NationStates Jolt Archive

Nitrogen oxides, the principal component of photochemical smog...

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12058-nitrogen-pollution-drives-trees-to-soak-up-more-cosub2sub.html

Young, rapidly growing trees take more carbon from the atmosphere than old trees, so the researchers accounted for this in their calculations.

"If you take away age effects, then despite the large variability between the forests in tree type and climate, you find a surprising correspondence between carbon storage and nitrogen deposition," says Magnani.

The researchers found that on average for every kilogram of nitrogen that is deposited on the forest floor (by rainfall, for example), an extra 400 kg of CO2 is absorbed.

If forests were an isolated system, the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere as the trees grow would be balanced over time by the release of the same gas as dead trees decompose.

"But if you have an input from outside you break the cycle and increase one side," explains Magnani. In this case, the outside input comes from human nitrogen deposits, which are making plants grow faster than they decompose, and the resulting imbalance leads to net carbon storage.

Yah, we don't know enough - but it's interesting to note that not all pollutants are all bad in all cases.

Perhaps before we say, "this pollutant is a bad thing" we need to find out if it's doing any good anywhere...

A long time ago, oxygen was excrement. Now, it's a neccessity. It all depends upon your definition of "pollution."

Of course pollution can be good! The holes in the ozone layer make it easier to get a tan on the beach don't they? And the temperatures are very nice thanks to global warming!

Interesting. It certainly warrants further research, and could potentially be rather useful it combating global warming.
A long time ago, oxygen was excrement. Now, it's a neccessity. It all depends upon your definition of "pollution."
According to my biology book(unless I'm remembering incorrectly) pollution is the release of harmful substances into the environment by humans, so by definition(to address the thread title) pollution is always bad. However if nitrogen oxides aren't harmful, then they're not pollution.

Don't try. You can't outdo FAG.

Don't try. You can't outdo FAG.

Noob, this isn't trolling. Try reading the thread instead of judging it by it's OP.

Noob, this isn't trolling. Try reading the thread instead of judging it by it's OP.

You tell him Noobsmasher! :D

You tell him Noobsmasher! :D

*smashes noobs everwhere*
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRR

I ARE NOOB SMASHOR!

Pollution is per definition something we release in such excessive quantities that it alters the balance of local and global ecosystems. It doesn't matter if these compounds are already present in nature, the quantities matter here. And if excessive quantities threaten biodiversity, it's bad.

I guess it's how one looks at it. For instance, the planet was cooled by SO2 emissions. If we start spewing that stuff out again, we all can probably solve global warming fairly rapidly.

Can pollution be good?


pol·lu·tion /pəˈluʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[puh-loo-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act of polluting or the state of being polluted.
2. the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment: air pollution.


No it can not be

According to my biology book(unless I'm remembering incorrectly) pollution is the release of harmful substances into the environment by humans, so by definition(to address the thread title) pollution is always bad. However if nitrogen oxides aren't harmful, then they're not pollution.
Strange definition, that. So, other animals (or plants) are incapable of polluting? And harmful to whom? You see, it does matter who defines ;)

I guess it's how one looks at it. For instance, the planet was cooled by SO2 emissions. If we start spewing that stuff out again, we all can probably solve global warming fairly rapidly.

Global warming is more complicated than the earth just getting hotter.

Interesting. It certainly warrants further research, and could potentially be rather useful it combating global warming.

According to my biology book(unless I'm remembering incorrectly) pollution is the release of harmful substances into the environment by humans, so by definition(to address the thread title) pollution is always bad. However if nitrogen oxides aren't harmful, then they're not pollution.
Agreed.

Strange definition, that. So, other animals (or plants) are incapable of polluting?
By that definition, no, they cannot.
And harmful to whom? You see, it does matter who defines ;)

Why does it matter who or what it is harmful too? If it's harmful to anything it's clearly bad.

Yah, we don't know enough - but it's interesting to note that not all pollutants are all bad in all cases.

Perhaps before we say, "this pollutant is a bad thing" we need to find out if it's doing any good anywhere...

Doing good for what?

Hydrogen cars emit water vapor. Harmless to humans, but still a greenhouse gas, i.e. it contributes to the greenhouse effect/climate change.

Sulfer dioxide from volcanoes cools, but it also produces acid rain killing forests which are carbon sinks. And it is hard to do a controlled experiment on a volcano. This is one of the problems: you can't run an experiement in the lab. You can run a computer model, but there are various problems with them. So what do you do? Unfortunately, we are using the planet itself as a lab.

There are many interconnected variables in climate change, so it is misleading to say that X is good.

http://www.ipcc.ch for the latest UN reports on climate change. Keep in mind that these are political documents and the oil industry/countries have had their hands all over them.

Nitrogen from agriculture is one of the major reasons why the Baltic sea is dieing. The Baltic is divided into 2 zones, heavy salt water from the oceans at the bottom and lighter brackish water from rivers at the surface. Nitrogen feeds bacteria in the seabed so they grow out of control and use up all oxygen in the deep salt water while no new oxygen is added from the atmosphere because the brackish water on top is in the way so all life suffocates.

Only fish living in the brackish water that exchanges oxygen with the atmosphere survives. But at the surface nitrogen feeds poisonous algae that occasionally makes the surface water unfit to bath in.

So nitrogen may have some good effects as the OP pointed out but be very careful with where it ends up. The environment is very complex and consequences can be very different in different locations. Ozone is poisonous and bad at ground level, freons on the other hand are bad in the ozone layer where ozone is good.

But the better weather... the sun tans...

Noob, this isn't trolling. Try reading the thread instead of judging it by it's OP.

My mistake. And don't call me noob.

I don't like the word pollution. It's too black and white. Pollution is only pollution relative to the perceived effect.

Global warming is more complicated than the earth just getting hotter.

No. The complicated part is climate change. There's a difference in my mind.

No. The complicated part is climate change. There's a difference in my mind.
Well glad in your mind it is that way

A bunch of the rest of the world defines it as such


In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term "climate change" often refers only to changes in modern climate, including the rise in average surface temperature known as global warming. In some cases, the term is also used with a presumption of human causation, as in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC uses "climate variability" for non-human caused variations.[1]

Further more even taken out of recent usage "global warming" is just a subset of "climate change" specifically an upward trend in climate change

Well glad in your mind it is that way

A bunch of the rest of the world defines it as such



Further more even taken out of recent usage "global warming" is just a subset of "climate change" specifically an upward trend in climate change
That's exactly what I said.