Just a quick visit.

Over a lot of NSW we have been experiencing some wonderful rains that have made the land blossom, green and vibrant. Sadly the flatness and uniformity of the Australian landscape can render such wonder amounts of rain into muddy floodwaters. The affected areas look like giant duckponds where the waters just sit there for ages, besides rising.
Again and again the only answer offered to this problem is "Relief Packages". Packages that fall into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
SES crews are constantly called into volunteer action to repair (rather than prevent).

My idea: We need to start Terra-forming ( a good practice run if Humanity is to exist upon other planets ;)) for constructive purposes or change the way we live. I suggest we start building giant CANALS (and to a lesser extent PIPES) to DRAIN away such potential disasters and transport such huge amounts of water across the State (and later the nation) to DROUGHT affected areas or  DRY areas not recieving rainfall.

If they complain that it would cost too much to do - I say "Humpf!", they spend more upon Indonesia and failed attempts to hold World Cups. Its all about priority and a Soccer World Cup is not a priority to the wellbeing of Australians ...especially in the long term.

Sydney Water has just advertised for 'advice/comment' upon preventing 177 billions litres of treated wastewater being discharged out to sea.
(Yes I have written to them)

Obviously this is a growing problem for this Nation and one that should be a Domestic Priority.

Of course there will be better versions and adaptions of the Canal concept of transporting water drained from flooded areas to drought and dry areas, over time ...but until then "Lets get to work"!

The water does not hang around because of lack of canals or drainage channels. It hangs around because the land is low. That is also why the land is so flat. Water does not flow uphill.

Yep - true. The Land is flat as. So the water just sits like a gian t Duckpond.
There is nowhere for it to run or drain away because what creeks there are are all shallow (almost flat themselves) and unkept - overgrown, refuse and sanded up.

This is where major canalling or artificial streaming/rivering must be implemented.

Once adequate depths of Canals are achieved, they also become holding pens for the waters. The shallower the creek/dam - the quicker the evaporation/warmer the water.

It is really no different to having a Dam on the property - only that a Canal is freeflowing (makes for healthier water), more likely to maintain a certain 'adequate' level due to replenishment from other areas, can be maintained better, better visability, have fish and aquatic life, cools the immediate area, provides moisture in the air for the immediate area.

As for transporting water: I'm sure there is a system, similar to what they use in the Suez/Panama Canals that transports water from one to the other. Maybe giant Syphon Pumps that suck out of one Canal and into another 'connecting' length ...a few kilometres down that length another Pump is doing the same into the next section and so on.

Something has to be done FD, it might not be perfect (yet), but at least the ball will roll towards something other than doing nothing.

Doing nothing sounds like a much better idea to me.

The water does actually flow out on it's own, at a much faster rate than any pumping system ever built by humans. You're just not appreciating the scale of what is out there.

I think you're right.

...but under recent events

I must also say "I told you so".

Jasignature: "Down Under but always a Day Ahead" ;)

caio FD, its been good mate. :)

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Jan 14^th, 2011 at 8:08pm:

...but under recent events I must also say "I told you so". Jasignature: "Down Under but always a Day Ahead" ;) caio FD, its been good mate. :)

Although it wouldn't save all of the flooding, some of Brisbane's suburbs go under as a result of water re-entering storm water or backing up as a result of tidal surge, not necessarily from water breaking the banks of the river.  I wonder whether it would pay to investigate devices that could be used to block off the storm water creek/river outlet and divert the water elsewhere or redesign the system to divert the water to a different part of the river system permanently.  

Mitigation works in Norman creek did wonders this time around, substantially reducing water ingress into lower lying areas.

Wivenhoe did it's job mostly, especially considering there was substantially more water entering the system this time around.  

A means of diverting water from the Lockyer Valley would also be useful.

Not sure how the stormwater thing could work. If it doesn't go up the stormwater, it just goes overland instead. There are no natural 'bowls' on the floodplain with no outlet that slopes down into the river.

The only way it could work is to build some kind of dyke, but in a city like Brisbane that would make things worse, because it would be a barrier to the overland flows during heavy local rain, and turn a well drained area into a dam every time it rains.

If your house is close to being flooded, sandbag the toilets, plugholes etc, because sewage or stormwater does often flow out before the floodwaters come in. There are often plenty of streets where you can see water coming out of the drains/sewers a little bit above the floodwaters. Plus, the last thing you want is your uphill neighbour's chocolate log in your living room when you return.

Of course Australia needs terraforming. Australia is being terraformed as we speak. Problem is it's all negative, mountains are being turned into holes and top soil is being dumped into the sea. We buy stolen western Saharan  phosphate from Morroco and throw away our own piss and poo, as well as that of our animals.

Australia is short of fresh water but has limitless supplies of free power. It's more than 90% desert and adds to that each year while pouring concrete over arable land. It's biggest natural reservoir is so full of salt it's useless. Salt is convertable into glass the best storage for fresh water you can get. Australians are so timid they allow a handful of billionaires to monopolise the rape of its resources to fill their piggy banks.

You never get anywhere by saying "can't do it, there's too much to do." Australia needs a vision of the future and salesmen to pitch it.  

One good way to desalinate water is to freeze it, there's no such thing as a salty iceberg.

Grey wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 7:09am:

Of course Australia needs terraforming. Australia is being terraformed as we speak. Problem is it's all negative, mountains are being turned into holes and top soil is being dumped into the sea. We buy stolen western Saharan  phosphate from Morroco and throw away our own piss and poo, as well as that of our animals. Australia is short of fresh water but has limitless supplies of free power. It's more than 90% desert and adds to that each year while pouring concrete over arable land. It's biggest natural reservoir is so full of salt it's useless. Salt is convertable into glass the best storage for fresh water you can get. Australians are so timid they allow a handful of billionaires to monopolise the rape of its resources to fill their piggy banks. You never get anywhere by saying "can't do it, there's too much to do." Australia needs a vision of the future and salesmen to pitch it.

...and someone to sell it to.  I think the govt. might be a bit bare in the pocket department just now so that just leaves those filthy capitalist pigs we whinge about to pay for it.  Hahahahaha...and why should they?  Would you sell your house and everything you own and donate it to the cause??  
Big investors are the only ones with anything like the money and know-how to do a tiny fraction of the 'terraforming' required, and they are called investors because they expect a return on their money...in their lifetime.  
Haven't seen the Ord River scheme for a long time but last I looked it didn't have any cities growing up around it, no hive of industry, ergo no return on investment on anything like the scale that would be expected from so much outlay.  
It's always the 'Grabor' party types that scream for something to be done...with other people's money.  Why don't you all take the hat around and see how much you can come up with.  Then have a look at how far short of the cost you'll be.   :D ;D

Parannoyed wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:14am:

[ ...and someone to sell it to.  I think the govt. might be a bit bare in the pocket department just now so that just leaves those filthy capitalist pigs we whinge about to pay for it.  Hahahahaha...and why should they?  Would you sell your house and everything you own and donate it to the cause??   Big investors are the only ones with anything like the money and know-how to do a tiny fraction of the 'terraforming' required, and they are called investors because they expect a return on their money...in their lifetime.   Haven't seen the Ord River scheme for a long time but last I looked it didn't have any cities growing up around it, no hive of industry, ergo no return on investment on anything like the scale that would be expected from so much outlay.   It's always the 'Grabor' party types that scream for something to be done...with other people's money.  Why don't you all take the hat around and see how much you can come up with.  Then have a look at how far short of the cost you'll be.   :D ;D

Parra, would you mind telling me what somebody does to earn six billion dollars a year? Would you mind telling me why they'd have to sell their house to give the nation a return on its assets? I do hope you leave your brain to science, they'd love one in showroom condition.  ;D

Grey wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 11:05am:

Parannoyed wrote on Apr 19th, 2011 at 8:14am: [ ...and someone to sell it to.  I think the govt. might be a bit bare in the pocket department just now so that just leaves those filthy capitalist pigs we whinge about to pay for it.  Hahahahaha...and why should they?  Would you sell your house and everything you own and donate it to the cause??   Big investors are the only ones with anything like the money and know-how to do a tiny fraction of the 'terraforming' required, and they are called investors because they expect a return on their money...in their lifetime.   Haven't seen the Ord River scheme for a long time but last I looked it didn't have any cities growing up around it, no hive of industry, ergo no return on investment on anything like the scale that would be expected from so much outlay.   It's always the 'Grabor' party types that scream for something to be done...with other people's money.  Why don't you all take the hat around and see how much you can come up with.  Then have a look at how far short of the cost you'll be.   :D ;D Parra, would you mind telling me what somebody does to earn six billion dollars a year? Would you mind telling me why they'd have to sell their house to give the nation a return on its assets? I do hope you leave your brain to science, they'd love one in showroom condition.  ;D

Mate if I knew that I wouldn't be killing time here.  The brain is still in shiny condition because it hasn't absorbed all those pie in the sky solutions to what ails us.  It still sees things as they are, and what is entailed in fixing things.  Wishing for stuff won't make it happen and expecting anyone to fork out the dollars needed to turn the outback into Eden without there being a buck in it is indulging in wishful thinking.  
The selling the house reference is to point out that those yelling loudest that others should pay for everything usually haven't much to contribute to the costs themselves. They probably don't own houses to sell, or donate, for the 'cause' anyway but expect others to chuck millions at it.  
It's always somebody 'better off' who should pay for their grandiose, planet saving ideas.  The mining magnates cop it usually. How many of them inherited their wealth?  Why are they 'billionaires' do you think?  Because they're smarter.  Whether they're bastards or not doesn't matter. They have the dough and the brains.  Don't bitch about it, beat them..if you're smart enough.  If someone can make millions while the bloke next door is at the pub then the bloke in the pub needs to get off his proverbial...if he's smart enough.  
We aren't all Mensa level, that's a fact.  That's nature, the smart will rise to the top, hopefully they'll drag a few up with them, sadly most who can't cut it will just whinge 'what about me'.  
I'm not smart.  I'm still driving a '99 car. But I don't begrudge people who are smarter having a new one.  That's life. They're employing someone who isn't as smart as them.
Oh, and I don't mean 'intelligent'...I mean 'smart', big difference. ;)

Rich people accumulate lots of money by investing it wisely - ie not in silly grandiose schemes. You could take it off them and invest it elsewhere. This would achieve your goals, if your goals revolve around making everyone else as poor as you.

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 6:09pm:

Rich people accumulate lots of money by investing it wisely - ie not in silly grandiose schemes. You could take it off them and invest it elsewhere. This would achieve your goals, if your goals revolve around making everyone else as poor as you.

Another ad homineum attack based on erroneous assumptions free? Well it's always best to stick at what you're good at. Your argument such as it is, is saying that somebody with billions to invest will be "investing it wisely" .  The world says no. The reality is that the uber-rich get that way by aiming at that goal, usually after inheriting it. Being rich is not being wise; rich and wise are not synonyms or cause and effect. Somebody with a few dollars and a good idea will make wise investments, a billionaire will look for ways to make more money to improve the position in the game they're playing with other billionaires. The result is that the most traded commodity in the world today is money itself and the result of that is a fast approaching catastrophe.  

http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2008/10/the_size_of_der.php

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12754

Quote:

Another ad homineum attack

No it isn't. Do you know what an ad hominem is?

What are you suggesting we actually do? Take money off the rich to terraform the planet?

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 6:09pm:

Rich people accumulate lots of money by investing it wisely - ie not in silly grandiose schemes. You could take it off them and invest it elsewhere. This would achieve your goals, if your goals revolve around making everyone else as poor as you.

That's an ad homineum classic.


Quote:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author

Quote:

What are you suggesting we actually do? Take money off the rich to terraform the planet?

Charge capitalists an appropriate amount for raw materials owned by the community and if they don't like it nationalise their industries.

Grey wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 11:29pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2011 at 6:09pm: Rich people accumulate lots of money by investing it wisely - ie not in silly grandiose schemes. You could take it off them and invest it elsewhere. This would achieve your goals, if your goals revolve around making everyone else as poor as you. That's an ad homineum classic. Quote: An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author

It is not an ad hominem.


Quote:

Charge capitalists an appropriate amount for raw materials owned by the community and if they don't like it nationalise their industries.

A mining tax? A farming tax? If a businessman claims to be a socialist or an anarchist do they not pay the tax?

What should we spend their money on?

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 7:44pm:

It is not an ad hominem.

Using 'silly', 'grandiose' and 'poor' in that stupid and baseless refutation is certainly a fact free and personalised attack.



Quote:

A mining tax? A farming tax? If a businessman claims to be a socialist or an anarchist do they not pay the tax?

As a person with a belief in the social structure of humanity, I say what's wrong with tax? I'm proud to pay tax. I'm not being taxed to the point of destitution by some mad king john, neither is any other Australin.  


Quote:

What should we spend their money on?

Their money? If you're selling off natural resources that belong to everybody you gotta be expected to pay for them.

As for what the money should be spent on, all the things that the country is short of. The country in the words of Tony Abbott, has never been better off and yet essential services and structural improvements have never been so poorly funded. All the money is being drained off by the big end of town. This isn't governments fault, not any across the western world, it's a fault inherent in the capitalist system. In MONOPOLYtm there's an end game.  

I'll be with this Thread shortly.
I'm sure FreeDiver knows what I'm gonna say though.

Quote:

Using 'silly', 'grandiose' and 'poor' in that stupid and baseless refutation is certainly a fact free and personalised attack.

Now I can see where you are confused. Describing your argument that way is not an ad hominem attack. It is in fact the opposite of an ad hominem.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#ad%20hominem

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 1:09pm:

I'll be with this Thread shortly. I'm sure FreeDiver knows what I'm gonna say though.

I'm waiting  ;)


Quote:

It is in fact the opposite of an ad hominem.

If you like, it's fallacious anyway.  :P

How so?

;D :-[ I'm a silly twattle sometimes. I didn't even realise I started this Thread. ("Duh!")

Yes it does take Vision, just like how National Parks saved the USA during the Great Depression.

Now let me just state that the Federal Govt rules Politics in this nation and the Federal mob put the wellbeing and interests of the International Community, the USA (via the PM) and the UK (via the GG) before that of Australia's DOMESTIC needs.
Its a cruel twist of fate, that the only 'Freedom' Australia's domestic sense of political self will ever attain will, ironically be
...'Free' Politics.
In other words, if Politics in this country was to serve our Domestic needs - it must do so 'freely' (like a poor Swaggie).
Now we all know that most Polititians don't want to do any 'volunteer' Politics (like many people do volunteer Medical care around the world, or volunteer Religion, etc) and most "stab this country in the back ...the Outback" to make a buck on behalf of the Overseas. Hence why the Union Jack remains on the flag, it keeps people, involved in Politics ...employed, let alone on a 'welfare' benefit.

It seems like a lost cause for Australia doesn't it and this is why Australia is stuck in a rut of stagnation and stalemate - swapping between ALP and Libs as if there really is a difference. ::)

Anyway, I guess I'm saying is that there will be eventual 'terra-forming' across this continent and the main energy source will be water. The Financial or Empowerment of this act will be via the Art Industry more than from the Political sector of the Region of the World.

So its a Default subject amongst the Politically minded. Politics in this Country is going broke anyway and I'm sure the UK will get sick of paying the welfare to the Aussies and take back its Union Jack. Then Political Australia will be out of work ...and wandering like a Swaggie, plying his trade of Politics for free in the name of LOVE, not money.

Scary huh. ;)

At the risk of returning to topic...

The prolonged dry spell has also lowered water tables in many places.
While moving water above the ground is difficult, perhaps we could find areas where we could drill down into porous profiles and store some of that water underground.
If we dammed around percolation bores and held that water long enough for it to seep underground.

Bores and small scale earthworks would be a lot cheaper than above ground canals.

Of course this idea should not be done near areas that have a saline water table in which case rising water is a terrible thing.

Grey wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 7:14am:

One good way to desalinate water is to freeze it, there's no such thing as a salty iceberg.

TRUE.

LOTS OF ENERGY INVOLVED BUT ALL THE MORE REASON TO GET CRACKING ON RENEWABLES.