Global Warming

[KnightersRevenge]

How many fires in the past were deliberately lit compared to now?
How far has population spread, where fires in the past would burnt bushland and now its burning houses, making the fires of today more dangerous (and therefore, more newsworthy) than in the past?
How much have environmental groups got to answer for preventing and protesting against trees and forests being cut or removed, to remove the fuel for any fires...compared to in the past when people did, and were allowed, to do what they wanted to?
What is classed as a "major event" now, compared to in the past?

There are many factors to take into account and its only further scaremongering and people pushing agendas who have used fires, that were deliberately lit, as a vehicle to push some correlation between climate change and bushfires.
Not much science involved in this one... :spin

There are times when all the ducks line up...Ash Wednesday 30 years ago was one such time....Black Saturday another such time....just because we have a disaster (which was deliberately lit to begin with) doesn't mean its anything to do with climate change.
How about that it was just the weather on the day?
It seems as soon as we get a hot day or something out of the ordinary...."oh, thats proof its climate change"
Heck, I remember when the bushfires surrounded Mt.Buller at Christmas time and there was a cold snap and snow, in the middle of summer, helped put out the fires.......no grumbling about global warming then!


Firefighters celebrate a white Christmas
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/firefighters-celebrate-a-white-christmas/2006/12/25/1166895230027.html

No it's data and examination and rigourous study that suggest that the models, under continuous test by climatologists, are accurate. Are you saying the prevailing weather is unaffected by climate? That would really be something. What has your friend Graham Lloyd got to say on the subject? Fine upstanding member of the scientific press that he is.

 

[bullus_hit]

There are many factors to take into account and its only further scaremongering and people pushing agendas who have used fires, that were deliberately lit, as a vehicle to push some correlation between climate change and bushfires.
Not much science involved in this one... :spin

So heatwaves have nothing to do with bushfires? Even if you don't believe in man-made climate change that is breathtaking in it's ignorance. Others have addressed the issue at length, I really have nothing more to add.

By the way Livers, why even bother having fire warnings at all? Based on your logic, we simply can't control the pyromaniacs and the corrupt environmentalists so we may as well do nothing.

 

[AngryAnt]

How many fires in the past were deliberately lit compared to now?
How far has population spread, where fires in the past would burnt bushland and now its burning houses, making the fires of today more dangerous (and therefore, more newsworthy) than in the past?
How much have environmental groups got to answer for preventing and protesting against trees and forests being cut or removed, to remove the fuel for any fires...compared to in the past when people did, and were allowed, to do what they wanted to?
What is classed as a "major event" now, compared to in the past?

There are many factors to take into account and its only further scaremongering and people pushing agendas who have used fires, that were deliberately lit, as a vehicle to push some correlation between climate change and bushfires.
Not much science involved in this one... :spin

There are times when all the ducks line up...Ash Wednesday 30 years ago was one such time....Black Saturday another such time....just because we have a disaster (which was deliberately lit to begin with) doesn't mean its anything to do with climate change.
How about that it was just the weather on the day?
It seems as soon as we get a hot day or something out of the ordinary...."oh, thats proof its climate change"
Heck, I remember when the bushfires surrounded Mt.Buller at Christmas time and there was a cold snap and snow, in the middle of summer, helped put out the fires.......no grumbling about global warming then!


Firefighters celebrate a white Christmas
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/firefighters-celebrate-a-white-christmas/2006/12/25/1166895230027.html

Ah yes, another long rambling justification for posting a fail in an earlier post. Don't go changing Livers.

 

[Liverpool]

No it's data and examination and rigourous study that suggest that the models, under continuous test by climatologists, are accurate. Are you saying the prevailing weather is unaffected by climate? That would really be something. What has your friend Graham Lloyd got to say on the subject? Fine upstanding member of the scientific press that he is.

The weather is climate, of course, but we have had "one offs" all throughout history....how come now, when we have a disaster, it has to be linked to climate change?

Here are the top-10 natural disasters (measured by death toll)....are these all attributed to climate change, and if not, why not?

1 1931 China floods China July, August, 1931
2 1887 Yellow River flood China September, October, 1887
3 1556 Shaanxi earthquake China January 23, 1556
4 1976 Tangshan earthquake China July 1976
5 1970 Bhola cyclone East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) November 13, 1970
6 1839 India Cyclone India November 25, 1839
6 1737 Calcutta cyclone India October 7, 1737
8 1920 Haiyuan earthquake China December 16, 1920
9 526 Antioch earthquake Byzantine Empire (now Turkey) May 526
10 115 Antioch earthquake Roman Empire (now Turkey) December 13, 115


Also, if the kids and army didn't start the fires in NSW....would we even have fires to begin with?
And if we didn't have fires...then would we be sitting here blaming climate change??

So heatwaves have nothing to do with bushfires? Even if you don't believe in man-made climate change that is breathtaking in it's ignorance. Others have addressed the issue at length, I really have nothing more to add.
By the way Livers, why even bother having fire warnings at all? Based on your logic, we simply can't control the pyromaniacs and the corrupt environmentalists so we may as well do nothing.

No, what we can do is have good fire prevention programs at local level and around the home in areas that have been synonymous with bushfires in the past.

The Blue Mountains have had many bushfires throughout history...this is far from the first time...but because of the level of media we have now, both commercial and social...as well as a spread of population which means more people are affected, then this has received a lot more coverage than in the past.
And in the past, the Blue Mountains have had bushfires at this time of year...this year being no different.
You can see a brief history here:
http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/dsp_content.cfm?cat_id=1180

As I have said before...if we have had bushfires in these regions before, and at the same time of year before...then why, all of a sudden, is this one attributed to climate change?
And if kids/army didn't start these fires deliberately, then would we be sitting here even talking about fires?
Climate change is the "fad" at the moment, so it seems anything to do with the weather, then a fabricated link will be made to keep pushing the agenda.

 

[Azza]

Blah blah Chinese earthquakes, blah Indian cyclones, blah blah Chines floods, blah blah blah. :hihi

Meantime, in the real world -

"The summer of 2012/2013 was Australia’s hottest summer since records began in 1910.
Key facts:
• The hottest ever area-averaged Australian maximum temperature occurred on 7 January, reaching 40.30 °C
• 44 weather stations had all-time high maximum temperatures, including Sydney, Hobart and Newcastle
• There have only been 21 days in 102 years where the average maximum temperature for the whole of Australia has exceeded 39 °C; eight of these days happened this summer (2–8 January and 11 January 2013)'

"Climate change has made the extreme heat conditions worse, with the length, extent and severity of the January heatwave unprecedented since records began
• Climate change aggravated bushfire conditions across southern Australia
• The extreme rainfall experienced on the Australian east coast has been influenced by the shifting climate, although determining the nature of that influence is more complex than for temperature-related extreme events"

http://www.climatechange.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/188215/ClimateCommission_AngrySummer.pdf

 

[bullus_hit]

So Livers, I gather you believe that rising temperatures will not make one iota of difference to the general fire risk? I would have thought the more days of high winds, low humidity and 40 degree days would almost certainly contribute to the frequency of fires. After all, nobody is arguing that Australia isn't fire prone, just merely stating the bleeding obvious - more days where the fire danger rating is high = a higher incidence of fires. Rocket science it aint.

And by the way, in 1990 your hero Greg Hunt won a university prize for his own thesis entitled "a tax to make polluters pay".

He argued "a pollution tax is both desirable and, in some form, is inevitable" and noted that "even if some Liberal's [sic] constituents do respond negatively, a pollution tax does need to be introduced to properly serve the public interest".

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/wikipedias-verdict-on-greg-hunt-terrible-at-his-job-20131024-2w34y.html#ixzz2idiYHB7t

Even Tony Abbott claimed that "if you want to put a price on carbon why not do it with a simple tax"

Now who's a sucker for a fad? I guess you think the Liberals Direct Action Plan isn't a fad, just brilliant policy for a fantasy cause?

Hypocrisy in all it's glory.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The weather is climate, of course, but we have had "one offs" all throughout history....how come now, when we have a disaster, it has to be linked to climate change?

Here are the top-10 natural disasters (measured by death toll)....are these all attributed to climate change, and if not, why not?

1 1931 China floods China July, August, 1931
2 1887 Yellow River flood China September, October, 1887
3 1556 Shaanxi earthquake China January 23, 1556
4 1976 Tangshan earthquake China July 1976
5 1970 Bhola cyclone East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) November 13, 1970
6 1839 India Cyclone India November 25, 1839
6 1737 Calcutta cyclone India October 7, 1737
8 1920 Haiyuan earthquake China December 16, 1920
9 526 Antioch earthquake Byzantine Empire (now Turkey) May 526
10 115 Antioch earthquake Roman Empire (now Turkey) December 13, 115


Also, if the kids and army didn't start the fires in NSW....would we even have fires to begin with?
And if we didn't have fires...then would we be sitting here blaming climate change??

No, what we can do is have good fire prevention programs at local level and around the home in areas that have been synonymous with bushfires in the past.

The Blue Mountains have had many bushfires throughout history...this is far from the first time...but because of the level of media we have now, both commercial and social...as well as a spread of population which means more people are affected, then this has received a lot more coverage than in the past.
And in the past, the Blue Mountains have had bushfires at this time of year...this year being no different.
You can see a brief history here:
http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/dsp_content.cfm?cat_id=1180

As I have said before...if we have had bushfires in these regions before, and at the same time of year before...then why, all of a sudden, is this one attributed to climate change?
And if kids/army didn't start these fires deliberately, then would we be sitting here even talking about fires?
Climate change is the "fad" at the moment, so it seems anything to do with the weather, then a fabricated link will be made to keep pushing the agenda.

As always thank god for you Livers. Where would we be without you? To my knowledge the only "fabricated" links on here are the ones yourself and Merv have tried to pass off as science.

 

[tigertim]

Did Hunt really consult Wikipedia, or is he talking through his hat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia

2003 to 2013 - Twenty two major events
1993 to 2003 - Seven major events
1983 to 1993 - Two major events
1973 to 1983 - Four major events
1963 to 1973 - Four major events
The previous three 10 year periods have Two major events each

It's unbelievable some people cannot see a link between hotter temperatures and an increase in bushfires (both in frequency and severity). This is denialism at it's worst, time to put petty politics aside and use some common sense.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greg-hunt-uses-wikipedia-research-to-dismiss-links-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-20131023-2w1w5.html#ixzz2ib7GGCu1

Genuine question: how much has our temperature increased over the last 70 years and is it comensurable to the large difference in the major events listed above?

 

[poppa x]

Let's put aside the climate change issue for a moment and try and agree on the issue of fuel load.
Without fuel, a fire can't burn.
The more fuel, the more severe the fire.

I have 4 B&B's on 2 acres in Hepburn Springs that back onto Crown Land which is supposedly controlled by the DSE.
My buildings are about 30 metres from the DSE land.
Every year I get these letters (threats?) from the Local Council telling me to clear my land, clean the gutters etc and generally make my buildings and land fire safe.
On the other hand, the DSE hasn't cleared its land for the past 4 years. The native grasses and bushes are 2 to 3 metres high and very dense, numerous dead branches have fallen off the hundreds (maybe thousands) of gum trees that start 30 metres from my land and occupy hundreds of acres from the boundary of my land. There are two "fire tracks" at the rear and side on the DSE land for fire trucks to use. But they are blocked by foliage and the fire trucks in an emergency can't use them. I've got 25,000 litres of water in tanks for the CFA to use (part of my permit to build) yet they can't reach them due to the blocked fire tracks.

Legally, I have a responsibility to clear my land, and I do this every October/November not because the Council tells me to but because it makes sense to do it.
But what about the responsibility of the DSE? Why are they not clearing their land and reducing their fuel load? Is it budget restraints or the "political agenda" of those in charge of the DSE?

PS: - I also have to deal with some of my guests who have booked a weekend away and get nasty when I tell them two days before their booking that due to an expected extreme fire risk day (as issued by the Weather Bureau) and with fires already burning in my general area I've closed the property and offer a full refund. One even threatened to sue me. On one occasion a guest said he was coming regardless of the risk and didn't believe me when I said you can't because the only two roads into the area were closed by the CFA. He got really nasty about it.

 

[Rosy]

Good post poppa. Western has commented about the DSE from a professional point of view in the past. I'd be interested in his comments about the situation.

We make our place as fire safe as we can. We keep all paddocks around our house slashed and grazed bare in fire danger period. Neighbours have ungrazed paddocks adjoining our house block...only 30 or so metres away. The long, dry grass and hot northerly winds make for some very concerning times for us but there's not much we can do about it, other than go ont heir property and slash a bit of a break unfortunately.

No matter how good a person's fire plan is so much still depends on others around them.

 

[Azza]

Yeah agree Poppa.

It doesn't help that the warmer and drier weather means that days available for fuel reduction burns are getting fewer. Also, in order to get the state back in the black, one fifth of jobs at the old DSE have been axed.

You'd hope that burn-offs would be prioritised with the limited resources remaining - hopefully not too much of the expertise has been lost.

 

[Rosy]

The CFA used to burn off along the sides of all the roads. It made the district a lot more fire safe, as well as provided the brigades with valuable training and practice opportunities. It doesn't happen anymore, at least not in our district. Probably too many rules and regulations and potential threats now.

 

[AngryAnt]

Also, if the kids and army didn't start the fires in NSW....would we even have fires to begin with?
And if kids/army didn't start these fires deliberately, then would we be sitting here even talking about fires?

This is a great point. If no fires ever started, then controlling them would be easy.

I'll forward this to the NSW Fire Services Chief ASAP

 

[Azza]

This is a great point. If no fires ever started, then controlling them would be easy.

Clearly all we need to do is never hold live fire Defence Force exercises and lock-up all delinquent kids Antman. Problem solved. We could defray the costs of locking up the kids with the savings from the ordnance used in exercises.

 

[Rosy]

Clearly all we need to do is never hold live fire Defence Force exercises ...

It will be interesting to see if they're found liable and/or negligent in regards to starting the fire. Potentially a very costly exercise in more ways than one.

 

[Azza]

It will be interesting to see if they're found liable and/or negligent in regards to starting the fire. Potentially a very costly exercise in more ways than one.

At a guess they have restrictions on what activities they're allowed to conduct at different fire warning levels. If someone breached the restrictions they'll be in deep proverbial. If not, it'll come down to a review and possible modification of the restrictions.

 

[Rosy]

At a guess they have restrictions on what activities they're allowed to conduct at different fire warning levels. If someone breached the restrictions they'll be in deep proverbial. If not, it'll come down to a review and possible modification of the restrictions.

Yep. I'm not sure how accurate this article is or how informed the 'sources' are but it doesn't sound good for them.

Defence apologises for starting massive State Mine fire
Date October 24, 2013
David Wroe
National security correspondent

The military demolition specialists who sparked a massive Blue Mountains fire during an exercise last week are suspected of having used too much explosive, Fairfax Media has learnt.

As Defence continues to investigate the incident, a well-placed military source said it appeared the personnel taking part in the exercise had ''massively exceeded'' the amount of explosive suitable for the Marrangaroo training range.

''There is a limit on how big the blast can be and what they were doing was well outside that limit,'' the source said.

''If you're a few grams over, it doesn't matter, but this wasn't just a bit of an overestimate.''

Defence admitted fault and apologised on Thursday for the State Mine fire, which has ripped through nearly 50,000 hectares of bushland in the Blue Mountains and destroyed at least three homes.

The acting Chief of the Defence Force, Air Marshal Mark Binskin, said Defence was still carrying out its investigation and was also co-operating with the police inquiry. It was too early to say whether the Commonwealth would face a compensation bill for people who had lost homes or property, he said.

The exercise on October 16 involved members of the Defence Explosive Ordnance Training School based at Orchard Hills, which trains elite explosives specialists for all three services - the army, air force and navy. These specialists play a key role in Afghanistan, defusing bombs and improvised explosive devices.

Air Marshal Binskin said the detonation that sparked the fire happened at midday when the temperature was 23 degrees with light winds. There was no total fire ban, he said. After about five minutes the military personnel spotted a ''small fire''. They had their own firefighting equipment but faced the difficulty of working around other live ordnance on the range.

The NSW Rural Fire Service was there within 30 minutes but the range still had to be cleared of explosives, Air Marshal Binskin said. ''It was considered too dangerous to go onto the particular site where the fire had started to burn, so they waited till it had cleared that area and then started to fight it.''

Barrister Andrew Stone from the Australian Lawyers Alliance said the Commonwealth could face legal liability if it turned out Defence had carelessly started the fire.

''One example of what a court might find to be the requisite carelessness is setting of explosives in very dry bushland without adequate fire control precautions,'' he said. ''If that's what has occurred then there is a prospect of the Commonwealth being liable for the damage.''

Defence's investigation is considering whether proper procedures and safeguards were followed. It will also consider whether the regulations in place are adequate.

Sources have told Fairfax Media many training areas don't have the required bushfire management plans. The rules are unclear on when live-fire exercises are permitted during fire danger. One section of the manual states they should not be carried out without ''an authorised operational imperative'' if the fire danger is ''high'' or above, while another section says they should not be done when there is a total fire ban.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/defence-apologises-for-starting-massive-state-mine-fire-20131024-2w3y7.html#ixzz2ih5S4OhO

 

[Azza]

Sources have told Fairfax Media many training areas don't have the required bushfire management plans. The rules are unclear on when live-fire exercises are permitted during fire danger. One section of the manual states they should not be carried out without ''an authorised operational imperative'' if the fire danger is ''high'' or above, while another section says they should not be done when there is a total fire ban.

... or the third option is that everything has been left ad hoc and vague!

On the one hand I'm surprised by this - in my limited experience the army is extremely safety conscious. On the other hand, it can be massively bureaucratic, and things can slip between the bureaucratic cracks.

 

[Rosy]

... or the third option is that everything has been left ad hoc and vague!

... in my limited experience the army is extremely safety conscious. ...

It would be hard to argue that this specific situation was safe.

 

[Azza]

It would be hard to argue that this specific situation was safe.

As I said, it's easy for things to slip through the cracks in a massive bureaucracy. Not to mention the presence of idiots everywhere.

In general though, because of the hazards in dealing with ordnance and pushing machinery to the limit, the defence forces put a high premium on safety.