This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Victorian Fires

Jump to new
Smurf1976 said:
Also be aware that most search engines by virtue of the way they work put users in a bubble.

Whichever "side" you read last time, they'll serve up more of the same next time thus entrenching your world view whatever that happens to be.
Click to expand...

Have you tried DuckDuckGo?
Probably not appropriate at the moment but you burn the page
 
It's not the primary cause. And even if it were there is nothing Australia can do but prepare against it. Which is basically land management, building codes, etc. Reducing carbon locally won't do squat. We could reduce emissions by 200% of last year's total and still have no effect.
I just find it a convenient excuse to pass the buck. Oh its "climate change" and ignore the stuff we can actually manage.

Yelling at carbon is doing nothing. Either we adapt or suffer, that is literally our choice for now.

I noticed NSW is doubling the size of the RO water plant. I wonder what they do with the dirty water? Usually 3L to make 1L clean.
But these are the things we will actually need.
Water, food, adjust building codes, air quality, heat management etc.
 
Humid said:
Have you tried DuckDuckGo?
Probably not appropriate at the moment but you burn the page
Click to expand...
Yep - it's good.

Thing is though it's a bit like the media or cars or anything else. Most people use or own what's mainstream so if there's some problem with the mainstream version that leads to certain perceptions being formed then that becomes an issue even if a few individuals know how to avoid them.

When those perceptions are to the extent that they potentially change the outcome of elections well that's getting rather serious.
 
moXJO said:
I noticed NSW is doubling the size of the RO water plant. I wonder what they do with the dirty water? Usually 3L to make 1L clean.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the NSW one specifically but in general they take sea water in, separate some fresh water from that, and put the rest back into the sea.

So there's a substantial flow of water back into the sea, it just contains less actual water (thus more of everything else) than did the water which went into the plant. Effectively the same end result as natural evaporation - the H2O comes out but the rest doesn't.

At a simplistic level that's it. Obviously more complexity in the details of actually doing it.
 
basilio said:
In the face of a bushfire catastrophe, our national conversation is still run by politics
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that the word "bushfire" could be replaced by quite a few other examples and the same would still hold true.

Science of any sort, either science as such or its practical application (engineering, construction, conservation, anything) has been shoved aside and replaced by pure politics.

It didn't used to be that way, it's something that has come about in relatively recent times (bit hard to put a precise date on it but I'd say gradually over the past ~30 years is order of magnitude right).
 
A bit off subject @Smurf1976 but clearly strong impacts on what is going to happen next:
I would link it to the university paradox: same IQ in population, actually slightly decreasing, half of population graduates (or attempt to) by the 2020 be it with a major in gender studies..yes it exists
And then you have 50pc of the population who believe they are experts in anything, are unable to even follow a logical reasoning process but shout louder and get their argument or opinions, pre mashed straight from whatever rubbish paper /net page written by a 28yold with a major in journalism and a strong opinion.
Often leftist..as per university trend but not always, the left does not have the privilege of stupidity sadly
The west is doom, and only Blind Freddy is unaware, too busy protesting with Extinction rebellion or telling me that I could have started a reduction burn or cut tree in my block anytime, there is no red green tape.
They know better they read it in the Guardian or their ABC
Our Chinese friends are ecstatic, who need missiles with voters like that
 
The Murdoch Press has spread much misinformation and outright lies on the role of arsonists in relation to the bushfires currently trashing Australia.

Police and fire authorities have examined the facts behind how dangerous arsonists have been. The reality ? Bugger all.

The truth about Australia's fires — arsonists aren't responsible for many this season
Only about 1 per cent of the land burnt in NSW this bushfire season can be officially attributed to arson, and it is even less in Victoria, the ABC can reveal.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-11/australias-fires-reveal-arson-not-a-major-cause/11855022
 
Smurf1976 said:
Science of any sort, either science as such or its practical application (engineering, construction, conservation, anything) has been shoved aside and replaced by pure politics.
Click to expand...

Whilst I know how little I actually know, to say dismiss a story because it comes from any place, or research you dont like is foolish.

Science is science .... facts are facts. Reality and scientifically repeatable reality is real. When choosing a party that extols the virtues of something we know is bad, say smoking, we would excuse ourselves from their diatribe or be rude.

I note today, Murdoch press out of control, shock jocks the same. Today both NSW and Vic fire chiefs spoke at length about the fires and their cause. It was and is drowned out in a sea of swill.

One word they used, both of them ... RFS heads ,,, both debunking control burns as the major issue. One word they used was Moisture .... Moisture content ... Vic one said things that normally dont burn ARE burning due to extreme lack of humidity, moisture and rain over recent years.

Something lost and likely totally lost in mist of pure BS and political agendas ... climate denial and so on.

When its not even accepted the extreme dry conditions when the head of the RFS in the two hardest hit states recently are saying it, heaven help us. One thing they are well aware of is fire and using a paper based upon pre 2000 rainfall, works until, well ... for whatever reason we have the lowest rainfall for 150 years. Again the RFS and Vic ones set their fire risks off that very measure, wind, temp, rainfall.moisture.

I would agree the debate changed 30-40 or so years ago. When one has the Heritage Foundation training the climate sites in Australia, as they did and that's the Koch Brothers, we sadly are not likely to change because of similar reasons the USA is unable to. USA is donation driven, ours well ... is self interest driven with propaganda entrenched positions which have not altered for 40 years.

Back into my hole, I am thankful there has been a reprieve of some sorts. Saddened that 600,000 Hectares of the Snowy region is now black.
 
kahuna1 said:
Whilst I know how little I actually know, to say dismiss a story because it comes from any place, or research you dont like is foolish.
Click to expand...
Agreed definitely.

My personal view is that the whole thing has been so politicized that there's a need for a properly independent inquiry.

If it were up to me then I'd be assembling an assortment of competent scientific people from various fields, from fire behaviour to ecology to things like civil engineering, and putting someone from overseas in charge in an effort to stamp out any political bias.

Task them with factually identifying all contributing factors in as much detail as practical and identifying all options for mitigation in as much detail as possible. Put figures against everything as to the magnitude to which they contribute to cause or solution as appropriate.

So the intent is that we come up with a report that says arson caused x% of the fires, lightning started y%, the effect of climate change is estimated to be z, and so on. Plus we identify that changes to building codes could achieve this, hazard reduction burns could do something else and so on. A comprehensive and unbiased report.

It won't happen though for political reasons. No side of politics is going to risk having something which shoots down their ideological view even slightly. It would be the right approach though - a strictly scientific one, no politics.
 

I suspect that one lasting effect of the fires is that it has opened the eyes of many to the fact that they can't trust what the media is telling them. Rarely has there been such a stark contrast between media outlets as there is now.

The only source I've found which has been reporting factual information with little or no politics is the BBC. How sad it is that we need to rely on a foreign government broadcaster on the other side of the world to tell us what's going on in our own country.
 
I will try the BBC, i so would like to find a proper source of info.

For the time being, i i lo for the unsaid or lines at the bottom of articles to try to find some truth, even figures can not be trusted as associated context differs or is tweaked..as per the top temperature discussed before
From their ABC
A fire fighting person: Matt, died last Wednesday in action during a traffic accident.it is sad and a tragedy for his family and friends
But the following is even more uosetting
"On that day he had extinguished seven unattended campfires. He was doing incredibly critical work," Mr Hardman said at the time
In Victoria last Wednesday...
By any other name i would call that arson.Do not see much CC in action here but definitely an overpopulation of at the very least dimwits and this is a too kind a word
 
14 to 18y drought cycle , add all mismanagement factors and we do not need CC which has per model only added 1c so far..if we can not manage our land now without any significant CC effect, we have no hope if CC indeed starts affecting us significantly
 
How effective are Fuel Reduction buns ? How dangerous are they ?
John Thwaites was Minister in the Victorian Government in 2005 when fuel reduction burns got out of hand. This analysis explains the whole picture.

It's climate change, not 'greens' standing in the way of fuel reduction burns
Higher temperatures, dryer fuel and strong winds in autumn and spring are making it unsafe to burn

John Thwaites

Wed 15 Jan 2020 03.30 AEDT Last modified on Wed 15 Jan 2020 03.36 AEDT

Shares
235

Comments
680



‘Fuel reduction burns should not be used as a weapon in the culture wars in order to divert attention from the need to act on climate change.’ Photograph: Jeremy Piper/AAP
In April 2005, a fire burnt much of Victoria’s beloved national park at Wilsons Promontory leading to the evacuation of holidaymakers from Tidal River. The fire was the result of a fuel reduction burn, which escaped 10 days after it was lit when the weather became hot and windy. I remember it well as I was Victoria’s environment minister at the time, responsible for the park and the burn.

The then premier Steve Bracks was one of the campers evacuated.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-standing-in-the-way-of-fuel-reduction-burns
 


I note that in the article they were conducting a burn off in April, are they really that inept ?

As it happens I was down at Wilsons P in November, the roadside was a tinderbox full of ti tree scrub, a bomb waiting to explode.

It seems that they trim the branches which protrude over the road, they then chuck these into the scrub at the side of the road, a double whammy to ensure no exit via the road,

Kind of like the burn off in Sydney in a NP, they lit the fire at the entry to a gorge then walked INTO the gorge, got trapped and burnt, incredibly stupid people.

The powers that be need to accept the fact that they have NFI about this and talk to all the old fire captains, farmers and old indigenous people and learn what used to happen.

They call in Eco burning in the NT WA and FNQ and it works, we have NO other option, just do it FFS
 
Fuel reduction burns...I hope that we get some experts involved in these ,with some balance.The understory contains,different flora and fuana- animals that do not reside further up the trees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mr. Trump (The Donald) To Win in 2024
66 67 68
Replies
1K
Views
45K
finicky
January 2025 Stock Competition Entries!
3 4 5
Replies
96
Views
6K
Joe Blow
How to totally xuck the worlds largest economy with a chainsaw
Replies
14
Views
479
basilio
The future of... The future?
Replies
3
Views
858
qldfrog
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...