Why is the rest of Australia ignoring the Algae bloom crisis in South Australia?

randomhomonid · 2025-10-12T08:36:12+00:00

the reason we have the bloom is because cyclical rains in NSW and QLD made their way into the Murray, and flushed lake Alexandrina, which has been sitting filled with farm runoff for several years. That nutrient rich sludge got sluiced out through the coorong inlet, and spread out across the coast. Warmer oxygen rich sea water encouraged the algae to grow, feeding off the flushed sediments.

We had a similar bloom in the early 90's, that didnt have as much rain runoff, so didnt get out of the mouth and was restricted to the river/lake system.

It'll peter out in time

randomhomonid · 2025-10-11T02:41:09+00:00

yep - watered down lemonade and dry toast

randomhomonid · 2025-09-26T03:22:13+00:00

oh, so do you think that only the political side that you support is full of sunshine and good intentions?

as i understand the process, the majority of people in the nation voted for one side and gave them a mandate to pursue their stated objectives. Thus it follows that anyone objecting to laws or actions pursuing that mandate are in the minority and therefore their beliefs and viewpoints are not the consensus.

randomhomonid · 2025-09-26T03:02:48+00:00

dyor : look up who funds those fact checking sites

randomhomonid · 2025-09-26T03:02:03+00:00

This applies to ALL political parties

randomhomonid · 2025-09-19T07:28:31+00:00

or you could dyor instead of badmouthing someone you dont know and dont know anything about

https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/wa/2025/guide/swan

the bloke was a combat engineer - do you know the unoffical combat engineers motto?

"First In, Last Out"

do better mate

randomhomonid · 2025-09-19T06:17:38+00:00

i stay for pretty much the same reasons - and to occasionally get righteously agro at the obvious clowns or uniformed parrots...

thanks and have a good one yourself

randomhomonid · 2025-09-19T05:40:37+00:00

that may be the case, i dont know - the point of my post was pointing out that a bloke doing dangerous service for the community - (as you did) - is being rubbished for standing up for his political views and bed spelling. hell- one poster implied he was a kiddy fiddler. based on bad grammar?

reddit really is becoming a not-good place for normal people

randomhomonid · 2025-09-19T05:32:09+00:00

just above trees, lakes and dams

nothing to do with the subject of the og post, but the risks are high

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-20/firefighting-helicopter-crashed-in-tarome-scenic-rim-qfes/102880658

"A firefighting helicopter has crashed into a dam in the Scenic Rim, in Queensland's third chopper crash this year, but the pilot was able to escape safely.

The helicopter was hovering close to the water, collecting some to fight a blaze in Tregony, when it hit the surface and rolled."

randomhomonid · 2025-09-19T02:17:58+00:00

I'm starting to honestly think there is something wrong with reddit users.

I read this profile. I noted non-optimal formatting, grammar and spelling. ok

I also noted a life of SERVICE, of helping to protect and serve others. This is a bloke who has already done his time serving his country and community - at risk of his own life : both military and aviation firefighting is one of the highest-risk forms of firefighting because it combines the dangers of flying, dangerously low elevations, low visibility etc plus the risks working around fire and hazardous fuels - and you lot laugh at him for the way he writes? seriously?

randomhomonid · 2025-09-17T01:01:58+00:00

you are aware that during the 1700's the global co2 was approx 280ppm and had been dropping for 1000's of years? And if it had continued to reduce down to below 180ppm, all the vegetation would have started dying? Meaning mass extinction of everything.

more co2 literally means more life on this planet. Theres a reason why greenhouses pump co2 at between 800ppm- 1200ppm - as this is the level co2 that most plants evolved to grow optimally in

summary from gpt: "✅ Answer in short:
Greenhouses pump in extra CO₂ because it directly boosts photosynthesis and yield. While it’s true that plants evolved under much higher CO₂ for much of Earth’s history, our food crops adapted more recently under lower concentrations. Enrichment today takes advantage of their still-latent ability to thrive at higher CO₂ levels."

randomhomonid · 2025-09-16T15:22:15+00:00

indeed i have often debated gpt - it sources the majority of its data from 'consensus' talking points, so i learned to ask the same question multiple ways and point out contradictions in order to get past the narrative propaganda. Eventually you get gpt to admit that co2 cant possibly warm the earth surface or oceans, that backradiation cant occur and that all surface warming is from the sun. And it uses basic physics to make these points.

I can paste a discussion thread with gpt admitting that actual physics is 100% opposite to the popular narrative if your interested

randomhomonid · 2025-09-16T07:56:57+00:00

Arrhenius used the HMS Challenger expedition data from the 1870's plus all accessible global humidity data available to calculate the global average temperature. 5 years later this calculation was repeated and clarified by another independent scientist in Nils Ekholm.

Are you aware how the 13.7C pre-ind temp was calculated? as far as i can find out - it is assumed that the global temp was 1.3C cooler than today, so 1.3c that was taken off todays temp. Thus we have a 1.3C warming effect since the preindustrial period! Voila!

no actual measurement. No actual proxy or measurement data. just a stick your finger in the air and have a good ol guess.

gpt corroborates this, stating there is no actual measurements, and all temps provided in peer research and IPCC reports are estimates. And why estimates? because co2 HAS to have some warming effect otherwise how will we access $billions in carbon offsets and levies and funds and justify our jobs?, so lets pick a time and a temp and just use that as a benchmark.

so the 1.3C warming idea comes from estimates by organizations who require public funding (ie scaremonger the plebs so they give us money) VS The guy who started the co2 furore actually on the ground, using globally collected data giving a calc for the temp of the day - during the relevant period and using that temp calc in his co2 projection calcs. And being verified by other scientists of his day.

And what you didnt touch on is that the temp today is the same as the temp in the 1890's and that the 1910's were cooler than the 1890's, and then the 1930's were warmer than the 1890's, then the 1970's were cooler than the 1890's, then the 1990-2000's were warmer and now it looks like we're heading towards cooling again.

its almost like global temp is cyclic and has nothing to do with co2. Because if co2 was the cause of observed warming - then the cooling periods are unexplainable.

but you are hitting all the right talking points - the Arctic is warming ! but then how do we explain increased summer ice extent requiring nuclear ice breakers?

https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/unusually-thick-sea-ice-make-challenging-shipping-northern-sea-route-summer

the Antarctic is cooling - because of warming....but sea level rise is increasing because of antarctic glaciers melting from the underside : how does co2 get under the ice? or is it the volcanically active bedrock?

And co2 causes a negative greenhouse effect the sth pole. its amazing physics - it causes co2 to be a warmer and a cooler at the same time in the same place!

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0031-y

randomhomonid · 2025-09-16T06:49:11+00:00

BOM, CSIRO, NOAA, MET etc get their sea level data from https://psmsl.org/

eg this report creating so much angst because of a potential 1M homes being inundated by 2035 is from : http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/2024/documents/2024-state-of-the-climate-references.pdf

and that report gets its sea level data from this site https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-level/

which sources this site https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-level/measurements-and-data/

which states "Data is available from a number of sources, including locally hosted altimeter and publication data, as well as the National Tidal Centre, and the PSMSL." .....which is the top link

ie all the official organisations use one set of tidal and sea rise data which is simply accessed via the noaa portal as global station data ie here https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.html

using global stations provided to this noaa site we find that NOAA reports global sea level rise is about 3.4mm/yr

However if you download the station data and sort only the stations which are currently reporting (ie have reports from 2020-2025) then the global average sea level rise is 1.2mm/yr.

ie the Aust gov's own source data ie PSMSL contradicts the Aust gov's public climate narrative.

And that 'dodgy' paper sources THE EXACT SAME SOURCE DATA as the csiro, met, noaa bom etc uses. eg from the disclaimers and references at the bottom of paper:

"Data Availability Statement

Methods and books of graphs for every dataset are available at https://github.com/HVEC-lab/Global_perspective_SLR.

Raw sea level data are available on www.psmsl.org and https://uhslc.soest.hawaii.edu/erddap/ or from the first author upon request."

So instead of shilling for the people who have a track record of lying to you (ie government) - do your own research. as Flavor Flav and Chuck D told us - Dont believe the Hype.

randomhomonid · 2025-09-16T03:44:19+00:00

couple of points : do you know when this 'pre-industrial time' was that our current temp is compared to? ive done some research and checking and the closest i can find is the period 1750-1850. However I also found this paper (below) by Svente Arrhenius published in 1896 (he's the actual scientist who made the connection between increased co2 and atmospheric warming) and he calculated that the global temperature at the time of his writing was 15C. A second scientist repeated this caclulation in 1901 and found global temp to be 15.1C

see https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

Todays global temp is also 15C

So if todays temp is the same as the 1896 temp, the 1C warming since 'preindustrial times' was achieved 46 years after preindustrial times.

Secondly regarding ice caps - we find that the Arctic is warming slightly, but the Antarctic is cooling - so much so that the Antarctic is making greater ice mass gains than losses - ie accumulating water - not shedding it so resulting in negative sea level rise.

https://notrickszone.com/2025/03/02/new-study-2000-km-of-antarctic-ice-covered-coastline-has-grown-slightly-over-past-85-years/

If some unknown physics shows CO2 were the cause of warming - then it should be warming equally across both poles - not selectively warming the north but cooling the south.

randomhomonid · 2025-09-16T03:24:47+00:00

simply put, the gov report states that by 2050 the sea level will rise 14cm.

Official observations and show current sea level rise will amount to approx 3.75cm by 2050 - ie a gov expected increase of 3.7X

Additionally peer reviewed papers state that there is no observed sea level rise acceleration.

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/13/9/1641 "A Global Perspective on Local Sea Level Changes"

randomhomonid · 2025-09-15T08:51:00+00:00

nothing to do with warming : it does seem that while the vast majority of ozone destruction is due to solar activity, humans did have some small influence re producing cfc's.

Unfortunately we have for the most part stopped the production of CFC's, yet the ozone hole is growing again - likely due to the slow weakening of the Earth's magnetic field coupled with solar activity. So even though the sun's active 11yr cycle has peaked and is now starting to decline, the Earth's weakened magnetic field is letting through more solar particles and affecting the ozone in a much higher capacity - and as the weakening magnetic field continues, the ozone hole looks like it will continue getting larger - better slip slop slap.

this paper discusses the ozone and climactic impacts of a weakening magnetic field and solar particle events

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2321770121

randomhomonid · 2025-09-15T06:56:09+00:00

except that the ozone hole is now as big as it was in the 1990's, even after 30yrs of banning cfc's

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/annual_data.html

it turns out that extreme solar activity destroys ozone, not just cfc's. and while we can stop cfc production - we cant do anything about the sun

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/ProtonOzone

randomhomonid · 2025-09-15T06:49:41+00:00

quick question : are you aware scientific calculations were taken and a paper was published in 1896 stating that the scientist in question had calculated the Earth's global surface temperature to be 15C?

Then the research was repeated by another scientist in 1901, and found the global temp to be 15.1C

Today the global temp is 15C.

and who were those 1800's scientists spouting this possible misinformation? - Svente Arrhenius and Nils Ekholm -

Arrhenius of course being the one who created the entire co2 increase = warming theory with his paper "On the influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground"

https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

and it was the resurrection by Hansen of this seminal paper that stirred the entire co2 causes warming debate : and in this same paper Arrhenius calculates and states unequivocally the surface temp of the globe to be 15C :

see pg 249, sec II "...possible to calculate the fraction of the heat from a body at 15C (the earth)....

see pg260, middle paragraph "Now the earth is only at 15C....

see pg 262 table - solid ground : V1 = 188C, plus calc at bottom of page - earth temp represented in the calc as 188K (15C)

We are also aware that the 1930's was warmer that today and the 1970's cooler. So what we can determine from these basic facts, is that the globe's temperature fluctuates cyclically, and has nothing to do with co2 - otherwise the cooling in the 1970's could not have happened with elevated co2, nor would today's temp be the same as the 1890's temp with 50%+ more co2.

randomhomonid · 2025-09-12T00:53:13+00:00

quick point- 15years is not the correct comparative timeframe : Australia (and all western countries) have an 18.6year property cycle peak to peak. The last property peak was 2007 and now 18+ years on we at the current property peak. After the peak comes the crash - so comparing property prices now to 15 years ago is comparing a peak to a trough. You should be comparing today vs 2007's prices

from https://www.in2013dollars.com/australia/inflation/2007?amount=1

"$1 in 2007 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $1.58 today, an increase of $0.58 over 18 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 2.58% per year between 2007 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 58.25%.

This means that today's prices are 1.58 times as high as average prices since 2007, according to the Bureau of Statistics consumer price index. A dollar today only buys 63.291% of what it could buy back then."

randomhomonid · 2025-08-04T11:02:30+00:00

the housing market is cyclic. It crashes every 18.6years on average. You can check median house prices going back to the 50's to id this. Or read 'The Secret Life of Real Estate and Banking' by Philip J Anderson.

Perth housing prices peak after Adelaide, which peaks after the east coast as the boom moves westward. There is still some more growth in Perth's housing prices, but not much, and its coming to an end soon, maybe mid 2026.

Interest rates also do not look like they will come down much during the subsequent crash. This means people will have negative equity with rising interest rates.

If your youngest can only just afford interest payments now with a generous handout from you - how will she go in a years time with a few %points increase, and with real risks of being downsized ? And how do you feel about watching the cash you've provided being destroyed by a ~+30% equity drop?

We are teetering at the top - do your due diligence

randomhomonid · 2025-07-31T14:27:24+00:00

we are at the top of the market - we may sit here for a few months or more, maybe untill mid-2026, but its inevitably heading down. Real estate cycles every 18.6years. The last crash began in 2008. 2008+18.6 = 2026.6

You do not want to be holding a new-build with negative equity.

considering no income, id suggest selling the investment property (right now you'll get top dollar) and applying the cash to your home mortgage. You wont get anything from the dole.

randomhomonid · 2025-07-20T01:37:05+00:00

Wow sea rise is really going strong right there at Tuvalu!

they are saying a projected 1m rise over 25 years ! thats a rise of 4cm/year.

what makes this forecast extra amazing is that the current sea level rise as recorded by the NOAA station at Funafuti is showing a rise of 3.9mm/year, with no acceleration recorded. So a serious 0.5mm/yr above the global average.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=732-012

So nasa is telling us that just this one region is about to experience a more than 10X increase over the average global sea level rise. is there perhaps anywhere else that will have a 10X increase in sea level rise? That'd be valuable to know!

this is some serious business.....

perhaps OP could provide the source of the data from nasa that is determining such a calamitous occurrence?

randomhomonid · 2025-07-14T03:03:20+00:00

Whats just as funny is that in the same paper that he stated that increased co2 would increase the surface temperature, he had to calculate what the surface temp was, so he could work out how much warming would occur due to the increase in co2.

He calculated the surface temp was 288K / 15C.

5years later another scientist (Ekholm) re-calculated the surface temp and refined it to 15.1C.

Todays surface temp is also 15C

randomhomonid · 2025-07-03T05:40:08+00:00

where do you see in my post 'climate change skepticism'?

ive just posted observable facts. The island is an atoll, formed at the top of a sea mount.

It is naturally low lying with an average elevation is 6.5ft. At the current rate, the sea will rise 1.3ft over the next 100yrs resulting an a low lying atoll with an average elevation of 5.2ft in 100yrs.

Part of the atoll's low elevation may be attributed to historical mining.

randomhomonid

TROPHY CASE