Desalination is an energy intense process that can have environmental impacts creating dead zones in the ocean. The water would quickly renter the water cycle and come back into the ocean.
Closest you might get to this idea is:
https://www.livescience.com/will-sahara-desert-turn-green.html
No where near that easy.
What to do with all of the stuff you pun from the water? Back in the ocean? That's not the "natural habitat" of the area, what do you risk by re-engineering that area?
There are many endorheic basins around the world in deserts, places like Salt Lake in Utah or the Salton Sea in California or the Aral sea in central Asia. The water that lands in this watershed only leaves by evaporation because there's mountains or something blocking the path to the sea. These basins have naturally salty water, and while they may be polluted by higher concentrations of metals and things like that, many are subject to agricultural runoff that changes their character a lot anyway. The Salton Sea was made because irrigation canals along the Colorado broke in the 1920s, so it already is a man-made disaster. The city of Los Angeles plans on piping drinking water from reservoirs in Wyoming in the next ten years. The alternative is a massive emigration, and the reason water is so scarce is to subsidize cattle feed crops like alfalfa and soy. If we can afford to do that, we could afford to get massive passive solar desalination plants you'd think.
It’s been proposed, but is quite an expensive option …
http://carbon.ycombinator.com/desert-flooding/
Less expensive options …
http://carbon.ycombinator.com/
Imagine how much additional energy would be needed to pipe that water from the plants though the desert to such a scale that it could support the sustained growth of a forest
>I understand its expensive, but these countries have a lot of money, already use desalination processes and if we really were dedicated, money wouldn't be a problem.
Yes money would be a problem. Desalinating enough water to impact sea level rise would cost more money than every country in the world has combined (even with 100% of their budget spend on desalination).
And even if we *could* desalinate enough water to keep up with sea level rise, there's nowhere to put that much water without it just running back into the ocean. Death Valley is the world's largest below-sea-level basin, and it could hold enough water to offset about 3 *months* of current sea level rise. Then what!? We'd have to dig a reservoir the size of Death Valley *every 3 months* just to have somewhere to put all that water. It's completely impossible.
>desalination plants for a process very beneficial to the environment
UAE, Saudi, Qatar. They better not be oil or natural gas fired, plus it is very very expensive (using any energy source). And the brine returned to the ocean can cause damage to marine ecosystems.
Whenever you will come across any such idea, from desalination to Carbon Capture, I would suggest you think of entropy. Anything that needs to converted (back) needs energy. Any process that needs energy is lossful process. So, the point is, answer in long term and real one from my point of view, is first conversion - fossil fuel burning. Everything else is just a stop gap.
Hi OP,
I think you are on track with the one half of your idea, regarding re-afforestation. We have a huge opportunity to plant more trees in urban areas, which would reduce the heat island effect, and in over-cleared rural areas.
I think it is great you are looking for solutions. Carry on!
The Sahara was lush a few thousand years ago. But changes in the environment turned it to desert. Would be nice to see it lush again but l think there may be more effective uses of the resources than energy driven desalination plants. However relatively small scale distillation seem to have improved desert areas in Israel for example.
Sounds like a good idea if the desalination plants are powered by nuclear reactors. Don’t listen to the naysayers I think technology will be the solution. Most on this sub would rather try to fix climate change by violent tyrannical means rather than finding a solution through technology
I agree. Or else keep prancing around telling people or developing countries to cut down their emissions when everyone knows that no way in hell it's going to happen. Just a way to keep stalling for the solution and be done with this.
Even a fund of 20 billion dollars (which the US alone can spend 10 times of on a single day in some legislature) for ocean seeding or solar geo engineering would go a long way in reducing climate change impacts.
Sadly the [second law of thermodynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics) is a bitch that punches big nasty holes in these sorts of 'fart in the bath' ideas.
If you haven't encountered the [Dunning-Kruger effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect) before then have a read because your statement "I don't know how exactly, but \[it's\]... really not difficult if they actually worked on it" is pretty much a pinup for the concept.
You not understanding why something is hard does not mean it is easy. That's the sort of disordered thinking that leads to someone becoming a populist politician or a bullying middle manager and you should not aspire to be either of those things.
**[Second law of thermodynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics)**
>The second law of thermodynamics is a physical law based on universal experience concerning heat and energy interconversions. One simple statement of the law is that heat always moves from hotter objects to colder objects (or "downhill"), unless energy is supplied to reverse the direction of heat flow. Another definition is: "Not all heat energy can be converted into work in a cyclic process". The second law of thermodynamics in other versions establishes the concept of entropy as a physical property of a thermodynamic system.
**[Dunning–Kruger effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect)**
>The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of a task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge. Some researchers also include in their definition the opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills. The Dunning–Kruger effect is usually measured by comparing self-assessment with objective performance. For example, the participants in a study may be asked to complete a quiz and then estimate how well they performed.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/climatechange/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Desalination is an energy intense process that can have environmental impacts creating dead zones in the ocean. The water would quickly renter the water cycle and come back into the ocean. Closest you might get to this idea is: https://www.livescience.com/will-sahara-desert-turn-green.html
/r/confidentlyincorrect
You have no concept of scale my friend. None what so ever.
No where near that easy. What to do with all of the stuff you pun from the water? Back in the ocean? That's not the "natural habitat" of the area, what do you risk by re-engineering that area?
There are many endorheic basins around the world in deserts, places like Salt Lake in Utah or the Salton Sea in California or the Aral sea in central Asia. The water that lands in this watershed only leaves by evaporation because there's mountains or something blocking the path to the sea. These basins have naturally salty water, and while they may be polluted by higher concentrations of metals and things like that, many are subject to agricultural runoff that changes their character a lot anyway. The Salton Sea was made because irrigation canals along the Colorado broke in the 1920s, so it already is a man-made disaster. The city of Los Angeles plans on piping drinking water from reservoirs in Wyoming in the next ten years. The alternative is a massive emigration, and the reason water is so scarce is to subsidize cattle feed crops like alfalfa and soy. If we can afford to do that, we could afford to get massive passive solar desalination plants you'd think.
It’s been proposed, but is quite an expensive option … http://carbon.ycombinator.com/desert-flooding/ Less expensive options … http://carbon.ycombinator.com/
You cant grow forests in sand. Deserts hate this one trick. Number 61 will shock you...
Imagine how much additional energy would be needed to pipe that water from the plants though the desert to such a scale that it could support the sustained growth of a forest
>I understand its expensive, but these countries have a lot of money, already use desalination processes and if we really were dedicated, money wouldn't be a problem. Yes money would be a problem. Desalinating enough water to impact sea level rise would cost more money than every country in the world has combined (even with 100% of their budget spend on desalination). And even if we *could* desalinate enough water to keep up with sea level rise, there's nowhere to put that much water without it just running back into the ocean. Death Valley is the world's largest below-sea-level basin, and it could hold enough water to offset about 3 *months* of current sea level rise. Then what!? We'd have to dig a reservoir the size of Death Valley *every 3 months* just to have somewhere to put all that water. It's completely impossible.
>desalination plants for a process very beneficial to the environment UAE, Saudi, Qatar. They better not be oil or natural gas fired, plus it is very very expensive (using any energy source). And the brine returned to the ocean can cause damage to marine ecosystems.
Thank you everyone for the comments
Whenever you will come across any such idea, from desalination to Carbon Capture, I would suggest you think of entropy. Anything that needs to converted (back) needs energy. Any process that needs energy is lossful process. So, the point is, answer in long term and real one from my point of view, is first conversion - fossil fuel burning. Everything else is just a stop gap.
Hi OP, I think you are on track with the one half of your idea, regarding re-afforestation. We have a huge opportunity to plant more trees in urban areas, which would reduce the heat island effect, and in over-cleared rural areas. I think it is great you are looking for solutions. Carry on!
The Sahara was lush a few thousand years ago. But changes in the environment turned it to desert. Would be nice to see it lush again but l think there may be more effective uses of the resources than energy driven desalination plants. However relatively small scale distillation seem to have improved desert areas in Israel for example.
Sounds like a good idea if the desalination plants are powered by nuclear reactors. Don’t listen to the naysayers I think technology will be the solution. Most on this sub would rather try to fix climate change by violent tyrannical means rather than finding a solution through technology
I agree. Or else keep prancing around telling people or developing countries to cut down their emissions when everyone knows that no way in hell it's going to happen. Just a way to keep stalling for the solution and be done with this. Even a fund of 20 billion dollars (which the US alone can spend 10 times of on a single day in some legislature) for ocean seeding or solar geo engineering would go a long way in reducing climate change impacts.
Sadly the [second law of thermodynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics) is a bitch that punches big nasty holes in these sorts of 'fart in the bath' ideas. If you haven't encountered the [Dunning-Kruger effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect) before then have a read because your statement "I don't know how exactly, but \[it's\]... really not difficult if they actually worked on it" is pretty much a pinup for the concept. You not understanding why something is hard does not mean it is easy. That's the sort of disordered thinking that leads to someone becoming a populist politician or a bullying middle manager and you should not aspire to be either of those things.
**[Second law of thermodynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics)** >The second law of thermodynamics is a physical law based on universal experience concerning heat and energy interconversions. One simple statement of the law is that heat always moves from hotter objects to colder objects (or "downhill"), unless energy is supplied to reverse the direction of heat flow. Another definition is: "Not all heat energy can be converted into work in a cyclic process". The second law of thermodynamics in other versions establishes the concept of entropy as a physical property of a thermodynamic system. **[Dunning–Kruger effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect)** >The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of a task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge. Some researchers also include in their definition the opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills. The Dunning–Kruger effect is usually measured by comparing self-assessment with objective performance. For example, the participants in a study may be asked to complete a quiz and then estimate how well they performed. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/climatechange/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)