Talk:Bradfield Scheme

message: "The water was expected to provide irrigation for more than 1,000,000,000 hectares (2.5×109 acres) of agricultural land in Queensland"
This assertion is nonsense.  1,000,000,000 hectares is 10,000,000 square kilometres  (  there are 100 hectares in one square kilometre ).    The area of the whole of Australia is 7.69 million square kilometres.  Queensland is less than that.Lathamibird (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably someone has mistranscribed the amount from the source? I cannot help with that but to help the reader I have added a map of the proposed irrigation area from a 1938 newspaper article. Kerry (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

text: the 10 million figure refers to the water volume which is sufficient to addressing land need. Not the amount of land. DDB (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  nonsensical claim. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bradfield Scheme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040814112642/http://www.johnston-independent.com:80/bradfield_scheme.html to http://www.johnston-independent.com/bradfield_scheme.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110707091509/http://www.adrianforbass.com/pages/policy/water/water_projects_map.pdf to http://www.adrianforbass.com/pages/policy/water/water_projects_map.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bradfield Scheme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040814112642/http://www.johnston-independent.com/bradfield_scheme.html to http://www.johnston-independent.com/bradfield_scheme.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707091509/http://www.adrianforbass.com/pages/policy/water/water_projects_map.pdf to http://www.adrianforbass.com/pages/policy/water/water_projects_map.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The whole quote from this article is:
"Controlling and reducing the flow of northern rivers into the ocean may benefit the Great Barrier Reef as fresh water causes coral bleaching, and the excess nutrients in the rivers from coastal farming and development support algal growth that can harm the reef.[citation needed] "
Please.  Unless rainfall is increasing substantially, this is a ridiculous statement to make.  Obviously coral lives in the sea, which is salty, but it's managed pretty well up until the last few years/decades.  There have, however, been other changes to the natural environment in recent years/decades, such as hotter water temperatures and problems with what's in run-off, whether it be from farms, mines, urban areas or whatever.  These are well-documented.  But reducing the fresh water flow isn't - unless anyone can come up with some research that says otherwise.Boscaswell talk 23:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I agree it doesn't sound plausible as presented and it's uncited (and my quick search didn't turn up a source), I'm deleting the sentence. Kerry (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: From the Bureau of Meteorology http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/oceantemp/GBR_Coral.shtml "Aside from temperature, other stressors such as tropical cyclones, freshwater inflows and anthropogenic pollution can also induce bleaching" DDB (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fresh water causes coral bleaching" 

message: A number of the criticisms of the scheme are unattributed (and in at least one case I noticed over-inflated the number of people criticising from one to "some"). Whether the scheme is good or bad, as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we should make clear in the text who is criticising and particularly with criticial comments why are they making them. The paragraphy about Nimmo is doing the right thing, naming the person and the basis for the criticism. The paragraphs above are not doing so. Kerry (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many unattributed opinions here 

message: In the second para under Possible Benefits, the following is stated: "In the book "The Great Boomerang" by Ion Idriess, it is reported that on two occasions when Lake Eyre filled up with floodwater, the eastern seaboard reported good harvests for the preceding 7 years.[6]"
I haven't access to the book, but to me that doesn't make much sense in the context of the paragraph which discusses climate change occurring  as a consequence of extra water in the interior. Should the word preceding be succeeding?Lexysexy (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: " No evidence to support the theory that an inland sea would increase rainfall has ever been produced,[2] nor have any of the other claims been supported. In the book "The Great Boomerang" by Ion Idriess, it is reported that on two occasions when Lake Eyre filled up with floodwater, the eastern seaboard reported good harvests for the preceding 7 years.[6]" Idriess is not being quoted here to support the claim about an inland sea creating more rain. It's been stated there's been no evidence, and Idriess is saying that exact opposite to the theory, that the rainfall *preceded* the filling of Lake Eyre (which it must do because if there isn't lots of coastal rain, there isn't enough water to reach Lake Eyre) which is the opposite of the theory -- that is, the rainfall causes the lake, not vice versa. But you are not the first person to question this, so maybe there is a better way to say this. I'll add "to the contrary".Kerry (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see what you are trying to say here, but that's not really relevant. In respect of Bradfield, it is what happened in the years succeeding the filling of the lake that matters, and at a guess the only real measure is whether the rainfall on either side of the divide differed significantly from long-term figures.Lexysexy (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Query