I don't know how many regulars, if any , read The Spectator, but some of you might be interested in an article written by Matt Ridley on P15 of the 22nd October issue of the magazine. It's a story that warming/climate CO2-haters don't want you to know. It is a story that caused the writer to be villified by the climate gangsters, and it even earned him the criticism of of the man who discovered the phenomenon

More intrigue and monkey business from the climate frauds. Well worth a read.

Thank you for the reference to Myneni's work. I've just Ridley's article, and Myneni's latest, 2016, and will download and read the rest.

Ridley wrote: "But it’s so controversial that even Dr Myneni felt the need to criticise me for publicising his research. At the end of last year, he said I had been wrong to claim that carbon dioxide fertilisation is ‘responsible for the greening of the earth’."

I can see exactly why Myneni was concerned; because Ridley (and now on OLO) (mis)used the work to do the standard ad hominem attack ("climate gangsters").

This is not controversial; it is known and was predicted. Plenty of research has been done on extended growing seasons, expansion of areas where crops can be grown due to changing rainfall patterns, thawing permafrost etc. - in fact these aspects are major areas of evidence of global warming not dependent on modelling.

There's still the question of how much of the observed greening is due to increased carbon dioxide, and how much to warming per se (through the effects of longer seasons, warmer soil, increased rainfall in some places) - it's likely to be a complex combination of all these factors, and others, and will vary from place to place. The paper by Myneni and his co-authors discusses this. I can think of something else that would need to be taken into account: the change in vegetation from forest to crops which is happening on a big scale in parts of the world. Remote sensing using infra-red is likely to pick up annual crop areas as 'greener' than the forests they replaced.

There will be pluses and minuses from global warming: this is one of the pluses; and a good thing too, since we will need to grow food more efficiently in smaller areas when the large population dispersal from the coastal cities happens as sea-level rises and drowns them. Loss of good farmland to urban spread is already an issue in Australia and elsewhere.

So, don't become a climate gangster yourself by misusing this research to attack the other side!

The lying Left are the champions of personal insults against anyone disagreeing with them. I use a bit of it myself to get them used to the idea that not all conservatives are nice fluffy pussies who take crap from riffraff because they like to seen as gentlemen. I have to admit that most of the Left are too arrogant or thick to get the message. You have shown you don't like it, even though nothing was directed at you. Perhaps you identify with the people I liken to gangsters? Are you a natural offence taker? Do you think we should all believe what you believe?

I cannot see how you can claim that the information is well known when it clearly is not. Well known by the gangsters who were keeping it quiet, perhaps? Scientists who should know that many, if not most, of their theories on climate, have NOT been proved right by consequences, are still lying; and the Left of politics, which previously thought science was "socially constructed" and that its results do "not depend on evidence but on the wishes of the powerful", are now lauding the science which is aiding their own power in their fight to control people, impoverished by them through the man-made climate change lie. All of their lies and bulldust about climate is part of their plan to gain that control. As one author wrote, only the Alt Consrvatives can see this and resist it.

Hi Cossomby/Ttbn,

I don't know whether it is Left or Right to point out that my ancestors across the British Isles would have been glad of longer growing seasons, warmer soil, etc. Much warmer still and they probably would have stayed home :) A fellow-Scotsman has reminded me that once they grew grapes in the borderlands.

My very limited knowledge of photosynthesis etc. suggests that, with increased CO2, plants don't just grow more rapidly but use water more efficiently as well. So my crackpot idea of planting vast swathes of carefully-selected species of trees across the North, employing Aboriginal labour well into the next few centuries, producing furniture and housing timber forever, may be feasible: not so much the 'warmer soil', but the increased rainfall and increased efficiency in utilising it. Win-win-win-win !

Dumb question: how much of Siberia and Canada would be opened up to production by each degree-rise in temperature ? i.e. the tundra opened up to become taiga, the taiga opened up to become grain-producing land, the steppe and prairie lands opened up to more intensive production ?

Cossomby, another truly dumb question: how much land is swallowed up by rising sea-levels for each degree-rise in temperature ? i.e. by an inch or so ? i.e. the tides come in, up maybe an extra couple of feet of beach ? Living near the beach here in Adelaide, I can't say I've seen much 'drowning' yet. Which reminds me, I've got to get a rubber dinghy and moor it in the backyard: you never know :)

Hmmmm, and a couple of boxes of baked beans and corned beef too >:(

And bottles of fresh water. And water-proof toilet paper. No, that wouldn't work. God, so much to worry about.

Joe

Yeah ttbn, in fact they don't want you to know so much that they openly commented on the published research SIX MONTHS AGO.

Oh, that's right, they buried it in the Conversation:
http://theconversation.com/rising-carbon-dioxide-is-greening-the-earth-but-its-not-all-good-news-58282

And only ignorant lefty fools ever bother to read that.

I think that Matt Ridley misrepresents the study a little, by implying that there was much more vegetation, eg. a whole continents worth!, when the study is only two dimensional and doesn't differentiate between forest and pasture. So, felled forests that may be replaced by pasture don't show up as 'browning'. Therefore we do not know what the actual increase in biomass is, or even if there is any increase in biomass.

I suspect there is a reasonable biomass increase, as total emissions have risen far greater than what remains in the atmosphere, so there is a dynamic sink that is removing a percentage of those emissions. I think the authors are right to say that we do not know how far this trend can continue. Plants also need water and phosphorus and these could certainly be limiting to growth rates, and the point at that peak would be reached is currently unknown.
One thing that Ridley did fail to mention was that the carbon dioxide levels are continuing to rise at a pretty steady level, and so any greening effect is not removing it at a rate that stabilises the CO2 level.

But I think this study is just another case of believing scientists when you think their work suits your preconceived notions. And calling them gangsters when their work doesn't.

CSIRO published an article in mid 2013 regarding CO2 Greening the planet.
http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

Yes, Bugsy, not many people are into The Conversation, nor the scare mongering CSIRO, AC. I know there are quite a few things I might not know about because they are 'nichey', and I usually mean generally not known to to a large number of average Australians who should be able to find out such things through their attention to the daily media. Our media, on the side of the grungers and liars as they are, seem only to spread alarmists theories, many of which are quickly shown to be wrong. No retractions in those cases, either.

Oh, so this is a media conspiracy thing,ttbn? So we'll overlook the fact that this research was done by the CSIRO and fully reported in press releases several years ago. The fact that YOU haven't heard of it makes it a media conspiracy and all the scientists doing their jobs liars and grungers (whatever that is). Yes, we'll overlook your ignorance on this particular story.

What I would like to hear more about are the 'alarmist theories' that are 'quickly shown to be wrong'.

Please do tell, what were they? How were they shown to be so wrong they need retractions? You imply that there were several cases, I want to hear more about them. If there's a bunch of stuff that need retracting, then maybe I am wrong about believing actual scientists.