Greenhouse Effect – the hidden players

 kw: analytical projects, greenhouse effect, global warming, absorption spectra, saturation

Reading a book about agriculture led me to thinking about the "hidden" greenhouse gases. I am sure almost everyone has read or heard that methane is 80 times as potent as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. I recently learned that nitrous oxide (laughing gas, also a dental anesthetic) is between 250 and 300 times as potent as carbon dioxide. Both of these gases are produced by agricultural activity, so they have increased in the past 200 years as agriculture has been increasingly mechanized, and as chemical fertilizers have been used in ever-increasing amounts. (I generated this image using Leonardo AI; it is free of copyright restrictions)

I researched in several sources to find answers to these questions:

• What were the concentrations of nitrous oxide and methane prior to the Industrial Revolution?
• What are their concentrations now?
• How to they affect global warming?
• Are there other greenhouse gases we should be concerned about?

To simplify the text, I will dispense with formatting the numbers in chemical formulas as subscripts. Thus, CO2 = Carbon Dioxide, CH4 = Methane, and N2O = Nitrous Oxide (Nitrogen has several oxides; only this one is important here).

Here is the connection with agriculture: The middle-American farm belt was created by plowing the prairie and planting grain crops. Today, by far the most important crops are corn and soybeans. The thick, rich prairie soils contained a 10,000-year store of CO2, deposited by the roots of grasses and held there as they decomposed. Plowing the prairie released the CO2 at a pretty steady rate over the past century. It is still going on. Plowing also releases stored CH4.

When I lived in South Dakota in the 1970's and early 1980's, most of the agriculture in the state was cattle ranching, with some grain crops being grown in the eastern third. Since that time seed companies have developed strains of corn and soybeans that can better resist drought, begin growing at lower temperature and ripen faster. South Dakota cattle ranches are being plowed and sown with grains at a steady rate.

Secondly, overuse of nitrogen fertilizer causes much of the "extra" to be converted to N2O. Large amounts also go downstream and contribute to the Dead Zone offshore of the Mississippi Delta.

Thirdly, cattle produce a lot of methane, and the reduction in cattle numbers in the Dakotas is more than offset by continued increases elsewhere; also, plowing the prairie releases CH4, and all this is added to the amount released by fossil fuel production. I have yet to see a credible analysis of all the sources of CH4.

Yet all we ever hear about is the rise in concentration of CO2 alone. This is indeed significant, from about 280 ppm in the 1700's to about 440 ppm today. This "baseline increase" is (440-280)/280 = 0.57, a 57% increase in the past century or so. 

What of CH4 and N2O? Let us first convert them to equivalent CO2. I'll leave out a lot of words and summarize the figures:

1. CH4 as a GHG is 80x as effective as CO2. Current CH4 concentration is 1.9 ppm; times 80 that is equivalent to 152 ppm CO2. In the 1700's, CH4 was 0.72 ppm, or CO2 equivalent (CO2eq)  of 57.6 ppm.
2. N2O as a GHG is ~280x as effective as CO2. Current N2O concentration is 0.34 ppm; times 280 that is equivalent to 95.2 ppm CO2. In the 1700's, N2O was 0.27 ppm, or CO2eq of 75.6 ppm.

Added together, these two gases presently have CO2eq of 247. The preindustrial level was 133. Let's add these to CO2 to see the real picture of the greenhouse effect at these two times:

• Preindustrial: 280+133 = 413 ppm CO2eq
• Today: 440+247 = 687 ppm CO2eq
• (687-413)/413 = 0.66, a 66% increase in CO2eq

The actual increase in CO2eq is greater than the effect of CO2 alone. Suppose we could reduce CH4 and N2O to preindustrial levels. This would subtract 114 ppm CO2eq, for 573. Then (573-413)/413 = 0.39, or 39% increase in CO2eq, compared to preindustrial. To put this in context according to the mental model held by "climate crisis" folks, for CO2 only, a 39% increase over 280 ppm would be 389 ppm. That is about where we stood in 2011; it winds back the clock sixteen years!

Let us focus a moment on N2O. By itself, increase in the concentration of this gas is responsible for about 20 ppm CO2eq, the last nine years of increase. This is nearly all due to overfertilization. Guess which industry complex is bigger and has a stronger lobby in DC than oil and gas? Agriculture plus agrichemicals (particularly fertilizer). I have read in more than one place that without artificial nitrogen-based fertilizer, the world's farmland could support no more than four billion people. It is very complex to analyze just how much fertilizer could be reduced to still support the current world population, but reduce nitrate runoff and outgassing of N2O into the atmosphere. For the moment, I just have to leave these thoughts unfinished. If we could come up with a plan, powerful interests would oppose it.

At this point in my analysis I wondered what other greenhouse gases exist, and how they might modify the picture. As it happens, nothing much. Here is a table I worked from for the figures above, which adds six greenhouse gases that, together, are sometimes written about in very scary terms, but have no practical effect at present:

First, ground level Ozone (O3) has a modest Global Warming Potential (GWP: 1.5 x CO2), and exists in the 1-10 parts per billion range, so it is not effectively a greenhouse gas. Then, the industrial chemicals Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) and Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3) have very high GWP, but exist at levels of a few parts per trillion. To totally eliminate them would reduce CO2eq by much less than one percent (see the black text at the bottom of the table)

Various fluorinated refrigerants, those highlighted in brown, have very high GWP, but also exist at levels of a few parts per trillion, so together, they also amount to less than one percent (the brown text). Thus, they present no useful "targets" for ameliorating the greenhouse effect.

My aim here has been to back off a few steps to see a bigger picture. As it happens, this points a finger where none has been pointed before, at farmers. A significant proportion of the increase in CO2eq results from farm practices. In particular, far too many farmers use more fertilizer than their crops really need. There is too much of, "a little more might help." No, it doesn't, it harms. It even harms the farmer, who spends more than needed on fertilizer that isn't helping.

I have a philosophical point to end with. I think that the greenhouse effect will prove to be more beneficial than otherwise. The "father of greenhouse warming", Svante Arrhenius, thought so. Another degree or two of warming is likely to make more of Canada and Siberia amenable to crop production, and let's not forget South Africa and Argentina. On another note, I saw an article recently with a headline, "550,000 will die of extreme heat." The subhead said, "The greatest cause of early death." The article never mentioned that 4.6 million will die from cold. Nine times as many! The subhead is, quite simply, a lie, and the article is utterly one-sided deception. I suspect many of those 4.6 million would love for their home country to be a little warmer.