With the warm weather upon us, I officially shut down my coal insert until October. After cleaning the glass, polishing the brass handles and knobs, and cleaning out all of the coal ash for the final time, I still ask myself if I am doing the right thing. I don’t mean for my wallet, obviously, burning anthracite coal for heat has left more green in my checking account. Besides the benefit to mankind, is burning fossil fuel helpful to mother earth?
To my surprise, I watch John Stossel last night and he discussed global warming/climate change with experts on both sides. For those who don’t recall, John Stossel is the guy who approached WWF wrestler Dr. “D” David Schultz back in the 1980’s, saying to his face “I think wresting is fake”. Dr. “D” slapped Mr. Stossel twice across his ear, damaging his hearing.
Anyway, Dr. Matt Ridley was touting the benefits of burning fossil fuels. Can you image that? How can this be possible true? Below are some facts I would like to share with my friends on BMG. Basically, with the increase in CO2 into the earths atmosphere, the greener the earth has become.
“The latest and most detailed satellite data, which is yet to be published but was summarized in an online lecture last July by Ranga Myneni of Boston University, confirms that the greening of the Earth has now been going on for 30 years. Between 1982 and 2011, 20.5% of the world’s vegetated area got greener, while just 3% grew browner; the rest showed no change.
What explains this trend? Man-made nitrogen fertilizer causes crops to grow faster, but it is having little effect on forests. There are essentially two possibilities: climate and carbon dioxide itself. Warmer, wetter weather should cause more vegetation to grow. But even without warming, an increase in carbon dioxide should itself accelerate growth rates of plants. CO2 is a scarce resource that plants have trouble scavenging from the air, and plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2 to inhale.
Dr. Myneni reckons that it is now possible to distinguish between these two effects in the satellite data, and he concludes that 50% is due to “relaxation of climate constraints,” i.e., warming or rainfall, and roughly 50% is due to carbon dioxide fertilization itself. In practice, the two interact. A series of experiments has found that plants tolerate heat better when CO2 levels are higher.
The inescapable if unfashionable conclusion is that the human use of fossil fuels has been causing the greening of the planet in three separate ways: first, by displacing firewood as a fuel; second, by warming the climate; and third, by raising carbon dioxide levels, which raise plant growth rates.
In summary: Great news! Our planet is getting greener! This is true of the Amazon Rain Forest or, closer to home, New England. Even though the worlds population has doubled since the 60’s, we are using 65% less farm land to produce the same amount of food, thus releasing land back to nature. And if not for the bio-fuels program, we would need less farm land. Even Africa is getting greener even though “experts” predicted an expansion of the Sahara Desert. More rainfall = greener planet. More CO2 = more fuel for plants, which grow faster. This proves economic growth does not harm the earth. Using petroleum has allowed seals and whale populations to come back, since their blubber was no longer needed. And polar bear populations have increased, since we no longer need their fur to keep warm in the winter. Dr. Ridley also points out two countries, Haiti and Dominican Republic. Haiti uses wood (renewable fuel) and D.R. uses fossil fuels. Satellite photographs of the two show a deforestation, a browning of Hati, while D.R. looks like a map of Ireland, a lush green.
Below is a short video of Dr. Ridley explaining all of this.
http://toryaardvark.com/2013/03/14/matt-ridley-on-how-fossil-fuels-are-greening-the-planet/
http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-fossil-fuels-greened-planet/
.
John Tehan says
DFTT
Mark L. Bail says
When Trolls From Waltham compare themselves with their BMG peers, they focus egocentrically on their own skills and knowledge and insufficiently take into account the skills and knowledge of other BMGers.
In their famous troll study, Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, Trolls from Waltham will:
Christopher says
Rather than wringing hands over troll-feeding I’d love to have someone more expert than I knock down these arguments, including if appropriate or accurate shedding some light on the backgrounds of Drs. Ridley and Myneni, like if they are known deniers. The one thing that does jump out at me is including a segment on John Stossel’s show. He is a libertarian/contrarian who strikes me as the kind of person who would defend slavery just to make an argument and get a rise out of people.
kbusch says
This is the usual cherry picking DFW does combined with his usual sound-byte style of thinking. Let’s start with Hispaniola. The Haiti-Dominican Republic border is sort of famous for the stark difference in vegetation, but the cause is not that the Dominican Republic is brimming with coal plants and Haiti isn’t. It is that the Dominican Republic has had a strong history of environmental regulation. (Reference: Jared Diamond, Collapse)
Then, there’s the usual intellectual dishonesty. If I were trying to prove the thesis above, I would have said something about desertification, a process Africa is undergoing. Also the U.S. has had persistent droughts in large areas. Neither makes those parts of the world any greener. An intellectually honest person would have looked at that and addressed it somehow.
Another thing missing from all this is any kind of consideration of ecology. Think pests. Think invasive species. Think about agriculture.
kirth says
Sometimes, it’s hard not to think about pests and invasive species. Seeing posts like this one always does it for me.
John Tehan says
…is suffering under an invasion of a rather virulent style of pest.
danfromwaltham says
You do know this, right?
johnk says
supporting Lynch like you doing watching Stossel on Fox News? Danny boy what’s going on?
danfromwaltham says
Was on CNN, they had a program on presidential limousines and the Reagan assassination attempt, and went up 2 clicks and stumbled upon Stossel.
By the way, dont call me a Democrat.
kbusch says
And the effect of those fossil fuel plants exactly follows the border? Tell me, are you an idiot for pay or does it come naturally?
Rather the difference is deforestation and laws on land use. It has utterly nothing to do with fossil fuels.
This is another sign that DFW is not worth debating with because he doesn’t care about getting things right.
danfromwaltham says
Haiti does not rely on wood as a major fuel source?
kbusch says
You are not worth debating and so I am not going to waste time watching a video that you have “vetted”. I do not believe you provide an alternative point of view. I believe you simply provide a waste of time.
kbusch says
Why don’t you learn something about the island of Hispaniola, how its climate works, and what could be causing deforestation? Instead of throwing out random sound-bites to see what might sticks, do your homework and when you’ve done that, come back, and we’ll be happy to have a discussion.
petr says
…. not that other fella…
The pertinent points:
There is no scientifically agreed upon definition of the word ‘greening’, much less the far more obscure ‘browning’.
20.5 percent of the worlds “vegetated” areas (whatever is meant by “vegetated” I’m sure I don’t know) is, strictly speaking, a sentence that appears to measure color: did the “20.5” percent go from chartreuse to a shamrock green? Did we go from a cheerless olive drab to a happy lime color? As a measure of ecosystem health it is meaningless.
Assuming, for the nonce, however that there is a measurable growth from 1982 to now… What does that mean, and was there a similar “spike” in CO2? We’ve been burning CO2 pretty rampantly for well over 100 years now… why is this 30 year span where we (suddenly) see benefits?
The show of growth (if any) is easy to answer. There are two possible (possibly inter-related) answers:
A) 20.5% of the worlds “vegetated” area (if, of course, by “vegetated” one means forested and agricultural use lands)s is an extremely small slice of the planet, since the total of the “vegetated” areas is itself small. Since ecosystems are constantly changing (one of the pertinent factors in making it an ecosystem in fact) then there is no reason to believe that a 20.5% swing, in either direction, is out of the norm…
2) The deforestation rampant in the 70’s and 80’s, which has been walked (slightly) back in the 90’s and 00’s, probably presents a false picture of growth: one could more easily attribute any “greening” to the efforts of Sting to save the rain forest than the extended use of fossil fuels. conveniently for Mr Ridley, we dont’ have detailed satellite pictures much before 1980.
Save your breath dwf. I won’t answer you.
johnk says
can’t be the water and the soil could it? Nah. Don’t change Dan you are very entertaining.
danfromwaltham says
It ain’t a neatly straight line, it’s jagged. No way the entire Dominican border is lush b/c the clouds happen to form just after the Haitian border. Click the link.
http://www1.american.edu/ted/icecases/maps/haiti-dominican%20border.jpg
markbernstein says
There’s a reason the Haiti-Dominican border is jagged. Mountains! And mountain ranges have a dramatic effect on climate.
Look at the South Island of New Zealand. There’s a coastal range that runs along the Western edge. On the rainy side, you’ve got lush tropical ferns. On the dry side, you’ve got meadows and dry brush.
Or take a drive East from Palo Alto. As you climb the hills, you’ve got lush greenery. Over the ridge, you’re in the Western dessert.
Or take a look at the Mogollon area in the New Mexico-Arizona border. New Mexico hills, you’ve got pine forests and plenty of green. Come down off the hills and cross 666, you’ve got sage and mesquite and prickly-pear cactus.
This isn’t alternative science — it’s just quack nonsense cooked up for some billionaires who know it’s wrong but figure that they’ll be dead before the bills come due.
markbernstein says
Matt Ridley did earn a PhD in zoology, but he never worked as a scientist — much list a climatologist. Viscount Ridley has been science editor of The Economist, chairman of a UK bank, and directed philanthropic foundations.
danfromwaltham says
You folks need to get reorganized on this issue.
“Haiti, which was three quarters covered with forests when Europeans first came, is now 99% deforested. In contrast, the Dominican Republic remains one third covered in forests. Haiti’s lack of trees contributes to mud slides, flooding, and soil erosion that greatly increase the suffering.”
kbusch says
Because coal plants protected the forests in the Dominican Republic?
If you say anything else, you have to revise that stinking mountain of inaccuracies you call your post.
danfromwaltham says
“Haiti depends heavily on charcoal and fuelwood for cooking services. About 95 percent of Haiti’s 10 million people use these fuels for their daily cooking needs, and charcoal (39 percent) and fuelwood (32 percent) account for 71 percent of the country’s total energy consumption.”
D.R. uses fossil fuels, thus, no deforestation. So forget the theory that Cumulonimbus clouds miraculously form at the Dominican border, it ain’t the reason. Ok, g-nite. Burn some fossil fuel, green the planet at the same time. Fact Jack, I mean Kbusch…..later
kbusch says
You’ve, like, discovered that, if someone doesn’t use trees, he won’t cut them down! Why how profound! You must have used quantum mechanics for that. I bet no environmentalist has every thought of that before.
You’re a super genius!
kirth says
This thread is an excellent example of the results obtained by informed and righteous troll-feeding. Far from being sated, the troll comes back to the trough with ever-more-irritating requests for more. I recommend self-restraint. As satisfying as it may be to shoot down those ridiculous arguments, the satisfaction is short-lived, as the response triggers new and more-ridiculous arguments.
Your goal is to set the record straight. His goal is to get you (and me, and any or all of us) to take the bait and react. He does not care if he’s wrong in his facts, so long as he gets a rise out of you.
HR's Kevin says
as long as you don’t waste time taking him seriously…
kbusch says
Speaking really as the guiltiest party on this thread, too, I need to remind myself that trollery thrives on attention. Negative attention is just as much troll chow as positive attention.
In retrospect, my original answer to christopher should have been to urge him to put up a separate diary on this issue if he thought answering it was so important. The diary could have been framed as an answer to someone other than the Inconsequential One — and possibly would have been more interesting if less floridly illustrated.
markbernstein says
I know, I know. But a sensible person did ask for information, and one does want, on a site like this, to reassure people that they really can stand up to their Aunt Martha when she gets on this high horse at the holiday dinner.
But, yes, feeding trolls never pays. Sorry!
(Someday, we’re going to need to deal with a really effective team of trolls. We could do worse than practice.)
mike_cote says
You are definitely not smarter than a 3rd Grader…because.
If any student of mine turned in this level of garbage science, they would get both an F as well as spend the summer in summer school.
Absolutely ZERO understanding of the concept of Pollution.
danfromwaltham says
Here I am, coming across some researched information, and all I thought about was “Gee, I think the guys and gals on BMG would appreciate this since nobody else has written about it”. I source the quotes,with a link and a video link. I expected some to say something like we need to weigh the pros and cons in burning fossil fuels. Perhaps even a “wow, never thought of that, interesting”.
But with the exception on Petr (who told me not to ask him questions), most just name call or are very condescending towards me. Should I be more like EB3 and write about someone selling dime bags back in the day? I know his posts get multiple comments, that what BMG really wants? Accuse someone of selling dime bags worth $8. That the reality based comments we want? If he accused Markey of that, would the post even still be up?
My Harvard post got 6 recommendations!! Have any of the people who have commented on this post, ever received such positive feedback on a controversial issue? Oh Mark Bail, you never answered my question on that post, just crickets, how come? Just so you all know, I am only one “off topic” or “negative” comment away from being removed from BMG, if you can believe it.
Thanks for those who read my comments/posts and FYI, the negative comments by those don’t bother me. I am an easy target, attack me if it makes you feel better. Perhaps I post too much, but I also listen too much, and look for what others have to say on the issues of the day and don’t want to hurt other peoples feelings in my replies or posts. What you see is what you get and I’m not changing. So I enjoy me while it lasts.
mike_cote says
because you remind me of kids in grammer school who take delight in walking into a crowd and cutting the biggest, wettist, noisiest, smelliest farts possible, so he can enjoy disgusting, negative reactions. There are many here who are serious about Climate Change and the impact it is having to our environment, and there are many who feel that effort towards preserving the planet as it is is worth the effort. Yet, you through this pseudo-science in the face of people who genuinely care about the planet, knowing that it will drive people made, then you are disappointed that your “poking the bear” post isn’t praised.
I don’t believe for one minute that you thought, “Gee, I think the guys and gals on BMG will appreciate this since nobody else has written about it”. Rather, I believe you thought, “Gee, since everyone on BMG is writing against this, and against the Keystone Pipeline, and against oil spills in the Gulf and Alaska and now in Arkansas, I can really set off a stink bomb with this.”
IMHO – For what it is worth.
I have lost track, how many times have comments within your posts turned to DFTT!
kbusch says
You really, really care.
The fact that dfw can elicit such a response from you must warm his stony heart. It’s part of his power over you.
The parental sounding “I’m disappointed” is just a tactic. Don’t let it get to you, mike_cote. The world is full of annoying people: we don’t need to correct all them. There’d be no time for anything else.
danfromwaltham says
I just drive after the truth. If adding CO2 to the atmosphere is fueling plant growth, why hide the truth? I don’t believe the scientists at BU are making this up, in fact, the only explanation so far, is conservation by Sting. Perhaps the benefits outweigh the negatives, that’s all.
Mark L. Bail says