Terraforming Deserts.

[NSEP]

I have thought about terraforming the western part of the Sahara (in like the Western Sahara/Mauritinia area) by digging a canal, pumping put water in some areas, and letting small sea's erode. 

Why? Well, its just a thought experiment.

Edited January 23, 2017 by NSEP

[Gaarst]

If you forget about economy and politics, we could probably terraform the Sun.

[kerbiloid]

Earth climate brief scheme

Latitude	true	false
70..90°	ice	bog
30..60°	city	forest
0..20°	jungle	desert

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by kerbiloid

[RedKraken]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project

[Darnok]

https://phys.org/news/2016-12-years-sahara-tropicalwhat.html

Looks like 6000 years ago we made too many spears and created "sahara warming" effect

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Darnok

[adsii1970]

Not without significantly altering the planetary environment. Are you willing to sacrifice moisture in some other region of the planet if you alter weather patterns? If you create a giant lake, you'll alter the environment somewhere else by creating a water evaporation point. This would mean that areas outside of the zone you hope to terraform, mainly to the west, would become significantly wetter, too. This could cause massive climate change and destroy property, lives, and current human civilizational stability in Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula. This disruption would be caused by a new player -regular thunderstorms, rain, and additional moisture in a region where society has evolved in an arid climate.

If you want to look at real examples of terraforming and "that's not what we meant to do", consider the Aral Sea in Russia. The diversion of rivers from the natural watershed to allow for large scale irrigation projects in the surrounding semi-arid steppes of Russia has killed the Aral Sea. It has actually changed weather patterns stretching all the way into Mongolia. Sure, since 2008, Russia is now trying to save the inland sea but there is ongoing debate over how successful it will be.

[Nuke]

big deserts like that can be used for solar-thermal power plants, and the material for the mirrors is already there. the energy can go to water desalinization. since the area is big a few pockets of moisture wont kill it, and it would provide the basis for a large agricultural community.

[kerbiloid]

13 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

f you want to look at real examples of terraforming and "that's not what we meant to do", consider the Aral Sea in Russia.

These data are a little obsolete.
As I've read past year, current researches have shown that this is the natural state of the Aral basin. Last several thousand years it mostly was a dry plain, from time to time flooded by water. Currently we just live in its yet another collapse.

P.S.
In Sahara one can build channels, but nobody can change evapouration speed. Insolation rules. If somethng is not covered by jungles, it turns into desert.

Edited January 23, 2017 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

Don't mind me, I'll go look for those old Soviet canal-digging mini-thermonukes...

[NSEP]

2 hours ago, Gaarst said:

If you forget about economy and politics, we could probably terraform the Sun.

But that will result in a "They do not want this to happend because they dont like us" or a "Thats waaaaay of budget" kind of problem.

Edited January 23, 2017 by NSEP

[RedKraken]

If you wait a few years, rising sea-levels will flood quite a few deserts. And other things.

 

[NSEP]

47 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Not without significantly altering the planetary environment. Are you willing to sacrifice moisture in some other region of the planet if you alter weather patterns? If you create a giant lake, you'll alter the environment somewhere else by creating a water evaporation point. This would mean that areas outside of the zone you hope to terraform, mainly to the west, would become significantly wetter, too. This could cause massive climate change and destroy property, lives, and current human civilizational stability in Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula. This disruption would be caused by a new player -regular thunderstorms, rain, and additional moisture in a region where society has evolved in an arid climate.

If you want to look at real examples of terraforming and "that's not what we meant to do", consider the Aral Sea in Russia. The diversion of rivers from the natural watershed to allow for large scale irrigation projects in the surrounding semi-arid steppes of Russia has killed the Aral Sea. It has actually changed weather patterns stretching all the way into Mongolia. Sure, since 2008, Russia is now trying to save the inland sea but there is ongoing debate over how successful it will be.

How would a sea in the sahara desert pull all the water vapour to Egypt while the the wind goes in the opposite direction? Am i something missing here?

I have heard about the Aral Sea story before, but canals for example dont naturally shift right? Would that not keep the lake alive or am i wrong again?

19 minutes ago, RedKraken said:

If you wait a few years, rising sea-levels will flood quite a few deserts. And other things.

 

Other things like important cities and lives near the coast or below sea level.

Edited January 23, 2017 by NSEP

[FleshJeb]

1 hour ago, RedKraken said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project

I'd like to see them do something similar to the Salton Sea.

[adsii1970]

3 minutes ago, NSEP said:

How would a sea in the sahara desert pull all the water vapour to the Egypt while the the wind goes in the opposite direction? Am i something missing here?

Yes, the upper level jet stream, which drives the planetary climate, flows from east to west over Africa, you are correct. It would still alter the climate to the EAST of the project with most of the precipitation being lost over the ocean.

40 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

These data are a little obsolete.
As I've read past year, current researches have shown that this is the natural state of the Aral basin. Last several thousand years it mostly was a dry plain, from time to time flooded by water. Currently we just live in its yet another collapse.

This collapse was driven by the old Soviet Union and its massive irrigation projects. The Soviets changed how water flowed into it in the 1950s. What we are seeing now is the results of these projects. Say what you will, this is the result of an attempt to terraform - to make the surrounding area more suitable for large scale agriculture.  2014 is not that out of date, as you claim in your post... and what makes this collapse different is this one is mostly man-made and as a result of poor planning on the part of the Soviet Union.

13 minutes ago, NSEP said:

I have heard about the Aral Sea story before, but canals for example dont naturally shift right? Would that not keep the lake alive or am i wrong again?

No, canals do not shift, but I believe someone mentioned creating a big lake. This can have a lot of ecological consequences.

[NSEP]

9 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

No, canals do not shift, but I believe someone mentioned creating a big lake. This can have a lot of ecological consequences.

And a canal that "leaks" in order to make a sea? Oh wait, that does not make any sense! Unless you have super huge massive water pumps. And what ecological consequenses can happend other than spreading water around for life to spread? (Oh and by the way, i forgot the difference between a sea and a lake, im sorry for that, i meant sea)

24 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Yes, the upper level jet stream, which drives the planetary climate, flows from east to west over Africa, you are correct. It would still alter the climate to the EAST of the project with most of the precipitation being lost over the ocean.

You are correct, the East will be affected, and it would ruin places like Dakar, wich can cause problems. They just got to adapt to it somehow or die, if it really happened. But would the percipitation still be a problem if it is connected to the ocean itself via a canal? What happends when more water vaporizes than goes in? Does that even happend? Is that even possible? 

I think its a good idea to make my idea a little more clear by editing the post a bit

[benzman]

The Law of Unintended Consequences will ensure that any of these massive projects will go horribly wrong, e.g. the destruction of the Aral Sea, the accidental creation of the Salton sea, the overfishing of the Grand Banks, the introduction of rabbits, cane toads and foxes to Australia, etc.  Our one and only planet is not the place to experiment with massive, megaprojects like this.

 

[Green Baron]

2 hours ago, NSEP said:

I have thought about terraforming the western part of the Sahara (in like the Western Sahara/Mauritinia area) by digging a canal, pumping put water in some areas, and letting small sea's erode. 

Why? Well, its just a thought experiment.

Geoscientist's questions:

Why does a desert like the Sahara form ? Which arrangements leads to it ? Is it permanent or ephemeral ? How are global and continental circulation of winds and precipitation, evaporation balance of nearby waters, transport of moisture, can the soil hold water, (sub-)continental arrangements, transport of energy in nearby oceans ? All these factors are researched. A desert like the Sahara is not a constant thing like e.g. in the Permian what formed the Navajo Sandstone formation, 7.000 years ago neolithic societies lived there where today is a desert. Search Science and Nature and Elsevier journals if you want more info on that.

If conditions are favourable for more precipitation in the Sahara then in a few hundred/thousand years you can plant Tomatoes there.

 

Of course you can get yourself a hose (or dig a canal, same principle because must be maintained), but you cannot terraform on Terra. I have a problem with the wording here :-) Take a look at one of the Earth visualisation things (Google maps or so) and look what the Moroccoans have done, they are quite good at artificial irrigation. Or the Saudis or Omans in the Rhub-al-Khali. It is artificial irrigation by digging thousands of meters deep for ground water.

cheers

gb

 

 

[StrandedonEarth]

When all the major glaciers melt and the rivers become seasonal, then the cities will be screaming for water and something drastic will need to be done: Nuclear powered desalination plants pumping vast amounts of water inland. That could also be done for the deserts, with the water being used for irrigating crops. Of course, the evaporation would have to go somewhere, but could be mitigated with greenhouses, or even just downwind moisture traps. I would think a well-irrigated farm in a hot desert climate should produce like crazy, and less crop pests too (until they find it).

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

This collapse was driven by the old Soviet Union and its massive irrigation projects. The Soviets changed how water flowed into it in the 1950s. What we are seeing now is the results of these projects. Say what you will, this is the result of an attempt to terraform - to make the surrounding area more suitable for large scale agriculture.  2014 is not that out of date, as you claim in your post... and what makes this collapse different is this one is mostly man-made and as a result of poor planning on the part of the Soviet Union.

Previous two times Aral "Sea" got totally dry 400 and 2000 years ago.
Probably, you should blame steppe nomads and Roman Empire in this tragedy, as this was far before Soviet irrigation.

Rivers change their place from time to time, as Amudarya and Syrdarya many times did.

 

[adsii1970]

@Kerbaloid: Your interpretation is not supported by any facts at all. Yes, the Romans irrigated using the Aral Sea, and so did various other groups, however, it was the Soviets, beginning in the 1950s, that irrigated to a level not technologically possible by the Romans or other groups. Even the United Nations, beginning in 1954, attempted to warn the Soviet Union of the environmental tragedy they were creating.

While the Aral Sea does fluctuate, every source I have cited in this thread and hundreds more available on the Internet demonstrate to even the casual researcher that the Soviet Union redirected the sources of water throughout the water shed of the Aral Sea for its irrigation projects. At best, less than 20% of the water (pre-Soviet irrigation projects) actually made it into the Aral Sea once the projects began. By the 1970s, the situation was made even worse - and it impacted the surrounding areas. Without the Aral Sea, surrounding areas had reduced precipitation, including winter snowfall. As a result in the loss of precipitation, the surrounding lands are more arid, salty/acidic, and increased desertification has occurred. Again, this did not happen under the Romans, as you place blame. It happened under the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Yes, rivers do change their course from time to time. However, these rivers that flow into the Aral Sea were diverted by the Soviet Union. As several reports indicate and as many of the sources I have cited throughout my responses show, the crisis reached the tipping point in the 1970s. And at the slow rate in which the damage is being repaired, it will not be in the lifetimes of many of the forum users that the Aral Sea will be back to its pre-1950s condition. It is the perfect example of how terraforming can truly screw up the environment. Some estimate that by 2020, the Aral Sea will be totally gone... Again, I've used a number of sources but you are more than welcomed to stick your head in the sand and keep blaming the Romans when nearly every scientific study indicates it was the diversion of the Amu Dar’ya and Syr Dar’ya rivers by the Soviet Union, beginning in the late 1950s that DIRECTLY CAUSED this environmental issue.

 

[kerbiloid]

https://translate.google.ru/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FАральское_море&edit-text=

Quote

From 1961 to 1985, water withdrawal was 12.8 cubic km, while the delta of Amudarya and Syrdarya for unknown reasons did not reach 16.3 cubic km Further calculations showed that the change in the level of the Aral Sea occurs at 15% due to climatic factors, by 23% - due to the loss of water for irrigation, 62% - from filtration maintenance of water in the bowels of the earth.

Puny human efforts caused just a quarter of the loss.
It is an ephemeral water reservoir on backyard of a desert which most part of its dull life is semi-dead, from time to time being either flooded or dried.
It is by definition "drainless salt lake".
What is dead may never die. (c)

The irrigation just shifted is cycle a little. 100 years later rivers will change their directions again, and where should be a desert, will be a salt lake again.

As you can read, when it has dried... again... they found medieval ruins with mausoleums. People don't found cities and build mausoleums on river meadows.

50 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

However, these rivers that flow into the Aral Sea were diverted by the Soviet Union.

Of course, they did. As a result:
populated territories of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan got more water for agriculture (mostly cotton and rice),
they also gained hydro-electric energetics (numerous power plants);
near-Aral countries increased their territory: where there was a salt lake, now an oil-rich badlands where they have on-ground oil refineries.

So, when Netherlands dry their gulfs this is mostly the same, but nobody say it's bad. Bad or not, it's a life.

[Green Baron]

Often fossil water is used to irrigate agricultural projects in the desert. It is not that far away, just 2-3km. Problem is that the level sinks and each year they have to drill a little deeper until the water comes out of reach, which could be the case pretty soon(tm) in Oman or Arabia. Arabs regularly use it for gardening and car washing ... humans just don't care about the future :-/

A quick search revealed these photos for those who need pictures :-) But they are 15 years old ...

http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=2237

Edited January 24, 2017 by Green Baron

[magnemoe]

15 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

Not without significantly altering the planetary environment. Are you willing to sacrifice moisture in some other region of the planet if you alter weather patterns? If you create a giant lake, you'll alter the environment somewhere else by creating a water evaporation point. This would mean that areas outside of the zone you hope to terraform, mainly to the west, would become significantly wetter, too. This could cause massive climate change and destroy property, lives, and current human civilizational stability in Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula. This disruption would be caused by a new player -regular thunderstorms, rain, and additional moisture in a region where society has evolved in an arid climate.

If you want to look at real examples of terraforming and "that's not what we meant to do", consider the Aral Sea in Russia. The diversion of rivers from the natural watershed to allow for large scale irrigation projects in the surrounding semi-arid steppes of Russia has killed the Aral Sea. It has actually changed weather patterns stretching all the way into Mongolia. Sure, since 2008, Russia is now trying to save the inland sea but there is ongoing debate over how successful it will be.

Giving land west of the seas more rain would be part of the purpose, its unlikely it would be serious rainfalls however, it rains in deserts too often pretty hard but rarely, afterward it would be far more common. Yes it would be ecological changes that is the purpose turning the area from desert to steppe. 

Planting trees might work as well as making lakes, its also cheaper and require less water, the trees are an bonus as they have an value too.  

[WinkAllKerb'']

there this also , without canal, for exemple : (pretty impressive area terraformed middle of nowhere)

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1388792,38.3729501,140633m/data=!3m1!1e3

there also a few of thoose a bit away from the main nil valley & delta in egypt, as an exemple of pairing this kind of area with/along a main canal

(see this also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Center_for_Agricultural_Research_in_the_Dry_Areas , there aslo a lot of report from various organism regarding repercussion and all, public and/or private, with various clear or unclear affiliation, so some of the reports you can find easily around the net should be take with caution regarding the investors/builders redistribution aspect it could be sometime a bit shady or truncated in parrallel with fauna, flora, local population long term real benefit depending the reports)
 

Spoiler

#q=projet%20d%20irrigation%20nord%20afrique%20magrheb

some links that might be of some interest @NSEP around similar project and related study for north afric / maghreb (algeria, tunisia, maroc mostly) and srry most doc are in french, but there prolly some translation of said doc i guess

Edited January 24, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[NSEP]

Thanks for the links @WinkAllKerb'' i will take a look at it.