There’s been a lot of noise coming from “climate science” regarding the fires in Australia. Recently, in an act of desperation, Facebook flagged one of my Facebook posts from Breitbart about the Australian fires as being false:
The Breitbart article said:
But the desperate academic clods over at “Climatefeedback” would have none of it, promptly flagging the article as false.
Note the pea and the thimble here.
They scope of the fires was related to arson, pure and simple. Lightning also contributed. These are indisputable facts. CO2 molecules didn’t run around starting fires. The best they could claim is that the fires started by arson and lightning might have spread faster due to a dry fuel load.
Climatefeedback didn’t actually dispute that the fires weren’t started by Arsonists or lightning, they just chose to flag it so they could inject the climate change narrative:
But here’s the thing, and there’s no getting around this. In the key take-away they cite the year as the “driest on record” while also mentioning “dry and windy weather patterns”. As anybody knows, a weather event is not climate, and a year’s worth of weather is not climate.
It’s an epic fail by the supposed climate experts at Climatefeedback. If the tables were turned, and an article was citing a year of cold weather, and a cold weather event, they’d dismiss it with the wave of hand saying “weather is not climate”.
Unless of course, weather events support “the cause”.
Then there’s the data from Australia’s BoM. Rainfall over the past 60 years has been wetter.
From Dr. Roy Spencer:
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).
While it is certainly true that 2019 was the driest year in Australia since 1900, likely caused by extended La Nina conditions in the Pacific, they can’t pin it on climate change caused drought, because climate is a 30 year average, and because we’ve been told repeatedly that “weather is not climate“.
Then there’s this summary from Dr. Roy Spencer:
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.
In summary, [IMO] Climatefeedback is either ignorant, incompetent, or flat-out lied to support the narrative that “climate change” has it’s fingerprint on everything. As I’ve said repeatedly, it has become the universal boogeyman.
Meanwhile:
Alas, to be politically correct in attributing cause in the future, Josh has created this handy quiz (updated):
Nature is strictly variable, denying the consensus, often by large margins.
WUWT should refrain from exaggeration, and leave that to the side that exaggerates man-made climate change. Most of those 183 arrests were not for intentionally setting fires, which account for 24 of that 183. Most of those arrests were for fire ban violations other than arson, or for violations that occurred well before this big round of bushfires.
Those 24 are the ones they caught. Who knows how many more set fires? And how many fires did those 24 set?
The source is here, tell them first:
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGZWJpenByZC5wb2xpY2UubnN3Lmdvdi5hdSUyRm1lZGlhJTJGODIyNjQuaHRtbCZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D
The question needs to be asked: were these arsonists inspired by vandal mentality, or was the motive more sinister – funded green terrorists sponsored to show (con) the watching world that something drastic needs to be done urgently to save our children’s tomorrow??
Most are just pissed-up dickhead bogan Australians who, if it wasn’t for the fact they had a hole in the front of the face to stuff KFC and beer down, would not know they existed, until it was time to get their CenterLink payment (Welfare) cheques.
Anthony, Apparently the fires are the fault of our Prime Minister Scott Morrison, and the greens want him sacked!
https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6121343004001
Happy to correct and update – thanks for the feedback!
Please don’t resort to alarmist activity, it does none of us any good. The number of people arrested for arson is not 183, it is 24. The remainder were facing charges of sloppy activity related to fire danger.
Not that 24 is insignificant; 24 fires started at 10 mile intervals would still produce a 240-mile fire-front.
Whether intentional (arson) or not (“sloppy activity”) the point is the same.
It is not CO2 that initiated the fires no matter what Mann or Greta says.
CO2 does not start fires – It puts them out!
Here is a picture of an old fire extinguisher.
https://tinyurl.com/tt7mmxy
“CO2 molecules didn’t run around starting fires.”
“It is not CO2 that initiated the fires”
This is one roughed up strawman.
This is one roughed up strawman
Yes Loudo, you are.
+ 97%
Loydo complaining about strawmen.
Now that is funny.
You’re right, Loydo.
CO2 didn’t start those fires.
There must have been one of those “weather cows” in the vicinity. (Their methane is particularly nasty.)
Australia needs to mandate that “Beano” be added to their feed.
Arson is not new. Blaming arsonists for the severity and scale of these fires is a lie and a dangerous one because it means crucial factors like fuel-reduction, land manage, properly funded fire services and a suit of other important issues don’t get the attention they should and that will mean more lives are lost and more homes burnt. Its the most heinous form of disinformation.
and precious little that’s funny about it.
The bigger the news, the more arsonists love to play. They aren’t interested in starting fires that nobody cares about. So yes, arsonists play a role in the scale.
And no, arson is not new…but using brushfires to promote a political agenda is new. Enviro wackjobs can’t control hurricanes (just hope they make devastating landfalls), but they sure can start a fire and scream, “Climate change!!!”
Finally, fuel-reduction, land management, properly-funded fire services, etc., do get attention when arsonists strike. WTF planet are you on?
“Arson is not new. Blaming arsonists for the severity and scale of these fires is a lie and a dangerous one because it means crucial factors like fuel-reduction, land manage, properly funded fire services and a suit of other important issues don’t get the attention they should and that will mean more lives are lost and more homes burnt. Its the most heinous form of disinformation.”
No. Blaming CO2 for making everything worse is the most heinous form of disinformation. Those other crucial factors you mentioned have been addressed here, and just about everyone is in agreement there. You should be berating Mann, not Man.
Loydo is absolutely correct. It wasn’t arsonists so much as misguided government policies on forest management which were the basic underlying cause of brush fires.
The focus on climate change as the cause of the fires is an attempt at a coverup to sweep the real responsibility under the rug while promoting the current political agenda.
I’d say there are multiple factors including the ones you mentioned yirgach, plus arson, plus climate change. You seem to be have a blind spot.
I don’t want to miss the opportunity to partially agree with Loydo. It’s pretty much a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Fuel reduction is a major factor that you wouldn’t want to ignore.
But the point of the cartoon was arson AND poor land management, NOT climate change.
Come on Loydo. What country do you live in.
The US, we are told, 27/7 on all the Left wing Fake news channels, BBC, PBS, CNN, that climate change caused the Australian fires and that the Australian people are demanding that their government do more to fight climate change.
What we are saying is not a strawman, but rather it seems, a fact.
Facts are things which we know to be true as they are the natural explanation to sets of logically linked observations.
Climate change did not cause the Australian fires and the reason the fires are so large is there is no land management yearly to reduce fuel for eventual fires.
The problem is fires will eventually occur. The efforts to stop all fires from occurring for generations will result in mega fires.
No William, to say anyone claims climate change “causes” ie ignites a fire is a strawman. No one makes that ludicrous claim. Arsonists have always ignited fires, climate change has made them larger and more severe.
“Loydo January 10, 2020 at 7:11 pm”
There is no evidence for CO2 does that. However, there *IS* evidence of decades of ZERO land management practices of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s not conducted since that increases fuel load.
The key issue is that there is no trend in lower rainfall.
QED any impact of dry conditions on the fires derives from weather not climate.
We cannot control the weather.
So we must act on what we can control – the ignition of the fires.
It’s about arson. not CO2, from a policy viewpoint. Anyone talking about CO2 is at best wasting time.
At worst they are getting in the way of practical action just to push their own partisan agenda.
I’m sure even Loydo must agree that what sets up a bad season of fires is a season of increased rain followed by severe drought. If drought occurs alone, there is no fuel to burn (grasses, shrubs, trees). The rainy season is essential. And this is the pattern Australia suffered these last few years (see chart in article above). Heavy rain, then severe drought.
The recent fires have nothing to do with climate change. Government policy suppressing prescribed burns on “environmental” grounds, however, likely worsened the fires.
What percentage of fires were started accidentally? Presumably a lot of accidental ignition are from “sloppy activity related to fire danger.”
one of the dead firefighters had reportedly put OUT around SEVEN unattended campfires…this in fireban days!! high winds etc and already fires elsewhere
and the poor chap had an accident while driving back from doing that
the 7 campers should be found n charged but chances are slim.
47%
And arsonists usually don’t start one fire. They start multiple fires! IIRC, one RFS volunteer was charged with starting 7 fires.
They are the figures for NSW only, so far.
In Queensland ‘101 people on 172 charges, including 32 adults and 69 juveniles, who have been dealt with for “offences relating to recklessly and/or deliberately setting fires’ so far.
In SA ‘so far made 10 arrests or reports over the past four months’.
There is no data available from the police in Victoria which isn’t surprising given their recent reputation.
The final number of genuine intentional arson convictions will emerge in time.
which in the prevailing conditions would soon become a 2400 mile fire front.
The fires in SE Queensland, NSW and SE Vicroria are all in some of the most heavily forested, hilly and mountainous terrain on the continent and that alone is a major if not dominent factor in their intensity, rate of spread and difficult in fighting. Add to that the current drought in the same / adjacent parts of the country and the lack of moisture coming from the west courtesy of the Indian Ocean Dipole being positive for twice its normal period and ‘climate change’ is running a distant last in terms of material effect if actually in the race.
We don’t know how MANY fires 24 people started.
Nor do we know how many days they were starting fires until they were caught…
We DO know that about 50% of bushfires in any given year are from arson or suspected arson…
Hard to prove intent. A story in a newspaper pointed out that throwing a cigarette butt out near a road gets called out as negligent. I don’t know their intent but it came across as instructions to disguise intent.
A driver towing a boat where the tyre burst causing the axle to drag along the road started a roadside grass fire that rapidly spread. Not arson however, if roadside fire hazard management had been conducted, like it used to, would there have been a fire?
Yep, it called mowing the road side. In the US it still incumbent that the railways keep there rightaways clear if fuel, to bad it not a national law power companies be required to do the same, that way Calistupid politicians would not be aloud to inhibit power companies from doing their job.
Another of which I am personally aware was caused by an apparent “suicide by motor vehicle”.
Adelaide had worse conditions than Melbourne in 2009 but no bushfires like in the hills outside Melbourne. A city of 1 M but nobody discarded a cigarette in the hills. Even in Melbourne, the fires were started by powerlines.
Now we have hundreds a large distance from a city? It might be difficult to prove intent but the statistics suggest an upsurge due to malicious intent.
“the statistics suggest an upsurge due to malicious intent”
What statistics?
Lot more fires started than in previous years. All of a sudden there was a lot more clumsiness or deliberate intent to start a fire.
5 million hectares were burnt in the Black Thursday fire of 1851 attributed to one Bullock team leaving burning logs unattended. CO2 was perfect back then.
“facing charges of sloppy activity related to fire danger.”
no……sloppy activity that actually started a fire
so it’s at least 200 fires started by people….
..take those 200 fires away and there would be nothing to talk about
Out of thousands of fires?
Hi Griff
Similar alarmist views on climate, but not Griff. I think Loydo actually does live in Australia, unlike Griff.
“Thousands of fires.” Please give a real number and source please.
I couldn’t find a total tally for Australia so far but I count 150 currently burning fires in one state on one day.
https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/fire-information/fires-near-me
Many thousands in a season.
Thousands?
Also, are you unaware than one fire can give birth to many?
Actually, the biggest fire in NSW this season started by dry lightening in a park. Who clears fule loads in parks? That’s right, no-one! It’s BURNS!
How many fires do you think by the end of summer Patrick? Have a guess.
In difficult to reach forested areas with decades of fuel load available? How long is a piece of string?
Seems to have been quite a lot more started deliberately this season than any season before in my memory since migrating to Australia from New Zealand in 2005 and I have been following this global cooling/global warming/global climate change story since the late 60’s and early 70’s, I even worked for NIWA in NZ in 2000/2001.
You talk about a strawman argument Loydo, but what is actually the bogus argument is your focus on intent to debunk the reality that these fires are caused by humans. What difference does it make whether it was intentional arson or just criminal negligence? Or even purely accidental?
The increase compared to earlier periods of drought such as 1901 or 1940 is attributable to there being far more people now.
Maybe there have also been eco-terrorists involved, a distinction that I’m not implying would be unimportant if it were proven, but it isn’t necessary to prove arson, or the motivation for arson, to prove that the fires are being initiated by human activity.
The claim being made all over the MSM (worldwide) is that the frequency and intensity of fires is the fault of climate change. But the frequency is the fault of greater human activity and the intensity is caused by lamebrained green regulations preventing appropriate forest management (also human caused).
Blaming climate change (which everyone knows Australia is powerless to affect, whether climate change is caused by human fossil fuel burning or not), runs the risk that important changes in fuel management won’t be made.
Returning to sane land management practices is something that Australia can actually do, and be effective. Reducing CO2 levels is something that isn’t remotely possible even if Australia stops all burning of fossil fuels today.
Thank you, Len. It does the sceptic cause no good to lie with figures like alarmists do. It clearly states 183 were arrested, but this is not true. A caution is not an arrest, in any language, and they weren’t cautioned for arson, either.
Lying like this makes the whole, and valid, point easily dismissable by alarmists.
Under English law a person may receive a caution if they admit to committing an offence. Therefore they have to be arrested first and cautioned under PACE (English equivalent to Miranda).
As far as I can tell, arson involves deliberately starting a fire in every jurisdiction.
On the other hand, accidentally starting a fire can result in a very stiff sentence. Two offenses come to mind: 1 – manslaughter 2 – criminal negligence causing death.
As you say, the mainstream media and academics are playing up the fact that there weren’t that many actual arson charges. The point is that humans directly supplied ignition and were criminally charged.
Based on my first sentence, it is almost impossible to commit arson. DOH!
The magic of grammatical construction!
Salute!
THNX, Commie.
The gal that started the Hayman Fire in Colorado back in 2002 served time for criminal negligence or some less degree of manslaughter due to at least one death. She was burning love letters on a hot, dry and windy day !!!! If wind had been 30 degrees off, my cabin would have burned down, as the fire roared thru about one mile north of me.
Very strict laws in Colorado for starting fires by leaving a campfire or throwing out a cigarette or losing control of your BBQ or…….
Gums sends…
Die fatale Magie des ausgeliefert Seins in einer vorherbestimmten Umwelt.
The fatal magic of being exposed to a predetermined environment.
https://youtu.be/3goPOfcu-JI
Some interesting research
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0222328
Your link says:
“There is also a long-term upward trend in fire weather with the strongest trend found in southern Australia, in spring.
This long-term trend is likely mostly due to anthropogenic climate change, rather than the influence of the IPO or the occurrence of congruent trends.”
Climate ‘science’ has gotta come up with better descriptors than expressions such as “likely due to”
I mean, it’s just not SCIENCY enough, and not at all scary.
Are there an English majors around here who might be able to get to work on this problem?
Mosher?
Yer gonna die
Yer gonna die
Yer gonna die
this would be the same Australia that had so much rain it lowered sea level, right?
Your link says:
You didn’t consider the source?
**This long-term trend is likely mostly due to anthropogenic climate change, rather than the influence of the IPO or the occurrence of congruent trends.”**
The usual fake news pushed by the usual sources.
Is that called science?
And the link also says
“potentially through associated shifts in large-scale rainfall patterns”
Their assumption is that changes in rainfall patterns have been “driven” by anthropogenic climate change. That doesn’t even follow. Its as if any change must be due to CO2 and just rolls off the tongue.
The 1 C increase in temperatures thing? Sure. Fine. But is that a primary driver of actual fires? Not on its own it isn’t.
Nick, that paper also says
So the season of 73-74 was wettest on record. That will have meant massive growth leading to the 74-75 fires, by far the largest recorded. Fuel is a hugely critical factor in Australia’s fires and when you have the fuel, you’re waiting for the ducks to line up with weather to spark them.
What is a piece of science today without a genuflection to climate change?
Nick Stokes January 10, 2020 at 12:44 pm
Your link says: “There is also a long-term upward …
– da hast Du schon recht, Nick Stokes, dieser link sagt das.
– was weiter mit deiner Rechthaberei.
– you’re right, Nick Stokes, this link says that.
– what is further comprising with your ‘I told you so’?
Australian Arson fires, the history of starting these fires is clear.
https://youtu.be/d-wbxDn14rE
Thats right Sun Spot: “history”. This: https://aic.gov.au/publications/bfab/bfab051
shows how 280,000 Australian fires were started over many years: 13% were arson, a further 37% were suspicious and 37% accidental. In other words – historically, the vast majority were ignited by human hands.
So in regards to how they were ignited, this year will most likely be no different from any previous year. The ONLY differences this year are record heat and record dry, making them larger and more intense once ignited. Saying the difference is about arsonists is a lie.
To counter the claim that a lot of fires this year were arson, Loydo points out that over a long period of time, fewer fires were arson.
Once again, any statistic from the past is not allowed to change. Ever.
And if the arsonists hadn’t lit the fires, the situation would have been a non-event
Oh, I dunno about record heat or record dry Loydo.
Remember, the BoM has disappeared the 1895 – 1903 ‘Federation Drought’ where the Murray River and its main tributaries actually dried up to the extent that wagon races were conducted in the bed of the Murray River.
So there’s REAL RECORDS (aka ‘history’) and there’s BoM records (aka ‘selections’)
“wagon races were conducted in the bed of the Murray River”
The Murray would be the same today if the weirs hadn’t been built.
Yep.
Dams hold plenty of water in even in severe droughts.
Tell that to the Greens and other numpties who say dams don’t work because you need rain to fill them.
I had a dam that used to get low in drought times.
Then I had another dam dug.
Then in drought times I had 2 dams that were low, but I still had twice as much water as I used to have. That got me through the dry times comfortably.
So more dams = more water.
Yep. In other words the state of the Murray in 1900 is completely irrelevant.
As are mentions of climate conditions now.
Dont be too tough on the Australian Bureau of Meteorology
At least they explained the cause of the drying drought and heat as coming from an unusual combination of weather systems in the Indian ocean ( Indian Ocean Dipole in negative mode) plus the Southern ocean ( Southern Annular mode) persisting for longer than usual
But no one listened to them so to the media plus ABC plus Michael Mann its all caused by manmade climate change
“So in regards to how they were ignited, this year will most likely be no different from any previous year.”
This is just your guess. It is not a fact.
*******
“The ONLY differences this year are record heat and record dry, making them larger and more intense once ignited. Saying the difference is about arsonists is a lie.”
Insisting something is true, using guesswork as evidence.
Once ignited
Record heat where the fires started or at airports? Careful with that answer.
Because the biggest fire in NSW this season was in a remote, now, national park, right near a, now, disused military airstrip, that dry lightening started. Where is the CO2, bear in mind the fire triangle, in that?
Loydo writes
And given the rainfall is increasing over the long term and the evaporation rate is decreasing, that is a weather condition and not a climate condition. Sometimes the ducks line up for fires, Loydo.
Loydo “Saying the difference is about arsonists is a lie.” –
Loydo the next ‘I told you so’ attributor – what’s next, Loydo –
You know how to cease Australian bush fires ultimately.
It’s about misinformation.
If they can get people to think it is about climate change then they won’t take out their anger on the officials who allowed the fuel levels to get so high before the drought began.
If that doesn’t work, get people distracted with the strawman arson since many fires were the result of carelessness rather than malice.
Given that higher temperatures usually means lower humidity that encourages combustion. Interesting to note given the hysteria in the media is that Australia has not passed 50 celsius for over 20 years. Oodnadatta in SA being the highest recorded and set in January 1960.
Some historical context.
The 1974-75 fires burned 117m ha. versius the 6m ha. so far this year
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7838193/How-current-bushfire-crisis-compares-biggest-blazes-Australias-history.html
“The 1974-75 fires burned 117m ha”
Actually, your link does not mention these “1974-5 fires”, with good reason. It even says
“However, the fires that have raged in NSW, Queensland and now Victoria have now destroyed a record area of bushland – almost 6 million hectares since September.”
The key word is bushland – or more correctly temperate forest. Every year, huge areas of tropical savanna burn in the dry season. An average of nearly 40 million hectares, each year. The 1974-5 season was larger, but did not have much more impact than other years, although there was a more serious echo in the dry areas of western NSW. It is pointless comparing these recurrent events with the hugely destructive forest fires we are now experiencing.
Not to let the readership of this blog be ill-informed “hugely destructive forest fires” are not a recent phenomenon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Thursday_bushfires
Re the spurious claim of unprecedented/record high temperatures. They are nothing new in the Australian context and neither are the bush fires. There has been a campaign to discredit pre 1910 climate records (for obvious reasons) you can’t deny facts like the 435 people died in the 1896 heatwave or the 1851 fires that devastated vast areas of South Australia.
“The temperature became torrid, and on the morning of the 6th of February 1851, the air which blew down from the north resembled the breath of a furnace. A fierce wind arose, gathering strength and velocity from hour to hour, until about noon it blew with the violence of a tornado. By some inexplicable means it wrapped the whole country in a sheet of flame — fierce, awful, and irresistible.”
Fire is such an endemic feature that several plant species can’t germinate without it and creatures have evolved/adapted over millennia to benefit from it.
Have a look at a great recent documentary on Aussie wildlife – Episode one of “Magical Land of Oz” narrated by Barry Humphries (relevant section starts at 47 minutes) It showed a controlled burn. There’s a bird (the Black Kite or Fire Bird to the aboriginals) that makes a great living catching the animals fleeing the flames. This beautiful creature has evolved an additional trick. It takes a burning stick, flies some distance with it then drops it in a fire free area and thereby spreads the fire in the hope of more tasty fare. How dare you!
Tremendous link, that. Just watched it. Crafty swines, those kites.
I don’t think you are using the terminology correctly. I understand Australians use “bush” to mean sparsely populated grassland, savannah, scrub brush or forest. A bush fire can refer to a fire in any of those. I am not sure what a bushland fire is or where that term comes from. However, a forest fire is likely a subset of a bush fire. I have not seen any breakdown of the current fires by biome. Perhaps some Aussie readers could set me straight on what is burning and how it is refered to?
“I don’t think you are using the terminology correctly. “
The Daily Mirror (a British tabloid) is being inexact, would you believe. The current fires are in the eucalypt forests and neighboring land.
The main distinction is the seasonal aspect. Forests are there permanently, until they aren’t. The savanna fires burn off the growth of the previous wet season, to be replaced by new growth next year.
Nick you would be aware that the eucalypt forests of Australia regenerate and grow back to maturity within one person’s lifetime (3 score + 10 years) after being completely killed off by bushfire.
Even as we’re discussing the current situation, the bushland that was at the scorched-earth epicentre of the 2009 Black Saturday tragedy has now grown back to the extent that it is now again regarded as dangerous. 10 years is all it took.
And can you believe that locals there report that NOTHING has been done in recent time to reduce the regrown fuel load there.
Australian governments’ management of bushlands in recent times is redolent of the same government scientific bungling that saw the introduction of the cane toad to the Queensland cane plantations (and consequently, to whole of northern Australia)
Bush. North America (U.S.A.)- Wildland or vegetation. Urban Interface – that area where man developed buildings/homes/ranches meet the dominate landscape ‘wildland = bush’
The US has multiple types of Forest but the difference between the Eastern pine forest and the Western pine forest it in the Eastern forest a tree falls down in less than ten years it broke down so much it’s not good fuel. In the Western forest that not true, both need fire to stay healthy, the Western forest needs it much more often, nature prairie need fire often or else the woody plants take over. Lastly that also true for Charparel, suppressing fire period is a bad idea, allowing fuel load to build up is a bad idea, having anything flammable with a hundred feet from your house I’d a bad idea, is it a wonder whole neighborhoods burn when they are ten feet apart, or when you build in the forest or brush. The native praire wood burn off ever spring(normal started from a trash fire, that who you use to get rid of the trash, a burning barrel) when I was a child, it was not a problem. Houses had big yards the fuel load was low and the grass burn. Sixty year later that small patch of prairie is now a mass of small popular and willow, with a house right in it good luck with that, in this case it one house but if you were to multiply that by a hundred or a thousand even in wet Minnesota that would be a problem. Unfortunately that the norm today not the execption, and yet the useful idiot blame it on climate change. As Ron White puts it “you can’t fix stupid” and from some comments on this blog I see a lot of stupid. Oh by the way my grandfather home place was in the middle of a jack pine grove and the was only one tree within a hundred feet from the house barn and grainery. As a child I often wondered why, as and adult I understand perfectly.
Oh by the way Jack Pine can only release their seeds from the cone with fire, funny there is a tree in wet Minnesota that need fire to survive, you know you don’t see many Jack pines anymore.
1974–1975 Northern Territory Buschfeuer Northern Territory 450.000 km²
1974–1975 Western Australia Buschfeuer Western Australien 290.000 km²
1974–1975 South Australia Buschfeuer South Australia 170.000 km²
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buschfeuer_in_Australien
1974/75 – The severest season for perhaps 30 years in the far west with 3,755,000ha burnt, 50,000 stock lost and 10,170km of fencing destroyed. 1.5 million ha were burnt in the Cobar Shire in mid-December and 340,000ha in the Balranald fire. The Moolah-Corinya fire burnt 1,117,000ha and was the largest fire put out by Bush firefighters. Its perimeter was over 1,000 km.
http://australiasevereweather.com/fires/history.htm
“The severest season”
Someone actually wrote “severest” in an official publication?
“Actually, your link does not mention these “1974-5 fires”, with good reason.”
Perhaps you should read the whole article instead of skimming the first paragraph.
“Summer of 1974-75
New South Wales was the scene of widespread devastation in the 1970s with a horror summer in 1974-75 in the state’s far-west.
While only three lives were lost, 15 per cent of Australia’s physical landmass sustained extensive damage, according to Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience.
Around 50,000 stock were lost and 10,170km of fencing destroyed.
The areas affected included Cobar Shire, Balranald, Glendale and regions around the Lower Hunter.
The overall damage cost was estimated at $5 million, which equated to roughly around 117 million hectares.”
Yes, sorry, I missed that last bit. They start out describing a fire that did occur, in far-west NSW. Three people were killed (I have heard 6), 50000 stock lost etc. And they list the districts, which are a small part of NSW. But the at the end, they throw in the 117 M Ha. That is the size of Texas plus California, and a lot larger than all NSW. They are obviously throwing in the regular savanna fires of NT, WA and Qld, but don’t say so.
One obvious contradiction – a fire that burned 117 million hectares but did just $5 million damage?
Classic Nick diversion “..but did just $5 million damage?”
A $ in 1974-75 wasn’t worth that much. The oil crisis and what followed had only yet begun.
Different days Nick.
Rebuilding Darwin in the same year only cost $150M
http://guides.naa.gov.au/records-about-northern-territory/part1/chapter6/6.6.aspx
“Over the next three years, the Commission let contracts worth more than $150 million and coordinated the construction and repair of more than 2,500 homes as well as other construction projects. The Commission wound up on 12 April 1978, by which time it had built 1,812 new houses, restored 425 houses, built 141 new flats, and restored 128 flats. It had also built 360 home units for the Department of Defence”
Half the population (13Million) and a lot less rural development and buildings. Take the current fires and exclude tourist and holiday towns and see how many buildings got burnt 🙂
If you wanted to do that analysis properly you would need maps of the areas burnt back in 1974 and see what would have been burnt today.
AW,
Thanks for the report about continuing obfuscation and deceit by the CAGW group. They seek mass delusion, it seems. Your report will stand the test of time, their deceit and incompetence shall not.
I’ve been making comments since September in online news articles not to link bushfires to climate change. Easy to debunk for the same reasons as above, but even if you still believed, you would shut up just to not goad even one potential arsonist to feel that fulfilling their desires would be morally correct.
But these alarmists are so religious, or selfish, that they couldn’t care that a degree cooler globe would make less difference than one less firebug.
Sure they are not tourists, journalists, think tank observers, CIA agents, KGB agents, MI5 agents or Wattsupwiththat observers? And maybe they order the onion rings with a salad? Btw I eat meat almost every day and never feel ashamed.
But do you ever feel ashamed when you post a comment to the wrong thread?
In some ways, I wouldn’t mind if the arsonists started fires on a cool, high humidity, low wind day to burn the bush. The Australian bush must burn, the arsonists are just a catalyst for the process.
They unfortunately chose the opposite weather, and cause devastation.
In fact, if there was more CO2 the fires would have been far less intense as fire and CO2 do not mix. Explain that one dumbasses!
A change of 0.01% in CO2 is not going to make any difference to fires.
Or the climate…
You would need more than 0.04% CO2 to put a fire out. In fact, IIRC, you would need to displace almost all O2 at ~21% to have any effect as well as removing sources of ignition. If CO2 was present in air in sufficient concentration to smother a fire, we’d all be dead. It’s not hot enough normally for fires to spontaneously start, though people believe 0.04% *IS* causing the conditions for that to happen.
If CO2 was present in air in sufficient concentration to smother a fire, we’d all be dead.
On the plus side, though, we’d have stopped man-made climate change!
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” ― Groucho Marx
The wildfires were mostly started by humans – accidentally, deliberately and in some cases maliciously (over 100 arrested) some by climate zealots trying to teach us a lesson – but the loonies believe they are CAUSED by global warming/climate change.
Dry Eucalyptus leaves burn like a fuel fire – very nasty – allowing this stuff to build up on the ground should be a criminal offence – instead removing it is a criminal offence – enforced by artificial intelligence and satellite photography – big brother really is watching you if you live in Australia.
But according to the alarmists the Australian government haven’t done enough to combat climate change – what are they supposed to do ? What if they had completely given up on fossil fuels (and totally destroyed their economy) it might have made 0.2% difference to global CO2 emissions – so how much more might the government have done to prevent the fires ?
Had they done so, what would power the fire trucks, water bombers and rescue efforts.
If you believe any amount of CO2 reduction by the Australian government would have made an erg of difference to the current fire storm – the you are living in a green fantasy land.
I suggest they make “climate” a juristic person, pass laws ordering it to change – and if it fails to do so. prosecute it to the maximum extent of the law – if necessary throw the climate in prison.
There how’s that for an idiotic proposal that makes just as much sense as what the alarmists are calling for.
The average schmuck is too dumb to apply logic.
Emotional insanity prevails.
I have an ad below the Josh cartoon with a poll similar to his. Stuffed up the screen capture, though.
It has three options, that the bushfires were due to climate change, just ahead of don’t know and then arson not far behind. There is also a prise from Woolworths so just for Australians, I’m guessing.
How much money is there for CC propaganda?
The first sentence contains a false statement that has been generated as ‘fake news’ by stating that over 180 people had been arrested for arson, the actual number is 24. The 183 number includes people who got tickets for discarding lit cigarettes for example.
The figures are from NSW only. The other states are burning, particularly Victoria and Queensland.
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGZWJpenByZC5wb2xpY2UubnN3Lmdvdi5hdSUyRm1lZGlhJTJGODIyNjQuaHRtbCZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D&fbclid=IwAR0qSpaHb1lMwHMcvRzgvhB3o9qwQB5j1uLZxtHOOKDNigiBrGNTIowSXbw
Can you show us where you have corrected alarmist claims that the fires are a result of climate change?
If not, piss off.
Breaching the rules of the site Gator. Perhaps the moderators will tell you what to do?
Still hiding from a “no” answer I see.
I have asked Phil many times to show that he is not just an alarmist troll, but he refuses out of necessity. Phil likes to pretend he is simply after facts and truth ,but nothing and nobody could be further away from both.
“The NSW Police Force has taken legal action against more than 180 people for bushfire-related offences since late last year.”
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGZWJpenByZC5wb2xpY2UubnN3Lmdvdi5hdSUyRm1lZGlhJTJGODIyNjQuaHRtbCZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D
‘Taken legal action against” would seem to indicate arrests made. What the initial charges were is unknown as far as I can tell. Anyone who throws a cigarette into the dry brush during a heat wave could very well be seen as intentionally starting a fire, or at the least malicious, and could have initially been charged with arson. So how do you know this is actually false?
“‘Taken legal action against” would seem to indicate arrests made.”
No, it doesn’t. The document says what it means:
“legal action – which ranges from cautions through to criminal charges – has been taken against 183 people “
And?
Classic Stokes diversion.
He is all in
So being charged with a criminal act does not indicate that they were initially arrested?
from that police report:
In addition to that, I would think that there might be a strong chance of being lynched by the locals.
Does anyone think that setting fire to Australia is going to get Australians on their side?
Not this one!
People who light bushfires are ranked lower than journalists and politicians.
“Lower than a snakes armpit, and from there they can free fall!
The Greens are widely despised …
“The 183 number includes people who got tickets for discarding lit cigarettes for example.”
And the police caught 100% of the people who were discarding lit cigarettes or were otherwise careless? So none of the non-arson fires were caused by human carelessness rather than deliberate arson? They were all a result of “climate change?’
we have a winner
A combination of weather, social and political climate change, including nature’s green policies, and incompetence, negligence, criminal intent, and corruption. The [anthropogenic] climate change signal is still weak and presumed missing.
Classic Nick diversion “..but did just $5 million damage?”
Aussies have very choice words for folks like Stokes
There isn’t one Australian adult who is not aware of the dangers of throwing out a lit cigarette in such conditions. A charge of deliberate arson might not be upheld by a court, but the huge number of fires lit suggests a strange surge in accidental fires.
Australian fire ban laws are absolute. You can be charged for dropping a cigarette butt on a city pavement, park, or even in your back yard. Much more common than smoking in the underbrush.
You can be charged for it but it will not be counted as arson (unless admitted too). An Australian paper had an article on how police would determine intent using an example of a fire on the side of the road would be assumed to be accidental from discarding a cigarette. Came across as advice to hide the real intent.
Here in Adelaide, a man has been charged for lighting fire by setting of a firework outside of his car window. He denies he was driving his car at the time so unlikely to admit intention to start the fire rather than negligence.
Charged for what? Non brushfire-related littering? Attempted burning of pavement?
“During a Total Fire Ban – During a Total Fire Ban (TFB), any person who disposes of burning tobacco, or a burning cigarette, cigar or match in circumstances that is likely to set fire to the bush; including by throwing it from a vehicle, could face a fine of $25,000 and/or 12 months in jail.”
https://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/safetyinformation/fire/bushfire/Pages/cigarettebutts.aspx
The problem with these laws is policing. Written words that form a policy is useless if that policy cannot be acted on. We have policy in place and policing that actively prevents people from speeding. How much damage is done to a country when someone drives at 10kph over a speed limit? What about bushfires? One weapon that could be used to a total media blackout. A lot of these firebugs start fires for the media attention it brings.
** The 183 number includes people who got tickets for discarding lit cigarettes for example.**
Those are all offenses. You are trying to cover for them?
I came directly to WATTS from Breitbart, where I saw a report that “800 gallons of emergency beer had been delivered to a town surrounded by Australian bushfires”. Piss on it! Don’t snip me, I actually think their strategy is to drink the beer and, you know, employee their personal fire hoses. Always on the cutting edge here at WATTS, but is this a confusing deal or what?
Can we have that in English please?
which part didn’t you understand?
Translation: Over 3000 litres of emergency piss to assist in the extinguishing of thirst followed by the fires!
Facebook was right. The statement that “Australian law enforcement has arrested over 180 people for arson” is simply, demonstrably untrue. They didn’t. The NSW police report on which the claim is based said
“Since Friday 8 November 2019, legal action – which ranges from cautions through to criminal charges – has been taken against 183 people – including 40 juveniles – for 205 bushfire-related offences.
Of note:
24 people have been charged over alleged deliberately-lit bushfires
53 people have had legal actions for allegedly failing to comply with a total fire ban, and
47 people have had legal actions for allegedly discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land.”
“legal action – which ranges from cautions through to criminal charges” does not mean arrested. And failing to comply with a total fire ban (eg home BBQ) or discarding a lighted cigarette is not arson.
Yes, but FB weren’t “fact checking” the number of people arrested for arson (vs careless behaviour with fire); they were taking issue with the article’s assertion that it wasn’t climate change that was the cause of the severity of the fires.
Nick, piss off. “Observer” nails it.
Anthony, I asked Nick on four or five different comments, from one of yesterday’s posts regarding Australians fires, a single question. He can rant and rave all day long but won’t pay someone the respect of answering a question.
He thinks that his is the only opinion that matters.
In regards to who or how many fires were started and how, when you are affected by it and ‘in the moment’ you don’t care. It will come out later hopefully. As an example though, I spoke to a second in command firey a few days ago, stopped him in the street actually to thank him for the efforts of himself and and his crew, he had been working long hours.
I asked him about a couple of local fires that had come up on our fire app, he said that one was started by a fencer out in the paddock doing some welding. They think that the other one was from a campfire that wasn’t extinguished properly and had reignited. A total fire ban was in place at the time these fires occurred and both were a couple of kilometers from our 300 hectare 87mw solar farm. Fortunately they were brought under control before they got there.
Another thing that amuses me is that with all this talk of drought and heat, that people think that it’s the same right across Australia! We are most definitely in drought here and it’s been a harsh one this year but it’s happened before and it will happen again. Up in the ‘top end’ of Australia in The Northern Territory, three thousand kilometers from here as the crow flies, they had more than 560 millimeters of rain in one day! For the Brits that’s more than
22 inches, and it’s been raining for days there. The monsoon season has arrived along with the first of the cyclones in WA, more to come just like every other year. Nothing to see here. The remnants of those weather patterns should hit here before next weekend so we will hopefully get some rain here too.
It is ‘normal weather’, good with the bad here in Australia but I am grateful to those who put their hands in their pockets to those to help those who have suffered property loss during this terrible fire season, regardless of their ideology.
And?
Nick
Please actually read the supposed “fact check”.
It has nothing to do with the actual number of arrests, which is utterly irrelevant, as I am sure you know.
As usual, you attempt to divert attention away from the real issues.
BTW Nick
Go and actually read the Breitbart article. It actually says:
Drawing on data from NSW Bureau of Crime and Statistics and Research, the newspaper reported that “183 people have been charged or cautioned for bushfire-related offences since November 8, and 24 arrested for deliberately starting bushfires.”
So the “fact check” is totally wrong, using your logic
From the article:
“Australian law enforcement has arrested over 180 people for arson in connection with the nation’s raging bushfires, as alarmists try to pin the blazes on “climate change.”
All of the 183 alleged arsonists have been arrested since the start of this year’s bushfire season, the Australian reported Tuesday, adding that 29 fires were deliberately started in the Shoalhaven region of southeast New South Wales (NSW) in just three months.”
183 arsonists arrested! WOW!
Followed by the quote:
“Drawing on data from NSW Bureau of Crime and Statistics and Research, the newspaper reported that “183 people have been charged or cautioned for bushfire-related offences since November 8, and 24 arrested for deliberately starting bushfires.”
Hang on a second. That’s not what the headline and opening of the story said.
I don’t think “alarmist” headlines would treated as gently as breitbart are being treated here because they got the quote right somewhere else in the article, that contradicts the headline claim.
Nick, read Ralph Dave Westfall’s post above……
The real crime here..as I see it….these fires are very common….the damage they cause is astronomical
Why do they not have an entire fleet of water bomber planes…one fire…this one for sure…would pay for it all
The Russians ever have super water bombers for fires in Siberia…puts them all out every time
I understand the states/territories, who are responsible for bushfire management in Australia, refuses any help with water bombers other than “Elvis” (NSW only). Australia needs to revert back to fuel load hazard reduction practices of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s or have available air-based super tankers that can be deployed and cover difficult to reach areas on the ground. This has been a factor this season where the fire could not be reached before spreading and becoming uncontrolable.
Nick must be an alarmist. Discarding a lighted cigarette could very well be arson, or seen by police as arson. And “legal action against’ obviously does indicate that arrests, or at least charges and a court date were initially made or given. And what legal action is taken is not always what police initially charge.
Nick disagrees:
“No, it doesn’t. The document says what it means:
“legal action – which ranges from cautions through to criminal charges – has been taken against 183 people “
Apparently Nick believes that a “caution” is legal action taken against a person., as if “legal action” is a cop cautioning a person not to do something again.
Actually that’s the NSW police description, apparently they believe that a ‘caution’ is legal action taken against a person.
MM: ‘The brown skies I observed in the Blue Mountains this week are a product of human-caused climate change.’ There are young Australians who don’t believe there were bushfires before Climate Change. Don’t be a Climate Scientist like MM.
https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/australia-climate-change-bush-fires-scott-morrison-1359409
How do they explain the mid-70’s fires that burned 15% of Oz? 12 times as many hectares as today’s fires!
Global cooling, no doubt.
Shhh! You need to report to Nick Stokes for retraining!
Lets not forget the big one in 1851 that burnt 5 million hectares, one quarter of the state of Victoria, most of it in one day, much of it only burning out as it reached the coast! Well not entirely, a sailing ship about 20 miles offshore had it’s sails catch fire under ember attack.
And attributed to one incident of logs left to burn unattended.
THese kinds of antics used to be called “dirty pool”; what do they call then now?
It’s maddening to see Michael Mann ambulance-chase every disaster and linking it to climate change, without showing any actual data that correlates global warming to increased wildfires or increased extreme storms.
Mickey Mann’s burning NSW image is very odd,
Despite all the fires, the place presumably burnt behind the fire is still bright green
Photoshop , anyone !!
And why is a US operative/democ-rat shill trying to tell Australians how to vote.
A big .. “go jump in the lake” to you Mickey Man,
A frozen one with at least 4 inches of global warming, the mostly transparent stuff, on top.
The main contributor to Australia’s drought and subsequent bushfires has been a record, strongly positive Indian Ocean Dipole, the Indian Ocean version of ENSO. The Indian Ocean provides most of Australia’s rainfall by area, and when it’s positive (from Australia’s perspective) East Africa gets flooding rain while Australia has drought. The dipole flipped to negative in the past few days, which means that conditions are in place for the drought to end. With the drought comes increased risk of bushfires, exacerbated by government policies which have locked up large areas of forest in parks. Logging has largely been banned and the states have cut funding for park management, so care and maintenance of the highly flammable forest is dramatically reduced.
Historically, drought is a dominant feature of the Australian landscape, and multi-proxy scientific evidence points, in most cases, to the Indian Ocean Dipole as the culprit.
For some perspective and context, it’s a well documented scientific fact that Australia experienced a 100-year long drought commencing at only 4,200 years before present. It’s well established in the scientific literature that drought has been the cause of the collapse of many ancient civilizations including, for example, the Mayans. the Old Kingdom of Egypt and the various civilizations that have occupied the Eastern Mediterranean.
Call it ‘climate change’ if you wish, but climate variability is closer to the truth, and its been going on for millennia without any help from CO2. My long term concern for Australia is that drought may well be the natural default position for large parts of the continent, and that areas now used for agriculture and pastoral purposes may have to be abandoned unless government does something smart in terms of a national water distribution and management strategy.
There are already warnings of high volumes of rain falling over the “top end”.
You’re not wrong Patrick, more than 560 millimeters of rain fell in the top end yesterday, that’s more than 22 inches! They’ve had heavy rain for days now. The first of the regular annual cyclones have started to arrive now too, the one off the north coast of WA.
Looks like we’ve got a chance of some rain in NSW in a few days time, fingers crossed.
We had a bit of rain last night where I am in NSW, Gosford. Been smoky all week, still a bit so. It is much much cooler today however. I am sure you see the media coverage, the SMH doesn’t have enough space for the number of stories. Most pictures of fire displayed were taken at night, has a more dramatic visual effect. 57,000 Germans protesting and demanding Siemens to pull out of Adani. No single tonne of coal has been extracted yet let alone burnt.
I understand the coverage, unfortunately much of it is about promoting the CAGW cause. Many of them are more focused on their own ‘I told you so moment’ to even have a discussion about the ‘truth’. They know absolutely nothing about Australia yet they report based solely on their own opinion. They have sensationalised us. Still, the publicity has at least prompted a generous influx of donations. They’re trying to outdo each other now but attacking the Australian mining magnate for his $70 million donation, seriously what’s with that.
I take my hat off to the pensioner who chucks in $5 dollars at the local supermarket fundraiser, it’s not a competition. It’s a bit funny too, there’s only 25 million people in the whole of Australia, at this rate they’ll be ‘redistributing the wealth’ in an unintended manner. I wonder who and how they’re going to distribute the donations. Hope that someone can keep the bastards honest.
We live in Gulgong, 30 k from Mudgee and 300 k northeast of Sydney. We’ve had very little rain but it’s coming, I’ve been watching it on the weather app, teasing us. Couple a days.
Dear Facebook,
Don’t let yourself become another laughingstock like Wikipedia on the subject of climate change. Wankerpedia, as it’s now known by about half the U.S. electorate is so called because they tolerated and encouraged totalitarian “fact” checkers and like-minded gate keepers like William M. Connolley, also one of the founders of the RealClimate.org website. Connolley controlling all CAGW content for Wikipedia was not a proud moment for those wankers. And it’s the primary reason why I will never believe anything Wikipedia has to say on any controversial topic. Nor will I ever donate a single penny to them, though they beg mercilessly.
If that’s the reputation you want for Facebook, that is your right as a private company in a mostly free marketplace. But get ready to lose the respect of about half the people. To my mind, to deny half the people any voice or opportunity to dissent without YOUR editorial thumb on the scale would rightfully lose you the respect of everyone, not just the intelligent half. If you continue down this path, never again whine or opine on the subject “fake” news. On the other hand, if you want to be a credible, well-rounded resource for your clients, maybe you should research the Connolley fiasco on Wankerpedia, and understand how Connolley’s model of total control lives on even after he has retired, like-minded toadies and NPCs maintaining the same level of gate keeping to this very day. Please eschew that model, and dismiss your oh-so-eager little fact checkers. Or get ready for some labels, such as Wankerbook or Fakebook, or worse.
Just replace climate change with weather wobble errr wiggle err waggle or, I suppose it IS more of a weather wrangle… 🙁