A suggestion:

Discourage people from washing their cars during the drought.

Encourage them (at least, some of them) to take the money they might have spent at the car-wash, and donate it to e.g. the Buy-A-Bale fund.

Wear the dirty car as a badge of ‘solidarity’ with people on the land (‘solidarity’ is a popular concept with many urbanites). Keep the windscreen and rego plates clean, for sure, but otherwise, no wash.

Even if they don’t donate any money, they’ll not be using as much water.

Payday for me is Wednesday. I’ll be donating $20 to Buy-A-Bale, and every payday thereafter. It means i have couple less drinks on the weekend, but that won’t do me any harm.

captain_spalding said:

A suggestion:

Discourage people from washing their cars during the drought.

Encourage them (at least, some of them) to take the money they might have spent at the car-wash, and donate it to e.g. the Buy-A-Bale fund.

Wear the dirty car as a badge of ‘solidarity’ with people on the land (‘solidarity’ is a popular concept with many urbanites). Keep the windscreen and rego plates clean, for sure, but otherwise, no wash.

Even if they don’t donate any money, they’ll not be using as much water.

Payday for me is Wednesday. I’ll be donating $20 to Buy-A-Bale, and every payday thereafter. It means i have couple less drinks on the weekend, but that won’t do me any harm.

I know a lot of farmers who only wash the headlights and windscreen.

captain_spalding said:

A suggestion:

Discourage people from washing their cars during the drought.

Encourage them (at least, some of them) to take the money they might have spent at the car-wash, and donate it to e.g. the Buy-A-Bale fund.

Wear the dirty car as a badge of ‘solidarity’ with people on the land (‘solidarity’ is a popular concept with many urbanites). Keep the windscreen and rego plates clean, for sure, but otherwise, no wash.

Even if they don’t donate any money, they’ll not be using as much water.

Payday for me is Wednesday. I’ll be donating $20 to Buy-A-Bale, and every payday thereafter. It means i have couple less drinks on the weekend, but that won’t do me any harm.

Which drought? On any day of any year there is a drought somewhere in Australia.

I live in the city and don’t wash my cars. I think I’m doing my bit to help the environment.

mollwollfumble said:

captain_spalding said:

A suggestion:

Discourage people from washing their cars during the drought.

Encourage them (at least, some of them) to take the money they might have spent at the car-wash, and donate it to e.g. the Buy-A-Bale fund.

Wear the dirty car as a badge of ‘solidarity’ with people on the land (‘solidarity’ is a popular concept with many urbanites). Keep the windscreen and rego plates clean, for sure, but otherwise, no wash.

Even if they don’t donate any money, they’ll not be using as much water.

Payday for me is Wednesday. I’ll be donating $20 to Buy-A-Bale, and every payday thereafter. It means i have couple less drinks on the weekend, but that won’t do me any harm.

Which drought? On any day of any year there is a drought somewhere in Australia.

I live in the city and don’t wash my cars. I think I’m doing my bit to help the environment.

Yes, usually a drought somewhere. So, no reason to ever end the campaign. Keep the money going to a good cause, keep the water-savings going.

>…people on the land ..”

wonder sometimes if that’s a mildly patronizing expression, granted it sounds fairly neutral, perhaps even acknowledging.

in a way it’s good to be reminded there is a country, a vast-area-not-city/urban, that there’s dirt under all that concrete and bitumen.

Well, i’d in no way want to patronise ‘people on the land’.

It just seems to be the best and broadest term available, to encompass graziers, crop farmers, fruit growers and so on.

Right now, the graziers are the ones who seem to be able to be most immediately helped. Although it may be a drop in the bucket, and it probably is only that, if even a few can be helped then it’s worth trying.

>So, no reason to ever end the campaign. Keep the money going to a good cause

If you have to keep buying bales to bail out the farmers, something tells me it’s a lost cause, not a good one.

Bubblecar said:

>So, no reason to ever end the campaign. Keep the money going to a good cause

If you have to keep buying bales to bail out the farmers, something tells me it’s a lost cause, not a good one.

It’s alright, most farmers don’t believe in global warming.

captain_spalding said:

Well, i’d in no way want to patronise ‘people on the land’.

It just seems to be the best and broadest term available, to encompass graziers, crop farmers, fruit growers and so on.

Right now, the graziers are the ones who seem to be able to be most immediately helped. Although it may be a drop in the bucket, and it probably is only that, if even a few can be helped then it’s worth trying.

many of the native inhabitants of the continent recently named Australia, they too are people on the land. Maybe not so agricultural, still applies.

urban blocks once housed people on the land also, and country peoples’ cousins weren’t so detached. Once upon a time there was country in the country, then somewhere the bright lights and other inducements might have put a bit of a dampener on that. The treadmill of progress, variously the constructions of civilization.

there was a time dirt wasn’t so dirty, toddlers played in it, before the plague of allergy.

before universal environmental controls there were seasons, and seasons varied year to year.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

>So, no reason to ever end the campaign. Keep the money going to a good cause

If you have to keep buying bales to bail out the farmers, something tells me it’s a lost cause, not a good one.

It’s alright, most farmers don’t believe in global warming.

incorrect.

JudgeMental said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

>So, no reason to ever end the campaign. Keep the money going to a good cause

If you have to keep buying bales to bail out the farmers, something tells me it’s a lost cause, not a good one.

It’s alright, most farmers don’t believe in global warming.

incorrect.

Refs.

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

PermeateFree said:

It’s alright, most farmers don’t believe in global warming.

incorrect.

Refs.

you made the first claim you supply the first refs.

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

PermeateFree said:

It’s alright, most farmers don’t believe in global warming.

incorrect.

Refs.

more to the point, why did you chuck in the subject of global warming, permeate.

JudgeMental said:

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

incorrect.

Refs.

you made the first claim you supply the first refs.

I don’t know of any National Party politician who believes in global warming and they are the farmers representative. I also listen to the radio a fair bit and very few farmers will say it is happening, as there is always another reason for record temperatures, droughts and floods.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

incorrect.

Refs.

more to the point, why did you chuck in the subject of global warming, permeate.

In jest, but I’m pleased you take it so seriously.

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

PermeateFree said:

Refs.

you made the first claim you supply the first refs.

I don’t know of any National Party politician who believes in global warming and they are the farmers representative. I also listen to the radio a fair bit and very few farmers will say it is happening, as there is always another reason for record temperatures, droughts and floods.

well, pollies don’t count. and how many farmers are interviewed ?

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

Refs.

more to the point, why did you chuck in the subject of global warming, permeate.

In jest, but I’m pleased you take it so seriously.

you’re not being slippery now. Had a funny moment did ya.

JudgeMental said:

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

you made the first claim you supply the first refs.

I don’t know of any National Party politician who believes in global warming and they are the farmers representative. I also listen to the radio a fair bit and very few farmers will say it is happening, as there is always another reason for record temperatures, droughts and floods.

well, pollies don’t count. and how many farmers are interviewed ?

As representatives of their communities, which in this instance are mainly farmers I think they do count otherwise, if they were not happy with them, they would vote for another party. Now for your references?

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

more to the point, why did you chuck in the subject of global warming, permeate.

In jest, but I’m pleased you take it so seriously.

you’re not being slippery now. Had a funny moment did ya.

I think my sense of humour might be a little too refined for some here.

Bubblecar said:

>So, no reason to ever end the campaign. Keep the money going to a good cause

If you have to keep buying bales to bail out the farmers, something tells me it’s a lost cause, not a good one.

You’re probably right. We could import just about all the food we need from overseas. Put China in charge of our food supply. What could possibly go wrong?

captain_spalding said:

Bubblecar said:

>So, no reason to ever end the campaign. Keep the money going to a good cause

If you have to keep buying bales to bail out the farmers, something tells me it’s a lost cause, not a good one.

You’re probably right. We could import just about all the food we need from overseas. Put China in charge of our food supply. What could possibly go wrong?

To what extent is local food for local consumption dependent on drought relief measures like Buy-A-Bale?

Bubblecar said:

captain_spalding said:

Bubblecar said:

>So, no reason to ever end the campaign. Keep the money going to a good cause

If you have to keep buying bales to bail out the farmers, something tells me it’s a lost cause, not a good one.

You’re probably right. We could import just about all the food we need from overseas. Put China in charge of our food supply. What could possibly go wrong?

To what extent is local food for local consumption dependent on drought relief measures like Buy-A-Bale?

I rest my case.

captain_spalding said:

Bubblecar said:

captain_spalding said:

You’re probably right. We could import just about all the food we need from overseas. Put China in charge of our food supply. What could possibly go wrong?

To what extent is local food for local consumption dependent on drought relief measures like Buy-A-Bale?

I rest my case.

I’ll need more than pictures, I’ll need facts & figures.

The idea that Australians need to subsidise their national meat production in order to avoid importing it doesn’t seem to tally with reality.

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

PermeateFree said:

I don’t know of any National Party politician who believes in global warming and they are the farmers representative. I also listen to the radio a fair bit and very few farmers will say it is happening, as there is always another reason for record temperatures, droughts and floods.

well, pollies don’t count. and how many farmers are interviewed ?

As representatives of their communities, which in this instance are mainly farmers I think they do count otherwise, if they were not happy with them, they would vote for another party. Now for your references?

I think Boris has left me a tip.

Bubblecar said:

captain_spalding said:

Bubblecar said:

To what extent is local food for local consumption dependent on drought relief measures like Buy-A-Bale?

I rest my case.

I’ll need more than pictures, I’ll need facts & figures.

The idea that Australians need to subsidise their national meat production in order to avoid importing it doesn’t seem to tally with reality.

Well, really, if you’re going to drag reality into it…

I’m the concept man here. Let the production people sort all that out.

Bubblecar said:

captain_spalding said:

Bubblecar said:

To what extent is local food for local consumption dependent on drought relief measures like Buy-A-Bale?

I rest my case.

I’ll need more than pictures, I’ll need facts & figures.

The idea that Australians need to subsidise their national meat production in order to avoid importing it doesn’t seem to tally with reality.

The disruption of some percentage of farmers forced to declare bankruptcy every time there is a drought or a flood would be quite detrimental to the national economy. That said the state can’t bail everyone out every time a farmer has a problem either.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

In jest, but I’m pleased you take it so seriously.

you’re not being slippery now. Had a funny moment did ya.

I think my sense of humour might be a little too refined for some here.

Of course, it’s a good retreat.

>>many of the native inhabitants of the continent recently named Australia, they too are people on the land. Maybe not so agricultural, still applies.<<

Can I just say…I think they are more likely to think of themselves as people of the land.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

you’re not being slippery now. Had a funny moment did ya.

I think my sense of humour might be a little too refined for some here.

Of course, it’s a good retreat.

Being ambiguous again trans.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

I think my sense of humour might be a little too refined for some here.

Of course, it’s a good retreat.

Being ambiguous again trans.

still waiting to hear what your intentions were, you can make it up afterwards if you didn’t know at the time. All good.

buffy said:

>>many of the native inhabitants of the continent recently named Australia, they too are people on the land. Maybe not so agricultural, still applies.<<

Can I just say…I think they are more likely to think of themselves as people of the land.

true

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

Of course, it’s a good retreat.

Being ambiguous again trans.

still waiting to hear what your intentions were, you can make it up afterwards if you didn’t know at the time. All good.

If only you could relay your thoughts logically and clearly, I’m sure we would all learn so much.

Anyway, what about the ‘other’ effect of Dirty for the Drought?

It’d stop an enormous waste of water everywhere. Your car can handle a bit of dirt for a while. OK, wash it now and then, but maybe less often than you usually would. You can use DFTD as an excuse, even if you don’t donate any money.

captain_spalding said:

Anyway, what about the ‘other’ effect of Dirty for the Drought?

It’d stop an enormous waste of water everywhere. Your car can handle a bit of dirt for a while. OK, wash it now and then, but maybe less often than you usually would. You can use DFTD as an excuse, even if you don’t donate any money.

Most car wash places recycle all their water anyway.

Witty Rejoinder said:

captain_spalding said:

Anyway, what about the ‘other’ effect of Dirty for the Drought?

It’d stop an enormous waste of water everywhere. Your car can handle a bit of dirt for a while. OK, wash it now and then, but maybe less often than you usually would. You can use DFTD as an excuse, even if you don’t donate any money.

Most car wash places recycle all their water anyway.

Well, yes, they do. And kudos to them for it.

The idea behind not washing you car is that it’s a reminder. So your car is dusty? Think about how dusty it is ‘out there’.

Even so, there’s lots of washes done at home. If we could give a good excuse for some of them to not do it, it could mean savings of megalitres.

You wouldn’t even have to produce stickers to publicise your ‘solidarity’ – just write ‘DFTD’ in the dust on your car.

Dumped at White Cliffs. This is one semi load of many. Donated by farmers down south for farmers struggling in drought in Queensland. Why was it dumped? said Hanrahan. Because it farken rained didn’t it and the trucks couldn’t get past White Cliffs. That’s the famous solar power station in back.

Have been looking back in this thread trying to understand what trans was complaining about, but without success. Anyway, taking a more serious view of global warming in Australia, as temperatures increase and droughts prolong, it should be very obvious that many farmers and grazers are not going to survive and will have to walk off their land. Whether it happens now or sometime down the track, it will happen as it is inevitable if they cannot get water. So by helping them now to survive a few more years that could make them lose everything including their sanity, or let the unviable depart now to build another life.

PermeateFree said:

Have been looking back in this thread trying to understand what trans was complaining about, but without success. Anyway, taking a more serious view of global warming in Australia, as temperatures increase and droughts prolong, it should be very obvious that many farmers and grazers are not going to survive and will have to walk off their land. Whether it happens now or sometime down the track, it will happen as it is inevitable if they cannot get water. So by helping them now to survive a few more years that could make them lose everything including their sanity, or let the unviable depart now to build another life.

Don’t worry, the immigrants from those Muslim countries are bred to live in deserts. The Chinese will buy the rest.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

Being ambiguous again trans.

still waiting to hear what your intentions were, you can make it up afterwards if you didn’t know at the time. All good.

If only you could relay your thoughts logically and clearly, I’m sure we would all learn so much.

I don’t mind if you’re Borg, those appeals to the collective we and all don’t interest me, some explanation of your intentions may interest me, something slightly more convincing than the expedient retreat to refined humor.

i’ll assert something

you chucked in global warming because you’re unsure of your intentions. A substitute. The high level of certainty about global warming compensates for a low level of certainty about your intentions.

you’ve a big idea, an important idea, and plugged it into the question why am I here.

I mean, to take your head for a walk for a moment, imagine the search for adequacy was centered around human-induced global warming, something like that.

imagine that, where does that go, multiplied. You’d feel safe in your mischief.

Kind of related, so I’ll put this in here.

I’ve always found it amazing how Goyder was apparently so good at picking where the viable rainfall area was. He didn’t have mountains of data, nor even many years of information. He was not from the land. He must have been an amazing observer.

https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/ground-cover-issue-121-mar-apr-2016/changing-climate-may-reimpose-the-goyder-line

buffy said:

Kind of related, so I’ll put this in here.

I’ve always found it amazing how Goyder was apparently so good at picking where the viable rainfall area was. He didn’t have mountains of data, nor even many years of information. He was not from the land. He must have been an amazing observer.

https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/ground-cover-issue-121-mar-apr-2016/changing-climate-may-reimpose-the-goyder-line

There is a lot to be said about those who observe.

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

Kind of related, so I’ll put this in here.

I’ve always found it amazing how Goyder was apparently so good at picking where the viable rainfall area was. He didn’t have mountains of data, nor even many years of information. He was not from the land. He must have been an amazing observer.

https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/ground-cover-issue-121-mar-apr-2016/changing-climate-may-reimpose-the-goyder-line

There is a lot to be said about those who observe.

‘You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear.’

Sherlock Holmes – A Scandal in Bohemia

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

still waiting to hear what your intentions were, you can make it up afterwards if you didn’t know at the time. All good.

If only you could relay your thoughts logically and clearly, I’m sure we would all learn so much.

I don’t mind if you’re Borg, those appeals to the collective we and all don’t interest me, some explanation of your intentions may interest me, something slightly more convincing than the expedient retreat to refined humor.

i’ll assert something

you chucked in global warming because you’re unsure of your intentions. A substitute. The high level of certainty about global warming compensates for a low level of certainty about your intentions.

you’ve a big idea, an important idea, and plugged it into the question why am I here.

I mean, to take your head for a walk for a moment, imagine the search for adequacy was centered around human-induced global warming, something like that.

imagine that, where does that go, multiplied. You’d feel safe in your mischief.

Sorry trans my mind does not go in your type of convoluted circles. I know why I say things and don’t say them at all unless I think I have something add.

buffy said:

Kind of related, so I’ll put this in here.

I’ve always found it amazing how Goyder was apparently so good at picking where the viable rainfall area was. He didn’t have mountains of data, nor even many years of information. He was not from the land. He must have been an amazing observer.

https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/ground-cover-issue-121-mar-apr-2016/changing-climate-may-reimpose-the-goyder-line

I think he went on the vegetation type, some species not growing where rainfall is reliably below a certain level, coupled with a vegetation type that does prefer dryer conditions.

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

Kind of related, so I’ll put this in here.

I’ve always found it amazing how Goyder was apparently so good at picking where the viable rainfall area was. He didn’t have mountains of data, nor even many years of information. He was not from the land. He must have been an amazing observer.

https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/ground-cover-issue-121-mar-apr-2016/changing-climate-may-reimpose-the-goyder-line

I think he went on the vegetation type, some species not growing where rainfall is reliably below a certain level, coupled with a vegetation type that does prefer dryer conditions.

Observation.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

Kind of related, so I’ll put this in here.

I’ve always found it amazing how Goyder was apparently so good at picking where the viable rainfall area was. He didn’t have mountains of data, nor even many years of information. He was not from the land. He must have been an amazing observer.

https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/ground-cover-issue-121-mar-apr-2016/changing-climate-may-reimpose-the-goyder-line

I think he went on the vegetation type, some species not growing where rainfall is reliably below a certain level, coupled with a vegetation type that does prefer dryer conditions.

Observation.

Of course, coupled with a little knowledge.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

I think he went on the vegetation type, some species not growing where rainfall is reliably below a certain level, coupled with a vegetation type that does prefer dryer conditions.

Observation.

Of course, coupled with a little knowledge.

Yes. While doing the remnant roadside veg survey of the Shires of Carrathool, Hay, Leeton, Griffith and Murrumbidge. Part of my notes were about distinct boundaries.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Observation.

Of course, coupled with a little knowledge.

Yes. While doing the remnant roadside veg survey of the Shires of Carrathool, Hay, Leeton, Griffith and Murrumbidge. Part of my notes were about distinct boundaries.

Yes vegetation boundaries are well marked in dry areas.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Of course, coupled with a little knowledge.

Yes. While doing the remnant roadside veg survey of the Shires of Carrathool, Hay, Leeton, Griffith and Murrumbidge. Part of my notes were about distinct boundaries.

Yes vegetation boundaries are well marked in dry areas.

In other cases stream beds however shallow and ephemeral, often denote deeper prior stream beds and species or hybrids may remain there and nowhere else. Having flowed downstream from somewhere else long forgotten.

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

Kind of related, so I’ll put this in here.

I’ve always found it amazing how Goyder was apparently so good at picking where the viable rainfall area was. He didn’t have mountains of data, nor even many years of information. He was not from the land. He must have been an amazing observer.

https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/ground-cover-issue-121-mar-apr-2016/changing-climate-may-reimpose-the-goyder-line

I think he went on the vegetation type, some species not growing where rainfall is reliably below a certain level, coupled with a vegetation type that does prefer dryer conditions.

Bloody good work with completely foreign vegetation.

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

Kind of related, so I’ll put this in here.

I’ve always found it amazing how Goyder was apparently so good at picking where the viable rainfall area was. He didn’t have mountains of data, nor even many years of information. He was not from the land. He must have been an amazing observer.

https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/ground-cover-issue-121-mar-apr-2016/changing-climate-may-reimpose-the-goyder-line

I think he went on the vegetation type, some species not growing where rainfall is reliably below a certain level, coupled with a vegetation type that does prefer dryer conditions.

Bloody good work with completely foreign vegetation.

I’m not saying it was not a very good intelligent conclusion, but the land in these areas is reasonably flat with dominant type vegetation of relatively few species, and with knowledge of where farmers were cropping, plus vegetation types going off into the distance where it was obviously drier, it would not be too difficult to work out the subtleties. But you would need an interest in the land and by traveling slowly on horseback, it would give you plenty of time to think and note differences.

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

I think he went on the vegetation type, some species not growing where rainfall is reliably below a certain level, coupled with a vegetation type that does prefer dryer conditions.

Bloody good work with completely foreign vegetation.

I’m not saying it was not a very good intelligent conclusion, but the land in these areas is reasonably flat with dominant type vegetation of relatively few species, and with knowledge of where farmers were cropping, plus vegetation types going off into the distance where it was obviously drier, it would not be too difficult to work out the subtleties. But you would need an interest in the land and by traveling slowly on horseback, it would give you plenty of time to think and note differences.

They weren’t cropping North of the Goyder Line until the 1870s. He told them not to do it. And they went bust.

http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=378

so he must have based his observations on the native plants.

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

Bloody good work with completely foreign vegetation.

I’m not saying it was not a very good intelligent conclusion, but the land in these areas is reasonably flat with dominant type vegetation of relatively few species, and with knowledge of where farmers were cropping, plus vegetation types going off into the distance where it was obviously drier, it would not be too difficult to work out the subtleties. But you would need an interest in the land and by traveling slowly on horseback, it would give you plenty of time to think and note differences.

They weren’t cropping North of the Goyder Line until the 1870s. He told them not to do it. And they went bust.

http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=378

so he must have based his observations on the native plants.

But they were cropping in country with similar vegetation that would help him determine a suitable vegetation type where farming had been successful. It is not difficult to see where conditions are drier and where that type of vegetation is dominant and going further inland, it speaks for itself. Soil type and moisture holding properties is also strongly related to vegetation type.

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

Kind of related, so I’ll put this in here.

I’ve always found it amazing how Goyder was apparently so good at picking where the viable rainfall area was. He didn’t have mountains of data, nor even many years of information. He was not from the land. He must have been an amazing observer.

https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/ground-cover-issue-121-mar-apr-2016/changing-climate-may-reimpose-the-goyder-line

I think he went on the vegetation type, some species not growing where rainfall is reliably below a certain level, coupled with a vegetation type that does prefer dryer conditions.

Bloody good work with completely foreign vegetation.

Obsrvation.

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

I’m not saying it was not a very good intelligent conclusion, but the land in these areas is reasonably flat with dominant type vegetation of relatively few species, and with knowledge of where farmers were cropping, plus vegetation types going off into the distance where it was obviously drier, it would not be too difficult to work out the subtleties. But you would need an interest in the land and by traveling slowly on horseback, it would give you plenty of time to think and note differences.

They weren’t cropping North of the Goyder Line until the 1870s. He told them not to do it. And they went bust.

http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=378

so he must have based his observations on the native plants.

But they were cropping in country with similar vegetation that would help him determine a suitable vegetation type where farming had been successful. It is not difficult to see where conditions are drier and where that type of vegetation is dominant and going further inland, it speaks for itself. Soil type and moisture holding properties is also strongly related to vegetation type.

It was all about coming across country in good local years. THis is from three to five, wheras Droughts are from six to elevn on average despite the current twenty or more years of dry times.

I wanted to be a farmer, so my wife kicked me in the balls and said there’s a couple of aches

Are droughts real or is the water needed locked up somewhere else, we could overcome most drought areas with technology it’s just not practical. If the human race desperately needed water to survive (as rainfall dropped significantly) we have numerous sources all over the planet we could use, the water in the ocean desalinated could be used for example on a massive scale.

The good fertile land with reliable rain is being paved and built on.

Population expected to hit 25 million tonight, Melbourne especially needs a better solution than developers buying up farms and putting houses on them.

AwesomeO said:

The good fertile land with reliable rain is being paved and built on.

Population expected to hit 25 million tonight, Melbourne especially needs a better solution than developers buying up farms and putting houses on them.

All you can do on a personal level is fertilise your own land with garden waste, manure, compost, etc.
It’s taken ten years to get my suburban block to anything decent, nothing but sand before and horrible water repellent sand at that.
I still collect others people grass to compost.

We could overcome lack of fertile land with aquaponics/hydroponics/vertical farming etc but would probably we more energy inefficient as you may not always be using the sun

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

The good fertile land with reliable rain is being paved and built on.

Population expected to hit 25 million tonight, Melbourne especially needs a better solution than developers buying up farms and putting houses on them.

All you can do on a personal level is fertilise your own land with garden waste, manure, compost, etc.
It’s taken ten years to get my suburban block to anything decent, nothing but sand before and horrible water repellent sand at that.
I still collect others people grass to compost.

We could overcome lack of fertile land with aquaponics/hydroponics/vertical farming etc but would probably we more energy inefficient as you may not always be using the sun

It is a world wide issue, because human settlements have always started near trade routes on good land and usually with a river near by and they just grow organically from that because of the economic incentives to do so.

Britian with a much smaller land mass and a much bigger population seems to manage it much better, high density then into the countryside, Australia because of its method of growth has had smallish cities sorrounded by miles and miles of quarter acre blocks of a low population density. This method is becoming untenable though because the road infrastructure can’t keep up, at the tail end on the built zone people, there have to travel 60 or more km to get into the city meanwhile that road is accumulating traffic the closer you get.

Where dad lives in Burwood for part of the time there are changes happening there driven by property prices, developers are buying 4 houses or two low density units and making it into one multi-storey medium density.

I would stop the urban creep but that is politically impossible as no land that increases property proces even more. The way things are going, Melbourne, Sydney to Brisbane will end up one continuous low density metropolis.

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

The good fertile land with reliable rain is being paved and built on.

Population expected to hit 25 million tonight, Melbourne especially needs a better solution than developers buying up farms and putting houses on them.

All you can do on a personal level is fertilise your own land with garden waste, manure, compost, etc.
It’s taken ten years to get my suburban block to anything decent, nothing but sand before and horrible water repellent sand at that.
I still collect others people grass to compost.

We could overcome lack of fertile land with aquaponics/hydroponics/vertical farming etc but would probably we more energy inefficient as you may not always be using the sun

It is a world wide issue, because human settlements have always started near trade routes on good land and usually with a river near by and they just grow organically from that because of the economic incentives to do so.

Britian with a much smaller land mass and a much bigger population seems to manage it much better, high density then into the countryside, Australia because of its method of growth has had smallish cities sorrounded by miles and miles of quarter acre blocks of a low population density. This method is becoming untenable though because the road infrastructure can’t keep up, at the tail end on the built zone people, there have to travel 60 or more km to get into the city meanwhile that road is accumulating traffic the closer you get.

Where dad lives in Burwood for part of the time there are changes happening there driven by property prices, developers are buying 4 houses or two low density units and making it into one multi-storey medium density.

I would stop the urban creep but that is politically impossible as no land that increases property proces even more. The way things are going, Melbourne, Sydney to Brisbane will end up one continuous low density metropolis.

That solution has been espoused for decades, but little or nothing has been done about it. Needs more government (state and local) to get behind it, although it is stymied by a lot of vested interests.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

All you can do on a personal level is fertilise your own land with garden waste, manure, compost, etc.
It’s taken ten years to get my suburban block to anything decent, nothing but sand before and horrible water repellent sand at that.
I still collect others people grass to compost.

We could overcome lack of fertile land with aquaponics/hydroponics/vertical farming etc but would probably we more energy inefficient as you may not always be using the sun

It is a world wide issue, because human settlements have always started near trade routes on good land and usually with a river near by and they just grow organically from that because of the economic incentives to do so.

Britian with a much smaller land mass and a much bigger population seems to manage it much better, high density then into the countryside, Australia because of its method of growth has had smallish cities sorrounded by miles and miles of quarter acre blocks of a low population density. This method is becoming untenable though because the road infrastructure can’t keep up, at the tail end on the built zone people, there have to travel 60 or more km to get into the city meanwhile that road is accumulating traffic the closer you get.

Where dad lives in Burwood for part of the time there are changes happening there driven by property prices, developers are buying 4 houses or two low density units and making it into one multi-storey medium density.

I would stop the urban creep but that is politically impossible as no land that increases property proces even more. The way things are going, Melbourne, Sydney to Brisbane will end up one continuous low density metropolis.

That solution has been espoused for decades, but little or nothing has been done about it. Needs more government (state and local) to get behind it, although it is stymied by a lot of vested interests.

Vested interests for sure, indirect bribes if not direct bribes to rezone land

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

The good fertile land with reliable rain is being paved and built on.

Population expected to hit 25 million tonight, Melbourne especially needs a better solution than developers buying up farms and putting houses on them.

All you can do on a personal level is fertilise your own land with garden waste, manure, compost, etc.
It’s taken ten years to get my suburban block to anything decent, nothing but sand before and horrible water repellent sand at that.
I still collect others people grass to compost.

We could overcome lack of fertile land with aquaponics/hydroponics/vertical farming etc but would probably we more energy inefficient as you may not always be using the sun

It is a world wide issue, because human settlements have always started near trade routes on good land and usually with a river near by and they just grow organically from that because of the economic incentives to do so.

Britian with a much smaller land mass and a much bigger population seems to manage it much better, high density then into the countryside, Australia because of its method of growth has had smallish cities sorrounded by miles and miles of quarter acre blocks of a low population density. This method is becoming untenable though because the road infrastructure can’t keep up, at the tail end on the built zone people, there have to travel 60 or more km to get into the city meanwhile that road is accumulating traffic the closer you get.

Where dad lives in Burwood for part of the time there are changes happening there driven by property prices, developers are buying 4 houses or two low density units and making it into one multi-storey medium density.

I would stop the urban creep but that is politically impossible as no land that increases property proces even more. The way things are going, Melbourne, Sydney to Brisbane will end up one continuous low density metropolis.

About density population in Sydney:

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/the-truth-about-how-many-people-are-being-packed-into-sydney-20180621-p4zmww.html

Rid the roo kicks off.

As an aside I am watching a British crime show, in a present day English township they have an aerial view of a street of houses, on a block smaller than a traditional quarter acre they have rows of semi detached, that is, two houses in less space than a single Australian one. At that density you would reduce an Australian sprawl by half.

AwesomeO said:

As an aside I am watching a British crime show, in a present day English township they have an aerial view of a street of houses, on a block smaller than a traditional quarter acre they have rows of semi detached, that is, two houses in less space than a single Australian one. At that density you would reduce an Australian sprawl by half.

Town houses are a thing here too.

I also like the circus. A tight group of houses in a circle around a park in the centre. There is one in Battery point, Hobart with lovely little Georgian workingmen’s type cottages and a kiddies park in the middle…

sarahs mum said:

AwesomeO said:

As an aside I am watching a British crime show, in a present day English township they have an aerial view of a street of houses, on a block smaller than a traditional quarter acre they have rows of semi detached, that is, two houses in less space than a single Australian one. At that density you would reduce an Australian sprawl by half.

Town houses are a thing here too.

I also like the circus. A tight group of houses in a circle around a park in the centre. There is one in Battery point, Hobart with lovely little Georgian workingmen’s type cottages and a kiddies park in the middle…

I agree. But following an earlier post of mine how the economics and past of Australia and England has influenced our different housing. England had a lot of land locked up, travel was pretty expensive and so over centuries it has ended up with high density living. There is a green belt thing as well, not sure what that is, but for a relatively small country with a big population it has a hell of a lot of open land. I won’t say pristine, the majority of the country might be green and natural looking but a farming landscape is still a form of industrial landscape.

Australia on the other hand, most of its population growth was in a period of post war migration and when land was cheap and cars were reasonably affordable so most of our domestic housing stock reflects houses on big blocks, a very low density, and now, with a population that has less children, even less density.

McMansions are a particularly bad affliction, I read an article once that pretty well blamed them entirely for power shortages in summer. Whilst all our devices are getting more efficient the McMansions are big empty boxes of air with poor insulation that in summer need air con going almost 24/7. They are on smaller than quarter acre blocks but because the tendency is to fill the entire block there is no relief for even birds. Unlike a suburb of modest quarter acre blocks no room for even blue tongues and no lawns for magpies to patrol. The only saving grace might be that they are huge watersheds but that isn’t managed properly so the water just overloads drainage systems, causes damage and ends up in the ocean.

AwesomeO said:

sarahs mum said:

AwesomeO said:

As an aside I am watching a British crime show, in a present day English township they have an aerial view of a street of houses, on a block smaller than a traditional quarter acre they have rows of semi detached, that is, two houses in less space than a single Australian one. At that density you would reduce an Australian sprawl by half.

Town houses are a thing here too.

I also like the circus. A tight group of houses in a circle around a park in the centre. There is one in Battery point, Hobart with lovely little Georgian workingmen’s type cottages and a kiddies park in the middle…

I agree. But following an earlier post of mine how the economics and past of Australia and England has influenced our different housing. England had a lot of land locked up, travel was pretty expensive and so over centuries it has ended up with high density living. There is a green belt thing as well, not sure what that is, but for a relatively small country with a big population it has a hell of a lot of open land. I won’t say pristine, the majority of the country might be green and natural looking but a farming landscape is still a form of industrial landscape.

Australia on the other hand, most of its population growth was in a period of post war migration and when land was cheap and cars were reasonably affordable so most of our domestic housing stock reflects houses on big blocks, a very low density, and now, with a population that has less children, even less density.

McMansions are a particularly bad affliction, I read an article once that pretty well blamed them entirely for power shortages in summer. Whilst all our devices are getting more efficient the McMansions are big empty boxes of air with poor insulation that in summer need air con going almost 24/7. They are on smaller than quarter acre blocks but because the tendency is to fill the entire block there is no relief for even birds. Unlike a suburb of modest quarter acre blocks no room for even blue tongues and no lawns for magpies to patrol. The only saving grace might be that they are huge watersheds but that isn’t managed properly so the water just overloads drainage systems, causes damage and ends up in the ocean.

But ‘they’ love McMansions and don’t like little houses. 330k of unhoused people could be put housed..but it might revalue some neighbourhoods and that would be bad.

sarahs mum said:

AwesomeO said:

sarahs mum said:

Town houses are a thing here too.

I also like the circus. A tight group of houses in a circle around a park in the centre. There is one in Battery point, Hobart with lovely little Georgian workingmen’s type cottages and a kiddies park in the middle…

I agree. But following an earlier post of mine how the economics and past of Australia and England has influenced our different housing. England had a lot of land locked up, travel was pretty expensive and so over centuries it has ended up with high density living. There is a green belt thing as well, not sure what that is, but for a relatively small country with a big population it has a hell of a lot of open land. I won’t say pristine, the majority of the country might be green and natural looking but a farming landscape is still a form of industrial landscape.

Australia on the other hand, most of its population growth was in a period of post war migration and when land was cheap and cars were reasonably affordable so most of our domestic housing stock reflects houses on big blocks, a very low density, and now, with a population that has less children, even less density.

McMansions are a particularly bad affliction, I read an article once that pretty well blamed them entirely for power shortages in summer. Whilst all our devices are getting more efficient the McMansions are big empty boxes of air with poor insulation that in summer need air con going almost 24/7. They are on smaller than quarter acre blocks but because the tendency is to fill the entire block there is no relief for even birds. Unlike a suburb of modest quarter acre blocks no room for even blue tongues and no lawns for magpies to patrol. The only saving grace might be that they are huge watersheds but that isn’t managed properly so the water just overloads drainage systems, causes damage and ends up in the ocean.

But ‘they’ love McMansions and don’t like little houses. 330k of unhoused people could be put housed..but it might revalue some neighbourhoods and that would be bad.

Well yes, “they” do. I don’t like McMansions but you need to draw a nexus between McMansions and the homeless. The two don’t relate. People build McMansions because of economics and a bit of desire to have a big house with the home theatre. The land is very expensive, building a McMansions is relatively cheap, one reason for the big windows is that they are cheaper than brick, not as good thermally though.

It would be foolish to buy an expensive bit of land and put on a tiny house, you would kill your resale value and not so many people are so pure to piss away hundreds of thousands of dollars. You have to work with people and within economics and incentives if you want to change.

Moreover your linkage doesn’t make sense, I’ll say a bogan because they are much denigrated here, but to demonstrate the point, a bogan couple who has worked hard and brought a lot in a new development and then paid a builder to put a McMansion onto it are acting entirely rationally. They are not doing big up yours to anyone homeless, nor are they kicking anyone out of a home. The homeless are not the end product of McMansions.

sarahs mum said:

AwesomeO said:

As an aside I am watching a British crime show, in a present day English township they have an aerial view of a street of houses, on a block smaller than a traditional quarter acre they have rows of semi detached, that is, two houses in less space than a single Australian one. At that density you would reduce an Australian sprawl by half.

Town houses are a thing here too.

I also like the circus. A tight group of houses in a circle around a park in the centre. There is one in Battery point, Hobart with lovely little Georgian workingmen’s type cottages and a kiddies park in the middle…

Terraces/ conjoined houses are hellish to actually live in.

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

AwesomeO said:

As an aside I am watching a British crime show, in a present day English township they have an aerial view of a street of houses, on a block smaller than a traditional quarter acre they have rows of semi detached, that is, two houses in less space than a single Australian one. At that density you would reduce an Australian sprawl by half.

Town houses are a thing here too.

I also like the circus. A tight group of houses in a circle around a park in the centre. There is one in Battery point, Hobart with lovely little Georgian workingmen’s type cottages and a kiddies park in the middle…

Terraces/ conjoined houses are hellish to actually live in.

I lived in strata units in Canberra, that was ok, depends on unit design as well, all our common walls were garages so noise had to go through three walls and two air voids and no one was mental enough to be out gibbering and smashing bottles in the common areas.

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

AwesomeO said:

As an aside I am watching a British crime show, in a present day English township they have an aerial view of a street of houses, on a block smaller than a traditional quarter acre they have rows of semi detached, that is, two houses in less space than a single Australian one. At that density you would reduce an Australian sprawl by half.

Town houses are a thing here too.

I also like the circus. A tight group of houses in a circle around a park in the centre. There is one in Battery point, Hobart with lovely little Georgian workingmen’s type cottages and a kiddies park in the middle…

Terraces/ conjoined houses are hellish to actually live in.

Someone would be happy to live there it think.

Says she who lives alone in a small house in a wilderness. I did live in a semi once and it was awful. And I did once live in a block of 56 units and that was just..strange, black and alarming.

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

AwesomeO said:

As an aside I am watching a British crime show, in a present day English township they have an aerial view of a street of houses, on a block smaller than a traditional quarter acre they have rows of semi detached, that is, two houses in less space than a single Australian one. At that density you would reduce an Australian sprawl by half.

Town houses are a thing here too.

I also like the circus. A tight group of houses in a circle around a park in the centre. There is one in Battery point, Hobart with lovely little Georgian workingmen’s type cottages and a kiddies park in the middle…

Terraces/ conjoined houses are hellish to actually live in.

Bill Mollison had the right idea. Design housinh estates for permaculture. Share the land, the green space, the sunshine, the water, the drainage…

I know that rainfall in NSW has been very low, but this is the wettest drought I’ve come across. In my trip Melb to Sydney via Wagga two days ago I’ve never seen NSW so wet!

Not only did 3/4 of the dams along every part of the route have water in. Not only was the grass along the whole route as green as green can be. Not only were all the cattle and sheep in good condition at startlingly high stocking rates. But also there were puddles of water everywhere in fields and on roads along the entire length of the route.

mollwollfumble said:

I know that rainfall in NSW has been very low, but this is the wettest drought I’ve come across. In my trip Melb to Sydney via Wagga two days ago I’ve never seen NSW so wet!

Not only did 3/4 of the dams along every part of the route have water in. Not only was the grass along the whole route as green as green can be. Not only were all the cattle and sheep in good condition at startlingly high stocking rates. But also there were puddles of water everywhere in fields and on roads along the entire length of the route.

You thinking global warming pffttt

mollwollfumble said:

I know that rainfall in NSW has been very low, but this is the wettest drought I’ve come across. In my trip Melb to Sydney via Wagga two days ago I’ve never seen NSW so wet!

Not only did 3/4 of the dams along every part of the route have water in. Not only was the grass along the whole route as green as green can be. Not only were all the cattle and sheep in good condition at startlingly high stocking rates. But also there were puddles of water everywhere in fields and on roads along the entire length of the route.

https://edis.dpi.nsw.gov.au

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

I know that rainfall in NSW has been very low, but this is the wettest drought I’ve come across. In my trip Melb to Sydney via Wagga two days ago I’ve never seen NSW so wet!

Not only did 3/4 of the dams along every part of the route have water in. Not only was the grass along the whole route as green as green can be. Not only were all the cattle and sheep in good condition at startlingly high stocking rates. But also there were puddles of water everywhere in fields and on roads along the entire length of the route.

You thinking global warming pffttt

Rain falls where it falls. Don’t have to get far away from the river at Wagga to see no grass at all.

It’s been a wet couple of months in the middle of the island. Vibrant green grass and mud everywhere for a long time now, you have to careful where you walk.

Bubblecar said:

It’s been a wet couple of months in the middle of the island. Vibrant green grass and mud everywhere for a long time now, you have to careful where you walk.

Yep, been trying to mow my lawn for a few weeks now. Even on days when it doesn’t rain the dew or frost and low temperatures makes it wet all day.

AwesomeO said:

Bubblecar said:

It’s been a wet couple of months in the middle of the island. Vibrant green grass and mud everywhere for a long time now, you have to careful where you walk.

Yep, been trying to mow my lawn for a few weeks now. Even on days when it doesn’t rain the dew or frost and low temperatures makes it wet all day.

Lucky buggers both.

mollwollfumble said:

I know that rainfall in NSW has been very low, but this is the wettest drought I’ve come across. In my trip Melb to Sydney via Wagga two days ago I’ve never seen NSW so wet!

Not only did 3/4 of the dams along every part of the route have water in. Not only was the grass along the whole route as green as green can be. Not only were all the cattle and sheep in good condition at startlingly high stocking rates. But also there were puddles of water everywhere in fields and on roads along the entire length of the route.

So basically you’re saying you drove through a poofteenth of the state that was wet and assuming everywhere else must be like that too…

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

I know that rainfall in NSW has been very low, but this is the wettest drought I’ve come across. In my trip Melb to Sydney via Wagga two days ago I’ve never seen NSW so wet!

Not only did 3/4 of the dams along every part of the route have water in. Not only was the grass along the whole route as green as green can be. Not only were all the cattle and sheep in good condition at startlingly high stocking rates. But also there were puddles of water everywhere in fields and on roads along the entire length of the route.

So basically you’re saying you drove through a poofteenth of the state that was wet and assuming everywhere else must be like that too…

Perhaps only a fraction of a Sydney Harbours worth fell as rain I imagine

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

I know that rainfall in NSW has been very low, but this is the wettest drought I’ve come across. In my trip Melb to Sydney via Wagga two days ago I’ve never seen NSW so wet!

Not only did 3/4 of the dams along every part of the route have water in. Not only was the grass along the whole route as green as green can be. Not only were all the cattle and sheep in good condition at startlingly high stocking rates. But also there were puddles of water everywhere in fields and on roads along the entire length of the route.

So basically you’re saying you drove through a poofteenth of the state that was wet and assuming everywhere else must be like that too…

Sounds that way.

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

I know that rainfall in NSW has been very low, but this is the wettest drought I’ve come across. In my trip Melb to Sydney via Wagga two days ago I’ve never seen NSW so wet!

Not only did 3/4 of the dams along every part of the route have water in. Not only was the grass along the whole route as green as green can be. Not only were all the cattle and sheep in good condition at startlingly high stocking rates. But also there were puddles of water everywhere in fields and on roads along the entire length of the route.

So basically you’re saying you drove through a poofteenth of the state that was wet and assuming everywhere else must be like that too…

I took it to indicate he’d driven through some very green part of NSW and it very green and wet. Sort of a prophylactic against the idea of drought reaching contagion status.

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

I know that rainfall in NSW has been very low, but this is the wettest drought I’ve come across. In my trip Melb to Sydney via Wagga two days ago I’ve never seen NSW so wet!

Not only did 3/4 of the dams along every part of the route have water in. Not only was the grass along the whole route as green as green can be. Not only were all the cattle and sheep in good condition at startlingly high stocking rates. But also there were puddles of water everywhere in fields and on roads along the entire length of the route.

So basically you’re saying you drove through a poofteenth of the state that was wet and assuming everywhere else must be like that too…

Hey Poik. Meet Moll…

I have spent the entire day trying to fix the internet here, only for this to be on the first page of news items when I finally get it fixed. In an earlier part of my life I knew Mary and we had many paleobotanical discussions.

Sad.

:(

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-09/scientist-mary-white-allegedly-murdered-by-daughter/10093956

Michael V said:

I have spent the entire day trying to fix the internet here, only for this to be on the first page of news items when I finally get it fixed. In an earlier part of my life I knew Mary and we had many paleobotanical discussions.

Sad.

:(

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-09/scientist-mary-white-allegedly-murdered-by-daughter/10093956

That’s awful :(

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

I have spent the entire day trying to fix the internet here, only for this to be on the first page of news items when I finally get it fixed. In an earlier part of my life I knew Mary and we had many paleobotanical discussions.

Sad.

:(

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-09/scientist-mary-white-allegedly-murdered-by-daughter/10093956

That’s awful :(

Apologies. Should have been in chat.

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

I know that rainfall in NSW has been very low, but this is the wettest drought I’ve come across. In my trip Melb to Sydney via Wagga two days ago I’ve never seen NSW so wet!

Not only did 3/4 of the dams along every part of the route have water in. Not only was the grass along the whole route as green as green can be. Not only were all the cattle and sheep in good condition at startlingly high stocking rates. But also there were puddles of water everywhere in fields and on roads along the entire length of the route.

So basically you’re saying you drove through a poofteenth of the state that was wet and assuming everywhere else must be like that too…

Not a poofteenth, more like a fifth or sixth. Which is a representative sample of drought-affected land, according to the latest drought map https://edis.dpi.nsw.gov.au/

stop trying to farm unviable land

stop knocking down / poisoning vast numbers of trees – it turns land into parched , burning crucibles – i’ve driven many times across country where the farmers have annihilated all trees – they are incredibly hot places with little life or shade.

wookiemeister said:

stop trying to farm unviable land

stop knocking down / poisoning vast numbers of trees – it turns land into parched , burning crucibles – i’ve driven many times across country where the farmers have annihilated all trees – they are incredibly hot places with little life or shade.

Sound advice.

wookiemeister said:

stop trying to farm unviable land

stop knocking down / poisoning vast numbers of trees – it turns land into parched , burning crucibles – i’ve driven many times across country where the farmers have annihilated all trees – they are incredibly hot places with little life or shade.

This is a difficult proposition – What do you do when most of your land is ‘unviable’?

Rule 303 said:

wookiemeister said:

stop trying to farm unviable land

stop knocking down / poisoning vast numbers of trees – it turns land into parched , burning crucibles – i’ve driven many times across country where the farmers have annihilated all trees – they are incredibly hot places with little life or shade.

This is a difficult proposition – What do you do when most of your land is ‘unviable’?

have a plan B

droughts are a regular occurrence in australia

draw up areas of viable land for farming and stick to them – pay off the farmers that are still trying to eke out an existence (the land is usually dirt cheap) and turn the land into nature reserves ( do nothing out just try planting native flora and walk away)

Rule 303 said:

wookiemeister said:

stop trying to farm unviable land

stop knocking down / poisoning vast numbers of trees – it turns land into parched , burning crucibles – i’ve driven many times across country where the farmers have annihilated all trees – they are incredibly hot places with little life or shade.

This is a difficult proposition – What do you do when most of your land is ‘unviable’?

Let them go broke so they must walk off, or the government help these people to leave it. Either way is more sensible than propping it up for a later fall.

you’d probably find those taking gov money to get out will go and buy land in VIABLE places rather than hot hell holes.

in times of crisis offer the farmers money to just walk away – or its a perpetual money pit

wookiemeister said:

you’d probably find those taking gov money to get out will go and buy land in VIABLE places rather than hot hell holes.

in times of crisis offer the farmers money to just walk away – or its a perpetual money pit

If they had that much money, they should not be viable for any government handouts.

PermeateFree said:

Rule 303 said:

wookiemeister said:

stop trying to farm unviable land

stop knocking down / poisoning vast numbers of trees – it turns land into parched , burning crucibles – i’ve driven many times across country where the farmers have annihilated all trees – they are incredibly hot places with little life or shade.

This is a difficult proposition – What do you do when most of your land is ‘unviable’?

Let them go broke so they must walk off, or the government help these people to leave it. Either way is more sensible than propping it up for a later fall.

with all these farmers now off unviable land there would be no need to keep shooting kangaroos eating all that precious grass in these unviable areas

with all the money saved by not propping up the unsustainable you could invest the money into dams, pipelines / channels

wookiemeister said:

Rule 303 said:

wookiemeister said:

stop trying to farm unviable land

stop knocking down / poisoning vast numbers of trees – it turns land into parched , burning crucibles – i’ve driven many times across country where the farmers have annihilated all trees – they are incredibly hot places with little life or shade.

This is a difficult proposition – What do you do when most of your land is ‘unviable’?

have a plan B

droughts are a regular occurrence in australia

draw up areas of viable land for farming and stick to them – pay off the farmers that are still trying to eke out an existence (the land is usually dirt cheap) and turn the land into nature reserves ( do nothing out just try planting native flora and walk away)

Even if the land is ‘viable’ for 19 out of every 20 years?
29 out of every 30?
49 out of every 50?

Do you want to buy all your fresh fruit and veg from China?

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

you’d probably find those taking gov money to get out will go and buy land in VIABLE places rather than hot hell holes.

in times of crisis offer the farmers money to just walk away – or its a perpetual money pit

If they had that much money, they should not be viable for any government handouts.

australia has plenty of money to burn give them some money to walk away then cut all the fences down and walk away – further farming enterprises are then discouraged ie banks aren’t allowed to lend money into these areas

Rule 303 said:

wookiemeister said:

Rule 303 said:

This is a difficult proposition – What do you do when most of your land is ‘unviable’?

have a plan B

droughts are a regular occurrence in australia

draw up areas of viable land for farming and stick to them – pay off the farmers that are still trying to eke out an existence (the land is usually dirt cheap) and turn the land into nature reserves ( do nothing out just try planting native flora and walk away)

Even if the land is ‘viable’ for 19 out of every 20 years?
29 out of every 30?
49 out of every 50?

Do you want to buy all your fresh fruit and veg from China?

thats why you build dams and channels – you don’t have years where production falls to zero – thats very inefficient

no doubt you could map the unviable places just by looking at gov assistance and insolvency – you create a money map to see where things are going wrong.

Rule 303 said:

wookiemeister said:

Rule 303 said:

This is a difficult proposition – What do you do when most of your land is ‘unviable’?

have a plan B

droughts are a regular occurrence in australia

draw up areas of viable land for farming and stick to them – pay off the farmers that are still trying to eke out an existence (the land is usually dirt cheap) and turn the land into nature reserves ( do nothing out just try planting native flora and walk away)

Even if the land is ‘viable’ for 19 out of every 20 years?
29 out of every 30?
49 out of every 50?

Do you want to buy all your fresh fruit and veg from China?

These properties are usually unviable most of the time and would be most unlikely to be able to grow crops. These properties tend to just graze stock.

wookiemeister said:

you’d probably find those taking gov money to get out will go and buy land in VIABLE places rather than hot hell holes.

in times of crisis offer the farmers money to just walk away – or its a perpetual money pit

With apology for the [public correction, this displays a Yr. 8 Science misunderstanding, Wook. Drought is caused by low rainfall, low relative humidity, or irrigation re-distribution. Temperature is irrelevant.

Rule 303 said:

wookiemeister said:

you’d probably find those taking gov money to get out will go and buy land in VIABLE places rather than hot hell holes.

in times of crisis offer the farmers money to just walk away – or its a perpetual money pit

With apology for the

Except for evaporation, which can amount to several feet in a year. Dams with water don’t last long. Just another factor.

Rule 303 said:

wookiemeister said:

you’d probably find those taking gov money to get out will go and buy land in VIABLE places rather than hot hell holes.

in times of crisis offer the farmers money to just walk away – or its a perpetual money pit

With apology for the
yeah right whatever you say

the fact is these places are ferociously hot – i’ve been there unless theres ongoing rain these places dry up real quick, the water tends to pool and those places stay green whilst other places turn brown

the fact is we seem to see these droughts all the time with the same predictable results and appeals

stop farming unsustainable land and only farm land where reliable water can be supplied

i’d bet they would already know the land thats a waste of time grazing or anything else – walk away from that land and consolidate your resources into places that are more most likely viable AND water can be supplied reliably

PermeateFree said:

Rule 303 said:

wookiemeister said:

you’d probably find those taking gov money to get out will go and buy land in VIABLE places rather than hot hell holes.

in times of crisis offer the farmers money to just walk away – or its a perpetual money pit

With apology for the

Except for evaporation, which can amount to several feet in a year. Dams with water don’t last long. Just another factor.

wide shallow dams sure – then you have winds passing across them that takes away water

deep dams are much better with a smaller top surface area to allow water to be evaporated away

i would stop growing cotton – it uses whopping great amounts of water and vast amounts of poisons are used to grow it. if you have to grow it don’t allow any more new land to be taken to grow it – use what you’ve already got.

I didn’t get it quite right….I said they’d go somewhere like Piccaninnie Ponds for their debrief dive. Tank Cave is pretty close…

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-12/cave-diving-with-the-wet-mules/10090126

Whoops, that was for Chat. This is for here…planners…at last some reportage on some planners…

http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-08-12/defying-and-overcoming-the-nsw-qld-drought/10084358

Bubblecar said:

wookiemeister said:

stop trying to farm unviable land

stop knocking down / poisoning vast numbers of trees – it turns land into parched , burning crucibles – i’ve driven many times across country where the farmers have annihilated all trees – they are incredibly hot places with little life or shade.

Sound advice.

They all should have got rid of their stock before they had to start hand feeding.

Rule 303 said:

wookiemeister said:

stop trying to farm unviable land

stop knocking down / poisoning vast numbers of trees – it turns land into parched , burning crucibles – i’ve driven many times across country where the farmers have annihilated all trees – they are incredibly hot places with little life or shade.

This is a difficult proposition – What do you do when most of your land is ‘unviable’?

don’t try and farm it?

I’ve never used a car wash. I use tank water to wash my car.

Divine Angel said:

I’ve never used a car wash. I use tank water to wash my car.

Waster of water.

In 1909, Camden Park was a thriving dairy farm co-op nestled on the banks of the Nepean River. The farms were, even then, viable land. Still, the drought hit them hard and by the end of the year, the local newspaper was urging people to go to their local church and pray for rain.

Around the same time, dairy and produce farms around Redcliffe were suffering the drought as well. Several farmers sold (or subdivided) their farms and packed up for the industrial boom happening in Caboolture.

Australia is the driest continent. We have droughts. You’d think by now we’d be used to it and have mitigation schemes in place besides relying on public donations to fund food for livestock.

Divine Angel said:

In 1909, Camden Park was a thriving dairy farm co-op nestled on the banks of the Nepean River. The farms were, even then, viable land. Still, the drought hit them hard and by the end of the year, the local newspaper was urging people to go to their local church and pray for rain.

Around the same time, dairy and produce farms around Redcliffe were suffering the drought as well. Several farmers sold (or subdivided) their farms and packed up for the industrial boom happening in Caboolture.

Australia is the driest continent. We have droughts. You’d think by now we’d be used to it and have mitigation schemes in place besides relying on public donations to fund food for livestock.

Look, good farmers make good use of money from good years by investing off farm and basically shut down the farm in bad years. Most of these people are crying poor mouth because they are not good farmers.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-08-12/defying-and-overcoming-the-nsw-qld-drought/10084358

Divine Angel said:

I’ve never used a car wash. I use tank water to wash my car.

I use tank water for everything. Including rinsing my smalls.

Woodie said:

Divine Angel said:

I’ve never used a car wash. I use tank water to wash my car.

I use tank water for everything. Including rinsing my smalls.

A lot of people do.

roughbarked said:

Woodie said:

Divine Angel said:

I’ve never used a car wash. I use tank water to wash my car.

I use tank water for everything. Including rinsing my smalls.

A lot of people do.

Huh! Tank here is empty again almost before I can blink. And that’s just for toilet and washing machine. Not yard.

I read that as “rinsing my snails”.

> taking a more serious view of global warming in Australia, as temperatures increase and droughts prolong

Ugh no.

Global warming makes droughts shorter. More evaporation from oceans means more cloud and more rain.

mollwollfumble said:

> taking a more serious view of global warming in Australia, as temperatures increase and droughts prolong

Ugh no.

Global warming makes droughts shorter. More evaporation from oceans means more cloud and more rain.

Really? I thought the effects of anthropogenic climate change were more varied. Droughts, floods and tropical revolving storms all become worse as the swings in known short term climate cycles, like la Nina and el Nino become more intense (from my reading of the literature).

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

> taking a more serious view of global warming in Australia, as temperatures increase and droughts prolong

Ugh no.

Global warming makes droughts shorter. More evaporation from oceans means more cloud and more rain.

Really? I thought the effects of anthropogenic climate change were more varied. Droughts, floods and tropical revolving storms all become worse as the swings in known short term climate cycles, like la Nina and el Nino become more intense (from my reading of the literature).

Also Hadley Cell Expansion

As global temperatures rise, the temperature difference between the poles and the equator is likely to decrease, expanding the cell of air circulation adjacent to the equator known as the Hadley Cell. One effect this has is that mid-latitude regions like the Mediterranean and the Southwestern US are likely to see an increase in sea level pressure—which corresponds to drier weather.

Model projections indicate that the Hadley Circulation will shift its downward branch poleward in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, causing drying in the subtropics as a result. Scientists have already observed a poleward shift of the southern Hadley Cell.

Ian said:

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

> taking a more serious view of global warming in Australia, as temperatures increase and droughts prolong

Ugh no.

Global warming makes droughts shorter. More evaporation from oceans means more cloud and more rain.

Really? I thought the effects of anthropogenic climate change were more varied. Droughts, floods and tropical revolving storms all become worse as the swings in known short term climate cycles, like la Nina and el Nino become more intense (from my reading of the literature).

Also Hadley Cell Expansion

As global temperatures rise, the temperature difference between the poles and the equator is likely to decrease, expanding the cell of air circulation adjacent to the equator known as the Hadley Cell. One effect this has is that mid-latitude regions like the Mediterranean and the Southwestern US are likely to see an increase in sea level pressure—which corresponds to drier weather.

Model projections indicate that the Hadley Circulation will shift its downward branch poleward in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, causing drying in the subtropics as a result. Scientists have already observed a poleward shift of the southern Hadley Cell.

So that explains why I have to water the garden despite the mean rainfall here being 1500 mm. Subtropics, huh…

Michael V said:

So that explains why I have to water the garden despite the mean rainfall here being 1500 mm. Subtropics, huh…

Yes. Rainfall can be very mean sometimes.

mollwollfumble said:

> taking a more serious view of global warming in Australia, as temperatures increase and droughts prolong

Ugh no.

Global warming makes droughts shorter. More evaporation from oceans means more cloud and more rain.

Yeah but where? What use is rain on the oceans to farmers or people looking for a drink?

mollwollfumble said:

> taking a more serious view of global warming in Australia, as temperatures increase and droughts prolong

Ugh no.

Global warming makes droughts shorter. More evaporation from oceans means more cloud and more rain.

LOL, great conclusion moll.