Bush Fires and Global Warming
From First Byte in The Australian
Do the climate change sceptics still need convincing that something is changing our weather and that we need to take immediate and drastic action to prevent more disasters? Doug Steley Maroochydore, QldFrom my desk this morning;
Yes Kev Gillett TAIGUM, QLDClive Hamilton in today’s Cut and Paste is of the same opinion as Doug; CLIMATE scientists have been predicting more frequent and severe bushfires due to climate change for some years. The bushfires and the extreme heatwave, whose death toll when tallied will probably be in the hundreds and exceed that of the fires, are global warming made manifest in the daily lives of ordinary people. But that’s just Clive – he would say that. We don’t need global warming to start disasterous bush fires; just a very hot day, unfavourable winds, fuel and Greenies. David Packham, a bushfire scientist for more than 50 years explains;
Fuels build up year after year at an approximate rate of one tonne a hectare a year, up to a maximum of about 30 tonnes a hectare. If the fuels exceed about eight tonnes a hectare, disastrous fires can and will occur. Every objective analysis of the dynamics of fuel and fire concludes that unless the fuels are maintained at near the levels that our indigenous stewards of the land achieved, then we will have unhealthy and unsafe forests that from time to time will generate disasters such as the one that erupted on saturday.Speaking to my nearly ninety year old Mother last night and she recalls her youth and life in Pemberton, WA, the home of the majestic Karri and Jarrah forests. I recall as well, that the attitude of the townspeople to fires, was one of extreme respect and fear. Every winter men were called off farms to light and control burn-offs to limit the amount of fuel per acre. Every winter without fail. Disasters in the Karri/Jarrah forests, as extensive as Victoria’s timber lands, never eventuated other than the odd individual who, for reasons long forgotten, drew the short straw of life. Of the factors in the formulae of hot temperatures, high winds, fuel and Greenies only the first two applied and given this, the townspeople could handle the bush fires that sprang up every winter. And then along come the Greenies and the last two factors became dominant. More from David Packham.
The decision to ignore the threat has been encouraged by some shocking pseudo-science from a few academics who use arguments that may have a place in political discourse but should have no place in managing our environment and protecting it and us from the bushfire threat. The conclusion of these academics is that high intensity fires are good for the environment and that the resulting mudslides after rains are merely localised and serve to redistribute nutrients. The purpose of this failed policy is to secure uninformed city votes. The politicians who willingly accept this rubbish use it to justify the perpetuation of the greatest threat to our forests, water supplies, homes and lives in order to secure a minority green vote. They continue to throw millions (and no doubt soon billions) at ineffective suppression toys, while the few foresters and bush people who know how to manage our public lands are starved of the resources they need to reduce fuel loads.I’ve been aware of the fuel per acre situation since my pre-teen years; as I travel Australia and talk to country folk, they are all aware of it and yet state governments consider forests sacrosanct, get their Greenie votes and people die. Until this day I have never, never agreed with anything Germaime Greer has said but she is close to the money with this;
Bushland that is not burned regularly turns into a powder keg, as the fuel load inexorably increases. The cause of these disasters is not global warming; still less is it arson. It is the failure to recognise that fire is an intrinsic feature of eucalypt bushland. It cannot be prevented but it can and should be managed. Unless there is a fundamental change of policy across all levels of government in Australia, there will be more and worse fires and more deaths.Fancy that, me quoting Germaine. The Victorian Government will hold enquiries and hopefully, a Royal Commission and with a little bit of bipartisan research we may just arrive at some long known truths. One can only hope that something good can grow from the tragedy of all the lost souls and we could be better prepared in the future, as we once were in the past,
Facebook
Twitter
Not sure I have the correct site but the horrifying scenes of the recent fires made me reflect back on my own life with a still clear rememberance of the raging fires in the mountains and arid smoke from the 1939 fires. I was talking to retired Italian engineer friend this morning and whilst we were both young at the time in our respective countries, we well remember the bomb shelters, which in Melbourne were a feature in many back yards. It occurred to both of us as to why this practice could not be adopted in rural areas for bush fires. I assume a fire ball passes fairly quickly and a shelter with a closed entrance lid or door and possibly some rebreathing gear/oxygen supply could provide the last ditch stand once all other safe escape measures had been exhausted. ‘Food’ for thought?
a shelter with a closed entrance lid or door and possibly some rebreathing gear/oxygen supply could provide the last ditch stand once all other safe escape measures had been exhausted. ‘Food’ for thought?
Couldn’t agree more Charles.
Kev, did you see Australian Story last night.
Apropos of nothing special, Doug Steley, whose comment is quoted above, is a civilian member of the “Mad Galahs”, an offshoot of the failed “Orange Movement” and the subject of a lot of rather unfavourable comment at Keith Tennant’s “Aussie Digger” website.
It is a shame that a highly respected Brigadier’s book title was usurped by these ratbags, but they seem to believe that any publicity is good publicity and intellectual property is there for the taking.
Andrew Bolt and his commenters have some excellent proposals re fire safety and high tech warning solutions, as well as some reinforcement for the “fire bunker” ideas. Grim reading, but well worth a quarter hour, and the first positive proposals I have seen in in a major media outlet.
Recommended reading.
I’ve been getting emails on the mad galahs – strange people. I’m not surprised Steley is involved.
Yes the thread at Bolt’s is well worth the read.
I actually hope you skeptics are correct, because even if the alarmists are 10 – 25% right, we are all screwed.
As Eddie says, I really wish the sceptics were right. But wishing for things isn’t enough.
In the end, this is not an academic debate, because we and our children are part of the experiment. The consensus among scientists (yes, with a few exceptions, as is always the case in science) that we should decarbonise our economy as a matter of urgency.
Say we decarbonise our economy, and it turns out that IPCC view is wrong? Well, we will have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in insulation and manufacturing and taken thousands out of fuel poverty. Not bad, but that’s not all. We will also have reduced the shock of Peak Oil and Peak Gas. And addressed our energy security problems. And prosperity in hot countries. Not bad.
Say we go the way of the denialists/sceptics? We will have problems with energy security, Peak Oil, Peak Gas, fuel poverty, unemployment, poverty, civil unrest and finally, massive, catastrophic climate disruption from droughts, floods, crop failures, disease, and war. With massive migration caused by environmental collapse. Not good.
If I were a betting man, I would put my money on decarbonising the global economy.