Victorian Fires

[moXJO]

Debate ... deny ... and please go on.
In 2018 March A town called Tathra burnt ...
If you are suggesting at some time in 2018 or 2019 a controlled burn could have occurred, well the local RFS and evidence suggests you are quite uninformed.

A fire broke out about 6 months ago ... in the region West of the Cobargo area currently burning ... it was NOT put out ... could not be put out and has burnt for months during both winter and spring. Hey presto its now summer !!

Rainfall in Bega last 3 months, if you looked and tried not to push your point of view, quaint ... as it is ...

October 2019 rain 18 mm average ... NORMAL ... 47.2 mm
Temp .... October plus 2.4 Degrees above norm ..
https://www.eldersweather.com.au/dailysummary.jsp?lt=site&lc=69139&dt=3

November 2019 rain ... 32.6 mm v normal of 68.8 mm ... so that at just under 50% is BETTER ... than October
It is however shocking ....
Temp a full 3 degrees WARMER than usual ... HIGHS ...

December 2019 rain ... 4mm v a NORMAL 65 MM .... second lowest EVER on record and since records go back to 1845 ....
Temp high ave only a mere 2.5 degrees warmer than average
https://www.eldersweather.com.au/dailysummary.jsp?lt=site&lc=69139&dt=1

I do wish ... people with opinions not based upon facts would take the time to check.

The numbers for the proceeding 6 months in the whole region are if anything WORSE overall as they are for the last 3 years.

Suggesting its safe to light a fire even in winter when rainfall if 50% of normal and temps are record highs and humidity at record lows for 100 plus years, Well ...

that would be pick a word.

Claiming they could and did not ... I scratch my head where this BS and pure stupidity comes from.




Its not hard to look at the BPM charts for rainfall ... temp and humidity and then please explain WHERE they could have lit a fire ? The whole burnt region is in the 50-60% average rainfall for 3 years.

That region in NSW goes from top to bottom .... and its even lower as one goes inland.

Rain ? Some storm we missed ? Oh really !!

Opinion or factually backed ?

Red is lowest EVER rainfall on record ....
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/rainfall/

2019 IS not done yet but its WORSE ....

Where is this rain ? Where it was safe ?
2019 is actually shocking with vast regions not only hitting new rain lows but lows 80% and in some cases lower ... of the worst drought EVER.

Since I own property in various places in NSW one region ... Walgett had 122 MM and you told me to wait till the end of the year .... since the previous lowest ever recorded rainfall was I think 176 MM v a normal of 450 mm.

Well we got no rain between 22 Dec 2019 and 1st Jan so what is that ... 122 MM v 176 previous all time low and 452 MM normal.

Well ... the NEW low is 69.3% of the OLD record low.
It was ... a staggering 26.9% OF normal.

Since I have land in a few regions most have it at the 50-60% of normal ... temps 2 degrees above norm and record low humidity and even this seems to escape most.

The numbers .... are diabolical ... yet debated by the truly devoted to non science.
I am astounded someone like you suggested there was some rain and safe period to do burnoffs. Yep during all time hot and dry conditions as I pointed out.

Lets have a fire tomorrow I will bring the petrol as it explodes !!

It is not logical or productive to debate facts. It is in fact ... well I will not be rude ... look at the red in the above maps !! ALL TIME 120 year low rainfall ... Yes they did not burn off for a reason that even a casual observer can see.

Or so I thought.

What a load of crap. Controlled burns were held in many places as a break between Bush and towns. It's not just 2019 that needed it you imbecile.

 

[kahuna1]

Rainfall last 3 years ...

A place called AUSTRALIA .... Brown is BAD ...

Or is 50% rain over the past 3 years good ? Only a moron would go yes ... whoops one just did !!

 

[kahuna1]

Last 12 month temperature anomaly and RED ... is very bad ... brown is insane !!

did the brown region in far north NSW catch fire ?

I wonder WHY ? It was only hotter than hell .... compared to normal.

 

[kahuna1]

Humidly ... Green is very bad ...
BLUE is actually shockingly low ....

SPOT the BLUE !! Our PM cant see any ... nor Pauline ... or Andrew Constance chief NSW Liberal climate change denier ... his electorate now half burnt pre Tommorow ...

I think a picture speaks for itself ...
Even to delusional people.

Add ultru low rainfall ..
Ultra low humidity
Massive temp anomalies let alone records.

Lets deny the weather ... or even current conditions had the majority of the impact.

Yep fuel loads ... but what imbecile would do a burn off in record low and hot conditions clearly in evidence for 3 years ? 3 years !! In some areas over 5 years.

In the case of the whole south coast of NSW .... its was NOT safe in 2016 nor 2017 .... and the 2018 fire at Tathra and 2019 ,,, well we hit new lows for rain. So if you dont understand something .... no need to be ... as nasty as you are.

Miss one year ... and its catchup the next if ... you can ... and it was not possible for vast regions of AUSTRALIA as the maps clearly show .

Clearly ... impartially and factually ... ignoring a debate about climate science as that clearly would be pointless.

One does not ever burn-off in hot extremely dry periods.

EVER ..... I lie ... Satan would ... and an arsonist ... or our Prime Minister when he returns from Hawaii or member for Bega who is Andrew Constance ... Liberal NSW.

Oohh Donald Trump ... so he can get that Orange glow !!!

 

[Smurf1976]

Its not hard to look at the BPM charts for rainfall ... temp and humidity and then please explain WHERE they could have lit a fire ? The whole burnt region is in the 50-60% average rainfall for 3 years.

Thing is, it's not the 3 yearly total which matters but how moist the forest floor is at the time of the burnoff.

There are places in Australia which have been flooded to the point of causing significant damage but which still show below average or normal rainfall on a 3 yearly chart for example. They're brown or orange on the map you posted but suffered significant flooding. Not safe to burn? Really?

All this is extremely different if you look at the data for each individual week or day and I can assure you that nobody managing water on a serious basis is looking solely at long term patterns. They do look at them certainly, but they pay close attention to much shorter timeframes as well. Just because you're in an overall wet pattern doesn't mean you can't have a month without rain. Just because you're in a drought doesn't mean you can't have flash flooding or that smaller dams can't fill and spill. Oh yes they can.

To pick a city example, well Adelaide has just recorded significantly below average rainfall for 2019 but that doesn't mean there weren't days with temperatures of 15 degrees, 75%+ humidity and minimal wind. Burning off on the urban fringe could have been done quite safely at those times yes.

Or to highlight the problem with 3 yearly data I could point out that Hobart shows below average rainfall over the past 3 years. Just one thing - the city was flooded to the point of significant damage occurring, cars literally floating around the CBD and power knocked out to inner suburbs for days during 2018 in the city's worst flood since 1960.

And so on. Obviously this is mostly about rural locations not city ones, I picked a couple of cities because comprehensive data and media coverage exists more than it does in the bush so my claims can be verified by anyone who wishes to, but it makes the point that just because you've got below average rainfall over 3 years doesn't mean there hasn't been an period of decent rain during that time and plenty of safe burning off opportunities. That basic pattern hasn't applied to every single place in the country but it has in plenty - there have been places in NSW flooded in the past 18 months for example.

Now there might be some places where literally no wet period occurred but that isn't the majority. Take a look at the week by week or at least monthly maps and it's a very different story. A story of missed opportunities mostly.

That's much like saying that just because there's a bull market doesn't mean there hasn't been even one opportunity to go short any stock since the start of the bull. Oh yes there has.....

 

[Smurf1976]

I am astounded someone like you suggested there was some rain and safe period to do burnoffs.

Because the approach when dealing with real, actual emergencies is to use all available options.

Plan the overall approach well ahead based on expected weather sure but for the detail no, you respond to the actual weather and there's no chance you'll know that with any accuracy until it arrives. If it rains in the middle of January then the plan you implement is the one for rain not the one for the fine and sunny conditions that were most likely. Etc. That's how you capture the opportunities as they arise - by adapting the plan to actual conditions from day to day.

The key to doing that of course is placing authority in the right place. Whoever's making the decision to burn is someone who's at most one step removed from lighting the actual fire. When it fails is when the decision is made by someone sitting in an office in the CBD surrounded by bureaucracy and lacking in real world experience.

Yep during all time hot and dry conditions as I pointed out.

Look at the weekly or daily charts. Plenty of weather where the problem would be that you'd never get the fire started and plenty of others where burning off wouldn't be a problem.

Now that's not to say there aren't places which had no such opportunities but there's plenty which did and failed to take them, including places which have burned in the past week.

 

[sptrawler]

The problem is, everyone who listens to the media thinks they are an expert, but the media presenters they are quoting are not experts.
Just my opinion.
I heard a few days back, the media saying the military should be sent in to cut fire breaks, then the experts saying that was the last thing they wanted.
Unskilled people moving into an unknown area, to fight a fire with no expertise and no local knowledge of the area.

 

[Smurf1976]

The problem is, everyone who listens to the media thinks they are an expert, but the media presenters they are quoting are not experts.

Very true.

One thing though, even to the extent it does come down to climate change - we've known about that for how long now?

We've had, what, 30 years to take action about building codes, trees in the wrong place, overgrown grass, leaf litter building up, firefighting resources and so on.

Saying it's due to climate change, even if 100% correct, is simply a cover all excuse for failing to address the detail of what needs to be done and about which governments have been repeatedly warned.

 

[sptrawler]

The other issue that Im sure will surface soon, will be social media usage to co ordinate pyromaniacs, lighting fires. IMO
The amount of fires starting is ridiculous.IMO

 

[Smurf1976]

The other issue that Im sure will surface soon, will be social media usage to co ordinate pyromaniacs, lighting fires. IMO
The amount of fires starting is ridiculous.IMO

Deliberately started fires is one.

Fires started by acts of stupidity is another. At least they're not deliberate as such but people do some really silly things. There was one a while ago up in the Adelaide hills because someone camping had their generator "explode". Hmm, generators don't normally explode but jerry cans of petrol near campfires do.....

Or just a couple of days ago on the outskirts of Hobart there was one caused by someone disposing of hot coals from a camp fire still burning. I mean seriously, with all the news about fires and someone does that..... There'd have been a bit of panic because there's a lot of bush up there with houses not far away and also the transmission lines from Gordon power station run straight past.

Personally I don't even use a lawnmower if the fire danger is extreme enough since whilst unlikely it's not totally impossible it could catch fire. A relatively cheaply built device (compared to say a car or bus etc) with a fuel tank sitting right next to an engine - odds are it'll be fine but it could plausibly go wrong and it's an unnecessary hazard so I don't take the chance. Same with hitting rocks and causing sparks or something - odds are it won't but no need to risk it. Then I drive down the road and see some clown out with an angle grinder standing next to a pile of dry leaves......

As for the social media, well I'll simply say that the thought has certainly occurred to me that it's at least possible there has been some co-ordination with all these fires. Yes there's the weather etc conditions and the fuel loads and so on but bottom line is many have been deliberately lit.

 

[SirRumpole]

Personally I don't even use a lawnmower if the fire danger is extreme enough since whilst unlikely it's not totally impossible it could catch fire.

Personally, I don't use a lawnmower at the moment because there is nothing to mow.

As for people using angle grinders ...

https://www.watoday.com.au/national...sparking-massive-bushfire-20110209-1amwp.html

 

[chiff]

Personally, I don't use a lawnmower at the moment because there is nothing to mow.

As for people using angle grinders ...

https://www.watoday.com.au/national...sparking-massive-bushfire-20110209-1amwp.html

I do not even start the leaf sucker is there is a fire ban.I believe that the ban applies to all outdoor appliances ?If a fallen branch smashes my fence,as it did last week,I wait till a non-fireban day to start the chainsaw.Positive is that I got some firewood.

 

[kahuna1]

There are places in Australia which have been flooded to the point of causing significant damage

Did you know the floods 2019 in Northern Queensland were and ARE 2,581 km from say Orbost Vic fires ?

Are you aware say Wellington NZ is a mere 2,300 km away ? Or Lord Howe Island is 1,230 Km away from the Victorian fires and that's HALF the distance to the even your alluding to ?

All this is extremely different if you look at the data for each individual week or day

Your kidding ? I provided NOT average rainfall maps but ANOMALIES maps ... a difference ..., an area that received 50% of the rainfall over 3 years .... and your still suggesting I look at weeklies.

I am so glad your not a fire warden and clearly have no farming experience and not well traveled

I picked a couple of cities because comprehensive data and media coverage exists more than it does in the bush so my claims can be verified by anyone who wishes to

Really ... people outside the city are stupid ? the Bureau or Meteorology ... BOM ... only operates or works in your city ? If I was to suggest people from say Tasmania are ALL stupid ... which of course has the same percent of imbeciles as any other region, its just as valid.
.

Now there might be some places where literally no wet period occurred but that isn't the majority.

Must be some other MAP ... or planet you exist upon.

Source data BOM maps .... if it rains for a day or even a week ... but its 50% of the 3 year total is a very deep and dire drought. Look at the brown area on the map and get back ... or I will find you a better one for climate skeptics to understand in a sec.

Look closely at the map at the end .... correlation between current fires and burnt regions and the RED areas of lowest rain for 3 years ON RECORD.

Just because you're in a drought doesn't mean you can't have flash flooding or that smaller dams can't fill and spill.

Really ... do you belong to some cult ? Are you really lacking comprehension that a 3 year ANOMALY rainfall map of Australia as provided ... showing vast areas of Brown and that's 50% of regular rain and your talking gibberish about flash flooding and some MAGICAL ability to conduct even if that were true ... conduct a controlled burn during a flash flood.

What religion ? Seriously ..... your kidding ?

Or to highlight the problem with 3 yearly data I could point out

You did .... and well ... NSW fire chief and Victorian one have had extensive talks. They have been attacked by the usual suspects.

Both pointed out the above .... rainfall maps ... lack of burn-off opportunities.
Both are the experts as is BOM .... on weather and rainfall and humidity.

In 2018 burn-off season ... both quoted serious fires OUT of control during the traditional safe hazard reduction period. One ... Yankees Gap for example it took 44 days to even GET IT UNDER CONTROL ... and here we have someone actually suggesting some safe window was missed ?

https://aboutregional.com.au/yankees-gap-fire-contained-and-under-control-on-day-44/

It actually took over 90 days for all of it to be put out .... and it started In July .... 2018 .

2019 had record high temps and low rainfall and low humidity ... so to suggest there was some missed window ? Stuff me !!

Now to have stupidity quashed is not possible.

Here is a clear picture. BOM .... map of LOWEST 3 year total rainfall EVER areas of Australia.

RAINFALL DEFICIENCIES.

lowest on record ....

Whilst this thread is about the Victorian Bush-fires which are much smaller than the NSW ones ... to have it suggested, even jokingly that one missed a period to do burn-offs in the most effected areas is at best some delusional departure from reality.

LOWEST on record EVER ... whilst a mere 130 to 150 year period depending on the actual region when its rains at 50% or less over an extended period its not good.

I again ask ... and beg for a fair look ...
Look closely at the map at the end .... correlation between current fires and burnt regions and the RED areas of lowest rain for 3 years ON RECORD.

I am not going to even bother suggesting ultra dry ... ultra hot and low humidity are issues because they were already ignored for some religious flooding that never occurred.

Never occurred because .... how can one have flooding when 3 year rain totals are lowest ever on record and some of them go back to 1830 .... close to 200 years all go back to 1900 .... a lot to 1870 ...

Hail ... my favorite deity and its a flood without rain !!

 

[IFocus]

The reduction burns were done to be able to contain fires in a normal climate not extremes right?

Current conditions todays forecast are beyond extremes plus 40 degrees with possible 150 kl winds bare ground will burn in those conditions,

 

[IFocus]

Scientist were talking 30 years ago about adaption no one would listen (remember all the claims about them just wanting funding) maybe now people will.

Still today it counts for nothing just hope no lives are lost, the wild life wont get a choice.

 

[moXJO]

The reduction burns were done to be able to contain fires in a normal climate not extremes right?

Current conditions todays forecast are beyond extremes plus 40 degrees with possible 150 kl winds bare ground will burn in those conditions,

Reduction burns are to protect towns or provide breaks.
You can only backburn so much though. But forest management has been lacking the last 20-25 years.

Kahuna you are talking out your ar5e.

 

[moXJO]

Scientist were talking 30 years ago about adaption no one would listen (remember all the claims about them just wanting funding) maybe now people will.

Still today it counts for nothing just hope no lives are lost, the wild life wont get a choice.

Adaptation is something I fully support. Personally I think we are a decade too late.

 

[kahuna1]

Kahuna you are talking out your ar5e.

The red map did nothing for you ?

Its hard to write a reply and leave readers with a clear understanding of how stupid one persons view via non scientific, non factual opinion is. Anyone reading your response is now less informed and learnt not a thing from your rude, bombastic, stupidity on display, illogical with no factual evidence posts.

Congratulations

 

[moXJO]

The red map did nothing for you ?

Its hard to write a reply and leave readers with a clear understanding of how stupid one persons view via non scientific, non factual opinion is. Anyone reading your response is now less informed and learnt not a thing from your rude, bombastic, stupidity on display, illogical with no factual evidence posts.

Congratulations

Did you use red crayons on that map yourself?
You took a map to try and win an argument. Reality on the ground is that you are wrong.

There were numerous times over the past 3 years during Autumn months where the conditions were right. And indeed were carried out in many areas.

For those that are interested back burning will not stop fires. It will lessen intensity. On extremes like today all you can do is stand back. It will just suck up every fuel source.

But when conditions ease an area that has been previously managed is easier to control. Generally nights are used to control burn a previously managed area.

Generally after 2 years (after a hazard reduction burn) a fire will burn through but be manageable. Each year after that the intensity goes up.

It's a vital step in saving houses or controlling fires.


The more dry an area becomes the more frequently you need to burn. The problem with that is it changes the biodiversity of the area.

 

[qldfrog]

And a very important fact is that if on a terrible day, fire could start and be unstoppable, there would be less of these if existing ones could have been stopped and managed before the extreme weather
Once again for a concrete example
5km from home, a small fire has burnt for a week and would have incinerated mt Nebo with just a change of wind.we just got lucky and got rain.
Had controlled burns been done in the past this fire could have been stopped in the first 2 days, after a week there were forests in fire in a 5km area of the NP.
A disaster in waiting
So yes we will always in Australia have time where sxxt happens, but with prevention, these effects would be limited and instances less frequent