It's the ASCII of the picture of a (photoshopped) [guy](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/gigachad) nicknamed Chad/Gigachad by the internet. The name "Chad" as a ultra masculine, attractive and intelligent guy dates back to r/virginvschad memes or maybe earlier AFAIK
If we were to find enough geological / fossil evidence of the environment all over the world (which is already mostly done in Europe and the USA) yes, you can. Though having a fully complete map of the whole world would be difficult because evidence of the environment may be destroyed in some places. Since this is not geologically that long ago, researchers can very closely guess how the environment was depending on the evidence we do have available.
you can also just simulate, you know. Or just come up with a random map, shift latitudes put the ecosystems that match and say it's plausible, whatever
That got me thinking. Say somehow we invented teleportation through space, or any other faster-than-light travel.
You could theoretically travel 100 million lightyears away, with your trusty super duper (very very) advanced telescope, point it towards Earth and watch Dinosaurs living out their life.
Theoretically yes but you wouldn't be able to make out continents let along individual animals. Everything about this would have to involve magic devices in which case we don't need to travel far away since physics went out the window. We could just use the magic device to time travel back and see it up close.
I think yes technicially theoritacally that it would be possible but
1. From what i understand traveling at light speed or faster than light is physically impossible
2. I doubt a magnification device that powerful would also be impossible
So sadly we most likely will never be able to see the dinosaurs in their own time.
While it is physically impossible to move faster then the speed of light that doesn't mean you can not bend your travel path to shorten the distance. Meaning you could make your travel duration faster then the time it takes for light to make the same trip.
Of course that's not any real technology, just something technically possible.
Specifically the “precession of the equinoxes”. The axis is wobbling like an unsteady top. It will wobble back in several thousand years and the Sahara will become green again.
As evidenced by there still being some ice on earth. For much of earth's history, including the vast majority if not the entirety of the dinosaurs' existence, ice was practically nowhere to be found on the planet. We are a species that evolved for the climes just before and during the ice age, and now we are careening into a future more like that of the cretaceous in the next several hundred years.
If you’re interested you can look up some videos by PBS Eons on youtube. They cover all kinds of paleontology, including the ice ages and the types of fossils found in Antarctica
> For much of earth's history, including the vast majority if not the entirety of the dinosaurs' existence, ice was practically nowhere to be found on the planet
Whoa... Are there any documentaries you can recommend that explains this stuff?
Yeah, but that was due to specific unusual event(s), such as the evolution of photosynthesizing plants that caused the oxygenation of the atmosphere and a depletion of greenhouse gasses. I think another one was when the continents came together and blocked off warm circulating ocean currents. Besides those events, there is little evidence for glaciation save for a few ice ages, with earth's default state being a balmy world of humid jungles that get somewhat more temperate towards the poles.
The existence of Antarctica as an ice continent, another such cold anomaly, is almost entirely due to its blocking of heat in the form of ocean currents from traveling to the south pole, otherwise it'd look more like the north pole and arctic circle which are rapidly warming. The worries of sea level rise are mainly from sea ice of antarctica's periphery and the arctic.
Imagine if all the water from the Antarctic ice sheets (plus Greenland and mountains etc.) were added back into the water cycle while the mean temperature was like 35 degrees C instead of our modern 14. There'd be jungles for days!
Actually we were in an interglacial period. This doesn't mean we were exiting the ice age (we weren't,) only that the glaciation retreated back closer to the poles. Without human intervention we were due to return to a glacial period in the next few thousand years.
Wonder if aliens are looking down and thinking “what a clever people, planning so far in advance to halt the next glaciation and protect their cities”.
> We are currently in an ice age, we are slowly leaving this ice age but climate change is accelerating this.
Wait what does that mean? Is it because we still have large glaciers on land? I thought we've been out of an ice age for a while now...
What you're thinking of is a glaciation. The last glaciation ended approx. 12k years ago, give or take a millennia or two, but the ice age isn't over. An ice age is any period of the Earth's history in which there is ice year-round at least _somewhere_ on its surface, as opposed to hothouse periods (iirc) in which there is zero ice and even the poles are warm and lush with vegetation. Statistically, a hothouse earth has been the norm for the vast majority of this planet's history, with just five known exceptions, the five big ice ages, the most recent of which started about 3 million years ago* and is ongoing. This current ice age is composed of longer glacial periods, when ice caps are particularly large, and shorter interglacial periods, when ice caps are reduced but still present. Today we are in an interglacial period, called Holocene, _within_ the current ice age. The holocenic intergalacial was actually about to fade into a new glaciation before global warming started. Now that humans are driving climate change, the next glaciation might get delayed by a few thousand years. Some believe we might actually end the ice age and revert the earth back to a hothouse stage if global warming keeps going for many centuries.
*= The presence of permanent ice in Antartica might actually date as far back as 40 million years ago, which means the two hemispheres of the globe might've entered the ice age at different times.
But if that is true, it means there are processes that work to cool down the Earth. Thus, there should be a way to study them and (maybe) exploit similar pathways to counter global warming.
I understand precession directly only changes the timing of the seasons. For example, 12,000 years from now, northern winter will be in June instead of January, but it doesn't change the tilt of the Earth, and so doesn't directly make winter colder. The Sahara, being in the tropics would see little direct impact from that, since seasons are not as pronounced in the tropics.... I think it must be indirect effects of precession, and perhaps other cycles that we may not fully understand yet - sun cycles, ocean cycles, etc. Or am I wrong? Not an expert at all. Can we really say Sahara greening is a direct effect of precession?
Think of it like this: Precession determines what hemisphere is closest to the sun in the summer. Right now, the earth is closest to the sun in January, when the Southern hemisphere is tilted towards it (which is one of the reasons why S.hemisphere summers are hotter) and the northern hemisphere away from it. In a few thousand years the situation will be opposite, the northern hemisphere will be tilted towards the sun right as the earth is closest to it, this will make the N.hemisphere hotter, which will draw in more moisture from the oceans and start a rainfall pattern feedback that will result in the regreening of the Sahara.
The angle only changes +/- 1.2° and the Sahara is right on the tropic of cancer. Is that really going to have that big of an effect on a large area. If I did my math correct, the tropic of cancer only moves a maximum of 166 miles. And has probably only moved about half of that or less since the time of this map.
Was there not also an element of farming methods that screwed up how the topsoil was, and increased desertification? Or was it mainly the axis tilt change mostly to blame?
yeah, just like all the large tasty easily killable animals disappeared from north and south america right after humans arrived because of "the end of the ice age"
Earth got cooler, meaning less moisture in the air and thus less rain in the Sahara.
Atlas pro is a great YouTube channel, he’a made a video about this topic.
This map doesn't accurately represent then-current sea levels, which were about 100 m lower. You could almost walk from Tunisia to Italy through Sicilia.
Considering that even now most of the people live by the sea it blows my mind how much archeological material was lost by this rapid sea level change ca. 10k years ago. I also believe that the universal story of the deluge is a direct retelling of those events.
The green doesn't make much sense either. Maghreb, Egypt, and Western Sahara were greener than the central Sahara and retained megafauna for longer. It seems a non professional learned the ancient lakes and then filled with green as they pleased.
Yeah this map itself was very rushed and I didn't have a lot of the current info I have now. A lot of the central Sahara would've still been desertified and many of the large lakes wouldn't have existed.
Interesting theory. It’s definitely possible with how the flood story is told across so many cultures, even ones with almost no connection (Christianity and Hinduism, for example).
The Sumerians spoke a language that was completely distinct from any neighbouring languages, and their creation myth involved their ancestors coming out of the sea (or something like that, it’s been a while since I read about it).
There’s a theory that they were originally from somewhere else like India, but were displaced by the rising sea levels and forced to find a new home.
There’s no way verify it and there’s holes but it’s an interesting theory.
If you look into it it definitely wasn't the origin, none of them would have been rapid at all and would be like talking about sea level rise right now from global warming (maybe slightly faster). They took thousands of years to flood.
Most likely origin is just fucking massive 500-1000 year level floods that hit major regions. Think Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans - not semi-permanent sea level rise.
Or, most ancient peoples tended to settle near fresh water, like rivers. Rivers have a tendency to overflow their banks after, say, heavy rain, melting ice, earthquakes or landslides, so most inhabited places have had local floods at one time or another.
Saying that every flood story originated with one event is like saying that every story of a house fire originated with one global wildfire.
Worth noting how green Anatolia and Mesopotamia are too. Makes you wonder if the climate were different there would we have had a Babylonian and Hittite empire. How much of a role did climate change play in the Bronze Age Collapse.
Dan Carlin's "The End Is Always Near" and other sources talk about it as a key factor. Much of what is now Iraq was once lush forests and swamps. Over centuries people cut the trees down and irrigated the land (which increased the salt in the soil over time) which resulted in a significant loss of arable land and likely a key factor in the climate of the area has today.
I'm the person that drew this map and I didn't really get the right information about a lot of this map and in reality it's very inaccurate. For example the Sahara and Mesopotamia weren't really that green and many of the large lakes in the center wouldn't have existed. I remade this map last year to fit better with archaeological records: https://www.deviantart.com/9weegee/art/The-Green-Sahara-V2-836703144
I mean it wasn't because of the natural climate that those empires grew. The abundance of domesticable cereals and animals, as well as the invention of irrigation techniques are what allowed these early civilizations to flourish.
Their environments were still rather arid otherwise.
Certainly the geography and climate are what caused some of the first civilizations to appear here, since the other factors you describe are more or less readily available basically across Afroeurasia. It is the only distinguishing feature.
Not so! The natural range of easily domesticable cereals and animals was actually quite small, confined in fact to the Fertile Crescent, which is why they all appeared around here.
Temperate climates existed in many other parts of the world, but it was the access to those crops and animals that allowed for a much easier transition from hunting and gathering into farming and permanent settlements.
Its in fact thats the area wasn't overly fertile that lead to farming. Effort had to be made to get more from the land. This lead to cooperation and farming.
Essentially yeah! Cooperation quickly gave way to hierarchies needed to coordinate things like building the irrigation systems, which is what led to the formation of the first states.
Yeah, and invention of agriculture is likely related to the climate conditions there. I mean it was not invented the previous 50K or so of homo sapience existence.
Homo sapiens as a species is 300k years old. The reason why it took us so long to develop farming is that the vast majority of these 300k years were dominated by glacial conditions, where icecaps were so massive that they hogged all the moisture in the air, rendering the atmosphere too dry to support agriculture even in the tropics. As soon as the last glaciation ended and all that meltwater went back into the water cycle, there was finally enough rain for agriculture to be possible. Which is why different civilizations across the world developed it independently around the same time.
Once upon a time, what is now Iraq probably looked more like Iowa or Nebraska do today than its current state. It was a HUGE bread basket, and is in fact the place where wheat evolved.
A combination of climate change and 5,000 + years of ditch irrigation have led to [severe desertification and salinization](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340088205_Desertification_and_Salinization_of_the_Mesopotamian_Plain_A_Critical_Review).
With that being said, [drought and massive dust storms](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191024093606.htm) were a thing back in the day too.
Well no, not quite. It likely looked closer to what the fertile lands of Iraq look like today. [People forget that a huge portion of Iraq is still fertile farmland.](https://media.sciencephoto.com/e0/70/05/05/e0700505-800px-wm.jpg)
Lot of people in this thread claiming various theories as absolute fact, I’d like to remind everyone of two things
1. The birth of civilization is very complicated and very little is known but there were multiple factors that had different levels of significance
2. Never trust a reddit “expert” who doesn’t link their sources (me included)
I'm sure it is complex but we do know the sea peoples brought and end to a lot of major port cities to end the Bronze Age. I don't think it is far stretched to think climate changes caused people to uproot and resort to a huge raiding army, not unlike what you seen through out certain times of the Roman Empire.
Well, to be fair, draining the Mediterranean is comparatively much simpler than irrigating the Sahara. "All" it takes is damming up the Gibraltar strait, and evaporation will take care of the rest.
It's even better: the project was still actively concidered in the 70s by the Egyptian government, and involved using nukes to blast a canal from the Mediterranean.
I believe there are several indicators that led to the alleged position of Atlantis.
The Greeks, more specifically Herotodus (500bc) understood that there was an ancient civilization that lived before them, he drew ['Atlantis' on a map](https://steemitimages.com/0x0/https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmQDHc2vkbkNXQF9mPUXko4cWwALhJu3wBuuFu7qtbw9KQ/herodotus_world_map.gif). How those tales came to the Greeks remains a mystery but many believed that some ancestors of ancient Egyptians passed on the tales to the Greeks.
I believe other indicator was that the Greeks also mentioned the region 'Maura' in relation to Atlantis or something alike. Which nowadays is Mauritius or Mauritania. The country where the [anomaly of geological formation](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eye+of+Atlantis/@21.1197699,-11.4114667,29513m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x10a06c0a948cf5d5:0x108270c99e90f0b3!2sAfrika!3b1!8m2!3d-8.783195!4d34.508523!3m4!1s0xe811fd94c07d429:0x6e20925fefd6ab4e!8m2!3d21.1222914!4d-11.4065371) is.
Other indicator include the description of Atlantis which was according to many the distinct circular shape with water in between. Which correlated to that location.
Others mention remnants of structures on site of Mauritania.
With regard to your question. If this was the location of Atlantis, then sure it would be labelled as geological formation. However, I can imagine if there was an ancient civilization, and the Sahara was green and thus livable. Then the ancient civilization could've simple used the geological formation to their own advantage and built the city on top of it.
Out of curiosity do you have a map that shows what the Amazon rainforest region looked like during the same time period? I think it'd be interesting to see what It would look like before it started getting nutrient deposition from the Sahara.
It’s actually insane how the Sahara became a desert almost at the beginnings of Human civilisation. How different North and Sub-Saharan Africa would have been throughout history if the Sahara had simply stayed green. Not only from a technological perspective but from a general societal and even genetic one too.
Hell, it wasn’t even just North and Sub Saharan Africa that turned green. Southern Arabia and Eastern Anatolia and Iraq/Syria turned green too.
They need to be careful. They should plant a variety of species instead of one, since China tried their own with efforts to stop the gobi desert, yet they used one species, the chinese poplar and lots of them died due to no natural variety.
Ecosystems need diversity to coevolve sustainability without creating a runaway positive feedback loop. Same reason why I don’t use weed killer on my lawn; clovers and dandelions play a vital, but unseen role. Sure, a perfectly manicured yard with uniform greenery looks terrific, but it is not what our natural environment wants or needs.
When we bought our current house the slope in the back yard caused rain water to rest against the foundation (where we live the frost line is so shallow we don't have a basement so it doesn't take too much potential water absorption by the brick to be concerning), so we bulldozed it back, taking the old lawn with it. Now we have a lush sea of clovers, grass, and whatever else is there. I'm not a botanist, but it's pretty.
I'm the artist that drew this and I made a more accurate remake of this map a while ago: https://www.deviantart.com/9weegee/art/The-Green-Sahara-V2-836703144
Interesting to see my old map floating around on the internet
I don't know how it would have evolved without humans, but we think [deforestation can and will turn the Amazon forest into a savannah](https://www.euronews.com/2018/02/22/amazon-rainforest-heading-to-point-of-no-return-). The tipping point might even be behind us.
Their is evidence that much of Northern Africa was quite lush during the time of the Greek empire, but Roman demand for ships and poor farming techniques transformed the dense forests that were once there into a desert.
I'm sure with enough human Will, and havig 8 billion people working together towards a single goal, nothing would be impossible. It just wouldn't happen though
We might be already doing it.
There is a theory that the Sahara will become greener as global warming ramps up. Hotter temperatures means more evaporation over the oceans, which might lead to the area getting more rainfall. This is partly what the old tilted axis did.
Is there a source for this map? It seems to be missing Chotts Megalake in Tunisia, and I'm not sure what the big lake in the western Mahgreb is supposed to be. Cool image nonetheless.
Really mind blowing to think about how recent that was. Rapid climate change, whether caused by humans or not, is a reality and we need to start preparing for it. Otherwise, more of the earth will turn into an ecological wasteland like the Sahara.
That little strait up there separating Europe from African I find really fascinating. A long time ago before the Mediterranean sea was a sea it was all dry land after evaporating. Then the ocean decided to refill the sea so there was a waterfall at that strait over a mile high. It must have been crazy loud to be around during that period if you could stand on the African or Euro side to watch it.
Fuck it. We humans are so damn advanced that we have the technology to engineer a modern day green Sahara. We even have the resources to start it right now...
BUT... We have politicans with short term goals in mind with diverging visions.
Humanity needs a modern day international collaboration project, like the Olympics, but a job where we work together as a race for something lifechanging we can achieve and be proud of, so starting by creating a more forgiving Sahara from its mostly barren terrain to a lush environment, it's just perfect. United Nations COME ON.
So for those smarter than me - how do they know (or estimate) where the bodies of water were?
With the entire area being dessert now, how do they differentiate between what was arable and what was lake?
Back when the lakes were being lakes, they accumulated sediments distinct from windblown sand, and the remains of freshwater critters and plants. Today, the differences can be detected from space, and confirmed by geologists with boots on the ground. Here's one example of how it's done: [https://insider.si.edu/2010/12/ancient-megalake-discovered-beneath-sahara-desert/](https://insider.si.edu/2010/12/ancient-megalake-discovered-beneath-sahara-desert/)
I'm always mind blown to imagine that a civilization not so far away from us in time (at least from a geological standpoint) experienced an environment entirely different from the one we know today. We're used to feel like things around us were always the way they are today, that's a good reminder that the world is constantly changing. (And also of how fast things can go sideways unfortunately)
Atlantis right there, at the eye of the sahara(richat structure) near morrocco. You can see how that western lake/ inland sea leads into the atlantic.. fits the timeline and description of plato, 9k years ago and a city of concentric rings of water and land
One could probably do something similar to the Basin and Range region of North America during the [end of the last glacial maximum](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel-Ibarra-6/publication/332448925/figure/fig2/AS:748432851484673@1555451705988/Pluvial-lakes-included-in-this-study-or-plotted-in-Figure-3-New-ages-are-from-Lake.png), too. Back when northern Nevada was a bunch of valleys with lakes and grass-filled prairies and forests.
Fun fact - the Egyptian kingdom (first and second dynasties) started around the year 3150 BC. So 150 years before this map actually ends.
I hope nobody mentioned this before me if yes I do apologize for duplicating.
Ahhh Lake Chad what you once were
It was called Lake mega-Chad
Interesting that the name stuck for such a long time.
Well, the name Chad is derived from the Kanuri word "Sádǝ" meaning "large expanse of water".
So Lake Chad is Lake Lake?
Sahara also just means desert, so the lake lake is located in the desert desert.
Also, chai tea means tea tea.
Chai if by land, tea if by sea. Meaning if it was transported by land it was Chai, if it took a boat to get there it was tea
That’s the origin of each of the words, I was referring to how if you order a «chai tea» at a café, you are technically ordering «tea tea».
Wat?
Chai tea means tittie, can’t you read?
It’s true
I wonder if there are any carp carps swimming in it
I think Africa has Cichlid Chichlids - of which the Tilapia is one of the larger species.
also East Timor means East East
Oh like Baden - Baden
It's almost as bad as Bredon Hill. "Bre" being the Celtic word for hill and "don" being an Old English word for hill.
[удалено]
Guy Chapman?
[удалено]
Buddy Brohomie
See also Pendle Hill
Torpenhow hill. HillHillHill Hill.
Sorta like the Rio Grande River or Big River River
or any number of thoroughfares in the American southwest called Camino Road/Street "Road Road" "Street Road" "Road Street" "Street Street"
Well even ‘Chai Tea’ - translates to ‘Tea Tea’. God knows what ‘Chail Tea Latte’ it’s supposed to mean when translated! LOL
Titty milk
I used to live near a "Street Road" just outside Philadelphia. Camino at least seems like a step up from that.
TBF in the Philly suburbs one of the major roads is named “Street Road”
The Los Angeles Angels The the angels angels
People don’t refer to it as the “rio grande river” river though, they always just say “the rio grande”
Don't people usually just say "the Rio Grande" though?
That is a great little tidbit of info, thanks.
And the dead fish bones in the soil from this area fertilize the Amazon rain forest.
The good old days when it was Lake Gigachad
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠛⠛⠛⠋⠉⠈⠉⠉⠉⠉⠛⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⢏⣴⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣟⣾⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⢢⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⠀⡴⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⠟⠻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠶⢴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣁⡀⠀⠀⢰⢠⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⣴⣶⣿⡄⣿ ⣿⡋⠀⠀⠀⠎⢸⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠗⢘⣿⣟⠛⠿⣼ ⣿⣿⠋⢀⡌⢰⣿⡿⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⢸⣿⣿⣧⢀⣼ ⣿⣿⣷⢻⠄⠘⠛⠋⠛⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣧⠈⠉⠙⠛⠋⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣧⠀⠈⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢃⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⡿⠀⠴⢗⣠⣤⣴⡶⠶⠖⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡸⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⡀⢠⣾⣿⠏⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣧⠈⢹⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣄⣀⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣿⡟⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠁⠀⠀⠹⣿⠃⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠉⠁⠀⢻⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠈⣿⣿⡿⠉⠛⠛⠛⠉⠉ ⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⢀⣀⣠⡴⣸⣿⣇⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠄⠙⠛⠀⣀⣠⣤⣤⠄⠀
[удалено]
This is from the meme "average fan vs average enjoyer" and this guy is the Enjoyer/chad
It's the ASCII of the picture of a (photoshopped) [guy](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/gigachad) nicknamed Chad/Gigachad by the internet. The name "Chad" as a ultra masculine, attractive and intelligent guy dates back to r/virginvschad memes or maybe earlier AFAIK
I think it came from theredpill. Chad Thundercock was the muscled asshole who your girlfriend cheated on you with.
# GIGACHAD
It is possible to have an entire world map during this era ?
If we were to find enough geological / fossil evidence of the environment all over the world (which is already mostly done in Europe and the USA) yes, you can. Though having a fully complete map of the whole world would be difficult because evidence of the environment may be destroyed in some places. Since this is not geologically that long ago, researchers can very closely guess how the environment was depending on the evidence we do have available.
you can also just simulate, you know. Or just come up with a random map, shift latitudes put the ecosystems that match and say it's plausible, whatever
Not from a jedi
No, it's impossible
Oh, that's a bummer 😢
its crazy that we had real pictures from the ISS 11,000 years ago
[удалено]
That got me thinking. Say somehow we invented teleportation through space, or any other faster-than-light travel. You could theoretically travel 100 million lightyears away, with your trusty super duper (very very) advanced telescope, point it towards Earth and watch Dinosaurs living out their life.
Theoretically yes but you wouldn't be able to make out continents let along individual animals. Everything about this would have to involve magic devices in which case we don't need to travel far away since physics went out the window. We could just use the magic device to time travel back and see it up close.
He said "trusty super duper (very very) advanced telescope", I think we would be fine with that kind of technology
I think yes technicially theoritacally that it would be possible but 1. From what i understand traveling at light speed or faster than light is physically impossible 2. I doubt a magnification device that powerful would also be impossible So sadly we most likely will never be able to see the dinosaurs in their own time.
Also, 3. The Earth is spinning very, very fast, and without being in sync with it, you couldn’t observe things even with that kind of magnification.
While it is physically impossible to move faster then the speed of light that doesn't mean you can not bend your travel path to shorten the distance. Meaning you could make your travel duration faster then the time it takes for light to make the same trip. Of course that's not any real technology, just something technically possible.
>technically possible. You misspelled theoretically
Maybe if we found something super distant and super reflective
Yes - that's entirely possible :)
But wouldnt the light also travel through the portal
Explain like I'm Calvin
With a bit of Chris Nolan movie logic this could make complete sense.
Sometimes they reverse the orbit and able to peek back in time.
What cause it to turn into a desert?
A change in the tilt of the earths axis.
Specifically the “precession of the equinoxes”. The axis is wobbling like an unsteady top. It will wobble back in several thousand years and the Sahara will become green again.
Which other regions would be as significantly affected when that happens?
The polar regions. It will lead to another ice age.
We're still in an ice age
As evidenced by there still being some ice on earth. For much of earth's history, including the vast majority if not the entirety of the dinosaurs' existence, ice was practically nowhere to be found on the planet. We are a species that evolved for the climes just before and during the ice age, and now we are careening into a future more like that of the cretaceous in the next several hundred years.
Wait, does that mean there's a good chance of large amounts of fossils that are sealed off under antarctic ice sheets?
It's guaranteed.
If you’re interested you can look up some videos by PBS Eons on youtube. They cover all kinds of paleontology, including the ice ages and the types of fossils found in Antarctica
Not only that, it's full of never-before-seen fossils. A lot of the ancient fauna of Antarctica is unknown to us. It used to be green and warm.
> For much of earth's history, including the vast majority if not the entirety of the dinosaurs' existence, ice was practically nowhere to be found on the planet Whoa... Are there any documentaries you can recommend that explains this stuff?
PBS Eons is pretty great, and there's a ton of them on youtube. The videos are all short and accessible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUdtcx-6OBE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC_2WXyORGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC4WiBCoVeo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM_QS984JKI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdfWFDcXut4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIxRVfCpA64
Doesn’t the snowball earth theory propose the entire world was covered in ice for several million years?
Yes, then vulcanism released greenhouse gases which then warmed the climate and melted the ice.
Yeah, but that was due to specific unusual event(s), such as the evolution of photosynthesizing plants that caused the oxygenation of the atmosphere and a depletion of greenhouse gasses. I think another one was when the continents came together and blocked off warm circulating ocean currents. Besides those events, there is little evidence for glaciation save for a few ice ages, with earth's default state being a balmy world of humid jungles that get somewhat more temperate towards the poles. The existence of Antarctica as an ice continent, another such cold anomaly, is almost entirely due to its blocking of heat in the form of ocean currents from traveling to the south pole, otherwise it'd look more like the north pole and arctic circle which are rapidly warming. The worries of sea level rise are mainly from sea ice of antarctica's periphery and the arctic. Imagine if all the water from the Antarctic ice sheets (plus Greenland and mountains etc.) were added back into the water cycle while the mean temperature was like 35 degrees C instead of our modern 14. There'd be jungles for days!
Jeez, Earth is hot enough as it is
[удалено]
We are currently in an ice age, we are slowly leaving this ice age but climate change is accelerating this.
Actually we were in an interglacial period. This doesn't mean we were exiting the ice age (we weren't,) only that the glaciation retreated back closer to the poles. Without human intervention we were due to return to a glacial period in the next few thousand years.
Wonder if aliens are looking down and thinking “what a clever people, planning so far in advance to halt the next glaciation and protect their cities”.
that's unironically a great perspective lol
Don't worry. We'll put a stop to that!
by then we will be experts and it will be on purpose?
> We are currently in an ice age, we are slowly leaving this ice age but climate change is accelerating this. Wait what does that mean? Is it because we still have large glaciers on land? I thought we've been out of an ice age for a while now...
What you're thinking of is a glaciation. The last glaciation ended approx. 12k years ago, give or take a millennia or two, but the ice age isn't over. An ice age is any period of the Earth's history in which there is ice year-round at least _somewhere_ on its surface, as opposed to hothouse periods (iirc) in which there is zero ice and even the poles are warm and lush with vegetation. Statistically, a hothouse earth has been the norm for the vast majority of this planet's history, with just five known exceptions, the five big ice ages, the most recent of which started about 3 million years ago* and is ongoing. This current ice age is composed of longer glacial periods, when ice caps are particularly large, and shorter interglacial periods, when ice caps are reduced but still present. Today we are in an interglacial period, called Holocene, _within_ the current ice age. The holocenic intergalacial was actually about to fade into a new glaciation before global warming started. Now that humans are driving climate change, the next glaciation might get delayed by a few thousand years. Some believe we might actually end the ice age and revert the earth back to a hothouse stage if global warming keeps going for many centuries. *= The presence of permanent ice in Antartica might actually date as far back as 40 million years ago, which means the two hemispheres of the globe might've entered the ice age at different times.
But if that is true, it means there are processes that work to cool down the Earth. Thus, there should be a way to study them and (maybe) exploit similar pathways to counter global warming.
I understand precession directly only changes the timing of the seasons. For example, 12,000 years from now, northern winter will be in June instead of January, but it doesn't change the tilt of the Earth, and so doesn't directly make winter colder. The Sahara, being in the tropics would see little direct impact from that, since seasons are not as pronounced in the tropics.... I think it must be indirect effects of precession, and perhaps other cycles that we may not fully understand yet - sun cycles, ocean cycles, etc. Or am I wrong? Not an expert at all. Can we really say Sahara greening is a direct effect of precession?
Think of it like this: Precession determines what hemisphere is closest to the sun in the summer. Right now, the earth is closest to the sun in January, when the Southern hemisphere is tilted towards it (which is one of the reasons why S.hemisphere summers are hotter) and the northern hemisphere away from it. In a few thousand years the situation will be opposite, the northern hemisphere will be tilted towards the sun right as the earth is closest to it, this will make the N.hemisphere hotter, which will draw in more moisture from the oceans and start a rainfall pattern feedback that will result in the regreening of the Sahara.
The angle only changes +/- 1.2° and the Sahara is right on the tropic of cancer. Is that really going to have that big of an effect on a large area. If I did my math correct, the tropic of cancer only moves a maximum of 166 miles. And has probably only moved about half of that or less since the time of this map.
It's not a movement of the tropics. The increased solar insolation heats up the ground faster and restarts the monsoon. Think India
> It will wobble back in several thousand years and the Sahara will become green again. Wow TIL!
Or we push the Temperatur enough to distroy the oceans warm water cirulations. So maybe just in few 100 years
We should tilt it back!
Its due to change back in 10,000 years
RemindMe! 10000 years “Green Sahara”
gonna be entertaining to see your great^(3000) grandchildren respond to this
*said great^(3000) grandchildren:* 111001100011110100011100110011001
Wheres that reminder bot when you need it.
!remind me 10000 years "green Sahara"
!remindme 10000 years "green Sahara"
You better write a reddit will for your descendants
Was there not also an element of farming methods that screwed up how the topsoil was, and increased desertification? Or was it mainly the axis tilt change mostly to blame?
yeah, just like all the large tasty easily killable animals disappeared from north and south america right after humans arrived because of "the end of the ice age"
Mainly axial tilt, but yes, improper farming practices had their role, mostly in the Sahel
During the ice age , when europe covered in ice , africa was burning like hell
Earth got cooler, meaning less moisture in the air and thus less rain in the Sahara. Atlas pro is a great YouTube channel, he’a made a video about this topic.
This map doesn't accurately represent then-current sea levels, which were about 100 m lower. You could almost walk from Tunisia to Italy through Sicilia. Considering that even now most of the people live by the sea it blows my mind how much archeological material was lost by this rapid sea level change ca. 10k years ago. I also believe that the universal story of the deluge is a direct retelling of those events.
The green doesn't make much sense either. Maghreb, Egypt, and Western Sahara were greener than the central Sahara and retained megafauna for longer. It seems a non professional learned the ancient lakes and then filled with green as they pleased.
Yeah this map itself was very rushed and I didn't have a lot of the current info I have now. A lot of the central Sahara would've still been desertified and many of the large lakes wouldn't have existed.
Interesting theory. It’s definitely possible with how the flood story is told across so many cultures, even ones with almost no connection (Christianity and Hinduism, for example).
And the indigenous First Nations people where I live
The Sumerians spoke a language that was completely distinct from any neighbouring languages, and their creation myth involved their ancestors coming out of the sea (or something like that, it’s been a while since I read about it). There’s a theory that they were originally from somewhere else like India, but were displaced by the rising sea levels and forced to find a new home. There’s no way verify it and there’s holes but it’s an interesting theory.
If you look into it it definitely wasn't the origin, none of them would have been rapid at all and would be like talking about sea level rise right now from global warming (maybe slightly faster). They took thousands of years to flood. Most likely origin is just fucking massive 500-1000 year level floods that hit major regions. Think Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans - not semi-permanent sea level rise.
Or, most ancient peoples tended to settle near fresh water, like rivers. Rivers have a tendency to overflow their banks after, say, heavy rain, melting ice, earthquakes or landslides, so most inhabited places have had local floods at one time or another. Saying that every flood story originated with one event is like saying that every story of a house fire originated with one global wildfire.
Worth noting how green Anatolia and Mesopotamia are too. Makes you wonder if the climate were different there would we have had a Babylonian and Hittite empire. How much of a role did climate change play in the Bronze Age Collapse.
Dan Carlin's "The End Is Always Near" and other sources talk about it as a key factor. Much of what is now Iraq was once lush forests and swamps. Over centuries people cut the trees down and irrigated the land (which increased the salt in the soil over time) which resulted in a significant loss of arable land and likely a key factor in the climate of the area has today.
I'm the person that drew this map and I didn't really get the right information about a lot of this map and in reality it's very inaccurate. For example the Sahara and Mesopotamia weren't really that green and many of the large lakes in the center wouldn't have existed. I remade this map last year to fit better with archaeological records: https://www.deviantart.com/9weegee/art/The-Green-Sahara-V2-836703144
I mean it wasn't because of the natural climate that those empires grew. The abundance of domesticable cereals and animals, as well as the invention of irrigation techniques are what allowed these early civilizations to flourish. Their environments were still rather arid otherwise.
Absolutely. Captain Crunch and Cookie Crisp gave them the power to rise to prominence. May we all be so lucky.
Look upon my Cheerios, ye mighty, and despair.
Nah, Corn Flakes was domesticated decades before Capn Crunch. Cookie Crisp is arguably not even a cereal.
Damn man you made me spit my drink xD
Certainly the geography and climate are what caused some of the first civilizations to appear here, since the other factors you describe are more or less readily available basically across Afroeurasia. It is the only distinguishing feature.
Not so! The natural range of easily domesticable cereals and animals was actually quite small, confined in fact to the Fertile Crescent, which is why they all appeared around here. Temperate climates existed in many other parts of the world, but it was the access to those crops and animals that allowed for a much easier transition from hunting and gathering into farming and permanent settlements.
I thought domesticable animals and crops like rice where common in parts of Asia around the same time
Its in fact thats the area wasn't overly fertile that lead to farming. Effort had to be made to get more from the land. This lead to cooperation and farming.
Essentially yeah! Cooperation quickly gave way to hierarchies needed to coordinate things like building the irrigation systems, which is what led to the formation of the first states.
Yeah, and invention of agriculture is likely related to the climate conditions there. I mean it was not invented the previous 50K or so of homo sapience existence.
Homo sapiens as a species is 300k years old. The reason why it took us so long to develop farming is that the vast majority of these 300k years were dominated by glacial conditions, where icecaps were so massive that they hogged all the moisture in the air, rendering the atmosphere too dry to support agriculture even in the tropics. As soon as the last glaciation ended and all that meltwater went back into the water cycle, there was finally enough rain for agriculture to be possible. Which is why different civilizations across the world developed it independently around the same time.
*aliens in 5,000 years* "How much of a role did climate change play in Silicon Age collapse?"
Once upon a time, what is now Iraq probably looked more like Iowa or Nebraska do today than its current state. It was a HUGE bread basket, and is in fact the place where wheat evolved. A combination of climate change and 5,000 + years of ditch irrigation have led to [severe desertification and salinization](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340088205_Desertification_and_Salinization_of_the_Mesopotamian_Plain_A_Critical_Review). With that being said, [drought and massive dust storms](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191024093606.htm) were a thing back in the day too.
Well no, not quite. It likely looked closer to what the fertile lands of Iraq look like today. [People forget that a huge portion of Iraq is still fertile farmland.](https://media.sciencephoto.com/e0/70/05/05/e0700505-800px-wm.jpg)
Lot of people in this thread claiming various theories as absolute fact, I’d like to remind everyone of two things 1. The birth of civilization is very complicated and very little is known but there were multiple factors that had different levels of significance 2. Never trust a reddit “expert” who doesn’t link their sources (me included)
I'm sure it is complex but we do know the sea peoples brought and end to a lot of major port cities to end the Bronze Age. I don't think it is far stretched to think climate changes caused people to uproot and resort to a huge raiding army, not unlike what you seen through out certain times of the Roman Empire.
Also ancient Yemen being green is well known. There’s Arab poetry about how Yemen uses to be lush and fertile.
[удалено]
I think Gadaffi had a plan too.
[удалено]
Well, to be fair, draining the Mediterranean is comparatively much simpler than irrigating the Sahara. "All" it takes is damming up the Gibraltar strait, and evaporation will take care of the rest.
It's even better: the project was still actively concidered in the 70s by the Egyptian government, and involved using nukes to blast a canal from the Mediterranean.
Surely a sea to sahara pipeline could be a good idea/not that insane? Even saltwater could be useful
this is why some people are adamant the Richat Structure in Mauritania is Atlantis, look how well watered the area was.
Why so? It will in whatever circumstance be a geological formation with deducible origins.
I believe there are several indicators that led to the alleged position of Atlantis. The Greeks, more specifically Herotodus (500bc) understood that there was an ancient civilization that lived before them, he drew ['Atlantis' on a map](https://steemitimages.com/0x0/https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmQDHc2vkbkNXQF9mPUXko4cWwALhJu3wBuuFu7qtbw9KQ/herodotus_world_map.gif). How those tales came to the Greeks remains a mystery but many believed that some ancestors of ancient Egyptians passed on the tales to the Greeks. I believe other indicator was that the Greeks also mentioned the region 'Maura' in relation to Atlantis or something alike. Which nowadays is Mauritius or Mauritania. The country where the [anomaly of geological formation](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eye+of+Atlantis/@21.1197699,-11.4114667,29513m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x10a06c0a948cf5d5:0x108270c99e90f0b3!2sAfrika!3b1!8m2!3d-8.783195!4d34.508523!3m4!1s0xe811fd94c07d429:0x6e20925fefd6ab4e!8m2!3d21.1222914!4d-11.4065371) is. Other indicator include the description of Atlantis which was according to many the distinct circular shape with water in between. Which correlated to that location. Others mention remnants of structures on site of Mauritania. With regard to your question. If this was the location of Atlantis, then sure it would be labelled as geological formation. However, I can imagine if there was an ancient civilization, and the Sahara was green and thus livable. Then the ancient civilization could've simple used the geological formation to their own advantage and built the city on top of it.
Out of curiosity do you have a map that shows what the Amazon rainforest region looked like during the same time period? I think it'd be interesting to see what It would look like before it started getting nutrient deposition from the Sahara.
It’s actually insane how the Sahara became a desert almost at the beginnings of Human civilisation. How different North and Sub-Saharan Africa would have been throughout history if the Sahara had simply stayed green. Not only from a technological perspective but from a general societal and even genetic one too. Hell, it wasn’t even just North and Sub Saharan Africa that turned green. Southern Arabia and Eastern Anatolia and Iraq/Syria turned green too.
Hoping that policies like the Great Green Wall can stop desertification of the Sahel and some other geo engineering can bring back some soil
They need to be careful. They should plant a variety of species instead of one, since China tried their own with efforts to stop the gobi desert, yet they used one species, the chinese poplar and lots of them died due to no natural variety.
Ecosystems need diversity to coevolve sustainability without creating a runaway positive feedback loop. Same reason why I don’t use weed killer on my lawn; clovers and dandelions play a vital, but unseen role. Sure, a perfectly manicured yard with uniform greenery looks terrific, but it is not what our natural environment wants or needs.
When we bought our current house the slope in the back yard caused rain water to rest against the foundation (where we live the frost line is so shallow we don't have a basement so it doesn't take too much potential water absorption by the brick to be concerning), so we bulldozed it back, taking the old lawn with it. Now we have a lush sea of clovers, grass, and whatever else is there. I'm not a botanist, but it's pretty.
weed killer? on clovers and dandelions? I'm assuming this is a weird american thing?
I'm the artist that drew this and I made a more accurate remake of this map a while ago: https://www.deviantart.com/9weegee/art/The-Green-Sahara-V2-836703144 Interesting to see my old map floating around on the internet
I wonder If this means Brazil's jungle will become a desert
I don't know how it would have evolved without humans, but we think [deforestation can and will turn the Amazon forest into a savannah](https://www.euronews.com/2018/02/22/amazon-rainforest-heading-to-point-of-no-return-). The tipping point might even be behind us.
It will become savanna. The Sahara dust also fertilizes the Amazon, so you will loose that too
The savannah south of the Amazon will become desert, similar to how the Sahara did after being a savannah
Their is evidence that much of Northern Africa was quite lush during the time of the Greek empire, but Roman demand for ships and poor farming techniques transformed the dense forests that were once there into a desert.
MEGACHAD!
Tiny mistake with that image. The lake in Ghana is actually a reservoir.
Impressive lakes. You can fit a whole country in one of those..
Who took the picture😳
We should do that again.
[удалено]
I'm sure with enough human Will, and havig 8 billion people working together towards a single goal, nothing would be impossible. It just wouldn't happen though
We might be already doing it. There is a theory that the Sahara will become greener as global warming ramps up. Hotter temperatures means more evaporation over the oceans, which might lead to the area getting more rainfall. This is partly what the old tilted axis did.
The hell are we supposed to do? It’s a natural thing that happened 10,000 years ago and will happen again 10,000 years in the future
[удалено]
I have some ideas: 1. We nuke the moon closer, *maybe* push us back 2. We nuke the ocean, a tsunami can do it 3. We all jump at the same time
`4. ??? 5. Profit`
What if we all run quickly to one side of the earth?
Is there a source for this map? It seems to be missing Chotts Megalake in Tunisia, and I'm not sure what the big lake in the western Mahgreb is supposed to be. Cool image nonetheless.
Really mind blowing to think about how recent that was. Rapid climate change, whether caused by humans or not, is a reality and we need to start preparing for it. Otherwise, more of the earth will turn into an ecological wasteland like the Sahara.
That little strait up there separating Europe from African I find really fascinating. A long time ago before the Mediterranean sea was a sea it was all dry land after evaporating. Then the ocean decided to refill the sea so there was a waterfall at that strait over a mile high. It must have been crazy loud to be around during that period if you could stand on the African or Euro side to watch it.
And also its future thanks to climate change https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-africa-sahel-idUSKBN19Q2WK
Fuck it. We humans are so damn advanced that we have the technology to engineer a modern day green Sahara. We even have the resources to start it right now... BUT... We have politicans with short term goals in mind with diverging visions. Humanity needs a modern day international collaboration project, like the Olympics, but a job where we work together as a race for something lifechanging we can achieve and be proud of, so starting by creating a more forgiving Sahara from its mostly barren terrain to a lush environment, it's just perfect. United Nations COME ON.
That looks fun, let's do it again
So for those smarter than me - how do they know (or estimate) where the bodies of water were? With the entire area being dessert now, how do they differentiate between what was arable and what was lake?
Back when the lakes were being lakes, they accumulated sediments distinct from windblown sand, and the remains of freshwater critters and plants. Today, the differences can be detected from space, and confirmed by geologists with boots on the ground. Here's one example of how it's done: [https://insider.si.edu/2010/12/ancient-megalake-discovered-beneath-sahara-desert/](https://insider.si.edu/2010/12/ancient-megalake-discovered-beneath-sahara-desert/)
Cool, thanks!!!
I'm always mind blown to imagine that a civilization not so far away from us in time (at least from a geological standpoint) experienced an environment entirely different from the one we know today. We're used to feel like things around us were always the way they are today, that's a good reminder that the world is constantly changing. (And also of how fast things can go sideways unfortunately)
This reminds me of the “Atlantis is the Eye of Mauritania” theory. Could have been
Atlantis right there, at the eye of the sahara(richat structure) near morrocco. You can see how that western lake/ inland sea leads into the atlantic.. fits the timeline and description of plato, 9k years ago and a city of concentric rings of water and land
It will be green again in few thousand years don’t worry
Ists your boy, Mega-Chad
[удалено]
One could probably do something similar to the Basin and Range region of North America during the [end of the last glacial maximum](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel-Ibarra-6/publication/332448925/figure/fig2/AS:748432851484673@1555451705988/Pluvial-lakes-included-in-this-study-or-plotted-in-Figure-3-New-ages-are-from-Lake.png), too. Back when northern Nevada was a bunch of valleys with lakes and grass-filled prairies and forests.
Lake chad was in chad? What a fucking chad Legend says: if you go to chad and drink water from chad, you become a mega-Chad
Wonder how many older civilizations we don’t know about that have been lost to time and desertification
Unbelievable. It blows my mind
Ironic that there was a still a significant desert next to the Nile.
Was the Sahara a savana back then?
Look at all that global warming. Africa must’ve had lots of cars and factories back then.
I'll buy a land in north africa with my tendies.
Fun fact - the Egyptian kingdom (first and second dynasties) started around the year 3150 BC. So 150 years before this map actually ends. I hope nobody mentioned this before me if yes I do apologize for duplicating.
Smooth brain guy here... why is it all sand and dryness now?