Question Can the Sahara be made green? Should it?

Nov 18, 2019
6
3
30
I happened across this article from September, and admit it lit the hopeful in me, almost immediately followed by a pang of trepidation.
There are a lot of deserts across the world, and while they all have their own beauty, a part of me wonders if we really CAN"terraform" them?


If we can, the next questions:
SHOULD we? Could it make climate change worse if we set up all new ecological areas?
Should we limit the regions we terraform through green tech?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ousainou
Nov 20, 2019
7
1
30
I can't think of any way to terraform the Sahara without it being immediately taken over by peoples living nearby.

How about Antarctica instead? There's an entire continent that is almost completely dead, and current scientific consensus suggests that it could be lush and green again in the next few hundred years if we continue to terraform the rest of the Earth to be habitable.

Just think, 10,000 years ago Germany looked a lot like Antarctica. It would be a tragedy if it went back to being that way, right? Why not save Antarctica?
 
Nov 20, 2019
7
1
30
I happened across this article from September, and admit it lit the hopeful in me, almost immediately followed by a pang of trepidation.
There are a lot of deserts across the world, and while they all have their own beauty, a part of me wonders if we really CAN"terraform" them?


If we can, the next questions:
SHOULD we? Could it make climate change worse if we set up all new ecological areas?
Should we limit the regions we terraform through green tech?
I mean karrol the question about whether the shahara desert can be trsfom green is a possible thing.


The questions of whether should we??
I mean with the threat that global warming is subjecting our beloved planet with, I think is necessary to transform it to green again..
An this can be a way of reducing the quantity of air pollutant.
 
Apr 3, 2020
2
0
10
I happened across this article from September, and admit it lit the hopeful in me, almost immediately followed by a pang of trepidation.
There are a lot of deserts across the world, and while they all have their own beauty, a part of me wonders if we really CAN"terraform" them?


If we can, the next questions:
SHOULD we? Could it make climate change worse if we set up all new ecological areas?
Should we limit the regions we terraform through green tech?
Yes, it's possible on paper but then no one know if it's feasible practically. In theory the sahara can be made green with the help of Solar and wind farm.

Another factor to consider is funding. I seriously doubt the countries that the desert cut across will want to embark on such. Project like that needs a lot of funds,the neighboring countries are not that economic boyant to attempt such

Another factor is government policy, I seriously doubt if the government care enough about climate change to attempt such.


Feasible? Maybe
Should we? I don't think so.
 
Sep 6, 2020
180
11
605
I happened across this article from September, and admit it lit the hopeful in me, almost immediately followed by a pang of trepidation.
There are a lot of deserts across the world, and while they all have their own beauty, a part of me wonders if we really CAN"terraform" them?


If we can, the next questions:
SHOULD we? Could it make climate change worse if we set up all new ecological areas?
Should we limit the regions we terraform through green tech?
I know... A 2019 message, but happened upon it now...

Making the Sahara green would likely put another nail into the Amazon Rain Forest.

 
Jul 29, 2021
96
4
55
Making Sahara green artificially looks an unbelievable task: human resource, soil resource, technology?
Such a vast area changing needs predictions, how will it influence the Globe? In how many years?
There is no clear picture on the Ocean behaviour even to have a start point of possible changes.
 
Mar 4, 2020
355
46
730
Yes, it is now possible, to cheaply and passively green the Sahara. Which makes the proposition very scary. No windmills or solar projects needed.

Just by grinding glass(grains of sand) to the right size, we can now drop surface temperatures 59 degrees F below ambient temperature....at high noon. This is thru IR radiation into space, not to return. A first for actually expelling heat directly from earth. A global warming threat is over.

This is quite an achievement and we should start to see this commercially shortly. This should bring the price of heating and cooling down drastically for all.

But using it for terra forming is not advisable until we understand the effects more thoroughly. World wide effects.
 
Sep 6, 2020
180
11
605
Yes, it is now possible, to cheaply and passively green the Sahara. Which makes the proposition very scary. No windmills or solar projects needed.

Just by grinding glass(grains of sand) to the right size, we can now drop surface temperatures 59 degrees F below ambient temperature....at high noon. This is thru IR radiation into space, not to return. A first for actually expelling heat directly from earth. A global warming threat is over.
I would be interested in reading up on these two items but am unable to find a reliable source, are you able to supply a link please.

The part on passively greening over 9 million km^2 does come across as cheap to achieve and maintain with your part-explanation.
 
Mar 4, 2020
355
46
730
There are other technologies that are being tied into this IR radiation. In many regions, dropping the surface temperature ~60 degrees F, from ambient, will produce condensation. So we have passive fresh water collection. And along with that, they have made meta materials that can greatly increase the peltier effect. Another form of electricity generation.....or......heat and cooling control.

These are great achievements without any rare or expensive materials. And the materials used have been manufactured for decades.

The heat sink used is like none other. The heat and energy removed, is removed from the planet, not transferred to air, water or ground. It's gone for good. This is why we have to be careful.......this is not a natural dynamic.

They are working on many methodologies and improving the "tuning" to apply this. The only energy input needed is sunlight.

Imagine the demand for a 30% reduction in cooling costs, with a paint or spray film application. Imagine that demand for a 70-80%reduction.

Imagine a structure that can give you water, heating and cooling, and electricity, all from sunlight.

Too much to hope for?.....from an IR sink? Time will tell. I can certainly understand the doubters. I will not read another battery break-thru story.
 
Sep 6, 2020
180
11
605
There are other technologies that are being tied into this IR radiation. In many regions, dropping the surface temperature ~60 degrees F, from ambient, will produce condensation. So we have passive fresh water collection. And along with that, they have made meta materials that can greatly increase the peltier effect. Another form of electricity generation.....or......heat and cooling control.
I have the pleasure of working in construction on the commercial side and the biggest cost to any project is labour, transport and in some aspects when considering Africa, the volatile political situation.

I will read through the numbers etc..., but one of the big tests on these projects is -

What is the cost to become functional, what are the maintenance costs and what is the life expectancy...
This is weighed up against the results (typically in $£€) or saving in closing an inefficient set-up that intends to create similar results.

If there is no money in profit.... There is no project.
 
Mar 4, 2020
355
46
730
Most big projects are funded by governments. That means that supply and demand, labor costs, and regulations do not apply. Nothing applies to a government project. It's a racket.......believe me, I've done enough of them to know.

But you are missing the whole point. I'm talking about science, not politics.

At the present time, we have to mine and extract fuel, to power our world. Many expert idiots think that extracting and using fossil fuels is a danger to our environment.

My interest is not saving the world. My interest is the personel cost of the fuel.

The price of that fuel is not consumer based......it is politically set. By idiots. Not by supply and demand, but by politicians.....to save the planet for the children.

The majority of my personal fuel costs is heating and cooling. Probably about 70%.

That energy, that fuel, is used to maintain a temperature difference, between the ambient air temp and my inside air temp.

By using passive IR radiation, we can maintain the temp difference without burning fuel. NOT ONLY THAT, but the heat that is expelled, to sent into space, not to another area or media of this planet. Right now, when I expel the excess temp into the air. Warming the air. And when that hotter air, goes into someone's else house, it will take more energy to cool that warmer air.

With IR radiation, that cycle is broken. Just one of the methods that this is done, is by micrometer size glass beads. It was found that the size, shape and refractive index of the glass used, set or tuned, the absorption spectrum and the radiated spectrum of the bead. It absorbs all the light and near IR from the sun, and re-radiates( just like a radio repeater) the energy at 10 u-meters. This is a mid IR slot in the atmosphere.

These beads can be applied in paint or a spray on clear film.

Ok, ok, but what about a desert region? Have you ever seen a sand spreader? We used them here for icy roads. If we crush that sand, so that a proportion of the sand is the right size, for that type of sand, we can cool regions in the middle of the desert. We do not have to cool the whole desert. Just a region of it. The cool regions will bring the oceans air and humidity in.

We could also cool regions of air, by falling the right size sand thru the air.

We can crush sand to any size we want, very cheaply, and with demand, even cheaper, if we can keep the politicians and our so-called experts, out of it.

Even if we had to use refined manufactured glass, the saving costs should change the way we live.

This is the way to compete, with fossil fuels. Enslavement and poverty is not necessary to save the world for the children.

But watching the way the experts handled a virus, they will probably cause more harm than good.

All the experts really showed their phony asses, with this virus.

And one other thing. Why haven't the environmentalists, been promoting these solutions for the last five years?

Do they really want a solution? Is a solution even needed?

Fanatics always insist on one solution.
 
Sep 6, 2020
180
11
605
But you are missing the whole point. I'm talking about science, not politics.
I will try and avoid responses when I have my work head on... It over-rides everything until I relax and remember who I am outside the office hours....

Undoubtedly pretty much anything can be achieved under science and seemingly everything can be achieved under theory (with relevant substantiation to make a case).

It is difficult for me to say yes, something can be achieved when to the best of my understanding it cannot happen. Being 100% Science, not 'political' would make this a very short discussion in that the default position could only be to agree it could be achieved and take frustration away...

At present I am not aware of materials that would perform as required long-term with the resourcing required meaning that replacement/ repair with current materials would prevent a functioning set-up.... Most developed countries should expect to have water to source 24/7, but that does not occur...

I am a little stuck how to respond outside of yes, science answers everything (I think).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY