboratory Governor’s Chair for Microbiology, and his colleagues.
The findings are published in the Nov. 12 edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Scientists have long known about naturally occurring microorganisms called denitrifiers, which fight nitrous oxide by transforming it into harmless nitrogen gas. Loeffler and his team have now discovered that this ability also exists in many other groups of microorganisms, all of which consume nitrous oxide and potentially mitigate emissions.
The research team screened available microbial genomes encoding the enzyme systems that catalyze the reduction of the nitrous oxide to harmless nitrogen gas.
They discovered an unexpected broad distribution of this class of enzymes across different groups of microbes with the power to transform nitrous oxide to innocuous nitrogen gas. Within these groups, the enzymes were related yet evolutionarily distinct from those of the known denitrifiers. Microbes with this capability can be found in most, if not all, soils and sediments, indicating that a much larger microbial army contributes to nitrous oxide consumption.
“Before we did this study, there was an inconsistency in nitrous oxide emission predictions based on the known processes contributing to nitrous oxide consumption, suggesting the existence of an unaccounted nitrous oxide sink,” said Loeffler. “The new findings potentially reconcile this discrepancy.”
According to Loeffler, the discovery of this microbial diversity and its contributions to nitrous oxide consumption will allow the scientific community to advance its understanding of the ecological controls on global nitrous oxide emissions and to refine greenhouse gas cycle models.
“This will allow us to better describe and predict the consequences of human activities on ozone layer destruction and global warming,” said Loeffler. “Our results imply that the analysis of the typical denitrifier populations provides an incomplete picture and is insufficient to account for or accurately predict the true nitrous oxide emissions.”
Loeffler collaborated with researchers from the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign; the Georgia Institute of Technology; the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Urbana, Ill.; the University of Puerto Rico; and the National Institute of Abiotic Stress Management in Pune, India.
As many have said, nitrous oxide is N2O, not NO2. That’s relevant to the Wiki denitrification link cited, because it actually lists N2O as the most difficult oxide form to reduce.
I tend to agree with Mosher on this one. I understand Anthony’s point about the sloppy press release, fair enough, but it is beginning to seem as if most of what gets reported on WUWT gets a double barrel of whine. This work reports an interesting finding and all the mighty pontificators on WUWT notwithstanding, it usually proves quite difficult to tell what is going on in nature from the safety of your computer screen and swivel chair. The press release sucked, but I look forward to seeing the paper, if it isn’t paywalled. These people went out and made observations instead of doing G.D. modelling. WUWT should applaud them.
Nick there is rather a lot of fun chemistry you can do with N2O, and then O2 and hv. You can recycle peroxide radical into molecular oxygen. This should increase the oxidizing potential of the upper atmosphere, which would strip out organics, like methane, much more quickly.
Have a look at figure 3.
http://www.accessscience.com/search.aspx?rootID=800184
Modeling the rate at which one chews up organics like GHG gasses like methane and chews up forest fire type particulates would be quite interesting.
I can agree with Anthony’s complaint about the headline and the lack of a reference to the paper. Both are significant issues with the press release.
I can also agree with Steven’s comments – the content of the press release (as distinct to the headline) doesn’t deserve the comments that there made about. As he pointed out, the content is quite clear that it’s the scope of microorganisms that can denitrify that’s what’s being reported, not the fact that microorganisms do this.
Personally, I think the first few paragraphs of the press release should be scrapped or rewritten. They’re written to be alarmist, when they don’t have to be. The rest of the press release is largely fine – detailing what was found without going overboard. It’s the headline and the first few paragraphs that ruin it.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/4/chemistry
good stuff;on nitrogen oxidation
If my memory serves, it some times does not, this kind of foolishness is common in the 11th and 12th months of the year. I suspect but have no empirical evidence that it is directly proportional to the useless and rather juvenile hip around sports games and “block busted” movies. It could be that people are staying to much inside their hermetically sealed homes and suffer from lack of oxygen. Perhaps the mythology about Thanksgiving and uncontrolled consumer spending (read that is increased debt) just turns peoples brains to jelly. Now don’t misunderstand having raised this alarm you can pay me to find a solution. What no takers I can’t believe people are so….
DocMartyn says: November 22, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Doc,
yes, interesting radical chemistry in the atmosphere. But there is some interesting chemistry in vivo too.
People have commented that denitrification usually occurs under anaerobic conditions, when bugs will strip oxygen off anything. And that’s what Anthony’s Wiki ref was about.
But here is a paper that puts a different light on it, in which this might well be a real discovery. N2O is mainly produced, not under anaerobic conditions, but under limited aerobic. Normal denitrification then cannot reduce to N2, but stops at N2O. If that’s where most N2O is produced, then finding bugs that can complete the process where N2O is produced could be very important.
“Luckily, nature has a larger army than previously thought combating this greenhouse gas…”
“…microorganisms called denitrifiers, which fight nitrous oxide…”
————————————————————
Observational bias! Gaia is observing the atmosphere and sending out her minions to do battle against evil compounds? Microbes don’t “fight” greenhouse gasses. As Anthony said, it is adaptation.
Science these days is sodden with AGW agenda.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/09/1211238109.short
from the author
Bill Illis says:
November 22, 2012 at 3:56 pm
The primary source of N2O is nitrogen fertilizer usage. After the initial uptake by the crop, when the plant dies and decomposes, other microbes in the soil convert it to N20 and it escapes into the atmosphere shortly after….
___________________________________
Darn good reason to plant a cover crop. Can’t find the link, but planting Abruzzi or other winter rye or winter wheat or oats is recommended not only for protecting the soil but also for using up the excess fertilizer. In the spring the cover crop can either be plowed under as green manure or mowed and baled and then no-till planted with corn or other crops after being killed-off with a herbicide.
Unfortunately most farmers do not have the time or excess money to take care of their fields this way. The seed is darn expensive, $30 -$40/ac.
Now’a’days Universities Admins are the recipients of successful grant proposals, not the researchers and scientists who actually wrote the proposal and propose to be the actual ones doing the work.
As such, a researcher or scientists writes a proposal intended for NSF or NASA per say. The background research regarding the proposal and vetting through presentations at AGU (American Geophysical Union) and EGU (European Geoscience Union General Assembly) can take a few years. This cost $$$$ that the researcher or scientist pays out of pocket.
Then, in the end, the Admins at the University reserve the right to hijack the proposal and all the money from NSF and NASA et al. goes to the ‘University General Fund” i.e. the Admins who have only high school educations and little in the way of ethics and morals to show as they write their BLOATED press releases of their high achievements in uneducated sophistry and otherwise grand larceny do give evidence of their thievery sanctioned by University Presidents, Chancellors and ‘Legal Teams’.
Highway robbery. That is the state of University ‘Research’.
The PR mentions “fossil fuel combustion”. I was wondering about other forms of combustion such as forest fires and grass fires. Is there something special about ancient organic matter over more recently produced combustible organics ?
Mosher, help me out here!
“Funding for 1000 Alex” is the correct answer. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory and UT are by far the most important contributors to the economic well-being of East Tennessee. Together they form the epicenter of emmisions research products tailored to the nuclear industry. Not long ago it was discovered that Oak Ridge paid 600K to Honeywell for a 3 year green energy efficency contract on one large building. They demolished the building within a year of signing the deal but of course paid the full amount. I’m not qualified to speak to the utility of the research but I can speak to the interest involved in it’s funding. Sometimes what you think is going on is what is going on.
…but what a great place for a stressed scientist to work (assuming they have a job):
“National Institute of Abiotic Stress Management”
I think the paper of Loeffler is here.
I am continually amazed at the fairly steady stream of papers which claim to add new knowledge to the science of climate change. I do not see how this can possibly occur.
We are continuously informed that the science is settled. If the science is truly settled, additional studies cannot possibly add to the science of climate change. In fact none of the studies that the diligent researchers (who tell us that the science is settled) are paid to do can add anything of value to the the science of climate change. I suggest that the logical action by society would be to quit funding projects for all individuals who believe that the science is settled.
A major part of any application for funding should explain in detail why they think that the science of climate change is so lacking in precision that the proposed study might add anything of value to the science. Just think how much more entertaining that would make the proposals.
“Scientists have long known about naturally occurring microorganisms called denitrifiers, which fight nitrous oxide by transforming it into harmless nitrogen gas. “
It’s war JIm, but not as we know it.
john robertson says:
November 22, 2012 at 3:56 pm
“In the next breathless announcement, we will be informed that A,Plants take up carbon dioxide as part of their life cycle. And B Who knew there were so many plants?Yes its sarcasm I can’t go on.”
Ever considered becoming a science press release writer? That wasn’t bad for a start.
“…..The environment has a more formidable opponent than carbon dioxide. ….”
Truly unbelievable. I’m sure I don’t need to point out the facts concerning CO2 which make this statement a poisonous distortion of the truth.
Perhaps these morons should ask themselves a simple question: what would happen if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere?
Chris
There are so many ozone destroyers out there that I am thankful for UV/oxygen reactions in the upper atmosphere. But I need more research so send money.
Here’s an alternative explanation, from a guest on tonight’s Coast to Coast radio show:
He stated that the first inhabitants of the Mir space station went insane and lost their memory after two weeks, owing to the absence of a magnetic field, and that subsequently space stations have been equipped with generators of artificial magnetic fields.
Donald Mitchell says:
November 22, 2012 at 10:27 pm
I am continually amazed at the fairly steady stream of papers which claim to add new knowledge to the science of climate change. I do not see how this can possibly occur………
A major part of any application for funding should explain in detail why they think that the science of climate change is so lacking in precision that the proposed study might add anything of value to the science. Just think how much more entertaining that would make the proposals.
———————————-
I agree it does sound like fun.
If you want research money tell us why you think our current knowledge is incorrect.
cn
It is unexpected only in the sense of Trenbeths missing heat and how that is a travesty
“And it is another sloppy press release without the name of the paper or the DOI given.”
WillR got it in one, in the first post. This is not sloppy or accidental , it is so obvious if you are announcing a paper, that you are going to provide a reference. It’s like announcing a new book but forgetting to tell anyone what it’s called or who publishes it.
This is more like Phil Jones’ , why should I let you see it ? You only want to prove it wrong.
You are just supposed to trot off down the pub and tell all your friends “did you know that at new study has just proved that…..”
Seriously, have you read how Warmists react to say:
The record cold winter in the UK for over 100 years? Every report that counters CAGW is met with howls and grinding teeth. Jones of CRU said something like we should get worried if temperatures fail to warm soon. It’s a travesty.
Imagine if a scientific paper came out tomorrow and pointed to evidence that a new mechanism had been discovered that meant the Arctic extent is due to expand rapidly over the next 10 years to reach the 1979 level. Do you think this would be met with sighs of relief from Warmists????? Of course not. Every piece of good news is mocked or under the pay of Big Oil. Sheeesh.
Please push your very same remark at Warmists, that is where it plays out most.