How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?

[3 hound]

I don't disagree with you, just saying there are just as many people against prescribed burning, as are for it.
I think it is crazy to let the bush build the undergrowth to ridiculous levels, then when there is a massive bushfire blame it all on global warming, one extreme to another IMO.
Thankfully the majority are middle of the road.

How dare you.

 

[macca]

I'm fed up with this rubbish. Yes there is a need and good experience in keeping down fuel loads so that (theoretically) catastrophic fires can't get out of hand in Australia. And if the climate in 2022 was the roughly the same as 1980. 1950, 1850 or 1600 then certainly the point is relevant.

But the climate is nowhere near the same. The increase in average temperatures and extreme weather conditions as a result of global warming has completely altered the dynamics of bushfires. You can look at the raw temperatures figures for a numerical analysis of the change in situation. But it is far more instructive to listen to the people who have had 40 plus years direct experience in fighting Australian bushfires and can say with conviction how things have changed rapidly and irrevocably. And for good measure check out how climate scientists who predicted the increase in temperatures also pointed out that inevitably bushfires would become more intense and more difficult to control.

I understand that the usual suspects of climate change deniers look for any excuse to downplay the horrific increase in bushfires around the world. But trying to pretend that practices which worked effectively in one climatic situation will work in quite different circumstances is just wilful ignorance when the evidence is so clear.

Read what ex fire commissioner Greg Mullins experience has been over his 40 plus year career. Then check out how this scenario was explained 30 plus years ago to avail.

The world is burning’: how Australia’s longest-serving fire chief became a climate champion​

Greg Mullins says after the ‘black summer’ bushfires it is time for politicians to act on global heating

• Get our free news app; get our morning email briefing

View attachment 140523
‘We need to take action on emissions, and Australia’s not living up to its international responsibilities.’ Greg Mullins in 1979, aged 20, in his NSW Fire Brigades uniform

View attachment 140524
Calla Wahlquist

@callapilla
Sun 26 Sep 2021 18.30 BSTLast modified on Sun 26 Sep 2021 18.32 BST


The year 2019 was Australia’s hottest and driest on record. By 2040, those conditions – temperatures 1.5C above normal, contributing to the worst bushfire season the east coast has ever seen – will be average. By 2060, on current projections, it would be considered “exceptionally cool”.
The 2019-20 fire season, dubbed “black summer”, will become the norm.

It’s a grim future that has turned Greg Mullins, the longest-serving fire commissioner in Australia, into a climate campaigner.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-australia-must-take-climate-change-seriously
In 50 years of firefighting I had never seen fires like I did last summer. Australia must take climate change seriously
Greg Mullins

Read more
“It’s gonna be a very, very dangerous place to live – not Australia, planet Earth,” Mullins says. “I’m deeply worried about my grandsons and what they’re inheriting from us.”

‘The world is burning’: how Australia’s longest-serving fire chief became a climate champion

Greg Mullins says after the ‘black summer’ bushfires it is time for politicians to act on global heating

www.theguardian.com

What could I have done?' The scientist who predicted the bushfire emergency four decades ago​

Dr Tom Beer’s pioneering 1980s research into bushfires and climate change has, to his dismay, proved all too accurate
View attachment 140525
Dr Tom Beer in 2017. Working at the CSIRO 40 years ago, he foresaw the danger climate change posed Photograph: Tamás Szigeti/Hungarian Academy of Sciences

View attachment 140526
Graham Readfearn

@readfearn
Sat 16 Nov 2019 19.00 GMTLast modified on Sat 16 Nov 2019 19.01 GMT


From his lounge in Brunswick, Melbourne, 72-year-old Dr Tom Beer has been watching the fury of an unprecedented Australian bushfire season unfolding on his television screen.
“I feel really sorry for the firefighters who’ve got extraordinarily tough jobs ahead, and it’s only going to get tougher,” says Beer.

“But I feel maybe I was not enough of a prophet crying in the wilderness.”
Back in 1986, Beer was working as a CSIRO meteorologist looking at bushfires when he was asked by his boss, Dr Graeme Pearman, to go and find out what the greenhouse effect might mean for the future of fires.
Beer’s findings in 1987, published in 1988 as “Australian bushfire danger under changing climatic regimes”, became the first study in the world to ask what climate change was going to mean for wildfires.

View attachment 140527
Former Australian fire chiefs say Coalition ignored their advice because of climate change politics
Read more
“It seems obvious, but actually we found the correlation was not temperature and fires, but relative humidity and fires. Temperature goes up, it gets drier, and then the fires go up,” says Beer.

'What could I have done?' The scientist who predicted the bushfire emergency four decades ago

Dr Tom Beer’s pioneering 1980s research into bushfires and climate change has, to his dismay, proved all too accurate

www.theguardian.com

All this proves that it is even more imperative to hazard reduce now than ever before.

Here in Oz we cannot influence the world climate much at all, we have to learn to live with the consequences of it getting warmer.

With so much bush in Oz and so many people who insist on building houses on "top of chimneys" ( like in the Blue Mountains NSW) obviously we need to take action to reduce the risk.

From my windows I look at a section of National Park which backs on to housing, it is a full on gum forest, I have been here for over 20 years and that NP has not been burnt off in all that time.

When, not if, that forest goes up people will scream CC, no it is not, it is incompetent management.

Then the wildlife rescuers will walk through the charred remains and pick up the injured koalas and wallabies and bury the dead.

It is our choice, Sacrificial burnt offerings to the mis informed Green Mentality or we can remove the rubbish that accumulates on the floor of the forest in an attempt to lessen the risk by simply burning it off regularly during the cold months.

On my property I have about 20 full size gumtrees, the amount of windfall from them is amazing, I get branches about as thick as my arm, twigs in their hundreds and leaves in their thousands all the time.

It is endless, I could fill a trailer 6 times a year easily, now multiply that by the thousands of trees in a forest, then multiply it by 20 years since a reduction burn and that is why we now have holocausts on a regular basis.

If you like to dig back into my posts you will find that before the South Coast fires in NSW I drove through that area.

When I got home I said to my wife that the South Coast is a bomb waiting to explode, I also said to her that I hope they get a few small fires to break it up a bit.

One of those times that I wanted to be wrong, unfortunately, I was right.

My point is that if I can see it, why can't the so called experts ?

The answer is that they sacked all the experienced Captains and relied on hardware to solve the problem and real people paid the price.

 

[3 hound]

All this proves that it is even more imperative to hazard reduce now than ever before.

Here in Oz we cannot influence the world climate much at all, we have to learn to live with the consequences of it getting warmer.

With so much bush in Oz and so many people who insist on building houses on "top of chimneys" ( like in the Blue Mountains NSW) obviously we need to take action to reduce the risk.

From my windows I look at a section of National Park which backs on to housing, it is a full on gum forest, I have been here for over 20 years and that NP has not been burnt off in all that time.

When, not if, that forest goes up people will scream CC, no it is not, it is incompetent management.

Then the wildlife rescuers will walk through the charred remains and pick up the injured koalas and wallabies and bury the dead.

It is our choice, Sacrificial burnt offerings to the mis informed Green Mentality or we can remove the rubbish that accumulates on the floor of the forest in an attempt to lessen the risk by simply burning it off regularly during the cold months.

On my property I have about 20 full size gumtrees, the amount of windfall from them is amazing, I get branches about as thick as my arm, twigs in their hundreds and leaves in their thousands all the time.

It is endless, I could fill a trailer 6 times a year easily, now multiply that by the thousands of trees in a forest, then multiply it by 20 years since a reduction burn and that is why we now have holocausts on a regular basis.

If you like to dig back into my posts you will find that before the South Coast fires in NSW I drove through that area.

When I got home I said to my wife that the South Coast is a bomb waiting to explode, I also said to her that I hope they get a few small fires to break it up a bit.

One of those times that I wanted to be wrong, unfortunately, I was right.

My point is that if I can see it, why can't the so called experts ?

The answer is that they sacked all the experienced Captains and relied on hardware to solve the problem and real people paid the price.

And if the climate in 2022 was the roughly the same as 1980. 1950, 1850 or 1600 then certainly the point is relevant.

But the climate is nowhere near the same

But trying to pretend that practices which worked effectively in one climatic situation will work in quite different circumstances is just wilful ignorance when the evidence is so clear.

It appears that @basilioos trying to make a case that practices that have been proven to work for tens of thousands of years are somehow less "relevant' now that global temperatures have increased.

The rather simple physics underlying the mechanics of combustion shows that fuel load does not become less relevant to the rate or intensity of a fire as temperature increases. To state the obvious it is more relevant.

If we can get past the emotive outbursts and the calling of climate deniers to anyone who's mind is not yet slammed shut then we might get closer to solutions.

 

[basilio]

I began this thread with the intention to open the discussion on how to deal with an increasingly challenging bushfire situation. The first few posts will attest to that.

I made it clear that I don't oppose appropriate burn offs to reduce fuel load. But frankly the views expressed by 3 hound are not informed by evidence and completely ignore the significant changes to our bush fire risks posed by accelerating global warming.

You will find minimal dispute from fire fighters that reducing fuel loads with burns is important. But they will also tell you that because of the changing climate time spans suitable for safe burn offs are rapidly reducing. Controlled cool burns can only be reasonably done with mild temperatures, little wind and enough moisture in the soil and plant material to ensure a controlled burn doesn't turn into an uncontrolled fire.

If you check out the experience of Greg Mullins (and others) the increased temperatures and reduced humidity of recent years (prior to La Nina) dramatically reduces safe burn offs. In fact more than a few fires in 2019 were burn offs that got away. So while we have to continue to reduce fuel loads the overall situation will not and cannot be much safer. Pretending otherwise is just that.

It is also quite clear that 3 hound didn't read either of the articles I posted or indeed anything else that highlights the effects of of our changing climate on the nature and intensity of bushfires in the new reality. I would also hazard a guess that he hasn't noted the huge fires that spread in Canada, Sweden Northern Europe, Siberia and the Arctic Circle in the past few years. I suggest that, because otherwise there would no rational possibility that people with any sense of intellectual acuity could still have "an open mind" about global warming.

Frankly that "mind that is not yet slammed shut" line is just the current sophistry of climate change delayers. I agree that we now longer talk about climate change deniers. That tack has been discarded for the new phrase of suggesting " we just aren't quite certain how bad it might be and we don't really want to scare the horses do we ? Let's wait and see shall we "

 

[3 hound]

I began this thread with the intention to open the discussion on how to deal with an increasingly challenging bushfire situation. The first few posts will attest to that.

I made it clear that I don't oppose appropriate burn offs to reduce fuel load. But frankly the views expressed by 3 hound are not informed by evidence and completely ignore the significant changes to our bush fire risks posed by accelerating global warming.

You will find minimal dispute from fire fighters that reducing fuel loads with burns is important. But they will also tell you that because of the changing climate time spans suitable for safe burn offs are rapidly reducing. Controlled cool burns can only be reasonably done with mild temperatures, little wind and enough moisture in the soil and plant material to ensure a controlled burn doesn't turn into an uncontrolled fire.

If you check out the experience of Greg Mullins (and others) the increased temperatures and reduced humidity of recent years (prior to La Nina) dramatically reduces safe burn offs. In fact more than a few fires in 2019 were burn offs that got away. So while we have to continue to reduce fuel loads the overall situation will not and cannot be much safer. Pretending otherwise is just that.

It is also quite clear that 3 hound didn't read either of the articles I posted or indeed anything else that highlights the effects of of our changing climate on the nature and intensity of bushfires in the new reality. I would also hazard a guess that he hasn't noted the huge fires that spread in Canada, Sweden Northern Europe, Siberia and the Arctic Circle in the past few years. I suggest that, because otherwise there would no rational possibility that people with any sense of intellectual acuity could still have "an open mind" about global warming.

Frankly that "mind that is not yet slammed shut" line is just the current sophistry of climate change delayers. I agree that we now longer talk about climate change deniers. That tack has been discarded for the new phrase of suggesting " we just aren't quite certain how bad it might be and we don't really want to scare the horses do we ? Let's wait and see shall we "

Horse hockey, show me where I have denied the climate is changing or the global temperatures haven't increased or that I am delaying climate change.

 

[basilio]

Horse hockey, show me where I have denied the climate is changing or the global temperatures haven't increased or that I am delaying climate change.

Sophistry. Distraction. Delay. "Uncertainty".
"A mind that's not slammed shut " Code for "I don't necessarily believe that . Let's refocus attention on something else"

Not much point in continuing this conversation is there ? After all your dry little observation that

Nobody thinks there are easy solutions, my issue is while we are waiting for the entire world to adopt climate friendly farming practices, zero emissions energy sources and transport, environmentally friendly wars....etc then wait for the global temperatures to come down as a result of completely reconfiguring every aspect of human life all over the world and the entire world's infrastructure we might just want to think about reducing fuel loads in fire prone areas as a risk mitigation factor.

is the neat new way of saying its all too hard folks. Can't be done. And it may not happen anyway.

Yes of course we want to reduce fuel loads. But suggesting that fuel loads is the problem rather than also recognising the overarching urgent issue of CC is flat out wrong.

And it is the current diversion.

Bye

 

[macca]

I began this thread with the intention to open the discussion on how to deal with an increasingly challenging bushfire situation. The first few posts will attest to that.

I made it clear that I don't oppose appropriate burn offs to reduce fuel load. But frankly the views expressed by 3 hound are not informed by evidence and completely ignore the significant changes to our bush fire risks posed by accelerating global warming.

You will find minimal dispute from fire fighters that reducing fuel loads with burns is important. But they will also tell you that because of the changing climate time spans suitable for safe burn offs are rapidly reducing. Controlled cool burns can only be reasonably done with mild temperatures, little wind and enough moisture in the soil and plant material to ensure a controlled burn doesn't turn into an uncontrolled fire.

If you check out the experience of Greg Mullins (and others) the increased temperatures and reduced humidity of recent years (prior to La Nina) dramatically reduces safe burn offs. In fact more than a few fires in 2019 were burn offs that got away. So while we have to continue to reduce fuel loads the overall situation will not and cannot be much safer. Pretending otherwise is just that.

It is also quite clear that 3 hound didn't read either of the articles I posted or indeed anything else that highlights the effects of of our changing climate on the nature and intensity of bushfires in the new reality. I would also hazard a guess that he hasn't noted the huge fires that spread in Canada, Sweden Northern Europe, Siberia and the Arctic Circle in the past few years. I suggest that, because otherwise there would no rational possibility that people with any sense of intellectual acuity could still have "an open mind" about global warming.

Frankly that "mind that is not yet slammed shut" line is just the current sophistry of climate change delayers. I agree that we now longer talk about climate change deniers. That tack has been discarded for the new phrase of suggesting " we just aren't quite certain how bad it might be and we don't really want to scare the horses do we ? Let's wait and see shall we "

Bas, it seems to be the practice today that everything has to be perfect before a burn off can be undertaken, unfortunately this rarely happens, so we end up running into Spring and hazards are not touched.

There was a small amount of burning near here in October last year, crazy stuff, by then birds are nesting and the reptiles are back out and about.

We must adopt a far sterner attitude to burning off in Winter, if we light it today and it goes out then that is actually good. Light it again tomorrow and keep doing it until we have a safe buffer between houses and bush.

Every koala, roo, wallaby, lizard etc etc is a descendant of those who were here when the Aboriginals used to burn off 5-6 times a year.

Obviously these animals were their food source so no way would they allow them to die off, they wanted them to increase and they achieved that by multiple burns that allowed the animals to move onto a previously burnt patch for safety.

If we want to stop our flora and fauna from being decimated then we really do need to go back to the old way used for thousands of years.

This will actually be a better way of coping with a warming climate.

 

[3 hound]

Sophistry. Distraction. Delay. "Uncertainty".
"A mind that's not slammed shut " Code for "I don't necessarily believe that . Let's refocus attention on something else"

Not much point in continuing this conversation is there ? After all your dry little observation that

Nobody thinks there are easy solutions, my issue is while we are waiting for the entire world to adopt climate friendly farming practices, zero emissions energy sources and transport, environmentally friendly wars....etc then wait for the global temperatures to come down as a result of completely reconfiguring every aspect of human life all over the world and the entire world's infrastructure we might just want to think about reducing fuel loads in fire prone areas as a risk mitigation factor.

is the neat new way of saying its all too hard folks. Can't be done. And it may not happen anyway.

Yes of course we want to reduce fuel loads. But suggesting that fuel loads is the problem rather than also recognising the overarching urgent issue of CC is flat out wrong.

And it is the current diversion.

Bye

So you didn't and can't quote me denying climate change, or delaying or denying global warming...lmao.

A simple apology would have sufficed.

 

[3 hound]

Bas, it seems to be the practice today that everything has to be perfect before a burn off can be undertaken, unfortunately this rarely happens, so we end up running into Spring and hazards are not touched.

There was a small amount of burning near here in October last year, crazy stuff, by then birds are nesting and the reptiles are back out and about.

We must adopt a far sterner attitude to burning off in Winter, if we light it today and it goes out then that is actually good. Light it again tomorrow and keep doing it until we have a safe buffer between houses and bush.

Every koala, roo, wallaby, lizard etc etc is a descendant of those who were here when the Aboriginals used to burn off 5-6 times a year.

Obviously these animals were their food source so no way would they allow them to die off, they wanted them to increase and they achieved that by multiple burns that allowed the animals to move onto a previously burnt patch for safety.

If we want to stop our flora and fauna from being decimated then we really do need to go back to the old way used for thousands of years.

This will actually be a better way of coping with a warming climate.

Your points are certainly worthy of consideration.

 

[Smurf1976]

Bas, it seems to be the practice today that everything has to be perfect before a burn off can be undertaken, unfortunately this rarely happens, so we end up running into Spring and hazards are not touched.

I've zero involvement with managing forests, burning and so on so take my comments in that context but if it's anything like the rest of government then the problem is over planning.

Having personally been involved with other outdoor works in the past, I'm well aware that all too often planning even 24 hours in advance is too long and that if you're going to maximise the use of suitable weather then you need to be able to make the decision on the day that it's go / no go and that if the first priority task can't be done well then you hastily arrange to do the third priority one that can be done.

In the old days that worked just fine. Crew turns up and confirms with the supervisor what they've already worked out themselves that the job is on / off due to weather. If it's off well they're directed to do the highest priority thing that can be done under the prevailing conditions.

What tends to happen these days however is that someone far higher up wants to know exact dates a fortnight or even a month in advance, thus completely killing that ability to respond to weather as it occurs. The job gets planned and either it goes ahead or it doesn't but with more than a few problems.

If the weather's suitable and it can be done then all good.

If the weather's not really suitable but it might just scrape through then due to the two week delay in rescheduling, there's a massive unsaid pressure on everyone to take a risk and just do it and hope for the best. Here comes the monumental stuff up when it doesn't quite scrape through and the fire escapes or it rains and floods something or whatever as relevant to the work in question.

If the weather's clearly unsuitable then that's a full day wasted. The workers are either given "make work" duties, are sent to do some low priority task or just "disappear" and kill time. Or might even actually be sent home if they're casually employed.

That problem has nothing at all to do with climate and everything to do with having removed competent people and the ability to plan in real time and replaced them with risk averse generic administrators who simply kill productivity stone dead. Whereas once you'd have had a supervisor giving the nod to go ahead and with their manager and senior management well aware of the realities of what's being done and the decision making process, these days far more likely there's someone completely non-technical at the top and anyone who does know what they're doing has their hands firmly tied.

That affects all sorts of things these days so I'm assuming burning off would be similar.

 

[3 hound]

S

I've zero involvement with managing forests, burning and so on so take my comments in that context but if it's anything like the rest of government then the problem is over planning.

Having personally been involved with other outdoor works in the past, I'm well aware that all too often planning even 24 hours in advance is too long and that if you're going to maximise the use of suitable weather then you need to be able to make the decision on the day that it's go / no go and that if the first priority task can't be done well then you hastily arrange to do the third priority one that can be done.

In the old days that worked just fine. Crew turns up and confirms with the supervisor what they've already worked out themselves that the job is on / off due to weather. If it's off well they're directed to do the highest priority thing that can be done under the prevailing conditions.

What tends to happen these days however is that someone far higher up wants to know exact dates a fortnight or even a month in advance, thus completely killing that ability to respond to weather as it occurs. The job gets planned and either it goes ahead or it doesn't but with more than a few problems.

If the weather's suitable and it can be done then all good.

If the weather's not really suitable but it might just scrape through then due to the two week delay in rescheduling, there's a massive unsaid pressure on everyone to take a risk and just do it and hope for the best. Here comes the monumental stuff up when it doesn't quite scrape through and the fire escapes or it rains and floods something or whatever as relevant to the work in question.

If the weather's clearly unsuitable then that's a full day wasted. The workers are either given "make work" duties, are sent to do some low priority task or just "disappear" and kill time. Or might even actually be sent home if they're casually employed.

That problem has nothing at all to do with climate and everything to do with having removed competent people and the ability to plan in real time and replaced them with risk averse generic administrators who simply kill productivity stone dead. Whereas once you'd have had a supervisor giving the nod to go ahead and with their manager and senior management well aware of the realities of what's being done and the decision making process, these days far more likely there's someone completely non-technical at the top and anyone who does know what they're doing has their hands firmly tied.

That affects all sorts of things these days so I'm assuming burning off would be similar.

Sadly a lot of truth in that, also many of the competent experienced people are not trained to make reports to bureaucrats, media and academia hence their voices are absent from the debate.

 

[basilio]

I've zero involvement with managing forests, burning and so on so take my comments in that context but if it's anything like the rest of government then the problem is over planning.

Having personally been involved with other outdoor works in the past, I'm well aware that all too often planning even 24 hours in advance is too long and that if you're going to maximise the use of suitable weather then you need to be able to make the decision on the day that it's go / no go and that if the first priority task can't be done well then you hastily arrange to do the third priority one that can be done.

In the old days that worked just fine. Crew turns up and confirms with the supervisor what they've already worked out themselves that the job is on / off due to weather. If it's off well they're directed to do the highest priority thing that can be done under the prevailing conditions.

What tends to happen these days however is that someone far higher up wants to know exact dates a fortnight or even a month in advance, thus completely killing that ability to respond to weather as it occurs. The job gets planned and either it goes ahead or it doesn't but with more than a few problems.

If the weather's suitable and it can be done then all good.

If the weather's not really suitable but it might just scrape through then due to the two week delay in rescheduling, there's a massive unsaid pressure on everyone to take a risk and just do it and hope for the best. Here comes the monumental stuff up when it doesn't quite scrape through and the fire escapes or it rains and floods something or whatever as relevant to the work in question.

If the weather's clearly unsuitable then that's a full day wasted. The workers are either given "make work" duties, are sent to do some low priority task or just "disappear" and kill time. Or might even actually be sent home if they're casually employed.

That problem has nothing at all to do with climate and everything to do with having removed competent people and the ability to plan in real time and replaced them with risk averse generic administrators who simply kill productivity stone dead. Whereas once you'd have had a supervisor giving the nod to go ahead and with their manager and senior management well aware of the realities of what's being done and the decision making process, these days far more likely there's someone completely non-technical at the top and anyone who does know what they're doing has their hands firmly tied.

That affects all sorts of things these days so I'm assuming burning off would be similar.

I would be astonished if the suitability of particular days for burning off had to be sent way upstream to a non technical risk adverse generic administrator. I can recognise the tone of the conversation with higher concerns these days about controlled burns becoming uncontrolled fires.

In point of fact there are many issues around the role/use of cool burns to reduce fire risks
1) If you want to hugely expand the amount of hazard reduction you need the man power and physical resources for a start. So who is paying ?

2) The reality of global heating is that the safe time span for burning off is falling rapidly. In that context even if you had all the staff and resources there simply might not be the time to do the burns

3) The experience of the last bushfires has demonstrated that even when an area has been burnt that doesn't mean it won't be severely affected by a bushfire. There were a number of examples of of such instances in 2020

There was an excellent explainer of this issue in Jan 2020 as the question of hazard reduction was brought up.

Explainer: how effective is bushfire hazard reduction on Australia's fires?

Claims of a Greens conspiracy to block hazard reduction have been rejected by bushfire experts

www.theguardian.com

 

[macca]

I would be astonished if the suitability of particular days for burning off had to be sent way upstream to a non technical risk adverse generic administrator. I can recognise the tone of the conversation with higher concerns these days about controlled burns becoming uncontrolled fires.

In point of fact there are many issues around the role/use of cool burns to reduce fire risks
1) If you want to hugely expand the amount of hazard reduction you need the man power and physical resources for a start. So who is paying ?

2) The reality of global heating is that the safe time span for burning off is falling rapidly. In that context even if you had all the staff and resources there simply might not be the time to do the burns

3) The experience of the last bushfires has demonstrated that even when an area has been burnt that doesn't mean it won't be severely affected by a bushfire. There were a number of examples of of such instances in 2020

There was an excellent explainer of this issue in Jan 2020 as the question of hazard reduction was brought up.

Explainer: how effective is bushfire hazard reduction on Australia's fires?

Claims of a Greens conspiracy to block hazard reduction have been rejected by bushfire experts

www.theguardian.com

I do understand that if you have not been involved then it is hard to grasp the concept but where you say that "the safe time span is reducing" you are in fact underlining the greater need for hazard reduction and local control to do so.

The last time I actually witnessed some around here it was a major production, a date was decided, brigades were called in from up to 50k away and then it was all subject to weather on the day.

Because it had rained recently it was not a real success but they had about 50 people on hand all standing around doing very little at all.

A waste of resources and not a good experience for the volunteers who gave up a weekend to do nothing.

Volunteers are treated badly, in reality they need to be nurtured and treated with respect, naturally, they are far more interested in protecting their own home and area than travelling elsewhere to do a simple thing that could/should be done by the locals.

People in the cities seem to think we have an option to burn or not burn, we don't, there is no option, we Have to burn regularly to protect our fauna and to encourage diversity in our flora.

The fact that this also provides safety to us humans is in fact a secondary consideration, we can move elsewhere, the fauna and flora can't.

 

[3 hound]

So who is paying ?

Who pays for all the death and destruction, this is a non starter. Experienced locals have always provided the labour, they are more likely not allowed to do what is necessary and right any more because bureaucracy.

The experience of the last bushfires has demonstrated that even when an area has been burnt that doesn't mean it won't be severely affected by a bushfire. There were a number of examples of of such instances in 2020

Physics: no fuel = no fire.

 

[basilio]

Who pays for all the death and destruction, this is a non starter. Experienced locals have always provided the labour, they are more likely not allowed to do what is necessary and right any more because bureaucracy.



Physics: no fuel = no fire

You clearly didn't read the article I posted which specifically addressed these points. The rest of analysis is well worth a read.

I have had experience on the land as well. As far as "locals" doing burn offs ? In my experience they had absolutely no problem with running a ute around the paddocks dragging a lighted rope. Then they went off for a few beers and let nature do its stuff.

If all went well there was a reasonable burn. But as often as not the fires got away. This was in the mid 80's.

How much hazard reduction has happened?​

In the last full fire season of 2018 and 2019, the National Parks and Wildlife Service in NSW told Guardian Australia it carried out hazard reduction activities across more than 139,000 hectares, slightly above its target.

There are two major restricting factors for carrying out prescribed burning. One is the availability of funds and personnel, and the second is the availability of weather windows.

The 2018-19 annual report of the NSW Rural Fire Service says: “The ability of the NSW RFS and partner agencies to complete hazard reduction activities is highly weather dependent, with limited windows of opportunity. Prolonged drought conditions in 2018-19 adversely affected the ability of agencies to complete hazard reduction works.”

The RFS said 113,130 properties had been subject to hazard reduction activities, which was 76% of its target. The 199,248ha covered was 106% of its target.

Is climate change affecting hazard reduction?​

A former NSW fire and rescue commissioner, Greg Mullins, has written that the hotter and drier conditions, and the higher fire danger ratings, were preventing agencies from carrying out prescribed burning.

But as well as climate change narrowing the window to carry out prescribed burning, Mullins said some fires have become so intense they have burned through areas that had been subject to hazard reduction.

Mullins has been fighting fires in NSW for months. Speaking to the ABC on Friday, he said he witnessed a fire in Grafton in an area that had burned only two weeks previously, but “the burnt leaves were burning again”.

He said: “There has been lots of hazard reductions done over the years – more by national parks than previous years – but the fires have burned through those hazard reduction areas.”

Mullins dismissed suggestions that the bushfires were down to “greenies” preventing hazard reduction activities.“This is the blame game. We’ll blame arsonists, we’ll blame greenies,” he said.

Explainer: how effective is bushfire hazard reduction on Australia's fires?

Claims of a Greens conspiracy to block hazard reduction have been rejected by bushfire experts

www.theguardian.com

 

[3 hound]

You clearly didn't read the article I posted which specifically addressed these points. The rest of analysis is well worth a read.

I have had experience on the land as well. As far as "locals" doing burn offs ? In my experience they had absolutely no problem with running a ute around the paddocks dragging a lighted rope. Then they went off for a few beers and let nature do its stuff.

If all went well there was a reasonable burn. But as often as not the fires got away. This was in the mid 80's.

How much hazard reduction has happened?​

In the last full fire season of 2018 and 2019, the National Parks and Wildlife Service in NSW told Guardian Australia it carried out hazard reduction activities across more than 139,000 hectares, slightly above its target.

There are two major restricting factors for carrying out prescribed burning. One is the availability of funds and personnel, and the second is the availability of weather windows.

The 2018-19 annual report of the NSW Rural Fire Service says: “The ability of the NSW RFS and partner agencies to complete hazard reduction activities is highly weather dependent, with limited windows of opportunity. Prolonged drought conditions in 2018-19 adversely affected the ability of agencies to complete hazard reduction works.”

The RFS said 113,130 properties had been subject to hazard reduction activities, which was 76% of its target. The 199,248ha covered was 106% of its target.

Is climate change affecting hazard reduction?​

A former NSW fire and rescue commissioner, Greg Mullins, has written that the hotter and drier conditions, and the higher fire danger ratings, were preventing agencies from carrying out prescribed burning.

But as well as climate change narrowing the window to carry out prescribed burning, Mullins said some fires have become so intense they have burned through areas that had been subject to hazard reduction.

Mullins has been fighting fires in NSW for months. Speaking to the ABC on Friday, he said he witnessed a fire in Grafton in an area that had burned only two weeks previously, but “the burnt leaves were burning again”.

He said: “There has been lots of hazard reductions done over the years – more by national parks than previous years – but the fires have burned through those hazard reduction areas.”

Mullins dismissed suggestions that the bushfires were down to “greenies” preventing hazard reduction activities.“This is the blame game. We’ll blame arsonists, we’ll blame greenies,” he said.

Explainer: how effective is bushfire hazard reduction on Australia's fires?

Claims of a Greens conspiracy to block hazard reduction have been rejected by bushfire experts

www.theguardian.com

We can all read and understand your articles no problem, it appears we have less faith in them than you do which I guess is the impasse.

All we know for a fact is the modern methods coincide with disasters of unprecedented scale....that should give cause for thought.

 

[basilio]

We can all read and understand your articles no problem, it appears we have less faith in them than you do which I guess is the impasse.

All we know for a fact is the modern methods coincide with disasters of unprecedented scale....that should give cause for thought.

Really ? That is your contribution to the discussion ? You dismiss the combined experience of scores of fire fighters with 40 years in the field.
You won't accept the evidence of climate scientists and meteorologists who recognise the reality of global warming and the impact this is having on our landscape ?

Pointless..

 

[3 hound]

You dismiss the combined experience of scores of fire fighters with 40 years in the field.
You won't accept the evidence of climate scientists and meteorologists who recognise the reality of global warming and the impact this is having on our landscape ?

Nope, that would be a mis-characterisaion of my position.

Pointless..

Possibly.

 

[IFocus]

A few observations from a family that's lit fires for 50 years (brother is still burning off) and its a WA perspective.

The window for burn offs has greatly reduced and at times there is no window, drier winters over time just make controlling very difficult should wind strength forecast be out by as little more than 10% / 20%.

The Margret River fires were a great example.

The fires burn even in the off season at much higher temperatures and intensity combine this with the expansion of populations / housing into timbered areas and boom we have seen the results.

I don't think there is any easy answers including indigenous practices which I find a little simplistic.

As an aside when I look at the east coast floods I only see heavy growth of under storey ready for the fire season once La Nina ends.

 

[3 hound]

A few observations from a family that's lit fires for 50 years (brother is still burning off) and its a WA perspective.

The window for burn offs has greatly reduced and at times there is no window, drier winters over time just make controlling very difficult should wind strength forecast be out by as little more than 10% / 20%.

The Margret River fires were a great example.

The fires burn even in the off season at much higher temperatures and intensity combine this with the expansion of populations / housing into timbered areas and boom we have seen the results.

I don't think there is any easy answers including indigenous practices which I find a little simplistic.

As an aside when I look at the east coast floods I only see heavy growth of under storey ready for the fire season once La Nina ends.

Pressure could be put on all that population to clean the fuel on their own properties and maintain there own fire breaks etc.