HN user
It is not tenuous to suggest that modern agricultural crops will yield more in a higher CO2 environment (look into greenhouses). It is actually far less tenuous than speculating that CO2 is causing runaway global warming.
You must have never delved too much into science then. There are certain claims that have been well established for so long that citations are no longer needed. For example, we don't need citations to state the order of colours in a rainbow. Likewise, I don't need a citation to state that plant biomass increases with a greater concentration of CO2. That's basic science, it's unequivocal and not controversial. On the other hand, the previous dude made wild speculation about increased CO2 causing increased soil depletion. I'm sorry if you don't see the difference. Not everyone is suited to being a scientist.
It's well established that increased CO2 leads to increased plant biomass, thereby satisfying my claim that it leads to increased agricultural yield (as per greenhouses for example).
My claim that increased CO2 leads to more biodiversity is more tenuous but is more likely than a decrease in biodiversity, all other factors being controlled for.
Really?
You're going to extrapolate from lower nitrogen levels in plants in higher CO2 conditions (without a citation, might i add) to higher CO2 levels causing overall lower nutrition? and more aggressive soil depletion? Keep in mind that obviously more plant growth means more plant decay which cycles back int othe ecosystem.
Are you trying to suggest that we should be decreasing agricultural yields so as to prevent soil depletion? There are better ways.
Almost all of those cases can have explanations that are not global warming related.
For example, in Canada those fires were huge because of too-efficient fire suppression methods. Not enough controlled fires were done in that area and Fort Mcmurray expanded beyond its Fire Protection zone.
Not every weather-related catastrophe is caused by global warming, that just harms the credibiltiy of that argument
I can take all that money if you'd like and plant a few trees?
Thank god for negative feedback loops eh? I'm actually glad we have more CO2 in the atmosphere, because it will increase biodiversity and agricultural yields. I don't see any evidence that climate change is proceeding at a fast enough pace to cause damage.
Hey Eddie, thanks for getting back to me.
I was wondering when image recognition was going to play a stronger role in the use of drones for agriculture. When I was doing it, it was simply using combinations of spectral bands and not really delving into pattern recognition. Sounds like that's the right way to be headed. Obviously just at the beginnings of it and I appreciate that you know the current limitations of the technology. But still, that's impressive.
Also curious if you are using satellite imagery in any contextual way or to train your image recognition in any way? Or if you are using the lIDAR already available at all? I imagine you are collecting higher-resolution LIDAR when you fly over?
Anyway, good luck with this, sounds like you guys are doing it right.
Hey, thanks for responding.
I'm curious what the custom-built sensors for specific diseases are? Are you using hyperspectral cameras? I know there was a lot of research into spectral fingerprints of specific diseases.
Also, in regards to the data from the end of season, where you monitor the quality of the crops coming out of the ground. How do you think that assists agricutlrual decision-making? E.g. are you able to predict the quality of the grain and that, in some way, makes it easier to manage?
Again, thanks for answering my questions
Hey Nikhil, I am interested in what you are using drones for in agriuculture. I was using drones about 2 years ago for farming and helping farmers optimize different things and am curious how far it's come since then.
Back then, we were just beginning to see the possibilities. Of course we'd do drainage mapping, NDVI maps (as a yield-correlate), we found success mapping field trials and monitoring field trials.
There were alot of possiblities we could've gotten into, but we found it hard to totally commercialize. For example, trying to map chlorophyll content, or water content. Water content was an easier sell, but I got the feeling that drone-assisted precision agriculture was very much still in its infancy at that point, more hype than substance. I am wondering what you think now? What are you actually using your drones for, commercially, but with specific regards to the actual agriculture decision-making.
Thanks eh.
Really? You're going to deny online access to people with emotional issues? That's like, the entire population. That's not even a slippery slope, that's just falling off the cliff entirely.
I'm from Canada, and all I can say is I wish the doctors up here actually listened to your opinion on your own medical condition.
While it is important to consult and listen to doctors, I do think people trust their doctors too much. People should always field second opinions, especially before major interventions. Also, people shouldn't discount their own understandings of their condition.
But seriously, up in Canada I feel like we have a 3rd world medical system for dealing with chronic health conditions. For acute medical conditions, we're amongst the best in the world. But if it's chronic? Or if we cannot diagnose it? Good f'n luck, my friend.
^ One of the only reasonable responses here.
Wow, we must've watched different shows then. I thought the cinematography was incredible! easily beats out almost anything hollywood produces otherwise. A beautiful show perspecitve-wise.
I just really don't agree with your interpretation, but to each their own. Great show all around.
But of course it the lymphatic system eliminates toxins too. I mean, obviously this is all getting into semantics, but the lymphatic system helps to eliminate more than just metabolic products and waste, it will also help eliminate dead bacteria, heavy metals, etc, which could certainly be called toxins
what...? Do you not know any biology at all? Of course the lymphatic system is meant to eliminate toxins... Jeez, take some bio 101 before posting, you sound like a quack
The lymphatic system is specifically for removing toxins, so naturally it's function is implied
tbh, I found this much more confusing to read than normal biology papers.
The specific makeup of Lichens though, is an extremely niche field, that doesn't affect the broader field of Biology in any significant way.
Well you would be wrong. This guy almost single-handedly led the way to enabling the cultivation of lichen in laboratory conditions, something that has had very limited success up until now.
What are the benefits of cultivating lichen? It's another way to farm biological molecules. As it turns out, Lichen are actually composed of 2 fungi not just 1. Basidiomycetes and Ascomycete. So that's a huge crop of potential medicines, or manufacturing catalysts that can be economically produced now.
So give this guy a lil more credit. Just because you don't care about lichens, doesn't mean "most biologists don't care about it". He has literally, no hyperbole, overturned 150 years of biology. It is that significant.
Also, it's very arrogant of you to suggest that most biologists do not care about this discovery. At the very least, it is humbling to all biologists. And as such, most, if not all, biologists will care about this discovery precisely because it shows that we can be missing something so fundamental for so long.
no she wouldn't. Look at the whole emailgate scandal.
He's not a murderer, unlike the other option
He's not a murderer, unlike the other option
It was very Machiavellian.
Unfortunate that we're just hearing crickets on the international level though. It's a damn shame that a systematic rebuke of Erdogan's official narrative isn't anywhere in the mainstream media.
The coup was never real to begin with. There have been so many holes in this narrative that it's like swiss cheese. Why did the military not fire on Erdogan when he was in their sights? Why did Erdogan even risk flying into Istanbul when he knew there would've been a significant chance of being shot down? The answer of course is that he knew there was no risk cause it was a fake coup to begin with.
I'm sorry if I've angered you by showing you that the scientific method doesn't produce perfect science, just like the methods of science that psychology use doesn't produce perfect science either. I'm not rumbling, just giving words of advice that hopefully you'll heed if you actually want to be a scientist and not just a naive lab rat. To each their own though, you just perfectly demonstrated the arrogant attitude that is ruining science today. Why read OP's article when we have you as all the proof we need?
Strawmen for days!
Just answer me this: Do you believe that the science is purely limited to the scientific method?
Just riddle me that and I'll be content. Just keep in mind that you'll be outing yourself as scientifically illiterate.
ah, good, no substantial reply. I thought you were just trolling and you were. Thank you for justifying everything I just said. Glad to know you agree that science does not = the scientific method
The replication crisis isn't only within the soft sciences, but nice try.
According to a 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists, 70% of them failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments (50% failed to reproduce their own experiment). These numbers differ among disciplines:
chemistry: 90% (60%), biology: 80% (60%), physics and engineering: 70% (50%), medicine: 70% (60%), Earth and environment science: 60% (40%).
But it's just the social sciences right? Thank god we have the scientific method! Otherwise we'd be lost! Heaven forbid
Arbitrary confines of science is when you limit science to the scientific method. Well-defined science is frankly an insult to science
You can't have less/more reliable knowledge. Science can't be half-wrong and half-right.
I wasn't trolling, but I think you might be?
Of course science can be more/less reliable or half-wrong/half-right. The truth isn't binary, it's closer to fuzzy logic sets.
And as much as you would like to call the "soft" sciences pseudosceince, you are doing yourself a disservice. In reality, your attitude suggests that you are closer to a pseudoscientist than the "soft" scientists you are so eager to dismiss. Narrow-mindedness like you are epsousing is the reason why science is in the dumps.