Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

news.nationalgeographic.com

Desertification, drought, and despair—that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear.
Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.
Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.
If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities.
This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 4-8-2009 by grover]

Very interesting.

From many of the studies I have read on global warming I get the impression that the process will eventually balance itself out so whether it is man made (or to be more specific man assisted) global warming or an entirely natural occurance the scales will balance...

For example given the size and depth of the Sahara is can you imagine the CO2 eating capacity it would have...not to mention the oxygen releasing capacity it would have if the entire thing turned green again?

news.nationalgeographic.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

CO2 and heat significantly boost plant growth. It's the same principle of greenhouses. In past geologic eras, when life flourished, CO2 levels were up to 16 times times as high as current, modern levels. Climate was also hotter (up to 3-5 Celsius degrees, depending on the era), though not proportionally to the amount of CO2.

[edit on 2009/8/4 by Shirakawa]

Originally posted by Shirakawa
CO2 and heat significantly boost plant growing. It's the same principle of greenhouses. In past geologic eras, when life flourished, CO2 levels were up to 16 times times as high as current, modern levels. Climate was also hotter (up to 3-5 Celsius degrees, depending on the era), though not directly proportional to the amount of CO2.

[edit on 2009/8/4 by Shirakawa]

Exactly.

One of the "unfortunate" byproducts of having ample Co2 in the air is that all plant life flourishes. Though I am not going to bother to source, some studies have found that as a whole the planet is upto 10% greener now than it has been in our recent past. Due of course, to the greater concentrations of Co2.

It's too bad the Global Warming (Remember that term? It was common before it was decided it was too misleading, global climate change was much preferable) argument is based on pathetic pseudo science, and ultimately is blown apart when one realizes that it is being used as a tool to implement a global tax on humanity. All proceeds of which (as usual) will benefit a select few, while the hundreds of millions, if not billions, suffer.

That's too bad. I'd rather the pyramids be saved.

On with the Cap and Trade!

An interesting partially related video:

reply to post by king9072


It is not pseudo-science...and it is to slur and discredit all of the scientists working on the issue.

The planet is warming...the question is...
is it all caused by man...
is it all caused by nature...
or is it caused by a mixture of both.

I tend to think that it is a mixture of both.

It boggles my imagination that some people...either for political reasons or simple ignorance of science cannot see how we can and do effect the environment is both positive and adverse ways.

The reason why there is debate in the scientific community about climate change is because that is how science works...

The reason why there is such misunderstanding and debate in the secular community about climate change is deliberate misinformation and a muddling of the waters by vested interests such as Exxon...and political meddling by those who oppose anything that could possibly be construed as liberal.

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by king9072

 

It is not pseudo-science...and it is to slur and discredit all of the scientists working on the issue.

The planet is warming...the question is...
is it all caused by man...
is it all caused by nature...
or is it caused by a mixture of both.

I tend to think that it is a mixture of both.

It boggles my imagination that some people...either for political reasons or simple ignorance of science cannot see how we can and do effect the environment is both positive and adverse ways.

The reason why there is debate in the scientific community about climate change is because that is how science works...

The reason why there is such misunderstanding and debate in the secular community about climate change is deliberate misinformation and a muddling of the waters by vested interests such as Exxon...and political meddling by those who oppose anything that could possibly be construed as liberal.

It's called the sun. Yes average world wide temperatures have risen slightly.

But this isn't the first time in history, and the last time it happened in history we were producing Co2 world wide. So why do we need a global tax on humanity this time?

You would likely be shocked to learn that most people against the concept of "climate change" (notice they've changed the name?), aren't oil executives or share holders. They are average people who don't want a carbon tax which will increase literally the cost of every single thing they use in their life.

So I think we can both agree that "CLIMATE CHANGE" is:
A. Not unanimously agreed upon in the scientific community, and in fact a great devide spans between those who agree and disagree with the logic and reasoning behind it.
B. This is not the first time that Co2 Levels have been high.
C. Last time in history a carbon tax was not needed to resolve the issue.
D. Carbon tax will do nothing to actually combat "CLIMATE CHANGE", instead it will line the pockets of a select few while the rest suffer.
E. Using the perceived threat of "CLIMATE CHANGE", as a tool to turn humanity into the enemy was publicly spoken about and agreed upon as the way to make drastic, uncalled for changes, by major players of the NWO, namely the Rothschilds who if you look, have financed most of this "environmentalism".


Even if I were to learn about this entire "CLIMATE CHANGE" scam today, the simple fact that it is being used as a method to allow a tax on humanity shows the corruption that has gone into it's creation. I need not know the who, when, or what, if I know the why. The why always answers the rest of those questions.

It is not a scam...that is one of the most absurd claims the right has put forward in recent years and amazingly some people believe it...

For it to be a scam or conspiracy you would have to enlist the thousands of scientists world wide (not just Americans) who are studying this thing to go along with it and that is just plain ridiculous.

The earth is warming...whether it is man made or man assisted is moot...it would still behoove us to try and do what we could to ameliorate the situation if we can.

And even then conservation is a prudent path regardless of the situation.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by grover]

reply to post by grover


Yes, the globe will balance itself out. Nobody's ever questioned that. The trouble is, what will happen to all the things living on the globe while it's doing that? if the Sahara is catching all that water, then what's happening to the wetter areas north and south of it?

Also to answer your question, the carbon-fixing abilities of a "green sahara" would be minimal. Odds are it would go back to being Savannah and scrubland like it was 12,000 years ago - Mostly grass. Grass is doesn't respirate much, and is short-lived, so it doesn't fis nearly as much carbon as leafier or woodier plants would.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

Originally posted by grover

For it to be a scam or conspiracy you would have to enlist the thousands of scientists world wide (not just Americans) who are studying this thing to go along with it and that is just plain ridiculous.

that mode of reasoning is bizarre. for something to be a scam everyone has to be in on it? sure..

Originally posted by grover

For it to be a scam or conspiracy you would have to enlist the thousands of scientists world wide (not just Americans) who are studying this thing to go along with it and that is just plain ridiculous.

You'd need to include many who are now dead - indeed some who have been dead for over 100 years.

AGW theory is older than the theory of evolution .....

www.earlham.edu...


[edit on 4-8-2009 by Essan]

reply to post by hardpounding


Uh, yeah, actually. Science is pretty competitive, and very self-correcting. That is, scientists are constantly out there trying to prove each other wrong, and to validate their own theories. it's really rather cutthroat. People have traded blows over botany for crying out loud.

So when a majority of scientists around the world are all pretty much agreeing on something, then odds are, it's true. For it to be a scam, and STILL have all these guys buying it, one would have to assume that each and every one of them has bought onto the scam.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Most people seem to have slept through science class and simply do not understand how science works...if they did they would understand the self correcting nature of scientific inquiry because part of the process is the checking and rechecking the data until a working consensus is reached...and despite claims from the right and the deniers this process has been going non stop for decades now and still the majority of scientists worldwide believe that humanity has at the very least a hand in global warming.

reply to post by grover

Originally posted by grover
The planet is warming...the question is...
is it all caused by man...
is it all caused by nature...
or is it caused by a mixture of both.

For the last 10 years it hasn't.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1adb72e930cb.jpg[/atsimg]
Ten years is certainly not a long term trend, but it is 10 years that have gone against the IPCC's projections. Enough to make you think either they have exagerated their claims, or have got the fundamentals wrong.

Originally posted by grover
It boggles my imagination that some people...either for political reasons or simple ignorance of science cannot see how we can and do effect the environment is both positive and adverse ways.

It also boggles mine, to see people who can't let go of CO2 being the major driving force in our climate, it certainly wasn't in the past, so why now?

The answer is Money. Control. Power.

Sure we are harming our planet in more ways than one. But CO2 is a necessary element for life on Earth, which is currently emmited by nearly all our major energy sources, and not to mention, every living animal that breathes. Therefore, it makes a perfect commodity for the elite to gain control of the masses.
Supporting cap and trade is NOT supporting the environment. Sure it may reduce some forms of pollution, but it completely ignores other far, far more dangerous forms of pollution and won't actually help the climate at all. But that's the beauty of the deception. Psychological manipulation to make you think you HAVE to believe in AGW to support the environment, and you are an ignorant, oil influenced idiot if you disagree.

Originally posted by grover
The reason why there is debate in the scientific community about climate change is because that is how science works...

Agreed. Except the majority of AGW components state that there is no such debate, the science is settled, and the 'consensus' agrees with them. I can tell you now this is absolute bollocks. AGW scare stories get a lot of attention in the media. They even get nobel prizes, no matter how many fundamental errors are there, while most skeptical scientistst (there are a lot, with differing levels of skepticism) get ignored.

Originally posted by grover
The reason why there is such misunderstanding and debate in the secular community about climate change is deliberate misinformation and a muddling of the waters by vested interests such as Exxon...and political meddling by those who oppose anything that could possibly be construed as liberal.

Yeah, the old every skeptic is funded by oil argument. You can accept this, yet fail to see the amount of $$ invested into AGW being a reality, and the people who stand to gain a lot of wealth, control and power over it?

The UN have been wanting to introduce a global pollution tax for at least the last 15 years. And they wanted to use that to fund reform of the UN into a global government structure, NOT to reduce the effects of climate change (because it won't). You can see this here.

Maybe the Sahara will flourish again. The climate is constantly changing, always has. We need to learn to adapt to these changes, while trying to stop the real pollution and ecological problems which face us, rather than trusting politicians and profiteers to come up with a "solution" to a faux problem.







[edit on 5-8-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Wonderful post Curious!!!! I completely agree with you, the science has NOT been settled in the slightest bit. There are droves and droves of scientists who are very much against the climate change theories that the mainstream totally buys into. There is plenty of factual information available detailing the average mean temps over the past 415,000 or so years, and we're pretty much right on schedule. The SUN is the main component in any climate change that may be happening, and for anybody to believe otherwise is hilarious.

If we are going to give a crap about this planet, the first thing we need to clean up is our WATER. Water is absolutely the most precious natural resource we have, and we are really screwing up right now.
We should be more worried about the Texas-sized plastic island floating in the Pacific Ocean than a degree of change in avg temps world-wide.