Technotranscendence wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 25, 2000 10:04 PM Michael S. Lorrey retroman@turbont.net
> wrote:
> > > However, I don't think you even need all the effort. Current methods
> are
> > > probably enough to achieve the modest goals of feeding 10 billion
> people.
> > > It would require, IMHO, no more technology than we now have and no fancy
> big
> > > budget macroengineering projects like damming the Congo or flooding the
> Rift
> > > Valley.
> >
> > The only thing separating the Rift Valley from being flooded is about
> > 100 meters
> > of rock on the shore of the Red Sea. I could fix that situation with a
> > couple dozen pounds of C4.
>
> Michael is correct here. My exhausted state and my zeal conspired to
> compell me to make a false statement.:)
>
> On the practical side, what do you [anyone] think about the impact of this
> poor man's macroengineering project? Would it be a net gain or loss for
> people living there and in adjoining regions? What would its impact be in
> global climate and ecology?
>
Of course it would take a weather/climate simulation to come up with
correct answers, but I would imagine that having a couple thousand more
square kilometers of open water in Africa at that latitude would
definitely make the region less arid, and would also cool it down a bit.
Add the Congo project as well, and you will have a major heat sink where
it would do the most good. Since the Sahara induced windflows are the
major engine for the North Atlantic hurricane system, I think it would
definitely change the dynamic there, though whether for the good or bad
is questionable. Of the fifty most severe hurricanes of the 20th century
(energy, velocity, size, wave action, etc), 35 occured BEFORE 1950. Most
of the deforestation peripheral to the Sahara (therefore adding to the
heat engine of that body) has occured SINCE 1950, you get the picture...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:27 MDT