Pep Canadell, CSIRO; Eric Davidson, University of Maryland, Baltimore; Glen Peters, Center for International Climate and Environment Research – Oslo; Hanqin Tian, Auburn University; Michael Prather, University of California, Irvine; Paul Krummel, CSIRO; Rob Jackson, Stanford University; Rona Thompson, Norwegian Institute for Air Research, and Wilfried Winiwarter, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Nitrous oxide from agriculture and other sources is accumulating in the atmosphere so quickly it puts Earth on track for a dangerous 3℃ warming this century, our new research has found.
Each year, more than 100 million tonnes of nitrogen are spread on crops in the form of synthetic fertiliser. The same amount again is put onto pastures and crops in manure from livestock.
This colossal amount of nitrogen makes crops and pastures grow more abundantly. But it also releases nitrous oxide (N₂O), a greenhouse gas.
Agriculture is the main cause of the increasing concentrations, and is likely to remain so this century. N₂O emissions from agriculture and industry can be reduced, and we must take urgent action if we hope to stabilise Earth’s climate.
Where does nitrous oxide come from?
We found that N₂O emissions from natural sources, such as soils and oceans, have not changed much in recent decades. But emissions from human sources have increased rapidly.
Atmospheric concentrations of N₂O reached 331 parts per billion in 2018, 22% above levels around the year 1750, before the industrial era began.
Agriculture caused almost 70% of global N₂O emissions in the decade to 2016. The emissions are created through microbial processes in soils. The use of nitrogen in synthetic fertilisers and manure is a key driver of this process.
Other human sources of N₂O include the chemical industry, waste water and the burning of fossil fuels.
Read more: Intensive farming is eating up the Australian continent – but there’s another way
N₂O is destroyed in the upper atmosphere, primarily by solar radiation. But humans are emitting N₂O faster than it’s being destroyed, so it’s accumulating in the atmosphere.
N₂O both depletes the ozone layer and contributes to global warming.
As a greenhouse gas, N₂O has 300 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and stays in the atmosphere for an average 116 years. It’s the third most important greenhouse gas after CO₂ (which lasts up to thousands of years in the atmosphere) and methane.
N₂O depletes the ozone layer when it interacts with ozone gas in the stratosphere. Other ozone-depleting substances, such as chemicals containing chlorine and bromine, have been banned under the United Nations Montreal Protocol. N₂O is not banned under the protocol, although the Paris Agreement seeks to reduce its concentrations.
What we found
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has developed scenarios for the future, outlining the different pathways the world could take on emission reduction by 2100. Our research found N₂O concentrations have begun to exceed the levels predicted across all scenarios.
The current concentrations are in line with a global average temperature increase of well above 3℃ this century.
We found that global human-caused N₂O emissions have grown by 30% over the past three decades. Emissions from agriculture mostly came from synthetic nitrogen fertiliser used in East Asia, Europe, South Asia and North America. Emissions from Africa and South America are dominated by emissions from livestock manure.
In terms of emissions growth, the highest contributions come from emerging economies – particularly Brazil, China, and India – where crop production and livestock numbers have increased rapidly in recent decades.
N₂O emissions from Australia have been stable over the past decade. Increase in emissions from agriculture and waste have been offset by a decline in emissions from industry and fossil fuels.
What to do?
N₂O must be part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and there is already work being done. Since the late 1990s, for example, efforts to reduce emissions from the chemicals industry have been successful, particularly in the production of nylon, in the United States, Europe and Japan.
Reducing emissions from agriculture is more difficult – food production must be maintained and there is no simple alternative to nitrogen fertilisers. But some options do exist.
Read more: Emissions of methane – a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide – are rising dangerously
In Europe over the past two decades, N₂O emissions have fallen as agricultural productivity increased. This was largely achieved through government policies to reduce pollution in waterways and drinking water, which encouraged more efficient fertiliser use.
Other ways to reduce N₂O emissions from agriculture include:
- better management of animal manure
- applying fertiliser in a way that better matches the needs of growing plants
- alternating crops to include those that produce their own nitrogen, such as legumes, to reduce the need for fertiliser
- enhanced efficiency fertilisers that lower N₂O production.
Getting to net-zero emissions
Stopping the overuse of nitrogen fertilisers is not just good for the climate. It can also reduce water pollution and increase farm profitability.
Even with the right agricultural policies and actions, synthetic and manure fertilisers will be needed. To bring the sector to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, as needed to stabilise the climate, new technologies will be required.
Read more: Earth may temporarily pass dangerous 1.5℃ warming limit by 2024, major new report says
Pep Canadell, Chief research scientist, Climate Science Centre, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere; and Executive Director, Global Carbon Project, CSIRO; Eric Davidson, Director, Appalachian Laboratory and Professor, University of Maryland, Baltimore; Glen Peters, Research Director, Center for International Climate and Environment Research – Oslo; Hanqin Tian, Director, International Center for Climate and Global Change Research, Auburn University; Michael Prather, Distinguished Professor of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine; Paul Krummel, Research Group Leader, CSIRO; Rob Jackson, Professor, Department of Earth System Science, and Chair of the Global Carbon Project, Stanford University; Rona Thompson, Senior scientist, Norwegian Institute for Air Research, and Wilfried Winiwarter, , International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
I just shudder any more at the ignorance of some of these scientists. All kinds of grasses and food grains fix nitrogen in the soil, especially when grown in tropical conditions. These include wheat, rye, maize, and rice. We should be pushing for more of this to be grown, especially in Africa. I also have to wonder just how much N2O was put in the atmosphere by the vast herds of American bison before they were killed off in the 1800’s. There were probably more of them on the American plains than there are cattle today. Did their manure not produce N2O?
You left out soybeans and alfalfa, both of which do a superb job of nitrogen fixation.
300x a near-zero effect is still near zero.
Is this from The Onion? Laughing Gas is going to destroy the world?
What a Gas! What a Laugh! Chicken Little is getting quite elderly.
“The Welfare of Humanity is always the Alibi of Tyrants!” Camus
It will be easier soon to just list the gases we arent frightened of.
Then off course we are scared of the weather and will hype up evey event, scared of bushfires but would rather make nebulous climate gestures than do real work managing forests, scared of blackouts but continue to destroy our grids with so called “renewables” and then of course there is the luggage handling system at Heathrow.
I’m under the doona, someone tell me when its safe to come out.
The stupidity of the above article . . . it burns!
1) From the second paragraph above the article’s photo of farmer with large bag of fertilizer, referring to nitrous oxide: “It’s the third most important greenhouse gas after CO2 (which lasts up to thousands of years in the atmosphere) and methane.” FALSE. The authors of that statement are obviously unaware that water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. And the ranking of greenhouse gases by their direct contribution to Earth’s overall greenhouse effect is: water – CO2 – methane – ozone . . . nitrous oxide does not even merit mention in this regard (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas ). And that quoted statement is made despite the number of different universities and institutes associated with the authors of such . . . go figure!
2) The above article makes much ado about a N2O molecule having 300 times “the warming potential” of a CO2 molecule, but does not make mention that the ratio of N2O molecules to CO2 molecules in the troposphere was, as of 2018, about 331 ppb/408 ppm = 1/1230. Taking the relative concentrations into account, N2O’s atmospheric concentration had (as still has) an average greenhouse “warming potential” impact that was/is on the order of 25% that of CO2’s atmospheric concentration. “25%” is not quite as alarming as “300 times”, is it?
3) A diagram of the global biogeochemical cycle of nitrous oxide (available at http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/mguidry/Unnamed_Site_2/Chapter%202/Chapter2C3.html ) shows that “natural soils” contribute about 7 million tons of nitrogen (MTN), as nitrous oxide, per year to the atmosphere, while “agricultural soils” contribute only about 4 MTN, as nitrous oxide, per year. To put that in perspective, “agricultural soils” currently contribute only about 22% of all surface sources of N2O entering the atmosphere each year.
4) Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the climate sensitivity of N2O is noted on the same diagram referenced in (3) above to be +0.4 C/doubling N2O. Since the first graph in the above article indicates a current rise rate of N2O atmospheric concentration of about 65 ppb per century (the slope highlighted in red), it will take us about 500 years to double the amount of the atmospheric N2O concentration from today’s ~333 ppb to 666 ppb, at which time the change MIGHT have caused a 0.4 C rise in atmospheric temperature, ASSUMING the trend line stay constant and ASSUMING the stated climate sensitivity to N2O is correct. Really? . . . I should worry about nitrous oxide’s effects 500 years from now, given everything else currently going on (especially CAGW alarmist predictions that mankind has only 5-12 years left to save Earth from an irreversible CO2-caused runaway heat death)?
Yes, it burns!
Gordon thanks for the informative four step correction.
If these authors were scientifically minded, they would not have published such garbage.
“Move over, CO2; your time is up! I am the new bogie man now!”
Signed: N2O.
That’s 200 million tonnes of “nitrogen” they say is spread on the ground and that turns into annual emissions of about 2.25 million tons of Nitrogen. The atomic weight of N2O is 46.005, which makes 2.25 × 46.005 million tons, or about 103.5 million tons of N2O.
These numbers show our emissions of N2O are truly trivial. Since we emit annually about 35 billion tons of CO2 and we haven’t yet measured the warming that causes (if any), then concerning N2O we can put the children back to bed with an easy mind.
I you think it’s significant, you have a clear choice: continue to feed almost everybody (more than ever in our history) on half the land we once farmed, or stop restoring the land with thoroughly efficient, affordable fertiliser that comes to us out of the generous bounty of Mother Nature (i.e., made from crude oil) and let a lot of people starve to death.
Remember that the amount of N2O in the air is about one third of one part per million. Wouldn’t warm a single herd of cows.
The correct response to scaremongering?
1. Learn the facts.
2. Ignore the scaremongers.
That’s 200 million tonnes of “nitrogen” they say is spread on the ground and that turns into annual emissions of about 2.25 million tons of Nitrogen. The atomic weight of N2O is 46.005, which makes 2.25 × 46.005 million tons, or about 103.5 million tons of N2O.
These numbers show our emissions of N2O are truly trivial. Since we emit annually about 35 billion tons of CO2 and we haven’t yet measured the warming that causes (if any), then concerning N2O we can put the children back to bed with an easy mind.
If you think it’s significant, you have a clear choice: continue to feed almost everybody (more than ever in our history) on half the land we once farmed, or stop restoring the land with thoroughly efficient, affordable fertiliser that comes to us out of the generous bounty of Mother Nature (i.e., made from crude oil) and let a lot of people starve to death.
Remember that the amount of N2O in the air is about one third of one part per million. Wouldn’t warm a single herd of cows.
The correct response to scaremongering?
1. Learn the facts.
2. Ignore the scaremongers.
That’s 200 million tonnes of “nitrogen” they say is spread on the ground and that turns into annual emissions of about 2.25 million tons of Nitrogen. The atomic weight of N2O is 46.005, which makes 2.25 × 46.005 million tons, or about 103.5 million tons of N2O.
These numbers show our emissions of N2O are truly trivial. Since we emit annually about 35 billion tons of CO2 and we haven’t yet measured the warming that causes (if any), then concerning N2O we can put the children back to bed with an easy mind.
If you think it’s significant, you have a clear choice: continue to feed almost everybody (more than ever in our history) on half the land we once farmed, or stop restoring the land with thoroughly efficient, affordable fertiliser that comes to us out of the generous bounty of Mother Nature (i.e., made from crude oil) and let a lot of people starve to death.
Remember that the amount of N2O in the air is about one third of one part per million. Wouldn’t warm a herd of cows.
The correct response to scaremongering?
1. Learn the facts.
2. Ignore the scaremongers.
One year ago Dutch farmers staged multiple tractor convoys causing hundreds of miles of roads to jam including in the capital city, The Hague. The farmers were protesting EU driven rules that alleged to “protect nature” from N2O and NH4 emissions from dairies and other farms. The new rules threatened to close half the dairies in the Netherlands.
Other countries targeted by the EU for higher-than-permitted nitrogenous emissions are Austria, Croatia, Germany, Ireland, and Spain.
Nitrogen alarmism is already impeding food production in Europe. Are mass famines on the horizon? If so, they wouldn’t be the first. Dozens of famines plagued Medieval Europe, arose due to 15th and 16th Century wars, the Great Famine in Ireland (1845-49), and and more recently Euro famines were associated with the rise of Communism in Russia and followed both World Wars.
Now American academics wish to join the nitrogen alarmism bandwagon. They hunger for famines here.
All modern famines are man made
Does it seem like we are stupid enough to give ourselves a famine?
Bored of CO2?
Here, scare your pants off with N20 instead.
So…..I guess we need to choose between biofuels and food?
Ok, choice made
Now we can return vast tracts to the wild and stop killing orangutans
Just one more strike agains renewable ruinables
Right?
Used the k word, sorry
So…..I guess we need to choose between biofuels and food?
Ok, choice made
Now we can return vast tracts to the wild and stop ki!!ing orangutans
Just one more strike against renewable ruinables, nobody seems to make this point
Surely they use manure and other fertilizers on corn, grass and palms?
Right?
bwegher, my bad for laughing when I shold have been reading. However, the amounts reported in the atmosphere all over the world are so small, their actual content is in serious doubt. I spent a half-hour reading about spectrometers and sounding radiometers, etc, and came away thinking either they are not even close to analyzing the actual N2O content or there is so much in-fighting in the discipline it can’t be figured out. Still not at danger levels as far as I’m concerned.
Just a quick comparison of the absorption spectra of water and N2O looks to me like the wavelengths that N2O could absorb in are already covered by water vapor. Since N2O has a concentration of 0.3 ppm and water has a concentration of 20,000 ppm, this looks like a non-issue to me. Does anyone have a more definitive answer?
Don’t let facts like that get in the way of propaganda.
“Each year, more than 100 million tonnes of nitrogen are spread on crops…This colossal amount of nitrogen makes crops and pastures grow more abundantly. But it also releases nitrous oxide (N₂O), a greenhouse gas.”
The mass of nitrogen in the atmosphere is about 3,900,000,000 million tonnes. So the atmosphere itself has 39 million times as much nitrogen as we spread on crops each year. And 2.56E-6 percent of the mass of the atmospheric nitrogen is “colossal”?
This is certainly an article addressed at the numerically challenged.
I looked at that graph, read the numbers and the scales and said to myself,”How to lie with graphics.”
Let’s see, the left half of the graph was reconstructed from ice cores, and the red, right side was measured directly. The union of the two seems melded together in an almost “hockey stick” – like form. Where have I seen the combination of dissimilar measurement techniques like this before?
“Source: BoM/CSIRO…”
Garbage!
Sad but true Patrick. Is there anyone who trusts BoM/CSIRO?
no one with a brain that functions
this line[N₂O emissions from Australia have been stable over the past decade. Increase in emissions from agriculture and waste have been offset by a decline in emissions from industry and fossil fuels.]
umm yeah cos we have sweet FA manufacturing left, and our fuel costs are sohigh we cant afford to drive much.
covid been goood for dropping perol to around 1.14c a litre down from 1.40 ish though
So ~300 ppBILLION? So ~6 times less than CH4 in concentration.
“As a greenhouse gas, N₂O has 300 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and stays in the atmosphere for an average 116 years. It’s the third most important greenhouse gas after CO₂ (which lasts up to thousands of years in the atmosphere) and methane.”
—————————————
That’s where I stopped reading. The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 7 years, not thousands. I have no idea what the residence time of N2O is, but based on that ridiculous statement, I strongly doubt it’s anywhere near 116 years.
Seems to fit here
“Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s Wisdom
@TalebWisdom
·
Oct 12
“The odds of an academic “researcher” producing anything eventually used by society is of the order of .00001%. That includes scientists. The odds for a baker: 100%” – Nassim Nicholas Taleb”
https://mobile.twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1315723114706350080
Via Small Dead Animals
All of you have missed the main point here.
The IPCC claim that N2O is 300 times worse and CH4 is 28 times worse is based on the effect these gases might have in dry air. that is air totally devoid of water.
That does not exist in our Atmosphere, which merely goes to show that these idiots live on another planet.
Both methane and nitrous oxide absorb infrared in very narrow bands in the 7 to 8 micron range of infrared.
Water also absorbs in the same region.
Water ranges from 5000 to 40,000 ppm. Methane 1.8 ppm and N2O 0.3 ppm
If there are on average 10000 water per methane then adding another methane is the same as having 10001 water.
IE in the presence of water it is physically impossible for either methane or nitrous oxide to have any effect whatsoever.
Furthermore, there is no radiation going to space in that 7-8 micron range, therefore all the radiation that can be absorbed , has been absorbed.
In short the atmosphere is saturated with infra red absorbing greenhouse gases so that no increase in any of them has any significant effect.
An increase in CO2 slightly broadens the absorption band so might cause some warming in the upper troposphere but that might be negated by the cooling effect of CO2 in stratosphere.
Cheers
The question has to asked.
How do they do so.
What mechanism allows 1 molecule to hold 28 or 300 more photons of energy than CO2?
Where do all the extra photons come from?
The Earth has a thermostat and its name is tropical storms. They reject so much of the incoming insolation that the sea surface temperature cannot exceed an average of 30C in a longitudinal band or 32C locally apart from land locked seas such as the Adriatic:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg2wbbqUDIIo7aMf2
Tropical storms require a TPW of 30mm to get atmospheric partitioning to create a level of free convection above ground level. That is not likely where the sea surface is land locked.
If you missed it in the plot, take note of the red line at the bottom. That is the energy input from CO2 forcing for doubling applying MODTRAN with US Std Atmosphere. It is applied to the entire surface area not just the oceans that are rejecting the heat.
I can’t wait until they start attacking water.
Should be fun!
This article is another example of idiots that don’t stay in their lane. I’ll bet none of them have ever even been to a farm other than a hobby farm with cute animals their children can pet.