Turning deserts green and COOLING the climate!

Good questions...... some of the answers may be in this interesting and hopeful lecture.



Soil carbon -- Putting carbon back where it belongs -- In the Earth | Tony Lovell | TEDxDubbo

Here is a similar idea as it was applied in California.



Carbon Farming: Harnessing The Power of The Soil

 

Yes... increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already having an impact on foliage all around the world.... even in a couple of noticeable areas of the Sahara Desert and the Middle East.


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/

 

Your guy's comments make sense but hard for me to imagine on a scale of thousands/millions of acres half-way around the world in less than desirable weather conditions. It would be a Herculean effort to covert deserts to arable land! I still caution messing with Earth's deserts is messing with Earth's wind, oceans and climate...

 

Do you know how much power it takes to run a desalination plant? That's why they aren't all over the place. The power requirement is huge. And before you say "well, we will use solar and wind to power them", every form of "clean, renewable energy" uses petroleum and it's byproducts in it's production. Every. Single. One.

 

Progress is being made with solar desalination.....
Israel donated this technology to Norway so that Norwegian diplomats and scientists could share this tech with the Islamic world.


https://www.saharaforestproject.com/

 

This isn't an answer to the question of exactly what is required to do what you want to do.

I've yet to see anything related to eocnomics or engineering required, let alone the social change required.

It's easy to say things like "desalinize" and "cows" and "permaculture".

We could do that with Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, southeastern California, west Texas, etc., here in the USA, too. But, we don't. In fact, in times of drought we let large sections of the breadbasket of the USA, the central valleys of CA, go fallow over the contest for water. And, we combine the agricultural runoff in the midwest polluting our aquifers with population centers depleting those same aquifers.

We're the richest country in the world and we can't do what you proposed to do in some desert in northern Africa!

This can't be answerd by saying "desalinize", "cows" and "permaculture".

 

Just as a matter of biology let's be a little careful here. What life forms need will also kill them if the supply is mismanaged.

And, one way to mismanage temperature is to pollute our atmosphere with CO2, methane, etc.

 

Humans being able to "mismanage" the amount of CO2 in earth's atmosphere is very silly. Laughable even. People have been brainwashed by the ecology movement that started in the 1970's.

 

The science is very clear on this.

And, it's clear to scientists studying climare related sciences throughout the entire world.

You can't support your silly conspiracy theory.

 

I like when the science is settled and I don't have to use my own brain any more. I might convert to liberalism.

 

I did NOT say that any science is "settled".

But, the broad outline of climate change due to human activity affecting our atmosphere is accepted throughout the climate related sciences, including other countries.

You can't gin up a conspiracy theory with that kind of breadth and depth.

 

This may help..........



GivePower, The Future of Water: Kiunga

and.....


GivePower: Clean Water for Kiunga and Beyond

 

I very rarely watch videos as they pretty much never show what is needed to know. Invariably they are best cases and show no real possibility of scaling to sizes such as north Africa.

Maybe I don't know what you are trying to do anymore.

Originally, it sounded like you wanted to spend a butt load of money terraforming north Africa into forest land to reduce CO2.

NOW, it sounds like you want to support some individual projects in areas amenable to agricultural production in order to help those in poverty in the region.

The two are very different.

If you said you want the US to help fund agriculture in an area where people are destitute, I might agree - at least I'd look at the cost and benefit.

I might help fund desalination here in the US so that interior regions can continue being our agricultural bread basket too, given the hardship interior farming has run into wrt water.

 

The big picture comes together from many angles........
Both macroeconomics parts of this......plus microeconomics for other parts of this... ..... private sector for some of this.... government sector for other parts of this.... I am not fussy.

 

Science IS NOT liberal or conservative??

 

People with extreme political convictions use false science to control the masses. The Nazis and Stalinists made an art form out of it. Don't be fooled by what's considered "settled science" when it may only be the science that's politically correct at the time.

 

There's no such thing as 'false science'...there is ONLY science...

 

I know science is science. It's who decides what's settled science that bothers me.

 

I know science is science but it's who gets to decide what's "settled" science as they're calling it now that bothers me. Scientists disagree do they not, so why is your scientist better than my scientist?

 

There's no such thing as 'settled science'...you are not familiar with the process...everything remains open for new discoveries...

 

Science is never about a single person...

 

So you think gravity isn't settled? That we all might just float off into space someday when gravity magically turns off?

Of course some science is settled.

 

Okay then so it's a consensus of scientists who decide what science is. Now tell me who makes up the consensus. I'm not talking about speed of light science I'm talking about climate science and the like.

 

Sorry...but you are wrong...science is not righteous...science is ALWAYS open to new information...including gravity which is not very well understood...

 

Makes no difference the topic...science is science...it's a disciplined process.

One or more scientists perform a study of something, then document their findings, then submits it to a journal for publication. The journal submits the article to several other scientists who work in the same field for PEER review. Those performing the peer review advise the journal editor on the validity of the submission. Depending on feedback, sometimes the original author(s) will modify their article and resubmit. Articles that pass judgment for scientific standards, logical reasoning, with supporting evidence, are accepted for publication.

The ONLY way YOU can challenge these publications is to research and submit your own article for review in this same process. Anything short of this is just opinions and whining...