Nitrogen dioxide, the laughing gas, is released in huge quantities with the thawing of permafrost areas. It is the third most damaging greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane
A new study clarifies and emphasizes the climatic problem created by the melting of permafrost (permafrost). It turns out that one of the gases released from the melting of permafrost and emitted into the atmosphere is nitrogen dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide is a gas Known to be used as a softener/obfusator mainly by dentists, NO2 by its popular name - laughing gas.
Other uses: in industry, as an ingredient in fuel products and especially as an ingredient in fertilizers in agriculture, for some reason there has been no serious treatment of the gas until today, despite the fact that it is considered the third strongest greenhouse gas (after carbon dioxide and methane),
The research published in Nature Geoscience shows that the amounts of gas released into the atmosphere (in the north) have increased by 25% in recent years, a number of measurements have shown a 20-fold jump in emission levels compared to equatorial regions.
In a study led by Professor Bo Elberling of Copenhagen University, sites in Canada and Norway were examined, sites where the mass of Kafur-ed, the mass that releases the laughing gas, takes place.
Since gas comes/is released from industrial and agricultural sources, there is reference to it in the Kyoto Convention, which means that countries have committed to reducing emissions. It was known that other greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and methane) are released when the permafrost melts, the accepted thought was that the laughing gas remains "bound" to the ground. But it turns out that after the mass, when the ground is flooded, the gas is released, and about a third of it reaches the atmosphere. That is: in the melting of permafrost, three greenhouse gases are released, greenhouse gases that cause warming, because of the warming, permafrost areas melt, and thus the process increases itself.
23 תגובות
Thanks to Eyal for the correction
Indeed, laughing gas is nitrogen dioxide to which the list refers,
Everything written in the list is correct except for the name of the gas!
Of course, the melting of the "permafrost" causes the release of many different compounds
One of them is nitrogen dioxide, but the list does not refer to it,
And again Ial is right and deserves to be corrected
As a site that calls itself "Yaden", I am surprised that you have no idea that "nitrogen dioxide" is not laughing gas at all, laughing gas is nitrogen dioxide (N2O)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide
Nitrogen dioxide is a very toxic gas and is probably what you are talking about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide
(And this despite the fact that I do not advocate Wikipedia as a very reliable source of information, yet...)
On March 16, 2011, Professor Giora Shabib was hosted on the Galileo website.
He did this following the article he published in Galileo in which he described the theory of his son - Nir Shabiv, and explained why it is so successful.
Professor Giora Shabib is a world-renowned physicist, but that's it - he's a physicist and not a climate scientist.
I contacted Professor Pinchas Alpert from Tel Aviv University and asked him to join the discussion on the Galileo website.
He said it would be difficult to do so for technical reasons but gave me and the Galileo system a list of questions to present to Professor Giora Shabib.
The editor of the site did raise the questions and Gyura Shabiv tried to answer some of them.
The truth is that it was quite embarrassing because one of the questions describes findings that completely (but completely!) disprove the theory and Professor Shabib did not answer it until this writing.
Here is a link to that section of the discussion:
http://forums.ifeel.co.il/forum_posts.asp?TID=197629
Let's just say that if this gas is present in huge quantities the people (and the animals) will die of laughter lol
Just someone who really doesn't understand anything in science, ashes and dust at the feet of all the scholarly arguments that I try my best to understand here. At the same time, I must say that I am missing one and only one detail, which is absent from the multitude of precise scientific explanations. the feeling. I know it's a hard word - especially for people who need scientific proof... but let's assume it exists. And I want to ask you, how do you feel about what we will become of our world? Even if in the worst case, it will be proven 'scientifically' that there is no warming on Earth, what does that mean?? Is it okay to cut and suck the field of the land? Contaminate it with a "magnificent" variety of chemicals that "have no proof of their harm"? Where is this all going? Consume and consume, travel and fill the air with smoke? To cover the world with more and more endless cattle deposits and to prefer the fodder crops for them over vegetables that "have not been scientifically proven to be healthier"?...
So I fell short of assembling a laboratory argument and maybe I even fell into the wrong place. But I think it would be good for those, who are immersed head to toe in scientific facts, to remember that the world is measured by several other indicators and not only in terms of the technological devices (which, by the way, may not have been invented yet that even know how to give the necessary scientific answers). Morally (excuse the expression), something about the direction humanity is going in seems really, really bad!
Ron, you can't grasp something so simple, I'll write it a third time:
---------
I don't know what causes global warming and I don't care.
---------
can you believe it Some people don't have an opinion on the subject, however amazing it may sound to you. I asked you what is the mechanism that causes the emission of CO2 with the increase in temperature. I wasn't trying to bash your worldview. That's why the special you cooked up for me completely missed the mark, even if from your point of view it's a kind of proof of the source of CO2, that's really not what I asked, I asked what the mechanism is.
now it's clear?
Nowadays, the process you describe does not take place - the CO2 as of these moments - is not - emitted, but continues to dissolve. That's why your sentence "FDAH comes due to heating and not the other way around" is simply not true at this moment, right now the FDAH does not come due to heating.
I admit that regarding the acidity of the sea I do not have the necessary knowledge, this was only my hypothesis, and I qualified it as such in all my responses.
Yes yes Adi, minute 1:10 was special for you,
In order for you to be able to see the scientific connection between an increase in temperature and more FDH in the atmosphere:
The Ice Core Data from a variety of places and throughout the entire period - show in an unmistakable way:
Padah comes after the warm-up,
Where does the FDH surplus come from in different periods in history due to warming?
From its biggest source - the sea of course.
Secondly
The acidity of the sea results from the activity of over 3 million underwater volcanoes
And not from an atmospheric pH - because why don't rivers and lakes demonstrate an increase in acidity as well? …
http://tinyurl.com/OceansAcidity
Zvi, you are absolutely right that this is a function of two variables and that both need to be considered, that's exactly what I argued all along. In my original response 11, I also provided 2 links which, to the best of my understanding, support the fact that the amount of PADH that dissolves exceeds that which is released (that is, the increase in PADH concentration "beats" the increase in temperature), take a look at them (maybe you missed the response because it took a long time until it is approved). Also, as it is written in Wikipedia, the dissolution of the FAD causes the acidity level of the water to rise, and I mentioned in response 14 that, as far as I know, the acidity of the water in the oceans is constantly increasing and there is a real concern for the condition of the corals.
Note, as you mentioned, the amount of PADH (I adopted the acronym) that can be dissolved depends on its partial pressure - which is fine and dandy, but it also depends on the temp.
I don't know exactly how the solubility of the PADH behaves, but we are discussing here the function of two variables (solubility as a function of partial pressure and temperature) - therefore it is not enough for you to tell me that the increase in the PADH concentration "beats" the increase in temperature - the question is what is stronger more and that I don't know.
If you know for sure that the concentration of dissolved PAD in the oceans is increasing despite the increase in temperature, that is an interesting new question, at least for me, and I would love to hear about it.
Zvi, as mentioned, I am not referring to the question of what causes the DHA to heat up - I am petty.
I just asked what is the same mechanism that causes the release of PAD from the ocean as a result of the increase in temperature, I didn't even say that Ron was wrong (when I asked), I really didn't know what he meant.
I referred to the claim you make, and I will refer to it again - the solubility of PADH decreases when the temperature rises. Right. But it must be remembered that the solubility of any gas depends directly on its partial pressure - the higher its partial pressure, the better it will dissolve in a liquid. In other words, take a jar with liquid and empty space, and squeeze more and more gas into it, more and more gas will dissolve in the liquid.
Therefore, if the amount of COXNUMX in the atmosphere was constant - its partial pressure was constant, and the temperature would rise, COXNUMX would be released from the sea.
but! The amount of PAD in the atmosphere is constantly increasing (thanks to us) at a more drastic rate than the temperature rise, and therefore, the end result is the continued dissolution of PAD in the sea (at a slower and slower rate, if we assume that the rate of PAD emission by the anodes is constant). And for (additional) evidence - the increase in ocean acidity that threatens the corals continues even at these moments.
Ron,
Look what you did, because of you it is no longer possible to put a link in a comment without it being stuck for an hour until confirmation 🙂
I thought you retired from science? I vaguely remember a solemn declaration that "this will be my last comment on the site, tere tae tae tae...". Did I miss the celebratory announcement of your return? In any case, of course I'm just greedy for a note.
Ron, what a waste of time. They are so trapped in the concept that there is no way to get them out. They have already been shown in recent years that all the pillars of warming are incorrect. It doesn't convince them.
warming up? – We are guilty, getting cold? - We are guilty too, did we eat meat? (as in the last few hundreds of thousands of years) - we are also guilty of the square. Soon we will have to change our biology to a bacterium in order not to "harm the environment" (actually, bacteria also affect the environment - we ate it!).
They fail to understand one basic thing. There will always be change, hotter, colder and disasters will be thrown at us all the time. This is the nature of the sphere and the universe from time immemorial. The only thing that is different is that today we can also measure gas in the ass of the ball and start to get worried (maybe the ball ate cabbage - do you know how much gas it makes?) which in the past would have been considered the wrath of God (he is really angry that we don't bow to him and abuse other people every day).
The progress in the polluting and terrible industry has allowed the concerned scientists to take an airplane, a helicopter, a skidoo, and go straight to the cold hole of the ball and see the poor how changes happen.
On the other hand, when they find evidence of catastrophic past changes at insane levels, they fail to understand
That these changes didn't stop in honor of the "Age of Reason" but they continue and happen even today, (only now it's our fault - in fact, once upon a time we caused all the bad, only then it was because we didn't do God's mitzvot) and the wonder and voila! We are still here, despite all the disasters of the ice ages, asteroids and volcanoes.
And my father, I'm actually not angry, I'm disappointed.
Ron,
Thanks, although you can't call this thing you did "especially for you".
If it was especially for me, you wouldn't have forced me to watch a video starting at minute 1:10 when some reference to my question (not the answer to my question, but a reference, well, at least it was filled) appears in it at minute 6:30.
If it was specifically for me, you could say "I don't know, but in the video I saw they said that the higher the temperature, the ocean emits more PAD, and the lower it is, it absorbs more PAD."
But the reality is that as the temperature rises, the ability of the ocean to absorb PAD decreases. Even at the moment, the ocean does not emit total COXNUMX, but continues to absorb COXNUMX from the atmosphere, COXNUMX produced by humans. In total, we mean the total circulation - the ocean absorbs more PAD than it emits.
You see, Ron, I didn't just ask you about the mechanism. You'd better understand what you're talking about next.
Reference:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_oceans
My father and Adi,
I don't say these things with the degree of certainty that Ron uses, but if so I think there is justice in his words.
The ability to dissolve carbon dioxide in water depends on their temperature and this makes sense (we all know that the ability to dissolve sugar in tea depends on its temperature). In the case of carbon dioxide, the increase in water temperature causes the release of the gas.
There is a claim that the correlation between the temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide is mainly in the direction:
Increase in temperature => increase in carbon dioxide concentration
And not the other way around as it is common to think.
For example, see the graph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Evidential_issues
You can see that the temperature is almost always slightly ahead of the carbon dioxide concentration and not the other way around.
Prof. Nir Shabiv, who believes that global warming is a natural process and that there is an overestimation of the importance of carbon dioxide, makes this claim in his lectures (YouTube is full of such lectures, so I am not adding a link, I don't have the time right now to watch such a lecture and tell you the exact minute, but if I remember correctly it is there).
One way or another, it is clear that the concentration of carbon dioxide is a positive feedback -
That is, an increase in temperature causes an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide, which causes another increase in temperature
Therefore, Ron was right that an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide causes an increase in temperature - if so, it is not so clear which of the effects is more dominant.
By the way, on the issue of stopping the increase in temperature - there were a lot of stories around this (if the whole issue was the falsification of the results, etc.) that in the end I don't remember what they decided happened, if anyone knows of a sufficiently qualified source I would love to hear it.
By the way (2) - the title ignores the most important greenhouse gas - water vapor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_effects_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere
Yoash - why does the ice grow? Why is the ice in Antarctica growing? Why is the giant Porito Marno glacier in South America growing? Why are glaciers growing in the state of California in the USA and much more
Adi, especially for you, starts at minute 1:10 from the beginning of the clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFL6Ixe_bo
Ron, on the site you mentioned, a ten-year record appears in one criterion, and it also shows a decrease compared to previous decades.
In the other criteria there is a slow and steady decline that has been going on for decades. I don't understand what you are asking about.
And regarding the scientific logic (no)... What is particularly affected by temperature is the amount of oxygen dissolved in water. And this directly affects the mass of life that can be supported.
Ron, I'm not familiar with the mechanism you're talking about - why does the sea release FDF?
Avi,
Here is the official satellite figure - the ice in the north is growing
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Scientific logic? Well.. - The main source of PADH is the sea
The sea is warming and releasing more PAD.
Come on, what's the pressure? Everyone knows what will happen:
It will be very hot, the ice will melt and stop the Gulf Stream and Europe will enter another ice age, but we will have the climate of today's Europe, we will finally be able to ski without leaving the country, we will have plenty of water, so what's the pressure?
P:
Ron. You are probably on a different planet than I am on…….
Why would carbon dioxide increase as a result of warming and not cause it? Where is the scientific logic in this answer?
As for the amount of ice, NASA's satellites measured exactly the opposite.
Remember the tens of millions of dollars that oil majors have funded anti-global warming groups to spread rumors like the ones you are quoting now.
Well enough already.
There has been no warming for 15 years - there has been cooling for 8 years
The sea has become acidic due to over 3 million active underwater volcanoes
PDH comes due to heating and not the other way around
Here is a concrete example for you
The amount of ice in the Arctic sea is now equal to the record since the 1979 measurements
http://tinyurl.com/IceInMaximum
Go to the 2010th Conference on Climate Science in Chicago USA May XNUMX
Go listen to honest professionals.
The technology exists, the desire is lacking.
I am afraid that the time it will take until we reach a technological level that will allow us to completely stop the use of polluting fuels will be too long and the warming will get out of control.