PZ547 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 11:30am:




Wow. Are you drunk?

The Bradfield Scheme is supposed to alleviate drought. So why has it been rejected so many times?

Bobby. wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 12:32pm:


As someone in the ABC fact-check article explains, it is far cheaper and more practical to simply de-salinate sea water, if water security for our major population centres is the issue.

The Bradfield scheme is far more ambitious though. It seeks to alter the entire climate, and in turn transform the landscape of Australia by making the inland lakes permanently full, and increasing rainfall. Kinda like the environmental version of human eugenics - and just as loony.

When I was in WA east of headland working underground I could not believe the amount of water approx 150m below the surface. Surely that could also be harvested. The mine just pumped it to settlement ponds.

I think evaporation would kill this idea. Most people don't realise how bloody hot it is out there.

Quote:


Rubbish.  We have never had so much debt.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 12:43pm:



As loony as letting dozens of Sydney harbour
amounts of water wash out to sea when
we live in the driest continent on earth?

Gnads wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 11:53pm:



In the Northern territory -
that water is just storm water and is wasted by
going out to sea & mixing with salt water.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19^th, 2019 at 4:20am:


It's not wasted ... it happens for a purpose.

That's why Arnhem Land & its wetlands are unique.

That's how & why that ecological system is so diverse in what it naturally supports .....

and you want to drain it into the desert. 

Like I said you don't think it out ... ignorance is bliss.

........... Conclusions
At first sight, it is an appealing idea that a massive increase in water surfaces in inland Australia would lead to increased rainfall over agricultural areas.
There has been speculation for over a century that schemes to 'water the inland' might enhance agricultural productivity.
The general conclusion of those who have studied such proposals, however, has been that they are unlikely to produce the massive benefits suggested by the proponents of the schemes.
Our conclusion matches those of earlier assessments: although there seem likely to be local climate changes (cooling over the lake and nearby)
none of the approaches we have used suggest that major, widespread rainfall increases are likely.
This conclusion also seems consistent with related international studies.

The inland water expanse considered here has been in the region of Lake Eyre, the filling of which is a common suggestion in many of the schemes. One observation that will modify how a large inland lake will ameliorate the climate is the fact that Lake Eyre is actually rarely dry, and so the current conditions may not be far removed from those produced when its whole extent is constantly wet. ENSO influences will also likely swamp any influence of a full lake on rainfall in eastern Australia. The moisture recycling in the catchment is predominantly in the northeast and is linked to rainfall but has no corelation with the filling of Lake Eyre. The results from imposing an inland water expanse in Australia in global atmospheric models show that given a large enough lake, there will be a precipitation response. But, for water stretches less expansive than the size of South Australia, the precipitation response away from the lake is unclear and variable.
We recognise that each of the approaches we have used has its deficiencies. If we were looking for a subtle change in rainfall these deficiencies might be impofiant. However, we are attempting to determine if an inland water surface leads to a major, widespread increase in rainfall. Only if this were the case could it be economically viable to undertake a scheme to flood the inland. Despite their deficiencies, the approaches we have used should be able to detect such a large effect. Since none of the approaches suggest that such a large, widespread effect is likely, it
seems reasonable to conclude, as did Warren (1945), that any change would be minimal and unpredictable. ...............        ...........

Captain Caveman wrote on Jun 19^th, 2019 at 12:22pm:


Interesting.. very interesting....

Rather than focus on creating an inland sea, why not desalinate the ocean water? Mainland Australia has about 36000 km of coastline. If you developed a quarter of the land within 50 km of the coast for agriculture, you'd have an extra 45 million hectares to utilise. Of course, this would reply on additional electricity to turn the ocean water into irrigation water.

Or you could follow the Chinese:

Aussie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2019 at 3:25pm:



About 10 million people in Australia have thought of it -
didn't you?

Inland Australia needs those vital nutrients more.
We have to turn desert back into arable land.

The GAIA Mk II - one of the major issues for water is when it reaches the lower levels, around Lake Eyre has a huge quantity of salt underground, and thus salinity would (gasps) rise to prominence in any discussion.

Without open access to the sea and constant tidal renewal, the Eyre Inland Sea would become a new Dead Sea, and the yellow and red tailed frog-jumper would become extinct due to crashing into the salt covered surface

As it is, a hell of a lot of water flows inland during The Wet and is absorbed by the 'lend' (bro) or is evaporated... so my view is an opening to the sea AND water diversion

Many will project disaster - I say those are pure guesswork.... and the results will probably be fabulous.

BS..... why? It would get what nutrients it needs now during the unpredictable flood events except it all gets siphoned off. Cubbie station holds as much as Sydney Harbour.

As for the other systems you want to exploit and the land you want to use for further agricultural expansion .... why?

Just so big Gas & Oil can come along and FRACK the farc out of it, turn it into a lunar landscape and contaminate the water both above and below ground. As the Cotton Industry want to do to the Channel Country... i.e. Cooper Creek etc.

We grow excesses now with the land we have, and when there's a glut it gets ploughed back into the ground or stockpiled to rot on the ground.

Why farc up more country, river systems and the environment and its natural inhabitants anymore than is necessary.

Not long ago all those water using crop growing farmers in marginal dry country along the Culgoa, Darling and Murray systems didn't exist....... those there ran sheep and cattle...... and goats.

Some bright spark said we can use those river systems when the floods come down to irrigate crops..... so they went gang busters expanding growing grain, grapes and other fruits.... then along came the thirstiest crop of all... COTTON... and the expansion went apeshit.....

But those big flood events out there are aren't a yearly occurrence..... water licenses became currency..... and the water was over exploited....

Now there is a shortage of water in the biggest river system across the 3 eastern states and Sth Aust.... it is in crisis.

And you want to do this to the FNQ COASTAL, GULF and central Australian systems of the Cooper Creek Basin that flows into Lake Eyre and Lake Frome?

It's bloody madness... enough is enough.

You talk through your southern gate.

Gnads wrote on Jun 19^th, 2019 at 10:16pm:



I only want to use water that is now wasted -
flushed out to sea.

What is it that you don't understand that that water isn't wasted?

It all part of a cycle of renewal and replenishment.

That's been pointed out to you several times.

All the fresh water that falls as rain all over the globe comes from our salty oceans through evaporation.

The very same evaporation that will take a large part of any of the water you want to divert into our arid areas and deserts.

You and a pair of 2 short planks are starting to have a lot in common.

Gnads wrote on Jun 20^th, 2019 at 9:41pm:



Don't tell me that no water is wasted in Australia - you halfwit.
What about the floods in Ipswich - part of Brisbane -
built on a flood plain?

[url]https://media.apnarm.net.au/media/images/2013/01/10/25-915031-ipswich%20ips12011
1chop13e_ct834x465.jpg[/url]


https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/1902444-16x9-940x529.jpg


Also -
Water is wasted every day especially in the wet season in the Northern Territory.
I've been in Darwin during December rains.
There must have been billions of tonnes of water every week just washing out to sea.

Gnads wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2019 at 8:54am:



When Wivenhoe dam was approaching full & a flood was
on the way it was time to send the water somewhere else
where it would be useful.
Instead - 1000s of homes & businesses were destroyed.
Is that how we should manage water?

Okay.....why is the ocean salty?

There is a finite amount of water on the planet ....

it goes round & round in a cycle of evaporation from the sea ..... rain on land ... flowing down rivers and back to the sea ...

and so it continues ....

Gnads wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2019 at 11:36am:


We have a finite amount of water. But, unless we start transporting massive quantities of water off planet in some kind of sci-fi fashion, we are not in danger of running out. Over 70% of the Earth's surface is water.

You're deluded.

Pipeline from the Lockyer & Brisbane Valley to Lake Eyre for a 1 in 100 year event?



As I said you stick to Hangin em High. 

Bobby why do you think cost doesn't matter? Why is it so important to get this particular flow of water halfway across the continent?

I've crunched the numbers and it would be more cost effective to build a bunch of nuclear power stations and desal plants.

Gordon wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2019 at 6:22pm:



Nuclear power stations  leave dangerous waste
around for 100 million years.
It's not a good idea.

Gordon wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2019 at 6:22pm:


Don't be modest.  Share this number crunching with us all.  I'll bet it is very detailed and will stand up to review by your clevah peers.

Aussie wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2019 at 6:40pm:


Sorry that's commercial in confidence. As a kid pinning cabby you'd appreciate that.

Anything else you're wondering about??

Bobby. wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2019 at 6:46pm:


Thorium is for fags who watched Chernobyl on HBO and got scared.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2019 at 4:34pm:


That's right ... and the scifi fashion & suggestion
isn't a consideration .....

transporting/pumping water from the east coast into our arid interior is a big of a dreamers dream as needs for Bobby ...

Expense, scientific & engineering wise prohibitive.

In lay mans terms .... stupid.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2019 at 6:33am:



Good link - it says;

Quote:



I doubt it would cost $trillions.
Has anyone ever properly costed an actual project?

Bobby. wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2019 at 7:45am:


It would not cost trillions of dollars to create a network of large water pipes to pump out to remote regional areas that have not adequate water supply. But it would cost billions of dollars. I would estimate a MINIMUM cost of $100 billion to have a sufficient water pipe system to transport water to those remote areas in need of water. But the cost of pumping the water to those areas might be more prohibitive than I think.

Why even bother pumping it? Most places on the east coast could use more water, and probably more efficiently to. You get far less evaporation and transpiration in humid areas. Greening the desert is a fantasy, devoid of rational consideration.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 26^th, 2019 at 11:56pm:


Apparently in the inland reaches of the Amazon, half the rain falling came from forest evaporation rather than ocean evaporation. But you are never going to reproduce that here in Australia. For starters, Lake Eyre doesn't drain into the ocean anyway, so the water still evaporates from land. The the Murray barely does. If salt or dry tolerant plants could grow in the desert, they would be doing so already.  It's only the lower flood plains that have the salt problem.

They are talking about timber plantations. Not natural growth. An artificial environment attempting to recreate what nature would do for free.

Those plants will suck even more water out of the riverbeds.

There is a new hybrid plant out there called "saltgrow". Farmers have been using it for the past couple decades to rejuvenate their land. Some farmers have had land that were near unusable for the majority. Upon planting saltgrow, the trees have had an effect of renewing the fertility of soils and undoing the salinity that has crept into the soils from years of deforestation in the area.

Imagine 100,000 of those trees being planted out in saline areas of Australia's desert. Dust storms won't be much of a problem. Possibility of the renewed use of land in desert areas for something more useful.

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2019 at 8:14am:


Arrrgh - GAIA Mk I - open Lake Eyre to the sea!!  If the Aborigidines agree, of course...

If you actually got a channel to the ocean to work, the water would flow inwards and it would fill up with salt. Very slowly of course.