Hacker News Reader

Comment by turbinerneiter | Hacker News Reader

Is this actually forgotten in science or is just not part of the political discussion?

I.e. is it included in the models that scientists use to predict global warming?

I'm not a climate expert but already heard of this concern. It is well known in the scientific community, for more reasons than just gas emissions actually. The current techniques destroy many elements from the soil, making it very poor, which in turns increases the need for fertilizer, and leads to less biodiversity and more pollution.

The IPCC is explaining in details the impact of N2O, since the 90s [1]. The IPCC is also providing synthesis to stakeholders, but I didn't check what are their stance on N2O in these summaries.

I would say it's more absent from political discussion, which is only half true. If you promote organic agriculture (which is already subsidized in many countries), you're de facto inciting farmers to reduce the use of fertilizers, leading to less N2O emissions.

[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_wg_I_19...

N2O is included in climate models (e.g [0]), partly (as noted in this article) because it is an effective GHG. It is also important for ozone chemistry and understanding ozone depletion [1].

[0] - https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019JD03...

[1] - https://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5949/123

I thought the usual unit on the usual plots is "equivalent CO2 tons", which includes non-CO2 contributions.

I had the same thought, but the article clarifies that the problem is in policy:

> But despite its important contribution to climate change, N2O emissions have largely been ignored in climate policies.

They are. Unfortunately it's difficult to explain scientific details to a largely uninformed public.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com