
From Kansas State University, dueling statements, which I’ve highlighted in bold. Its the same sort of nonsense argument we here for Carbon Dioxide, that while essential for all life on the planet, it is also a pollutant. I see a nitrogen tax in our future if this nutty idea takes hold. – Anthony
Global nitrogen availability consistent for past 500 years, linked to carbon levels
MANHATTAN — A Kansas State University research team has found that despite humans increasing nitrogen production through industrialization, nitrogen availability in many ecosystems has remained steady for the past 500 years. Their work appears in the journal Nature.
“People have been really interested in nitrogen in current times because it’s a major pollutant,” said Kendra McLauchlan, assistant professor of geography and director of the university’s Paleoenvironmental Laboratory. “Humans are producing a lot more nitrogen than in the past for use as crop fertilizer, and there is concern because excess levels can cause damage. The mystery, though, is whether the biosphere is able to soak up this extra nitrogen and what that means for the future.”
Nitrogen is a key component of the ecosystem and the largest regulator of plant growth. It determines how much food, fuel and fiber the land can produce. It also determines how much carbon dioxide plants remove from the atmosphere, and it interacts with several components of the climate system. Excessive amounts of nitrogen in ecosystems contribute to global warming and impairment of downstream ecosystems.
McLauchlan worked with Joseph Craine, research assistant professor in biology; Joseph Williams, postdoctoral research associate; and Elizabeth Jeffers, postdoctoral research associate at the University of Oxford. The team published their findings, “Change
s in global nitrogen cycling during the Holocene epoch,” in the current issue of Nature.
In the study the team also looked at how nitrogen availability changed thousands of years ago.
Roughly 15,000 years ago, the Earth began to warm, melting many glaciers and ice sheets that covered the landscape. Researchers found that Earth experienced an 8,000-yearlong decline in nitrogen availability as temperatures rose and carbon and nitrogen became locked up in soils. According to researchers, how the nitrogen cycle responded to these ancient global changes in carbon dioxide could be a glimpse into the future.
“What happened in the past might be a dry run for Earth’s future,” Craine said. “By looking at what happened millennia ago, we can see what controlled and prevented changes in nitrogen availability. This helps us understand and predict how things will change in the future.”
The team collected and analyzed data from the sediment records of 86 lakes scattered across six continents. The lakes were distributed between tropical and temperate zones. With the data, the team was able to compare past and present cycling in various regions.
Researchers found that once most of the glaciers and ice sheets had melted around 11,000 years ago, the Earth continued to experience a global decline in nitrogen that lasted another 4,000 years.
“That was one of the really surprising findings,” Craine said. “As the world was getting warmer and experiencing higher carbon dioxide levels than it had in the past, just like we are currently experiencing, the ecosystems were starting to lock carbon in the soils and in plants, also like we are seeing today. That created a long decline in nitrogen availability, and it scrubbed nitrogen out of the atmosphere.”
McLauchlan said the most surprising finding, however, was that although humans have nearly doubled the amount of nitrogen to the ecosystems, globally nitrogen levels have remained stable at most sites for the past 500 years.
One reason may be that plants are using more nitrogen than they previously have, keeping nitrogen levels consistent with those thousands of years ago even though humans continue to add carbon dioxide and nitrogen to the atmosphere, McLauchlan said.
“Our best idea is that the nitrogen and carbon cycles were linked tightly back then and they are linked tightly today,” McLauchlan said. “Humans are now manipulating both nitrogen and carbon at the same time, which means that there is no net effect on the biosphere.”
The balance may be only temporary, McLauchlan said.
“Based on what we learned from the past, if the response of plants to elevated carbon dioxide slows, nitrogen availability is likely to increase and ecosystems will begin to change profoundly,” McLauchlan said. “Now more than ever, it’s important to begin monitoring our grasslands and forests for early warning signs.”
The Nature study is an extension of McLauchlan’s National Science Foundation CAREER Award that examines the history of nitrogen cycling in forested and grassland environments, her research on nitrogen concentrations and grasslands at the Konza Prairie Biological Station, and Craine’s research on grasslands and climate change.
“It is as if the environmentalists have discovered the periodic chart and have deemed it bad.”
I don’t know why you find this so difficult:
Nature = Good
Chemicals = Bad
… particularly when they get into the atmosphere!
I can’t tell from the press release if they’re talkig about free nitrogen (N2) which makes up most of Earth’s atmosphere, or compounds of nitrogen–ammonia, ammonium nitrate, etc.–some of which are poisonous and can be major pollutants. Ammonium nitrate fertilizer (made from natural gas), in particular, is a major water pollutant in some farming areas.
Plea for continued grants; is this the next gray train for some of these folk?
Oops … the next gravy train …
This illustrates one of my greatest concerns–that the eager pursuit of money for science, by any nonsense possible, will pollute not only “the Earth (biosphere), but it will pollute science itself so badly that we may be 100 years recovering from all the lies put forth in the name of science.
Science is so precious to me. I appreciate the authors and most posters on this site who work so hard to defend and recover real science.
This is based on a press release? right?
Reason I asked is that the article appears to have been seriously garbled — presumably by a “professional” writer called in to translate the scientist’s work into English — a job, that I suspect they could have done better themselves.
As has already been pointed out, Nitrogen is a mostly inert gas that comprises about 80 of the atmosphere. But Nitrogen can be provoked into combining with Oxygen, Hydrogen, Carbon and other stuff and some of that stuff can be a problem when there is too much of it in the wrong place. e.g. Nitrous Oxide — NO is a player in Southern California’s notorious air pollution. So calling Nitrogen a pollutant isn’t entirely whacky. But it’s far from a precise use of words.
Doesn’t DiHydrogen Monoxide cover about 78% of the Earth too?
“Humans are producing a lot more nitrogen than in the past for use as crop fertilizer, and there is concern because excess levels can cause damage. The mystery, though, is whether the biosphere is able to soak up this extra nitrogen and what that means for the future.”
If the biosphere wasn’t able to soak it up then it wouldn’t be a crop fertilizer then would it?
Oh my aching head.
I think they mean to refer to oxides of Nitrogen, which cause smog in the air and fixed Nitrogen (nitrates) which pollute water if used in excess for farming. However, this does not significantly effect atmospheric concentration of the N2, and it would not matter if it changed concentration a little anyway. Where do they think the Nitrogen comes from that is made into fertilizer? What they say seems to be totally ignorant.
Somebody warned about this not so long ago. Nitrogen is a chemical and is not to be tolerated. /sarc
The responses on this topic are a perfect example of why WUWT is so consistently both rooted in science AND entertaining. Chapeau to Peter in Ohio who started it all off at the top of the show with a “translation” that threatened a coffee/keyboard incident here in the UK. Thank you Peter – and to all the other contributors who bring welcome clarity, understanding and humour to this and many other Conversations With Anthony.
Kendra McLauchlan – “People have been really interested in nitrogen in current times because it’s a major pollutant,”
More evidence CO2 Global Warming SCAM is up, and ever seeking Taxpayer funding science-alarmists are looking for next Sky is Falling.
When will we rid this world of carbon and nitrogen so that we can live pollution free? LOL!
I am so proud of you folks.
Already, you’ve said all that needs be said.
Bravo!
Well, let’s see. The atmosphere is 14.7 pounds per square inch, of which 11.5 pounds is nitrogen. That’s enough to make about 32.88 pounds of ammonium nitrate per square inch, or 4734 pounds of nitrogen per square foot. Given the size of the Earth, that comes to 13.0e+15 tons of potential ammonium nitrate floating around in the atmosphere. World production of AN is about 15e+6 tons per year, so unless we scale back production now we’ll run out of atmospheric nitrogen in only 866 million years. I demand immediate action.
“Researchers found that Earth experienced an 8,000-yearlong decline in nitrogen availability as temperatures rose and carbon and nitrogen became locked up in soils”
Wait! I thought rising temperatures liberated more CO2, now rising temps ‘locks it up’?
Myron Mesecke;
If the biosphere wasn’t able to soak it up then it wouldn’t be a crop fertilizer then would it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Precisely.
Not to mention that enormous amounts of money are spent on agricultural research for the purpose of determining what the uptake is for the express purpose of ensuring that the result is a balanced one. Otherwise the crops would be either under nourished or poisoned.
I actually followed the links to read it for myself thinking perhaps Anthony had been duped by someone. Sadly, this is for real. I summarize it as follows:
Nothing has changed for 500 years.
SOUND THE ALARM!
I’m currently reading a book that is a historical survey of the effects of the Coumbian Exchange, and just got to the part where the shift to mono-agriculture began, so he has to explain nitrogen to the layman:
“Fertilizer is, at base, a mechanism for providing nitrogen to plants. Plants need nitrogen to make chlorophyll. . . . Nitrogen is also a key building block for both DNA and the proteins assembled by DNA. Although more than 3/4 of the atmosphere is made up of nitrogen, from a plant’s point of view nitrogen is scarce — the gas is made from 2 nitrogen atoms that cling to each other so tightly that plants cannot split them apart for use.”
—1493 by Charles C. Mann, page 212.
He goes on to talk about nitrites and nitrates — nothing earth shattering. I just thought it an odd coincidence that I got to that part of the book just a few moments before seeing this article.
Although as other has also pointed out, scientific terms don’t always mean the same thing as their standard colloquial use. In chemical terms oxygen is a poison, after all, in spite of being necessary for most life as it currently exists. I must re-check the definition of “pollutant” now, I suppose.
Stupidity is a major pollutant. FACT
Humans aren’t “producing more nitrogen”. Humans can’t produce anything. They can repackage what already exists in the natural world. Humans can’t “produce” energy, they unlock the potential energy that already exists. Humans are using nitrogen that already exists and redirecting it as fertilizer. Surprise, its being re-absorbed by the planet from which it originally came from.
The whole thing about fertiliser “polluting” the landscape in a big way is such BS. Fertiliser is so expensive there is no way we could afford to have any excess to wash off. At current sheep and cattle prices in our area of Australia we can’t justify using it and have reducing production. Our whole continent is nutrient poor. I get cranky when I hear these catch phrases in the media about fertilisers polluting rivers because of farming. Only places I know of where waterways are affected by high nutrient loads it is from urban and city areas – where the preachers come from who blame the farmers for it.
Plants excrete oxygen.
If there were no plants on Earth there would be virtually no free oxygen in the atmosphere, so;
Oxygen is a pollutant.
Plants are a life form, so;
Life forms cause pollution, so;
Get over it!
You cannot OUTLAW STUPIDITY!
Also, hard to OUTLAW NITROGEN.
Do these guys think they are ADULTS?
I wouldn’t hire them to clean my toilets.
Bryan A says:
March 21, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Doesn’t DiHydrogen Monoxide cover about 78% of the Earth too?
Yes and that’s not the worst of it. It is the number one green house gas.
Our media outlets are so kind as to reduce the complex chemical names to a single word. We wouldn’t understand the problem otherwise. in any case we can just blame it on the Chinese:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nitrogen-pollution-soars-in-china