Modernization Hub

Modernization and Improvement
Can We Terraform the Sahara to Stop Climate Change?

Can We Terraform the Sahara to Stop Climate Change?

We have been hearing it for years. Climate change is happening. What I am about to present to you is fact. These are reliable measurements with multiple
peer reviewed papers confirming the information. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are the
highest they have been in over 400 thousand years, confirmed by our analysis of hundreds
of samples of arctic ice core, tree cores and isotope ratios in fossils. [1] Average global temperatures have risen
by 0.8 degrees celsius since the industrial revolution began, with two third of that change
occurring since 1975. [2] The evidence is overwhelming. This is fact. You are wrong if you deny it. If these trends continue, and I really shouldn’t
say if because they will continue, we are going to continue seeing stronger storms,
more heat waves and droughts, sea levels will continue to rise even after the ice caps have
vanished in the summer months in about 30 years, and to really make you motivated to
care about this, the world’s economy will suffer. We have been making strides in the technology
required to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide, but the change over is happening
too slowly. The most effective thing our world has done
in the past 10 years in battling carbon emissions was going through a global financial crisis. Countries, like my own, are continually missing
carbon targets. We are going face up to 600 million euro in
fines every year after 2020 until we fulfil our promise of reducing our carbon emissions
by 20%. That money is going to come out of our pockets
through carbon taxes. Maybe then we will start to take climate change
seriously. We aren’t making significant decreases in
carbon dioxide emissions, we have only really leveled out [3] which is not good enough. So, if we aren’t making a difference by
reducing emissions, maybe we can reverse climate change. Maybe we can engineer our climate, and there
has been multiple suggested methods of doing that. In this new video series I’m going to explain
how several geoengineering methods intend to work, and their potential impact on the
world’s climate. The first plan we will examine is Afforestation. Afforestation is pretty much self explanatory. Plant forests, allow them to grow and store
carbon in their wood. The problem we run into is finding large enough
spaces to plant forests, that would have a significant impact on the climate and that
would not negatively affect the economies of countries employing the method. Taking land that could be used for agriculture
just isn’t a realistic solution, no-one is going to agree to it. Our options are limited, but we happen to
have huge expanses of land on earth that are not being used for anything productive, deserts. Now I know what you are thinking, deserts
are not the best place for growing anything, but with water desalination technology rapidly
advancing this isn’t as far fetched as it may seem. We are going to examine the feasibility and
effect of afforestation in the two largest subtropical deserts in the world, the Sahara
and the Australian outback. These are the perfect candidates for afforestation,
neither have large competing human populations, agricultural activity, or large natural animal
and plant populations. Conveniently, they are also in the sub-tropical
zones where a 12 month growth cycle is possible, maximising our carbon capture potential. To maximise our potential further, we need
to pick a suitable tree. The tree we chose will need to be suited to
this climate, be ever-green, grow rapidly, and be useful as a commercial resource. The Australian Eucalyptus grandis will be
candidate for this study. [4] Which also comes with the added benefit
of being a habitat for these cute little shits. Before even bothering to worry about how this
would be done, let’s first see if it’s worth being done. Let’s first look at the Sahara as an example. Ultimately we are trying to sequester atmospheric
carbon dioxide by storing it in wood. Every 10,000 square metres could hold about
1 thousand trees, and taking this patch of the Sahara between the 16 degree and 50 degree
longitudes we have about 9800 billion square metres of land, ignoring land needed for infrastructure,
that’s about 980 billion trees. Planting a forest of this size would increase
the world population of trees by about 33%. That’s a lot of trees. Estimates show [4 ] that this would capture
between 6 and 12 gigatonnes of carbon per year for about a century, before it would
meet a steady state where growth would slow and carbon dioxide in would equal carbon dioxide
out. 6 to 12 gigatonnes would capture between 16.3%
to 32.6% of our emissions per year, with humans generating a total of 36.8 gigatonnes of carbon
dioxide in 2017 [3]. Ideally we wouldn’t just let the trees grow
and forget about them, we would systematically cut them down and use them for construction,
synthetic feed-stock or convert them to liquid biomass fuel to replace our dwindling fossil
fuel supplies and burn that fuel in a power plant with its own carbon capture technology,
which would reduce emissions further, and produce new economies for these desert regions. Australia’s desert is about 60% the size
of the Sahara and so we could add an additional 60% to that figure, to bring our best case
scenario to just over 50% capture of our emissions per year. Bringing our emission levels per year down
to levels equivalent to the 70s. On the surface this seems great, but what
effect would this actually have on our environment. There are multiple things we need to consider,
first of all is the irrigation itself. A managed forest of this nature would need
about 500 mm per year of water, which equates to 4900 billion (4.9 x 10^12) metres cubed
of water per year for this number of trees. [4] Where is all this water going to come
from and at what cost? Fresh water supplies are obviously rare in
the Sahara, but surprisingly not as rare as the Australian outback. The world’s largest groundwater aquifer
actually resides beneath the Sahara, and is shared by four countries Egypt, Libya, Sudan
and Chad. [5] And it is not alone, new studies show
the Sahara is sitting on vast reservoirs of groundwater. This groundwater supply is vital for many
African countries, with it often being the primary source of freshwater for their populations. Draining at an industrial scale like this
comes with ethical concerns, as it is a non-renewable resource. Even these vast reservoirs of water would
run dry within a few years when pumped on this scale. However, the cost of desalination of sea water
has dropped dramatically in recent years [6], thanks in large part to countries like Israel,
The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia who have invested in the technology and all
get over 50% of their drinking water from desalination plants. This technology still requires energy and
energy comes with a cost, both monetarily and as a source of carbon dioxide. It requires approximately 1.5 kiloWatt hours
of energy to desalinate a metre cubed of water. We then need to pump the water to a height
for distribution. With the average elevation of the Sahara at
450 metres, this would require a further 2.5 kilowatt hours per metre cubed, bringing our
total energy consumption to 4 kilowatt hours per metre cubed of water supplied. [4] The cost of this in terms of carbon footprint
and actual cost will vary with the energy source used, but considering the location
and nature of the project a mix of solar power and biomass energy with carbon capture technology
attached to it’s exhaust should be used. Let’s focus on a purely solar powered process
for now, as biomass is more expensive and has a larger carbon footprint without carbon
capture technology, though it would become cheaper as the project matures thanks to the
cheap source of fuel on its doorstep. Solar energy costs about 10 cent per kilowatt
hour with a median carbon footprint of 72 grams per kWh. [7] Putting all this together, the total energy
needed to irrigate this forest with 4900 billion metres cubed of water will be 19600 terawatt
hours a year, at a cost of 1.96 billion dollars a year and a carbon footprint of 1.4 gigatonnes
of carbon a year. Ignoring infrastructure costs, which would
likely push the initial costs into the trillions. This puts our total carbon capture for the
Sahara at a best case scenario of 10.6 gigatonnes a year at a cost of 184 dollars per tonne
of carbon dioxide captured. Expecting poor African nations to fund this
alone is unrealistic, so it would be reasonable to expect countries to pay for this project
through carbon taxes, like those that will be placed on Ireland in 2020, and thus allowing
them to offset their own carbon emissions with funding to the project. A litre of petrol when burned emits approximately
2.6 kilograms of carbon dioxide. Thus placing a carbon tax of about 48 cent
per litre of petrol could pay for the project, if we sell 4 billion litres of petrol with
the added carbon tax, which is about the total petrol and diesel consumption of a small country
like Ireland. [8] So it’s possible at a high cost, but if
the project can stop climate change, maybe it’s worth it. That’s the next problem we need to address. What effect will the forest actually have
on the world’s environment. With the help of climate models we can start
to get a clearer picture of what all this money and effort would give us. Temperature being the top of our list of concerns. Local temperatures would be affected most
due to the evaporative cooling caused by the increase in soil moisture, this would seed
clouds and increase local precipitation substantially, allowing us to reduce our ongoing costs, with
heavier irrigation only needed in drier months from May to October. [8] Local evaporative cooling does not decrease
overall global temperatures, as it just transports the heat within earth’s atmosphere. Critically we want reduce the amount of heat
retained in earth’s atmosphere by reducing greenhouse gases, allowing heat to escape
the system entirely. One of the biggest concerns with a project
like this is the modification of Earth’s albedo. Albedo is a measure how reflective a planet
is. A higher albedo means we reflect more sunlight
back into space rather than absorbing the solar radiation, and thus increasing the temperature. Forests have a very low albedo, they are literally
designed to absorb solar radiation. Where as snow and ice have a very high albedo,
they reflect quite a lot of light, as does sand. Placing forests over regions where sand once
resided will reduce the world’s albedo, alone it will actually negate the heat lost
due through reduction in greenhouse gases. [9] In this climate model however the clouds seeded
from the forest helps to counteract that decrease in albedo. The study shows an overall decrease in surface
temperatures, but a significant increase in ocean temperatures surrounding the forests. The conclusion of the primary paper used for
research in this video is fairly ambiguous with no definite answer to whether the project
would have a net negative or net positive effect on global temperatures. while other papers that did not factor the
increase in cloud cover affecting albedo suggesting that afforestation in the Sahara and Australian
outback would increase global temperatures by 0.12 degrees celsius by 2100, compared
a control model where no afforestation occured. [7] We also need to worry about the decrease in
fertilization that would occur due to Sahara dust no longer being transported to the Amazon
and the Atlantic ocean, which would likely decrease plant and plankton growth, and thus
negate much of the carbon sequestration that this forest would provide. The desalination plants would also need to
carefully manage their output of highly concentrated salt water, as dumping undiluted salt water
into the ocean would wreak havoc on the local aquatic environment. Overall, I think the idea is an interesting
thought experiment, but practically shows little evidence of benefit for the labour
and cost needed, and could potentially open a pandora’s box of unforeseen consequence. Ultimately our best tool for combating climate
change will be to decrease our carbon emissions, and that solution is staring us in the face
through the cheap solar and wind energy. We need more people acting on this issue,
we need more people funding and researching alternative energy sources. You can become one of those people today by
taking this course on solar energy on Brilliant. In this course you will discover the principal
methods of harvesting energy from sunlight, from both concentrated solar power and photovoltaic
cells, starting from the fundamental physics principles. By the end of the course you will be able
to answer practical engineering questions and have a better understanding of the considerations
in servicing utility scale electric grids The best way to understand is by applying
concepts yourself, which is exactly what Brilliant allows you to achieve. These may initially sound complicated and
scary, but Brilliant guides you through problems that are broken into digestible sections that
bring you from knowing nothing to having a deep understanding of the physics and math
that underlie everything in our lives. Feeling inspired? Then go to and
sign up for free. And the first 73 people that go to that link
will get 20% off the annual Premium subscription. As always thanks for watching and thank you
to all my Patreon supporters. If you would like to see more from me the
links to my instagram, twitter, subreddit and discord server are below.

100 comments on “Can We Terraform the Sahara to Stop Climate Change?

  1. I wouldn't normally push Patreon, but with production quantity and quality going up, every bit helps. If you gain value from the content and want to give back in some way, consider supporting on Patreon: (edit: discussion point, should I remove comments of climate change deniers, or let my intelligent audience drown them out?)

  2. Why don’t we turn cities into giant jungles full of food producing plants?
    Like apple trees, maple trees, blueberry bushes, tomato vines, and so on plants we could cover our yards in.
    To add, let’s make agriculture arias after that’s been done, cover them in all kinds of plants, more diversity the better.

  3. there is no such thing as manmade global warming. this is cultish bullshit from a bunch of burnt out old communists whose god marx proved to be false, so they got a new cause. gaia. and they found a flock of ignorant and paranoid do-gooders who they manipulate into being true-believers. make the world green. just do it for realistic reasons and not out of some religious fanaticism. gaia is a false god and algore (pbuh) is not her prophet. learn real science. get a real God. you will find your normal levels of male and female hormones return . oh, and don't kill all the large mammals just because they fart. kill all the babies instead! just kidding. maybe i should be careful. lots of you fanatics do want to exterminate all the babies to save the planet.

  4. there is a very simple solution for climate change
    no high costs , no advanced technology , no negative side effects , good for all plant and animal live
    and very cheap and very easy to realize , the perfect solution …….

    LESS PEOPLE !!!!!!!!

  5. (Talking about CO2) "The evidence is overwhelming. This is fact. You are wrong if you deny it."

    WTF even I believe in climate change but using these statements is just unscientific. Science is build on try to disprove preexisting notions and test existing theories. The CO2 emmision based climate change is just a theory. It is not a law. Climate science complex so simply claim that its all become of CO2. In fact, most paper that you will read actually states that CO2 based climate change is inconclusive because correlation does not equal causation. There are much more other potent green house gases that are also abundant but they keep blaming CO2.

  6. Allan Savory has an easier solution: Increase grazing animals, increasing the availability of food for much of Africa, and at very low cost. It's the animal dung and urine, under and on trampled grasses, that retains the water that rains rather plentifully. We have to realize that all we are doing as humans is fighting nature–maybe observing and mimicking it is the answer.

  7. Hello Real Engineering
    Unfortunately your information is based on some major falsifications:
    Your data sources removed the Holocene, Roman, Middle Age, and Depression era climate optimums. All of these optimums were warmer than today, and arrived and left, just like the current optimum will (Clark, Moore, Heller). The removal of these known historical occurrences has quantifiably and visually skewed the current optimum as though we are in runaway warming. We’re not, the Earth is in its latter half of a 7th Quaternary interglacial warming, and we will see major climate change from this general cyclical warming back to a major glacial event, as per the past 7 – in -5000 years or more (Clark).

    Yes CO2 has increased, but contrary to your assertions, catastrophic weather has not increased (Pielke), acidification has not increased (Ridd), Sea level and polar ice caps are under change as per T change but for the most part do not exhibit any major net change (Heller and many others). Note, the work of all those referenced HAS been peer reviewed.
    What definitely has increased is Western civilization poverty, but it is you assholes that have created this by 1) falsifying the Temperature profile and then 2) by licensing the bureaucrats to steal from the masses

    If you’re a proponent of this massive sham, you should be put in front of a tribunal and locked up.

  8. You need to look again at nuclear vs pushing "solutions" that aren't reliable or proven, and would have less positive impact than you think.

  9. These engineers have one major problem that they cannot overcome- they engineers. These guys need should have green tea with low levels of caffeine with permaculture experts doing desert greening work. Then with regenerative farmers and finally with carbon sequestration scientists. I'll supply a list on demand.

  10. You have it exactly backwards. The deserts are going to grow, not shrink, and there's absolutely nothing we can (*will) do about it. The idea of terraforming Earth is absurd on its face when we can't even accomplish the far simpler and less expensive goal of reducing damage. An ounce of prevention is a pound of cure, and we don't even have an ounce.

  11. How about we start building something outside the planet, some sort of shield to both protect us from solar rays and meteorites, would cost the same, but be more practical. And from there we can start to create enclosed habitats in space with nature and all, similar to the Elysium movie.

  12. A good insight, land restoration projects shown that it could be done with added benefits of creating economics activities for the local communities and the restoration of local climate system that would bring back streams, rain, and biodiversity. Most of the carbons will be stored not in the trees, but underground.

  13. Twelve thousand years ago the deserts were lush grasslands and forests…SO – reforesting these areas would potentially result in its own water storage over time…that means water maintenance would be less than anticipated, and that would be a good thing.

  14. plant hemp. hemp sequesters four times the co2 than trees. the army core of engineers used hemp to reclaim desert in the early 1900's

  15. The Elephant in the room.
    At no time in earth's 4 billion year history did it have 7.7 billion people and ALWAYS GROWING .
    (4 billion in 1980 in comparison) . More people use up more of EVERYTHING.
    Use less resources? More like we need less resources consumers.

  16. The name of the video and 2 min in and other videos including your own Can we block the sun…. turning the Sarah toma forrest would actually warm the earth, not cool it. The reason is simple really. The Sarah is actually shiny right now and reflects a lot of the solar radiation hitting it, straight back out into space. Now covering the saraha in trees which are a dark green will absorb way more energy than the desert does right now. So we would go from reflecting away most of the solar radiation to collecting almost all of the solar radiation, so a fairly big net increase in energy gain with an associated Temperature rise but a CO2 decrease.

    Crazy but true. Also 4000 years ago,or less the saraha was a lush tropical paradise and the Egyptian Pharos came about at the end of the saraha.

  17. It comes down to it in the end that if you cut down zillions of trees like we have and then want to replace them, then we have to put the replacements exactly where we cut the originals from if we want to fix the problem.

  18. No answer to your stupid question in the title is no. The climate has always been changing and always will be changing. Doing some shit in Sahara will not magically make the climate stay exactly where it is forever.

  19. This is what is so frustrating. When you slap these 2 graphs in front of my face and try and act like this is evidence of anything.

    Yes, carbon emissions have skyrocketed relative to what they have been in recent history. We are still talking about parts per million though, 400 ppm is only 0.04%. Regardless, what do carbon emissions have to do with global temperatures and sea levels? What is this strong causal relationship??

    Stretch that graph back 20,000 years (humans were around then, and apes in general were around quite a bit longer) than this… why the fuckkkkkk are we worried the climate has always changed

  20. This is based on very poor science. Name-calling isn't debate. Take the science seriously and learn:

  21. Three points, y'all bagging the tree selection, but that's a pioneer species. As the tree growth creates a habitable climate other native secondary growth trees and grasses would move into the new forest.

    Africa? Shouldn't you be focused on moving grass and trees north? Kolala wouldn't live in Africa.

    Desalination. I'm not African and my guess is neither are you. So I plant trees (natives) in New Zealand. I'd suggest the USA should be planting more trees and irrigating them in the dry USA states. But they aren't.

    I'm convinced coral reef building would more important and may actually happen.

  22. If solar were “cheap,” it would be everywhere. You only get about 1500 W/m^2 of solar irradiance on a sunny day. That sets a hard limit on how much solar energy you can get per square mile — not a lot. Advanced nuclear is the way to go, it can solve the problems of old nuclear and do exciting new things like medical isotopes and seawater desalination. See thorium —

  23. I like how you start off that this is fact and don't reference the multiple peer reviewed papers that dis-agree with these "facts". It's like to old adage "ideas so great, they're mandatory". If climate change was fact why for the last 45 years has every apocalyptic deadline turned out to be wrong. Ice Ages, Over populations, dried up oceans, sarhara desert in the American midwest, etc

    While climate change may be real or may be an agenda driven means of social engineering, it does no one any good to stay something is fact and demand that they believe it unequivocally. The engineering behind changing a desert into forrest is interesting in and of itself.

  24. Pathetic. The planet is stronger than us. If you think you can change it, the planet will correct itself. It always has and always will. This is wrong.

  25. The "scientific" conclusion that trees warm the planet vs sand is in error. Trees absorb more sunlight, but sand converts more sunlight to heat. This is because the sunlight absorbed by trees is converted to chemical energy, not heat. Surface temp of trees is much lower than sand due to the fact that sand is converting solar radiation into heat and trees are converting a larger absorbed solar radiation into chemical energy and less heat. This video's conclusion is scientifically wrong!

  26. Our earth is like our human bodies,we gets fever,diarrhoea,vomiting,sweating,sneezes and cold to do so as to rebalance our bodies Yin and Yang,so,typhoons,tornados,lightning,heatwaves tsunamis,cold storms are just our earth trying to rebalance itself.More carbons heats our earth. Stronger cold and heats plus weathers going out of seasons,snowing in the deserts and sudden coldness in Summers.

  27. Climate change is a scam, and the Sahara turns green every 15,000 years (give or take), so who needs to bother. Just wait.

  28. thorium nuclear son. desal no big deal solar is a joke. your engaging in way too much wishful thinking. nuclear would make it so much easier and more cost effective. thorium thorium thorium!

  29. You should have just planted American Oak Trees as they are genetically engineer to adsorb 100% more carbon then regular trees.

  30. "You are wrong if you deny it"
    says the dishonest person who looks at a trend of 100 years (an IDIOTICALLY insignificant period in climate science or geology) inside an absurdly complex model where ridiculously huge fluctuations have happened before…

  31. More PEOPLE = More Pollution (carbon) and those same people screaming REDUCE are those screaming MORE immigration. HOW stupid and incompetent are you who don't see the contradiction.

  32. This is totally unscientific. Either you have evidence or you don´t. The scientific method is not to prove your hypothesis but to disprove it.

  33. the answer is sitting in our garage, with a sheet thrown over it. An arm's length away. ●THORIUM : NUCLEAR : ENERGY● it is mathematically the only way if you believe climate alarmist predictions.

  34. Why not directly use the heat of the sun to evaporate water from the sea making it cheaper both to extract and transport at scale. this would be a project worth doing for the benefit if human lives of the inhabitants of those countries, quality of life, trade becoming viable etc. regardless of global climate implications

  35. The Sahara Desert dust that's being carried away across the ocean is a source of nutrients for the Amazonian Rainforest. The whole planet is interconnected. What we need to do is develop new clean energy technologies, stop using fossil fuels and any other sources of greenhouse gasses and develop CO2 Capture and Storage technology. As well there's another problem that we don't acknowledge enough witch is Ocean Acidification. Considering that the phytoplankton in our oceans is the worlds biggest Oxigen producer and CO2 remover, we're F-ed

  36. Carbon tax makes no sense. This is just socializing the risks for polluting corporations. Why should taxpayers pay for industries to pollute? It's just another bullshit market based scheme that doesn't make industries stop polluting. This has the danger of making us all feel like we're doing something about the problem and proud of ourselves while really we aren't doing anything. Do like LA. Drop carbon credits and go back to command control regulation. Fuck libertarianism.

  37. Use desalination to water the Sahara. In addition, the Sahara has deep aquifers that could be used. Could afforest with multiple species, not just eucalyptus. If we could just force countries to stop burning coal for electricity, that would be a very helpful start.

  38. I Like the underlying idea of greening Sahara but it dosent seam he has mutch nollitch about posibel and proven solutions. But seartch.. green the desert and swales. Right now here in moritania we have a lot of problems with flooding becorse the rainy season have startet one village 200 houses destroied so we get the rain it's just to bloody fast that's where the swales come in play

  39. Side note: planting one species of tree across half a continent sounds like a recipe for cultivating any disease suited to killing said trees.

    That could be rectified by using a diverse range of flora which would eventually create something not unlike the amazon where you can go a whole km without seeing the same species of tree.

    It doesn’t solve the problem of forests absorbing too much energy from the sun, but it would provide more than just a massive increase in o2 worldwide. It would provide all kinds of knew information about life, and could be the gateway to the discovery of an incalculable number of pharmaceuticals we could make great use of.

    Still, there’s probably a hundred better things to focus on rn – what with climate change being the most important

  40. This presentation isn't fact but ludicrous fraud. An absurdly clueless about climate, geography, & many scientific precepts even promoting dangerous geo-engineering scams.

  41. The coast will be reduced if we do it in smaller scale for example Algeria it have the biggest part on Sahara but it's only 1 milion m square and it have one of the biggest ground water in the world so we can do it as well and some theatrical obstacles aren't always a facts that will happen I mean + 0,12 c ….in the two cases it's no dangerous ( having green Sahara with + 0,12 c or green Sahara without it)

  42. Maybe this junk-science website should consider the potential impact of greening a desert on surrounding habitat before creating a cause celebre out of this one. Anything for Buck, eh?

  43. Anytime someone dogmatically says, "This is FACT ! You are WRONG if you deny it !" , he is generally so full of shit that there is no point in listening to anything further he has to say.

  44. Desalination by RO at most doubles salinity of the outgoing water to the sea. At most plants certain sea life use the increase in salinity as a ecosystem

  45. Synthetic meats or veganism, Thorium reactors and electric cars would almost fully solve the issue. We are not far off cheap electric cars, we can all become vegan if we choose to and we know how to make thorium reactors – the issue is investment and people being too stubborn to change what they do. We need to stop acting like all renewable energy sources are good for the environment as they really are not.

  46. This plan is a bit dumb. You don't need to turn all the desert into forests, we better make a 20 – 200 km strip of forests at the borders around each desert, and install in this zone at suitable places (near oceans) solar thermal plants that desalinate water, and wind. That electricity is then exported mostly either by high voltage direct current lines or converted into hydrogen.

  47. Where’s me lucky charms! Maybe you guys should’ve picked someone who didn’t have such a ridiculous sounding accent

  48. I have regularly written about greening the Sahara. Clearly it would require a great effort, but I also thinkit might be cheaper and simpler than you suggest. Just studying weather patterns leads me to believe that purposely greening the Gulf of Aden, Ethiopan Highlands,, Oman, Somalia would re-invite the monsoon to drop it´s copious rain in the Sahara. Just preventing heat from dissipating the moisture- loaded clouds would bring them in . Also re~greening the Atlas would surely help, and later expand to the south Libyan highlands an then the Sahel,etc. Some is already happening- the green wall in the Sahel, re~planting of the Ethiopan highlands, are big examples. Some resources even suggest that it was human impact that desertified the Sahara in the first place. Let us dream!

  49. What about regrowing forests in Europe that have been destroyed? You can planet eucalyptus in California, much of which is useless undeveloped land, they even grow fast. There is a particular pine that can grow fast too, and can grow some places here as well, but with out the fire hazards. Cloud albedo is best since it prevents the sunlight from hitting the surface at all, in addition to removing greenhouse gases from our atmosphere as well. Ice would still let the sunlight hit the surface of the planet.

  50. What about this for a solution then? Accepting that, apart from natural CO2 emmisions from volcanoes etc., all greenhouse gases are produced as a result of human activity. Reduce that human activity, then GH gasses are reduced. Solution – reduce the level of reproductive copulation which results in a gradual reduction in the number of humans on the planet, which results in a reduction in the production of greenhouse gases.
    And the best thing of all ??? It costs nothing !!!

  51. This is the moment where a real engineer stops with this inefficient and hugely expensive solar stuff and talks about nuclear

  52. Look at Tony Heller videos on You tube, "You are wrong if you denial it" what ever happened to evidence. What you don't show is the GISP2 ice core data temperatures which shows temperature were higher during the Medieval warm period, or Roman or Minoan, or 8000 years ago. Facts are US forest fires are down 80% from 1930's, US 100F days a way down from 1930's. Your NASA temperature graph has been altered since 2000, look back at the old graphs and it show they have cooled the past and warm present. There is nothing unprecedented in a 0.8 C rise in temperature, at the end of the Younger Dryas temps rose 7 C in Greenland within a few years 11,700 years ago.

  53. Real Engineering, if you are going to promote scientific answers to human problems you need to make sure you are considering all of the effects of increased CO2 levels. The greening effect of increased CO2 has now been documented extensively.

  54. Your are spreading misinformation like manure. Shame on you. Your sources are bought and paid for and if you were truly educated you would know this.
    Anything for a buck, buddy.

  55. UNRESPECTABLE REPORTING because you purposefully leave out the other side of the CO2 argument. Present BOTH sides to let viewers make up their own minds. Instead, you take the position of judge, jury, and executioner and tell us we're crazy for not believing you. Horrible way to present a credible presentation.

  56. Using desalinated the ocean may be cause side effect. We can plant tree in agricultural land and it help farmer make their soid better. Proven it by planted more than 50 Million Trees.

    We need diversity of trees not just one species of it. One species of trees in large area is a another serious problem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *