I was attacked for saying this at @WSJ in 2013: https://t.co/HLaFRBdyDb. But today's news https://t.co/YxMAIds8k0 confirms it.
— Matt Ridley (@mattwridley) April 25, 2016
This could only have been controversial in an environment completely devoured by ideology.
Note that myneni latest estimates have risen of both global greening (now 25-50% of veg land) & co2 responsibility (now 70%)
— Matt Ridley (@mattwridley) April 25, 2016
sure the green parts are greener but was meeting with some folks working with satellites/gps mapping on soil-degradation/desertification/drought and dislocation of population and things are pretty grim, check out the numbers in China alone.
The linked paper gives aggregate foliage increase, though.
yes but localized, check the maps
I’d be stunned if the loss of arable land in China — for non-random e.g. — was primarily climate change dependent.
if you still separate climate from engineering et al that would make sense, those of us dwelling in the anthropocene find the feedback looping to say otherwise.
twitcut 111?
Leonard Lopate Show @LeonardLopate 3h3 hours ago
The fantasy and illusion of apolitical money- gold, silver, bitcoin- is mistaken and toxic, says @yanisvaroufakis
i kid…
“The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms.”
There seems to be a conflict in the sources interpretations of the data.
Anyone who suggests this isn’t complicated is an obvious fool (which is basically the sole point I’m taking away from this).