
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.
Referencing the image at the top – BOC plant. Stands for British Oxygen Company. I got a frown from a BOC employee once for revealing this. Never understood why, but maybe they have the gift of prophecy ?
CO2 as a pollutant is not panning out too well. Amazing that N2 at around 78% and relatively inert should become a candidate. Maybe they have already checked out the other trace gases? Argon 9,340 ppmv, Neon 18.18 ppmv, Helium 5.24 ppmv? /sarc
Mark Bofill says:
> Nitrogen huh. Just when you thought it couldn’t get any dumber…
It could. Wait until it occurs to them to learn about the provenance of all oxygen in the air. They are bound to discover the moment in history when our not-so-distant green cousins invaded this natural and perfectly balanced anaerobic planet and exterminated most of the “God’s species” on it, killing them off with their toxic waste, oxygen. Those species were lost forever! Where is climate justice?
But wait then I have a solution for you! What would you say to a fuel that compared to the average air emissions from coal produces half the CO2, less than a third of the nitrogen oxides, and 1% of the sulfur oxides and almost none of the mercury?
I give you natural gas. Oh what? That’s no good either? Why? Oh the fracking bothers you. Well then I have door number 2 for you! A fuel that has next to no emmissions! LFTR technology! Oh what? That’s no good either? Why? Oh it is that “nuclear” word and a level of tech you can’t comprehend so it must be bad.
Sheesh. There is just no pleasing some people. 🙂
… and let us not forget evil oxygen, the instigator of oxidation damage and rust throughout the world. We are surely doomed!
Ah yes the smell of burnt Nitrocellulose and Nitro Glycerine. AKA smokeless gunpowder.
Buy your ammunition if you can find it.
“They are bound to discover the moment in history when our not-so-distant green cousins invaded this natural and perfectly balanced anaerobic planet and exterminated most of the “God’s species” on it, killing them off with their toxic waste, oxygen. Those species were lost forever! Where is climate justice?”
Hopefully they won’t learn about it from someone who knew members of the preceding species personally.
(Larry Niven; “The Green Plague”)
Nitrogen, hey. So… when are they going to ban oxygen?
Is this the beginning of the Dark Ages II?
Robert of Ottawa says:
March 21, 2013 at 3:39 pm
MY comment didn’t seem to make it, go lost in the ether. I cannot reproduce it but can paraphrase it:
What member of the criminal periodic table are we allowed to consider benificent, oh mighty guardians of reality?
Grrr###
*
My guess is, everything is okay, providing it is in perfect balance set by nature. Anything we “filthy humans” touch changes the balance. No matter what. That’s why woodchips in power stations are okay (for now) because the trees are giving back what they stored. Anything humans produce, say through industry, is a no-no. Don’t worry, they’ll get around to our breathing last of all. Before then, they’ll ban all windmills and solar panels – but only after we’ve allowed everything else to go and we *ahem* rely on them. Those woodchips would have long been not allowed by then, and they’ll start looking at how many breaths we take. We’ll be easy to find, too, because by then we won’t be allowed to step on the living planet for fear of impinging on some ecosystem, so we will be locked in special cages and not allowed to breed.
I, for one, will be telling everyone that you guys will not emphasize that the atmosphere has O2 in it and how ‘big oil’ uses O.
Nitrogen is a pollutant?
I’ve been breathing that stuff in all my life!
I’m doomed!
Nitrog-lycerin already having an impact on climate change http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/mini-tornadoes-rip-through-victorian-towns/story-e6frg6nf-1226603048502
One early ‘warning’ coming in from the Earth’s grasslands, Matt Ridley reports they are greening.
Increased atmospheric CO2 and reduced soil fertility associated with reduced soil nitrate may well have common causes, but that should not imply that nitrogen cycling in the terrestrial biosphere responds to changes in carbon cycling as the authors of the Nature Letter have assumed.
Like the redefinition of so many other common words and phrases, the left has redefined “pollutant” to be anything anthropogenically produced. If it’s produced in any other way it is okay, part of nature. This goes along with the beliefs of many of them that humans are apart from the environment, like alien invaders. And they wonder why we call their environmental beliefs a religion?
Look on the bright side, people. They are clearly running out of elements to pick on as “pollutants.”
Helium should be last.
Bah. Hand me my resolver.
Next they’ll try to get people to believe water is dangerous substance. … oh wait … some already do http://tinyurl.com/ajmkfmr
Max Hugoson says:
March 21, 2013 at 1:49 pm
“You cannot OUTLAW STUPIDITY!”
But you can award it a Phd and a professorship. The grants they have to get on their own from equally stupid people.
So they found that when it gets warm and CO2 then rises, plants grow better and that growing plants consume “nitrogen” (that I presume really means nitrates). Isn’t that something every Ag student and gardener knows? That growing plants like warmth, grow more then, and consume more fertilizers?
Sheesh…
And somehow they try to get that packaged as a Big Scare…
Anthony you say” I see a nitrogen tax in our future if this nutty idea takes hold.” We already have this lunacy in the UK where we have an environmental tax on industrial gases as they are released into the environment I now pay more for my welding nitrogen/argon mix and oxygen for this mad idea of saving the environment from something that was removed from it. But as we know industry is bad.
James Bull
How about we all jump up and down pretending that this is about all sorts of things other than that we’re producing a lot of nitrogen fertilizers, and that these chemicals are pollutants if they reach high concentrations in waterways.
I see a nitrogen tax in our future if this nutty idea takes hold.
There are restrictions of excessive nitrogen fertilizer use in many countries.
Nitrogen: the new Carbon dioxide!
Hold on to your hat!
Oh dear. These geniuses have apparently rediscovered the interglacial vegetation/nutrient cycle first described by the danish botanist Iversen 60 years ago, but without understanding it. Every interglacial starts out with fresh, nutrient rich high pH-mineral soils created by glacial erosion and distributed by strong glacial winds. The plants start growing and gradually locks up the nutrients while decaying plant matter makes the soil more and more acid.
Finally the now nutrient-poor acid soils are bulldozed away by the next glaciation and the whole thing starts over
@ur momisugly Andrew: you are missing the point. The quotes say “nitrogen” not nitrates or nitrogen fertilizer. This leaves the uneducated or unsophisticated reader with the impression that all nitrogen is bad. This is appalling coming from a scientist.
Now, I do not support the excess use of nitrogen fertilizers, but the excess run-off is not a pollutant to algae, Algae loves it. Unfortunately too much algae growth depletes oxygen in the water and other life forms do not do well then. However and unlike deniers, I am not an algae bigot and I’m forming the Gaea Algae Society (Gas) and we Gassers want more nitrogen! This movement is for the little wee algae children, of course, and to stop global warming.