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.
By the way my reference for the the record coldest winter was with reference to December 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12119329
Yet Richard Black saw a fly in the ointment of observed fact having forgotten that we were told to expect milder winters in the UK.
Nick Stokes said on November 22, 2012 at 10:21 pm:
I think the paper of Loeffler is here.
Hey Nick, thanks for confirming my post from eight hours earlier. I downloaded the paper to verify it was a good and free link. What do you think of it?
Well, glad to know you take the time to read the comments before posting!
Thanks for the link ThisIsNotGoodToGo. As a soil biologist, I found the work to be very interesting and I am glad Anthony pointed it out, whatever his motivation was.
Mosher forgot what blog he was on lol
I resent the suggestion that readers here are anti-science.
About 50 years ago, I read an article praising the benefits of the oxides of nitrogen that were generated by lightning activity in thunderstorms. When generated by nature it was good stuff – washed out of the atmosphere by rain it was fertilizer for plants. Evidently, like CO2, it is only evil stuff when generated by man’s activities.
There must be some unwritten rule that allows only benefits to be looked for and studied when anything is produced naturally, while only the ill effects of anything made by man receive any
attention and publicity.
Well, “nature has a larger army THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT”. This would tell any thinking individual that the amount of natural NO2 is therefore much more than previously thought. Moreover, the ozone hole then obviously has a much more than previously thought natural cause.
The dumbing down of America – a much discussed topic a few decades ago is supported by the fact that it now seems to be rife in universities – the present topic an example of it. Man this might even be the explanation for the whole CAGW development. I think the erosion of intellectual rigor (even the disdain for intellect) in our institutions of “higher” learning may be the biggest worry facing society today.
From Roger Knights on November 23, 2012 at 3:49 am:
Thereby proving his quackery. Mir ran 1986 to 2001. Wikipedia doesn’t mention any such problems. Skylab was 1973 to 1979, no problems. Even earlier was Salyut-1. Its first residents all died, because the cosmonauts weren’t wearing spacesuits and the capsule lost pressure on reentry (Soyuz 11).
Plus it’s damn idiotic to state there was an absence of a magnetic field. Earth’s magnetosphere extends well above the orbit of the space stations, its protection reduces the radiation shielding requirements (read this about radiation on the ISS). All the space stations had and have a magnetic field, Earth’s natural magnetic field, they don’t need an artificial one.
If I were to hazard a guess as to where such dreck could have originated, it has been proposed to protect spacecraft with an artificial magnetic field, to deflect as many tiny bits of space debris as possible, or perhaps some charged radiation. Like a primitive “force field”. I’ve never heard of such actually being deployed.
What? Another instance where ancient critters that pretty much titrated the earth’s crust 3 billion years ago and now live at leat as deep as our deepest boreholes will eat anything with potential energy?
More seriously, it is good science that needed to be done. But don’t act surprised. Our bodies do well to fend these beasts off for a while…
Who cares if NO2 is supposedly 300 times the greenhouse gas when it is one 1230th as abundant (0.325 ppm vs 400 ppm). However, since no gas of any kind can detectably warm the surface and the climate. It is thermodynamically impossible for these gases to do what they claim.
This is just another example of the junk science of the AGW scam
higley7 says:
November 23, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Who cares if NO2 is supposedly 300 times the greenhouse gas when it is one 1230th as abundant (0.325 ppm vs 400 ppm). However, since no gas of any kind can detectably warm the surface and the climate. It is thermodynamically impossible for these gases to do what they claim.
Firstly it’s N2O not NO2. The reason to care about it is that according to the figures you give it contributes about one third as much to the GHE as CO2.
Your lack of knowledge concerning radiation heat transfer and thermodynamics is noted!
Argh. people make CO, N2O, NO, and thousands (if not millions) of other chemicals every day, themselves directly and via their commensal bacteria. Ho Hum. Now extend that to the rest of nature.
From Phil. on November 24, 2012 at 3:55 pm:
The reason to care about it is that according to the figures you give it contributes about one third as much to the GHE as CO2.
However the GHE of CO₂ is saturated with increases from the pre-industrial ~280ppm atmospheric concentrations to now having practically no effect and further increases within expected ranges to have virtually zero effect, indistinguishable from the noise.
Since the GHE of CO₂ is maxed out, if N₂O concentrations would stay constant while CO₂ continues its merry rise, then your stated fraction will keep shrinking. And since CO₂’s contribution to the total GHE is practically maxed out all the way down to less than 180ppm, the fraction shouldn’t have been figured by amounts in the atmosphere anyway.
You forget latent heat of evaporation. The water has about 11x more, so contributes more to the rabbit.
When will the world ever learn? Temperatures cannot be averaged!
Nick Stokes says:
November 22, 2012 at 5:17 pm
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.
That N2O production peaks at partial anoxia has been known to soil scientists and agronomists for some time. N2O has been increasing slowly but steadily ever since we learned how to make N fertilizer from atmospheric N2, and this may be a concern as N2O catalyzes ozone destruction.