Is Desert Ever a Good Thing for the World's Climate?

[zoobyshoe]

Cutting down rain forest causes desert, and this is viewed as an upset to the world's climate.

What I'm wondering is whether any and all desert is basically bad, or whether some amount of desert somehow contributes to the health of the planet. In other words, if we exclude the man made deserts from consideration, would the natural deserts that exist be considered to have a positive effect on the Earth somehow, or are they, too, symptoms of ill health, so to speak?

The reason I ask is because you hear about environmentalists trying to protect desert from all kinds of human activities that might upset its balance, but would the whole Earth be better off if we were trying to reclaim desert and make it into forest? Do the Sahara and Gobi deserts, for example, perform some important climactic function as is?

 

[Bystander]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

 

[Mark44]

but would the whole Earth be better off if we were trying to reclaim desert and make it into forest?

It takes water to make a forest. If you're going to reclaim a desert, you need to get water to it from somewhere.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It takes water to make a forest. If you're going to reclaim a desert, you need to get water to it from somewhere.

Right, but the question I'm asking is: if we could (get water into the desert) would we just be screwing something up there or elsewhere? Is it even worth bothering trying to come up with a way to do that?

 

[256bits]

The reason I ask is because you hear about environmentalists trying to protect desert from all kinds of human activities that might upset its balance,

A desert does not get much precipitation if any.

Semi-arid would be able to, and does, support grassland - what would be the purpose of changing grassland to forest? The flora and fauna accustomed to the area would be displaced due to human activity.
Extremely arid is, well, extremely, dry. Transporting water for irrigation to the area could be costly, but due to evaporation the land could actually end up being useless for anything after a few years, as salts are brought up to the surface.

 

[jim mcnamara]

would we just be screwing something up there

For some desert soils the answer is yes. Desert alkali soils have poor water infiltration, so irrigation does not "transform" these environments into productive farmland, grazing land, or lovely parks.

This link goes on about man-made alkali soils, but they exist naturally as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkali_soil

 

[fresh_42]

Right, but the question I'm asking is: if we could (get water into the desert) would we just be screwing something up there or elsewhere? Is it even worth bothering trying to come up with a way to do that?

An example: Beneath the Sahara there are huge aquifers which are currently emptied. Do we achieve something other than consumption and wasted waters? The same is done to the Ogallala aquifer in the US for agriculture purposes, i.e. consumption.
So we actually had the chances of water in the desert and do not achieve anything from it.

From the point of view of a wide spread life form on the planet, these all are short handed goals with vast damages to long term success.

 

[Mark44]

Transporting water for irrigation to the area could be costly, but due to evaporation the land could actually end up being useless for anything after a few years, as salts are brought up to the surface.

I don't believe that the problem is so much that salts are brought to the surface, but rather, salts in the water that is transported are left behind after the water has evaporated.
This has happened in parts of Arizona, such is in the Salt River area near Phoenix, where desert land has been transformed via irrigation. This is documented in the book "Cadillac Desert", by Marc Reisner.

Beneath the Sahara there are huge aquifers which are currently emptied.

There is one that is far from empty, the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System, the largest known fossil aquifer.

 

[fresh_42]

There is one that is far from empty, the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System, the largest known fossil aquifer.

"Because of the predominant hyperarid climate there are no renewals to this aquifer system. It's water level sank about 60 m due to massive usage in recent years. Optimistic prognoses suggest that the aquifer will be depleted in 200 years from now, based on current usage."
[Wikipedia, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubischer_Sandstein-Aquifer, translated by me, so forgive me eventual bad wording please.]

It quotes the science part of a German newspaper. To get an impression what is meant by usage, you may look at the photo of grain growing there: http://www.badische-zeitung.de/bild...er-wueste-traum-fuer-200-jahre--44431478.html

 

[Mark44]

Optimistic prognoses suggest that the aquifer will be depleted in 200 years from now, based on current usage."

Like I said, it's far from empty, with ~200 years worth of water in it. That's a long way from what you said about aquifers being "currently emptied." Were you referring to some other aquifer?

 

[fresh_42]

Like I said, it's far from empty, with ~200 years worth of water in it. That's a long way from what you said about aquifers being "currently emptied." Were you referring to some other aquifer?

No, I was simply thinking in longer terms than 200 years. I don't think this is a long period for a resource that won't renew itself on a planet that gets continuously warmer *) (which might shorten this period). And of course this figure doesn't take local shortages or national differences into account.

I don't know the prognoses for the Ogallala and they are certainly more difficult to make, as there is a net draw-off to be calculated.
However, 17 billion gallons a day (in 2000) is quite a lot.

Edit: *) with an exponentially growing population to feed

 

[Mark44]

No, I was simply thinking in longer terms than 200 years.

It's dangerous to make predictions about anything that far out, and neglecting possible technological solutions. One that comes to mind is desalinization of ocean water, using fission reactors or solar collectors to supply the necessary energy.

 

[fresh_42]

It's dangerous to make predictions about anything that far out, and neglecting possible technological solutions. One that comes to mind is desalinization of ocean water, using fission reactors or solar collectors to supply the necessary energy.

Yes, I agree. I'm concerned anyway. To hope for future technologies seems to me to be as comparable dangerous (although I wouldn't have used this word). It's like a gulf course in AZ: can be done, but should it? Or Las Vegas. This city is a contradiction in itself (personal opinion).
But you are right, as with the necessary pressure, humans are quite inventive.

The Israelis use a membrane effect on an industrial level, if I remember correctly. I wonder why that isn't used elsewhere.

 

[Ophiolite]

It's dangerous to make predictions about anything that far out, and neglecting possible technological solutions. One that comes to mind is desalinization of ocean water, using fission reactors or solar collectors to supply the necessary energy.

However, the charging of aquifers is a geological process and thus making predictions relating to process are quite appropriate over time scales considerably longer than two hundred years. Might we address the provision of water from some other source by technology? Very likely, but it does not alter the assessment of current usage as profligate.
What I have not yet seen addressed, though I may have missed it, is what does the OP mean by "bad" and "good" and the "health of the planet". Desertification is bad for orchids, but very good for some type of arachnids!

 

[zoobyshoe]

What I have not yet seen addressed, though I may have missed it, is what does the OP mean by "bad" and "good" and the "health of the planet". Desertification is bad for orchids, but very good for some type of arachnids!

Not very specific terms but "you know what I mean." Rainforest is cut down in Brazil to plant grass for cattle. Many animals and plants die. Cattle eat for a few years, rancher makes some money, then the land is unusable, rancher moves on, land becomes desert. Could be some spiders now thrive, but the overall result is "bad." Much more life has been wiped out than not.

The kind of problem I thought might arise if you reforested the Sahara, for example, is some possible screwing up of the worlds wind patterns that could alter the distribution of rains elsewhere one way or another. That sort of thing. I was wondering, for example, if someone might say a certain amount of desert is good because a certain volume of air has to be heated so it will rise and cause winds that have a beneficial global effect. I don't know if that's the case, I'm just throwing out a speculative example of desert having some global benefit I'm not aware of.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What I'm wondering is whether any and all desert is basically bad

Not bad for those who evolved to live there :)

 

[PAllen]

Dessert is psychologically almost always a good thing. Oh, about desert ... actually the same statement - I love hiking in deserts, something about the terrain grabs me (also forests and mountains, as well). So, aesthetically, wide variety of terrain is nice. I would also think that specialized adaptations of life in deserts could prove useful as biotechnology source material or model. Since I don't really know much ecology, I can only give an anthropocentric rationale for preserving deserts.

 

[anorlunda]

What I'm wondering is whether any and all desert is basically bad, or whether some amount of desert somehow contributes to the health of the planet.

Every change has some winners and some losers. The winners call it good. The losers call it bad. Some people call all changes bad. Some people call lack of change bad. Our planet is not a democracy where if there are 60/40 losers/winners that the majority rules.

The question is a value judgement, not a question of science.

 

[phinds]

... What I'm wondering is whether any and all desert is basically bad, or whether some amount of desert somehow contributes to the health of the planet ...

Based on almost total ignorance, I look at it like this: If you look at the Earth as a system, I think natural deserts are just part of the order of things and that asking if they are "good or bad" is trying to apply a man-made standard to a system we didn't create and probably shouldn't mess with (although we do, of course).

 

[jackwhirl]

The health or goodness of any parcel of land must be related to the fitness of the land for a purpose.
Consider, how would you judge the health of a patch of martian soil? It is pristine, unspoilt, and poisonous.
...
A thought occurred to me. Deserts have a relatively high albedo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#Terrestrial_albedo

 

[zoobyshoe]

The question is a value judgement, not a question of science.

Here's where the "you know what I mean" factor should have kicked in. My question is pretty obviously anthropocentric. "Good" and "bad" are human value judgements, so, yes, I'm concerned about the Earth as a 'vessel' for human life most of all.

To the extent we have screwed up the Amazon it's because we sacrificed a long term human benefit for a very short term one. I'm really not concerned about the welfare of monkeys except to the extent a healthy monkey population means a healthy human population, if it does. I would be kind of happy if all bees died out because I don't like being stung, but it turns out bees have a huge benefit to people in that they pollinate the plants we eat.

So, were we to reforest the Sahara, would we just be doing the same thing somehow? This is where I would assume science has something to say: there must be people who study the effect of desert on the global weather system.

The question is asked with the assumption humans are to be the ultimate winners, long term.

A thought occurred to me. Deserts have a relatively high albedo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#Terrestrial_albedo

This is the kind of thing I'm wondering about. What happens if the Earth's albedo comes to be outside certain parameters? You don't have to answer that, I'm just saying it's the sort of thing that would have to be closely looked at before undertaking to reforest some huge desert.

Based on almost total ignorance, I look at it like this: If you look at the Earth as a system, I think natural deserts are just part of the order of things and that asking if they are "good or bad" is trying to apply a man-made standard to a system we didn't create and probably should mess with (although we do, of course).

We're not exactly in a position to not mess with it to some degree if we want to survive: even woods-dwelling tribesmen have to cut trees down and kill animals. The role of science in this is to provide the best information about what alterations to nature we can get away with.

 

[jackwhirl]

To the extent we have screwed up the Amazon it's because we sacrificed a long term human benefit for a very short term one.

Given that we're being anthropocentric, here, could the argument be made that we don't know if we've "screwed up" the Amazon yet? What long term human benefit have we sacrificed and what is its value compared to what was gained?

Incidentally, I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest#Sahara_Desert_dust_windblown_to_the_Amazon

We're not exactly in a position to not mess with it to some degree if we want to survive: even woods-dwelling tribesmen have to cut trees down and kill animals. The role of science in this is to provide the best information about what alterations to nature we can get away with.

We don't really know the costs or benefits associated with a mega-project like this, but the easiest way to learn is to do it. We should reclaim a large desert for science!

 

[anorlunda]

The question is asked with the assumption humans are to be the ultimate winners, long term.

My point was that humans disagree on what win/lose mean. Aren't you assuming the view of a supernatural observer deciding for us?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Given that we're being anthropocentric, here, could the argument be made that we don't know if we've "screwed up" the Amazon yet? What long term human benefit have we sacrificed and what is its value compared to what was gained?

It was altered to raise beef for human consumption, but using it for that purpose for a few years screws it up for that purpose forever. The thing that's really crazy to me is that they don't even bother to harvest the wood when they get rid of the forest: they bulldoze it over and burn it.

We don't really know the costs or benefits associated with a mega-project like this, but the easiest way to learn is to do it. We should reclaim a large desert for science!

Right! Let's just do it!

 

[zoobyshoe]

My point was that humans disagree on what win/lose mean. Aren't you assuming the view of a supernatural observer deciding for us?

I don't think humans disagree on what win/lose means. The disagreement is probably over how much we should be concerned with future generations.

 

[jackwhirl]

I don't think humans disagree on what win/lose means. The disagreement is probably over how much we should be concerned with future generations.

To be fair, some humans value non-humans more than other humans do. And all humans value some human(s) more than other humans. Humans.

 

[zoobyshoe]

To be fair, some humans value non-humans more than other humans do.

True. For them the reward is that the Great Sahara Forest would provide habitat for many more species of non-humans than the desert version.

And all humans value some humans more than other humans. Humans.

Also true. The 2416 Superpower war for control of the Great Sahara Forest might be the one that wipes humanity out.

 

[houlahound]

No desert no desert racing.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Good for oil extraction

 

[phinds]

True. For them the reward is that the Great Sahara Forest would provide habitat for many more species of non-humans than the desert version.
.

But possibly at the expense of other areas. Planetary rainfall is a zero sum game.

 

[phinds]

We're not exactly in a position to not mess with it to some degree if we want to survive: even woods-dwelling tribesmen have to cut trees down and kill animals. The role of science in this is to provide the best information about what alterations to nature we can get away with.

I completely agree. I should have been more specific and said that it is my belief that we carelessly mess with it in ways that are possibly beyond what is needed from societal progress, not that things like cutting down trees to farm is a terrible tradeoff. We just don't look at the long term consequences of doing that in what is probably to excess, burning oil, etc..

 

[PAllen]

But possibly at the expense of other areas. Planetary rainfall is a zero sum game.

I wonder. The water carrying capacity of the atmosphere, as well as the evaporation rate from the ocean may be affected by temperature or composition. Perhaps warming allows greater rate of evaporation. I don't know much about this, but it does not seem clear that total rainfall can't be varied.

 

[OCR]

If this is what you really mean by ... "you know what I mean."

Cattle eat for a few years, rancher makes some money, then the land is unusable, rancher moves on, land becomes desert.

Then, I can understand what you mean, and would agree ... and, I would also be in a business that is completely unsustainable, but I'm not...

...his controversial ideas have sparked fierce opposition from academics, environmentalists, and vegans.

I would bet the farm on that... lol

 

[phinds]

I wonder. The water carrying capacity of the atmosphere, as well as the evaporation rate from the ocean may be affected by temperature or composition. Perhaps warming allows greater rate of evaporation. I don't know much about this, but it does not seem clear that total rainfall can't be varied.

Well, as I said, my opinion on these things is based on almost total ignorance

I know woefully little about the Earth as a system, even though I live here. We could ask @Drakkith for an outsider's point of view.

 

[fresh_42]

I know woefully little about the Earth as a system, even though I live here. We could ask @Drakkith for an outsider's point of view.

I think this is actually an interesting question on its own. I first thought, of course its a local property that cannot be taken globally, and therefore any influence on rain in local areas doesn't affect other regions. However, the solar energy absorbed by Earth as well as the heating by ourselves are basically constant on a short time scale. The latter would support the zero-sum-game view.

 

[phinds]

I think this is actually an interesting question on its own. I first thought, of course its a local property that cannot be taken globally, and therefore any influence on rain in local areas doesn't affect other regions. However, the solar energy absorbed by Earth as well as the heating by ourselves are basically constant on a short time scale. The latter would support the zero-sum-game view.

As would trade winds and, I believe, other factors.

 

[PAllen]

I think this is actually an interesting question on its own. I first thought, of course its a local property that cannot be taken globally, and therefore any influence on rain in local areas doesn't affect other regions. However, the solar energy absorbed by Earth as well as the heating by ourselves are basically constant on a short time scale. The latter would support the zero-sum-game view.

But amount of rainfall, planet wide, is a cycle rate. The fraction of total solar energy driving the water cycle is hardly 100%. Thus I see no reason why this fraction can't vary up to some maximum. Granted, the total available energy is zero sum, but it requires a lot more analysis to go from there to total rainfall being zero sum. Further, to first order, the water cycle conserves energy, so it may not take much of an increase in solar fraction to kick up to a substantially higher cycle rate. Note, this is not a field I've ever studied, I'm just thinking in terms of basic physics and chemistry, and not seeing any obvious reason total rainfall can't change.

 

[Bystander]

rainfall, planet wide, is a cycle rate.

? Say "what?"

 

[PAllen]

? Say "what?"

The rate at which water passes through the water cycle per year is the total rain fall per year. Run the cycle faster, there is more rainfall per year. To run the cycle faster you need (for starters) to increase evaporation rate. I see no fundamental obstacle to doing so if temperature can change.

 

[Bystander]

I see no fundamental obstacle to doing so if temperature can change.

 

[PAllen]

So, temperature can easily change with fixed available total energy. That is simply a matter of the fraction used to heat oceans and air, which, again, is hardly 100%. Without getting into the PF forbidden territory of human driven climate change, there are any number of processes by which the atmosphere and oceans can be made to absorb a larger fraction of solar energy (e.g. a silly example: mix in dark dust - into the ocean and atmosphere; increase albedo of land masses).

[edit: also, since as I mentioned before, the water cycle is largely energy conserving, running it faster need not take extra energy to sustain. Higher temperature is hardly the only conceivable way to drive it faster. By analogy with any number of chemical manufacturing processes, there might be a 'pollutant' that can act as a catalyst to the cycle.]

 

[zoobyshoe]

Probably most have heard of the Salton Sea, the biggest lake in California, which was created by accident in 1905:

The most recent inflow of water from the now heavily controlled Colorado River was accidentally created by the engineers of the California Development Company in 1905. In an effort to increase water flow into the area for farming, irrigation canals were dug from the Colorado River into the valley. Due to fears of silt buildup, a cut was made in the bank of the Colorado River to further increase the water flow. The resulting outflow overwhelmed the engineered canal, and the river flowed into the Salton Basin for two years, filling the historic dry lake bed and creating the modern sea, before repairs were completed.[2] While it varies in dimensions and area with fluctuations in agricultural runoff and rainfall, the Salton Sea is about 15 miles (24 km) by 35 miles (56 km). With an estimated surface area of 343 square miles (890 km2) or 350 square miles (910 km2), the Salton Sea is the largest lake in California.[3][4] The average annual inflow is less than 1,200,000 acre feet (1.5 km3), which is enough to maintain a maximum depth of 44 feet (13 m) and a total volume of about 6,000,000 acre feet (7.4 km3).

I've always had that at the back of my mind when thinking about transforming a desert.To get a forest started you basically have to pump tons of water into the dry area. There aren't rivers to divert into most deserts so you'd have to get creative. So, you build desalinization plants on the sea coast of the Sahara and pump the water through a pipe into the interior and let it flow out. You might have to do that for years until you create a wet spot suitable for starting a forest, I don't know, but I wasn't thinking in terms of waiting for the rain patterns to change or of ever being completely dependent on them.

I can't think of anyone with the money to do something like that who has any incentive to even try, but it seems it would be possible if there were such an entity.

 

[Bystander]

(e.g. a silly example: mix in dark dust - into the ocean and atmosphere; increase albedo of land masses).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Like this?

 

[Bystander]

Cutting down rain forest causes desert, and this is viewed as an upset to the world's climate.

Does it? This is a "blanket" assertion that cannot be true, can it?

 

[Psinter]

Not bad for those who evolved to live there :)

You could say that again. You couldn't be any more right.

I have not found studies on the matter in the kind of desert you probably speak about (hot deserts), except for the Arctic (which is not a hot desert). At least not on the impact on Earth directly, however, it does impact societies. And if a human society is impacted, they are going to react maybe damaging other areas for the sake of their own survival.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195371127/?tag=pfamazon01-20[/URL]
The spring and fall migrations of the Sheikhanzai and their herds allow them to escape the extremes of heat in the summer and cold in the winter and to utilize pastures throughout the year that can be replenished in subsequent seasons and years as grazing sites.

A sedentary existence would have been harmful to the quality of pastureland and the health of livestock, not to mention disintegrating the social ties that exist between multiple camp groups and villages in sparsely populated and agriculturally marginal areas.

-Indigenous Cultures: Bahram Tavakolian

If you remove hot deserts from them, they are going to react in winter, either by becoming part of modern society (a sedentary existence) through force or finding ways to survive in new areas that they previously only passed by temporarily. But since they will be spending more time in one place, said place's landscape will probably change. With time, the quality of the water will change too and so on. Many modern societies are sedentary and there is more than enough evidence out there of what they do to to the landscape.

Spoiler: About the book

Note that this book is about essays of experts in the field. It does not have articles from professional journals. Usually a course in Environmental Sociology also includes other readings from professional journals and studies. Not this book alone.

Antarctica and the Arctic on the other hand are also deserts. While the conversation here is concentrated on hot deserts, destroying the Arctic at least, will certainly affect environments across the world and there are studies for that:

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains]“One[/URL] of the reasons people care about sea ice decreases is that sea ice is highly reflective whereas the liquid ocean is very absorptive,” Parkinson said. “So when the area of sea ice coverage is reduced, there is a smaller sea ice area reflecting the sun’s radiation back to space. This means more retention of the sun’s radiation within the Earth system and further heating.”

Deserts also allow wind to flow with little resistance across long distances to eventually meet places which are not deserts. Destroying a desert could affect wind fronts, eventually affecting for good or bad other areas.

 

[PAllen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Like this?

Ok,so that's not a good example. My main point remains: there is no reason of principle causing global total annual rainfall to be constant just because total energy budget is constant. You must add further assumptions about other factors being constant.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Does it? This is a "blanket" assertion that cannot be true, can it?

It's not a blanket assertion. It's "nutshell" language that refers to the occasions when it's true.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I have not found studies on the matter in the kind of desert you probably speak about (hot deserts), except for the Arctic (which is not a hot desert). At least not on the impact on Earth directly, however, it does impact societies. And if a human society is impacted, they are going to react maybe damaging other areas for the sake of their own survival.

If you remove hot deserts from them, they are going to react in winter, either by becoming part of modern society (a sedentary existence) through force or finding ways to survive in new areas that they previously only passed by temporarily. But since they will be spending more time in one place, said place's landscape will probably change. With time, the quality of the water will change too and so on. Many modern societies are sedentary and there is more than enough evidence out there of what they do to to the landscape.

There are lots of peoples who live and lived right inside great forests without having hardly any impact on those forests. I know of: Pygmies in Africa, and most South American tribal people off the top of my head. I believe a lot of North Eastern Native American tribes were also forest dwellers.

While you can devastate a forest nearly overnight, it would take many years to get a new one started again, so the transition for any people who have a current use for desert would be slower. And, I'm primarily talking about desert that has no current benefit to people, the kind where it's not possible to make any settlements, pasture, and which people avoid even traveling through. The reforestation I'm thinking of would, in fact, create vast new habitat for people who can adapt to forest life.

Let me approach my question a bit differently: are there any scientists who propose that some minimum amount of desert is required for a life sustaining Earth climate?

 

[Planobilly]

Deserts provide dust to the atmosphere. That dust disrupts the formation of hurricanes. Living in Florida that effect has value to me! So in that case, a desert "is a good thing".

Over long periods of time land now exist where seas use to exist and deserts have come and gone. Those changes don't appear to have had much effect on humans over the long term. Deserts provide environments for certain life forms to live which can not live elsewhere. If that is a "good" thing or not is pretty subjective. Some would be very opposed to any life form being destroyed or going extinct. I don't always agree with that position. I have enough trouble driving in Miami without having to deal with a Tyrannosaurus on the interstate...lol

It is obvious that deserts effect weather. When and if that effect is considered good or bad depends on the circumstances of the effect.

Cheers,

Billy

 

[zoobyshoe]

Over long periods of time land now exist where seas use to exist and deserts have come and gone. Those changes don't appear to have had much effect on humans over the long term. Deserts provide environments for certain life forms to live which can not live elsewhere. If that is a "good" thing or not is pretty subjective. Some would be very opposed to any life form being destroyed or going extinct. I don't always agree with that position. I have enough trouble driving in Miami without having to deal with a Tyrannosaurus on the interstate...lol

It is obvious that deserts effect weather. When and if that effect is considered good or bad depends on the circumstances of the effect.

Right. Reforesting a desert is obviously a sacrifice of whatever flora and fauna have 'figured out' how to live there, but that's in favor of the vastly greater number of species who will then have a place to flourish. In addition a much greater volume of carbon will be locked up in the plant life instead of floating around in gaseous states. A lot of "green" people think that latter would be a good thing.

Speaking of T-rex, back in the day when there was only one continent, it seems to have been primarily a tropical, swamp and forest one, and the rise of deserts, both hot and cold, did not happen till after it broke apart. Since my question is frankly anthropocentric, I have to wonder if more tropical area is good for people or not, despite the fact it seems extremely bio-friendly in general.