A recent report from friends who suffered terrible losses of buildings, fences, pasture and cattle in the Coonabarabran fire commenced with the ominous and oft-repeated message: “a raging fire came out of the National Park straight for us”.
There is only one way to limit fire damage – reduce the fuel available.
Fuel load can be reduced in three ways – by grazing animals, by planned small “cool” fires, or by mechanical reduction with slashers, mulchers or dozers.
Australia’s grassland landscape was created and managed by generations of Aborigines who were masters at using man’s most useful tool – fire. Every explorer from Abel Tasman (1642) and Captain Cook (1770) onwards noted the smoke in the sky and the burnt trees whenever they landed. This burning created the open grassland landscapes that dominated pre-European Australia. Aborigines lit fires continually, so their small patchwork fires caused no permanent damage to the environment and created and maintained the healthy grasslands on which many animals and Aborigines depended.
Misguided tree lovers and green politicians have locked the gates on ever-increasing areas of land for trees, parks, heritage, wilderness, habitat, weekend retreats, carbon sequestration etc. Never before on this ancient continent has anyone tried to ban land use or limit bush fires on certain land. The short-sighted policy of surrounding their massive land-banks with fences, locked gates and fire bans has created a new alien environment in Australia. They have created tinder boxes where the growth of woody weeds and the accumulation of dead vegetation in eucalypt re-growth create the perfect environment for fierce fires. Once ignited by lightning, carelessness or arson, the inevitable fire-storms incinerate the park trees and wildlife, and then invade the unfortunate neighbouring properties.
Many of today’s locked-up areas were created to sequester carbon to fulfil Kyoto obligations. Who pays the carbon tax on the carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere by wild fires?
The green bureaucracies and politicians are clearly mis-managing their huge land-bank. Aborigines and graziers did a far better job. There should be a moratorium on locking up any more land and a return to sustainable management for existing land holdings.
Viv Forbes,
Rosewood Qld Australia
I am happy for my email address to be published.
Related articles
- Bushfires rage on in Australia ‘helped’ by climate change (updatednews.ca)
- Bushfires rage on in Australia (bbc.co.uk)
Moe:
You pose a question in your post at January 22, 2013 at 3:04 am which says
Allow me to help your understanding because there is no need for a “new law of physics”.
Before explaining the matter, I point out I remain to be convinced that human emissions are or are not the cause – in part or in whole – of the observed recent CO2 rise. However, the cause of a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is not relevant to the effect on global temperature of that rise.
The issue is simple and can be summarised as follows.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be too small to discern. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity obtained by Idso, by Lindzen&Choi, etc..
In other words, the man-made global warming from man’s emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) would be much smaller than natural fluctuations in global temperature so it would be physically impossible to detect the man-made global warming.
Of course, human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. For example, cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Similarly, the global warming from man’s GHG emissions would be too small to be detected. Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1 deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
I hold this view because I am an empiricist so I accept whatever is indicated by data obtained from observation of the real world.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Climate sensitivity is less than 1.0 deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and, therefore, any effect on global temperature of increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has observable effects.
Richard
Climate Ace,
You’re arguing with everyone again.
You write: “I have said that we have had record hot temperatures…”
To which ‘record’ are you referring? Because the global ice core record goes back more than 700,000 years. And of course there are longer records. [Note that we are currently in a cool phase. The planet has been much warmer in the past.]
BTW, and FYI: “CAGW” is the acronym for “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming”, something that exists only in the minds of scientific illiterates.
DBStealey
BTW, and FYI: “CAGW” is the acronym for “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming”, something that exists only in the minds of scientific illiterates.
In that case I can see why only BAU boosters would use such a term.
Keitho
Can bushfires be a metric of climate change and if so how? I have the opinion that bushfires have been folded into the climate change story for purely propaganda purposes what say you?
None of my points in relation to fire behaviour have been disputed by anyone on the string. There have been various attempts at verballing my position, red herrings, personal abuse, straw men and the like, combined with a lot of confusion.
This string has moved right along but I described upstring the relationship between temperature and fire behaviour.
The basic rule of thumb is that the hotter the ambient temperature, the more likely a successful ignition event. and the more likely a fire is to be more intense, fast and destructive.
Australia has just had its hottest day on record and many localities have had their hottest days on record. The fires burned in the context of these records.
Both of the last two paras are true. Propaganda is based on falsehoods, so, no, you have no need to be concerned about propaganda.
Richard
You have ignored the main points I have been making and gone on an extended and irrelevant rant about all sorts of things instead, including some of the usual personal abuse.
I idon’t really care much about what distinctions you feel compelled to make between greenies and conservationists. Who cares? Not me. IMHO, it has nothing to do with bushfires. To repeat my points:
(1) given that more people were killed by bushfires in Australia before the existence of either many national parks, clearing laws, or conservations, there is no necessary connection between the latter and the former. Your stated view that greenies kill people in bushfires in the search of some sort of impossible dream, (in your terms), is therefore not vindicated by the evidence.
(2) given the available technologies there is no reason for anyone at all ever to die in Australian bushfire ever again. Niether does any house ever have to burn again. Neither does farm machinery or shedding ever have to burn again. Individuals need to take much more responsibility for themselves than they do. They need to invest in fire proofing houses. Farmers need to create fire breaks, conduct fuel reduction burns and slash rank vegetation to protect their neighbours.
(3) costs of individual irresponsibility vis-a-vis fire damage flow through to the rest of us by way of increased rates, increased fire premiums, increased utility costs, increased costs of risk capital and increased costs of litigation.
(4) ambient fire temperatures affect fire behaviour.
(5) we have just had fires in the context of our highest recorded maxium temperatures at both the national and many local levels.
I suggest that instead of ignoring my main points, you address them squarely instead of haring off on a tangent all the time.
Climate Ace says: January 22, 2013 at 1:41 pm
The fires burned in the context of these records.
==============================
The fires burned within the context of politically inspired policies that plied up the tinder and created the conditions for the firestorms.
Climate Ace:
I have an imposed 24-hour time out and will reply to you if and when I am permitted.
Richard
REPLY: Climate Ace should take a 24 hour timeout too. His thread bombing is becoming tiresome. We all need a break – Anthony
Well said Anthony, interesting tho and somewhat masked as a mutt and jeff routine, with a mix of propaganda, embrace the enemy “jingoistically”, identify as “we” to divide and wedge opponents common when an unco-ordinated social groundswell is gaining traction, and of course it is an election year in Australia.
I am sure that Climate Ace along with your home grown variety of anti’s (whiteants?) will appear in many variations to try and nullify the good work that Watts Up With That is communicating to the world of science,and the ordinary but important man-in-the-street, things that some don’t want politically heard in places like Australia.
Beware the false friends, they embrace you and loudly proclaim what they are not,, with one arm around your shoulders and weapon of harm in the other, even if it is only a propaganda manifesto.
Keep up the good work we need WUWT!!
@ur momisugly Climate Ace
“Excellent. You might mention that to the whingers on WUWT who whine about governments and whine about having to pay tax while still sucking up all the wonderful things that governments provide.”
We don’t whine about paying taxes, we whine about the government wasting our taxes. Like the money thrown down the toilet of CAGW Research. Or the EPA, or ESA. Species come, species go….it’s evolution. Suck it up. If you have to depend on your government to protect you from fires, you are toast.
PS: What’s a whinger?
Has been a strange thread indeed.
Viv was correct in what he said in the original article, but Cliamte Ace while repeating what Viv stated used denigrating and scornful language. In spite of the way it was phrased, Climate Ace IMHO was largely correct in the aspects of fire management he espoused, but I cannot understand his (or Barack Obama’s for that matter) premise that wildfire frequency and intensity may be some sort of a measure or indicator of CAGW.
Influenced as it is by myriad factors I cannot for the life of me think of a worse possible metric.
While it’s hard to imagine anybody arguing against the premise that these fires happened in a context of searing heat, that was stated as if it was somehow being contradicted. Who was contradicting? Who thought otherwise? Jim’s account agrees with what I’ve been told of southern regions: big growth from wet conditions, then failed or late monsoon with high summer heat.
It’s not that clear cut, of course, for fire everywhere. America’s worst fire day and conditions were, as far as I know, in mid-autumn back in the 1870s. Something that may surprise o/s people (if you’re not in Oz, you’re o/s, okay?) is that here on the coastal fringe of northern NSW, the classical fire-season is late winter/early spring. Lots of autumn growth, dry and frosty winter conditions, strong westerlies with temp increase in August/September – and it can happen. Often, when breezes come in from the sea and storms begin in October, it is the end of the fire season till next winter. Of course, it’s never as neat and consistent as that, but if we have a classical pattern, that’s it. When you get those parching westerly winds in high summer, as can happen, it’s another story, and a really bad one.
Thanks to actual climate change in 2007 – PDO or whatever it was – coastal winds have been far more dominant than in the previous cycle. Even this summer, with extreme drought and some westerly days, I’ve been more vigilant than fearful. My bamboo fizzled almost completely after five good seasons, but my woes are nothing compared those of people in the south of the continent and Tassie.
Interesting: Last week there actually were numerous deaths of flying foxes, in Parramatta Park and elsewhere, even in Sydney’s Centennial Park (where there are many massive Moreton Bay figs to the edge of the CBD, providing good food and habitat). These deaths occurred where there was abundant water in many ponds and storages. Today’s news:
“WIRES volunteers who were at Parramatta Park last Friday said adult flying foxes had scooped water from nearby ponds and tried to drip water into the mouths of babies in a desperate attempt to save their young.
A spokeswoman for the Parramatta Park Trust, which manages Parramatta Park, said hundreds of flying foxes had descended to branches just a few metres off the ground from their normal roosts high in trees to try to escape the heat and direct sunlight.
“It is very unfortunate, very sad, but it is a natural event, and we even have a record of the same thing happening at what’s now Parramatta Park at the time of the First Fleet,” the spokeswoman said.
First Fleet officer Watkin Tench wrote that flying foxes and birds fell dead from the sky during the searing summer of 1789, when north west winds blew across the city and turned it into an oven.”
REPLY: Climate Ace should take a 24 hour timeout too. His thread bombing is becoming tiresome. We all need a break – Anthony
You are the moderator, so you own the rules, and the application of the rules. 24 hours it is.
I note that you are giving others a free kick to discuss my posts without any recourse for me to reply.
REPLY: Oh please, you can reply in 24 hours. -Anthony
Climate Ace:
Your post at January 22, 2013 at 1:41 pm purports to be a reply to my post at January 22, 2013 at 5:09 am.
It begins by saying to me
It then asserts I said things I did not and it addresses those ‘straw men’ before concluding.
I fail to understand that.
I quoted your post to me verbatim. I addressed its overall assertion, and then I addressed each and every statement in it individually.
To enable me to correct any oversight I may have made, please quote your “main points” from your post January 22, 2013 at 1:41 pm which you are saying I ignored in my reply at January 22, 2013 at 5:09 am.
Richard
KenB:
I am responding to your post at January 22, 2013 at 4:35 pm for two reasons; viz.
(a) So onlookers are not misled
And
(b) So my view of your innuendoes is clear to all.
Your concern trolling will fail because it grossly underestimates Anthony Watts.
I explain this as follows.
You rightly perceive Anthony giving me a ‘time out’ as being a chink between us, and your post attempts to lever that chink into a rift by suggesting to him that I may be a “false friend”.
But that misunderstands the reality of the situation in several ways.
I have never met Anthony Watts but I admire him.
At his own cost he runs WUWT which has become the Best Science Blog on the world-wide web: it is the go-to place for reliable information on climate change. Meanwhile he runs his own business and cares for his family which he has reported to include medical problems. And he has overcome his hearing difficulty to make these great achievements.
In my opinion, the success of WUWT results from its exceptional quality which is provided by the Moderation Policy (imposed by Anthony Watts), the exceptional standard of the Moderators (appointed by Anthony Watts), and their skill at applying the Moderation Policy (overseen by Anthony Watts).
Many views are openly expressed on WUWT. People who adhere to widely different political, philosophical and religious beliefs and opinions contribute and interact on WUWT. And this (perhaps unique on the web) variety is the great strength of WUWT.
Anthony Watts has afforded me the privilege of often posting on WUWT, but I have seen no evidence that likes me. Indeed, the only direct interactions we have had imply that he doesn’t like me. And that would not be surprising because I think he and I are poles-apart politically and we differ in our religious and philosophical views. But he gives me the privilege of posting on his blog.
So, KenB, yes, there is a probable chink between Anthony Watts and me, and such a chink may be unavoidable. But you are completely mistaken if think you can lever such a chink into a rift: his tolerant nature and my respect for him would not allow that.
There would be a rift between Anthony Watts and me if I were to harm WUWT. But I don’t think that could happen. The tenor of WUWT is pro-science and for realistic appraisal of AGW. That is completely coincident with my objectives which I have been promoting for decades in several ways both public and personal. And if I ‘overstep the mark’ on WUWT then Anthony Watts slaps me down as he has with the recent time out: this is right and proper on his blog.
Furthermore, WUWT has grown to its eminent position over the years when I have been among the most prolific of posters on WUWT. This does not imply my posts have benefited WUWT, but it does indicate that my posts have not discernibly inhibited the success of WUWT. The time may come when Anthony Watts decides WUWT has outgrown any contribution I could make, but – although I could be wrong – I see no evidence that he is nearing that decision. Of course, if he were to make that decision then I would accept it.
So, KenB, I think your concern troll post was a waste of your effort because it underrates Anthony Watts.
Richard
REPLY: I neither like nor dislike you, I just want folks to take a step back from time to time. – Anthony
This might explain Climate Ace’s point of view. ☺
[No offense intended for other S. Hemisphere denizens, most all of whom I like and admire.]
D. B. Stealey, you can be proud to be living in the world’s second best hemisphere.
Ah Richard, my verbal sparring has been with a certain Climate Ace. I challenged him as a paid spin doctor, and he has not so far, refuted that challenge, So my reply has no reference or inference to yourself.
I have met Anthony Watts and I would never underate his ability nor his capacity for the unbelievable hours he puts in to this blog, his family and friendships. I think you have misread or misapplied my post as applicable to your self, when it is not! Perhaps a re-read of the thread might be in order. I’m sorry you took my post so personally, no offence or concern intended!
Similarly I thought that your post indicated a voluntarily self imposed 24 hour time out, and I took that to be a good example as I often refrain from replying to some provocative posts, out of respect to Anthony and Watts Up with that. I find it helps to not feed disrupters. If my post bought on your confusion, my sincere apologies.
KenB:
Your post at January 23, 2013 at 5:15 pm says I misunderstood your post.
That being so, then the error was mine and, therefore, I apologise for it.
However, if I made the error then others may have, too. So perhaps my mistake has clarified the issue for all by prompting your message.
All I can say is Sorry.
I must now retire. It is 1.30 am here and I am only up this late because of the new ‘Zeke’ thread.
Richard