Nitrogen overload concerns ecologists

Urederra

Mostly harmless
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Messages
5,310
Location
Sea of tranquility
Sooner or later people are going to figure out that CO2 is a natural component of our atmosphere and not a deadly toxin. But greenies need not worry, because the next pseudo-toxin is already waiting in the wings. Forget CO2, N2 is the new Gaia's enemy.

linky, linky, link

[size=+2]Nitrogen overload concerns ecologist[/size]
RARE BUTTERFLY'S DEMISE IN PARK WAS LINKED TO CHEMICAL, HE SAYS.​

On an overcast day in April, Stuart Weiss stood in the rolling hills of a Bay Area nature preserve and lifted a bag of nitrogen-based fertilizer to his shoulder.

The heavy sack, the Menlo Park ecologist explained to the small crowd gathered before him, symbolized the unprecedented release of nitrogen into the Earth's air, land and water and the insidious environmental changes the potent fertilizer is causing globally.

At Edgewood Park in Redwood City, where he stood, nitrogen in vehicle exhaust from a nearby freeway has led to the local demise of a threatened butterfly population, according to research Weiss conducted. The link he established between the exhaust and the butterflies' decline attracted international attention among the growing federation of scientists studying "nitrogen pollution."

"I call it the biggest global change that nobody has ever heard of," Weiss said at the spring event. "The planet has never seen this much nitrogen at any time."

Human activity releases 125 million metric tons of nitrogen from agricultural activities and fossil fuel combustion a year, compared with 113 million metric tons annually from natural sources, according to a 2007 United Nations report called "Human Alteration of the Nitrogen Cycle."

In 1860, the U.N. report noted, there was virtually no release from human activity. The consequences of this spike, the report added, "are profound."

Not only is the glut of nitrogen disrupting ecosystems, polluting waters and harming human health, but it's also a silent partner with carbon dioxide in changing the Earth's climate, the report said.

Despite the countless initiatives under way to reduce carbon-dioxide levels to slow global warming, some scientists warn that those efforts will prove moot unless nitrogen releases also are lowered.

"We won't solve global warming without addressing nitrogen," said Elizabeth Holland, a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

"The changes to the nitrogen cycle are larger in magnitude and more profound than the changes to the carbon cycle," Holland continued. "But the nitrogen cycle is being neglected."

Weiss, a Stanford University-trained scientist, researches nitrogen's far-reaching effects on ecosystems. But he also wears the hat of an advocate, pushing for more regulation of the potent element, and for greater public engagement in demanding more sustainable use of nitrogen.

He refers to the local demise of the bay checkerspot butterfly at Edgewood Park as "a drive-by extinction."

Reaching policy-makers and the public with an easy-to-grasp message has been one of the challenges in getting a grip on nitrogen pollution, Holland said.

"The issue is getting the word out," she said. "With the carbon cycle, you can focus on CO2. But with nitrogen, you have all these different compounds, and it's a much harder story to tell."

Nitrogen is a building block of life. Without it, plants couldn't photosynthesize, proteins couldn't form and wouldn't exist.

But it can be too much of a good thing. The mountains of nitrogen manufactured and released annually disrupt natural cycles eons in the making.

In the early 20th century, two scientists found a way to convert inert nitrogen in the air into fertilizer. The invention revolutionized agriculture, lifting limits on food production and allowing the human population to expand exponentially.

But copious amounts of fertilizer are now used in agriculture, with the excess draining into rivers, lakes and the ocean.

Combustion of gasoline, natural gas and coal also releases enormous quantities of nitrogen-based compounds into the atmosphere, much of which settles on land and water.

With fertilizer literally falling from the sky, plants - many of them invasive weeds - get turbocharged from nitrogen, altering natural habitats by driving out native plants and the animals that rely on them.

California is at particular risk for this disruption, and the Bay Area is designated as one of the nation's hot spots for nitrogen-induced ecological shifts. Weiss estimates that in some parts of the Bay Area, auto emissions alone deliver up to 20 pounds per acre a year of nitrogen - about half the amount typically used on lawns.

The nitrogen also alters bodies of water by inducing algae growth. In Lake Tahoe, for example, algae growth is contributing to the steady loss of clarity in the lake's famously clear waters.

"We've actually found that about 55 percent of the nitrogen that gets into the lake comes from the air," said John Reuter, acting associate director of the University of California-Davis' Tahoe Environmental Research Center.

Excess nitrogen also harms human health - through contaminated water and air and by its role in increasing algae - a key food sources for disease-carrying mosquitoes.

Edgewood Park is becoming a classic example within scientific circles of nitrogen's disruptive ecological effects.

Cars whizzing by on Interstate 280 leave in their wake a trail of nitrogen. Plants absorb it, while some also settles and accumulates in the nutrient-poor soil. That extra dose of nitrogen has enabled Italian rye grass, an aggressive non-native, to drive out plantain, a favorite food of the bay checkerspot butterfly.

In 2002, nine years after the land was set aside as a preserve, the threatened butterfly disappeared from the area. (This spring, after mowing down the rye grass, Weiss and others reintroduced the butterfly to the park.)

Globally, studies cite numerous additional examples of major ecosystem shifts from nitrogen, including heathlands converting to grasslands in Europe.

Weiss advocates for better controls on nitrogen in vehicle and power plant emissions, as well as more judicious use of fertilizer.

Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board regulate some nitrogen compounds created during combustion but leave unregulated many other forms.

The air board takes no stance regarding evidence that nitrogen deposition is changing the state's landscape, according to spokeswoman Karen Caesar.

But many hundreds of studies support scientists' concerns about nitrogen, and Weiss said there's no other plausible explanation for why so many non-native species have taken root in nutrient-poor soil over the past two decades.

"Those of us who are studying it are pretty scared," he said.

Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen. If bureaucrats can figure out a way to tax it all, there's virtually no limit to the social engineering they'll be able to finance.

Discuss, or ROLF, or whatever... but read the article, it doesn't intend to be a joke, it is 'cereal'. And my link is not the only one you can find about the issue, here are others:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_6604141
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_6609041
 
If you think scientists are worried about CO2 because it isn't: "a natural component of our atmosphere and not a deadly toxin", then you are severly mistaken about the reason they are worried.

Why don't you first figure out what the actual claims are before you redicule them. You might learn something.

Now I'm going to read the article.
 
There's a person in the world who actually thinks CO2 is a deadly toxin and not a natural part of our atmosphere?

A quick search renders this:

http://www.bensonnews-sun.com/articles/2007/07/18/news/news5.txt

Removing the CO2 still leaves over 70 toxic chemical compounds in the emissions- including nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, mercury, and fissionable fuels such as uranium.

But CO2 is off-topic here.

Allright, I read it and the rest of your post.

Now I only lack a claim to respond to.

edit: you might find this interesting :)

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12058.html

Same thing as the link I posted. Too bad for New Scientist.

Do you realize 78 % of the atmosphere is nitrogen?
 
What?

I just posted the link because I thought it was interesting. I am not disagreeing with you, since I have nothing to disagree with. You made no claim. Just semi-jokes and an article.

What is your point? :)
 
Well I think they are confusing molecular nitrogen, N2, with nitrates, which are found in fertilizers and lead to the eutrophication they speak of that destroys the ecosystems.

I cannot tell if they meant nitrates when they said nitrogen, or if they meant N2, the stuff in our atmosphere.
 
I just posted the link because I thought it was interesting.

Sorry. :)

I am not disagreeing with you, since I have nothing to disagree with. You made no claim. Just semi-jokes and an article.

What is your point? :)

It is ecologists fear mongering again, and what I reply to Atlas.

Well I think they are confusing molecular nitrogen, N2, with nitrates, which are found in fertilizers and lead to the eutrophication they speak of that destroys the ecosystems.

I cannot tell if they meant nitrates when they said nitrogen, or if they meant N2, the stuff in our atmosphere.

That is the point. What I don't know is if they can't tell the difference or they are doing it to confuse the population and scare everybody so they can get more money.

I don't know what is more disturbing. The fact that apparently degree holding scientists mix up nitrogen, ammonia and nitric oxides or the fact that a popular science magazine like New scientist has so little knowledge in chemistry. (Or are they just trying to be sensationalists to sell more?)


Sorry Ziggy, I didn't make my point clear in my OP because I wanted to know who is the first one to realize that they are mixing up N2, ammonia and nitric oxides. :)
 
That is the point. What I don't know is if they can't tell the difference or they are doing it to confuse the population and scare everybody so they can get more money.

I don't know what is more disturbing. The fact that apparently degree holding scientists mix up nitrogen, ammonia and nitric oxides or the fact that a popular science magazine like New scientist has so little knowledge in chemistry. (Or are they just trying to be sensationalists to sell more?)

I agree its scary, and sad at the same time if it is not supposed to be a joke. At first I had the impression that it was one of those joke dihydrogen monoxide things, but when they got all serious, providing references, statistics, and the appearance of ecological knowledge, I'm now leaning towards they're a bunch of sensationalist morons.
 
While I have heard of nitrates being released during combustion being bad I have never heard of N2 being bad. It is an non-reactive, non-greenhouse gas that makes up the majority of the atmosphere. I would think that people would be more concerned with the product of combustion known as dihydrogen monoxide which is a strong greenhouse gas.
 
Sorry Ziggy, I didn't make my point clear in my OP because I wanted to know who is the first one to realize that they are mixing up N2, ammonia and nitric oxides. :)
Both of us were tapdancing around it. ;)

Which is probably why they complain it is being neglected by others.

Scientific Method in action. If your science and conclusions are faulty, your claims won't be recognised.
 
Nitrogen can come from nitrates... in fact, that's a basic part of the nitrogen cycle. Also, the idea that an overload of an element isn't harmful because the element occurs naturally is silly. You do realize it's quite natural to have a tiny amount of, say, selenium in your body. But if you ingested a lump of it, you'd be dead.

What I don't know is if they can't tell the difference or they are doing it to confuse the population and scare everybody so they can get more money.

Wow. You think that they'd really be in it for the money? You think that scientists are in their job in order to make money?
 
Nitrogen can come from nitrates... in fact, that's a basic part of the nitrogen cycle. Also, the idea that an overload of an element isn't harmful because the element occurs naturally is silly. You do realize it's quite natural to have a tiny amount of, say, selenium in your body. But if you ingested a lump of it, you'd be dead.

Again, selenium is not in our bodies as an element, but as a ion. Chlorine, for example, is a toxic gas, very different from sodium chloride, the stuff chefs add to our meals.

Wow. You think that they'd really be in it for the money? You think that scientists are in their job in order to make money?

Many of them are, and some, like David E. Shaw are quite successful. Besides, all of them need money for their research. Usually more money = better publications = more famous = more money = more pride (which is a really big driving force).
 
Again, selenium is not in our bodies as an element, but as a ion. Chlorine, for example, is a toxic gas, very different from sodium chloride, the stuff chefs add to our meals.

How hugely irrelevant; not only am I completely aware of that, but you also didn't even bother addressing the point.

Many of them are, and some, like David E. Shaw are quite successful. Besides, all of them need money for their research. Usually more money = better publications = more famous = more money = more pride (which is a really big driving force).

Yes, they need money for research; they don't invent research for money. You have the means and the ends mixed up.
 
How hugely irrelevant; not only am I completely aware of that, but you also didn't even bother addressing the point.

What point?

Yes, they need money for research; they don't invent research for money. You have the means and the ends mixed up.

Scientists are people too, and like other breeds of people, they have many different objectives, money is one of them for a bunch of scientists. Being a scientist doesn't mean that you are a saint.
 
What point?

You can have too much of a good, or even neutral thing.

Scientists are people too, and like other breeds of people, they have many different objectives, money is one of them for a bunch of scientists. Being a scientist doesn't mean that you are a saint.

If they wanted money, then they could have gotten much higher-paying jobs for a lot less education.
 
While I have heard of nitrates being released during combustion being bad I have never heard of N2 being bad. It is an non-reactive, non-greenhouse gas that makes up the majority of the atmosphere.

What is commonly formed during certain types of combustion are nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, NO3), not nitrates. Nitrates (NO3-) and nitrites (NO2-) are ionic compounds that can be formed later from these nitrogen oxides (I would guess from reactions with natural sodium carbonate in water, through certainly there are many other possible reactions). Nitrogen (N2) is indeed very stable and doesn't readily react to form other compounds.

The article quoted misuses the term nitrogen. But to be fair, it does center in this:
Combustion of gasoline, natural gas and coal also releases enormous quantities of nitrogen-based compounds into the atmosphere, much of which settles on land and water.

the compounds being NOx, and I wouldn't call that a lie (even if NOx is also being produced by natural means, just like CO2). They might have just been trying to avoid the use of confusing technical terms.
 
What point?

The point that there are no poisons, only poisonous doses - you can just as easily die from ingesting too much sodium chloride.

Through your distinction between metallic forms and ions is valid and relevant to the topic (NO2 vs. nitrogen compounds), North King's is equally valid. Not in that particular case, but it would apply if he was thinking about, say, the effect of excessive levels of CO2 on the atmosphere - which you could see as a "disruptive dose" for a stable system (it may not look very scientific, but you can grasp the idea). The same can be argued about the abundance of nitrates in some ecosystems.
 
You can have too much of a good, or even neutral thing.

Yeah, you can drown in pure water, or in a 100 % N2 atmosphere, but what they are claiming is that we are releasing too much nitrogen into the atmosphere, which is already 78 % N2. (and not taking into account that much of that nitrogen comes from a human driven cycle too, where atmospheric N2 is fixed to form fertilizers and such.


If they wanted money, then they could have gotten much higher-paying jobs for a lot less education.

Sorry but I know plenty of organic chemists who want to become rich by patenting their products. And I know some rich ones. One of the inventors of cis-platinum didn't even finish his PhD. The department of medicinal chemistry of the University of Minnesota is rich due to the Nevirapine. I have already mentioned David E. Shaw... but that is not my initial point, my point is that every scientist needs money for their research, they ethics behind how it is obtained depends on every particular case, some methods are OK, others are not.

The article quoted misuses the term nitrogen. But to be fair, it does center in this:
Combustion of gasoline, natural gas and coal also releases enormous quantities of nitrogen-based compounds into the atmosphere, much of which settles on land and water.

That quote is OK, but it doesn't center on it, the only common denominator is nitrogen and it mixes up things too much. It seems to me that they use the sentence you quote to attack any kind of nitrogen based compounds including N2, and any kind of human activity based on nitrogen based compounds, like fertilizers.


They might have just been trying to avoid the use of confusing technical terms.

I find the use of the word nitrogen for everything even more confusing that a possible quick explanation of a technical term.
 
Top Bottom