
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | Popular

over the past 3 days we have had more then 100mm of rain! All four of our water tanks are full (will get us through the summer - more then we hoped for at this stage).
/loves rain.
In other news - chocolate makes you happy. so what food makes you grumpy?
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 8:38, 60 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

it's hard to get excited about rain! But when I've visited friends in Australia, I've realised how important it is. I know people who have a farm in SA, and the times I've been there it's been autumn. And the land was totally bare.
You'll be able to have showers for the next six months now, VC!
Ever had a bush shower, by the way? You know, a bucket of water tied to a tree. Or is that a myth perpetuated by television?
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 8:44, Reply)

was a bit pointy when I got out of the water though.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 8:58, Reply)

you're welcome to it.
it rained non-stop from about 7am till 9pm on Saturday. pissed me right off.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 8:45, Reply)

get things done in the garden, as it turned into a seething cauldron of mud
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:08, Reply)

in a thunderstorm now. It's not doing anything to dispel the Vipros = Satan idea.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:18, Reply)

I realise that if I come to a bash in London I'm going to have to wear it.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:20, Reply)

Victoria has had the worst droughts hasn't it? I heard that Brisbane got enough rain to take the reservoirs from 30% to 75% (or similar) in about three days fairly recently.
Good news for farmers anyhow.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 8:46, Reply)

but there's been rain falling across the state yep. Queensland, NT and the top end of WA all have excellent rainfall - as does Tasmania.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 8:54, Reply)

we used to own 80% of them.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:20, Reply)

just saying where the raing falls. They get monsoon rain up there. we get sweet fuck all for the most part. hence why last week when it rained me and my friend Kate went and danced in it until we were drenched and why I'm so happy now. Rain is awesome.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:40, Reply)

as they get shitloads of rain up north.
Maybe the country should build a huge pipeline and send some of it down south!
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 8:48, Reply)

which is in serious danger of becoming a dead city due to water scarcity. Other ideas include desalination, which is opposed due to the amount of power it requires, and drilling incredibly deep into aquifers below the ones they normally use. Personally that sounds great in theory, but I reckon sucking water out of rocks which isn't going to get replaced can only lead to problems.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 8:50, Reply)

I concur that drilling down to water that won't be replaced is a bad move
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 8:51, Reply)

Aquifers are not a sustainable source of water.
Desalination would work though. Especially if it can be done with solar energy. And that's one resource that Australia's not short of.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 8:52, Reply)

but I can't remember what they were, probably they didn't like the look of the plants.
Also, surely sucking up seawater is going to adversely affect local ecology?
Pipeline would be a good idea, but pretty costly, still, they've got to do something so I guess a cost benefit will be done and then whoever stands to make the most money will force the politics through
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 8:54, Reply)

It's not like it's going to leave a big hole in the ocean. So long as the inlet to the desalination plant isn't next to the habitat of a rare crustacean or something, then I'd guess it would be OK.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 8:56, Reply)

but it's incredibly unpopular because water is scarce all over - it's just *less* scarce in some places. The people who are on the end where the water is being taken from aren't happy.
Desalinisation plants would be excellent - They're sustainable (considering the rate of melting caps) and a reasonable long term solution.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 8:57, Reply)

and the interiors are actually thickening for the first time in thousands of years?
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:03, Reply)

/scholar googles
ohhhhh it's raining again! /glees.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:04, Reply)

of ice caps and such. But i've read enough to convince myself that anthropogenic climate change is happening. But i'm not going to have a detailed argument if anyone wants to disagree.
Enzymes post does make sense though.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:20, Reply)

that I don't know enough about it, and nor does anyone who might choose to argue with me.
My issue with it is the focus on carbon dioxide when it is just part of a larger issue.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:22, Reply)

but it is a way of communicating the issue to the, how to put this nicely, errrrr, retards on the street. The sort of people who don't understand the difference between sell by dates and use by dates.
The sort of people who seem to need a reminder to breathe in and out to avoid death.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:28, Reply)

I often forget that despite everyone I associate with being pretty clever they are way above average.
Everytime I think I can't be surprised by someone's stupidity they find new ways to surpass themselves.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:31, Reply)

sometimes anyway
example: the other day I was making toast. I reached over the toaster to switch it off at the wall*, the toast then popped up, which made me jump and caused me to smack my arm into the wall cupboard above the toaster. Broke the fucking skin.
I'm so special sometimes.
*I told my other half it was to pop the toast up, but in reality it was because I'd forgotten I was toasting it and was just switching it off at the wall
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:46, Reply)

there is an anthropogenic component to the current global warming cycle. I don't know how much. But I do think that there's no way the whole world can reduce its CO2 output far enough to make much difference.
So we'd best start planning for how we'll deal with the consequences.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:38, Reply)

Which is actually a potentially viable solution. I plant trees every year on "plant a tree day" with mum and we usually end up putting about 200 seedlings in. It's natural and it doesn't take much effort.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:43, Reply)

out of the atmosphere. But then those trees die and it all gets released again.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:50, Reply)

In the northern boreal forests of North America, 80% of the forests' carbon is stored in the soil. When trees degrade, they degrade slowly and incompletely with a lot of the carbon being kept in sol instead of being released into the atmosphere. Also, the rate the trees grow and sequester carbon may be quicker than the rate which fallen organic matter degrades and releases carbon. (In the tropics things degrae so quickly that this doesn’t work, plus more carbon is released hence the crappy soils in the tropics compared to temperate climates).
That said, planting trees is not the only answer. Instead of wasting money on oil exploration, “clean” coal (a crock), wars, etc, we should be putting it to work looking for real energy alternatives. Either that or buy everyone Honda Accords and let us all battle it out.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 12:54, Reply)

... but that's not a good thing: it just indicates higher levels of precipitation, which you only get when there's more water in the atmosphere, which you get because of rising global temperatures.
And, of course, water vapour's a powerful greenhouse gas in its own right.
Thickening ice-sheets are used by climate-change deniers as evidence that the whole thing's not true. In fact, the opposite is the case. They demonstrate that things're quite bad.
I think.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:08, Reply)

only growing in Antartica (as far as I know). In the rest of the world, they are melting significantly. This is especially true in Greenland which holds an incredible amount of water which, as it is on land instead of already in the water (like the artic ice cap) will cause oceans to rise. Don't but any seafront land!
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 12:57, Reply)

as Vipros says. But they aren't going to contribute all that much to the predicted rise in sea level.
Most of the rise is simply due to thermal expansion of the water. As the sea warms up, the water takes up more room. Given that a lot of the world's inhabited land is close to (or sometimes below) sea level, this could cause a bit of a bother.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:06, Reply)

I mean - it's not going to make much difference either way except that we'll actually have water!
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:14, Reply)

tangent lines are hideous in maths.
I burned my maths book last year after the exam. I didn't even care that it was in such good nick it could be resold. I poured kerosene over it and lit it.
It was a strangely satisfying feeling.
/back on topic - it's hailing now. :D
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:21, Reply)

as this melts it is predicted to cause a significant rise in water levels. (Thermal expansion is huge though).
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 12:58, Reply)

Perth doesn't need water, it's in Scotland!
Oh, wait, you're talking about the one on the other side of the world, in that strange place where everything is upside-down.
Oooooppppps, my bad.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:10, Reply)

Everybody here thinks Perth is strange too. It's so far away!
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:13, Reply)

have the marks for two back, 88% in maths, 74% in chemistry.
And got major assessment marks back for history and english and did very well in those so am happy.
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:29, Reply)

:D and how about you? anyluck with the job finding?
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:34, Reply)

but I'm still looking.
I'll get something eventually. :)
( , Tue 9 Jun 2009, 9:48, Reply)
« Go Back | Reply To This »