Reposted from Dr Roy Spencer’s Blog
January 8th, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Smoke plumes from bushfires in southeast Australia on January 4, 2020, as seen by the MODIS imager on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
Summary Points
1) Global wildfire activity has decreased in recent decades, making any localized increase (or decrease) in wildfire activity difficult to attribute to ‘global climate change’.
2) Like California, Australia is prone to bushfires every year during the dry season. Ample fuel and dry weather exists for devastating fires each year, even without excessive heat or drought, as illustrated by the record number of hectares burned (over 100 million) during 1974-75 when above-average precipitation and below-average temperatures existed.
3) Australian average temperatures in 2019 were well above what global warming theory can explain, illustrating the importance of natural year-to-year variability in weather patterns (e.g. drought and excessively high temperatures).
4) Australia precipitation was at a record low in 2019, but climate models predict no long-term trend in Australia precipitation, while the observed trend has been upward, not downward. This again highlights the importance of natural climate variability to fire weather conditions, as opposed to human-induced climate change.
5) While reductions in prescribed burning have probably contributed to the irregular increase in the number of years with large bush fires, a five-fold increase in population in the last 100 years has greatly increased potential ignition sources, both accidental and purposeful.
Historical Background
Australia has a long history of bush fires, with the Aborigines doing prescribed burns centuries (if not millennia) before European settlement. A good summary of the history of bushfires and their management was written by the CSIRO Division of Forestry twenty-five years ago, entitled Bushfires – An Integral Part of Australia’s Environment.
The current claim by many that human-caused climate change has made Australian bushfires worse is difficult to support, for a number of reasons. Bushfires (like wildfires elsewhere in the world) are a natural occurrence wherever there is strong seasonality in precipitation, with vegetation growing during the wet season and then becoming fuel for fire during the dry season.
All other factors being equal, wildfires (once ignited) will be made worse by higher temperatures, lower humidity, and stronger winds. But with the exception of dry lightning, the natural sources of fire ignition are pretty limited. High temperature and low humidity alone do not cause dead vegetation to spontaneously ignite.
As the human population increases, the potential ignition sources have increased rapidly. The population of Australia has increased five-fold in the last 100 years (from 5 million to 25 million). Discarded cigarettes and matches, vehicle catalytic converters, sparks from electrical equipment and transmission lines, campfires, prescribed burns going out of control, and arson are some of the more obvious source of human-caused ignition, and these can all be expected to increase with population.
Trends in Bushfire Activity
The following plot shows the major Australia bushfires over the same period of time (100 years) as the five-fold increase in the population of Australia. The data come from Wikipedia’s Bushfires in Australia.
Fig. 1. Yearly fire season (June through May) hectares burned by major bushfires in Australia since the 1919-20 season (2019-20 season total is as of January 7, 2020).
As can be seen, by far the largest area burned occurred during 1974-75, at over 100 million hectares (close to 15% of the total area of Australia). Curiously, though, according to Australia Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) data, the 1974-75 bushfires occurred during a year with above-average precipitation and below-average temperature. This is opposite to the narrative that major bushfires are a feature of just excessively hot and dry years.
Every dry season in Australia experiences excessive heat and low humidity.
Australia High Temperature Trends
The following plot (in red) shows the yearly average variations in daily high temperature for Australia, compared to the 40-year average during 1920-1959.
Fig. 2. Yearly average high temperatures in Australia as estimated from thermometer data (red) and as simulated by the average of 41 climate models (blue). (Source).
Also shown in Fig. 2 (in blue) is the average of 41 CMIP5 climate models daily high temperature for Australia (from the KNMI Climate Explorer website). There are a few important points to be made from this plot.
First, if we correlate the yearly temperatures in Fig. 2 with the bushfire land area burned in Fig. 1, there is essentially no correlation (-0.11), primarily because of the huge 1974-75 event. If that year is removed from the data, there is a weak positive correlation (+0.19, barely significant at the 2-sigma level). But having statistics depend so much on single events (in this case, their removal from the dataset) is precisely one of the reasons why we should not use the current (2019-2020) wildfire events as an indicator of long-term climate change.
Secondly, while it is well known that the CMIP5 models are producing too much warming in the tropics compared to observations, in Australia just the opposite is happening: the BOM temperatures are showing more rapid warming than the average of the climate models produces. This could be a spurious result of changes in Australian thermometer measurement technology and data processing as has been claimed by Jennifer Marohasy.
Or, maybe the discrepancy is from natural climate variability. Who knows?
Finally, note the huge amount of year-to-year temperature variability in Fig. 2. Clearly, 2019 was exceptionally warm, but a good part of that warmth was likely due to natural variations in the tropics and subtropics, due to persistent El Nino conditions and associated changes in where precipitation regions versus clear air regions tend to get established in the tropics and subtropics.
Australia Precipitation Trends
To drive home the point that any given year should not be used as evidence of a long-term trend, Australia precipitation provides an excellent example. The following plot is like the temperature plot above (Fig. 2), but now for precipitation as reported by the BOM (data here).
Fig. 3. As in Fig. 2, but for annual precipitation totals.
We can see that 2019 was definitely a dry year in Australia, right? Possibly a record-setter. But the long-term trend has been upward (not downward), again illustrating the fact that any given year might not have anything to do with the long-term trend, let alone human-induced climate change.
And regarding the latter, the blue curve in Fig. 3 shows that the expectation of global warming theory as embodied by the average of 41 climate models is that there should have been no long-term trend in Australia precipitation, despite claims by the media, pseudo-experts, and Hollywood celebrities to the contrary.
It should be kept in mind that wildfire risk can actually increase with more precipitation during the growing season preceding fire season. More precipitation produces more fuel. In fact, there is a positive correlation between the precipitation data in Fig. 3 and bushfire hectares burned (+0.30, significant at the 3-sigma level). Now, I am not claiming that hot, dry conditions do not favor more bushfire activity. They indeed do (during fire season), everything else being the same. But the current 2019-2020 increase in bushfires would be difficult to tie to global warming theory based upon the evidence in the above three plots.
Global Wildfire Activity
If human-caused climate change (or even natural climate change) was causing wildfire activity to increase, it should show up much better in global statistics than in any specific region, like Australia. Of course any specific region can have an upward (or downward) trend in wildfire activity, simply because of the natural, chaotic variations in weather and climate.
But, contrary to popular perception, a global survey of wildfire activity has found that recent decades have actually experienced less fire activity (Doerr & Santin, 2016), not more. This means there are more areas experiencing a decrease in wildfire activity than there are areas experiencing more wildfires.
Why isn’t this decrease being attributed to human-caused climate change?
Concluding Comments
There are multiple reasons why people have the impression that wildfires are getting worse and human-caused climate change is to blame. First, the news tends to report only disasters… not a lack of disasters. The desire for more clicks means that headlines are increasingly sensationalized. The media can always find at least one expert to support the desired narrative.
Second, the spread of news is now rapid and it penetrates deeply, being spread through social media.
Third, an increasing number of environmental advocacy groups seize upon any natural disaster and declare it to be caused by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. The hyperbolic and counter-factual claims of Extinction Rebellion is one of the best recent examples of this.
This is all against a backdrop of government funded science that receives funding in direct proportion to the threat to life and property that the researcher can claim exists if science answers are not found, and policy is not changed. So, it should come at no surprise that there is political influence on what research gets funding when the outcome of that research directly affects public policy.
My personal opinion, based upon the available evidence, is that any long-term increase in wildfire activity in any specific location like Australia (or California) is dominated by the increase in human-caused ignition events, whether they be accidental or purposeful. A related reason is the increasing pressure by the public to reduce prescribed burns, clearing of dead vegetation, and cutting of fire breaks, which the public believes to have short term benefits to beauty and wildlife preservation, but results in long term consequences that are just the opposite and much worse.
Recent news reports claim that dozens of people have been arrested in Australia on arson charges, a phenomenon which we must assume has also increased by at least five-fold (like population) in the last 100 years. Accidental sources of ignition also increase in lockstep with the increasing population and all of the infrastructure that comes along with more people (vehicles, power lines, campfires, discarded matches and cigarettes, etc.)
So, to automatically blame the Australian bushfires on human-caused climate change is mostly alarmist nonsense, with virtually no basis in fact.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
if it is dry in spring when the burns take place then it is foolish to start controlled burns. Is this not obvious?
Prescribed burning debate rages as Australia finds there’s no time to burn going into peak fire season
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-13/is-the-prescribed-burn-window-closing-in-australia/10236048
“deputy chief fire officer with Forest Fire Management (FFA) Victoria, Darrin McKenzie, said autumn burning this year was particularly challenging and the state only managed to achieve about 30 per cent of prescribed burning programs.
Fire: How to prepare
ABC Emergency’s bushfire preparation guide.
The bushfire season ran into early April and most of the 66,000 hectares of prescribed burning the state managed to achieve was condensed into a two-and-a-half week window.
“But we were quite strategic in what burning we were able to do. We’re always looking to maximise the risk reduction outcomes,” Mr McKenzie said.
Despite getting in a few burns in the last couple of days, he said the dry winter for parts of the state, particularly in East Gippsland and parts of the north of Victoria, could also limit the amount of prescribed burning in spring.
You don’t burn in the dry season, and you don’t set huge tracts all at once. Section off and do “controlled burn” of sections, working against the wind so it does not roll your firelines and go wild. This is not rocket surgery nor is it brain science. It is, in fact, forest husbandry and the US Forest Service knew how to do it just 45-50 years ago. Wonder how this knowledge was “lost”?
The quote I gave says they had a 2.5 week window when conditions were not too dangerous to do the controlled burn. I think it may be a bit difficult doing ALL the required burns in that time. Can you suggest how it could be accomplished?
A concerted effort across governmental boundaries. Stop all the bickering and get the job done. Had they been doing that for the last 30 or so years this would not be the massive conflagration it has become. I have read several news reports from Australian papers about home, business and farm owners being criminally charged, fined and even jailed for clearing brush and trees on their own property. That should tell you right there you have the wrong people making laws and regulations in Australia, a country that has a LONG and detailed history of massive wildfires. Waiting until thousands upon thousand of acres are tinder dry and already IN FLAMES in large sections to do something about it is insane. Right now all that can be done is to get people out of the path of destruction and let it burn. Then do not let it turn back into the same problem again. Throw out the idiots who put these laws and regulations in place, throw out their stupid laws and regulations and START OVER.
Sweet bleeding Jeebus! The fact this has to be explained, over and over, is insane on its very face. Stop letting greentards run anything.
We could just tarmac Or concrete all of it. I mean expensive But wouldn’t burn? Probably need 10 million hectares of concrete-ing
Or we could just put all you greenunists into labor gangs and clear&burn. You claim to want to “save” the environment, volunteer! Done my part for many years, time for you to step up and shut up.
“Australia finds there’s no time to burn going into peak fire season”
So Leave It to Loggers! Allow them to harvest and sell trees from areas will a high fuel load. No state-funding needed.
“state” would actually receive money. What a unique concept!
“It should be kept in mind that wildfire risk can actually increase with more precipitation during the growing season preceding fire season.”
Absolutely. At least two years of good rains, followed by two years of drought, is the magic formula for catastrophic bushfires here in NSW.
Sorry but the famous climate scientist, Jennifer Aniston, assured me that these fires are climate change related. Checkmate deniers!
She was passing on a message from that other famous climate scientist, Russell Crowe, who could not meet up with her in Hollywood in early January because he was “defending his home” from the bushfires. This is all good except there were no fires near Crowe’s home since November.
I do think that the increased levels of CO2 contributed to the fires in Australia. But not due to climate change. Rather that the trees grow faster and are less inhibited by lack of water. Thus there is more burnable material available, and even if it is regularly removed, it builds up quicker than in the past.
Satellite data sure shows Oz greening over the decades.
So…
Was coming back from a short winter vacation in Tahoe CA; as always, one faces crossing the Sierras, beautiful splendor and fantastic snowfall to boot. Lovely.
I was rather amused to see several signs on the “way up” that said, (paraphrasing) “Don’t worry, we’re conducting fire mitigation burns today”. Well, that makes sense. In the middle of Winter when nothing can catch fire unless specifically torched.
But it made me think… is it just barely possible that California’s present forest management has learned from the recent last half-decade’s of rather astounding run-away forest fires, and is trying to preëmpt the next, via the very same techniques used by the Miwok and other native Californian’s, oh… 150 years back? The horror!
It would appear so.
Fueling (ahem, a pun) this action is perhaps the remarkable number of felled pine, fir and other conifers, culled in the last 3 years due to the ravaging of the Bark Beetle. Semi-dead trees used to be a common sight, now they’re gone. Completely gone, insofar as I can tell. And not just along the roadways. I took the time to stop at a few of the vista outlooks, to see what a bear might see.
And lo! No salt-and-pepper dotting of dead conifers throughout the forest cover. Oh, with binoculars, I saw more than a few, but not the hundreds-of-thousands of the year before, or one guesses, the millions before that.
Looks like the Forest Service is going gung-ho on felling the diseased trees, and in the winter, burning their piled up remains. Good job!
In making the transit, I counted no less than 12 forest-service set fires, roadside. At the scenic outlooks, until my wife insisted that I get back in the car and stop geeking-out with binoculars, I counted another 50+ in easy view.
So.
Flora management by fire.
Seems like Australia might learn a thing or two from our once abundant and now nearly extinct California ‘American Indian’ tribes’ practices.
⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅
A question, you may know. Is the trunk damaged by Bark Beetles? Or only the bark and thus killing the tree? Are the logs from felled Bark Beetle killed firs and pines usable for lumber? OK, three questions. Perhaps we can get an answer quick. Sure seems a huge waste if they are usable.
That temperature chart is an attention grabber, though!
because its a fraudulent graph on purpose.
The other point is that there has been plenty of commentary and posts about the manipulation of data by the BOM. The adjustments have been so blatant I am dubious that a warming temperature trend would be evident without them. Living in Melbourne my senses are that this summer has been pretty normal, if anything colder than normal. Checking the actual data from the bureau for Dec and January in Melbourne we have had 5 days over 30 and 27 under 25 hardly heat wave conditions. In fact in both Sydney and Melbourne there hasn’t been a period of 3 , 30+ days in a row. To claim the hottest year ever is either not true or not relevant . Any heat records ( if they do exist) are occurring in areas not where the bush fires are originating and burning. The fact that we have bushfires is inevitable , it happens every year. The fact that these are so severe and long lasting is not inevitable and a direct reflection of the failure of forestry management influenced by greenie ideology.
It is nothing to do with climate change or temperature. As the radio interview with Dr David Packham a bush fire expert explains in the link below.
Bush fires of more than 4MW per meter fuel load can not be put out by any current fire fighting method. The fuel loads in the bush this year had risen to 30MW per meter or more and were therefore impossible to extinguish. Ignition sources appear to be weighted to deliberate human action or accident.
Listen to the detailed interview here:
https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/scientist-david-packham-on-whats-really-causing-the-bushfires
IW,
The unit of MW per meter is 1,000 times too large. Possibly author Packham meant KW per meter.
His quoted 30 MW per meter is in the league of a small electricity generation station.
That said, Packham’s other observations make sense. Geoff S
In Australia we’ve all got a pretty good idea of who is to blame for the severity of this year’s fires.
That is about 10 locals standing in the street in Nowa Nowa.
The worst planetary fires in history. The experts say the burning targets have been hit. This is not to do with some guys with billboards. Surely the facts that it’s baking couple with. drought are the key factors here?
Clear brush and trees from around structures, do regular controlled burns throughout the year. Anyone with a brain knows how to mitigate wildfire dangers. This shows which category you and all other greentards fall into.
Go back into the kitchen and gently ask Mummy if you can borrow the family brain cell.
Boot it up and read the article below.
Really big points are
1) the window of opportunity to burn is getting shorter as it’s hotter. You can’t backburn when damp and can’t when too hot otherwise you cause an uncontrollable fire.
2) despite this backburning targets were hit and supported by the Green Party as well as the other parties
3) these fires have burned….. THROUGH areas where back burning did occur… now digest that for a moment.
4) the fires have also burned rainforest and swampland….. areas not burnt in an estimated 1000 years
4) a little point all of my own. How the heck do you back burn an area probably At least the size of England. I mean the fires are half the size of England already so you can probably double what you need to burn.
5) it’s really hot
Yeah there are some Land mgt issues For sure to be fair.
Oh better hand the brain cell back as Mum might need to wash the dishes.
You have your greenunist agenda and will never deviate from it. Got it.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/22/australia-bushfires-factcheck-are-this-years-fires-unprecedented
Not my agenda – just the facts. What do you say to that?
I can’t see any ‘facts’ because your page is paywalled. But citing the Guardian is not going to convince anyone who doesn’t already accept an alarmist agenda.
If you clear all the trees, no bushfire, regardless of the climate. Somewhere between the extreme of clearing everything and the current situation is good forest management. Habitat be d@mned.
Don’t clear everything, just clear around structures, use metal roofing and siding, a long list things which will help. In the end it comes down to proper forest and land management, too many places have put in place regulations and laws which produce massive wildfires.
Eric Worrall January 9, 2020 at 3:34 pm
If you clear all the trees, no bushfire, regardless of the climate. Somewhere between the extreme of clearing everything and the current situation is good forest managem
—————————
why did the fires run along (dried) grassland. you need food for sheep/cows = (dried) grass.
Burning this may be a bit silly?
Actually no. Burned over pasturage grows back pretty quickly, you just don’t burn it all at once.
Grow up Simon, media and political claims about the “worst evah” anything, are always BS.
And where BOM, ABC and greenies are involved it’s an endless torrent of outright lies.
Go push your Infinity-Crisis hysteria elsewhere.
Worst fires in history – proven fact and I’ll say it where I like.
In fact – worst fires in history, said it again.
Give me one time/date/location in proven recent history bigger than these fires….
Go on I’m waiting – I’ve got all day 😃
You know Simon, droughts are normally associated with hot dry WEATHER. Hence the false idea that the window of opportunity for conducting Fuel Reduction Burns is getting shorter because of so called man made climate change. The 1 degree increase in global temperature has a minimal if no affect on fire behaviour. I say why weren’t a lot of these areas burnt before the drought started. Fuel loads on the forest floor in a lot of areas have been there for decades. Accumulating at a rate of between 2 to 4 tonnes per hectare annually.
“The experts say the burning targets have been hit.”
That is purely a percentage goal and not necessarily the areas with the heaviest fuel load, like National Parks, buried in red and green tape that prevents FRB’s to be conducted in the first place.
Maybe, just maybe when the drought ends, sanity will prevail and more mitigation work will be done.
Or, like what has happened after major fires in the past, there will be a flurry of activity for a few years and then complacency sets in.
Probably a lot of accumulation – fair point.
Still doesn’t change the fact it’s hotter. 1 degree is a reasonable amount. I mean the average earth temp is 15 centigrade so 16 is 6.25% hotter.
Still doesn’t change the fact it’s dryer at least this season and still doesn’t change the fact the fires are the biggest ever.i mean 5 million hectares burnt in 74/39. How much has got to burn before discomfort occurs in the pit of your stomach. 10million, 15 million, 20 million? I reckon it could be 10 million this season.
Simon Cove January 10, 2020
“Still doesn’t change the fact it’s hotter. 1 degree is a reasonable amount. I mean the average earth temp is 15 centigrade so 16 is 6.25% hotter.”
If you were to “borrow the family brain cell.“ you might recall that the temperatures of the earth is actually 288 Kelvin.
1 degree is actually about 0.35% hotter.
–
Your fake news statement is deliberately 18 times larger than the reality.
Well done
Interesting point but I’d say in terms of sunburn or frost risk you want to be taking it from 0 celcius. But yeah, you defo used the family brain cell considering the point. 👍
Simon Cove January 10, 2020 “Still doesn’t change the fact it’s dryer at least this season”
Than what???
–
“and still doesn’t change the fact the fires are the biggest ever”
–
Statistically one can talk of fires in terms of size and occurrence, like floods and rainfall. You have 170 years of some observation and 80 treats of reasonable observation .
This bushfire season is a big one but comparable ones have happened before back to 1851. It would therefore fit into the one in 50 year risk bracket.
It must be apparent to you that there have been 1 in a hundred and 1 in 500 year fire seasons in the last 20,000 years.
Any of which would certainly have been much bigger than this.
Another fake news scare.
More fires seen worldwide ‘in certain areas’ in arboreal forests compared to recent history. Another incorrect statement.
‘Dryer than what’. Loads of previous seasons and same woth hotter. It’s on Roy’s bleeding article. It’s called statistics. Part of his article is under researched in my opinion but that bit isn’t.
What’s your point???
FWIW: https://www.zerohedge.com/health/australia-burning-blame-greens-arsonists
I tried to post this link higher up in this thread so it may show up there. What’s important is the real issues are now being addressed.
This is why I recommend Dr. Spencer’s work to my climate alarmist friends…he does his research. Well done Sir.
This afternoon, the Extinction Rebellion mob are going to be out disrupting traffic to demand the declaration of a climate emergency. They will be banging on (literally, as they like having bands to make even more noise) about the fires and drought being caused by “climate change.” I will try to leave work a bit early today to monitor the idiots. Will not be able to get a posse to disrupt the idiots by singing the song “Useful Idiots” to them.
Useful Idiots- very apt for these fools. A state of emergency entails marshal law and the inevitable loss of freedom that flows from this. The idiots are calling for throwing away control of the economy and freedoms. You can bet that they will also call for “deniers” to be locked up or executed (we all remember Richard Parncutt.) A singer am am not. So here are the lyrics-To Old Man River. I am no Paul Robeson, but imaging a deep southern voice singing this.
There’s a thug group that the green groups take to heart….
Useful idiots
Those useful idiots
They don’t like working
They just like drinking
Don’t pay taxes
Don’t take showers
Antifa puppets
Who is pulling your strings.
Oh, Antifa
Think you’re self-righteous
What do you stand for
Please do tell us
Anarchism
Communism
Cultural Marxism
Useful idiots
Antifa puppets
Who is pulling your strings
Oh Antifa
Behave like fascists
Who’s behind you
Please do tell us
New World Order
Georgey Soros
Corporate puppets
Antifa puppets
Useful idiots
Who is pulling your strings.
Snopes.com has an article about arsonists versus total fire arrests. They go on to attribute the fires climate change. I wonder if they any longer a trusted source
snopes has not been “reliable” for a long time.
Snopes is a one man band. It is opinion masquerading as research. As far as I know, they are financially supported by mainstream media (the propaganda wing of the Deep State.)
If you pay attention, it’s not hard to spot when snopes goes “unreliable”.
I’ll be if you query anything Trump you’ll spot what I’m saying.
Snopes is for the fools these days.
It got a good reputation, once that was established it then went sideways but still pretends to be accurate. It continues to fool some people.
Back when W was still in I saw several items on snopes which I knew to be incorrect, having downloaded pertinent documents on the subjects from Library of Congress and GW Thomas Law Library, point this out and gave them associated document numbers. I was told they had no interest in information from “those” sources and was banned. I have taken nothing from them to be legitimate or factual ever since. That was the beginning of my refusal to be “nice” or “polite” to leftists, and I see no reason to turn back from that tactical position.
FIRE only needs three elements: oxygen, heat, fuel and Climate Change. And we all know it’s true!
OK, I like that one, gonna steal it.
The overwhelming influence has been the Indian Ocean Dipole, which reached an extreme level in December:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/overview/video
More CO2 in the atmosphere means plants grow better.
If eucalyptus forests grow better, they will produce more leaf litter, twigs, dropped branches, and oil.
When a really dry season comes along, fires will be bigger and more abundant.
I have absolutely no data or references to back this up. However the royal national park has not burnt this season, though it did burn 20 years ago. This suggests the buildup takes decades to become dangerous, and good growing seasons are causal factors.
Obvious solution is to either reduce co2 or increase hazard reduction burning. I suggest the latter is the easier and cheaper option.
Well-said. Eucalypt growth increases in higher atmospheric carbon dioxide conditions so fuel loads will most likely build up. However, rainfall may be expected to increase somewhat also, so it is possible that less fires (at least, less smaller fires) may occur naturally (the frequency of big fires might not alter with it).
Thus, there could be a change to eucalypt-forest bushfires even without a change in temperature, the latter being largely unsubstantiated by actual science, of course.
Fuel reduction is therefore still key, as any increased rainfall will not be sufficient to solve the issue, for this is Australia after all, a land of regular drought. When the eucalypt bush dries it is primed to burn. If it is not carefully pre-burnt it will be precariously burnt. It is just a matter of time.
Human caused but NOT ……………… “climate change”:
https://m.facebook.com/pg/ExtinctionRebellion/posts/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=0
Also the second post is about trying to stop Adani by targeting Siemens in Munich, also the power behind Greta Thunberg is leading the protest.
Hi John, I’m guessing that you support wind and solar renewables as a way of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. Millions of hectares are going in globally as we speak, can you tell me please, how do we fight a solar farm fire?
Given that there’s no disputing the extent of bushfires here in Australia I think it’s a very important question. I hope you take this question seriously, many people have to live near wind and solar farms.
Hey John, you still haven’t answered my question, thought that rather than sling insults I’d just sent you a friendly reminder.
Simon says ”I reckon it could be 10 million this season.”… Nothing like a good dose of pessimism. Just like a true alarmist. IF what you ‘reckon’ is right then the only discomfort that occurs in the pit in my stomach would be for those who lose their worldly possessions including god forbid, loved ones. You can put your biggest ever where the sun doesn’t shine.
God won’t help as he/she doesn’t exist. If that’s where you get your scientific predictions from, then we are all in trouble.
Well previous largest was 5million hectares and as of last week it was reported as 6mill
Bad weekends starting tonight and no ‘big’ rains on horizon and jam and Feb likely to be really hot.
I’d say 10mil could be optimistic.
You still haven’t answered my question Simon.
How do you put out a fire in a solar farm?
With a hosepipe…. it’s basically a load of plastic burning. How are you putting out the houses with their tar roofs etc?
Firstly Simon, thanks for at least responding.
My youngest son is a volunteer with the Rural Bushfire Brigade, I asked him that question. I also asked two other firemen from different parts of the state, one of them a second in command.
Each of them separately said “We’d let it burn”. There are two very good reasons for that. The first is that you cannot train a firehouse onto solar panels, they are live, so you would be electrocuted. The second reason given was the danger of toxic fumes. I suggested to the second in command that we live very close to the solar farm and he just gave me an uncomfortable smile.
He said the best way to fight such a fire would be water bombing. I think he was trying to to reassure me, but given the size of our country by the time a water bombing craft arrived it would be all over.
Now you’ve been sadistically predicting how much worse these fires will become, that it’s all our falt for not doing enough. You don’t even know how much in the way of renewable technology we have in this country, let alone the dangers of it.
In regards to PV solar panels, there are several different kinds. The ‘plastic’ or thin film type that you were referring to are in fact one of the most toxic when damaged. They contain cadmium and lead and when damaged by fire, hail or a severe weather event these materials leach into the soil and waterways. Another thing you should know is that there is currently no recycling plants anywhere in Australia for wind and solar renewables, only one collection centre in South Australia. You have to pay for this service which is fair enough, but it’s not compulsory so they are ending up in landfill. Wind and solar energy renewables are nothing more that a future toxic waste dump and I’ll bet you haven’t considered that either.
Incidentally, how many operating renewables recycling plants are there in the UK? And can you tell me please, why is it OK to fill the atmosphere with CO2 burning biomass in your country?
One more thing, Australia doesn’t use tar roofing materials, you’ve got the wrong country there.
Ok. I have replied above – apologies for being flippant.
Basically wind and solar have low ENergy returnees on energy invested. Partic wind. Check out ted talk Prof Mackay if you want more info.
On hot places with high daily electrical peak (eg air con). Solar works well. U.K. peak is 6pm winter is dark so you need massive storage which doesn’t exist on this planet.so they don’t really work at all in the U.K. maybe at a smallish level of penetration. But still at 6pm on a no wind night you need maximum other infrastructure. Also when not windy in the U.K. it’s also generally not windy in Europe so even interconnectirss tricky.
Also as low energy – yep a lot of waste overall but probably not as much as crisp packerts etc. Nuclear I’m afraid is the way to go or perovskovite solar which will be a massive game changer if it works. Still has the storage issues but the EROEI will drop from say 2-3 years in the U.K. to at least half that and likely more if high energy output and stable.
There’s also issue with coal waste and nuclear waste obviously although moltens salt reactors could really make a big difference there. Less likely to blow and isotopes don’t last as long. The Americans built one in the 1960’s but didn’t pursue it as molten salt can’t produce weapons grade plutonium.
The solar panels I think you can hose them as basically plastic. Lithium would be the battery back up and you can’t hose that. There may not be battery back up. Also if they are on fire you are not going to get electrocuted unless there isn’t a shut down switch which would be a bit of an odd thing not to have.
Thanks for a more serious response Simon. In regard to solar panel fires, the plastic is not the issue, it’s the current that is problematic, you cannot train a firehose on a solar farm fire, and they cover vast areas of land.
I do agree with you about nuclear energy. There is actually less waste to be dealt with in regards to nuclear as opposed to wind and solar renewables. The toxic byproduct from the extraction of rare earth materials has still not been dealt with in China. And you have to revisit that with the use of acids during the recycling process.
Nuclear energy is so much much advanced now, and for those who do see CO2 as a problem it is also clean, which wind and solar renewables are not.
It’s all very well for people to push their points of view, but if they aren’t affected or confronted by wind and solar technology then they have no reason to ask about the negative aspects of RE. It is actually damaging our environment.
Don’t you think it would be a good thing if we could have a real conversation about this? This site exists primarily because we (skeptics) have been gagged by MSM. We don’t enjoy the same rights as you. Sites such as these are the only voice we have, thank you Anthony.
The only reason that CAGW has gained so much momentum is that yours is the only perspective being publicly made!
It’s not a prediction. It’s an expression of hope.
God won’t help as he/she doesn’t exist.
Conflation of logical domains.
If he doesn’t exist And he’s the object of your hope then you’re wasting you’re time hoping also.
Simon Cove, that CAGW thing, prey –
What’s needed for “no more bush fires in Australia”.
re: conflation of logical domains.
While the characterization of domains outside of a limited frame of reference (e.g. inference) may be within the philosophical limit, the deduction of what lies beyond cannot be scientifically assessed let alone judged.
My heart is full of sorrow for the people and the animals being burned in Australia, I just hope it will end soon
The Indian Ocean Dipole has returned to neutral. From the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
The IOD explained:
https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2020/01/2016-video-from-australias-bureau-of-meteorology-explains-how-the-indian-ocean-dipole-drives-our-wea.html
To clarify…
Another problem with arson is that proving malicious intent can be problematic, especially in the case of bushfire arson where causes can range from recklessness with fire to a desire to cause as much death and destruction as possible. As part of a national effort to develop greater consistency across jurisdictions by developing a Model Criminal Code, bushfire arson became a distinct offence with an emphasis on reckless endangerment, rather than malicious intent, to reflect the fact that the link between action and foreseeable consequence is often weaker for bushfire arson than it is for structural arson (MCOC 2001). This meaning has been adopted by most states and territories. Many jurisdictions also have summary offences which empower agencies, including fire brigades, forestry and parks services and to issue infringement notices for arson for less serious offences. This legislation often covers reckless endangerment as well as malicious intent.
https://aic.gov.au/publications/bfab/bfab057
So dropping a cigarette butt carelessly would be considered arson in most of Australia. And because intent is often hard to prove, all are considered arsonists.
Pyromania is an impulse control disorder[1] in which individuals repeatedly fail to resist impulses to deliberately start fires,[1] in order to relieve tension or for instant gratification. The term pyromania comes from the Greek word πῦρ (pyr, fire). Pyromania is distinct from arson, the deliberate setting of fires for personal, monetary or political gain.[2] Pyromaniacs start fires to induce euphoria, and often fixate on institutions of fire control like fire houses and firemen.[citation needed][dubious – discuss] Pyromania is a type of impulse control disorder, along with kleptomania, intermittent explosive disorder and others. Pyromania is also known as “Jomeri’s Syndrome”, named after a psychologist who studied and developed the first forms of treatment for the disorder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyromania
The odds of a true arsonist starting only one fire is nil. Doomers like Nick need to give up the new alarmist talking point (which is abundantly evident on this thread – you parrots know who you are ), and leave the discussion to logical adults.
So, now it’s unprecedented seasonal phenomena. Before it was unprecedented meteorological phenomena. And the polar bears, the coral, the swatted birds, and Green blight. Progress.
I would like to make a contribution from the obverse climate side of our current drought to our flood history. Not only do we have horrific droughts, there is also evidence, at a less frequent level, of horrific floods in Australia, which is another demonstration of the high variability of our weather systems. I am not at home so I do not have access to my files but can give an overview and pointers in the direction of the academic and historical studies.
Brisbane first. We have known of regular floods in Brisbane since settlement. Recent scientific research has correlated Brisbane floods with the oceanic Pacific multi decadadal oscillation which indicates floods in a five-year period every 40 years. The empirics of correlation look impressive. The results show that the worst recorded flood was in 1893 at 5.9 m, the most recent flood in 2011 was at 5.4 m. There is proxy evidence that there was a flood before settlement in the early 1800s that could be measured at 8 m. A link to a database for further information http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml
South Australia. Without access to my database there was a dam proposed to be built but someone identified that there were lines of box trees all at the same altitude on the hills in the proposed catchment. One scientist pointed out that the altitudinal lines indicated the high water marks for the seeds to settle and germinate. The age of the trees was less than 300 years old but were at a height that indicated that floodwaters of that time would have completely taken out the new dam proposed.
Alice Springs. There are proxy indicators that a flood of around 800 years ago if repeated would completely take out Alice Springs.
Our variability in climate conditions are phenomenal in all aspects – drought and flood. Policies should be designed to mitigate all our extremes.
WRT “Our variability in climate conditions are phenomenal in all aspects – drought and flood. Policies should be designed to mitigate all our extremes.”
The fact that records support an 800 year flood (as some of your evidence suggests) is likely just the tip of the iceberg. My guess is if somebody can find paleo flood records they will show flooding was fairly routine in the hundreds of years between the 800 ya and the “regular flooding” around Brisbane.
Paleo flood records can be reliably obtainable from “flood scars” on the up-stream sides of living trees in flood plains. Relict trees from out of the river beds can show scarring thousands of years old, and the scarring is evidently distinctive.
The claim of phenomenal or unprecedented should always be put into the context of really long-term records. Aborigines have had a lot to say about the regular need for fires. I wonder what they have to say about floods.
OK so you make a very large claim about comparing the hectares burnt each fire season, and the assoc precipitation and temp records.
how have you accounted for the vastly different resources fighting these fires? the hectares burnt in this fire season would be markedly different with 74-75 infrastructure, funds and fire-fighters. has there been any comparison of the number of water bombers, the number of fire fighters, the amount of prescribed burning beforehand? all the different aspects of fire management…
You’d also have to look at where these fires occurred. In some locations the fires are just left to run their course. There’s no hope of putting them out, but they arent seen as a risk to human safety so they’re left. Whether or not that occurs depends on proximity to human populations or sensitive ecosystems.
So in the 74-75 season the location of human populations may ahve been quite different, or it may not have been. Where the fires occurred and whether they were left to burn, would have made a much bigger difference if it wasnt accounted for. those in states like WA are very typically left to burn more often than not, those in Vic and NSW aren’t left in the east, but are often left in the west. considering all the floods we’ve had recently in other others of NSW, there’s no chance that fires would start out there.
It just feel INCREDIBLY simplistic to directly compare these years without accounting for the many other parameters that contribute to the hectares that burn that arent climate-related. you’d have more validity to your statements if you showed how you accounted for all that…
Dan
Good comment.