Re: N2O ozone layer threat (another item for your denial carts)
Eric Gisin
N2O comes primarily from combustion, not agriculture.
Natural N2O comes from forest fires and
bacterial decomposition of urea in piss and ammonia in fish piss.
Ammonia based fertilizers are not responsible for much increase, but
NOx from burning of fossil fuels has decreased dramatically since the 70s.
NO2 is a GHG, so it is regulated by Kyotyo.
"E.A." <enough_...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1a4b529d-8d0d-4b20...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090828/us_time/08599191913900
>
> "Today, CFCs are no longer in widespread use, and the ozone layer
> appears to be on the mend. But even with that battle all but won,
> scientists are finding a new man-made threat to the ozone layer:
> nitrous oxide (N2O), otherwise known as laughing gas. A study
> published in the Aug. 28 Science found that N2O - a by-product of
> agricultural fertilizer and a number of other industrial processes -
> is now the biggest ozone-depleting gas in the air, and could present a
> real threat to the ozone layer in coming decades. And worse, unlike
> CFCs, N2O - which also adds to global warming - is not regulated by
> the Montreal Protocol, meaning there is no global effort to try to
> reduce emissions."
>
Ouroboros Rex
> Wotta fucking green moron, completely ignorant of science.
> N2O comes primarily from combustion, not agriculture.
>
> Natural N2O comes from forest fires and
> bacterial decomposition of urea in piss and ammonia in fish piss.
>
> Ammonia based fertilizers are not responsible for much increase, but
> NOx from burning of fossil fuels has decreased dramatically since the
> 70s.
> NO2 is a GHG, so it is regulated by Kyotyo.
What you mean is, you cannot refute a word of the article - not one. lol
Last Post
> Eric Gisin wrote:
> > Wotta fucking green moron, completely ignorant of science.
> > N2O comes primarily from combustion, not agriculture.
>
> > Natural N2O comes from forest fires and
> > bacterial decomposition of urea in piss and ammonia in fish piss.
>
> > Ammonia based fertilizers are not responsible for much increase, but
> > NOx from burning of fossil fuels has decreased dramatically since the
> > 70s.
> > NO2 is a GHG, so it is regulated by Kyotyo.
>
> What you mean is, you cannot refute a word of the article - not one. lol
•• The article is just a means of protecting their
(publish or perish) funding. The article itself
is harmless.
•• Nitrous oxide is harmless. It gets washed into
the earth by rainfall and fertilizes the soil.
•• In quantity it is 3.14 parts per BILLION, only methane is less
Compare H2O 12,387 parts per Million
CO2 385 parts per Million
–– ––
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.
Ouroboros Rex
As always, lenny just makes some shit up.
E.A.
> Wotta fucking green moron, completely ignorant of science.N2O comes primarily from combustion, not agriculture.
The scientists studying the problem are fully aware of that, and the
only reason YOU are is that THEY did the research for you.
You're simply repeating an old deception that's been used for years in
the case of CO2: "Nature creates X, therefore Man's ADDITIONAL inputs
of X are irrelevant." (Like hell they are!)
You would know by now (if you'd read the article) that those
ADDITIONAL inputs are the whole problem. Man is boosting levels of
specific gases that don't occur at such levels naturally. That's what
pushes things out of balance. Man ADDS to the background levels. Got
it?
It only takes relatively small ratios, as is the case with CO2, but
Creatards refuse to understand that. The Sun is your bogeyman in place
of CO2, so what will it be with N2O; the Moon? Your goal is to make
humans look harmless and nature look dangerous no matter what the
evidence shows.
Humans are making nature MORE dangerous and unstable by altering its
normal state. Those who aren't blinded by anthropocentrism can see the
evidence everywhere.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Average intelligence cannot not solve problems it originally led to.
E.A.
> On Aug 31, 11:09 am, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric Gisin wrote:
> > > Wotta fucking green moron, completely ignorant of science.
> > > N2O comes primarily from combustion, not agriculture.
>
> > > Natural N2O comes from forest fires and
> > > bacterial decomposition of urea in piss and ammonia in fish piss.
>
> > > Ammonia based fertilizers are not responsible for much increase, but
> > > NOx from burning of fossil fuels has decreased dramatically since the
> > > 70s.
> > > NO2 is a GHG, so it is regulated by Kyotyo.
>
> > What you mean is, you cannot refute a word of the article - not one. lol
>
> •• The article is just a means of protecting their
> (publish or perish) funding. The article itself
> is harmless.
Ah, the old conspiracy theory that all science critical of human
activity is part of a funding-grab. And if not a funding-grab, it's
got to be "junk science" because some wingnut like John Stossel said
so.
But those same "skeptics" are silent when science brings them a new
smart-phone or life-saving medicine. I wonder why? Might it have
something to do with ego and deflecting accountability? Do people ever
deny reality to protect their ass-ets? You know the answer.
> •• Nitrous oxide is harmless. It gets washed into
> the earth by rainfall and fertilizes the soil.
The people actually studying N2O say it's worth keeping an eye on
because it DOES affect the ozone layer. It's less potent per unit
volume than CFCs but there's a lot more of it. Do some math.
If you'd READ the article (and many similar ones) I wouldn't have to
repeat that. Deniers are pros at ignoring what's put in front of them
unless they can make a buck off it.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Believing whatever makes you feel good is more like alcoholism than
optimism.
E.A.
<cut: reactionary rhetoric that diverted attention from salient
points>
BTW, show some respect and leave a post in the original newsgroup(s)
it was posted in. You added the agriculture & energy groups and
deleted two Dittohead groups I posted to. I guess you're used to
messing with context by default.
Original post was sent to: alt.global-warming, sci.environment,
alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Creationism proves the non-uniformity of brain evolution.
Last Post
> On Aug 30, 5:10 pm, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
> <cut: reactionary rhetoric that diverted attention from salient
> points>
>
> BTW, show some respect and leave a post in the original newsgroup(s)
> it was posted in. You added the agriculture & energy groups and
> deleted two Dittohead groups I posted to. I guess you're used to
> messing with context by default.
>
> Original post was sent to: alt.global-warming, sci.environment,
> alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
•• Neither Dittohead group is relevant while
agriculture and energy are.
•• Nobody needs to show respect to AGW fascists like you.
Last Post
•• Bullshit -
>It's less potent per unit
> volume than CFCs but there's a lot more of it. Do some math.
•• You stupidly erased the data I posted. Certainly
it is more when compared to CFCs 5.53 PPTrillion
but the Nitrous Oxide is still trivial @ 3.14 PPBillion
>
> If you'd READ the article (and many similar ones) I wouldn't have to
> repeat that. Deniers are pros at ignoring what's put in front of them
> unless they can make a buck off it.
•• As soon as you trot out "deniers" you
disqualified yourself from scientific reality.
Your ignorance is noted.