2 ms·

It should, and quite significantly. Since WW2 ended thanks to Haber-Bosch process we burn hydrocarbons stored for millions of years to suck nitrogen from air an

by ajuc 4y ago

It should, and quite significantly. Since WW2 ended thanks to Haber-Bosch process we burn hydrocarbons stored for millions of years to suck nitrogen from air and turn it into artifical fertilizers that then are used by our farmed plants and animals to make biomass that wouldn't be there otherwise. > Nearly 50% of the nitrogen found in human tissues originated from the Haber–Bosch process.[59] Thus, the Haber process serves as the "detonator of the population explosion", enabling the global population to increase from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 7.7 billion by November 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

bilsbie 4y ago
I see what you’re saying but is that a significant number compared to all the microscopic sea life, algae and soil microbes? I have no idea.
- ajuc 4y ago
  Agricultural land area is 38 percent of the global land surface, about one-third of this is used as cropland [1]. Land is 29% of Earth [2]. So we use 1/3 * 0.38 * 0.29 = 3.6% of Earth's surface for farming crops and 7% for cattle. Most of that is fertilized every year, and then the surplus fertilizer is flushed to rivers and seas and ends up in the oceans fertilizing algae there. [3] Basically we're all in the food chain, it doesn't matter where you add the new nitrogen - it goes everywhere. [1] https://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/c/1274219/ https://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/c/1274219/ [2] https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/earth.htm https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/earth.htm [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/nitrogen-fertilizers-climate-change-pollution-waterways-global-warming.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/nitrogen-fertiliz... EDIT: there are also negative effects, so it's not so simple. I'd still estimate that the global biomass should increase over time.

by ajuc 4y ago

bilsbie 4y ago

I see what you’re saying but is that a significant number compared to all the microscopic sea life, algae and soil microbes? I have no idea.

ajuc 4y ago
Agricultural land area is 38 percent of the global land surface, about one-third of this is used as cropland [1]. Land is 29% of Earth [2]. So we use 1/3 * 0.38 * 0.29 = 3.6% of Earth's surface for farming crops and 7% for cattle. Most of that is fertilized every year, and then the surplus fertilizer is flushed to rivers and seas and ends up in the oceans fertilizing algae there. [3] Basically we're all in the food chain, it doesn't matter where you add the new nitrogen - it goes everywhere. [1] https://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/c/1274219/ https://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/c/1274219/ [2] https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/earth.htm https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/earth.htm [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/nitrogen-fertilizers-climate-change-pollution-waterways-global-warming.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/nitrogen-fertiliz... EDIT: there are also negative effects, so it's not so simple. I'd still estimate that the global biomass should increase over time.