I know this is all a part of “Africagate” that’s been all over the internet and even in some newspapers, but I found this interesting for many reasons so I decided to write about it, even though I’m probably a day late and a dollar short.
Reason one is it involves National Geographic. I won’t impugn the whole organization as I do believe that overall, it’s an excellent organization that provides excellent articles and information. What I don’t respect is what I feel is a sometimes bias about global warming.
Reason two is it involves “Africagate”, (which is another area the IPCC got busted over earlier in 2010), but it involves a part I don’t ever remember seeing (perhaps someone wrote of it and I missed it?), in that there is this whole article they published 5 months beforehand, that counters the later article and the IPCC report.
This all prompts me to ask “Does anybody at National Geographic keep track of what they publish?”
To lay it all out for you.
We have an article dated July 31, 2009, titled “Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?”, then we have a later article, dated December 28, 2009, titled “Africa-Wide ‘Great Green Wall’ to halt Sahara Spread.” So I have to ask is the Sahara shrinking or is it growing? Evidently National Geographic is confused.
While neither article is real recent, the “Great Green Wall” article was found this morning when I was surfing around then net to keep abreast of what goes on from day-to-day. I thought it was something new, as I didn’t remember hearing about it before now. When I read the publish date, it got me wondering what was going on, which led me to the earlier article, prompting me to write this.
The first article, from July 31, 2009, opens with this about the Sahara getting green…
Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.
Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.
What? Increased rainfall? Rising temperatures of benefit? Next we get this…
Uh oh! Are those good old climate models are being used again in some science fiction fantasy? But, wait. We do have reality in this article, that supports that this climate model was correct, which is as follows…
The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers).
Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.
So, at least we are now getting some reality, actual satellite images. Unless someone was coloring them in with green, it seems that it is indeed some real proof that the Sahara may not be such a problem. More real information per the below…
In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and northern Sudan, new trees—such as acacias—are flourishing, according to Stefan Kröpelin, a climate scientist at the University of Cologne’s Africa Research Unit in Germany.
“Shrubs are coming up and growing into big shrubs. This is completely different from having a bit more tiny grass,” said Kröpelin, who has studied the region for two decades.
Sounds like things are really getting greener. The locals evidently think they have it better, too…
“The nomads there told me there was never as much rainfall as in the past few years,” Kröpelin said. “They have never seen so much grazing land.”
“Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass,” he said.
“Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back,” he said.
“The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable.”
indisputable? In the second article, only 5 months later, it appears National Geographic disputes themselves…
The proposed wall of trees would stretch from Senegal to Djibouti as part of a plan to thwart the southward spread of the Sahara, Senegalese officials said earlier this month at the UN’s Copenhagen climate conference.
I find it rather amusing that 5 months before we’re getting “greening” and now all of a sudden the Sahara is spreading. Read on and you might get a clue about why we have this IPCC report that appears to have prompted the 180 degree change at National Geographic…
The trees are meant “to stop the advancement of the desert,” Senegalese president and project leader Abdoulaye Wade told National Geographic News in Copenhagen.
In many central and West African countries surrounding the Sahara, climate change has slowed rainfall to a trickle, according to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
OK, so first we get more rain, greening and it’s “indisputable”, and now we get “slowed rainfall to a trickle.” Which is it? More rain or less? Well, look who came up with this one? The good old reliable IPCC. That might explain a lot?
Crops have died and soils have eroded—crippling local agriculture. If the trend continues, the UN forecasts that two-thirds of Africa’s farmland may be swallowed by Saharan sands by 2025 (explore an interactiveSahara map).
Sounds as ominous as the Himalayan Glaciers melting by 2035, probably about as accurate, too.
But drought, desertification, and other climate-related disasters are forcing many farmers to abandon their lands, spurring a heavier flow of immigrants out of central and North Africa
Huh? But in the earlier report the locals were happy they had so much rainfall, so were their camels and other livestock! Why do we have the sudden change? Well, goo back to “Africagate and do some research about the IPCC’s accuracy ratio, which isn’t anymore accurate about the Sahara than about the Himalayan Glaciers melting by 2035.
I speculate about is that this is going to be a large financial undertaking and it’s going to be worth a lot of money to the countries, companies and people involved with it…
All 11 countries that would house the Great Green Wall have pledged to help fund the project.
So, we have 11 countries that will fund? These are certainly not rich countries, it’s Africa, where poverty seems to rule in most places. I’d imaging that by using this, they can get lots of money from the richer countries for this project, courtesy of Greentards like Gordon Brown, who seem to have holes burning in their pockets to give tax dollars away by the billions to stop non-existent global warming.
Goes back to follow the money. I could envision billions of dollars going to thee 11 countries to plant a tree barrier next to the Sahara Desert and having the vast majority of it ending up in someone’s Swiss or Cayman Island numbered bank accounts and having no or little effect on anything.
Yet another episode of CO2 Insanity.
Source: National Geographic