And I totally agree, lakelink it is clearly easier to establish new forests in the Sahara than to p

Search Menu Search News Blogger Jobfinder newspaper Course Guide Events Cultural Heritage Insights Follow Focus Atom Scrap gene sequencing Fehmarn connection lakelink IC4 Malaysia Airlines MH370 Webinar Rejsekortet Ørkenspredning Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Fukushima disaster
Three American scientists, among other works for Nasa, has figured out that huge forest areas in the Sahara and the Australian outback can absorb as much CO2 we emit by burning oil and coal. Planting of forests will be a good CO2 sponge, assesses Danish research director. By Birgitte Marfelt November 9, 2009 at. 09:09
Mark with fast growing trees such as eucalyptus to cover the Sahara desert and the Australian outback, watered with seawater, treated in a number of desalination plants on the coast and distributed via an extensive irrigation.
"It makes sense in so far as the trees growth is one of the ways that nature itself, since the last ice age, used to bind CO2," assesses research director lakelink Vivian Kvist Johannsen lakelink from Forest & Landscape in the life sciences faculty at University of Copenhagen, immediately.
"It is solar energy that is used to bind CO2 through photosynthesis. So this way: Yes, planting and increase in forest area will bind the CO2 where it is stored as carbon in trees. But it can be done in the Sahara, I do not know, "says Vivian Kvist Johannsen, who also notes that it will cost energy lakelink to desalinate seawater.
The plan devised by cell biologist Leonard Ornstein lakelink from New York along with Igor Aleinov and David Rind that develop climate models for NASA. They assess humbly, that it is probably the best plan for the short term to get total control over global warming created by greenhouse gases.
Trætæppet will create its own weather system and rain, while it absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. According to the team's calculations may desert forests annually draw about eight billion tonnes of carbon, or about the same as now being emitted into the atmosphere from fossil fuels and deforestation.
"The lakelink cost is enormous, but the problem is of course also enormous," says Ornstein to The Guardian, adding that it is a sincere proposals so far that it is the most promising and practical option of using current technology to solve the major part of the problem.
However, I think of an article I read once about the heat rising Sahara Air pulls moist air from the Atlantic, lakelink which keeps the area south of the Western Sahara fertile. Forests are said to have a cooling effect, and thus I fear that a colder Sahara will have the consequence that the areas souther becomes dry, and what progress has been achieved so?
It's a charming idea, but that is after all a reason to instead have been to the desert to start with. If you finally managed to make it on to the forest how big a sustained effort was to wonder if needed to maintain the state?
To build a biomass in the Sahara and Australia is certainly quite fine, but it will eventually be a constant CO2 bound biomass, and therefore more in the nature of a "last minute solution" before the "point of no return" rather than a solution - as suggested - means that we can just continue.
if it would be possible to get something to grow in the desert, it should be crops that can saturate the population in Africa. If the West wants to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it should reduce their emissions.
I have tidliger asked experts about this. They rejected that simply by creating excessive evaporation would achieve precipitation over the same region, in this case, sahara. Can anyone explain what is likely in such a scenario, lakelink based on the Sahara?
Now they probably thought the idea that we should stop to remove the existing forest, lakelink as then being realistic: It's not going to happen for the Western world would of course perish without hardwood windows and furniture.
And I totally agree, lakelink it is clearly easier to establish new forests in the Sahara than to persuade the South Americans to refrain from the easy money as the animal tree of course contains. (In reality it is just politics that are the problem, but is not it always?)
Would not it be more appropriate to plant the forest in the Sahel belt south of the Sahara desert, stopping the spread. I have an idea that the earth is slightly better there. In addition, live people in the area who could benefit from the woods.
However, I think of an article I read once about the heat rising Sahara Air pulls moist air from the Atlantic, which keeps the area south of the Western Sahara fertile. Forests are said to have a cooling lakelink effect, and thus I fear that a colder Sahara lakelink will have the consequence that the areas souther becomes dry, and what progress has been achieved so?
It may be that article. http: //illvid.dk/jorden/klima-miljoe/sahar ... Full article ka