Read the following article and answer these questions.
1.What effect does global warming have on the cycle
described in the article?
2. If the Sahara were to stay green, and the fishing
tribes were able to continue to exists, developing into modern society; how
different do you think North Africa would be today?
1. Global warming, or in this case an increase in "insolation", caused the "African humid period". this increase in insolation moved the monsoons five degrees north, placing them over the Sahara, causing it to become lush and fertile.
ReplyDelete2. North Africa would be drastically different. It would not be home to a large desert, it would host a lush, fertile grassland. it would also likely be used as a large commercial fishing area, and the natives would be exploited for this cause.
1. Global warming caused an increase in insolation, which to an even greater degree caused the monsoon season to take place over the Sahara, where the global warming and therefore insolation was taking place. The global warming brought insolation in the Sahara up 8%, causing the huge 40% increase in rainfall from the monsoons.
ReplyDelete2. If the Sahara had stayed green, allowing fishing tribes to continue to exist, I think that today North Africa would make a lot of money off exporting their fish and also from increased tourism, because much more people would want to visit lush greenery than a desert. The people would also become pretty modernized because their exporting of fish and the constant tourists would have a large influence on their way of life.
1. The effect Global warming had on the Sahara, would be the increase in insolation which had affected the monsoons that occurred near there to go directly towards the Sahara. This had brought humidity and made the land fertile in order to grow lots of vegetation on the Sahara.
ReplyDelete2. If the Sahara would have stayed green it would have meant for more better life on the Sahara, which would affect Africa greatly in food supply. This would also be true if the fishing tribes would have continued to exist. If this green would have stayed in the Sahara, it would have been an oasis of opportunity for Africa, which would have a great impact on most of the lives in Africa.
1) Global warming affected the cycle in the way that it increased the insolation (the exposure to the sun's rays), which, in turn, moved the seasonal monsoons into position over the Sahara. This increased the rate and amount of evaporation, which precipitated and became rainfall, which eventually acquired into bodies of water and allowed for life to thrive in the former desert, including plants, animals, and humans.
ReplyDelete2) This would effect North Africa significantly because, instead of being an economically pointless desert as it is today, the Sahara would be a source of fish and other animals, making it a place for trade and also exposure of the tribes that lived there. More people also might have moved there and it might've become more prosperous, and the land could have been disintegrated from its original lush landscape.
1. What effect does global warming have on the cycle described in the article?
ReplyDelete-Global warming, in the cycle described in the article, would Increases temperature levels to a higher Watt to square meter ratio, creating a quicker evaporation rate and in turn producing more rainfall and humidity, quickly (relatively speaking) creating an ecosystem capable of supporting a wider variety of flora and fauna.
2. If the Sahara were to stay green, and the fishing tribes were able to continue to exists, developing into modern society; how different do you think North Africa would be today?
- I believe that North Africa, rather than being a largely deserted space, would attract more people(African native and tourists), and in turn, support necessities of modern life, such as food, and the creation of urban housing developments. I think that the fishing culture, while possibly existing, would become second to the ways of urban living, and tradition would largely be lost.
1. The effect of global warming was being like an insulator because it caused a very big climate change in the Green Sahara as well as locations by it. The climate change effect was warmer summers, rainfall increased, produced trees and grass from a desert. It also exposed more rays from the sun.
ReplyDelete2. North Africa would be a completely different place to live if the Sahara were to stay green and the fishing tribes were able to exist.I believe this is true because it would provide a source of living not only for humans but animals as well. Causing them to flourish and live many years, It would also become a negative feedback because people and/or animals would eat the fish and the fish would populate causing more to feed the human and/or animals.
1.) The effect global warming has on this situation is the fact that it caused a drastic climate change in the Green Sahara. The summers were much more intense, and the rainfall increased, turning it into more of a forest and less of a desert.
ReplyDelete2.) If the Sahara were to stay green and the fishing tribes were still able to exist, North Africa would be polar opposite of what it is. I believe that fishing would provide a way of work and trade, as well as a source of food for the people that lived there. The fish population would rise, and the human population would rise because of the abundance of fish. This would create positive feedback, however creating a more populated state in North Africa could increase trade routes and a larger economy, overall benefiting the entire world economy.
Global warming effected the sahara, by having an intense heat increase, causing the monsoon to change directions and increase rainfall, turning the sahara into a green lush.
ReplyDeleteIf the Sahara were to be green to this day and modern, then the economy would certainly be better of with fishing, but I think this would have caused crisis with possible over-fishing, devastating the land. Regardless the Sahara would be more of a tourist destination attracting many, and the people would be just fine.
1. Global warming has dramatically affected the weather in the Sahara, changing the environment lush with vegetation into a hard core desert. Back when the monsoon still hit the Sahara there were more people as well as vegetation as opposed to now with both being scarce.
ReplyDelete2. If the Sahara were to stay green the fishing industry would be alive and going strong. I feel that North Africa would be more developed and would be among the top economies in the world because every country in the world has people who eat fish. This demand will feed the fish economy and perhaps even help develop the rest of Africa.
1. According to the article, global warming is not having the same plant-fish-giraffe-explosion effect this time around as it did 10,000 years ago when solar insolation increased 8%. This time, global warming is just making the desert hotter, spreading it, reducing vegetation there, and shrinking water sources.
ReplyDelete2. If the Sahara hadn't flipped into a terribly unfertile, arid desert, and had remained green I think the whole of Africa would be different. Probably, if it were a lush oasis, full of work for fishermen and resources for building homes, people would have flocked there from other parts of Africa and maybe from countries all over the world. This could've led to the outsourcing of the environment, just like what happened on Easter Island. But maybe not, maybe it would have just kept raining and the grass would have kept on growing and the ostritches would have kept on being alive and it could have become a beacon of Africa that sustained exoctic life-forms and brought in a lot of money.
1. According to the article, the "solar insulation" from the global warming 12,000 years ago created a large monsoonal climate and increased rainfall to North Africa. The article also states that the global warming we have today is not likely to produce the same result.
ReplyDelete2. If the desert had not formed and the fisherman still thrived, I believe that not only would North Africa be drastically different, but so would all of Africa. More people would be able to live in Africa, since the present desert is virtually uninhabitable. The economy of Africa would also thrive, with fish then being a main commodity and export.
1. The environment has had an extreme effect on the Sahara desert and its' system. Due to the rising levels of CO2 and degradation of the ozone layer, the lust vegetation that used to grow in the desert has dried up and turned into dust in which no rain comes which means no plants are able to grow. Now, due to the extreme cold at night and extreme heat during the day, any water that lands in the Sahara desert, evaporates and is not able to go into the soil and help sustain the growth of plants.
ReplyDelete2. If the Sahara desert had remained a vast lush land where the fish were plentiful, Africa would be much different in the sense that people would live in the northern part of Africa. Also, exporting the fish, and other goods from that area would be much easier because the countries that Africa trades with are closer to the North than they are the center or the costs. It would have also made for more jobs in Africa and help solve part of the poverty in Africa because more sustainable jobs would be available with food and shelter. This would create positive feedback,even though the population of Africa would rise, the more jobs and fish would be exported which would help the overall world economy.
1)The effect of global warming in the Green Sahara was that it completely changed the climate. Before with the warming, Sahara had a lush vegetation due to the rain increase and also with this increase in rain people were now able to live there as long with animals.
ReplyDelete2)Northern Africa would be completely different. The people would be able to develop their fishing techniques. Also it would be more likely that more people would live in Northern Africa as well animals. In addition there could be an export and import of different resources into Africa making a better economy.
1. The given article states that the increase in insolation or global warming caused the movement of a monsoon over the Sahara desert which increased the rainfall or precipitation greatly causing the landscape to change drastically from dry, dirt deserts to a land full of vegetation and animals; also along with the change of landscape came an increase in human population because the desert was now more liveable
ReplyDelete2. If the Sahara were still green and the fishing tribes were to still exist that area would be extremely different. Because of both those things there would be much commerce and trade in the Sahara because people would be there more and also because all of the fish that was gotten from there would probably be traded with other places, probably creating a thriving land
1. The effect global warming has on the cycle described by the article is it causes global insulation to be more powerful. What this did, according to the article, is increased the temperatures and strengthened the monsoons that increased the plant life, which also made the monsoons more and more powerful and absorbed the suns energy. Eventually the monsoons moved south and the land became barren again.
ReplyDelete2. If the Sahara had stayed green and the fishing tribes had existed into modern society, North Africa would look much different from today. The first difference would be an increase in trade in Northern Africa, along with farming eventually occurring in the rich fertile lands. Northern Africa would be greatly more influenced by Europe and the Middle East than it is now and would possibly even be a big trading and commerce area.
1. The effect global warming had was it increased "insolation" levels, and because this happened, temperatures increased drastically which then led to a rise of rainfall in the area. Due to the extra rainfall the land would "green up", however eventually the monsoons began to move south of the land, avoiding it during monsoon season, and it all dried up.
ReplyDelete2. If the Sahara had stayed green, life in Africa would be vastly different in that the population would most likely be higher. If the land had more green and more fish, there would be more supplies for the people to live off of, which would then lead to a larger population. This would also lead to North Africa potentially become a trade route with other countries, increasing the continent's overall wealth.
The effect of global warming are seen in this article through the idea of insolation, where the suns energy was trapped into the moonson system instead of being released into the atmosphere. This caused a dramatic increase in precipitation, which then caused the summers to increase in temperature and for the desert to support a wide range of vegetation.
ReplyDeleteIf North America had an abundant amount of fishing, a number of plants that covered the area, and a developed society, then North Africa would be completely different than present day North Africa. There would be a supply that would be created, meaning that North Africa could use the fish and plants in trade, which would stimulate a developed society.
Global warming in Africa increased the "insolation" levels causing temperatures and rainfall to increase in the area. This increased rainfall caused the Sahara to support more vegetation making it "green up."
ReplyDeleteIf North Africa had continued to have these fishing tribes, they would have been more modernized, less famished, and there would be a smaller struggle for freshwater and food.
1. Realistically, human/greenhouse warming doesn't affect the cycle described. Although there were some similar end results, as the end of the article points out, global warming doesn't change the orbit of the earth or redirect the monsoons.This is why the current warming isn't expected to cause another greening. Although warming hasn't quite reached the insolation equivalent of when the desert was green, the results will most likely not be the same.
ReplyDelete2. The loss of inland fishing societies in Africa looks a lot like the loss of coastal fishing societies. Foreign trawlers are overfishing African waters, and so the local fisherman have smaller catches. This is causing a lot of the poverty and starvation in North Africa, as well as making traditional lifestyles no longer viable. While overfishing is inarguably a human problem, the warming cycle is (at least partly) natural. Of African countries that have begun to regulate fishing in their coastal waters, more wealth passes through the country instead of being carried of by foreign trawlers. So if the fishing tribes had survived, they would look a lot like the African nations that regulate fishing. It can be both a source of export economy, and could better provide for the local people.
1. Global warming was a main cause of the higher insolation levels which drove the monsoons to the Sahara desert.
ReplyDelete2. If the Sahara were to stay green, and the fishing tribes were able to continue to exist developing into a modern society, North Africa would be a very different place today. The land would be able to provide for a larger and more prosperous society just in general.
1. In reality human global warming doesn't cause the effect in the article. In the article the isolation levels drove the monsoons towards the Sahara Desert not because of human cause.
ReplyDelete2. If the Sahara had stayed green and luscious then the fishing tribes would have been able to continue to sustain themselves off fish. They would have been able to greatly develop their modern fishing society. Henceforth, north africa would have ben a very different area today, they would have been able to provide for a bigger and more prosperous civilization.
1.Human created global warming doesn't affect the cycle described in the article .There were some similar end results, as the end of the article points out, global warming doesn't change the orbit of the earth or redirect the monsoons. This is why the current warming isn't expected to cause another greening because this is human created, not natural.
ReplyDelete2.If North Africa could have kept these conditions we would have maybe seen Africa as a whole become a more powerful country because that with the salt trade could have made them a world power. Even now we would see because of this North Africa would probably be more like Europe in terms of development then it is now.
1. Essentially, global warming increased the levels of insolation. This in turn moved the seasonal monsoons over the Sahara desert. It caused quite the climate change for the Sahara, making it much more like a forest than a desert. Eventually though, the desert dried up as the monsoons moved away.
ReplyDelete2. If this had occurred, the dessert would be a much nicer place to be and would most likely receive many more visitors. It would also be a place for trade and potentially exporting items. Also, it could provide jobs for the people living there which would help to reduce poverty. Overall, if this had happened, it would be quite positive for the Sahara and North Africa.
1) the Sahara was caused naturally before the industrial revolution, the beginning of "pollution". Global Warming also does not effect the cycle, regardless where it is, for this was caused from lake of precipitation and movement of the moon. Global warming has nothing to do with either one. Even is if this happened during global warming, more water would evaporate, leading to more precipitation.
ReplyDelete2) Had these events not happened, we would see a shift in where people live. rather that the sub Sahara, people would live in these wet places. also, this water supply could have allowed for the African people to develop at a faster pace and no one would know what would have happened if the Europeans found civilization in Africa, or it never stopped its development, for it was one of the first civilizations