Essay by Eric Worrall
h/t strativarius; The researchers appear to be effectively predicting five events of the same severity as Australia’s 2019-20 “Black Summer”, over the next seven years.
More than 2,400 lives will be lost to bushfires in Australia over a decade, experts predict
Exclusive: Healthcare costs from smoke-related deaths tipped to reach $110m, new modelling led by Monash University suggests
Melissa Davey Medical editor
@MelissaLDaveyMon 2 Jan 2023 01.00 AEDT
In the decade to 2030, more than 2,400 lives will be lost to bushfires in Australia, with healthcare costs from smoke-related deaths tipped to reach $110m, new modelling led by Monash University suggests.
The lead health economist with the university’s Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Associate Prof Zanfina Ademi, who headed the analysis, said it was important to get a predictive picture of the bushfire situation in Australia and its impact on health and the economy.
“This will underline preventive investment strategies to mitigate the incidence and severity of future bushfires in Australia,” she said.
“Even based on conservative assumptions, the health and economic burden of bushfires in Australia looms large,” the paper, published in the journal Current Problems in Cardiology, concluded.
“Human-induced climate change is increasing the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires. This underscores the importance of actions to mitigate bushfire risk.”
…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/02/more-than-2400-lives-will-be-lost-to-bushfires-in-australia-over-a-decade-experts-predict
The abstract of the paper;
The Hospitalizations for Cardiovascular and Respiratory Conditions, Emergency Department Presentations and Economic Burden of Bushfires in Australia Between 2021 and 2030: A Modelling Study
Zanfina Ademi, Ella Zomer, Clara Marquina, Peter Lee, Stella Talic, Yuming Guo, Danny Liew
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101416Get rights and content
The health and environmental impacts of bushfires results in substantial economic costs to society. The present analysis sought to estimate the burden of bushfires in Australia over 10 years from 2021 to 2030 inclusive. A dynamic model with yearly cycles was constructed to simulate follow-up of the entire Australian population from 2021 to 2030, capturing deaths and years of life lived. Estimated numbers of bushfire-related-deaths, costs of related-hospitalizations, and broader economic costs were derived from published sources. A 5% annual discount rate was applied to all costs incurred and life years lived from 2022 onwards. Over the 10 years from 2021 to 2030, the modelled analysis predicted that 2418 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2412 – 2422] lives would be lost to bushfires, as well as 8590 [95% CI 8573 – 8606] years of life lost (discounted). Healthcare costs arising from deaths for smoke-related conditions, hospitalizations amounted to AUD $110 million [95% CI 91-129 million] (discounted). The impact on gross domestic product (GDP) totaled AUD $17.2 billion. A hypothetical intervention that reduces the impact of bushfires by 10% would save $11 million in healthcare costs and $1.9 billion in GDP. The health and economic burden of bushfires in Australia looms large during 2021 and 2030. This underscores the importance of actions to mitigate bushfire risk. The findings are useful for the future design and delivery and help policy makers to make informed decisions about investment in strategies to reduce the incidence and severity of future bushfires.Read more: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0146280622003139?via%3Dihub
Sadly the full paper isn’t available. But the prediction seems absurd.
From the study summary;
… In 2019-20, Australia recorded one of the most severe bushfire seasons, with extensive areas of south-eastern Australia affected. Termed the ‘Black Summer’ bushfires, almost 20 million hectares of land were burnt, resulting in over 3000 homes lost, and 34 lives lost directly (including nine firefighters).2,3 Borchers-Arriagada et al estimated there were an additional 417 excess deaths resulting from longer-term consequences of the fire. … It is estimated that the smoke-related healthcare costs of the Black Summer bushfires totaled AUD $1.95 billion.8 This is more than 9 times the median annual cost of bushfires for the previous 19 years (AUD $211 million) …Read more: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0146280622003139?via%3Dihub
Unfortunately the full details of their model are paywalled. But going by their own numbers, 2412 deaths over the next 7 years is:
2412 ÷ (417 + 34) = 5 x “Black Summer” magnitude bushfires
They are predicting FIVE bushfires in the next seven years or the equivalent in smaller fires. Five fires which are predicted to cause as much harm as a single noteworthy event, the 2019-20 Black Summer fires, which according to their own numbers was nine time as bad as the median severity of events in the previous 19 years.
I don’t have access to their calculations, but given the apparent magnitude of the departure from business as usual, I’m guessing someone mixed up a decimal place in one of their model parameters.
“Bushfires May Kill 2412 Aussies in the Next Decade, but None of the Fires will be Climate Change Driven” says Monash Professor.
Fixed the headline for him.
Now he just has to edit the paper accordingly, even though that will reduce any income he receives from including the CAGW bit.
You’re sailing into the truth, Oldseadog, since the CAGW Loonies are encouraging and stimulating arsonists, who somehow think that’s the way to stop a carbon-based society.
Since human lit fires are an important factor, many actually the work of arsonists, and indeed climate activists:
That “college professor” wasn’t. That is, he was hired on a temporary basis to teach a class and likely paid as an “adjunct instructor”, in an auxiliary capacity — sort of like a tick on a dog.
Compilation of about 10k fires in the western USA show that 84% are somehow or other related to things humans do. Several involved flat tires on horse trailers when the metal hits pavement and throws sparks into grass. One near me was a poorly wired light in an animal shed. Others include kids and fireworks. A very serious one was caused by a bridge worker dropping a hot rivet**, and, even, some are arsonists.
Because of the configuration of the western mountains, summer lightning strikes will start dozens of fires in a single day.
** Taylor Bridge fire burns 60 homes in Washington (wildfiretoday.com)
Now, Now, we don’t need no friggen FACTS.
And for a bit of perspective, based on real current experience (not a model) ~12,000 Aussies will die in vehicle crashes on the nation’s roads over the next 10 years.
That’s 4 times the exaggerated toll this “study” is purporting.
Again, none of which could be blamed on human-caused climate change.
But the road toll is a bit passe now for the academics, politicians and the media – not scary enough.
Plus, much more could be being done by “the authorities” to mitigate the road toll, but they’ve run out of interest, so easier for them to dodge this one and move on with the climate change doom narrative (which they all know, but can’t admit, that nothing can really be done to stop the climate(s) from changing.)
I can only guess that these predictions are based on a do nothing forest management plan.
Until recently rewilding was all the rage, but now the Guardian etc have rebranded rewilding as negligence…
“Fire is an important part of ecosystems across the American west. But an accumulation of dry vegetation, fueled by decades of neglect by forest managers and a prolonged drought, has set the stage for megafires of extreme size and severity.”
That’s quite a 180
I noted that as well in the print version and wondered how the gatekeepers had let it through. Will be useful to remind them next time they blame every forest fire on climate change.
“prolonged” no, droughts are the climate of the area and always have been
even if they did nothing those claims are outrageous
Not a single one of them is Australian. They clearly don’t have any understanding of the history of bushfires and their causes.
Really? 2412 not 2411 or 2413, but 2412 deaths over the next ten years. Extrapolating numbers out ten years and then carrying the calculations out four places and putting that in the head line.
When dealing with nebulous predictions rounding off numbers is a good idea.
I wonder what the error bounds of this study are? They are probably somewhere between 1 and 2500. The trouble with this kind of “study” is that there are no bounds on any of the input data, and therefore the output is simply some kind of guess. But there is no penalty for the guess being wrong, or inaccurate, a situation which makes the whole thing pointless! See the first post…from Oldseadog.
Monash Professor: Climate Change Driven Bushfires will Kill 2412 Aussies in the Next Decade
“Human-induced climate change is increasing the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires.
The IPCC tells us:
IPCC AR4 Chapter ten Page 750
For a future warmer climate … Globally averaged mean water
vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase.
More rain isn’t a recipe for increasing the likelihood of fires.
In a lot of the places, more rain does paradoxically increase the fire risk. For the fire triangle, the limiting factor is the supply of fuel. The vegetation growth is limited by water supply. Increase that and you get lots of new scrub and grasslands. Then when it is not raining, doesn’t even have to be a drought, the wind will dry that out so it easily burns. Many of the Australian plants are full of oils that increase their burning potential.
But Australia always was this way. Long periods of dry weather with intermittent but heavy rainfall. The drought with fire risk, then floods, immortalised by Dorothea MacKellar.
Australia has always had wet and dry periods since the first human arrived. That is called weather and a little more CO2 has made no difference.
I can remember when I started school that there were always floods or droughts some where and some time over the ditch as we and the Ausies call the Tasman Sea.
What has made the difference is that there are now a lot more people and that they have built their homes in the bush .That is what they call their eucalyptus forests .
That is the reason that so many homes are burnt because the natural oil in the trees is very inflammable and a spark will set of an inferno very quickly .
I have seen the results as I am a New Zealander and have spent a lot of time in Australia as it is only two hours away by plane .
I have friends living in different states over there and they tell me that the fire load builds up now that were previously back burnt to remove the dead trash.
It is pushed by the Greens but Councils have gone along with the no burning which the original people used to do .
The feast/famine cycle was happening much longer than European settlement. The French were the first to map the coastline, but decided that it wasn’t worth colonising because it was in a 20 year drought. The next year, when Captain Cook came through, the drought had broken and Cook saw a place of greenery.
It’s all assumed. From the article’s Materials and Methods section:
A dynamic life table modelling with yearly cycles was used to simulate
follow-up of the entire Australian population over 10 years from 2021 to
2030. The section of this model was initially reported to inform climate
change and Australia’s healthcare systems.10 Here we have updated the
inputs using the recent contemporary available data and modified results.
Shortly, the model followed the number of deaths occurring over
10 years, as well as the total years of life lived by the whole cohort. As
the model was dynamic in nature we assumed that deaths occurred half-
way through a cycle. The population in the model was updated each year
by considering births, deaths, and net inward migration. The methods
used for dynamic modelling have been previously published.11,12 The
analysis considered both a healthcare and a societal perspective. As per
current Australian guidelines a 5% annual discount rate was applied to all
costs incurred and outcomes from 2022 onwards.13 The model was built
using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA), and the
Risk Analysis Add-in for Microsoft Excel @RISK 8.1.1 Industrial Edi-
Population Demographics and Mortality. The model was based on the
Australian population in 2020, stratified by sex and age in single years, as
per the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).14 To estimate the numbers
of people in each sex-and-age band from 2021 onwards, the 2020 popula-
tion was progressed, considering births, deaths and net migration in each
The projected number of deaths that occurred over a dynamic period
were derived from multiplying the numbers of people in each sex-and-
age stratum by relevant sex-and-age specific risks of death (from all
causes). The mortality information was derived from the 2019 data (the
latest year available) (Statistics 2022). Over 10-year time horizon, sex-
and-age specific risks of death would remain constant. Future numbers of
births and net inward migration adjusted for sex-and-age were based on
the medium estimates published by ABS.15
Health Burden Due to Bushfires. The number of deaths in Australia
attributable to the 2019-2020 bushfire were derived from Borchers-
4 Curr Probl Cardiol, January 2023”
“Bushfires will Kill 2,412”
I was mighty impressed by their level of ‘certainty’ in their modelling. 2412 – 2422?
“the prediction seems absurd”
I think that’s a rather well restrained reaction to this utter tosh, to be honest. The last couple of years have really helped to reveal just how bad modelling can be, and the problem with the models – aside from the fact that they are so very partial – is they are crammed with parameters. Or fiddle factors as they should be called. No room for bias there? Hmm
I think when it comes to nonsense modelling there should be a fitting prize for the worst – the Neil Ferguson award. The recipient should receive the award and forego 50% + of their funding for one year.
The year in view…
Last night UK [lefty] Channel 4 ran a documentary – 2022: The Year From Space – using a year’s worth of satellite imagery for everything from Russian troop build ups to a Great Barrier Reef suffering bleaching and global heating etc. It was a blatant propaganda film for the climate crisis. If you can stomach it there’s 28 or 29 days left to view it.
2023 will be much worse on the propaganda front, WUWT etc have their work cut out for them.
Yes, I watched a bit of that as well. Superb photography ruined by propaganda.
Best with the sound muted.
Assessing the comparative devastation of bushfires occurring in different times by basing their effects on economic and/or financial metrics is bullshit.
The urbanization of more & more zones that had been naturally fire-dependent for the Eucalyptus forests to dominate the bush was always going to carry significant risk of catastrophic losses of structures and living creatures including humans.
Nature has set up the requirements that for the bush to be self-sustaining, it must be subjected to serious burnoffs at cyclic intervals.
The only way to obviate societal losses from bushfires is to exclude society from permanent settlement in or adjacent to natural bush zones.
I and others elected to habitate our special
places in remote bush areas because of the fullness of life we appreciated there. It
was a 20-year sacrament for me and the missus.
But we were always vigilant about the ever-present risks & hazards the bush carries.
save more angst by burning their idiotic “research”
To a large extent bushfire risk is a management issue. If we can’t manage fire risk, what hope have we got of managing the climate.
Well there’s no doubt after the triple La Nina flooding there will be a lot of bush growth and that will present some considerable bushfire fuel once El Ninio returns as you might appreciate with spot the Murray River in there somewhere-
As for modelling any of that what are these people smoking?
Interesting to see if that many modelled fires in a few years would leave any more fuel to burn by the last year. Self-extinguishing model thingo.
Why should matters get worse? Here, at the start of 2023, there are indications that Australia has been in a cooling phase for some years. Is that noted in the paper? Geoff S
Over a century ago 15 year old schoolgirl observes data and comes up with Dot model-
Current university educated types observe same data and come up with Greta model-
I’m pretty sure that 2400 number was pulled out of the air, or another word that starts with “a.”
This kind of modeling and verbal incontinence seems to assume the folks who die from the fires would otherwise live forever. No heart attacks or car accidents for them!
Their reference for supporting the thesis that human induced climate change is increasing bush fires is Xu, et al., New England Journal of Medicine, 2020.
I love how medicine can now find problems everywhere except in its own backyard.
These opioids are safe and effective. Oh, and they aren’t addictive.
If these bushfires are caused by global warming, why is it that the big major fires are all in the wetter cooler near coastal districts?
If due to higher temperature surely they would be in the drier hotter inland districts.
Actually some of the biggest fires in Australia regularly occur in Australia’s north, but because they are generally in vast unoccupied areas they do not attract any attention.
There’s mostly little to no vegetation out west.
This professor’s prediction is baloney. malarkey, claptrap and BS
My confuser program predicts 14,067.8 dead, +/- 13,038.6 dead
I bet my computer is bigger than his computer.
And I have more decimal places too.
This is the same computer, that in 1997, predicted:
“The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder.”
Which has been an accurate prediction for 25 years so far.
“I bet my computer is bigger than his computer.
And I have more decimal places too.”
Boys with toys!
I always wanted to own a Gulfstream Jet but couldn’t afford one … so I bought a model.
My friends were not impressed.
Ah, crap. Another overpaid and overrated academic with nothing better to do than shout gloom and doom. Based on what? Models, of course. Someone please start locking these morons up in the loony bins where they belong. Quit feeding their egos with the attention they so richly don’t deserve.
2412 fire deaths in the coming decade! That is an average of 241.2 a year. Such numbers brand the asterisked scientist as an idiot who falsifies himself.
It’s really 241.2 over a period of about 3 to 4 months of the year ! WOW!
If this professor truly believes that bush fires will kill 2412 people in the next decade, then he should demand something be done about it THAT IS POSSIBLE. Since it’s not practical to lower the amount of CO2 in the air (or necessary since it’s not the problem), then it becomes necessary to manage the forests. (What used to be done to control fires.)
To make this claim and not demand the forests be managed is nothing less than being an accessory to murder.
A lot of the deaths from the last bushfires were from people who built tar shingle roof wooden houses in a steel roof concrete block house zone… many of them FAR too close together to have ever been examined by code enforcement at that.
I can’t see “climate change” driving people to use lower R value construction.
Here in Oz they’re mainly timber framed and clad or brick veneer with a zincalume sheeted roof.
“Modeling” is now a term in “academic publications” frequently used to describe the authors’ fantasies. Science has nothing to do with this.
What happens when the changes that erased the previous pause are undone/removed?
Well, here is the most likely description of the veracity of all these warmistas:
It would be interesting to do a meta-analysis of previously published peer-reviewed studies using models which made specific predictions for a date which has since passed. Evaluate each prediction for its accuracy and chart the results. Then filter by model used and authors.
The results might even be publishable.
None of these people have any skin in the game. There are no consequences for incorrect predictions. Perhaps, if they were held accountable for their “predictions” they would be much more conservative in their prognostications and much less likely to make them.
I wonder what projections they would have made following the fires on 6th February 1851 which burnt a quarter of Victoria, having a much smaller population at that time.
“Fires raged out of control from Barwon Heads, Victoria, to Mount Gambier, South Australia, while the smoke haze spread as far as Tasmania. Approximately 12 people died and 5 million hectares – approximately a quarter of the state of Victoria – was burnt.
Losses included one million sheep and thousands of cattle with many properties and communities destroyed. The fire affected the Wimmera, Portland, Gippsland, Plenty Ranges, Westernport, Dandenong and Heidelberg with extensive damage in Victoria’s Port Phillip district.”
They also ignore that the Australian eucalyptus trees have evolved over the ages to survive fires and regenerate afterwards, in fact fire has become a trigger for their regeneration, so widespread fires must have been an integral part of the landscape forever. The foliage of the eucalyptus has a high oil content which adds to the ferocity of the fires.
There is not doubt that increased rainfall, warmth and CO2 are contributing factors to increased plant growth, but it is mans intervention to extinguish naturally occurring fires that are not directly threatening anyone or anything that leads to a build up of fuel that would otherwise have been burnt before it reached the stage of being impossible to extinguish even with modern equipment, in fact it is nature that finally extinguishes most fires.
Obviously when infrastructure and lives are at risk, intervention must occur, but much could be done to prevent people building in some of the most dangerous areas such as on an elevated position surrounded by eucalyptus trees. This is where many deaths occur. Climate change or not, fires are always going to race up inclines and there is nothing that can be done about that whether it is forested and mere grassland.
fires are always going to race up inclines and there is nothing that can be done about that
Too right it will in temperate zone highland forests like this-
Particularly in late summer with high winds above 40C and once the fire crowns with all that Eucalyptus oil in the canopy Nature has to take its course.
But that’s near or where most folks want to live in Oz compared to the vast Savanna woodlands across northern Australia like so-
Yep that’s largely where steaks and hamburgers come from and the understorey burns regularly every dry season largely from lightning strikes and kites spreading it but also aboriginals with guns flushing out game. You can see why those fires don’t crown even though the canopy is much closer to the ground (impoverished soils) so nobody bothers to put them out apart from protecting settlement/station perimeters. When you see those large termite mounds as distinct from plenty of subterranean termites you can’t see (first pic) you’ll know that’s floodplain in the wet season. Different strokes for different folks.
As I stated above these fires have been happening for ever .
The problem is that the Aussies must be slow learners to build among very inflammable trees.
Dry hot summer conditions have always happened and all ways will .
Its not the climate that has changed it is the growing population wanting to live out side the towns .
When the previous government here in Alberta put forward their plan to eliminate coal fired generation they trotted out studies showing billions in health costs from coal particulates
All made up out of whole cloth
Facts don’t matter with the fossil fuel doomsters and their imaginary pollution-
They may as well create a computer model that concludes pigs can fly and “publish” that and call it “science.”
“Unfortunately the full details of their model are paywalled.”
That’s probably for the best as it almost certainly doesn’t deserve to see the light of day and no sensible person would pay for the dubious privilege. Soon they’ll probably be modelling the effect on cardiovascular events of throwing another shrimp on the smoking barbie, if they haven’t already done so.
Anyway, aren’t many wildfires getting larger now because many landowners are prohibited from performing precautionary burn-offs to stop small fires turning large?
That’s what I have read in the past. As in the US, sensible forest, bush, and scrub land management has had to give way to the greenalists who decide they know better that the people who actually study it and perform it for a living.
So imaginary human caused climate change will cause lots of imaginary fires that will cause lots of imaginary deaths, imaginary health problems, and imaginary economic costs.
And when we reach the end of the decade and it hasn’t happened, will they admit they’re wrong and STFU?
Who reviewed this paper, and what were they smoking?
Modelling pyromania?? Who would have thunk it..
“Of droughts – (el nino) and flooding rains (la nina”)
My model says 2412.6527.
Obviously they’ve got it all wrong. ;-D
Four significant figures with 95% confidence from a model predicting wildfires.
“ The researchers appear to be effectively predicting five events of the same severity as Australia’s 2019-20 “Black Summer”, over the next seven years.”
Please send those “effective” researchers to WA. State… Ours seem to have a LOT of trouble getting FOUR DAYS accurate!