Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nitrous Oxide – A forgotten greenhouse gas

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Nitrous Oxide – A forgotten greenhouse gas

#71

Post by stinos »

southerntofu wrote: post #64
stinos wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really sure what you're hinting at, but yes using robots instead of herbicides would be a step forward. Robots can be programmed to not leak out into surrounding nature. And actually yes maintaining a variety of weeds/bush around crops has been shown to be beneficial in certain circumstances: more insects attract more predators of all kinds and as such can create an ecosystem which lead to less plagues on the cro…

> Robots can be programmed to not leak out into surrounding nature. I don't think you can "program" a robot to avoid loosing micro-particles of its shell, or to prevent leaky/self-flammable batteries. Also i'm pretty sure the manufacture of the robot would incur processes that are much more devastating to the environment, eg. extracting and refining materials. All in all, i agree with your point that chemical fertili…

Heh, didn't know solarpunk was a thing. Anyway: materials etc are definitely a valid concern, but even in a worst case scenario I'm not sure a complete cost-benefit analysis would turn out negative for such robot. I looked around a bit (because robots in agriculture are a thing already) but couldn't find such numbers. But considering one robot could tackle many acres for many years (hopefully), compared with the kilograms of herbicides/pesticides used otherwise, it's just hard to guess which way the scale would tip.

Re: Nitrous Oxide – A forgotten greenhouse gas

#73

Post by sokoloff »

hkt wrote: post #70
sokoloff wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just repeated your assertion from the prior comment. Maybe you’re right, but introducing additional data, information, or argument is more helpful to the discussion than just saying “Yuh-huh”

I honestly thought this was so established as to be obvious. I was mistaken, so, sorry. Here's a link that talks about how plants deposit carbon into the soil: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/685/237929 The key line would be this, from a cursory reading: "Long-term (millennia) C sequestration can be achieved when C from aboveground biomass transfers to the roots and enters the pool of SOC or SIC (her…

Thanks. I’ll have a read this weekend. I am among the people who assumed that over a hundred year period the overwhelming majority of carbon taken into plants was released back as CO2 through consumption, combustion, and decomposition (and that very little was permanently deposited into the soil).

Re: Nitrous Oxide – A forgotten greenhouse gas

#74

Post by TeMPOraL »

hkt wrote: post #70
sokoloff wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just repeated your assertion from the prior comment. Maybe you’re right, but introducing additional data, information, or argument is more helpful to the discussion than just saying “Yuh-huh”

I honestly thought this was so established as to be obvious. I was mistaken, so, sorry. Here's a link that talks about how plants deposit carbon into the soil: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/685/237929 The key line would be this, from a cursory reading: "Long-term (millennia) C sequestration can be achieved when C from aboveground biomass transfers to the roots and enters the pool of SOC or SIC (her…

Thanks for the link, I'll look at it too. I'm also in the group of people who assumed almost everything the plants sequester gets quickly recovered by other plants and organisms, and is part of the growth-sequester/decompose-release cycle.

Re: Nitrous Oxide – A forgotten greenhouse gas

#75

Post by blingscramble »

PanosJee wrote: post #36

Augmenta.ag fixes that They use machine vision & hyperapectral cameras to estimate nitrogen on the leaves and accordingly spread more, less or no fertilizer.

Interesting approach. Currently pairing soil testing with tissue testing is cost effective tool to put a value on the fertility growers apply to their fields. We need this movement towards efficient nutrient management to continue to adapt and/or add tools to address eutrophication of our watersheds due to point source runoff. Better nutrient management also brings a positive effect to growers agronomics.

Re: Nitrous Oxide – A forgotten greenhouse gas

#77

Post by BenjiWiebe »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #74
hkt wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly thought this was so established as to be obvious. I was mistaken, so, sorry. Here's a link that talks about how plants deposit carbon into the soil: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/685/237929 The key line would be this, from a cursory reading: "Long-term (millennia) C sequestration can be achieved when C from aboveground biomass transfers to the roots and enters the pool of SOC or SIC (her…

Thanks for the link, I'll look at it too. I'm also in the group of people who assumed almost everything the plants sequester gets quickly recovered by other plants and organisms, and is part of the growth-sequester/decompose-release cycle.

Remember the post-decomposition "soil" is extremely carbon rich.

Re: Nitrous Oxide – A forgotten greenhouse gas

#78

Post by modo_mario »

jiinga wrote: post #68

The most concerning source of nitrous oxide isn't even mentioned in the article and that's the thawing of the permafrost. Thawing permafrost is releasing massive amounts of CO2, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide, and the thawing permafrost is locked into a positive feedback loop, the warmer it gets the more the permafrost thaws, the more greenhouse gases get released, causing it to get warmer. https://news.harvard.edu/gazet…

> which account for 50-80% of all the oxygen in the atmosphere >When that population crashes, it will not only impact the oxygen levels in the atmosphere

Why is this?

Re: Nitrous Oxide – A forgotten greenhouse gas

#79

Post by esarbe »

charbonneau wrote: post #66
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to assume that was supposed to be sarcasm and it is a) going over people's head and b) being willfully misinterpreted because it hits too close to home.

I thought it's too obvious for a /s. Oh well

Never underestimate people's vanity.
Post reply on HN