Non-ASB Ways to have a Green(er) Sahara

Figured that since the conversation was starting up on a thread (sadly locked, I'm guessing because of Necro-ing) I'd link the thread here and link it here.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=207773

The premise is simple, whenever you wish, prevent the expansion, or push back the Sahara Desert, without ANY ASB's, or Geological Changes, that aren't a reasonable result of human efforts.

I'm gonna link this on my question thread about the Sahara.
 
The nature of chaotic shifts in systems with many stable states, such as climate, is that they are very easily perturbed during the shifts. PODs could be an increased incidence of slash-and-burn farming somewhere, slightly early or late domestication of some species, better hunting techniques or a disease wiping out large number of a species with a high ecological impact.

Or even less. The butterfly effect is originally referred to as causing a storm. A storm is enough for climate knock-on effects down the line. All of this could knock climate from one metastable state to another.

I don't think the Sahara pump can be forced permanently, but postponed and blunted should be doable.

Sadly, it doesn't matter. I tried to make a thread on this years ago, and anthropogenic climate change is apparently ASB.
 
It would be ASB to have the Sahara stay green, and it would take technology we don't have to make it green again by human impact.

That said, you can slow down desertification to a certain degree which wasn't done OTL. First, I think you need to butterfly Islam or stop it from expanding into North Africa, because events like the migration of the Banu Hilal sped up the ongoing desertification and push the ecosystem over the edge in many places.

Second, you need a major power based around Carthage (let's call it the "Southern Roman Empire"). Since their powerbase will be drawn almost entirely from North Africa, I think they'll pay more attention to the health of the land, or at least enough to have the culture have a sense of ecology and encourage good farming practices. Third, they need to evangelise the cultures on the south side of the Sahara (which probably is inevitable given a Christian North Africa). Hopefully they'll develop a similar ethos in those cultures there. That's the basis for slowing down the desertification of the Sahara.

As for what they could do in later times, I think importing trees of the Acacia genus from Australia (probably no earlier than 1600, sadly) could help reduce desertification in pre-modern times. Acacias are an invasive species in mediterranean climates globally, but they could be immensely useful to cultures around the Sahara. In some West African countries OTL, they're being used both for food (their seeds can be ground into flour to make a very healthy bread) and firewood (taking the stress off of native trees). While I think their use as food would probably come later (during a famine or war, perhaps), their use for firewood, charcoal, tannins (the bark is rich in them) would be almost immediate.

I don't know if North Africa could ever regain the position it had as the breadbasket of the Roman Empire, but it would be able to produce much more food than OTL.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I'm gonna link this on my question thread about the Sahara.

Go nuts :)

The nature of chaotic shifts in systems with many stable states, such as climate, is that they are very easily perturbed during the shifts. PODs could be an increased incidence of slash-and-burn farming somewhere, slightly early or late domestication of some species, better hunting techniques or a disease wiping out large number of a species with a high ecological impact.

Or even less. The butterfly effect is originally referred to as causing a storm. A storm is enough for climate knock-on effects down the line. All of this could knock climate from one metastable state to another.

I don't think the Sahara pump can be forced permanently, but postponed and blunted should be doable.

Sadly, it doesn't matter. I tried to make a thread on this years ago, and anthropogenic climate change is apparently ASB.

I took a look at that thread, and unfortunately, the premise does suggest that "for reason" nothing changes (although it was a brief skim). I can understand why a mod would move that to ASB. I like the ideas though, I'm going to have to be a sod and say that there would need to be a good explaination for each though (I'm not even sure I know what impact slash and burn in the South Sudan would have, besides immediate fire and desertification in the local area.)

*Cough* Well, I mean not to shill out but...

Well...:eek:

You may or may not have been a partial reason I wanted this thread to exist - more for the academic side of the idea - and not necessarily a Roman PoD (Also, it is easier to shill when you have links in your sig!)

It would be ASB to have the Sahara stay green, and it would take technology we don't have to make it green again by human impact.

I think if we knew more, we could do it without an ASB, but you're probably right based on what we can currently understand about the process.

That said, you can slow down desertification to a certain degree which wasn't done OTL. First, I think you need to butterfly Islam or stop it from expanding into North Africa, because events like the migration of the Banu Hilal sped up the ongoing desertification and push the ecosystem over the edge in many places.

Why specifically the Banu Hilal? Is this something to do with the idea that these groups brought goats across?

Second, you need a major power based around Carthage (let's call it the "Southern Roman Empire"). Since their powerbase will be drawn almost entirely from North Africa, I think they'll pay more attention to the health of the land, or at least enough to have the culture have a sense of ecology and encourage good farming practices. Third, they need to evangelise the cultures on the south side of the Sahara (which probably is inevitable given a Christian North Africa). Hopefully they'll develop a similar ethos in those cultures there. That's the basis for slowing down the desertification of the Sahara.

What if it was simply an Exarchate, or similar? I can expect the local Exarch to be interested, especially if it means he gets more money from his land. Looking at the plans for Africa in every division of the Empire, it is odd (to me) that Africa didn't get a special status. It has totally different strategic concerns that are largely disconnected from every other frontier. But I guess if money is meant to be extracted OUT of Africa, then it falls over. (Although, my favourite idea, involving canals in S.Tunisia, would be interesting as a defensive concern).

As for what they could do in later times, I think importing trees of the Acacia genus from Australia (probably no earlier than 1600, sadly) could help reduce desertification in pre-modern times. Acacias are an invasive species in mediterranean climates globally, but they could be immensely useful to cultures around the Sahara. In some West African countries OTL, they're being used both for food (their seeds can be ground into flour to make a very healthy bread) and firewood (taking the stress off of native trees). While I think their use as food would probably come later (during a famine or war, perhaps), their use for firewood, charcoal, tannins (the bark is rich in them) would be almost immediate.

If there were extra resources provided/avaliable, the Portugese could try in the 1500s IMO. Discovering Australia, and bringing back some samples of its odd flora and fauna doesn't seem unreasonable - and growing samples in Portugese territories could be useful. Would it reach Africa quickly, doubtful - but short of an earlier discovery of Australia, we can probably agree on the timescale for that.

I don't know if North Africa could ever regain the position it had as the breadbasket of the Roman Empire, but it would be able to produce much more food than OTL.

Well, it does currently produce MORE food - to the point that there are many scholars who try to dispute the idea that Africa did decline, but instead everywhere else became better. (It has legs, after all, most of the evidence for its decline comes after the application of the heavy plow, which really helped other regions flourish).

----

I figure I can hardly ask without providing my own initial suggestions (not too different from the actions taken by Alternate Eagle) - Canals in N.Africa.

1) Quattara, and the Fezzan, both good and valuable ideas in their own right. Big, saline lakes - the salt industry may boom in these regions before agriculture does, but certainly provides income for the rulers of the area.

2) Chotts south of the Aures Region of Tunisia/Algeria. Whilst the first canal would need to be 21km long - it is the shorter than the Quattara and Fezzan canals. After linking Chott el Fejej and Djerid, the connection of Djerid and Melhrir afterwards creates a large chain of watery bodies - that could either form into a sea (as suggested by Alternate Eagle), or IMO more realistically a series of lake that can be dredged of salt, as they provide rainfall in the Aures Region and .other parts of the Atlas Mts (as the prevailing winds in the Sahara would blow the moisture north).

I like 2, because it creates a potentially wealthy region that ties closely to Aures, and is cheaper and easier to defend than a series of mountain passes. 250Km of watery obstruction for any invaders? Plus money? I think that would be a splendid idea. Personally I think an Exarch, or an earlier Roman govenor could be beneficial here, and would benefit from the not immediately apparent impacts - such as increased rainfall making more of the eastern Tunisian coast riverine.

----

Other than introducing Acacia trees, what other ideas do people have for south of the Sahara?

Also, as an amusing point - I think we can say that the New Valley Project is a reasonable warning sign of side effects and the futility of trying to create something from nothing. (Unless someone has a crazy idea that can help :p )
 
2) Chotts south of the Aures Region of Tunisia/Algeria. Whilst the first canal would need to be 21km long - it is the shorter than the Quattara and Fezzan canals. After linking Chott el Fejej and Djerid, the connection of Djerid and Melhrir afterwards creates a large chain of watery bodies - that could either form into a sea (as suggested by Alternate Eagle), or IMO more realistically a series of lake that can be dredged of salt, as they provide rainfall in the Aures Region and .other parts of the Atlas Mts (as the prevailing winds in the Sahara would blow the moisture north).

As I said in the other thread, I favour this one as most realistic. Just to recap, the Third Republic could do it to try and get more arable land to give to colonists. This could create a vacuum that would bring a lot of southerners (Italians, Spanish, Greeks...) in the region as a lot of free and perhaps arable land would be available (if nothing else, they'd have salt).

Such a project would not be out of reach by a late XIXth century France as they'd have the capitals and the know-how.
Now, there lacks the political will and how to rentabilise it. After all, it's only going to the desert. Land around could be sold to the investors and then leased, or a toll at the entry of the canal leading to the lakes. The ratio of capital to benefits might not quite be thee though, you'd need a huge State involvement, something that is not really available in the Chambre which was never that pro-colonies, they'd rather spend money on the Métropole. However, this would be in Algeria which could change things a bit.

Thinking about it, it would actually most likely happen in the 1920's. France needs to repopulate and is willing to try anything to get more people to come. An ambitious politician from the colonial party comes in and tries to get that project rolling. By WW2 (if not butterflied), a larg-ish population lives there, devoted to salt farming, an embrionary farming industry, some fishing and tourism/ R&R towns for the mining industry
 
Why specifically the Banu Hilal? Is this something to do with the idea that these groups brought goats across?

From what I understand, the Hilalians increased the tendency toward unsustainable practices involving goats and such, and the volume at which they immigrated in such a short time devastated the land. Such agriculture always existed, but the Hilalians seemed to have accelerated the practice. I think without Islam, Arabic migrations would happen regardless, but at a much more sustainable pace. Arabs would end up being assimilated into the dominate culture (a neo-Latin culture speaking various African Romance languages) rather than the other way around.

Not to mention, I've read the mindset of Arabic culture (introduced to the region by Islam) was less conducive to sendentary agriculture than the Roman culture that existed there. You combine the two, and you create an ecological disaster in marginal lands.

What if it was simply an Exarchate, or similar? I can expect the local Exarch to be interested, especially if it means he gets more money from his land. Looking at the plans for Africa in every division of the Empire, it is odd (to me) that Africa didn't get a special status. It has totally different strategic concerns that are largely disconnected from every other frontier. But I guess if money is meant to be extracted OUT of Africa, then it falls over. (Although, my favourite idea, involving canals in S.Tunisia, would be interesting as a defensive concern).

That's the thing, you would need North Africa to gain a specific status within the Roman Empire which it never had for some reason to develop that mindset. An usurper (or some independence rebel, a Romanised Berber, maybe?) would be the person to create that status and all. There was the Canal of the Pharaohs, but that silted up over the years, so it's definitely difficult to get rulers to build and maintain canals in that part of the world, because they have other things to worry about. Hence why regional rulers would be more inclined to do such a thing.

I'm not sure you could build those canals (or if the economic benefit would make people want to build them) without modern technology. If you could, the benefit would be in such a long term people wouldn't do it.

If there were extra resources provided/avaliable, the Portugese could try in the 1500s IMO. Discovering Australia, and bringing back some samples of its odd flora and fauna doesn't seem unreasonable - and growing samples in Portugese territories could be useful. Would it reach Africa quickly, doubtful - but short of an earlier discovery of Australia, we can probably agree on the timescale for that.

16th century is probably the earliest Australia can be discovered by the West. A Southern Roman Empire (or any successor state) would bring any intriguing plants back to their own land before Portugal would, I think. The thought process is somewhat like "this land is dry, the natives here use the seeds of this tree for bread and firewood, what if we planted it in our homeland?" An intelligent scientist of that era could help immensely. Portugal might, of course, do the same, although since Portugal isn't at as big of risk as desertification, it would be less important to them to try and grow Australian plants.

Gold is always a big lure for colonisation, although Australia lacks as big of population as South America and Mexico to feed into the gold mines like Portugal and Spain did in Latin America. Like South Africa, though, it could always start as a supply base to the Indies.

Well, it does currently produce MORE food - to the point that there are many scholars who try to dispute the idea that Africa did decline, but instead everywhere else became better. (It has legs, after all, most of the evidence for its decline comes after the application of the heavy plow, which really helped other regions flourish).

I wasn't really sure how much food it produced nowadays, I'm just thinking it could produce so much more than nowadays. With less desertification, OTL marginal land could be used for more intensive farming.

I figure I can hardly ask without providing my own initial suggestions (not too different from the actions taken by Alternate Eagle) - Canals in N.Africa.

1) Quattara, and the Fezzan, both good and valuable ideas in their own right. Big, saline lakes - the salt industry may boom in these regions before agriculture does, but certainly provides income for the rulers of the area.

2) Chotts south of the Aures Region of Tunisia/Algeria. Whilst the first canal would need to be 21km long - it is the shorter than the Quattara and Fezzan canals. After linking Chott el Fejej and Djerid, the connection of Djerid and Melhrir afterwards creates a large chain of watery bodies - that could either form into a sea (as suggested by Alternate Eagle), or IMO more realistically a series of lake that can be dredged of salt, as they provide rainfall in the Aures Region and .other parts of the Atlas Mts (as the prevailing winds in the Sahara would blow the moisture north).

I like 2, because it creates a potentially wealthy region that ties closely to Aures, and is cheaper and easier to defend than a series of mountain passes. 250Km of watery obstruction for any invaders? Plus money? I think that would be a splendid idea. Personally I think an Exarch, or an earlier Roman govenor could be beneficial here, and would benefit from the not immediately apparent impacts - such as increased rainfall making more of the eastern Tunisian coast riverine.

I don't know how feasible these are. I think it would require 19th century technology minimum. You'd need either a strong North African state or a French state (or any other European colonialist power) devoted to its North African holdings moreso than OTL. Qattara I know would mainly get you various industrial chemicals (and salt), and be mostly useless for agriculture except for maybe minorly increased rainfall/decreased evaporation elsewhere. Said chemicals would only be useful from the 19th century onward.
 
I took a look at that thread, and unfortunately, the premise does suggest that "for reason" nothing changes (although it was a brief skim). I can understand why a mod would move that to ASB. I like the ideas though, I'm going to have to be a sod and say that there would need to be a good explaination for each though (I'm not even sure I know what impact slash and burn in the South Sudan would have, besides immediate fire and desertification in the local area.)

I am sorry but you can't have one.

The point is that climate is a highly chaotic thing, but prone to semi-stable equilibriums. When changing between equlibria however, such a system is exceptionally sensitive to disturbances. And -we don't really have any model that can reliably predict these things.

What is more, there is a number of feedback systems that we still don't have a good handle on, from sea-ice albedo to methane clathrates.

The upshot of which is, the climate changes and is subject to disturbances with huge effects, but we don't really understand most of it. So you can't really get a good scientific explanation, but we know it happens.

For example, there was an event known as the Eocene Thermal Maxumim. It lasted for about 200 000 years, during which temperatures on Earth soared. During the initial phase, the earths ocean currents completely changed of a period of a few millennia. Proposed causes for this include the burning of peat or self-reinforcing methane clathrate release.

Beyond that, the Sahara is big. There are continents that are smaller. You can do some local goosing of the climate, but if you want any large-scale change you are into the chaotic change of earth climate anyway.
 
Top