"We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down…"

Good for Mr. Sheahan. He has undoubtedly had enough of the court system, but wouldn’t if be wonderful if he speerheaded a class action lawsuit against the governments who enacted these idiotic regulations, and against the various greenie organizations who pressure for such laws. Sadly, the greenies can never be called to account for such stupidities – they just disclaim responsibility and move on to the next lunacy, such as global warming apocalypticism. The Australian aborigines had a long tradition of deliberately setting fires. But of course, the green chattering classes addling modern society know better so that traditional knowledge was shelved.

I think the best example of wildlife/natural habitat mismanagement state side is Yellowstone. Its a shining display of pure stupidity.

When Greenshirt political agendas are allowed to override common sense, society is doomed. Today Australia, tomorrow the world.

Good for them.
Thing is, we *knew* all this going back all the way to the devestating Yellowstone fires in the 1980s. They were quick to put out any brushfire, and heaven forbid they clear anything lest they destroy the natural beauty. What they learned is fire is natures way of spring cleaning. And when you let all that crap build up and not let nature get rid of it, there will be hell to pay. The resulting fire at Yellowstone was so massive and consuming, the burned trees were still visible when I did a snowmobile tour in 2004.

Australia’s national parks are dense eucalypt forests because that is supposedly “natural”. However it seems that before Europeans arrived the native population kept the country as open woodland with continuous burning (hence the prevalence of fire-friendly eucalypts). Before humans arrived the megafauna kept the country as open woodland (mostly not eucalypts), in the same way that elephants still do in Africa. It would be nice to get back to that, but presumably it would be a lot more expensive than managing with fire [at the moment we don’t manage at all].

The council’s planning laws allow trees to be cleared only when they are within six metres of a house.

I’m assuming many trees were removed by the fires, most of which were more than six metres from any house.
My question is: who or what will be charged with breaking these planning laws?
Mother Nature?
Gaia?
Greenpeace?
Space Time Continuum?
Pacific Decadal Oscillation?
Anyone producing carbon dioxide?
Don’t polar bears produce carbon dioxide? Or do they get a pass because of cuteness offsets?
Who will represent the defendants?

We have the same problem here but for opposite reasons. We have rich hippies moving up Lostine Canyon, building fancy log homes amongst tall fir, pine, and tamarack, who REFUSE to cut a firebreak of ANY width. They really like the Earth Muffin mood of a log home in an evergreen forest…that hasn’t been cleaned for decades since the Forestry Department blocked fire wood cutters from keeping the floor clean. Back then, the COUGH “wisdom” was that dead snags, fallen logs, and brush was nature’s way of recycling and fertilizing the rich forest soil. Had they bothered to dig down through said layers of soil, they would see it streaked with charcoal every few years. Some of these Earth muffins have left because apparently the brochure didn’t include having to plow your own driveway three times a day. The rest we figure have a death wish, or at least the desire to have a really big bonfire. You bring hotdogs, I’ll bring beer.

California (indeed the entire Western Hemisphere) has been home to humanity for at least 13,500 years and probably longer. Human habitation predates Holocene vegetation. The most prevalent tree and plant species today migrated in after the Wisconsin glaciation from 12,000 to 6,000 years ago (depending on the species and location).
During the entirety of human occupation anthropogenic fire on a landscape scale has been the norm. Frequent, seasonal, human-set fires have modified plant communities, and indeed dictated vegetation types in many regions. Prairies, savannas, and forests have been burned on a regular basis since inception following the retreat of the ice sheets.
In the absence of that traditional stewardship over the last 150+ years, not only have fuels accumulated but entire ecosystems have been transformed. Where fires were once light burning and beneficial, they are now catastrophic and deadly to vegetation, wildlife, and resident humans.
Fuels management is not sufficient; restoration to heritage conditions is required. That means removing excess biomass AND prescribed burning in the fall when conditions allow fire control. Without scientific restoration to heritage conditions of fire resiliency, catastrophic fires will continue to plague the West in particular.
Misconceived enviro-legal barriers to landscape restoration engender destruction to natural and human environments. Many towns and cities, as well as rural areas, have suffered such destruction in the last 20 years, including Chico, San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Los Alamos, Bend, Ketchum, and numerous others. The largest and most destructive fires in state history have visited CA, OR, WA, ID, CO, and AZ in recent years.
It’s not climate change; it’s the fuels, and restoration stewardship is the antidote.

Murder.
Pre-meditated murder, clear and simple.
Prison isn’t harsh enough for those politicians.
Call me cynical but I’ll bet they all get re-elected too.

TEX: trees can be re-planted in save places

Here is how County of Los Angeles, California, handles firebreaks around buildings.
Note, the default clearing distance is 30 feet. However:
“3. When the fire code official or commissioner finds that because of extra hazardous conditions, a firebreak of only 30 feet around such building, structure, or apiary is not sufficient to provide reasonable fire safety, the person owning, leasing, controlling, operating, or maintaining the building, structure, or apiary shall maintain around or adjacent to any building, structure, or apiary an additional fire protection or firebreak made by removing all brush, flammable vegetation, or combustible growth located from 30 to 100 feet from such building, structure, or apiary, as may be required by the fire code official or commissioner. Grass and other vegetation located more than 30 feet from such building structure, or apiary and less than 18 inches in height above the ground, may be maintained where necessary to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion.
317.2.3 Extra hazard. The governing body finds that in many cases because of extra hazardous situations, a firebreak around buildings, structures, or apiaries of only 30 feet is not sufficient and that a firebreak of 50 feet or more may be necessary. If the fire code official or commissioner finds that because of the location of any building, structure, or apiary and because of other conditions, a 30-foot firebreak around such building, structure, or apiary as required by Section 317.2.2 is not sufficient, the fire code official or commissioner may notify all owners of property affected that they must clear all flammable vegetation and other combustible growth or reduce the amount of fuel content for a distance greater than 30 feet, but not to exceed 200 feet. ”
http://www.ordlink.com/codes/lacounty/index.htm
Title 32 Fire Code, Section 317
This is not legal advice, merely quoting a portion of the freely-available Los Angeles County Code.
However, the Los Angeles County’s approach seems just a bit more common sensical than what the Aussies must endure.
PS: Thank you to all the Australian fire fighters who flew to California to help us with our recent extreme wildfires. Good on ya, mates!
I can only hope that our California fire fighters are there to help you in your time of need. Sadly, I have not read anywhere that any went. Apparently, President Obama on Feb 10th called Prime Minister Rudd to offer US help in the fire fighting effort. Good for him. My question is, why haven’t the US firefighters already landed and begun work?
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California

I think that people are allowed to buy and build in fire trap country because it is not recognized as a guaranteed conflict of interest when land speculators and real estate people are allowed to run for local gov. positions and planning board positions. I spent an morning in the Southern California brushlands with a professional fire ecologist while training to be a Basic Mountaineering Instructor. He used terms such as ‘tons of fuel per year per acre’ and ‘mean time between fires’. He changed how I look at the woods around my place.

great story PeterW – thank you.
We have all grown up with brooms – to us a dirty floor that hasn’t been swept is untidy.
The aboriginals of Australia grew up with a similar idea that if it wasn’t burnt and cleared, it was untidy.
To them we live in an untidy countryside.

SoCal fuels management is no great shakes of a worthwhile example. Just last year the Sayre, Marek, and Freeway fires blew out the thick chapparal and burned homes in Santa Maria, Sylmar, and Yorba Linda. The Tea Fire ravaged Montecito.
The year before that the Witch, Poomacha, Harris, Rice, Ranch, Canyon and many other fires burned hills and homes in SoCal.
In 2003 the Cedar Fire in and about San Diego burned 750,000 acres, destroyed 3500 homes, and killed 22 people.
We need to learn a lesson from all those fires. Defensible space must extend to the furthest reaches of the watershed. Dinky fuels breaks don’t do anything. Or worse, they give false confidence, and when the big fire hits, result in fatalities.

The largest fire in terms of area burned in Victoria occurred in 1851 in conditions almost exactly the same as the present disaster.
The smoke was blown across Bass Strait to Tasmania and was so dense there that candles were required inside at lunch time.
1851 was less than 20 years after the first white settlers had arrived. But the aboriginal population which had fire-managed the forests for thousands of years had recently (1780s) been decimated by smallpox and then, with the arrival of Europeans, had abandoned their traditional lifestyle.
So over maybe 50 years fuel had been building up in the forests which at that time were more extensive than they are today.
The result was that up to a quarter of the land area of Victoria was incinerated, most of it in a single day according to contemporary writers.
Subsequent major fires were carefully investigated by government-appointed panels of experts who heard evidence from biologists, botanists, firemen and others with first-hand experience.
Most of these inquiries recommended reducing fuel loads and for many years it happened.
However as many have commented above, we have now turned our backs on the accumulated wisdom of Old Australia and embraced the philosophies of the New Age.
We have paid a heavy price but I doubt even the horror of this past week will bring about the reforms needed.
One expert commentator estimated that up to a million birds and animals, the very life-forms our stupid environmental laws are supposed to protect, have perished. Even so the greens, through clever manipulation of the political arena, will probably prevail.
I pray that I am wrong!

Down here in OZ the green movement has completely influenced council decisions and policy for many years. I live next to a national park face fire threat every year being unable to cut any tree down on my property without risk of fine !
In another type of such incident…
Several years ago a man tried for seveal years to get permission to cut down a large gum tree overhanging his house. After several years of refusal by council the tree fell during a storm killing the man and destroying his house, leaving his family in complete grief. The story made news headlines and the council was put under some pressure to explain their policy, but all to no avail as no charge was laid and no change to the policy was made.
You can draw your own conclusions here !
History will repeat again, and again, and again !

We humans have a veritable treasure chest of wisdom carried down through the millenia by our ancestors, widom and knowledge hard won through bitter experience and stuggle is now ignored and derided as useless in this ‘modern age’.
The Australian tragedy could so easily have been avoided had they listened to the native aboriginies and taken lessons from the western USA wildfires, common sense with a respectful view to the generations that came before us is essential and this goldmine of knowledge has been wilfully ignored.
I saw Rudd on TV as he tried to express his thoughts about the people who set the fires calling them mass murderers, it would be far better if he at least acknowledged the role of those who laid the foundations of the disaster that was so very easy to foretell with even the basic minimum of common sense.
Its sadly plain to see that the authorities will be fully engaged in the inevitable coverup and will minimise the terrible role of the greens in this wholly avoidable tragedy, its entirely possible/probable? that lessons will not be learned and the tragedy will repeat itself.

Tex McGowan (20:53:17) : What absolute rubbish! People outside of Australia might believe what you are saying but some of us bloggers live here in Australia also.The majority of Australians do not live in the bush but on the coast. The nearby oceans have a habit of falling as rain on us coast dwellers thereby dampening the foliage. Even in bad droughts, the coastal areas are never in danger of bushfires such as the ones we have just had.

Well said PeterW.
The story on the Sheahan’s has been one of the lead stories on the TV news in Australia. There is a groundswell of feeling that green policies limiting tree clearing in bushfire prone areas has been a major factor in allowing these huge bushfires to develop.
To readers in the States and elsewhere in the world. If you haven’t seen a bushfire in a Eucalypt forest, you ain’t seen nuthin’. The volatility and sheer explosiveness is incredible.
I can identify with the Sheahan’s to some extent. In October 2006 there was a large fire in the Bathurst Area of NSW (called “Billy’s Fire) that burnt out a huge area of Eucalypt forest. My property was right in the middle of it all and the whole 400 acres of my property was burnt out along with 1000’s of acres. My wife evacuated. I stayed behind to fight the fire and my house survived. I had fires burn up to 5 metres from my home. But I was well prepared with firebreaks, planned roads as firebreaks in the directions of prevailing winds, 50,000 litres of water in metal tanks, underground piping, pressure pumps, firefighting pumps, electric generators, protective clothing, etc.
The polices of the greens in not allowing trees to be cut is criminal. The policies of Councils and National Parks in not performing controlled burns to limit leaf litter and fuel accumulation is also criminal. The Australian Aboriginal people used fire as a method to promote grass growth for Kangaroos etc for thousands of years and the Australian ecosystem has adapted to be an environment that can handle a burn every few years. The green policies have resulted in years of accumulated fuel growth. The result, destructive fires.
The other main issue is that many opportunists in Australia in the media are using these terrible fires in Victoria to promote Climate Change scare messages saying that we can expect more of these kind of events and extreme weather due to climate change. I have told numerous people that I consider it immoral to try and gain Climate Change capital on the backs of all the people who have suffered and died in these fires. But this is what the media is doing. Sure it was hot and windy last Saturday in Victoria, occasionally that happens and Victoria has had a near record hot spell, but there was little talk of Global Warming when late November last year much of SE-Australia had record cold weather (I even had snow) almost unprecedented 4 weeks before Christmas in Aus. Using weather events to promote the cause of Climate Change is happening by some but it’s always one sided.
Unless something happens the owls, bugs, birds and fungus are going to reign supreme in Australia. With the Green’s using Climate Change as a “Cloaking Device” for their policies we have an uphill battle.
My thoughts and prayers to all those in Victoria who are suffering.

If the Sheahans couldn’t clear the trees on their property legally, one wonders why they didn’t just clear out the dead grass, leaves, and so on, which would fuel any fire.

My mistake re Nancy…….Give me a gun, a BIG one
Reply: Uh, sure looks like Nancy was being facetious to me. ~ charles the moderator

don’t live out there if you no this could happen. & if you say you no that they did not even cut down the trees,,[snip],,
build a [snip] bunker on your propatey then..
but you did not like they did not cut down the trees,,, do you get that…
you did not think off that & they are flat out thinking of million of thing
Reply: I thought about deleting this one. I decided to clean it up instead. Please refrain from profanity (and maybe sober up) ~ charles the moderator

Nancy (23:06:49)
Please say you are joking!

Well done bringing this item to everone’s attention! My introduction to Australian bushfires was in 1952 and ever since then I have been very aware of fire risk. I have been a volunteer firefighter on many occasions, and I was one of the first outsiders to arrive in the razed township of Macedon on the day after the Ash Wednesday fires in 1983. I find it too emotional to talk about that, but let me say this- All my experience has shown me that houses in the ‘bush’ as the eucalypt forests of Australia are called, can be made fairly fire safe. The eucalyptus tree would be one of the most combustable of green vegetation in the world and that needs to be understood.
Firstly a house needs to have an area of cleared land around it. That does not mean absolute bare ground, a nice garden and non-native shrubs can be very attractive. Beyond the clear area, plant quick-growing deciduous trees. What happens is this- the fire will ‘crown’ in the native bush and travel at a tremendous pace, tree top to tree top, the ground fire follows it. Flying burning leaves and bark are filtered by the deciduous trees, so limiting spot fires beyond. It takes quite a while for their leaves to shrivel in the heat and they resist burning until most of their water has evaporated, unlike the gum trees. While this is going on, the deciduous trees also minimise the radiant heat impinging on anything beyond them, including the house.
Less radiant heat allows the householder to fight the small spot fires that will occur in any grass and weeds, or the garden if it has dried out, and also the house will not have absorbed a lot of heat, therefore reducing the chance of it catching.
Every home owner under those circumstances should also have a refuge of last resort. If all else fails, they need somewhere to shelter. On a farm, a dam is a good spot, years ago farmers would have a dugout made like an earth cave to shelter in, but if all else fails, then get into a clear area and cover yourself/selves with wet blankets.
Drive around some of our beautiful bushland and see how so many people build their houses- gum trees to the door. Partly due to the fact that they are not allowed to cut the trees. See the festoons of dried bark hanging from those trees, just waiting for the fire! Live in some of those areas and try to plant a ‘European Tree’ and the green element will destroy it.
I hope that current events make government and councils re-think the whole situation and that they realise that the ‘vocal green’ is certainly not a real concervationist. It is so sad, that it will have taken the death of so many people to make them see some sense.

In 1994 the area I live in Sydney (Sutherland Shire) came under threat of fire. I remember standing there watching a whole hillside of over 100 houses burning down. As I designed many of the new houses to replace the old I saw the terrible destruction – power tools liquefying and running down the footpath, houses turned to nothing but ash. Then as now many years of fuel buildup contributed to fire storms and yet now our governments are even more lax in reducing fire risks than what they were then.

twawki, I too, saw those houses burning from my verandah at Woronora Heights! Many of them burnt from the inside because of the radiant heat through the windows set the furnishings alight.
A firefighter has just stated on the ABC television that it can take up to 2 years to receive permission to hazard reduce. 2 bloody years! Words fail me.

I don’t remember any other comments section on WUWT with this much raw emotion, and well deserved.
There is no “other side”. The “greens” are wrong. Period.
People who live in an area prone to burning should be able to defend their lives and property. Telling them not to live there is just…. retarded. I’ve never heard anyone tell city dwellers that they’re responsible for UHI and they should move, or farmers in tornado prone areas they should move (that would pretty much include most of North America).
We have opposable thumbs and are tool users. We adapt our immediate environment to make ourselves comfortable and safe. We cut down trees around our property to protect our lives and our homes. Why is this difficult?
I also have heard some of my “green” leaning acquaintances spouting their opinions, and they disgust me. Not using firefighting equipment because of emissions? For crying out loud, how much CO2 was emitted getting REPORTERS to and around the scenes?
The insanity of the last 20 years of “green” crap will have to get worse before the mainstream realizes it was a failed idealism. I hope enough of us survive.

Hey DJA yeah I got the wife and kids out and the fire hit the top of my valley in Kareela another 5 minutes and my street would have gone. Then a wind change occurred – a southerly buster came through and took out the adjoining suburbs of Como West etc. When walking around with those who lost their homes later they talked of how for years they had asked Sutherland Council to back burn the growing fuel of leaf and branch litter up to 10 feet deep and were ignored. When the fire hit and raced up the hill the radiant heat was so intense it caused flash point in many houses that caused the explosions you saw. Yet when I look around now in the Shire and up the Blue Mountains (have friends up there) the fuel load is much higher than Ive ever seen it.

Dear Code Tech,
Have you asked your greenie acquaintances if they would decline a call out of fire services if their own property was burning – and spare themselves the embarrassment of all those CO2 emissions being expended upon them ?
A personal sacrifice they would be prepared to make for future generations ?

Darwin

“I don’t remember any other comments section on WUWT with this much raw emotion, and well deserved.
There is no “other side”. The “greens” are wrong. Period.”
Close down this blog, there is no need for debate ‘codetech’ (whoever he is) has spoken!
“People who live in an area prone to burning should be able to defend their lives and property. Telling them not to live there is just…. retarded. I’ve never heard anyone tell city dwellers that they’re responsible for UHI and they should move, or farmers in tornado prone areas they should move (that would pretty much include most of North America).
We have opposable thumbs and are tool users. We adapt our immediate environment to make ourselves comfortable and safe. We cut down trees around our property to protect our lives and our homes. Why is this difficult?
I also have heard some of my “green” leaning acquaintances spouting their opinions, and they disgust me. Not using firefighting equipment because of emissions? For crying out loud, how much CO2 was emitted getting REPORTERS to and around the scenes?
The insanity of the last 20 years of “green” crap will have to get worse before the mainstream realizes it was a failed idealism. I hope enough of us survive.”
A lot of the opinions here today have been vile, your rant offers little more than the kind of ‘I’m right, you lot are idiots’ nonsense we often see on the net bar some extra fury and invective. Go easy, and try to behave towards those you disagree with with a modicum of respect else you’ll blow a gasket!
REPLY: Peter, since you say nothing other than your disagreement with this particular comment, then are we to assume that you agree with the decisions of the councils there? – Anthony

Alan Wilkinson (23:50:53) :
“any that do will have to spend at least $20,000 more to comply with yet more regulations on building standards.”
Alan
That was a single comment in a single article in the Age, quoting an unsourced comment – I have the article in front of me:
“Experts say that forcing residents on Melbourne fringe to build high-tech, fire resistant housing could add $20,000 to the cost of a home”.
– which experts? The Age didn’t identify any.
– where did these experts say it? There’s been nobody in the media saying anything of the sort.
– “high-tech, fire resistant housing” – actually fire-resistant housing doesn’t have to be high-tech: there’s nothing “high-tech” about hebel brick or steel building frames or fly-screens over gables. The thing is that Victoria has been allowing buildings that aren’t allowed in NSW – I was in Sydney on Monday and the local press were noting that a lot of the housing that burnt so quickly wouldn’t’ve been permitted in NSW or, as I understand it, any other state.
And as the Age noted, the proposed changes would “[end] the common practice of building flammable houses in fire-prone bush”.
– “could add $20,000” – how was this figure arrived at? Is that a percentage amount? Or was it just plucked out of the air? It reminds me of the articles I see saying that green houses (e.g., solar passive) cost more – how is that possible when green houses are mostly about proper orientation to the sun, not materials?

oh, Nancy, my heart bleeds for your stupidity. Liam Sheahan is not a bastard, we have the same mother and father,God rest his soul, and they were married. My brother is a highly intelligent, capable, christian man with no hate in him. He has a wealth of fire brigade experience and knew what he was doing. He cleared with an intent to replant with fire retardent species. this had recently been completed, hundreds of tubestock natives had been purchased and planted. If you look carefully in the background of the photo you can see the remnants of the protective sleeves from around the plants. He cleared only 3% of his land. I am prud to be his sister and I am a horticulturist, we consulted on this subject for some time and looking out for the environment as well as fire protection had equal priority. God Bless all those affected.

thanks for providing the original article.
looks like these points are important and haven t been discussed so far:
In a letter tendered to the court ,the Sheahans told the complaining resi-dents and the council to ‘‘getstuffed’ ’when asked to explain the clearing.
and
Sheahans bulldozed 295 trees, some 40 years old, without applying to Mitchell Shire for a permit.

Arapiles wrote: but the allegations being aired on this board are derived from at best third-hand sources – internet links … snip
… after 12 years of drought (caused by climate change) and a week of 40+C weather.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
An Australian claiming that drought and +40c weather is somehow new to the continent? 12 year drought due to climate change? Real climate change would equate to Melbourne receiving 2500 mm of rainfall each year for 12 years.

“Sadly, the greenies can never be called to account for such stupidities – they just disclaim responsibility and move on to the next lunacy, ”
Time to start shootin’ yet?

Nancy, me thinks you’ve got your tongue in cheek!!!

sod (05:56:00) : Let’s discuss those points, Sod. Do you think the people should not have cleared a fire break around their house on their own land? Do you think trees are more important than people’s lives?
You do realize that fires there are part of a natural cycle, right? If those trees were 40 years old, it’s because the Green-influenced government has been supressing fires and preventing fire breaks for years. Fires happen; trees burn.
Anyone who advocates not allowing fire breaks around homes in fire-prone areas should “get stuffed”. If the government wants the land as a nature preserve they have only to buy it, otherwise they are morally bound to let the owners defend their own lives from the inevitable fires.
This was so very predictable that local officials should prosecuted for manslaughter.

Peter Hearnden:
I’m sorry you don’t “get it”.
The natural state of most forest is growth, burn, growth, burn. As we encroach into forested areas it is a requirement to control the burnable parts, either by deliberately setting small fires or clearing areas to protect our structures. It’s not optional.
Unfortunately, the “greenies” as I derisively call them think that the “natural state” is “sustainable”. Somehow they forget the “burn” part of “natural state”. Debris from trees and underbrush pile on the forest floor, dry out, and create a fire hazard. This must be removed somehow, or it WILL burn eventually. Yes, even in the “natural state”.
We all know these people. They live in a fantasy world. They want log homes nestled within the uncleared forest, because it’s “natural” and feels good. The city equivalent would be building a gasoline moat around your home. In order to maintain this “natural state” they ban others from clearing or protecting.
Again I ask, why is this hard? It’s a ridiculously simple concept, and yet you seem unable to comprehend why anyone here is upset!
If you owned a home surrounded by inflammable fuel, with your family and belongings in that home, I guarantee you’re not going to allow someone else to tell you that you can’t remove fuel or clear a space around your home. If you had that gasoline moat around your house, I guarantee you’ll spend a lot of time watching out the windows to make sure passers-by don’t throw their cigarette butts in your direction!
The frightening and ANGERING part about this is that this isn’t even a simile, and it’s not hyperbole! These homeowners were FORBIDDEN to do the most basic protection of their own lives and property! They were NOT ALLOWED to disrupt someone else’s idea of a “pristine” forest!
Again… why is this hard? What “other side” is there? People DIED, houses and priceless possessions were lost. The forest doesn’t care a whit about the efforts to “maintain it” or keep it “pristine”, it did what it will always do.

Time for greenie / enviormentalists to answer some hard questions about their positions. I’m tired of the well it’s a drought excuse or he broke the law.
Remember Vistoria

What is debate?
45 Years ago Aussie wildland fire/building interface regulations addressed one common sense value – after the fire. No CLEARANCE no rebuild (thru their FEMA) help. My limited viewing of today’s fire lose in these deadly Australian events, via satellite mapping, the images of burned out homes and space looks identical to those in California 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 etc. etc. Not enough clearance, poor Interface housekeeping.
Pre 49er days in California the inhabitants of this mediterranean climate understood “don’t play with fire unless you know Prometheus”. This included living in a severe fire hazard zone. Most of these earliest users of the land, without formal academic preparation or written language, would handle the application of forest modification to increase food production, interpreting weather, farming ‘acorn orchards’. All through the use of fire.
Newer citizens began the use of timber harvesting. The same ridge tops that the first users kept OPEN for food gathering and travel were kept relatively the same with timber logging. There were some timber-sustained yield abuses, all fixable by 1960. Not all were fixed even by 1990. Fifty yrs ago a California forester spent 75% in the forest, 25% in the office. Today????? 75% at a computer.
California scientific-political managing of open space Sonoran-Conifer Zones began in the 1980’s. The Sonoran zone was managed by fire with the first users, then post 1849er days grazing with cows/sheep. ‘Open’ ridge tops were kept open with more grasses than ladder fuels. Unwanted fires may only be stopped on open ridge tops and in most cases a ‘ground fire’. If these ridge tops have severe fire-fuel loading-ladder fuels ( left to nature), no fire will be stopped. A grazing experiment in Southern California post WW1 to maintain open ridge-fuel breaks occurred. Interestingly the only problem is that sheep and goats did not understand “stay and eat within 100 ft of the ridge line”. Another study in 1977 (earlier study flawed said experts, participant people were “not fully prepared to analyse data”) and their conclusion the sheep and goats (cost of transportation $1.5M) did not understand “eat only within 100 ft of the ridge line”. There is currently a NEW concept of using sheep and goats to create fuel breaks around urban interface S. California. Will a study precede such an odd NEW idea?
Yellowstone fire in 88′ followed the bug kill (mostly lodge pole). There are Fed aerial maps before and after that substantiate the event burn pattern. Once these fires over-taxed logistical potential of fire suppression, there would not be any containment until the snow came.

Re:Smiley (06:31:03) :
So the conservatives will come out looking bad and not the greenies? What kind of weed are YOU smoking? You’ll be lucky if you have a job after this debacle!

Anyone who has ever BEEN in a fire, knows the folly of leaving dead brush standing. Anyone who has made their living outside understand TRUE land management.
Agencies full of people who stop responsible land management are busy bodies.
Come out & live on the land a while & see how it REALLY is.
I applaud this man & his family.
My brother in law’s ranch in the Kraft Springs fire in E MT some years back almost burned the whole property down.
Forest service was reluctant to come & help & area ranchers had to do most of the work before the slurry planes came in.
Guess who started the fire?
Forest service. Oh, accidentally of course.

@Peter Hearnden (05:31:00) :
“Lets, please, hear the justification for some of these ‘greenie’ policies.
…
It simply can’t be as simple as ‘they are idiots’!”
It usually is, regardless of how many words the justification uses.
A small example this brings to mind was a new law in the 80s in (parts of) Germany that greatly restricted the felling of trees by homeowners. Danger for a house was not going to be an easy excuse (and if I remember correctly, trees above a certain size would be considered particularly protected).
I don’t remember the justification blather, other than that it didn’t address the fact that insurance still wouldn’t pay if you knew that a tree was at risk of falling on your house but you didn’t fell it (regardless of legal obstacles).
In my parents’ woodsy neighborhood, there was binge-felling of trees between announcement and effective-date of the new law, as anys tree that had any chance of perhaps soon becoming a risk (and, if I remember correctly (see above) very tall trees) were now being cut down just in case while it was still legal, rather than illegal with a tiny chance of getting special permission.
Unintended consequences, and then some.
(Different from most of their neighbors, my parents were able to continue to slowly cull (i.e. whenever needed) iffy trees around the majority of their property which wasn’t not visible from the road… In 2007, windstorm Kyrill (100+ mph) hit the area and broke vast numbers of trees, incl. onto buildings, cars, and roads. My parents lost only 2 of their 50+ trees, causing damage only to one paddock fence, no building damage, and no tree-on-tree damage)

A man who takes a stand on his own property is a criminal? Greenshirted EnviroNazis would much prefer to see people die. They don’t seem to be able to grasp the fact that many fires start from lightning strikes.
There exists a species of pine in the western U.S. which bears a cone that withstands every force on earth except one: fire. The heat of a fire causes the cone to open. No fire, no new trees.
God bless Liam Sheahan, and those like him, who are good stewards of the earth.

How do the morons get into the position to terrorize an average Joe who appears to be much wiser than the idiots calling shots and making law. They should be shot then hung to make sure they are of no further danger to the average Joe,public..

The fools who passed the law and the fools who ruled against this family should be named publicly and prosecuted for murder.
The fools had the power. They are responsible and should be punished for their decisions.

BWitt (09:40:26) :
Good to see South Carolina is operating good stewardship of their forests.
I’m an environmentalist, NOT an Environmentalist, there’s a difference.
I’ve had the argument about wildfires being caused by excessive fire suppression too many times now. I don’t want to see this happen ever again, unfortunately I will.
I offer my deepest sympathy to the people of Australia for this devastation and hope someone will learn the lessons.
DaveE.

You know what will happen now, don’t you? They will order his house be destroyed to be fair to those who lost their homes for following the law. It’s not fair they followed the law and lost, while he gets to keep his home after breaking the law.
It wouldn’t surprise me one bit. People all over the planet seem to be losing their minds, and we keep giving them power over us. I hope we wake up before it is too late, though I suspect it already is.

13times (06:21:57) :
“An Australian claiming that drought and +40c weather is somehow new to the continent? 12 year drought due to climate change? Real climate change would equate to Melbourne receiving 2500 mm of rainfall each year for 12 years.”
There are no precedents for this drought or the temperatures we had last weekend. The previous extremes, set in 1939 in similar circumstances, weren’t slightly exceeded – they were smashed. An official temp of 48.8 C at Hopetoun? Avalon getting to 47.8? Do you have any concept of what those temperatures feels like or how far from normal they are?
Feel free to keep on seeing climate change as a greenie/commie/lefty plot, the rest of us will get on with dealing with reality.

Some green history:
“Fascist Ecology:
The “Green Wing” of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents”

WRT the current Australian Drought Conditions.
An article at
http://www3.aims.gov.au/docs/publications/waypoint/003/headlines-03.html
Spells out that dry periods of up to 20 years have occurred in Australia back in the 1600s, well before industrialisation. As a consequence the current drought (in SE Australia – I doubt that someone living in the current Queensland Floods (NE Australia would claim “drought” conditions ref http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/north-queensland-floods/2009/02/04/1233423294938.html ) can not be confidently attributed to climate change (I assume that your are actually referring to AGW caused by man made emissions of CO2).
Mind – the data is based on a coral core proxy, the idea being that the corals are impacted by the amount of fresh water coming out of the rivers, with more Fresh water in wet years and less in dry years.
The http://www.aims.gov.au/ site is somewhat politicised towards AGW – so to have them suggest long dry periods have occurred in the past that can’t be attributed to increased CO2 actually lends some weight to the idea.

It’s okay there are plenty of dickheads in the united states that are doing the same thing, forcing forests, parks and people to keep from creating firebreaks because of a field rat or some other moronic cause. Leave it to Green and Envirotards to cause death and destruction from their misguided idiocy.

If there is a class action lawsuit brought by the people who lost their homes in the Australian bush fires, will James Hansen scurry to Australia to testify; and if so, who will he testify for: the law breakers who cleared their lands to protect their homes, or the law abiders who didn’t clear their land and saw their homes (and loved ones) go up in smoke?

The Storm King fire is our worst wild fire in terms of fatalities here in Colorado (also known as the South Canyon Fire) here in Colorado ( July of 1994) which killed 14 firefighters from Colorado, Montana, Idaho, and Oregon when it “blew up” during a weather front passage.
(“blew up” or “blow up” as applied to a wild fire, is a common wild land firefighter jargon for the sudden explosive growth of a fire due to changing conditions here in the U.S.)
About the time of the Yellowstone fires, I was working with the Office of Emergency Management as an emergency planner. During that time I took the training for a “red card” to become a wild land fire fighter, and began some research on the topic of wild land fires in built up areas as a result of events in Yellowstone. We were concerned about wild fire exposure here in Colorado as much of our forest are “fire species” such as lodge pole pine that need fire to open their pine cones and release seed.
http://www.conifers.org/pi/pin/latifolia.htm
In the course of that investigation for the plan development, I went out to talk to a forester for the Colorado State Forest. I brought up the issue of our beetle kill forests due to the western Pine beetle, and built up areas just west of the Metropolitan Denver Area. As luck would have it he had studied that forest area near the Evergreen and Genesee areas, and I asked him what the historical burn cycle for that forest was. His response was about every 75-80 years. At that time it had been about 75 years since the last major burns in the early 1900’s.
We have a history of fast moving wild fires due to Chinook wind events and very low humidites in summer weather here, due to our low annual rainfall and high altitude. Fire fighters were absolutely stunned during some of the fire briefings a few years ago when they were told humidities were in the middle single digits ( no that is not a typo 6% – 8% humidities in summer temps of 80+ deg F. at 9:00 in the morning)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477749,00.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/06/15/colorado.wildfires/index.html
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/photography/fires.shtml
Luckily we have limited our losses mostly to homes and property with the exception of the 14 fire fighters killed at the Storm King fire.
At the time we got a bit of traction for what is called Urban Fire Interface management, where local fire protection people would go around and have public meetings or even, upon invitation, audit peoples homes and recommend to them measures they could take to protect their homes.
The items at the top of the list were:
(these are just off the top of my head points I have not been an active plan developer for 14 years now — retired in 1992)
Fire equipment access — don’t force the fire equipment to drive down long narrow drives flanked by heavy brush, especially if there is not turn around room for large trucks at the end of the access road. They will simply put your house on the “not defensible list” if you do.
Build a defensible zone around the home, circular driveways around the home and primary buildings and clear zones at least 2x the height of the local fuels. Wider if possible on the down slope side of the home. Are easy to do and use of the drive keeps it clear of brush with no real effort by the home owner.
Trim ladder fuels on your property. (remove low hanging brush and materials that can carry fire into the tree crowns.) This prevents crowning fires and keeps natural fire in the ground cover to burn off the hot fast fuels like grass and low brush without killing mature trees.
Manage your fire exposure:
* Screens on all ground level entry points like crawl spaces – this keeps burning rabbits and other panicked animals from seeking refuge under your home and lighting it off , if they get caught in the fire.
* Put screens over all eaves and gutters to limit pine duff and trash from collecting in gutters.
* Never store firewood under your porch or patio, place it in a wood shed clear of the home.
* build a fire cistern or pond near the home so fire trucks can draft water near your home — this could be the tie breaker if they have to decide which home to defend and which to let burn.
* use non-combustible shingles, to prevent fire brand ignition of the roof.
* Have fire shutters you can use to cover windows to prevent radiant heat ignition of interior furnishings. (if more than about 10% of the view out a window can be alight at one time, it will develop enough radiant heat to ignite interior furnishings.
* place stone walks, low retaining walls, gravel drives and other non-combustible barriers so fire fighters have safe paths to retreat from a fire and stand to defend the home.
As you can see by this report below, it is an on going project where some citizen resistance to sensible fire codes still exists. Especially when proposed fire codes bump up against home owner association rules that mandate things like cedar shake shingles.
http://www.colofirechiefs.org/CSFCA%20Documents/2007_Fire_Code_Report.pdf
http://dola.colorado.gov/dem/mitigation/plan_2007/Wildfire%20Mitigation%20Plan%20Update%20Draft.pdf
Perhaps our friends in Australia can find useful information in the process we have used and the plans that were/are being developed.
It is so sad to see so much preventable death and destruction, but wild land fire and intelligent fire management is a tough nut to crack if the local community does not get this sort of a wake up call.
Larry

Interesting thread. Lotsa heat & not enough light. Too much stereotyping.
Upfront, I’m a green, but NOT an Apocolyptic Green. FWIW, for those who know him, I’m a friend of Bob Brown and have known him since the early 70s. OTOH I’m offside with many in the green movement for being a sceptical rationalist and philosophical libertarian.
The tragedy in Victoria was in all likelihood entirely avoidable. We have known for many long years how to avoid such losses. In the aftermath of Ash Wednesday (1983), we had many seminars for firies where we discussed what we had learnt. AFAICT not much of that has ever been implemented.
The most important, and unexpected discovery was that weatherboard houses were no more likely to burn than brick veneer. The variable that counted was whether the house was occupied, or not. Only one occupied house burnt (at Macedon) and that was occupied by a very elderly couple.
The leader of the seminar showed two aerial shots of the home of a “crazy greenie” who owned a partially-completed house in the middle of Cockatoo and surrounded by tall eucalypts. In the before shot it was surrounded by intact houses and afterwards by mostly burnt houses. This was his own home. He and a visiting firie from California waited for the fire front to pass. They estimated it was running close to 100 megawatts per metre. Afterwards, (20-30 minutes) they went outside to put out the embers that had accumulated under the unfinished eaves with string mops dipped into buckets. (High tech stuff this). The gutters were filled with water some time before. Mostly, it’s that simple.
Stuff that helps: stainless steel flywire, or shutters to reflect radiant heat that cracks window glass and thus allows flying embers into the house interior. At that time there was no evidence of radiant heat alone causing interiors to burn and I’m sceptical of such current claims.
If you are likely to be caught in a vehicle, you should carry woollen blankets. Five (IIRC) firies at Cockatoo saved themselves by crawling under a large woollen blanket laid on the ground while the firefront passed. Their truck was totally destroyed.
I spent 13 years in the volunteer fire brigade after moving to the bush nearly 30 years ago. I well remember a newcomer calling us out to a fire in the spring one year. We stood and watched the bush near her home burn. She asked why we weren’t “doing anything about the fire”. I explained that we were doing something; we were admiring it. She angrily asked why we thought that would do anything useful. I explained that we thought it most admirable that this little (3-4 MW/m) fire meant we didn’t have to come back and save her house from burning in that summer, or several summers for that matter. She still wasn’t happy with us for refusing to put the fire out.
Sadly, those who have posted about the tragic loss of trees, stock and wildlife caused by high level burns are correct. It always dismays me when the birds fall dead out of the sky and we find wallabies, sheep and cattle dying in agony.
One poster said it wasn’t greenies that voted for the greenie councillors who have shut down hazard reduction burns thus contributing to the bushfire tragedy. That’s simply not true! I’ve never heard of a rural council election where there were only green candidates.
F Rasmin said: “Even in bad droughts, the coastal areas are never in danger of bushfires such as the ones we have just had.” That’s also not true. Perhaps he has forgotten the 1967 bushfires that ravaged Hobart. He probably never heard of the fires at Dover, or Verona Sands, also in Tasmania. The latter was my first experience of bushfire fighting. To my surprise and disgust, the locals sat in their beach chairs watching us save their homes. They were townies at their beach shacks. A couple of dozen of bikies out on a ride stopped and helped us for several hours, beating out spot-fires in the paddocks with their jackets.
The shack-owners didn’t even offer us a beer, though St Johns and the Salvos gave us tea and sandwiches. We drank beer with the bikies at the nearest pub. I can’t recall much of what happened that evening so I imagine we enjoyed it thoroughly 🙂

Reed Coray (14:14:36) :
If there is a class action lawsuit brought by the people who lost their homes in the Australian bush fires, will James Hansen scurry to Australia to testify; and if so, who will he testify for: the law breakers who cleared their lands to protect their homes, or the law abiders who didn’t clear their land and saw their homes (and loved ones) go up in smoke?
I guess he might be prepared to testify on his view of the effects of AGW. That means he could testify for either of the groups you distinguish.

Pompous git parts of what you say make sense but scientifically the facts are there – a build up of fuel increases the intensity of a fire. The increased fuel load can make the difference between a hot and cold fire and the extent of devastation. There are lots of variables of course, whether someone is home or not, fire protective measures on the house, availability of water source, closeness of bush fire zone etc but the point remains that had their been hazard and fuel reduction then regardless of the heat and drought the intensity of the fire could have been greatly reduced and as such property and life losses could also have been reduced.

To Ed (14:39:04)
I’m another one who took the “Nancy” post as a parody, though it wouldn’t hurt to include smileys.
To Paula (05:28:36)
Thanks for the info.

[quote]At that time there was no evidence of radiant heat alone causing interiors to burn and I’m sceptical of such current claims.[/quote]
Extensive testing of the fire spread process occurred following WWII in the civil defense program.
The following is quoted from the August 1990 edition of the Nuclear Attack Environment Handbook, in the section that discusses fire spread post attack, it specifically addresses fire ignition by radiant heat exposure from flame exposures.
page 77

More precisely, the rate of heat energy received at a distance by radiation depends entirely on the fraction or proportion of the “field of view” that is occupied by flames. As an example, because wood can be ignited by heat input rate of about 0.4 calories per square centimeter per second, whenever the flame area from a neighboring fire occupies more than about 10 percent of the field of view, heat ignition of wood by heat radiation can occur

They also noticed the obvious relationship between surface color (absorptivity) and ignition in their fire studies, with white objects being undamaged but black or dark colors objects buring. If time permits white washing exposed surfaces can drastically reduce radiant ignition as can light colored drapes that tolerate high temps like clean white cotton or fiberglass fabric rather than dark colored synthetic fabrics.
Likewise intumescent paints that bubbles under high heat exposure to form an insulating layer reduces ignition likelihood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intumescent
Scattering light colored sand on a roof can also help reduce fire brand as well as radiant ignition, as well as slow burning rate after ignition to allow evacuation or fire suppression by occupants.
Rather than trying to drive away in a car, it is better to take shelter in any structure until the main flame front passes, and then exit the structure before you get trapped by fire if it ignites and take what fire suppression action you can to keep the structure from burning.
Fire rates double about every 3-7 minutes after ignition, so you have a small window of time that even if the house ignites in some areas, you can knock that fire down before it becomes uncontrollable if you have the means at hand.
Wildland fire fighters have survived being overrun by fire by taking shelter under their truck (for radiant heat shelter), rather than in it (drivers area will flash over due to radiant heat gain), and then getting out from under the burning truck after the fire front passes.
In rural areas expedient fire shelters can be built quite quickly by digging a trench (or making use of an existing depression), covering it with doors or roofing tin and a layer of dirt to protect during the fire front passage.
Larry

twawki (15:42:12) :
“So if it was hot last week it was global warming that caused the bushfires but if its freezing this week its weather!”
I think you are getting the gist of it!
Also very cool in Adelaide this week, thankfully.

Thx for the info Larry (hotrod).
We don’t have trouble with cinders on roofs; infammable roofs are illegal here. Most are corrugated steel, or tile. Unfortunately, cinders can fly into the roofspace if it’s not well-designed. This was the issue with my greenie friend’s house at Cockatoo; the eaves were yet to be protected.
My home’s roof is steel and the walls are too. My main protection though is a deciduous windbreak 50 metres from the house. The bluegums I planted 25 years ago are 100 metres from the house.
My own experience with being near (30 metres away) a 100MW/m firefront includes first degree burns to my face through the truck window. The paint also came off the side of the truck. We had to chainsaw trees down to make our escape and push start the truck because the electrics failed. A bit scary that time.
What got me to unvolunteer as a fireman was not being allowed to undertake hazard reduction burns. We’d get approval, start the burn, then some [use your favourite expletive here] desk-jockey in the city would tell us to put it out because they deemed it unsafe. Us on the ground supposedly nor knowing what we were doing. So it goes…

>Whilst the warmists claim its because of global warming, Sydney is currently freezing;
January in Sydney was significantly warmer than average (day time temperatures +2C above average) and February is running well above average (+1C).
Currently its 20C in Sydney which is only a little below average.
This stuff is easily checked.

I’m an old Aerial Firefighter,Douglas DC6/7 airtanker Co-Pilot.Spent a lot of time fighting fires in California,Montana,Oregon and All of the Southwest and a bit in Texas and a season in Alaska.My heart goes out to all in that mess in Oz. I lived on the South
Coast of Oregon for twenty some years, in a fire ecology that was much like northern Ca.I lived in a development that called for shakes-#1 firestarter shakes. I and others tried to get this changed,but to no avail.There were holdouts that would not change the covenants.-Even after their neighbor’s house went up with a roof fire-that was in the
winter.No, you weren;t allowed to clear the brush,either.The city had property next to that area also,(Coos Bay,or.) No, they would not clear their brush either.Winter blowdown was spectacluar there. I moved last year to a Metal Roofed,concrete composite sided on a big square green lot in NE Oregon’s LaGrande.Oh and the city
does allow firebreaks….

To Nancy (23:06:49) :
Mr Sheahan pointed out to the court that thousands of trees still stood on his property (though most of them don’t any more).
The court obviously sided with Gaia.
What makes it very hard to understand is that trees have about the same intelligence as a lettuce. But I guess that’s a bit more than some of our public officials have.

To Roger Carr (19:38:15)
“They lit fires as hunting instruments…”
One professor who did a study on river red gum forests told me he had been shown by aboriginal elders how they used fire to “ringbark” big trees as future firewood depots. He said they only allowed a couple of trees per mile to grow along the river banks, something that is also documented in the writings of early settlers, notably the squatter Edward Curr. He understood what they were doing and was one of the first to refer to it as “firestick farming”.
They certainly did use fire to keep the forests open.
They also kept their family campfires burning 24 hours a day (in case of no lightning strikes perhaps) which would have used a prodigious amount of forest floor debris and this too (perhaps inadvertently) reduced the fire risk.

To MarcH 12:53:29
“150 years of land clearing has added to the warming and drying of eastern Australia leading to increases in temperature and decreasing humidity.”
This is an interesting argument but if you refer to my post above (22:49:35) you will note that the great fires of 1851 were similarly fierce, yet very little land clearing had been done at that time.

>Barry Brook is wrong.
No he is not. Melbourne observations start in 1855 – http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_086071.shtml
The 47C is a piece of fiction. Prior to 1910 the observations were in hotter glaisher stands and other primitive enclosures, but are still far below the 2009 observation. There are no paper records from 1851.
Feb 7 saw the hottest temperature ever recorded in a modern instrument in the state of Victoria and the hottest temperature by far ever recorded in Melbourne.
The times is up for the sceptics in Australia.

Roger Carr (19:38:15) wrote:
Doubt it, M’am. They lit fires as hunting instruments, but even then only from fire they had scavenged from lightning strikes. Lightning then was the primary cause of fire…”
So we go from the noble savage to the stupid savage. As usual, the truth lies between the stereotypes. The Abs certainly used fire and carried it with them wherever they went, lighting fires along the way. They didn’t hunt with fire, so much as farm with it. When the settlers saw the midlands of Tasmania, they were surprised because there were no sheep even though it looked just like sheep pasture.
The Abs fired the grass to provide lots of succulent fresh grass growth to fatten their prey: wallabies and kangaroos. It was the fire that destroyed young tree seedlings.
See Geoffrey Blainey’s “Triumph of the Nomad” for a full account.
[satire]
Mr Ab: When’s dinner ready?
Mrs Ab: We’re still waiting for a lightning strike. It’s late as usual.
Mr Ab: Bloody witchdoctors. Can never believe their forecasts!
[/satire]

My condolences and prayers go out to all the families/friends involved in this terrible tragedy.

JBeatty has it exactly right – “The main differences with 1851 are that considerably less area was burnt this time, and there is a vastly increased rural population.”
If the present population density had existed in 1851 no-one would be talking about any records on this occasion.
In relation to the claims by Barry Brook also it seemed to me that he was attributing the disaster to global warming factors (or at least threatening more of the same as a result of global warming), and I wondered if in fact the scenario he pictured was true.
If records were set, a degree or so probably made little difference in the circumstances – the winds, the dry bush etc was set for disaster which might well have occurred whether or not the actual temperature was a ‘record’. Furthermore, where were these ‘record’ temperatures measured? In Melbourne? Why would one think that a record in Melbourne meant that there was a record elsewhere? All of this is just loose talk and speculative posturing in the interests of the agenda.
It also appears that some of the fires were lit by arsonists – in what sense is that attributable to global warming?
The causes are more complex than the green crows on the fence, who are jumping on a very tragic event to further their political publicity campaign, would have us believe. Frankly, they disgust me!

an interesting study about the UHI in melbourne. taking this into account, no records have been broken:
http://mclean.ch/climate/Melbourne_UHI.htm

DJ (23:19:40) :
“No mention of 1851 in that report. Perhaps you might provide a reference in future jbeatty?
I look for to reading your source.”
The source is the introductory comments from a report prepared for the ACT Coroner by the Bushfire Cooperative Research Center:
http://www.bushfirecrc.com/research/downloads/ACT%20Bushfire%20CRC%20Report.pdf
Enjoy your reading.
“>Barry Brook is wrong.
No he is not. Melbourne observations start in 1855 – http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_086071.shtml”
Yes, but observations of temperature, particularly following catastrophic events were occasionally recorded. The 1851 bushfires was one such occasion.
“The 47C is a piece of fiction. There are no paper records from 1851”
I believe The Melbourne “Argus” is the (news)paper record from which the ACT Coroners report is based. Why don’t you look it up?
“Prior to 1910 the observations were in hotter glaisher stands and other primitive enclosures”
Yes, the less sophisticated 1851 shaded thermometers set amongst dirt streets probably almost balance the UHI effect which bias modern Melbourne CBD tarmac level enclosures.
“but are still far below the 2009 observation”
They were exactly the same, after 150 years.

That is the same problem California has. 20 years ago when they first enacted legislation to prevent people from clearing bush it was fine, but now you have 20 years of undergrowth that burns more easily than paper. In states like Arkansas where you have even more trees, and periodic drought without extreme fires because they control the underbrush.

Pompous Git,
for all your tagging Bob Brown as a friend you sound like a relic green who doesn’t really recognise the demographic change that’s swept the over the movement perverting its meaning & purpose. I find it hard to say the same about Mr Brown.

Fined $50,000 for saving their home LOOK WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE EVIL GREEN NAZIS make stupid laws and regulations its like what i read about in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA where a family ignored the CALIFONIA DEPT OF FISH & GAME and the U.S. FISH & WILDLIFES orders to not clear brush about their home becuase some endangered critter ENVIROMENTALISM IS A NEW KIND OF EVIL

Found on: http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/02/national-secretary-of-australia.html
February 13, 2009
National Secretary of Australia firefighters union is a true believer
During the last decade the planet has been cooling but fuel has been building up in the Australian bush because of “green” policies preventing fuel clearance, leading to tinderbox conditions and the recent disastrous wildfires. See here, here, here, and here. In spite of these facts, the National Secretary of the United Firefighters Union of Australia blames the wildfires on “global warming”, relying on the alarmist CSIRO “Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report” (DECR):
“Research by the CSIRO, Climate Institute and the Bushfire Council found that a “low global warming scenario” will see catastrophic fire events happen in parts of regional Victoria every five to seven years by 2020, and every three to four years by 2050, with up to 50 per cent more extreme danger fire days. However, under a “high global warming scenario”, catastrophic events are predicted to occur every year in Mildura, and firefighters have been warned to expect up to a 230 per cent increase in extreme danger fire days in Bendigo. And in Canberra, the site of devastating fires in 2003, we are being asked to prepare for a massive increase of up to 221 per cent in extreme fire days by 2050, with catastrophic events predicted as often as every eight years.” “Face global warming or lives will be at risk”
Apparently the National Secretary hasn’t read David Stockwell’s posts taking apart CSIRO’s DECR.
–
Posted by jblethen at 2/13/2009
Labels: climate models, Hansen – NASA GISS – NOAA – HadCRU – CSIRO

It occurs to me that perhaps we might make more headway with hazard reduction burns if we referred to them as “excercising the Precautionary Principle”.
I watch very little TV (I much prefer Climate Audit & this place), but last night heard a Green saying that we shouldn’t be allowed to live in the bush and put our lives in danger! Fantasists!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Tasmanian_fires
Fifty two of the 62 lives that were lost were in the city of Hobart.

Pompous Git,
ok, that must be why it confuses me – you’re calling yourself green in the same sense as a turn of the century gent catapulted into the present still straight-facedly describing himself as gay when he means he’s happy. What you’re basically advocating are sensible land practices that the green movement never really had a monopoly on in the first place.

DJ said
Currently its 20C in Sydney which is only a little below average.
This stuff is easily checked.
Weatherzone said;
Where did Sydney’s summer go?
Brett Dutschke, Thursday February 12, 2009 – 20:34 EDT
About one week after western suburbs endured its hottest four-day heatwave in 37 years; Sydney is likely to be heading for it coolest February period in more than 50 years.
The city is in the middle of at least a week where the temperature stays below 25 degrees. The likely number of days is nine, with next Wednesday being the first day warmer than 25 since last Sunday.
This will make it the longest February stretch below 25 degrees since the 1950s.
Sydney also had nine days in-a-row below 25 in February 1953 and eight in 1996. The last time there was a longer stretch was in 1950 when there were 13.
The extraordinary turnaround from last week’s heat is a due to plenty of cloud and showers being blown in by persistent onshore southeasterly winds.
When will the summer warmth return? The middle of next week as winds turn warmer northeasterly, but it will only be brief, just a few days.
The city is likely to reach the high 20s, possibly the low 30s, but a cooler change late next week will put an end to that warmth. Western suburbs will hit the low-to-mid 30s before the change.
Frequent cooler changes for the rest of the month will the chances small of a prolonged heatwave.
– Weatherzone
© Weatherzone 2009

“Pandering to the Greens” is right. You must remember that it’s not actually the Greens who are in power. The mainstream parties implement half-assed approximations to Greens policies to stop a drift to the green side of politics, then blame the Greens for resulting disasters.
The actual Greens policies on fire (e.g. http://www.nsw.greens.org.au/policies/bush-fire-risk-management) include scientifically designed back-burning. The kind of indiscriminate burning the logging industry advocates selects for fire-adapted vegetation. Fire-adapted vegetation burns hot and fast as its competitive strategy for wiping out the competition, then comes back fast. Burn too big an area too often, and you end up with a more flammable system.
This is bad enough with indigenous undergrowth but when you add into the mix highly fire-adapted African grasses that have no local wild predators, introduced to improve pasture, and you are pretty far off from pre-settler conditions.

mick (12:47:38) wrote:
“Pompous Git,
ok, that must be why it confuses me – you’re calling yourself green in the same sense as a turn of the century gent catapulted into the present still straight-facedly describing himself as gay when he means he’s happy. What you’re basically advocating are sensible land practices that the green movement never really had a monopoly on in the first place.”
No, the green movement never had a monopoly on anything. Yes, I am a firm advocate of sensible land practices.
Wouldn’t a turn-of-the-century gent be 9 years old this year? :-))))
Yeah, I’m a facetious old fart 😉

Home video posted on CNN on the Australian fires, from St. Andrews, Victoria.
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-211954

SteveSadlov: Another factor: in Australia, leaf litter is broken down by insects (small moths and beetles) that you probably don’t get in California, so eucalypt leaves become a major fire hazard, if the local bugs don’t like them (very likely). Here, frequent burning as advocated by the logging lobby wipes out the insects so the leaf litter also accumulates, and becomes a fire hazard.
Pre-emptive burning is a good strategy if done right. Done badly, it increases the risk.

There has been a lot of valuable comment here and unfortunately some rubbish spouted too.
Politicians today seem to have as their main reason for being, to be reelected for the next term. That is why they have succumbed to policies put forward by the vocal ‘greens’. Whether it be at State level or at Local Government level, policies have been put in place to panda to that ‘green’ vote in spite of so many people being against those policies.
I live on an unsealed road, only about a mile from a main road. Up until a few years ago, I would collect dead-fall wood from our roadside to take it home for firewood. The adjoining property owners endorsed what I was doing, but they didn’t need firewood. Since the local council has banned the removal of wood from roadsides, roads in forested areas are now narrow corridors passing through immense quantities of fuel. Our road runs roughly North South and there is a stand of native timber at the North end. If a fire got started anywhere near there, the roadside would become an immediate conduit for the flames, bringing them dangerously close to a couple of houses. Bear in mind that it is a North wind that is the most dangerous for fires here.
Under those circumstances, there is no way that I could use the road as an escape from a fire. Because I have lived in the Aussie bush for most of my life, I have several contingencies available should a fire come our way. The land immediately around the house is all cleared. The trees nearby are all deciduous, we have several ‘safe areas’ available to us.
If a gum tree decides to grow near our house, according to the authorities, because that is a native species, I have to let it grow. If I did that, then in a few years the house would be hidden in a gum tree forest. Needless to say, any such seedlings are quietly removed before they can be seen. If I wanted to remove a native tree from my property, I have to get council permission and if that permission is granted, then I have to plant something like 50 eucalyptus seedlings as compensation. Where is the logic in that? I know of some thinking people who have been through that process. In one case the householder (on 1 acre of land) arranged for the seedlings were planted on another property, miles away that he owned. In another case, the seedlings were planted, and after the inspector had departed, they suffered an accidental dose of Glyphosate.
We need some sense in the rules around planning. We need some sense in rules about siting houses. We need some sense in roadside vegetation. Deadwood harvesting from a roadside, reduces the fuel load and costs the local authorities nothing.
Finally, I would like to point out that our Shire Council arranged for our roadside to be slashed last year. For a while it helped because grass and small shrubs near to the road itself were removed. The slasher was inhibited where it could work because of large limbs and tree trunks lying close to the road, but at least an attempt to clean up was made. When did they do that work? In Autumn (Fall) after all threat of fire for the year had passed!

DJ wrote – “This was the hottest day on record on top of the driest start to a year on record on top of the longest driest drought on record on top of the hottest drought on record the implications are clear…”
I find the driest start to a year comment amusing as it completely fails to mention the large amount of rain south east Australia recieved in early December.
Where I live in south east S.A. we recieved 130mm in one 24 hour period – which is about the average rainfall we recieve for the combined months of December, January and February.

MarcH (15:39:49) :
“The issue is much more complicated than presented by Flannery and Co who would like to blame the extreme weather SOLELY on CO2 emissions”
Ah! yes, even Flannery says:
“In 1790 the First Fleeters experienced the kind of summer that strikes fear into the heart of twentieth-century Australians. Temperatures rose into the forties and the wind blew from the north-west as if out of an oven. The heat was so extreme that birds fell dead into the streets and the europeans succumbed to heat prostration. At one stage a great mob of flying foxes passed by, dropping from the air as they died.
Extract via, PP.15, The Birth of Sydney, Tim Flannery 1999, Text Publishing”
Lets sum up:
Extreme eastern Australian summer weather events reached well into the forties in 1790, 1851 and 2009.
Where’s the global warming?

Nathan (22:08:31) :
“Living in Australia, I see almost all the comments here as extremely ill-informed”
Sorry we disappoint you. I live in Australia as well, and I find many comments here informative.
“We get forty degree days almost every year. The difference this year was the length of time. Look at Adelaide, they had 7 days in a row over 40.
To pretend that is not unusual is plain stupid”
Have you considered the possibility of UHI skewing recent Adelaide readings?
My posts are directed towards historic contemporary accounts of previous extreme weather events.
Melbourne recording 47 degrees celsius is an unusal event under any circumstances, but it has happened before. We do not know for how long previous extreme events lasted because no extended records were kept. Judging by historic accounts, however, temperature extremes were clearly considerably more than single day events.
I haven’t checked Adelaides historic records yet, but I suspect they will demonstrate that what Adelaide (and south east Australia) experienced recently could well have been matched over timescales longer than the BOM records cover. In particular, 1851.
Why anyone would choose to live (if you can call it living) in Adelaide is beyond me. sarc/off

jbeatty wants to know where the global warming is. It’s “global”, not at one location. Sure, you can expect that trend on the odd occasion to cause unusually warm temperatures at one place, and for that to happen more often than in the past, but the planet as a whole is not warming uniformly. No one says it is. Look at the maps at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ and play around with different years. You will see some years it has warmed in some locations, in others cooled at the same locations. We have things like ocean heat transport that distribute the temperature around the planet, and phenomena like La Niña and El Niño that move energy in and out of the sea. Use a straw target and you will hit straw.
Was the Victoria fire a global warming-related event? Possibly. A better answer is that one event is not a climate change event. Rather, a long-term average that is changing is what you need to look for. Good luck with finding one if you are determined to ignore the evidence.

D.nut:
The time now is one of response to the needs of these people, these communities. There will be a time and I am sure it will be soon but for now statements of the Greens are at fault, Bureaucracy have much to answer for, local council have brought this upon… whatever. To me, these arguments lack information, they lack compassion and the lack integrity. It is just not the time yet for this type of public debate.

In that case would you equally condemn as lacking compassion and integrity, those who are claiming that this disaster is related to global warming?

I am confused. If the fire situation is due to global warming, which is certainly, but not only, the mantra of Environmentalist, then in an area where historically drought, Eucalyptus trees and potentially high temperatures are endemic, not managing the fuel content of the land would be suicidal… you would think. Yes? So why then do these Global Warming Environmentalist make it illegal to clear the land? To protect the residents!!!!!

Re: The *GREEN* viewpoint.
Below are two websites of noted greenies in the U.S., the Environmental Defense Fund, (scroll down and look left to *Fighting Deforestation*), and
National Resource Defense Council. Browsing around in these sites is illuminating to the green mindset.
Although based in the U.S., they have a global view.
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California
(where we are way below normal temperature for the past week)

More Green thinking on living with Wildfires, a paper titled Safe at Home from NRDC:
http://nrdc.org/land/forests/safe/safe.pdf
This quote is illuminating: “A home cannot burn down unless it is ignited.”
And this, regarding clearing high-fuel material from the forest: (emphasis mine)
“Cutting down trees away from communities—in what is called the “backcountry”—is not a proven method to reduce fire risk to homes and neighborhoods. Forest Service expert Jack Cohen states categorically that backcountry logging “does not effectively change home ignitability.” In 2005, fire scientists found that “fuels treatments have been suggested as a means to limit the size and intensity of wildfires but few experiments are available to analyze the effectiveness of different treatments.” An Interior Department publication noted in 2002 that “scant information exists, however, on the efficacy of fuel treatments for mitigating wildfire severity.” As recently as 2006, a scientific report concluded that “[r]emoving dead trees and other fuels can effectively reduce the risk of fire damage at a local scale, e.g., in the immediate vicinity of a home or community. However, the effectiveness of harvest in reducing fire risk over larger areas, e.g., a forest landscape, is less clear.” A comprehensive survey of the relevant scientific literature also found that backcountry logging was unsubstantiated as a fire reduction technique, stating that “the proposal that commercial logging can reduce the incidence of canopy fire appears completely untested in the scientific literature.”
I do not agree with everything in this paper, just reporting it as some above requested the Green viewpoint.
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California