Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: DoctorBeaver on 16/05/2008 06:59:21
-
From AOL news http://lifestyle.aol.co.uk/go-green/man-made-nitrogen-climate-threat/article/20080515142709990003 (http://lifestyle.aol.co.uk/go-green/man-made-nitrogen-climate-threat/article/20080515142709990003)
Up to a third of the nitrogen entering the world's oceans is man-made and could have significant effects on the global climate, scientists said.
Nitrogen from agricultural fertilisers and the burning of fossil fuels entering the seas through the atmosphere is increasing, the study published in the journal Science said.
It has significant implications for climate change, because the extra nitrogen increases the level of marine biological activity by an estimated 3% - which in turn boosts the oceans' ability to absorb carbon dioxide.
The man-made nitrogen could account for as much as 10% of the CO2 emitted by human activities which is captured by oceans, the scientists suggest. But it could also increase levels of nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas, they warn.
As much as a third of the total nitrous oxide given out by the oceans could be caused by man-made nitrogen deposits in the sea.
The effect of these emissions could cancel out as much as two thirds of reductions in CO2, the researchers said.
With ever increasing levels of nitrogen being released by humans into the atmosphere, their impact on the world's seas is expected to grow in the future.
Peter Liss, environmental scientist at the University of East Anglia and one of the study's authors, said: "Anyone concerned about climate change will be alarmed at the scale of man's impact on the oceans.
"The natural nitrogen cycle has been very heavily influenced by human activity over the last century - perhaps even more so than the carbon cycle - and we expect the damaging effects to continue to grow."
He said it was vital policy makers took action to stop the growth of nitrogen in the oceans, by controlling the use of nitrogen fertilisers and tackling pollution from growing numbers of cars.
Is there anything that is not claimed to be harmful to the environment?
-
Breathing?
-
Breathing?
CO2
And halitosis!
-
Usually "change" is considered synonymous with "harmful", so I would guess that pretty much everything is harmful.
My guess is that the article is discussing algal blooms, which would surely allow more oceanic CO2 absorption.
Breathing?
And actually, aerobic respiration produces CO2, so it is probably harmful as well.
-
Having cast off this with a joke first time around, I read it once more and realize I failed to consider the nitrous and nitric oxides formed when pollution overtakes an area. This can, does, (and has) produce acid rain, causing forests in New England - that is the NE part of the US for you commoners - and other parts of the world to experience a much higher rate if tree death, soil impoverishment and resultant stream desertification - killing off most of the life in the streams.
It has been a very serious problem and is today in parts of the world where regulations have not been put in place to curb NO and NO2 emissions - mostly from factories, coal and oil combustion. China and parts of India (to mention a couple of places) have a very large problem with this at present.
-
Not nitrogen! The amount of naturally occurring nitrogen dwarves the amount from agriculture. It just another scary junk science comment for the artsies to beat themselves (and us) with. Al Gore will likely make another PowerPoint, and another $mill$ or two. Clearly, environmental lobby groups have not discovered where CO comes from. OOPS, now the CO is out of the tailpipe.
Anyone else find this Orwellian?