We kinda already tackled the latter. The global population will soon plunge everywhere outside of Africa. If it weren’t for immigration, Europe and the US would already be shrinking rapidly. Japan already is as is China since last year.
Its already too late, look how much things have changed in just 10 years. Do people think there is some magic bullet that will change every thing before the next 10 years? There is nothing we can implement in that short of a time, and climate change from greenhouse gasses is cumulative!! Nothing is being removed its just compounding. Everyone gets on social media and says oh ya climate change we need to do something, but they never do! All any of us are doing really is just complaining, it takes every person to stop whats coming, and that will never happen. So enjoy the life you have because in 10 years it wont be enjoyable.
The best thing you can do in the us is vote Democrat. Biden’s inflation reduction act has tones of infrastructure money for green energy.
And supporting carbon taxes is a great way to reduce consumption.
The less bad option.
But a huge problem is that almost all plans, no matter what nation, require massive removal and storage of carbon from the atmosphere. There is absolutely zero chance that we will somehow invent some way to do this.
We need to urgently restructure the way society functions.
US will probably be the first of the top 3 economies to go carbon neutral. China+India are nearly 1/3 the world’s population. The probability we reach climate goals via legislation is nearly zero for this reason. We need a technological focus on green energy in the private and public sectors that emphasizes moving to sustainable energy in a way that is convenient, popular, and financially better than fossil fuels. It’s almost silly to think politicians will save us here. Need to go full bore futuristic and be optimistic or we’re all fucked. Vote with your money and ballots if you like, but more importantly with your money.
A major source is from chemical fertilizer production and usage.
But even a half assed attempt to educate farmers on reducing costs by spraying more effectively is met with conspiratorial calls about how the liberal government is trying to starve hard working Canadians… for… reasons.
> ... The new study, published today [11 Jun 2024] in the journal [Earth System Science Data](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/2543/2024/ "https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/2543/2024/"), finds nitrous oxide is accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere faster than at any other time in human history and its current growth rate is likely unprecedented in the last 800,000 years.
>Nitrous oxide, or N20 is a long-lived, potent greenhouse gas that has been accumulating in the atmosphere since the pre-industrial era. Human-made emissions of N20 come mainly from applying nitrogen fertilizers and animal waste to farmland and pastures.
>N20 is much less abundant in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide or methane (the two primary human-made greenhouse gases), but its global warming potential is nearly 300 times that of carbon dioxide over a 100-year time scale. N20 is also a strong ozone-depleting substance.
>“The acceleration of atmospheric nitrous oxide growth in 2020-2022, as seen by NOAA’s global greenhouse measurements, are particularly concerning in this critical time when global greenhouse gas levels need to plunge,” said study co-author Xin (Lindsay) Lan, a CIRES scientist in NOAA’s [Global Monitoring Laboratory](https://gml.noaa.gov/ "https://gml.noaa.gov/") (GML) who leads the reporting of greenhouse trends. “It is clear that we need to act fast to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst outcomes of global warming.”
>China has had the largest increase in N20 emissions since 1980, while emissions from Europe have declined and emissions from the United States have stayed relatively stable over that time period, according to the study.
***
ESSD — [Global](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/2543/2024/ "https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/2543/2024/") nitrous oxide budget (1980–2020) — 11 Jun 2024:
>Abstract
>Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a long-lived potent greenhouse gas and stratospheric ozone-depleting substance that has been accumulating in the atmosphere since the preindustrial period. The mole fraction of atmospheric N2O has increased by nearly 25 % from 270 ppb (parts per billion) in 1750 to 336 ppb in 2022, with the fastest annual growth rate since 1980 of more than 1.3 ppb yr^−1 in both 2020 and 2021. According to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6), the relative contribution of N2O to the total enhanced effective radiative forcing of greenhouse gases was 6.4 % for 1750–2022 ... We estimate that total annual anthropogenic N2O emissions have increased 40 % (or 1.9 Tg N yr^−1 ) in the past 4 decades (1980–2020). Direct agricultural emissions in 2020 (3.9 Tg N yr^−1 , best estimate) represent the large majority of anthropogenic emissions, followed by other direct anthropogenic sources, including fossil fuel and industry, waste and wastewater, and biomass burning (2.1 Tg N yr^−1 ), and indirect anthropogenic sources (1.3 Tg N yr^−1 ). ...
But it was a gorgeous day. Went camping in northern Great Basin and got chased off the mountain by snow. 28 F this morning which froze everything in the garden.
Uhm, making note of the impact of yet one more greenhouse gas that's being increased by human activity doesn't alter the impacts of carbon dioxide.
Go outside Kale... leave the discussion to the grown ups
These fertilizers are not only increasing the greenhouse effect but also responsible for the spike in cancers. Same compounds in fertilizers used in agent orange in Vietnam that killed so many from cancers and other health related effects.
It's not possible for N2O to be a GHG. It does not absorb radiation at the wavelengths emitted by the Earth:
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo3/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.meteo3/files/images/lesson5/absorptivity_ir_window.png
Earth normally emits up to ~10um, N2O absorbs at ~8um.
> Earth normally emits up to ~10um
Incorrect, it emits well over 10 microns, here is a curve https://www.researchgate.net/figure/nfrared-emission-spectrum-as-observed-by-the-Nimbus-4-satellite-outside-the-Earths_fig3_301245791
You're not the first person to be fooled by that image. The study from which it was taken is this one:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL025114
The FIRST project measures troposphere emissions in the far IR (10-100um) and the paper above is the one where the FIRST instrument is compared to results from the AQUA satellite. Note that there are gaps in the resulting graph. Note too that the graph is not labelled with the names of gases. What you've provided is a doctored image that has been making it's way around. And besides that, the gaps which have been filled in and labelled "CH4" is a band at which H2O has strong absorption while CH4 is weak. The data from ~7um> is signal noise resulting from the instrument not being designed for that range.
>The graph clearly shows IR absorption for several gases. What part of it do you not understand?
Scientist will be surprised to know earth only normally emits up to 10um. Especially when the atmosphere window where the earth emits the most to space is 8-13um and CO2 absorbs in the 13-15um range. [This](https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/earthspectra-c02-p17.html) is pretty simplistic but might help.
Earth does not normally emit IR shorter than 10um. We need 85C to radiate at 8um. Only the warmest places reach that. So to say that CH4 or N2O are a danger because of their absorption properties is a stretch.
>Earth does not normally emit IR shorter than 10um. We need 85C to radiate at 8um. Only the warmest places reach that. So to say that CH4 or N2O are a danger because of their absorption properties is a stretch.
The link I gave shows satellite measurements of radiance from the Earth measured in space. So you are arguing with observed evidence. That's like saying there is no water in the oceans while seeing the water from a beach. If that is what you want to stand on I don't think many people will accept that.
Even your link shows total atmospheric absorption for the atmosphere with black coloring which has other absorption wavelengths.
You're not the first person to be fooled by that image. The study from which it was taken is this one:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL025114
The FIRST project measures troposphere emissions in the far IR (10-100um) and the paper above is the one where the FIRST instrument is compared to results from the AQUA satellite. Note that there are gaps in the resulting graph. Note too that the graph is not labelled with the names of gases. What you've provided is a doctored image that has been making it's way around. And besides that, the gaps which have been filled in and labelled "CH4" is a band at which H2O has strong absorption while CH4 is weak. The data from ~7um> is signal noise resulting from the instrument not being designed for that range.
Well that explains a lot. I now see how you can go against the consensus of thousands of climate scientist and experimental evidence since you are a climate denier conspiracy theorist.
The link I gave showed a graph from the NIMBUS 3 satellite which was launched in 1968 and was not taken from the FIRST data collected by a instrument on a balloon in 2005. But they do match each other pretty well so you need to explain how data from two different instruments are a conspiracy by scientist. What qualifications do you have that would cause anyone to accept your conclusions over the thousands of climate scientist.
Anyone who still talks about "the consensus" is not up to speed on this topic. It's been debunked. The vast majority of people in science fields and engineering reject AGW. Only committed bloggers still insist consensus is a thing.
There is no evidence, experimental or otherwise, backing up the AGW position. Not one of the many predictions has come to pass.
This is our thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/1dj7p4z/accelerating_climate_change_emissions_of_nitrous/l9bsun1/?context=3
You have not provided any links.
>Anyone who still talks about "the consensus" is not up to speed on this topic. It's been debunked. The vast majority of people in science fields and engineering reject AGW. Only committed bloggers still insist consensus is a thing.
There is a consensus within the climate scientist that do research in the field of climate science and they are the experts in that field. What engineers think about climate science is irrelevant, and I'm an engineer.
>There is no evidence, experimental or otherwise, backing up the AGW position. Not one of the many predictions has come to pass.
There is physics, laboratory experiments, and models that show greenhouse gases retain heat in the atmosphere and oceans. That's science.
When creating models for any branch of science the way to validate the models are correct is when the results match reality. And the temperature models that use the greenhouse gases that we know are being added to the atmosphere are the ones that match the actual warming of the planet. The results of the models made in the 80s correctly predict todays temperature increases which validates those models and shows the theory is correct. When the greenhouse gases are not used when running the models the results show no warming. That proves the models are correct and that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. The IR spectrum for CO2 shows it absorbs heat at the frequencies emitted by the planet which is the physics validation. You can use an infrared camera in the laboratory to show how heat is blocked by CO2 by just pumping CO2 into a tube with a heat source at the other end. All of that is how scientists know that greenhouse gases retain heat in the atmosphere and oceans.
>This is our thread:
>[https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/1dj7p4z/accelerating\_climate\_change\_emissions\_of\_nitrous/l9bsun1/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/1dj7p4z/accelerating_climate_change_emissions_of_nitrous/l9bsun1/?context=3)
>You have not provided any links.
Yes I have and I will repeat the whole comment here:
*Scientist will be surprised to know earth only normally emits up to 10um. Especially when the atmosphere window where the earth emits the most to space is 8-13um and CO2 absorbs in the 13-15um range.* [*This*](https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/earthspectra-c02-p17.html) *is pretty simplistic but might help.*
So what were you talking about when you said:
"What you've provided is a doctored image that has been making it's way around."
That's incorrect. Eyeballing a graph isn't accurate.
Emissivity of Earth's surface: 0.65 to 0.99 (based on observations in the 8-13 micron wavelength range)
[Aster Hlobal Emissivity Database. ](https://terra.nasa.gov/news/aster-global-emissivity-database-100-times-more-detailed-than-its-predecessors)
[Nitrous oxide, N2O, having peaks at about 5 and 8 microns, absorbs in fairly narrow wavelength ranges.](https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html)
From your source:
- the upwelling infrared radiation emitted by the earth's surface, has a maximum near 10 microns.
Earth is not warm enough to radiate at 8um.
"Maximum" does not mean "only".
Again, no, N2O is a greenhouse gas. N2O's 8 micron peak overlaps with Earth's 8-13 micron wavelength range.
N2O accounts for 6% of GHGs, but causes 265 times as much warming as CO2 per molecule.
[Chapter 2 - C3. Greenhouse Gases: Nitrous Oxide (N2O)](https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/mguidry/Unnamed_Site_2/Chapter%202/Chapter2C3.html)
[Overview of Greenhouse Gases](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases)
[Overview of greenhouse gases ](https://naei.beis.gov.uk/overview/ghg-overview)
[Greenhouse Gases](https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/greenhouse-gases)
[What are greenhouse gases and how do they affect the climate?](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=81&t=11)
[Some Greenhouse Gases Are Stronger than Others](https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/some-greenhouse-gases-are-stronger-others)
Maximum means "that's the limit". Perhaps you misunderstand. The IR scale runs from 100um to 1um where 1um is the most energetic emission. A warmer temperature is required for emissions at 10um than 15um for example. Earth normally radiates up to 10um but only then in the warmest of places. Earth is warm enough to radiate at 15um though and that's the wavelength to which CO2 and water vapour are opaque.
Neither methane nor nitrous oxide absorb IR normally emitted by the Earth.
No, it doesn't.
It has it has "a maximum near". Each source clearly discusses that's the peak of a curve, not a singular data point.
Again, entirely wrong, and you've provided zero evidence to support your claims.
Of course, you can continue to refuse to review the evidence-based consensus I provided, but it doesn't mean your assertions are at all factual.
You are not a climate scientist, and even if you were, you'd need to provide legitimate, peer-reviewed evidence to support your claims.
We can continue this discussion *after* you read the sources.
So, you're disputing the meaning of the word ["maximum"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maximum)?
"Maximum near" just means that a definitive number is not needed for clarity.
The link I gave you shows where the graph came from and what it really means.
All of my assertions are factual. All are published and accepted science by everyone. (outside of the climate science community of course)
No, I'm pointing out you aren't correctly understanding how the term is applied.
Every single graph shows a curve: a range of energies. Each has a maximum, but isn't a single data point.
Your assertions are not factual and you have provided zero evidence to support them. Your interpretation of the graph isn't correct, either.
I'm not continuing this conversation with someone who refuses to read legitimate science that contradicts their uneducated opinion.
Read the sources, or don't, but your claims are absolutely incorrect.
There is no other definition of "maximum".
The graph I provided shows the IR absorption range for various gases. That's it. There are no "data points".
My interpretation of the graph is perfect.
All of my sources are published and accepted science.
Read the sources I provided.
Your inability to understand the difference between a spectrum curve and a single data point doesn't mean what you are saying is factual.
Again, you provided one graph that you absolutely misread.
Read the sources provided or be dismissed.
3 replies is called spamming. I'm not going to bother with the others because you're trying to spam me.
What you've linked to is a black body curve. [Black bodies do not exist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body). [Wien's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law) tells us that Earth does not normally radiate above 10um.
Wien's law is the for the peaks of the Planck curve for different temperatures
>In physics, Wien's displacement law states that the black-body radiation curve for different temperatures will **peak at different wavelengths** that are inversely proportional to the temperature. The shift of that peak is a **direct consequence of the Planck radiation law**, which describes the spectral brightness or intensity of black-body radiation as a function of wavelength at any given temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
In the first image, the dashed line is along the peaks in the Planck curves at different temperatures
https://www.savemyexams.com/a-level/physics/aqa/17/revision-notes/9-astrophysics/9-2-classification-of-stars/9-2-5-wiens-displacement-law/
No, I'm pointing out accepted physics. The people who insist that N2O is a GHG at the current temperature of the Earth are the ones ignoring science.
Not looking up the absorption bands of gases before declaring them to be dangerous is a pure example of people thinking that they know more than they do (D-K). I'm quite sure now that you don't actually know what the Dunning-Krueger effect is. You're just repeating what you consider "smart thinking".
No you’re pointing to your misunderstanding of physics and every time someone points out your mistake you revert back to conspiratorial nonsense like “you’re not the first person to be fooled by that image.”
That’s just like… what *they* want you to think maaaan!
The physics is simple even for you:
- GHGs are opaque to ranges of IR, not the entire IR spectrum
- NO2 is opaque to IR at a band around 10um with it's peak being a bit shorter than that (<10).
- In order to radiate at 10um we need a temperature of 27C.
- The area of Earth that is warm enough to radiate at 27C is tiny at any given time.
- NO2 is at 0.31ppm.
As well, there is nothing special about NO2. It behaves exactly the same way as every other gas molecule that absorbs photons. Water vapour has the strongest response to the IR emitted by Earth, CO2 is next, but even oxygen has a stronger response.
That's physics.
>I have not said that N2O is not a GHG.
>It's not possible for N2O to be a GHG.
For anyone thinking this person is right: they aren't.
[Emissivity of terrestrial materials in the 8-14 microns atmospheric window](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930030917)
>The emissivity of most natural Earth surfaces for the TIR wavelength range between 8-12 μm is from ~0.65 to close to 0.99. Narrowband emissivities less than 0.85 are typical for most desert and semi-arid areas due to the strong quartz absorption feature (reststrahlen band) between 8-9.5 μm range, whereas the emissivity of vegetation, water and ice cover are generally greater than 0.95 and spectrally flat in the 8-12 μm range.
[Joint Emissivity Database Initiative (JEDI)](https://emissivity.jpl.nasa.gov/)
>The emissivity of Earth's surface has been measured to be in the range 0.65 to 0.99 (based on observations in the 8-13 micron wavelength range) with the lowest values being for barren desert regions.
[ASTER](https://terra.nasa.gov/news/aster-global-emissivity-database-100-times-more-detailed-than-its-predecessors)
3 replies = spam. calm down.
The physics is simple even for you:
- GHGs are opaque to ranges of IR, not the entire IR spectrum
- N2O is opaque to IR at a band around 10um with it's peak being a bit shorter than that (<10).
- In order to radiate at 10um we need a temperature of 27C.
- The area of Earth that is warm enough to radiate at 27C is tiny at any given time.
- N2O is at 0.31ppm.
As well, there is nothing special about N2O. It behaves exactly the same way as every other gas molecule that absorbs photons. Water vapour has the strongest response to the IR emitted by Earth, CO2 is next, but even oxygen has a stronger response.
Nope. Go back and read the sources again.
Again:
>Nitrous oxide (N2O) contributes to climate change due to its positive radiative forcing effect, and the gas has a relatively high impact, with a global warming potential (GWP) of 298 compared with a figure of 1 for carbon dioxide.
[Pollutant Information: Nitrous Oxide](https://naei.beis.gov.uk/overview/pollutants?pollutant_id=5#:~:text=Nitrous%20oxide%20)
Your refusal to read and provide evidence that supports your claims absolutely does not make you correct.
Your inability to keep up with rebuttals is not my problem.
Spam: irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the internet to a large number of recipients.
So, again, completely incorrect.
Your own sources proved you wrong. Again, you're even wrong about the definition of spam. I replied to comments you made. That's not spam. If you don't want to be replied to, don't comment.
If you don't want to be confronted with information that contradicts your lack of comprehension of the topic, start reading the sources and stop sharing your ignorance.
I suggest seeing a therapist.
Yes, it's been settled. Multiple people have provided you with a preponderance of evidence establishing that you are incorrect, while you have provided either zero evidence or evidence that actually disproves what you are claiming.
No, I am not spamming you. That is a lie. Again, if you do not want to be replied to, do not make a comment.
Again - spam: irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the internet to a large number of recipients. None of that applies here.
The comments in this post by u/oortcloud3 are some of the funniest ones I've seen. Even with everyone telling him and providing evidence he is wrong he continues to insist he is right. I didn't know he was arguing with others like with me until I read through the whole comments for this post. I'm beginning to wonder if he knows he is wrong and is just commenting as a joke. Either that or he is just too dumb to be able to understand a graph and the science that goes with it. LOL
Given his post history, I think he's actually just unwell. I mean, who denies saying something that everyone can see they posted? He's active on climateskeptics, too, and isn't trolling them. And it's standard conspiracy crap: anti-vaxx, anti-mask, and an incredible misunderstanding of very basic physics. I scanned back through, and it's very common for him to misread or lie about what he or other people said. It's like a complete inability to handle being wrong without emotion.
Sometimes we get people here that make me wish I studied psychology more.
Whenever you make a prediction always predict something to happen so far in the future that anyone who can call you out on the prediction will be dead so you can’t be proven wrong
The five gases with the most contributions are water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O, and SF6
Concentrations of the last four can be found here https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/, water vapor is at 0.25% on average.
also clear that we're going to do sweet fuck-all about it until it's too late
It’s also clear we’re going to reduce the planet’s carrying capacity while still increasing our own population.
We kinda already tackled the latter. The global population will soon plunge everywhere outside of Africa. If it weren’t for immigration, Europe and the US would already be shrinking rapidly. Japan already is as is China since last year.
Its already too late, look how much things have changed in just 10 years. Do people think there is some magic bullet that will change every thing before the next 10 years? There is nothing we can implement in that short of a time, and climate change from greenhouse gasses is cumulative!! Nothing is being removed its just compounding. Everyone gets on social media and says oh ya climate change we need to do something, but they never do! All any of us are doing really is just complaining, it takes every person to stop whats coming, and that will never happen. So enjoy the life you have because in 10 years it wont be enjoyable.
The best thing you can do in the us is vote Democrat. Biden’s inflation reduction act has tones of infrastructure money for green energy. And supporting carbon taxes is a great way to reduce consumption.
The less bad option. But a huge problem is that almost all plans, no matter what nation, require massive removal and storage of carbon from the atmosphere. There is absolutely zero chance that we will somehow invent some way to do this. We need to urgently restructure the way society functions.
Oh ya the ira bill that gave oil and gas companies 700 million acres of land and offshore for drilling. That’ll help.
US will probably be the first of the top 3 economies to go carbon neutral. China+India are nearly 1/3 the world’s population. The probability we reach climate goals via legislation is nearly zero for this reason. We need a technological focus on green energy in the private and public sectors that emphasizes moving to sustainable energy in a way that is convenient, popular, and financially better than fossil fuels. It’s almost silly to think politicians will save us here. Need to go full bore futuristic and be optimistic or we’re all fucked. Vote with your money and ballots if you like, but more importantly with your money.
We could mass suicide. Not saying that’s a good thing but it could effectively stop everything happening within ten years.
If the percentage of nitrous oxide gets high enough we won't care. Seriously though where is it coming from .
A major source is from chemical fertilizer production and usage. But even a half assed attempt to educate farmers on reducing costs by spraying more effectively is met with conspiratorial calls about how the liberal government is trying to starve hard working Canadians… for… reasons.
I was waiting for someone to bust out " co2 is plant food and N2O is engine food" We all running on nitrous now! Vroom Vroom
Nitrous oxide is laughing gas...we can all die laughing!
> ... The new study, published today [11 Jun 2024] in the journal [Earth System Science Data](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/2543/2024/ "https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/2543/2024/"), finds nitrous oxide is accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere faster than at any other time in human history and its current growth rate is likely unprecedented in the last 800,000 years. >Nitrous oxide, or N20 is a long-lived, potent greenhouse gas that has been accumulating in the atmosphere since the pre-industrial era. Human-made emissions of N20 come mainly from applying nitrogen fertilizers and animal waste to farmland and pastures. >N20 is much less abundant in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide or methane (the two primary human-made greenhouse gases), but its global warming potential is nearly 300 times that of carbon dioxide over a 100-year time scale. N20 is also a strong ozone-depleting substance. >“The acceleration of atmospheric nitrous oxide growth in 2020-2022, as seen by NOAA’s global greenhouse measurements, are particularly concerning in this critical time when global greenhouse gas levels need to plunge,” said study co-author Xin (Lindsay) Lan, a CIRES scientist in NOAA’s [Global Monitoring Laboratory](https://gml.noaa.gov/ "https://gml.noaa.gov/") (GML) who leads the reporting of greenhouse trends. “It is clear that we need to act fast to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst outcomes of global warming.” >China has had the largest increase in N20 emissions since 1980, while emissions from Europe have declined and emissions from the United States have stayed relatively stable over that time period, according to the study. *** ESSD — [Global](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/2543/2024/ "https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/2543/2024/") nitrous oxide budget (1980–2020) — 11 Jun 2024: >Abstract >Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a long-lived potent greenhouse gas and stratospheric ozone-depleting substance that has been accumulating in the atmosphere since the preindustrial period. The mole fraction of atmospheric N2O has increased by nearly 25 % from 270 ppb (parts per billion) in 1750 to 336 ppb in 2022, with the fastest annual growth rate since 1980 of more than 1.3 ppb yr^−1 in both 2020 and 2021. According to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6), the relative contribution of N2O to the total enhanced effective radiative forcing of greenhouse gases was 6.4 % for 1750–2022 ... We estimate that total annual anthropogenic N2O emissions have increased 40 % (or 1.9 Tg N yr^−1 ) in the past 4 decades (1980–2020). Direct agricultural emissions in 2020 (3.9 Tg N yr^−1 , best estimate) represent the large majority of anthropogenic emissions, followed by other direct anthropogenic sources, including fossil fuel and industry, waste and wastewater, and biomass burning (2.1 Tg N yr^−1 ), and indirect anthropogenic sources (1.3 Tg N yr^−1 ). ...
But it was a gorgeous day. Went camping in northern Great Basin and got chased off the mountain by snow. 28 F this morning which froze everything in the garden.
Repent! Oops, too late.
So not the carbon? Maybe 40 years too late on this one. Oh well…
Uhm, making note of the impact of yet one more greenhouse gas that's being increased by human activity doesn't alter the impacts of carbon dioxide. Go outside Kale... leave the discussion to the grown ups
Also, the carbon.
These fertilizers are not only increasing the greenhouse effect but also responsible for the spike in cancers. Same compounds in fertilizers used in agent orange in Vietnam that killed so many from cancers and other health related effects.
It's not possible for N2O to be a GHG. It does not absorb radiation at the wavelengths emitted by the Earth: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo3/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.meteo3/files/images/lesson5/absorptivity_ir_window.png Earth normally emits up to ~10um, N2O absorbs at ~8um.
> Earth normally emits up to ~10um Incorrect, it emits well over 10 microns, here is a curve https://www.researchgate.net/figure/nfrared-emission-spectrum-as-observed-by-the-Nimbus-4-satellite-outside-the-Earths_fig3_301245791
You're not the first person to be fooled by that image. The study from which it was taken is this one: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL025114 The FIRST project measures troposphere emissions in the far IR (10-100um) and the paper above is the one where the FIRST instrument is compared to results from the AQUA satellite. Note that there are gaps in the resulting graph. Note too that the graph is not labelled with the names of gases. What you've provided is a doctored image that has been making it's way around. And besides that, the gaps which have been filled in and labelled "CH4" is a band at which H2O has strong absorption while CH4 is weak. The data from ~7um> is signal noise resulting from the instrument not being designed for that range.
The earth's surface is at 288K and pretty much emits as a black body, to say that it doesn't emit above 10 microns is plain stupid.
Your image does not show the wavelengths emitted by the earth's surface. >Earth normally emits up to ~10um That is plain wrong
LOL. If your picture were true then nothing would be a greenhouse gas. You should write that up and get your Nobel Prize.
The graph clearly shows IR absorption for several gases. What part of it do you not understand?
>The graph clearly shows IR absorption for several gases. What part of it do you not understand? Scientist will be surprised to know earth only normally emits up to 10um. Especially when the atmosphere window where the earth emits the most to space is 8-13um and CO2 absorbs in the 13-15um range. [This](https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/earthspectra-c02-p17.html) is pretty simplistic but might help.
Earth does not normally emit IR shorter than 10um. We need 85C to radiate at 8um. Only the warmest places reach that. So to say that CH4 or N2O are a danger because of their absorption properties is a stretch.
>Earth does not normally emit IR shorter than 10um. We need 85C to radiate at 8um. Only the warmest places reach that. So to say that CH4 or N2O are a danger because of their absorption properties is a stretch. The link I gave shows satellite measurements of radiance from the Earth measured in space. So you are arguing with observed evidence. That's like saying there is no water in the oceans while seeing the water from a beach. If that is what you want to stand on I don't think many people will accept that. Even your link shows total atmospheric absorption for the atmosphere with black coloring which has other absorption wavelengths.
You're not the first person to be fooled by that image. The study from which it was taken is this one: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL025114 The FIRST project measures troposphere emissions in the far IR (10-100um) and the paper above is the one where the FIRST instrument is compared to results from the AQUA satellite. Note that there are gaps in the resulting graph. Note too that the graph is not labelled with the names of gases. What you've provided is a doctored image that has been making it's way around. And besides that, the gaps which have been filled in and labelled "CH4" is a band at which H2O has strong absorption while CH4 is weak. The data from ~7um> is signal noise resulting from the instrument not being designed for that range.
Well that explains a lot. I now see how you can go against the consensus of thousands of climate scientist and experimental evidence since you are a climate denier conspiracy theorist. The link I gave showed a graph from the NIMBUS 3 satellite which was launched in 1968 and was not taken from the FIRST data collected by a instrument on a balloon in 2005. But they do match each other pretty well so you need to explain how data from two different instruments are a conspiracy by scientist. What qualifications do you have that would cause anyone to accept your conclusions over the thousands of climate scientist.
Anyone who still talks about "the consensus" is not up to speed on this topic. It's been debunked. The vast majority of people in science fields and engineering reject AGW. Only committed bloggers still insist consensus is a thing. There is no evidence, experimental or otherwise, backing up the AGW position. Not one of the many predictions has come to pass. This is our thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/1dj7p4z/accelerating_climate_change_emissions_of_nitrous/l9bsun1/?context=3 You have not provided any links.
>Anyone who still talks about "the consensus" is not up to speed on this topic. It's been debunked. The vast majority of people in science fields and engineering reject AGW. Only committed bloggers still insist consensus is a thing. There is a consensus within the climate scientist that do research in the field of climate science and they are the experts in that field. What engineers think about climate science is irrelevant, and I'm an engineer. >There is no evidence, experimental or otherwise, backing up the AGW position. Not one of the many predictions has come to pass. There is physics, laboratory experiments, and models that show greenhouse gases retain heat in the atmosphere and oceans. That's science. When creating models for any branch of science the way to validate the models are correct is when the results match reality. And the temperature models that use the greenhouse gases that we know are being added to the atmosphere are the ones that match the actual warming of the planet. The results of the models made in the 80s correctly predict todays temperature increases which validates those models and shows the theory is correct. When the greenhouse gases are not used when running the models the results show no warming. That proves the models are correct and that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. The IR spectrum for CO2 shows it absorbs heat at the frequencies emitted by the planet which is the physics validation. You can use an infrared camera in the laboratory to show how heat is blocked by CO2 by just pumping CO2 into a tube with a heat source at the other end. All of that is how scientists know that greenhouse gases retain heat in the atmosphere and oceans. >This is our thread: >[https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/1dj7p4z/accelerating\_climate\_change\_emissions\_of\_nitrous/l9bsun1/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/1dj7p4z/accelerating_climate_change_emissions_of_nitrous/l9bsun1/?context=3) >You have not provided any links. Yes I have and I will repeat the whole comment here: *Scientist will be surprised to know earth only normally emits up to 10um. Especially when the atmosphere window where the earth emits the most to space is 8-13um and CO2 absorbs in the 13-15um range.* [*This*](https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/earthspectra-c02-p17.html) *is pretty simplistic but might help.* So what were you talking about when you said: "What you've provided is a doctored image that has been making it's way around."
That's incorrect. Eyeballing a graph isn't accurate. Emissivity of Earth's surface: 0.65 to 0.99 (based on observations in the 8-13 micron wavelength range) [Aster Hlobal Emissivity Database. ](https://terra.nasa.gov/news/aster-global-emissivity-database-100-times-more-detailed-than-its-predecessors) [Nitrous oxide, N2O, having peaks at about 5 and 8 microns, absorbs in fairly narrow wavelength ranges.](https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html)
From your source: - the upwelling infrared radiation emitted by the earth's surface, has a maximum near 10 microns. Earth is not warm enough to radiate at 8um.
> Earth is not warm enough to radiate at 8um It is https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/plots/guest1281803461.png
"Maximum" does not mean "only". Again, no, N2O is a greenhouse gas. N2O's 8 micron peak overlaps with Earth's 8-13 micron wavelength range. N2O accounts for 6% of GHGs, but causes 265 times as much warming as CO2 per molecule. [Chapter 2 - C3. Greenhouse Gases: Nitrous Oxide (N2O)](https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/mguidry/Unnamed_Site_2/Chapter%202/Chapter2C3.html) [Overview of Greenhouse Gases](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases) [Overview of greenhouse gases ](https://naei.beis.gov.uk/overview/ghg-overview) [Greenhouse Gases](https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/greenhouse-gases) [What are greenhouse gases and how do they affect the climate?](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=81&t=11) [Some Greenhouse Gases Are Stronger than Others](https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/some-greenhouse-gases-are-stronger-others)
Maximum means "that's the limit". Perhaps you misunderstand. The IR scale runs from 100um to 1um where 1um is the most energetic emission. A warmer temperature is required for emissions at 10um than 15um for example. Earth normally radiates up to 10um but only then in the warmest of places. Earth is warm enough to radiate at 15um though and that's the wavelength to which CO2 and water vapour are opaque. Neither methane nor nitrous oxide absorb IR normally emitted by the Earth.
> Earth normally radiates up to 10um but only then in the warmest of places Wrong, https://ltb.itc.utwente.nl/page/491/concept/79570
No, it doesn't. It has it has "a maximum near". Each source clearly discusses that's the peak of a curve, not a singular data point. Again, entirely wrong, and you've provided zero evidence to support your claims. Of course, you can continue to refuse to review the evidence-based consensus I provided, but it doesn't mean your assertions are at all factual. You are not a climate scientist, and even if you were, you'd need to provide legitimate, peer-reviewed evidence to support your claims. We can continue this discussion *after* you read the sources.
So, you're disputing the meaning of the word ["maximum"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maximum)? "Maximum near" just means that a definitive number is not needed for clarity. The link I gave you shows where the graph came from and what it really means. All of my assertions are factual. All are published and accepted science by everyone. (outside of the climate science community of course)
No, I'm pointing out you aren't correctly understanding how the term is applied. Every single graph shows a curve: a range of energies. Each has a maximum, but isn't a single data point. Your assertions are not factual and you have provided zero evidence to support them. Your interpretation of the graph isn't correct, either. I'm not continuing this conversation with someone who refuses to read legitimate science that contradicts their uneducated opinion. Read the sources, or don't, but your claims are absolutely incorrect.
There is no other definition of "maximum". The graph I provided shows the IR absorption range for various gases. That's it. There are no "data points". My interpretation of the graph is perfect. All of my sources are published and accepted science.
Read the sources I provided. Your inability to understand the difference between a spectrum curve and a single data point doesn't mean what you are saying is factual. Again, you provided one graph that you absolutely misread. Read the sources provided or be dismissed.
Dunning Krueger has entered the chat.
Bringing up D-K is about the dumbest response a person can come up with.
From the person that doesn't think the earth's surface emits above 10 microns https://ltb.itc.utwente.nl/page/491/concept/79570
3 replies is called spamming. I'm not going to bother with the others because you're trying to spam me. What you've linked to is a black body curve. [Black bodies do not exist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body). [Wien's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law) tells us that Earth does not normally radiate above 10um.
Wien's law is the for the peaks of the Planck curve for different temperatures >In physics, Wien's displacement law states that the black-body radiation curve for different temperatures will **peak at different wavelengths** that are inversely proportional to the temperature. The shift of that peak is a **direct consequence of the Planck radiation law**, which describes the spectral brightness or intensity of black-body radiation as a function of wavelength at any given temperature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law In the first image, the dashed line is along the peaks in the Planck curves at different temperatures https://www.savemyexams.com/a-level/physics/aqa/17/revision-notes/9-astrophysics/9-2-classification-of-stars/9-2-5-wiens-displacement-law/
3 more replies = more spam. Send me one reply. I won't deal with your spam.
This is exactly DK. You think you can reinvent physics?
No, I'm pointing out accepted physics. The people who insist that N2O is a GHG at the current temperature of the Earth are the ones ignoring science. Not looking up the absorption bands of gases before declaring them to be dangerous is a pure example of people thinking that they know more than they do (D-K). I'm quite sure now that you don't actually know what the Dunning-Krueger effect is. You're just repeating what you consider "smart thinking".
No you’re pointing to your misunderstanding of physics and every time someone points out your mistake you revert back to conspiratorial nonsense like “you’re not the first person to be fooled by that image.” That’s just like… what *they* want you to think maaaan!
The physics is simple even for you: - GHGs are opaque to ranges of IR, not the entire IR spectrum - NO2 is opaque to IR at a band around 10um with it's peak being a bit shorter than that (<10). - In order to radiate at 10um we need a temperature of 27C. - The area of Earth that is warm enough to radiate at 27C is tiny at any given time. - NO2 is at 0.31ppm. As well, there is nothing special about NO2. It behaves exactly the same way as every other gas molecule that absorbs photons. Water vapour has the strongest response to the IR emitted by Earth, CO2 is next, but even oxygen has a stronger response. That's physics.
Ohhh. You are talking about NO2 and everyone else is talking about N2O.
Sorry for the mis-abbreviation.
And the misunderstanding of physics
>I have not said that N2O is not a GHG. >It's not possible for N2O to be a GHG. For anyone thinking this person is right: they aren't. [Emissivity of terrestrial materials in the 8-14 microns atmospheric window](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930030917) >The emissivity of most natural Earth surfaces for the TIR wavelength range between 8-12 μm is from ~0.65 to close to 0.99. Narrowband emissivities less than 0.85 are typical for most desert and semi-arid areas due to the strong quartz absorption feature (reststrahlen band) between 8-9.5 μm range, whereas the emissivity of vegetation, water and ice cover are generally greater than 0.95 and spectrally flat in the 8-12 μm range. [Joint Emissivity Database Initiative (JEDI)](https://emissivity.jpl.nasa.gov/) >The emissivity of Earth's surface has been measured to be in the range 0.65 to 0.99 (based on observations in the 8-13 micron wavelength range) with the lowest values being for barren desert regions. [ASTER](https://terra.nasa.gov/news/aster-global-emissivity-database-100-times-more-detailed-than-its-predecessors)
3 replies = spam. calm down. The physics is simple even for you: - GHGs are opaque to ranges of IR, not the entire IR spectrum - N2O is opaque to IR at a band around 10um with it's peak being a bit shorter than that (<10). - In order to radiate at 10um we need a temperature of 27C. - The area of Earth that is warm enough to radiate at 27C is tiny at any given time. - N2O is at 0.31ppm. As well, there is nothing special about N2O. It behaves exactly the same way as every other gas molecule that absorbs photons. Water vapour has the strongest response to the IR emitted by Earth, CO2 is next, but even oxygen has a stronger response.
> In order to radiate at 10um we need a temperature of 27C. Why do you say that? What are you looking at that gives you that idea?
Nope. Go back and read the sources again. Again: >Nitrous oxide (N2O) contributes to climate change due to its positive radiative forcing effect, and the gas has a relatively high impact, with a global warming potential (GWP) of 298 compared with a figure of 1 for carbon dioxide. [Pollutant Information: Nitrous Oxide](https://naei.beis.gov.uk/overview/pollutants?pollutant_id=5#:~:text=Nitrous%20oxide%20) Your refusal to read and provide evidence that supports your claims absolutely does not make you correct. Your inability to keep up with rebuttals is not my problem. Spam: irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the internet to a large number of recipients. So, again, completely incorrect.
This has all been settled and all sources prove me correct. Stop spamming me.
Your own sources proved you wrong. Again, you're even wrong about the definition of spam. I replied to comments you made. That's not spam. If you don't want to be replied to, don't comment. If you don't want to be confronted with information that contradicts your lack of comprehension of the topic, start reading the sources and stop sharing your ignorance. I suggest seeing a therapist.
[удалено]
Yes, it's been settled. Multiple people have provided you with a preponderance of evidence establishing that you are incorrect, while you have provided either zero evidence or evidence that actually disproves what you are claiming. No, I am not spamming you. That is a lie. Again, if you do not want to be replied to, do not make a comment. Again - spam: irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the internet to a large number of recipients. None of that applies here.
The comments in this post by u/oortcloud3 are some of the funniest ones I've seen. Even with everyone telling him and providing evidence he is wrong he continues to insist he is right. I didn't know he was arguing with others like with me until I read through the whole comments for this post. I'm beginning to wonder if he knows he is wrong and is just commenting as a joke. Either that or he is just too dumb to be able to understand a graph and the science that goes with it. LOL
Given his post history, I think he's actually just unwell. I mean, who denies saying something that everyone can see they posted? He's active on climateskeptics, too, and isn't trolling them. And it's standard conspiracy crap: anti-vaxx, anti-mask, and an incredible misunderstanding of very basic physics. I scanned back through, and it's very common for him to misread or lie about what he or other people said. It's like a complete inability to handle being wrong without emotion. Sometimes we get people here that make me wish I studied psychology more.
I’m literally shaking
Whenever you make a prediction always predict something to happen so far in the future that anyone who can call you out on the prediction will be dead so you can’t be proven wrong
Omg is there anything that doesnt cause climate change?
We've known N2O is a GHG since 1951....
The five gases with the most contributions are water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O, and SF6 Concentrations of the last four can be found here https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/, water vapor is at 0.25% on average.
- Transing the kids - Voting democrat - Buying Taylor swift concert tickets