stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841 
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Jan 17, 2020 11:55:44 GMT
OK can see that now. Sorry about the delay but got gaming yesterday. If that would be viable, i.e. all that area is below sea level so a link to the ocean would flood it then, while damaging to the current ecology it could probably moderate the climate a lot and enable markedly more people to be viably supported in Australia.
Then what if this was how Australia would look like, its a 1827 map of Australia and depicts a 'Great River' and a 'Supposed Sea' that both proved nonexistent, so could this help Australia in the long run. 
That would be an interesting idea but since there's a major river flowing from the inland sea to the ocean that suggests that the former relies on rain to maintain it. Even through rain would increase a bit as evaporation from the sea would provide more precipitation I suspect that there would be inadequate rainfall to maintain it. That's why I was asking with the previous one if it was at sea level as otherwise again I suspect over time it would evaporate away, even without water being extracted for domestic/agricultural/industrial use.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 17, 2020 11:58:13 GMT
Then what if this was how Australia would look like, its a 1827 map of Australia and depicts a 'Great River' and a 'Supposed Sea' that both proved nonexistent, so could this help Australia in the long run. That would be an interesting idea but since there's a major river flowing from the inland sea to the ocean that suggests that the former relies on rain to maintain it. Even through rain would increase a bit as evaporation from the sea would provide more precipitation I suspect that there would be inadequate rainfall to maintain it. That's why I was asking with the previous one if it was at sea level as otherwise again I suspect over time it would evaporate away, even without water being extracted for domestic/agricultural/industrial use.
But the, looking at the map name for this sea which would be Delta of Australia, has a link to the Sea, would that not mean it would be a salt sea and not a freshwater sea. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Jan 17, 2020 12:16:17 GMT
That would be an interesting idea but since there's a major river flowing from the inland sea to the ocean that suggests that the former relies on rain to maintain it. Even through rain would increase a bit as evaporation from the sea would provide more precipitation I suspect that there would be inadequate rainfall to maintain it. That's why I was asking with the previous one if it was at sea level as otherwise again I suspect over time it would evaporate away, even without water being extracted for domestic/agricultural/industrial use.
But the, looking at the map name for this sea which would be Delta of Australia, has a link to the Sea, would that not mean it would be a salt sea and not a freshwater sea.
Its referring to a Great River and a Delta, which imply a flow of water from the inland sea to the ocean. Hence the former is at a greater height. Otherwise it would basically be a large gulf, which you could have but would be at sea level and I can't see a delta in such a situation.
|
|
dayton3
Chief petty officer
Posts: 118
Likes: 26
|
Post by dayton3 on Jan 17, 2020 22:35:20 GMT
A lot of extra population to begin with: six more than the current 25 million, perhaps. Feeding such would be not be a problem. We’ve got the resources and the wealth. Water would be an issue. I would go with 40-50 million at least. More rainfall given current events would be pretty important. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 18, 2020 9:35:09 GMT
75 million people does not a superpower make; my reference was to six times the current number, or 150 million at a bare, bare minimum.
Rainfall would involve a different climate, which is on the level of the inland sea - a world changing point of departure. Even with rainfall, Australia still has some of the oldest and least fertile soil in the world. However, we’re still able to produce a very large surplus of food. If there were a need to feed more people, then the likes of the water intensive cotton farming areas of NSW could give way to foodstuffs.
South Australia could support 4-5 million people easily, but needs a second city.
Tripling Queensland is quite doable, taking them to 15 million.
Tripling NSW to 22-23 million would involve some more intensive settlement, but they do have space.
If Victoria were tripled to 20 million, it would need a few large cities apart from Melbourne, but theoretically, it could be done.
WA could support 6-7 million down south; the Kimberly/Ord River area could add 2 million more to that if development and settlement started early enough.
That gets us to 72 million plus Tasmania and the Northern Territory, which don’t add much.
Throw in New Zealand with 10 million rather than 5 million people and we’re still under 85 million, or half of what I’d view as the absolute floor for a superpower.
In terms of basic geography, demographics, population size and water, Australia and NZ is not going to make a superpower.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 18, 2020 10:22:53 GMT
75 million people does not a superpower make; my reference was to six times the current number, or 150 million at a bare, bare minimum. 150 million, can Australia feed that amount of people. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 18, 2020 10:36:08 GMT
Easily. We produced enough for 25 million here plus sufficient export food for 200 million. That figure could be increased with changes to what type of crops are grown; quite a few farmers around South Australia grow canola, for example.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 18, 2020 10:39:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 18, 2020 11:03:00 GMT
The first link is from news.com.au, a bit of an unreliable Australian online source with a definite left wing bias and a general lack of rigour. We can note that the article doesn't actually get into numbers or discuss agricultural production. We make use of a fair bit of fertiliser, but that isn't a real problem to obtain.
The second is from the ABC, which has a political position of being pro-immigration. It has some interesting demographic points, but doesn't look at the issues of food and water.
|
|
