211–220 of 278 posts
Tangentially related, I want a dataset of all cultivated lands and what crops they are growing? Is there a dataset for it? I mean, I give GPS coordinates and I get back crops growing there.
- https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/
- https://www.nass.usda.gov/Research_and_Science/Cropland/Rele...
- https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explain the reaction that turns electricity into nitrogen based fertilizer. What are the other inputs and outputs of the process? Are you forgetting the most important ingredient?
The Haber-Bosch reaction is what turns atmospheric dinitrogen (N2) into ammonia. Ammonia can be oxidized to make nitric acid and nitrate fertilizers, combined with carbon dioxide to make urea, or used as-is for fertilizer. The inputs to the Haber-Bosch reaction are hydrogen and nitrogen gases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process The nitrogen is easily separated from air. The hydrogen is the energetically expe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same problem with climate change. 1) You assume technology will be better. There is no guarantee that this will be true. 2) Externalities like mass migration or civil unrest that could occur from food shortages would mean we don’t have a chance in the future to tackle the problem effectively.
Nuclear power can solve climate change now. Technology doesn't need to be better. People don't want to solve the problem now because 1) We don't need to solve it now 2) Fear of impending doom is a great way to push a wide array of agendas (ideological, economic, political) forward.
Could you not go and just read some real literature on climate and natural ecosystem dynamics before deciding to believe all this nonsense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same problem with climate change. 1) You assume technology will be better. There is no guarantee that this will be true. 2) Externalities like mass migration or civil unrest that could occur from food shortages would mean we don’t have a chance in the future to tackle the problem effectively.
Nuclear power can solve climate change now. Technology doesn't need to be better. People don't want to solve the problem now because 1) We don't need to solve it now 2) Fear of impending doom is a great way to push a wide array of agendas (ideological, economic, political) forward.
Exactly the type of do-nothing idiocy I'd expect from this place. What exactly do you think you're contributing here?
On every single important topic, HN consistently pushes to the top whatever sentiment contains the least actionable information.
People here are simpletons that can't even fathom anything other than the status quo, even to the point that they'll condone killing off all other life on the planet as long as they don't have to address their own gluttony and revolting ignorance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
States like Colorado require all new subdivisions to have HOAs
Is that a State law or just a common practice for most suburban development?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't have to go anywhere, it can just "die" - lose its ability to hold water, nutrients, fungus, microbes - everything necessary for it to be beneficial to plants.
So they've done what's all too common these days... gone and changed what a word means. Dead topsoil is dead topsoil. It doesn't become rock or subsoil or something else. The title of this post is "corn belt has lost a third of its topsoil". It should be "a third of the top soil in the corn belt is badly degraded" or something like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extractive ones will always burn out in the long run as they will run out of resources to extract. They either learn to live in the waste they've produced, i.e. they become recyclers , or they simply die off. It's a question of how much collateral damage they do over their lifetime. No matter how bad they screw up, in the very long run, Earth has a tendency to figure out how to recycle the raw materials. After all, E…
Yeah, mother earth is fine. Whether humanity will suffer a catastrophe of our own making is another question.
I guess the dead rock ball will still be fine.
Just imagine how much Glyphosate has been dumped on that soil. Don't know if it's true but someone once told me nothing will grow in a corn field for 5 years afterwards unless it is roundup ready. There has been a lot of talk lately we are like 60 harvests away from disaster. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-... *Generating three centimeters of top soil takes 1,000 years* We are f...ed the…
Found this:
> A typical field half-life of 47 days has been suggested.
> Glyphosate adsorbs tightly to soil. Glyphosate and its residues are expected to be immobile in soil.
> The median half-life of glyphosate in water varies from a few days to 91 days.
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/glyphotech.html#env
5 years should be more like 2 years, but its direct impact on the soil is relatively short. We're not talking DDT or Agent Orange, here.
If anyone is curious I am working on an open source farming robot meant to be used for regenerative agriculture techniques. My hope is that we can build robotic tools that work the land more like human hands do instead of the big tools and poisons we use today. If you like that kind of thing please take a look: https://community.twistedfields.com/t/introducing-acorn-a-pr...
That thing is worse for the soil than a big tractor. It has to make more tire tracks to cover the field, and soil compaction is sub liner with weight so overall it is doing more damage. Sure where the tractor tires are it is worse, but the tractor tires skip a lot of space those harm.