Remarkable re-greening of the planet

[Exnihiloest]

Green algae must also be part of the problem, because heating and excess nitrates are the cause.

Would studies show that warming caused green algae to proliferate?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Green algae must also be part of the problem, because heating and excess nitrates are the cause.

Would studies show that warming caused green algae to proliferate?

Warming no, eutrophication yes. It is therefore visible by satellite and in fact feeds your biased vision and your illusion of virtuous greening.

[Exnihiloest]

-

We have seen that the re-greening of the planet is 70% due to the increase in CO2. But the man also acts in the right direction, directly, which will be careful not to tell you the ecologists and other piss-cold always to maintain the fear of the future by the alarmist lie and the catastrophism, old method taken again from proselytism Catholic waving hell.

But yes, green spaces are increasing. Man turns deserts into forests, and among these, the Chinese, and on a very large scale as far as the Gobi Desert.
And China, country producing by far the most CO2 in the world, the green world thanks them, will have enough to feed them, its forests.
Of course with them it's easier than with us. Among the cocos, displacing populations and creating armies of little hands to plant trees, that is not what stops them. But the result is there :

[Flytox]

-
We have seen that the re-greening of the planet is 70% due to the increase in CO2. But the man also acts in the right direction, directly, which will be careful not to tell you the ecologists and other piss-cold always to maintain the fear of the future by the alarmist lie and the catastrophism, old method taken again from proselytism Catholic waving hell.

Your 70% are the side effects of the activity of Humo Carbonicus Pétrolicus, isn't it? Living people adapt well to climatic / environmental continuity and relatively slow change ... but man created the Anthropocene where everything changes, very / too quickly, he disrupts everything he touches (habitats, habits food, energy, soils, rivers, crops, livestock, forests, seas, groundwater, atmosphere, concentration of toxic minerals etc etc ... nothing escapes him ... and living things are disappearing at great speed. don't worry, Tryphon is up to the grain

But yes, green spaces are increasing. Man turns deserts into forests, and among these, the Chinese, and on a very large scale as far as the Gobi Desert.

The Gobi Desert experience is very interesting, but agree with you at a social price ......
But these same Chinese, are also in the grandiose when they take care of cultivating (for them) in various countries of Africa without any limits of the means (fertilizers, pesticides, grabbing of water, destruction of soil and groundwater ..... they don't care, it's not at home, and when it stops producing, they move on to other (gigantic) plots. In some places, they have left behind real deserts or more nothing grows ..... Hats off to China.

Precisely "or nothing grows", in the Sahel region, the deserts are progressing ...... because the natives deforest to the rhythm of the wood that they burn to cook their meals .... Amplification of the climate problem of the drought.

You can repaint the land green as much as you want, which is not what will make it more habitable in the next few years.

[Ahmed]

Flytox, I do not agree with the concept of the Anthropocene, insofar as it suggests an ontology of destruction linked to the human species, but not all human groups have always acted in this way; capitalocene or technocene would suit me better ...
The "re-greening" of the Gobi Desert is a necessity for the Chinese since it impacts Beijing, the capital and that its extension would worsen the agricultural and food problems, already complicated.
After a prosperous period due to the low cost of an abundant labor force and indifference to environmental issues, China has been caught up by its own development. It must now pay the "incidental expenses", as can be seen in this specific case, which degrades its results which are only maintained thanks to the devices already in use in the old European countries: a huge loan (335% of the GDP) . It is a headlong rush that is committed for her. As for the famous "re-greening", it will only last long enough to exhaust the tablecloths which are used to infuse it at great expense ...

[ABC2019]

Flytox, I do not agree with the concept of the Anthropocene, insofar as it suggests an ontology of destruction linked to the human species, but not all human groups have always acted in this way;

hem, as for the disappearance of the megafauna, in any case, we did not wait for the capitalocene

[Ahmed]

Correlation is not causation. On the other hand, not all of the megafauna have disappeared.
I asked myself this important question and it turns out that in specific and documented cases the impact of prehistoric men is tiny and in no way explains the disappearance, for example, of mammoths, cave bears (however easy to kill) or saber-toothed tigers and many others ...
Their favorite game is deer (in Europe) and other animals of this size.

[Exnihiloest]

...
Your 70% are the side effects of the activity of Humo Carbonicus Pétrolicus, isn't it? Living people adapt well to climatic / environmental continuity and relatively slow change ... but man created the Anthropocene where everything changes, very / too quickly, he disrupts everything he touches (habitats, habits food, energy, soils, rivers, crops, livestock, forests, seas, groundwater, atmosphere, concentration of toxic minerals etc etc ... nothing escapes him ... and living things are disappearing at great speed. don't worry, Tryphon is up to the grain

Not me but earthlings in general. The earthlings aim their interests. If the change is too fast for you, not enough for me question of points of view, it was not for the generations who made it, otherwise they would not have done it! When your quality of life, even your survival, depends on coal, as in the 19th century, you extract it. We are not going to reproach them with the people of the 19th century, they were right. And they were smart enough not to worry about leaving it for future generations, who with oil or nuclear have found something else.

This intelligence is the simple consequence of trust in man, not in nature, on the contrary, dangerous. Each generation solves its problems, which improves the lives of the people of the day, and provides the springboard for subsequent generations to continue ...
... to continue until today, where a generation that has resigned and fearful of the quasi-religious ideology that nature would provide for everything if we venerate it, no longer has the sole ambition of securing change and fixing the situation at the time she knows, such as the Amish in the 18th century.
What marks her is above all her cowardice, by refusing to take risks unlike past generations, and her propensity to excuse her cowardice and immobility by brandishing each question, not as a problem to be solved, but as a motive. an accusation aimed at scapegoats (politicians, industrialists, farmers ... while they work for the community) and an excuse to do nothing more than canning, the "sustainable".

But yes, green spaces are increasing. Man turns deserts into forests, and among these, the Chinese, and on a very large scale as far as the Gobi Desert.
The Gobi Desert experience is very interesting, but agree with you at a social price ......
But these same Chinese, are also in the grandiose when they take care of cultivating (for them) in various countries of Africa without any limits of the means (fertilizers, pesticides, grabbing of water, destruction of soil and groundwater ..... they don't care, it's not at home, and when it stops producing, they move on to other (gigantic) plots. In some places, they have left behind real deserts or more nothing grows ..... Hats off to China.

Precisely "or nothing grows", in the Sahel region, the deserts are progressing ...... because the natives deforest to the rhythm of the wood that they burn to cook their meals .... Amplification of the climate problem of the drought.

You can repaint the land green as much as you want, which is not what will make it more habitable in the next few years.

I am not defending China as a country, I note that it can produce forests, which increases the regreening of the planet already obtained by CO2.

When things are improving somewhere, globally as far as regreening is concerned, then rather than improving and looking to see if we can make further progress in this direction, which we would expect, the ecologist digressions like you here a bit anyway, to look for other problems elsewhere and highlight them, to find new grounds for accusation and new excuses for doing nothing since the improvement is arbitrarily affirmed as not not presenting the beginning of a solution.

With a few exceptions, I note that the ecologist is almost always negative, he takes absolutely no interest in ecological action, unless ecological action can be used as a pretext for decline, to put farmers or farmers in difficulty. industrialists and its anti-capitalist struggle in general. We are not in ecology but in low politics, we must deny any sector of ecological improvement, it harms activism and proselytism, we understood the manipulation, but not everyone. I intend to help .

[sen-no-sen]

It makes sense that the planet will turn green again. The once ice-covered regions now tend to become steppes, and the old steppes forests. Some desert recedes and others advance (as in southern Spain) .
However, it would be misleading to reason in terms of greening. An objective indicator should be based on a quality of life and not a quantity, see a color. Large biodiversity basins are in danger of death in many areas (ex Borneo ).
What is true for plants is also true for animals. With the rise of intensive breeding, the number of mammals has never seemed greater. However, is he honest (sic! ) to compare cattle farms of feed batches with African or Asian megafauna?

* Farmed mammals represent 60% of mammalian biomass.

[Exnihiloest]

It makes sense that the planet will turn green again. The once ice-covered regions now tend to become steppes, and the old steppes forests. Some desert recedes and others advance (as in southern Spain) .
However, it would be misleading to reason in terms of greening. An objective indicator should be based on a quality of life and not a quantity, see a color. Large biodiversity basins are in danger of death in many areas (ex Borneo ).
What is true for plants is also true for animals. With the rise of intensive breeding, the number of mammals has never seemed greater. However, is he honest (sic! ) to compare cattle farms of feed batches with African or Asian megafauna?

* Farmed mammals represent 60% of mammalian biomass.

Pure invention on your part, or provide your sources. Most of the regreening does not come from the melting ice. For example, the Sahara is very concerned: https://www.notre-planete.info/actualit ... ahara_vert
already started before 2002: https://www.rtflash.fr/sahara-retrecit- ... re/article
As for an "objective" indicator of regreening, it obviously cannot by definition be based on a "quality" of living things (what will be your unit of measurement?), A "quality", nothing more subjective, unlike the square kilometers. measurables of quantified regreening. And re-greening is the door to new wildlife.

For your "The large basins of biodiversity are in danger of death ..." see:
"When things are improving somewhere, globally as far as regreening is concerned, then rather than improving and looking to see if we can make more progress in this direction, which we would expect, the ecologist digressions"
"With a few exceptions, I note that the ecologist is almost always negative"

Nice demo! No need to go to all this trouble to justify my previous text, there are already so many examples. Thanks anyway, but the subject here is "Remarkable re-greening of the planet"