https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump
> Perhaps Australia - not just a country, but an entire continent! - doesn't have to be so arid.
Perhaps even Sahel, Sahara and large parts of USA and Asia as well.
I don't think that Wikipedia page makes a good job in communicating how controversial and outside of mainstream that theory is.
Here is a 2020 Science article which – while very sympathetic to the possibility of the theory being correct – makes a better job in describing how controversial it is.
https://www.science.org/content/article/controversial-russia...
The mainstream view can probably be described with some quotes from the review process of one their early (submitted 2010, published 2013) papers:
NOAA's Isaac Held:
"The authors make an extraordinary claim that a term that is traditionally considered to be small, to the point that it is sometimes neglected in atmospheric models and, even when not neglected, rarely commented on, is in fact dominant in driving atmospheric circulations. The effect concerned is that of the mass sink associated with condensation. This term is of first-order importance in some planetary atmospheres, such as Mars, where the total mass of the atmosphere has a substantial seasonal cycle, but for Earth the standard perspective is that the heat release associated with condensation dominates over the effect of the mass loss."
Editor's decision:
"The authors have presented an entirely new view of what may be driving dynamics in the atmosphere. This new theory has been subject to considerable criticism which any reader can see in the public review and interactive discussion of the manuscript in ACPD. Normally, the negative reviewer comments would not lead to final acceptance and publication of a manuscript in ACP. After extensive deliberation however, the editor concluded that the revised manuscript still should be published – despite the strong criticism from the esteemed reviewers – to promote continuation of the scientific dialogue on the controversial theory."
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039...
"The theory predicts two different types of coast to contentinental rainfall patterns, first in a forested area one can expect no decrease in rainfall as one moves inland in contrast to a deforested region where one observes an exponential decrease in annual rainfall."
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/59/4/341/346941
"Life depends on Earth's hydrological cycle, especially the processes that carry moisture from oceans to land. The role of vegetation remains controversial. Local people in many partially forested regions believe that forests “attract” rain, whereas most modern climate experts would disagree. But a new hypothesis suggests that local people may be correct."
Mainstream or not ... people are right, and recent droughts seem to confirm this. The theory may not be right or wrong entirely, however continuing with discounting the role of vegetation will be done at our peril.
Sometimes politics just make no sense whatsoever.
Here's some examples of expensive things:
* USS Gerald R Ford aircraft carrier: $13.3 billion [0]
* F-35 jet program (covering expected lifetimes of all aircraft through 2070): $1.5 trillion (> $150 million per aircraft) [1]
* TARP funds during 2007-2010 crisis: $431 billion [2]
* PPP loan forgiveness (during covid): $742 billion [3]
It's very tempting to declare these other expenses an exorbitant waste of potential when mega-projects come in so much cheaper: greening Africa ($8bn), using desalination and up-gradient pumping to re-hydrate the Colorado River ($15bn)[4], the large hadron collider ($5bn - $13bn)[5], and James Webb Space Telescope ($9.7bn)[6] to name a few.
Sources:
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/cost-of-navy-uss-ford-aircra...
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20191206140954/https://www.thena...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
[3] https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/
[4] https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/11/20/we-need-more-w...
[5] https://en.as.com/latest_news/how-much-money-did-cerns-large...
That draws on the China example and there's some really inspiring content on the site.
It also has a giant water system which runs almost the length of the eastern side, far inland from Queensland Channel country to the mouth of the Murray in South Australia, with many tributary rivers feeding in and being fed. It has a giant aquifer.
The thing is that we're looking a 50,000 years of fire driven deforestation and arguing to restore some belief in past verdency ignores what might be the lived reality of these landscapes which are feast and famine and have been for thousands of years.
Modern ag is much less kind, and has caused some massive destruction and topsoil loss and biodiversity loss. But, the goal in Australia wouldn't necessarily be a permanently verdent inland, it would be (I think) to work with what we've got.
Getting rid of millions of feral camels would break some people's hearts, judging by how they romanticise the feral brumbies in the victorian and nsw high country, despite the damage they're doing.
Getting rid of the dingo fence would be a good start: there's more growth outside it than inside.