explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,197
Thanks for putting up Knobby as I'd been told years back that the indig… had stuffed it up well before we arrived but could not find a reference.
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,703
- Reactions
- 6,581
I heard this on ABC radio only a week ago.
- Joined
- 18 June 2004
- Posts
- 1,045
- Reactions
- 638
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
Well I vote we deny any climate issue and take a holiday in Hawaii ?
Better still, ignore say 150 year temperature record highs, record low moisture and funnily enough record low rainfall for vast areas of NSW.
Walgett for example pre 2019 had a lowest ever yearly rainfall of 174 MM verses an average of 450 mm.
Right now, well its at 122 MM for the year an unlikely to breach 130 mm so that's 28.9% of normal and this new low is actually ... astounding .... 122 mm v 174 mm pre 2019 or if we get a few MM say 130 v 174 worst ever ... hmm that's 74.7% of the worst ever in recent times.
I would add that 80 MM out of the 122 MM fell on two single days and one was the hottest of the year the next day.
Of course we can deny ... debate if your one of them ... despite sadly 97% of all scientists in the field agreeing we seem to have PM ... in denial .. A world sadly in denial and the leader of the USA is holding any and all debate in such contempt that the EPA has a coal lobby person in charge and the UN Ambassador which heads global efforts is the unqualified wife of a campaign contributor who is yet another fossil fuel coal person.
What is done, will only get worse. With 9 out of 10 of the worlds hottest years post 2000, Australia early 2019 hit record high temps for most places ... EVEN in Jan/Feb .... only to now be hitting new all time highs ever for Dec and an amazing all time day high temp for total Australia in Dec, not in Jan/Feb the hottest traditional months.
Oh and as to area burnt in bush-fires, the old record tumbled weeks ago at for NSW 3 million hectares km, its now at 3.65 million and still rising.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-factcheck-are-this-years-fires-unprecedented
Must run they have called the plane to somewhere cooler and this one is to the planet Mercury
I know old farts keep going I remember this and that ... fact is ... sadly they are wrong.
PS Prior to 21st Dec 2019 all time high for December every recorded was 44.5 C and today it hit a lovely 45.0 C ... all time average high for the month also very likely to fall as well by a massive 3 C if not more.
Well I vote we deny any climate issue and take a holiday in Hawaii ?
Better still, ignore say 150 year temperature record highs, record low moisture and funnily enough record low rainfall for vast areas of NSW.
Walgett for example pre 2019 had a lowest ever yearly rainfall of 174 MM verses an average of 450 mm.
Right now, well its at 122 MM for the year an unlikely to breach 130 mm so that's 28.9% of normal and this new low is actually ... astounding .... 122 mm v 174 mm pre 2019 or if we get a few MM say 130 v 174 worst ever ... hmm that's 74.7% of the worst ever in recent times.
I would add that 80 MM out of the 122 MM fell on two single days and one was the hottest of the year the next day.
Of course we can deny ... debate if your one of them ... despite sadly 97% of all scientists in the field agreeing we seem to have PM ... in denial .. A world sadly in denial and the leader of the USA is holding any and all debate in such contempt that the EPA has a coal lobby person in charge and the UN Ambassador which heads global efforts is the unqualified wife of a campaign contributor who is yet another fossil fuel coal person.
What is done, will only get worse. With 9 out of 10 of the worlds hottest years post 2000, Australia early 2019 hit record high temps for most places ... EVEN in Jan/Feb .... only to now be hitting new all time highs ever for Dec and an amazing all time day high temp for total Australia in Dec, not in Jan/Feb the hottest traditional months.
Oh and as to area burnt in bush-fires, the old record tumbled weeks ago at for NSW 3 million hectares km, its now at 3.65 million and still rising.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-factcheck-are-this-years-fires-unprecedented
Must run they have called the plane to somewhere cooler and this one is to the planet Mercury
I know old farts keep going I remember this and that ... fact is ... sadly they are wrong.
PS Prior to 21st Dec 2019 all time high for December every recorded was 44.5 C and today it hit a lovely 45.0 C ... all time average high for the month also very likely to fall as well by a massive 3 C if not more.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,457
- Reactions
- 7,330
All very well Kahuna but don't you think we should wait until we have proper data and the fullness of time before we jump to conclusions ? 
I understand that eons means a very long but indeterminate time, so I thought good enough.
Books I have read suggest that the first wave of aborigines came about 60k years ago, they did not really have a timing on the second wave but they suggested the third wave was in the last ice age just 12k years ago.
In the rock paintings up north there a number of distinctive styles which supports the different people living there over the years.
Back then there was definitely megafauna, they have found a massive increase in the amount of fire debris and charcoal in the layers of earth just before the demise of the megafauna.
As well as the climate changing over the years we also had people burning off very regularly so that would further change the local climate as well.
It has been mentioned in the media that Captain Cook commented on how many fires there were as he sailed the east coast, seeing smoke during the day and visible flames at night all along the coast in his journal .
Books I have read suggest that the first wave of aborigines came about 60k years ago, they did not really have a timing on the second wave but they suggested the third wave was in the last ice age just 12k years ago.
In the rock paintings up north there a number of distinctive styles which supports the different people living there over the years.
Back then there was definitely megafauna, they have found a massive increase in the amount of fire debris and charcoal in the layers of earth just before the demise of the megafauna.
As well as the climate changing over the years we also had people burning off very regularly so that would further change the local climate as well.
It has been mentioned in the media that Captain Cook commented on how many fires there were as he sailed the east coast, seeing smoke during the day and visible flames at night all along the coast in his journal .
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
If the issue is dealing with Bushfires, then we need to look at prevention and containment.
Assuming the intensity of this year's fires is partly or even largely the result of climate change and that CO2 is a large contributor to the latter, it still does not make sense to cripple our economy by wholesale abandonment of coal exports or coal fired power generation by Australia. Knowing China's intent to increase its emissions until 2030 and that their planned increase pales into insignificance any potential reduction we could make (notwithstanding that they are even now trying to backtrack on the targets they set), then expecting some relief from a turnaround in Global warming is pie in the sky fantasy. So in relation to bushfires (and I am looking at that only), money spent or revenue forgone in trying to reduce Australia's emissions is a complete waste of resource.
We have to accept that Global warming will continue into the foreseeable future and thus bushfires will always be a major threat to lives and property. As we cannot prevent the conditions that facilitate Australian bushfires by any climate change action we can take, then we must look at what we can do at a local level. So we must adopt strategies that can have an effect locally, like clearing (I will leave that to the experts) and, in relation to protecting lives, perhaps some stringent control over where people are allowed live. More resources to try and prevent fire bugs from starting fires to begin with. In relation to containment, then obviously more personal and equipment on the ground and in the air to help stop fires once started.
Bushfires will always be an issue and are going to be more extreme due to global warming, but pointless virtue signalling is not going to help. Spend our money where it will be most effective; local strategies that help prevent fires starting and increased resources to assist containment.
If the issue is dealing with Bushfires, then we need to look at prevention and containment.
Assuming the intensity of this year's fires is partly or even largely the result of climate change and that CO2 is a large contributor to the latter, it still does not make sense to cripple our economy by wholesale abandonment of coal exports or coal fired power generation by Australia. Knowing China's intent to increase its emissions until 2030 and that their planned increase pales into insignificance any potential reduction we could make (notwithstanding that they are even now trying to backtrack on the targets they set), then expecting some relief from a turnaround in Global warming is pie in the sky fantasy. So in relation to bushfires (and I am looking at that only), money spent or revenue forgone in trying to reduce Australia's emissions is a complete waste of resource.
We have to accept that Global warming will continue into the foreseeable future and thus bushfires will always be a major threat to lives and property. As we cannot prevent the conditions that facilitate Australian bushfires by any climate change action we can take, then we must look at what we can do at a local level. So we must adopt strategies that can have an effect locally, like clearing (I will leave that to the experts) and, in relation to protecting lives, perhaps some stringent control over where people are allowed live. More resources to try and prevent fire bugs from starting fires to begin with. In relation to containment, then obviously more personal and equipment on the ground and in the air to help stop fires once started.
Bushfires will always be an issue and are going to be more extreme due to global warming, but pointless virtue signalling is not going to help. Spend our money where it will be most effective; local strategies that help prevent fires starting and increased resources to assist containment.
explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,197
On early indigenous in Australia how about 120,000 years back only 3 kilometres from where I reside at Warrnambool. Picked it up first on our local news a few months back.
www.scimex.org/newsfeed/australias-earliest-humans-the-case-for-moyjil
"
Warrnambool is the South-West Coast's rural city, perched above the shoreline of Lady Bay at the end of the spectacular Great Ocean Road. Famous for its ideal vantage for whale-watching, the city has a habit of collecting rich history, some factual, some less certain; the enticing yet unverified reports by local whalers of discovering an ancient, wrecked Mahogany Ship on the nearby sands of Armstrong Bay in 1847 are the stuff of legend, for example.
Yet right on the city's doorstep is a still more ancient riddle of potential human activity. A "calcarinite" outcrop at the mouth of the Hopkins River, long called Moyjil by the Gunditjmara and named Point Ritchie by European settlers, has been the research focus of a multi-disciplinary team of geologists, archaeologists and palaeontologists for the past ten years. This month the team of experts from Deakin, Federation, Monash and Melbourne Universities has released the findings of their ten-year research project focused on an unusual deposit of shells and burnt stones within the remains of this ancient beach.
What makes the site so significant is its great age. The dating of the shells, burnt stones and surrounding cemented sands by a variety of methods has established that the deposit was formed about 120,000 years ago. This is roughly twice the presently accepted age of arrival of people on the Australian continent based on archaeological evidence."
Amazing
www.scimex.org/newsfeed/australias-earliest-humans-the-case-for-moyjil
"
Warrnambool is the South-West Coast's rural city, perched above the shoreline of Lady Bay at the end of the spectacular Great Ocean Road. Famous for its ideal vantage for whale-watching, the city has a habit of collecting rich history, some factual, some less certain; the enticing yet unverified reports by local whalers of discovering an ancient, wrecked Mahogany Ship on the nearby sands of Armstrong Bay in 1847 are the stuff of legend, for example.
Yet right on the city's doorstep is a still more ancient riddle of potential human activity. A "calcarinite" outcrop at the mouth of the Hopkins River, long called Moyjil by the Gunditjmara and named Point Ritchie by European settlers, has been the research focus of a multi-disciplinary team of geologists, archaeologists and palaeontologists for the past ten years. This month the team of experts from Deakin, Federation, Monash and Melbourne Universities has released the findings of their ten-year research project focused on an unusual deposit of shells and burnt stones within the remains of this ancient beach.
What makes the site so significant is its great age. The dating of the shells, burnt stones and surrounding cemented sands by a variety of methods has established that the deposit was formed about 120,000 years ago. This is roughly twice the presently accepted age of arrival of people on the Australian continent based on archaeological evidence."
Amazing
- Joined
- 18 June 2004
- Posts
- 1,045
- Reactions
- 638
Well on the Temp that's from the BOM site ... so not concluding anything.
As to the monthly high ave temp, yep maybe it does not fall ... it is however going to be close.
Rainfall ... well without 50 mm in the next 10 days ... a new low. Proper data ? Rainfall year to date 122 MM ... no rain predicted up to 27th Dec ,,,, so that leaves 4 days .
Even without it, two months of zero rain hit new all time monthly rain total lows this year .... predicting that its unlikely that 52 MM of rain falls in the next 10 days when the last 5 months has had less rain ... LESS is not really hard or even a large prediction.
Then again, maybe I can deny it much like our PM and his idiotic friends like Trump.
Bureau of Meteorology declares spring 2019 the driest on record
Spring 2019 was officially the driest of the Bureau of Meteorology's 120 years of rainfall records.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12...res-spring-2019-the-driest-on-record/11755848
Dated 2nd Dec 2019 ... I think that may be official from the BOM ?
- Joined
- 18 June 2004
- Posts
- 1,045
- Reactions
- 638
Its not just temperature issues .... its humidity and actual water content.
Its bloody hot .... off the scale
Its bloody dry .... off the scale.
These records are over 120 year time-frames ... whilst the above is based on the 1976-2006 30 year average when you have say Sydney at 3 pm at 50% average humidity and record temps it is ... to be very blunt why we are burning. HOT .... record heat, record DRY and ultra low humidity is at absurd levels in say Walgett hitting 7% humidity lows during the day and averages of 11% verses 28% ... is where we are.
Sure it will rain at some stage and YES cycles change. The trend and records being broken are all on one side of the coin. High end. ignore 2019 .... 10 out of 12 monthly highs all hit post 2000 .... all time highs ... broken now 5 times post 2000 ... on and on. This one is just adding to something which is abnormal and which scientists have been speaking about for some time. Then again the 97% who agree get less media than the 3% who deny anything abnormal.
In 2018 despite record climate variations, an IPCC report warning of dire issues, the media coverage in USA fell 85% by mainstream media.
Pretty hard to deny there is something strange if one lives on the East coast of Australia which is blanketed with smoke from 300 km inland from Melbourne to Sydney to Brisbane to Dubbo to Wagga and so on.
Debating or denying what is in front of your face is rather tiring.
Obviously something is astray. CO2 at 5 million year highs ... even this is denied as a cause of heat issues by some flat earth types. Burning a complex carbon atom such as Coal or Petrol is to be denied. CO2 levels at 200% the level they were in 1750 ... denied ...
Whilst some can pretend or deny, minimize ... this is just a warmish phase and the all time record highs of the last 100 odd years all seem to be post 2000 despite the denials.
Madrid climate conference was a fiasco and what got swamped was the 1.5 C degree change by 2100 is actually already here. Most scientists are resigned to 2-3 C increases and even that seems impossible given the required 7% reduction in carbon emissions globally post 2020 needed to achieve even 2 degrees C. Top end estimates by 2100 are scary. Enough of that going around but a likely at best 4 C degrees and say 1.5 metre sea rise realistic. Around 500 million displaced via sea rises . If we cant handle 10 million refugees from the middle east, I thankfully will not be around when 500 million get displaced as a minimum between 2050 and 2100 as low lying places like Bangladesh need to move 80 million alone. Trump I am sure will take them ? Maybe USA will be great again if it does !!
Its what occurs post 2100 without change, well that is scary.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,761
- Reactions
- 12,958
What's really causing the bushfires
https://www.2gb.com/podcast/scientist-david-packham-on-whats-really-causing-the-bushfires/
https://www.2gb.com/podcast/scientist-david-packham-on-whats-really-causing-the-bushfires/
- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 12,842
- Reactions
- 18,815
Fully true and agreed but what we have now needs fire to clear and germinate the current species
We are not going to change the past status quo in 2 generations
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,703
- Reactions
- 6,581
The problem also is that the precribed burning periods have been getting shorter also.
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,532
- Reactions
- 4,573
Hmmm fuel is an issue but he didn't address the unprecedented low humidity levels to the point there are fires burning in rain forest, thats a climate issue.
As for the burning off as Knobby states the windows are decreasing plus the risks are enormous a prescribed burn north of Margret River got away burn down 32 houses.
That's before you get to the screams from Perth as the city gets buried in smoke from the burn off's.
If it was all so easy why haven't it been done......I guess it must be the greenys fault even if they have never had government on the mainland.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,202
- Reactions
- 17,230
I don't know who's fault it is but the lower fuel loads west of the Great Dividing Range have long been associated with lower fire intensity when compared to that on the eastern side. The concept that reducing fuel load reduces the fire problem makes sense - if there's less to burn well then there's less to burn. Can't have fire without fuel.
As for greens, well the Greens as in the political party haven't held government in their own right that's true but as with all politicians of any persuasion, they'll claim credit for what they see as good and say they weren't in government at the time the decisions were made (or at all) if it's bad news. All the same in that regard from Left to Right.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,202
- Reactions
- 17,230
The problem is that the issue has been politicised and the greatest mistake anyone can make is to think that modern politics is a means of actually solving any problem. In reality once something is politicised that's usually game over in terms of an effective outcome - whatever happens from that point will be a long and drawn out affair with a result that's nowhere near optimal.
Personally I prefer the scientific approach over a political one but the trouble is, the moment anyone decided to go down that track, to apply science as the basis for policy, then we'd have protests saying that we shouldn't be relying on science and that a political approach should instead be taken since a scientific approach by its nature is not a democratic one. They'll say something to the effect that decisions should be made by the people's representatives not faceless bureaucrats - in other words they'll fight tooth and nail against a scientific approach the moment anyone tries to implement it and there's the problem. It has become all about politics, opposing the other side for the sake of it, rather than actually solving any real problem.
I'd take science over politics anyday though but I'm fully aware that many won't. They'll support "science" in exactly the same way they support "free speech". Support it only when they agree with the message which means they don't actually support the concept at all and are simply using it as a convenient prop when it suits.
- Joined
- 18 June 2004
- Posts
- 1,045
- Reactions
- 638
I would agree with many things here ....
Totally disagree with a lot of others.
The Scientist David Pakham who declares climate change has nothing to do with the fires is at best an idiot.
Whilst an expert on fires, he has zero qualifications in climate issues.
His career was always about fires and their nature.
Having now read a lot of his work he at best could be described as a very poor scientist.
I would agree it appears aboriginals did burn off over vast periods of time. To declare this as a fact going back 60,000 years on the other hand is due to total lack of actual records at best poor science.
To declare the fuel loads are the most in many thousands of years as he did and does is absurd for similar reasons.
To make an analogy its all about the fuel loads and because we have not done enough controlled burns ignoring all elese, at best is very poor science.
Whilst yes, for many years less and less controlled burns have occurred, if one listens to WHY from the fire chiefs, this year many if not most planned burns were not conducted is quite obvious. We have had a series of record HOT and DRY winters and springs. Please look at the above articles I posted. Record in so far as ones since White people came to Australia.
The Scientist ... and I question that on his declaration David Pakham .. stating much to the glee of climate deniers the fires have not a thing to do with climate change and its all about his pet theory ... ignoring WHY some of the excessive fuel loads were not burnt off is absurd, idiotic and insulting.
SOME of the cause of the excessive duel loads which obviously is a cause of the fires ... and I agree with him ... is as the fire chiefs stated that controlled burns were not conducted as planned in many regions in cooler and wetter months .... BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SAFE .... it was not safe because of unseasonably hot and dry winters and as I shared a record 2019 all time ... HOT and DRY spring as well.
To declare the only reason that the fires are there is due to fuel load is actually absurd, idiotic and a classic case of Dunning Kruger where a person thinks ... they are an expert ... but actually a fool. A lot of media have cut him off not because he thinks its absurd there is a link between climate change and the fires and its all about fuel loads and lack of controlled burns, but it becomes clear they are speaking to an imbecile.
David Pakham the quasi scientist at best does speak about it being hot and dry .... and whilst in one breath calling any link to climate change absurd, contradicting his quaint half thought out pet theory to postulate his own about how silly we all are. Being blunt ... I would have thought an expert on fire is aware that a bone tinder dry due to ultra low humidity levels, ultra record low in many places rainfall in 120 years and coupled with record high temperatures MAY .... have some effect on the way a fire burns and trying to put it out. Maybe he should speak to a real fireman ?
If a newspaper sitting in say Walgett for the last week at 7% humidity and 45 degree peak yesterday was to meet with a spark, what would occur ? If the identical paper in say Darwin where it was torrential rain and quite wet right now were to be set on fire, which would burn better ? Conversely being fair if I were to declare the very tinder dry paper burns due to climate change alone, I would agree to that being idiotic. If I were to ignore or not be aware of how stupid I was via Dunning Kruger beliefs that I was infallible and declare despite 120 all time highs for temperatures ... 120 year lows for rainfall and worse humidity levels at 120 year lows and declare any and all discussion or possibility there is a climate issue I too would be Stupid and non scientific and illogical. Quite obviously a moron.
I would further point out many other quaint theories this quack postulates which are not scientifically based of based upon clearly absurd ideas.
That we need seriously to do more controlled burns is without question.
In this I would agree with the Fire expert.
That we have as a planet experience up till 2018 a total of nine out of 10 of the hottest ever years for several hundred years post 2000 is not able to be scientifically questioned. Australian temperature and rainfall records go back 120 plus years with decent reliability to 1899 and others stretch back even further. In Europe and USA they go back twice that distance.
That we have experienced the driest hottest period in 120 years is scientifically without question.'
Is it climate change ? Well 97% of climate scientists think so, Mr Pakahm is not a climate scientist and quite clearly not so and seemingly dismisses climate as an issue whilst contradicting himself absurdly talking about heat and lack of humidity as being a direct cause of the fires. Its not to place cause and effect in his face, but , since he is retired and some time ago I believe, controlled burns given the record of the hottest ever years and driest ever years MAY have any effect on the excessive fuel loads and why they are so dry and temperatures are so hot, NOT to directly link the two issues, clearly even a stupid idiot can see that its not safe to burn off in hot dry conditions.
Sadly, there always seems to be some person making a credible argument to dismiss any and all climate issues. On the face of it they seem logical in their absurd claims, when examined however, even in casual passing the absurdity of someone saying on one hand the fires are burning due to heat and lack of humidity, with the agreed fuel load not in question .... then denying its actually hot or unusually hot or unusually dry is what it is. Stupid. Mr Pakham, the guy that Alan Jones and our PM and Barnaby Joyce use to deny any climate issue is what he is. To totally dismiss record heat and record dry as a factor in the fires is NOT what Mr Pakham does, he agrees its a factor in the fires, but then declares himself an expert in climate issues and contradicts his own theories with absurdities.
Of course HOT and Dry conditions have a lot to do with the bloody fires and trying to control them. Its is not even a stretch to see after fire chief after chief has said they did not do planned controlled burns this year and previous years due to unseasonably warm and in fact record warm and dry winter and spring periods where they normally do them, not just his year but its occurred time and time again post 2000 with record after record being broken for heat, lack of rain and low humidity being broken time and time again.
On the global climate issue, I would agree with the point one made about fires in rain forests which are partially due to man made clearing many times and the surrounding forest is effected and catches fire. There is a better example with records going back 1 million of so years. Arctic regions in recent years have had out of control fires. They have had unprecedented temperatures. Both Canada and Siberia. We know fires have not been able to take hold for over 60,000 years for a simple reason. That reason being the mossy stuff that briefly in high summer gets bit of sun as the snow melts for say 6 weeks has never burn and we know this because below that, the ground frozen permafrost contains frozen plant and animal matter going back at the deepest levels near 1 million years, at the surface where they often dig up fully preserved Mammoths that are 30,000 to 60,000 years old.
Basically the peat moss covering is burning for the first time in a very long time. Not due to fuel load or some absurd theory, but because the moss is exposed, dry and hot for the first time in a very long time.
I would also note Mr Pakhams reasoning why climate change not an issue is because it doesn't suit his theory and climate change moves very slowly, well ... I would suggest he looks at NASA satellite images of Arctic Ice and whilst amusing to show how absurd his theory is, the sad fact is that whilst ice cover is only down 35% since 1979, the VOLUME and multi year very thick ice is down over 90% since 1989.
Is 90% of the volume gone in 40 years quick or slow ?
I would point out that if say Walgett and 200 other regions in Australia with similar unprecedented lack of rain hold true to end of December which looks likely having a maybe at best 130 mm of rain verses an average of 450 mm is of course a drought, but the worst previous recorded one was 174mm V an at best 130 MM is an insane change. A rainfall 20% lower than the worst drought ever ?
Again not able to directly link a single incident to climate change, but ... when fires occur for the first time in regions that clearly have not had such occurrences for many thousands of years something is astray.
To dismiss climate change or any possibility of climate change being a factor is showing sadly how stupid and funny humans can be. To dismiss or ignore the possibility ? Seriously ?
Well done Mr Trump ... Your mate Morrison and Barnaby you dummy along with Pauline and long list of others. Not just the lowest rainfall but lowest by 20% than even the worst recorded drought. Nope that soaking wet fuel on the forest floor burns the same way as tinder dry in extreme heat fuel does.
What do the Fire Fighters put out fire with ? I thought it was water.
Totally disagree with a lot of others.
The Scientist David Pakham who declares climate change has nothing to do with the fires is at best an idiot.
Whilst an expert on fires, he has zero qualifications in climate issues.
His career was always about fires and their nature.
Having now read a lot of his work he at best could be described as a very poor scientist.
I would agree it appears aboriginals did burn off over vast periods of time. To declare this as a fact going back 60,000 years on the other hand is due to total lack of actual records at best poor science.
To declare the fuel loads are the most in many thousands of years as he did and does is absurd for similar reasons.
To make an analogy its all about the fuel loads and because we have not done enough controlled burns ignoring all elese, at best is very poor science.
Whilst yes, for many years less and less controlled burns have occurred, if one listens to WHY from the fire chiefs, this year many if not most planned burns were not conducted is quite obvious. We have had a series of record HOT and DRY winters and springs. Please look at the above articles I posted. Record in so far as ones since White people came to Australia.
The Scientist ... and I question that on his declaration David Pakham .. stating much to the glee of climate deniers the fires have not a thing to do with climate change and its all about his pet theory ... ignoring WHY some of the excessive fuel loads were not burnt off is absurd, idiotic and insulting.
SOME of the cause of the excessive duel loads which obviously is a cause of the fires ... and I agree with him ... is as the fire chiefs stated that controlled burns were not conducted as planned in many regions in cooler and wetter months .... BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SAFE .... it was not safe because of unseasonably hot and dry winters and as I shared a record 2019 all time ... HOT and DRY spring as well.
To declare the only reason that the fires are there is due to fuel load is actually absurd, idiotic and a classic case of Dunning Kruger where a person thinks ... they are an expert ... but actually a fool. A lot of media have cut him off not because he thinks its absurd there is a link between climate change and the fires and its all about fuel loads and lack of controlled burns, but it becomes clear they are speaking to an imbecile.
David Pakham the quasi scientist at best does speak about it being hot and dry .... and whilst in one breath calling any link to climate change absurd, contradicting his quaint half thought out pet theory to postulate his own about how silly we all are. Being blunt ... I would have thought an expert on fire is aware that a bone tinder dry due to ultra low humidity levels, ultra record low in many places rainfall in 120 years and coupled with record high temperatures MAY .... have some effect on the way a fire burns and trying to put it out. Maybe he should speak to a real fireman ?
If a newspaper sitting in say Walgett for the last week at 7% humidity and 45 degree peak yesterday was to meet with a spark, what would occur ? If the identical paper in say Darwin where it was torrential rain and quite wet right now were to be set on fire, which would burn better ? Conversely being fair if I were to declare the very tinder dry paper burns due to climate change alone, I would agree to that being idiotic. If I were to ignore or not be aware of how stupid I was via Dunning Kruger beliefs that I was infallible and declare despite 120 all time highs for temperatures ... 120 year lows for rainfall and worse humidity levels at 120 year lows and declare any and all discussion or possibility there is a climate issue I too would be Stupid and non scientific and illogical. Quite obviously a moron.
I would further point out many other quaint theories this quack postulates which are not scientifically based of based upon clearly absurd ideas.
That we need seriously to do more controlled burns is without question.
In this I would agree with the Fire expert.
That we have as a planet experience up till 2018 a total of nine out of 10 of the hottest ever years for several hundred years post 2000 is not able to be scientifically questioned. Australian temperature and rainfall records go back 120 plus years with decent reliability to 1899 and others stretch back even further. In Europe and USA they go back twice that distance.
That we have experienced the driest hottest period in 120 years is scientifically without question.'
Is it climate change ? Well 97% of climate scientists think so, Mr Pakahm is not a climate scientist and quite clearly not so and seemingly dismisses climate as an issue whilst contradicting himself absurdly talking about heat and lack of humidity as being a direct cause of the fires. Its not to place cause and effect in his face, but , since he is retired and some time ago I believe, controlled burns given the record of the hottest ever years and driest ever years MAY have any effect on the excessive fuel loads and why they are so dry and temperatures are so hot, NOT to directly link the two issues, clearly even a stupid idiot can see that its not safe to burn off in hot dry conditions.
Sadly, there always seems to be some person making a credible argument to dismiss any and all climate issues. On the face of it they seem logical in their absurd claims, when examined however, even in casual passing the absurdity of someone saying on one hand the fires are burning due to heat and lack of humidity, with the agreed fuel load not in question .... then denying its actually hot or unusually hot or unusually dry is what it is. Stupid. Mr Pakham, the guy that Alan Jones and our PM and Barnaby Joyce use to deny any climate issue is what he is. To totally dismiss record heat and record dry as a factor in the fires is NOT what Mr Pakham does, he agrees its a factor in the fires, but then declares himself an expert in climate issues and contradicts his own theories with absurdities.
Of course HOT and Dry conditions have a lot to do with the bloody fires and trying to control them. Its is not even a stretch to see after fire chief after chief has said they did not do planned controlled burns this year and previous years due to unseasonably warm and in fact record warm and dry winter and spring periods where they normally do them, not just his year but its occurred time and time again post 2000 with record after record being broken for heat, lack of rain and low humidity being broken time and time again.
On the global climate issue, I would agree with the point one made about fires in rain forests which are partially due to man made clearing many times and the surrounding forest is effected and catches fire. There is a better example with records going back 1 million of so years. Arctic regions in recent years have had out of control fires. They have had unprecedented temperatures. Both Canada and Siberia. We know fires have not been able to take hold for over 60,000 years for a simple reason. That reason being the mossy stuff that briefly in high summer gets bit of sun as the snow melts for say 6 weeks has never burn and we know this because below that, the ground frozen permafrost contains frozen plant and animal matter going back at the deepest levels near 1 million years, at the surface where they often dig up fully preserved Mammoths that are 30,000 to 60,000 years old.
Basically the peat moss covering is burning for the first time in a very long time. Not due to fuel load or some absurd theory, but because the moss is exposed, dry and hot for the first time in a very long time.
I would also note Mr Pakhams reasoning why climate change not an issue is because it doesn't suit his theory and climate change moves very slowly, well ... I would suggest he looks at NASA satellite images of Arctic Ice and whilst amusing to show how absurd his theory is, the sad fact is that whilst ice cover is only down 35% since 1979, the VOLUME and multi year very thick ice is down over 90% since 1989.
Is 90% of the volume gone in 40 years quick or slow ?
I would point out that if say Walgett and 200 other regions in Australia with similar unprecedented lack of rain hold true to end of December which looks likely having a maybe at best 130 mm of rain verses an average of 450 mm is of course a drought, but the worst previous recorded one was 174mm V an at best 130 MM is an insane change. A rainfall 20% lower than the worst drought ever ?
Again not able to directly link a single incident to climate change, but ... when fires occur for the first time in regions that clearly have not had such occurrences for many thousands of years something is astray.
To dismiss climate change or any possibility of climate change being a factor is showing sadly how stupid and funny humans can be. To dismiss or ignore the possibility ? Seriously ?
Well done Mr Trump ... Your mate Morrison and Barnaby you dummy along with Pauline and long list of others. Not just the lowest rainfall but lowest by 20% than even the worst recorded drought. Nope that soaking wet fuel on the forest floor burns the same way as tinder dry in extreme heat fuel does.
What do the Fire Fighters put out fire with ? I thought it was water.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,457
- Reactions
- 7,330
[QUOTE="Smurf1976, post: 1049332, member: 676"]I'd take science over politics anyday though but I'm fully aware that many won't. They'll support "science" in exactly the same way they support "free speech". Support it only when they agree with the message which means they don't actually support the concept at all and are simply using it as a convenient prop when it suits.[/QUOTE]
Nice one Smurf. Worth reading again I think.
Nice one Smurf. Worth reading again I think.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,457
- Reactions
- 7,330
"Well, I just find it staggering that in the current circumstances, whereby he’s sent Angus Taylor, a discredited minister, who has been misleading parliament since his first speech, to represent our nation at Madrid to try and undermine international action on climate change, including arguing for accountancy tricks rather than lower emissions.
Australians do want action on climate change.
The deputy prime minister yesterday said new measures were needed and a new response – and today, going from the acting prime minister to the real prime minister, we have a dismissal of the need for any action on climate change.
The government needs to listen to the International Energy Agency head, who has said it is time for Australia to get our act together.
And quite clearly, when it comes to climate change, the prime minister’s attitude is there’s nothing to see here.
It’s business as usual.
Well if he thinks there is nothing to see her, it’s because he can’t see through the smoke that’s coming from those bushfires.
Anthony Albanese
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ushfires-south-australia-victoria-latest-news
- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 12,842
- Reactions
- 18,815
In term of day to day monitoring.
People really involved must know these already
https://hotspots.dea.ga.gov.au/
For the latest hotspot..have a look at the dundas fire north west of brisbane to see how laisser faire can lead after a week,started with 2 to 3 spots
Now you understand how the mega fire got formed
And the free app "weather radar" is highly recommended as it gives you winds etc and atmospheric pressure in a way much better than Bom
Hope it helps
People really involved must know these already
https://hotspots.dea.ga.gov.au/
For the latest hotspot..have a look at the dundas fire north west of brisbane to see how laisser faire can lead after a week,started with 2 to 3 spots
Now you understand how the mega fire got formed
And the free app "weather radar" is highly recommended as it gives you winds etc and atmospheric pressure in a way much better than Bom
Hope it helps
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,930
- Reactions
- 12,395
I agree with all of that, in addition I think these measures should be financed by an export tax on thermal coal.
Somehow, the thing that contributes most to global warming has to pay for the damage its doing.
Similar threads
