First Off, does the fact that this was an "international" team somehow make the study more believable? Should we take this more seriously because of the diversity of the researchers? I don't get it.

Second, let's take a trip down the 'ole estimation express road. How, in the good name of the patron saint of guessing, Pullanum Beroutofmybuttmas, do you know how much excess Nitrogen is put into the environment from human sources? More importantly, this is on a global scale right?

Last I checked, I have never seen either a NASA van or international group of scientists poking around the farmer's exchanges in my area. Or for that matter, checking the runoff in the streams.

I know that the scientists "feel" that they have to produce numbers of some sort, any numbers will do fine for the politicians, but I think that a gigantic, all encompassing, disclaimer should be the first sentence of all of these studies.

From Wikipedia- While its radiative warming effect is substantially less than CO2, nitrous oxide's persistence in the atmosphere, when considered over a 100 year period, per unit of weight, has 296 times more impact on global warming than that per mass unit of carbon dioxide (CO2).

"While the increased biological activity has the beneficial effect of drawing down man-made CO2 from the atmosphere, the researchers found that around two-thirds of this is offset by the increase in harmful N20 emissions."

I wasn't able to read the study or the news release. But does this mean that this is a good thing? If 1/3 of the drawing down of CO2 is not offset, that seems like a net benefit.

Stay cool.

The natural warming of the earth has ended! We are now entering a 20-30 year cooling trend as noted by many scientists. No I'm not going to list all of them. 31000 have signed off on this nonsense. Have you mentioned this story? If so, I commend your fairness. If not report it. Paul

The more data collected, the better the computer models. Thank God someone decided to start measuring the oceanic impact of our waste water, runoff and emmissions.

Quick to anger, slow to understand. I can't wait to read how it is Al Gore's fault.

What an awkwardly written statement and paper, obviously designed to obfuscate the fact that fertilization has some benefits.

“Although 10% of the ocean's drawdown of atmospheric anthropogenic carbon dioxide may result from this atmospheric nitrogen fertilization, leading to a decrease in radiative forcing, up to about two-thirds of this amount may be offset by the increase in N2O emissions”

Translation: We still get a net decrease in CO2 except it is 1/3 less than originally calculated.

Everybody have a good weekend and great safe holiday. For those fighting AGW in the northeast...throw another log on the fire as we are averaging 6.5 degrees below normal for the entire month of May.

More nitrogen is good because nitrogen increases carbon dioxide uptake and everybody knows carbon dioxide is a toxic, global-warming pollutant.

back in the days when president kennedy challenged the u.s. to be the first to put a human footstep on the moon in response to sputnik, the National Aeronautical (aircraft) and Space Administration was proudly viewed as a masterpiece of american ingenuity...it was able to accomplish what seemed impossible...nowadays, all u read about is the crap coming out of its earth watch division...just exactly how does an aircraft and space program get to be an environmental spokesperson?...because of green, free handout politics...NASA today, is a textbook example of a government beaucracy run amok without free enterprise checks, balances and accountability...as flaw after flaw is exposed at the goddard institute for SPACE studies in their temperature reading and voodoo earth modeled division, it is quite apparent what was a scientifically driven and mathematically precise organization exploring the bounds of possibility in space and aeronautical engineering, instead, is now dominated by an overweight, inflated, politically motivated, money pilfering beast of climatic guesses...why?... because its environmental division has left its roots of science and math and instead relies on emotion, politics and sensationalism....pontificated study after study talks about anthropogenic as if they really know what the hell is going on...instead of precision, conclusions are based on a preconceived, politically and financially motivated "anthropogenic" concept...what really pisses me off, is we have three presidential candidates that believe this crap...all talk about change, when change means more beaucracies...i dont know about any of you other dudes, but i am deeply concerned about the direction this great country is headed to...i am getting tired of the government telling me the use of technology, like nitrogen and fossil fuels, which are used to feed the masses of the world, is bad...there, i feel better...have a nice day, bros!!!

Another blow to Ethanol.

:PRESS CONFERANCE:

Josh: Hi guys, don't have all day so go ahead and I'll get to as many of your questions as possible, yes you right there....

Media: Josh, what is nitrous oxide and why is it nothing to laugh about?

Josh: Well you will laugh about it because it is laughing gas, so maybe in this world we don't have enough of it yet, it come naturally from oceans and rainforest and is produced from us evil human beings on this planet, especially the ones in the U.S driving around in there SUVs, almost like it is a free country or something.

Media: What effects have we seen from it?

Josh: Well none that I have felt, I had 30.6 degrees this morning and it has been cold all spring, so this is not working to warm up the planet, I don't know what we are going to have to do.

Media: Why do you suppose we have people who want to cool the planet, why would this benefit humans?

Josh: Uh...Wow..thats a tough one... alot of crazies..uh..I guess we could save electric and turn off our freezers, maybe we just have alot of snowboarders out there who don't like the offseason.

Media: Uh,speaking of SUVs and such, do you believe they are contributing to the high gas prices?

Josh: Earl, what do you think, It starts with AL GORE and his wacko friends not allowing anyone to drill for oil because they might squash the white dotted snail and the 3 eyed yellow footed grasshopper. That side also likes us to burn food for fuel and in turn that has led to a shorter supply and prices of gas has risen and food has risen even more so on the count of shipping and supply since your vehichle eats now also. You would think they wouldn't like the cutting of the rainforest to grow more food, my guess is it would be more enviro friendly to just drill.

Media: Josh, I have seen reports where they say travel will be down this holiday?

Josh: Maybe..Probably...But were you asked by anyone, was anyone asked by anyone, just a made up number.

Media: In your fight with the alarmist you guys seem to be at the top of your game as they have struggles?

Josh: Well.. we have prepared a good plan, and in order to succeed you fight lies with facts and that is how we have dominated the opposition.

Media: You here all the time about the polar bears, glaciers, and sea rise and have shut them down in every faucet of that?

Josh: Is that a question, your just stating a fact, thanks.

Media: Josh how wa...

Josh: Guys sorry thats it for now, go get a snort of nitrous oxide and laugh this holiday weekend and don't worry when you fire up the bbq, you are not drowning a polar bear. Take care everyone and have a GREAT MEMORIAL DAY! See ya later.

Apparently we need to fill the air with sulfur and the ocean with nitrogen.

These geniuses are going to intentionally destroy our ecosystem in order to placate their neurotic obsession with inert CO2.

Note: EPA data shows a 4% drop in the U.S. from 383.4 Teragrams Co2 Equivalent (Tg CO2) to 367.9 Tg CO2. I couldn't access the study to see if they have more recent U.S data NASA to indicate if U.S. releases are increasing, but it seems that the rest of the globe may be responsible for any increases.

1. This topic should have had more focus in lieu of all the research and grant money going to the CO2 scam. Subsequent research should be focused on the biology so they can answer the questions:

a) Are N2O emissions good and something we should increase? (They do say they contribute up to three per cent of the annual new marine biological production.)
b) Are current emissions OK and therefore we need to "hold the line" on current emissions levels?
c) Are current emissions excessive and something we should cut back?
d) Are there specific regional variations that mean these questions have to be applied region by region and not as a global average?

2. Why do they say: "Anyone concerned about climate change will be alarmed at the scale of man's impact on the world's oceans, as revealed by our new study," ? Are they implying that, I, as one who is not concerned by CO2 induced climate change, am not highly concerned (I am) about the environment and understanding the N2O impacts on the ocean?

3. How about this statement: "While the increased biological activity has the beneficial effect of drawing down man-made CO2 from the atmosphere, the researchers found that around two-thirds of this is offset by the increase in harmful N20 emissions."?

4. Where is the evidence that drawing down atmospheric CO2 has a beneficial effect? Perhaps its politically beneficial or "feel good" beneficial to the Church of the Environment but as a technical study, should they not stay away from politics and religion?

5. Also, if they believe there is a technical concern over CO2, why isn't the title of this release: "INCREASES IN ANTHROPOGENIC OCEAN NITROGEN WILL REDUCE CO2 - POSSIBLE CURE FOR CLIMATE CATASTROPHE IS AT HAND".

6. Lastly, if the AGW science is settled, then why are they saying that N2O fertilization "...should be considered in future climate change scenarios,"? Does this mean that perhaps the models don't model all the physical processes yet?

Adamant:

From Wikipedia- While its radiative warming effect is substantially less than CO2, nitrous oxide's persistence in the atmosphere, when considered over a 100 year period, per unit of weight, has 296 times more impact on global warming than that per mass unit of carbon dioxide (CO2).

Wikipedia is like a box of chocolates -- you never know what you're going to get. Will it be a balanced article based on good science or will it be advocacy posing as science, as in any of the articles related to the environment, climate change or AGW.

The Opinionator: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/the_opinionator

Thanks for the post and the global map of N2O Brett. Do you happen to have a citation for that figure? Reply: I believe it was off a NOAA site. I could not find anything current.

I'm interested in a current version (the number in my head is that N2O is currently ~ 300 ppb, so the scale seems a little odd).

Also, I've wondered about the vertical distribution of N2O in the atmosphere. Maybe a current citation might have that too.

Thanks!

OMG --- The CO2 cap and trade must be wrong. If Nitorgen is having such a detremental effect then C02 must be having less of an effect!

Don"t the accurate climate models already take this into account??????

sammy k (May 23, 2008 2:20 PM),

What you say about NASA-GISS makes so much sense:

"NASA today, is a textbook example of a government beaucracy run amok without free enterprise checks, balances and accountability...as flaw after flaw is exposed at the goddard institute for SPACE studies in their temperature reading and voodoo earth modeled division, it is quite apparent what was a scientifically driven and mathematically precise organization exploring the bounds of possibility in space and aeronautical engineering, instead, is now dominated by an overweight, inflated, politically motivated, money pilfering beast of climatic guesses...why?... because its environmental division has left its roots of science and math and instead relies on emotion, politics and sensationalism...."

This is a big picture and structural issue that Congress (and the 3 U.S Pres. candidates) should have on one of their front burners, but they won't until big media becomes more sophisticated in their content allowing the citizenry to become more aware...

There, I feel better too :)

This is comical. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!! I already told you how to stop this by building my "TUNNELS". When will mankind listen to me????

They were warned, but the people on Jupiter refused to give up their Hummers. Now they suffer the inevitable global warming on their otherwise lovely planet.

Jupiter's Spots Disappear Amid Major Climate Change

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/jupiter_spots_040421.html

The red spots were the number one tourist attraction on Jupiter. What will they do without them? Soon Jupiter will join Mars, Venus and Earth as planets who's climate was ruined by stupid and ignorant Republicans.

Hmmm. Subject is getting changed from CO2 to N2O. Why am I so darned suspicious that there must be some data coming out in the near future regarding CO2 levels, which certain people don't want the general public to focus on?

Let me guess: CO2 levels dip, so we need to be alarmed it is caused by N2O.

Heck with this. I'm tired of being suspicious all the time. I'm going to have myself a good week-end, but won't forget to visit a graveyard and remember the folk who worked so hard and gave so much to make our land great.

Best wishes to all.

I am so glad that these ridiculous articles keep coming out about global warming. The more they keep coming up with this crap, the less people believe in this hoax!!!!!

The Petition Project is a petition signed by more than 31,000 U.S. scientists who reject the human-caused global warming hypothesis. They have quite an impressive list of signatories, more than 9000 of them are scientists who hold a PhD. Here is the link to their website. Perhaps some of the politicans trying to ram carbon taxes down our throats should peruse the site, they may learn a few things!

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Darren:
"Anyone concerned about climate change will be alarmed at the scale of man's impact on the world's oceans, as revealed by our new study," said Prof Peter Liss, an environmental scientist at the University of East Anglia.
Well Darren; Isn't it time you and your lackeys start to get alarmed. I mean, is this finding the whole truth and nothing but the truth.Now you have to get alarmed because in one hour the Discovery channel is launching it's newest channel,THE GREEN CHANNEL(owe God!!!).Everything you already have heard,will be rolled out to you in prepackeged Flash frozen Detail "Survivor man saves the Spider".,"Gismo gets a Flat""autistic Mathematical Genius counts carbon footprints""Japanese Physicist in 2045 wears a turtleneck with grey goose jacket".
Show me the money!
KIPP

Nothing to Laugh About. It surely isn't though it may be something to laugh at. It is amusing to see their desperation by the stretches they reach to.

sammy k: Thank you for pointing out the incongruity of a space organization running a climate division. I particularly appreciate your choice of words. Glad you feel better.

Darren: I will have to remember the patron saint's name. Thank you very much.

Picture of a warming world

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/olr/olr.anom.seasonal.gif

Antarctic sea ice anomaly is 4 MKm2 greater than it was in 1980.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Scary stuff - let's raise taxes to stop the spread of ice. It is the only solution.

I'm afraid we have some people around here who never met a tax they didn't like.
Ronald Reagan

Just as the models predicted, extreme global warming is hitting the high northern latitudes the hardest.
http://pasi.newsvine.com/_news/2008/05/15/1490712-finnish-fruit-and-berry-farms-in-danger-because-cold-weather

Finnish fruit and berry far