[VintageCool]

Okay, sure, if you look at geologic timescales then eventually Africa will move and the region of northern Africa will cease to be desert.

Within a human timescale, I think "never" is an acceptable term.

Atmospheric circulation means that the latitude of the Sahara is blasted with cool dry air from the upper atmosphere. Humans planting trees might slow the spread of the desert, but will not vanquish it.

To disrupt the effects of atmospheric circulation (ie Hadley cells) creating deserts at those latitudes, you'd need mountain ranges and oceans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell

[dev1ycan]

"For several hundred thousand years, the Sahara has alternated between desert and savanna grassland in a 20,000-year cycle caused by the precession of Earth's axis (about 26,000 years) as it rotates around the Sun, which changes the location of the North African monsoon."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#:~:text=For%20several%2....

[evandale]

Why are we working in human timescales? It's like saying the sun will never burn out because humans won't be around to see it happen.

To me, that's a pretty bold and naive claim.

[growfeather]

It is cultural human hubris to bother, in any way whatsoever, to be worried about the sun burning out. It’s an interesting curiosity but we your life, if you lived to be 2000 years old (you won’t), you will have moved yourself 0.0000571428% closer to the time when that will happen. We DO need to actually be worried about our planet overheating, our agricultural spaces becoming despoiled, and other things that can actually happen in our lives. One of these things is not like the other.

[skywhopper]

Because this project is about humans and the environment's impact on them, and what they can do to improve it. So naturally human timescales are the measure on which we judge it. What happens in 10 million years is not something we can even pretend to comprehend or influence in a meaningful way. But what happens in the next 100 is.