Download the entire PDF Nitrous Oxide
Gregory R. Wrightstone
Nitrous oxide (N20) has now joined carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) in the climate alarm proponents’ pantheon of anthropogenic “demon” gases. In their view, increasing concentrations of these molecules are leading to unusual and unprecedented warming and will, in turn, lead to catastrophic consequences for both our ecosystems and humanity.
Countries around the world are in the process of greatly reducing or eliminating the use of nitrogen fertilizers based on heretofore poorly understood properties of nitrous oxide. Reductions of N2O emissions are being proposed in Canada by 40 to 45 percent and in the Netherlands by up to 50 percent. Sri Lanka’s complete ban on fertilizer in 2021 led to the total collapse of their primarily agricultural economy.
To provide critically needed information on N2O, the CO2 Coalition has published an important and timely paper evaluating the warming effect of the gas and its role in the nitrogen cycle. Armed with this vital information, policymakers can now proceed to make informed decisions about the costs and benefits of mandated reductions of this beneficial molecule.
This new paper joins previous CO2 Coalition reports on other greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane.
Key takeaways from the paper:
- At current rates, a doubling of N2O would occur in more than 400 years.
- Atmospheric warming by N2O is estimated to be 0.064oC per century.
- Increasing crop production requires continued application of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer in order to feed a growing population.
N2O and its warming potential
The first portion of the paper is highly technical and reviews the greenhouse warming potential of N2O. Like CO2, nitrous oxide is a linear, chemically inert molecule that absorbs infrared radiation. However, N2O has a longer lifetime in the atmosphere than CH4 because it is more resistant to chemical or physical breakdown. Increasing atmospheric concentrations of N2O likely contribute some amount of warming to the Earth’s atmosphere. To assess how much is likely, the authors consider well-validated radiation transfer theory and available experimental evidence rather than very complex general circulation climate models, which have proven unreliable.
The current N2O concentration at sea level is 0.34 parts per million (ppm) and increasing at a rate of about 0.00085 ppm/year. This rate of increase has been steady since 1985 with no indication of acceleration. A comparison with CO2, at a present concentration of approximately 420 ppm, is in order. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing per added N2O molecule, is about 230 times larger than the forcing per added CO2 molecule. This sounds bad, but what are the facts?
The rate of increase of CO2 molecules is approximately 2.5 ppm/year, or about 3,000 times larger than the rate of increase of N2O molecules. So, the contribution of nitrous oxide to the annual increase in forcing is 230/3,000 or about 1/13 that of CO2. If the main greenhouse gases CO2, CH4 and N2O have contributed about 0.1 C/decade of the warming of the Earth observed over the past few decades, this would correspond to about 0.00064 degrees Celsius per year or 0.064oC per century of warming from N2O, an amount that is barely observable. At the present rate of increase, a doubling of the N2O concentration would take more than four centuries and, according to Figure 5 of the paper, the increase in warming would be imperceptibly small.
The nitrogen cycle
Along with water and carbon, nitrogen is of key importance to plant life and the right proportion of it is critical for optimal growth. Carbon is available to plants from CO2 in the atmosphere; nitrogen must be made available in the soil. To this end various microorganisms and plant species, with the aid of symbiotic microorganisms, fix diatomic nitrogen (N2) from the atmosphere into the soil, where it enters complicated cycles of nitrogen-containing compounds that can move more or less freely in soil and serve many plants. Through the activity of microorganisms (recent work shows that archaea are of comparable importance to bacteria) the nitrogen cycle ends by releasing N2, and to a much lesser extent N2O, back into the atmosphere. Because of losses to the atmosphere and leaching to waterways, soil nitrogen needs to be replenished continuously to optimize plant growth.
Agricultural and natural vegetative growth contribute comparable amounts to the nitrogen cycle. Optimum crop growth requires large amounts of nitrogen. Some nitrogen is provided by animal manure and decaying plants. However, these sources of nitrogen are insufficient for the needs of agriculture to feed a growing world population.
Figure 14 from the paper compares the relationship between the increasing use of artificial nitrogen fertilizer and the increasing yields of various crops in the U.S. from 1866 onward. The strong correlation between nitrogen fertilization and crop yields is striking. Figure 13 shows a similar correspondence worldwide between the use of nitrogen fertilizer and the yield of cereal crops. Of course, changes in complicated processes cannot be ascribed to a single cause. Also of considerable importance in crop production are other mineral fertilizers like phosphorus and potassium, better plant varieties like hybrid corn and increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2. However, the crucial role of nitrogen fertilizers in tremendously increasing crop yields is unmistakable.
Figure 14 – Crop yields for corn, wheat, barley, grass hay, oats and rye in the United States.
Figure 13 – Annual world production of nitrogen fertilizer used in agriculture (blue, in Tg)
and world production of all cereal crops (orange, in Gigatonnes) from 1961 to 2019
Feeding a world population that is growing at a rate of 1.1 percent per year is no trivial matter. Devastating famines from the past have been kept at bay during the last century by the fundamental scientific developments noted above. At the moment many governments, under the influence of ‘’green’’ pressure groups, exhibit a dangerous inclination to limit the use of nitrogen fertilizers to move farmers ‘’back to nature’’ in order to save the world from “climate disaster.” In the Netherlands, the government is considering forcing large numbers of farmers out of business to supposedly prevent catastrophic warming from N2O emissions. As this new paper shows, N2O emissions will have a trivial effect on temperature increases. Farmers themselves, not government bureaucrats, should determine the optimum amounts of nitrogen fertilizer to maximize crop yields.
Agriculture free of artificial fertilizers, despite it being highly labor-intensive and producing very low yields, may be feasible for a small niche of the world population willing and able to pay for it. However, it is inconceivable that the growing masses , or even the current world population, can be fed without the intelligent, science-based use of nitrogen and other fertilizers.
‘’Green’’ illusions cannot feed billions of people.
Wheat with and without nitrogen fertilizer – Deli Chen – University of Melbourne
The nitrogen oxide absorption bands are overwhelmed by other much more abundant GHG such as H2O and CO2 and even it’s 4.5 micron band is on the edge of a CO2 band. Plus it has no effect on the “Big Daddy”, the atmospheric window….So it’s more like policy development based on grade 8 science class topics rather than someone actually doing heat transfer calculations.
“grade 8
scienceclass topics“Insert “social”
DMac,
I like your visual which conveys amount of incoming/outgoing energy humps, and interfering adsorption bands for each of the “greenhouse gases”. It clearly conveys that NO2 is not a powerful greenhouse gas as its adsorption bands are pretty much saturated by Water Vapor and CO2. There is a slight problem with this technique in that water vapor concentration varies a lot with temperature, pressure, and proximity to liquid water (latitude, altitude, over desert/vegetation /water variables). Consequently, your visual would look quite different from Hawaii to South Pole to Mount Everest, and it would be best to have a separate energy/adsorption function for each climate model cell.
I’ve always been amused at declarations as in this article “For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing per added N2O molecule, is about 230 times larger than the forcing per added CO2 molecule”. As I understand this outrageous claim is based on modeling a DRY (excluding water vapor the most potent prevalent greenhouse gas) current atmosphere and comparing changes in other green house gasses to an equivalent amount of CO2 (I can’t remember if it’s weight or volume based). The main point is it excludes water vapor and it’s competing adsorption in coming up with Global Warming Potential which is WRONG. Most of the models then add a factor for increased water vapor warming potential which I sense is a fudge factor to come up with any warming wanted. The whole Global Warming Potential approach in modeling has stench of fraud.
GWP was developed as a way to rate man-made chloro-fluorocarbon refrigerants and industrial chemicals emissions for ozone destruction. The use of GWP for nitrogen oxides and methane, both of which are produced and eliminated by natural processes is a misapplication of the technique with regards to IR absorption (different from ozone destruction obviously).
It is proper science like this that should have been the topics for discussion at COP27. It becomes obvious that we should support continued fertiliser use and cancel the nonsense that pretends otherwise. Add in the prior work on methane, and we get a very different set of priorities for the future.
The alarmist concentration on nitrous oxide and methane is an ttempt to destroy farming and thereby starve to death a large part of the earth’s population. The alarmists (such as in the WEF and the UN) are pure evil.
True. It is an attempt to chase the farmers away and get their land cheaply. See comment below.
Maybe the plan is to bankrupt farming and use the land for enormous solar arrays 🤔. Solar is after all far more important than food production.
Don’t worry Phil, the plan is that they will take them over eventually so that they can be administered properly….
/s
CoPs are not science conferences, they’re purely political and virtue-signaling gabfests.
Which is why nothing of substance ever results from these gatherings.
Who was it who said – “if there are more than 2 people engaged in an enterprise, there exists a political situation”?
There are a few things mixed up here. As if the confusion isn’t big enough – this report won’t help make the confusion any better. In the first place, N-oxides are also made by the sun/atmosphere. It’s in our DNA. Apparently, it is also necessary for human reproduction. (erection).
Here is the IR spectrum:
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C10024972&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
Click on wave number to view the scale in um. There are again a number of absorptions between 0 and 5 um (in the spectrum of the sun) and that makes me doubt whether the net effect of this molecule is indeed warming. This is about the one aspect.
As for the other: this is clear from the photo at the end of the post. In NL the ‘nitrogen’ problem is apparently that they think that industry (NOx)/traffic (NOx)/farms (NH3/NH4+) should not leave behind nitrogen compounds as this will lead to ‘changes’ of the nature areas. It will then become ‘greener’: you get more weeds and ferns. And they don’t have volunteers (like here) willing to jump in for a few days to clear out the invaders.
Crazy. It seems they regard nature more important than food in their stomachs.
Like here: = South Africa
This is something all Dutch people should read.
De Rattenvanger van Hamelen | Bread on the water
“Their” stomachs won’t go without. It’s our stomachs they want to deprive.
Nitrous oxide??–that’s a laugh.
I think there should be balloons at all COP meetings filled with N2O so they have a better time. They all seem to be all gloom and doom all the time.
You’re right on the money, Len, nitrous oxide is also known as “Laughing Gas”, and that is the right sense of seriousness for this Loco Greenie issue.
I hope none of these people need pain relief such as during child birth or prior to physiotherapy.
Would I be right in thinking that any gas that is not monatomic or diatomic might be a “greenhouse gas”?
Yes
Note that there could be GH gases showing a ‘negative’
like ozone.
I refer to the picture at the beginning of the comments.
it seems that ozone on its own is able to deflect about 15% of the incoming UVB
No. Few are.
Yes, the bending/stretching of the bonds between the three atoms in water, CO2, N2O, etc. have energy levels in the range of infrared light.
There is a great and imminent danger created by climate change.
It is the idiotic rules and regulations being proposed or already enforced which endanger our food supplies, energy sources and disrupt our societies.
Famines, once nearly eliminated, may return in force. Wars may erupt as opportunities are created for despots to expand their power. Unforeseen consequences will likely create havoc for industry and distribution systems.
All this in deference to the imaginary harm that may ensue from a degree or two of warming and with no consideration for possible beneficial results (many of which are already obvious.)
Are these people so obsessed with diversity they need an all-inclusive chemistry?
Yes.
And “equity”.
N2O has only one Oxygen atom, whereas CO2 has two Oxygen atoms.
That is clearly unfair in this day and age.
Maybe they would prefer CO instead of CO2.
That’s equity for ya.
Could it be applied selectively?
The racists in Las Vegas pump in additional O2 into the casinos so I imagine pumping in CO could work in the meeting rooms of the COPs and their private jets (preferably when they’re over the ocean).
Toujours ecobolleaux.
Here’s a brain-ache for you….
We’re told that Nitrogen fertiliser is essential for plant growth (funny that, I thought CO2 was but no matter)
At this moment in time, it would appear to be the case that water soluble nitrogen is needed for plants to grow vigorously.
What about we wind the clock back, let’s say, 100 million years.
I’m picturing what’s called the Carboniferous eon/period/time/era/whatever or maybe when dinosaurs were around.
Judging from the amounts of coal, oil, natural gas and other stuff of biologic origin (Limestone & Chalk?) things were growing pretty vigorously.
Is it fair to say: So vigorous that decomposition couldn’t keep up?
Hence all the organic stuff in and under the ground?
Enough ramble, here’s the brain-ache(s):
What was doing the fertilising then?Why is the same thing not capable of doing the same now and if it was, why is it not?
IOW: Do you really know how Nitrogen fertiliser works?
I mean, really really
Would it not be advisable to find out, just on the off-chance you’re making a complete tit of yourself when piling into discussions like this?
<think> No Free Lunches
“Is it fair to say: So vigorous that decomposition couldn’t keep up?“
I recall reading — you can search it up — that the decomposers were not yet around.
Thus, the stuff accumulated.
Limestone took billions of years to form .The last 4000 years would not even register as a pencil mark on the wall of a limestone quarry .
CO2 is absorbed from the air. The main (by volume) elements acquired from the soil through the roots are Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium, Funnily enough, these are the N, P and K of NPK fertilisers.
Nitrogen can be converted to a usable form by the bacteria in rhizomes of legumes, which is one of the reasons for using legumes in crop rotations.
For some strange reason, naturally fixed bitrates are subject to the same reactions as nitrates derived from added ammonia or urea 🙂
“What was doing the fertilising then?Why is the same thing not capable of doing the same now and if it was, why is it not?”
That was due to 3000 to 4000 ppm of CO2.
Why deal with the gorilla in the room – aviation induced cirrus – when you can fight negligibles with renewables?
https://greenhousedefect.com/contrails-a-forcing-to-be-reckoned-with
Another plant food source.
Thankyou Gregory Wrightstone .
I have been posting here on WUWT recently about the concerted attempt by Greenpeace to lobby governments to ban nitrogenous fertilizer .
Nitrogenous fertilizer is absolutely essential to feed half of the worlds population ,
That is a fact so any one pushing to ban nitrogen world wide will starve 4 billion people .
I was in Christchurch NZ recently at my grand daughters graduation from Lincoln University with an Agricultural degree.
We were walking back from the Town Hall along side the Avon where this woman from greenpeace was attempting to collect signatures for a petition to our parliament to ban all nitrogenous fertilizer .
I asked her did she not know that nitrogen fertilizer grew food to feed 4 billion people ?
She did not want to know as she had been brainwashed that nitrous oxide was going to cook the world. .
Nitrogenous fertilizer has soared in price by 300% in the last 2 years because of restrictions around the world of natural gas and the war in the Ukraine.
Greenpeace and the Green Party think that food comes from the supermarket .
Ban fertilizer and the same amount of food will still be there on the shelves and in the chillers .
I wonder what the Greenpeace useful idiot would have said that without fertilizer she would have to give up her (assumed) veganism – the alarmist will shout loudly about how much land animals use up, but without fertilizer and of course diesel fuel for tractors there won’t be enough green food to go around and it will be open season on squirrels, raccoons, deer, and Greenpeace cavassers…
Hopefully we won’t run out of fava beans…
I’m just wondering when they’re going to go after the biggest “green house gas” of them all, water vapor???
What’s their problem? They don’t want a greener Earth with more people laughing?
“Countries around the world are in the process of greatly reducing or eliminating the use of nitrogen fertilizers based on heretofore poorly understood properties of nitrous oxide. Reductions of N2O emissions are being proposed in Canada by 40 to 45 percent and in the Netherlands by up to 50 percent. Sri Lanka’s complete ban on fertilizer in 2021 led to the total collapse of their primarily agricultural”
That just isn’t true. There has been some talk in Canada, but nothing has happened. The Netherlands policy was about ammonia and NOx because of its local effects, not climate. And Sri Lanka’s brief ban was about organic farming, not climate.
There is pressure against N fertilizer because it takes a lot of energy to make and causes eutrophication.
Is there any anti-human policy you won’t defend?
You have got that dead wrong Nick .
Except for your last sentence .
The worlds population cannot be fed without nitrogen fertilizer .This is a fact .
Are you arguing about that Nick ?
Governments around the world are being coerced by greenpeace and the greens to ban nitrogenous fertilizer .
Here in New Zealand our government is proposing levies (taxes ) on all nitrogenous fertilizer use .
Three farmers groups ( Dairy NZ , Beef & Lamb, Federated Farmers , were in negotiation with the government over how the rules and regulations were going to be applied to nitrogen and methane
Our government pushed by the Green Party abruptly came out with ‘their’ proposal which will cost farmers millions in levies (taxes ) on methane and nitrogen emissions .
If the government go ahead with their proposal ,many sheep and beef farms will become uneconomic and will be sold up.
Thousands of hectares of food producing land will be converted to carbon farming .
Damian O’Connor our Agricultural Minister when asked about this shrugged it off ,saying farmers are free to sell to the highest bidder .
The UN has stated that countries should not take action to reduce emissions that threaten food production.
NZ are going net zero on nitrogen emissions…
https://www.agmatters.nz/goals/reduce-nitrous-oxide/
According to this article, Nitrogen emissions are like homeopathy – they warm the planet even after they’re gone…
“the warming it causes continues for several more centuries after it has disappeared”
NZ would like to reduce nitrous oxide emissions. But they don’t propose banning nitrogen fertilizers.
You would not know what this Labour Green Communist government is going to do.
We the farmers are going to be levied on our nitrogen use .
What people do not realize is that Urea 46% nitrogen has increased in price from under $400 per tonne to over $1200 per tonne then on top of that they want to impose a levy .
Less will be used and less food will be produced and I cannot see food prices rising by 300%.
It is quite obvious that this government is hell bent on destroying New Zealands farming which earns over 70% of New Zealands foreign exchange.
Not much of an economy left except tourism and timber and log exports .
All because crooked scientists have exaggerated the effect that CO2 and other trace gasses will have on the climate .
Why doesn’t anyone shout back to the NZ, CDN and other idiot socialist governments that why do we need a levy on fertilizer if there is already a ~200% tax on it and fuel too, because of the rash and stupid actions of government these past few years?
“But they don’t propose banning nitrogen fertilizers.”
Taxing them is the same as trying to ban them, just slower, % by %, death by a hundred cuts.
“The Netherlands policy was about ammonia and NOx because of its local effects, not climate”
Lying again, or just intentionally misleading with disinformation ??
Netherlands policies are because they have reached their ridiculous EU nitrogen emission limits. So it is all about fake climate nonsense.
NOx doesn’t include N2O.
Why do you bother? You sound like a useful idiot for the supreme idiots in power. “The Canadian government is just talking about it so don’t worry ” – what, are we supposed to just move along, Stokes says nothing to see here – to give the traitors in Ottawa time to pass the regulations?
There is pressure against N fertilizer because … control.
(same reason the Sierra Club pushed lowering the drinking water standard for arsenic content … control. They didn’t care about anyone’s health; they cared about the ability to control & restrict).
Don’t you know what NET ZERO means Nick.
Our government in New Zealand have a goal to have zero nitrous oxide emissions by 2050.
If other food exporting countries do the same 4 billion or more people around the world will have to live on sea weed and bugs as nitrogen fertilizer grows the food to feed 4 billion people .
This is a fact and you can see from the graphs that Gregory Wrightstone has posted above that I am not making this up.
I’ll throw in a pedant point here. The use of ppm, ppb, hundreds, thousands, percentages and proportions is guaranteed to confuse everybody, including the author.
Scientific notation makes the orders of magnitude involved far more explicit and comprehensible.
Salute!
Fertilizer and laughing gas bad, bad. Guess we can go veggie on our diet to grow lottsa peas and beans….you know legumes that get most of their nitrogen from the atmosphere (tink that’s right). So get protein from beans and maybe catch a fish or eat a lizard. Forget tomatoes, sprouts, okra, corn, boccolli, and other veggies that need lottsa fertilizer.
Guess the “final solution” is reduce human population, because we all exhale the evil CO2 with every breath, and we phart another greenhouse gas due to eating all those beans! Gasp!
As Carlin said, :the Earth ain’t going anywhere. WE ARE! Pack your crapola. Earth will shake off this failed lifeform like a bad case of fleas.”
Gums sends…
But the sol bacteria and archaea don’t distinguish between nitrates derived from legume root rhizomes and that derived from added ammonia and urea 🙁
The reason the Netherlands are banning nitrogen oxides and ammonia is not because of climate, but because of nature protection. In the last decades low nutrition nature areas have been created in the Netherlands, which now need to be preserved by European law (Natura 2000). Neighbouring farms, that sometimes go back centuries, are threatened to be closed down; house construction project are halted and ironically even the CCS climate project Porthos on the North Sea was stopped.
Does the ban apply to urea as well?
Salute!
If they are worried about urea, then I guess I’ll be hunted down and arrested for peeing out the side door at my fishing cabin at midnight versus challenging the bears and pumas on the trek to the outhouse. And how do I control my dogs? Oh yeah, my chickens produce some of the “hottest” fertilizer known to man.
Awww man, life is getting harder with every new restriction, and then we die!
Gums whines…
I was thinking of synthesised urea, which is a more widely used nitrogenous fertiliser here in Aus than ammonia.
Urea is urea, though, so don’t go giving ideas to politicians.
Only from farm animals
We Brits would love to help you out in the Netherlands by air drops of food, like in 1945; but unfortunately we’re busy bankrupting ourselves by stupidity so will probably be starving quite soon as well.
If it wasn’t ridiculous before, it is now.
Even the perpetually climate petrified will begin to twig that the whole thing is a crock of sh*t if the morons keep adding more and more ingredients to their catastrophe mix.
Don’t breathe, don’t fart, and whatever you do, don’t laugh!
N2O – laughing gas – is the latest desperate flail in greenhouse revisionism of climate. The ocean gone, astrophysical forcing gone, internal oscillations gone – the only thing that ever has or ever will change the climate is atmospheric greenhouse forcing. They had CO2 and methane but they’re not enough – so let’s throw in laughing gas! Why not fairy dust too? Why not Zyklon-B? (For us dennayyas)
Call me outdated but I still believe in the existence of the ocean.
Hey, what about lightning ⚡️ impact on Nitrogen cycle !?!
Are the alarmists going to outlaw lightning storms after fertilizers!?!
Ha! Use the useless wind turbines to generate lightning whenever the wind graces us with its presence. The farmers will have to be very careful but crows won’t be problem.
I nominate this as the best article of the week
“Nitrous oxide (N20) has now joined carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) in the climate alarm proponents’ pantheon of anthropogenic “demon” gases.”
This is hardly new, N2O was one of the Trace gases discussed in Hansen’s 1988 paper.