Australia PM: Climate change not causing wildfires

[Vikki]

Vikki!

Great to hear from you again!

Some dude added me on Google+ (which I didn't even know I had-- I received an email notifying me of this happening *shrug*) and his name reminded me of yours. So I thought to myself, how is JimC anyway? And so here I am.

[mistermack]

Vikki, living in Autralia hasn't stopped you getting confused, between the short-term weather conditions for making a fire likely, and the long-term climatic conditions, for making fires worse, and more frequent, which is what this thread is about.

Short-term, hotter and drier weather obviously makes it more likeley that a fire will break out.
But long-term, a hotter and drier CLIMATE produces sparser vegetaion, and less frequent fires, of lower intensity are likely.

Your own post contains the answer. You need fuel for fire. Cooler and wetter conditions mean the fuel grows faster and more densely, and there is more undergrowth at ground level. Perfect conditions for fire, for when you get a few hot dry weeks.
Reduce the cooler and wetter part of the climate, and you reduce the overall fire risk.

[Tero]

Ugh, is this guy for real?

I've got no science degrees but I am moderately educated, I take an interest in things, and I have the advantage of living in Australia.

Victoria does dry up, you know? The lush green growth that occurs over autumn and winter and during spring dries out rather quickly in the lead up to the fire season. Wetter months can make for a horrific fucking fire season. More rain = more grass/undergrowth, = more fuel and a fucking nightmare for firefighters (I would know, I am one). Even when we get some wet weather during the summer month (in almost tropical-style storms, which seem to be on the increase), thats enough to shoot up some more greenery, which quickly dries out and turns into more fuel.

It's the most basic of science: for fire to occur you need heat, fuel and oxygen. It is warmer, and there is more fuel.

When you have longer drier spells, the more the bush becomes like a tinderbox, ready to go off (be it in the Dandenong Ranges, where I live now, or be it in the grasslands/semi bush of Victoria, where I used to live). Doesn't matter if it is in the areas with eucalyptus "woods" (eh?) or the temperate rainforests of the Dandenongs or in the grasslands or wheat fields or what. Dry shit burns more readily and frequently.

No copying and pasting, no fancy scientific stuff (I leave that to people like Jim, etc), just what I see and live with.

Yes, he's for real. MM believes that science is caused by Gubment and is therefore wrong. He does not want Gubment telling people what to do. We have these people all over the place. Gubment is the cause of all evil.

[mistermack]

Yes, he's for real. MM believes that science is caused by Gubment and is therefore wrong. He does not want Gubment telling people what to do. We have these people all over the place. Gubment is the cause of all evil.

Tero, if you're going to speak for me, at least try to get it right. You got that about as wrong as it's possible to get.
I've never been libertarian, or anti-government. I think that sort of stuff is complete bollocks, and I say so on here all the time.

And on this thread, I'm SUPPORTING the government view. Not because I like the government, but just because I think they have got their facts right in this particular case.

[pErvinalia]

Blaming fires on warming is just moronic.
Australia is a bloody hot dry country. If a fire starts, it's likely to spread. Even if the place was MUCH cooler, it would still be hot enough for fires to burn. And if it was a lot hotter and drier, it would probably get FEWER fires, not more.

Example? A little place called the Sahara Desert. Very hot, very dry, but very few fires.
If the Sahara became cooler and wetter, it would get far more fires.

If the outback became cooler and wetter, it would probably get more fires, of worse intensity, because there would be a lot more fuel about. All you would need would be a couple of hot dry weeks, and you have all the ingredients for a huge fire.

If the climate of Australia became hotter and drier, you would get a reduction in fires as it would have more desert.

Honestly, your denialism gets more and more ridiculous with each passing week. I don't know whether to laugh at what you just wrote or cry. It's even more idiotic than the crap you tried on in my thread on this topic.

[pErvinalia]

Vikki, living in Autralia hasn't stopped you getting confused, between the short-term weather conditions for making a fire likely, and the long-term climatic conditions, for making fires worse, and more frequent, which is what this thread is about.

Short-term, hotter and drier weather obviously makes it more likeley that a fire will break out.
But long-term, a hotter and drier CLIMATE produces sparser vegetaion, and less frequent fires, of lower intensity are likely.

Your own post contains the answer. You need fuel for fire. Cooler and wetter conditions mean the fuel grows faster and more densely, and there is more undergrowth at ground level. Perfect conditions for fire, for when you get a few hot dry weeks.
Reduce the cooler and wetter part of the climate, and you reduce the overall fire risk.

MacDoc and others have explained this all to you before, ad naseum. With climate change comes greater variability in weather. What that means is that rain fall, while likely to decrease overall on average across Australia, will occur in less frequent but MUCH GREATER INTENSITY events, like the South East Queensland floods in 2011 (and I had the same thing in January this year in the mountains here: we had about half the average annual rainfall in just two days!). So there will be no reduction in fuel load, and there will be more hotter and drier conditions for fires to start and continue burning. You clearly know fuck all about climate science, and you know fuck all about the basics of biogeography. I seriously can't understand how an atheist could be so incredibly irrational and stubborn in the face of all the evidence. You really are a specimen.

[mistermack]

MacDoc and others have explained this all to you before, ad naseum. With climate change comes greater variability in weather. What that means is that rain fall, while likely to decrease overall on average across Australia, will occur in less frequent but MUCH GREATER INTENSITY events, like the South East Queensland floods in 2011 (and I had the same thing in January this year in the mountains here: we had about half the average annual rainfall in just two days!). So there will be no reduction in fuel load, and there will be more hotter and drier conditions for fires to start and continue burning. You clearly know fuck all about climate science, and you know fuck all about the basics of biogeography. I seriously can't understand how an atheist could be so incredibly irrational and stubborn in the face of all the evidence. You really are a specimen.

You and Macdoc are about equal standard. I'll give you one thing though. Macdoc copies and pastes everything, but at least you concoct your own utter rubbish.
Any fool should see that intense rainfall and floods, by their very nature, run off the land, and disappear quicker than drizzle, and consequently will have less effect on the growth of vegetation. Why couldn't you work that one out for yourself?
Farmers don't pray for downpours, they like longer periods of damp weather, for the best growth.

Just a bit of ''basic biogeography'' that seems to have passed you by.

[Tero]

Ok ok, not libertarian. I'll lump you with the retired weathermen. Who prove that global warming is bunk because
- its the sun
- its always warmed
-

The usual stuff.

[JimC]

Vikki, living in Autralia hasn't stopped you getting confused, between the short-term weather conditions for making a fire likely, and the long-term climatic conditions, for making fires worse, and more frequent, which is what this thread is about.

Short-term, hotter and drier weather obviously makes it more likeley that a fire will break out.
But long-term, a hotter and drier CLIMATE produces sparser vegetaion, and less frequent fires, of lower intensity are likely.

Your own post contains the answer. You need fuel for fire. Cooler and wetter conditions mean the fuel grows faster and more densely, and there is more undergrowth at ground level. Perfect conditions for fire, for when you get a few hot dry weeks.
Reduce the cooler and wetter part of the climate, and you reduce the overall fire risk.

In a few thousand years, perhaps. In the mean time, we will still have viable eucalyptus forests in close proximity to human populations. They will get enough rainfall to grow in winter, and will have, on average, longer periods of hot, dry conditions in summer, thus increasing the fire risk. Our fire services are a pragmatic bunch; they are making whatever practical preparations they can (such as more extensive and effective cool-season burn-offs) to mitigate the problem to the extent possible. Personally, I think one of the best things to do would involve changing planning laws to reduce the number of houses on the edge of cities that, being completely surrounded by bush, are nothing more than death traps...

[pErvinalia]

MacDoc and others have explained this all to you before, ad naseum. With climate change comes greater variability in weather. What that means is that rain fall, while likely to decrease overall on average across Australia, will occur in less frequent but MUCH GREATER INTENSITY events, like the South East Queensland floods in 2011 (and I had the same thing in January this year in the mountains here: we had about half the average annual rainfall in just two days!). So there will be no reduction in fuel load, and there will be more hotter and drier conditions for fires to start and continue burning. You clearly know fuck all about climate science, and you know fuck all about the basics of biogeography. I seriously can't understand how an atheist could be so incredibly irrational and stubborn in the face of all the evidence. You really are a specimen.

You and Macdoc are about equal standard. I'll give you one thing though. Macdoc copies and pastes everything, but at least you concoct your own utter rubbish.
Any fool should see that intense rainfall and floods, by their very nature, run off the land, and disappear quicker than drizzle, and consequently will have less effect on the growth of vegetation. Why couldn't you work that one out for yourself?
Farmers don't pray for downpours, they like longer periods of damp weather, for the best growth.

Just a bit of ''basic biogeography'' that seems to have passed you by.

Floods occur because of two reasons (in addition to shitloads of rainfall): 1. The soil moisture profile is FULL; and 2. Where land has been cleared, there is less vegetation to slow and absorb the water. In the cases of Eucalypt forests, it doesn't flood unless the soil moisture profile is full. If it wasn't full, the water wouldn't run off the land. Therefore the forests will get plenty of water to sustain fuel loads necessary for big fires. The other fact that you appear unaware of is that the catastrophic fires in Australia occur IN THE CANOPIES OF GUM TREES. That is, once they get into the canopies of the gum trees, and the conditions are right, they don't need fuel on the ground. Eucalypts are basically little bombs waiting to go off if the conditions are right. And dryer and hotter conditions from global warming (with high winds thrown in) are the right conditions.

I don't know why I am bothering with this, though. You'd prefer to believe in an idiotic conspiracy theory than science and reasoning.

[mistermack]

Floods occur because of two reasons (in addition to shitloads of rainfall): 1. The soil moisture profile is FULL; and 2. Where land has been cleared, there is less vegetation to slow and absorb the water. In the cases of Eucalypt forests, it doesn't flood unless the soil moisture profile is full. If it wasn't full, the water wouldn't run off the land. Therefore the forests will get plenty of water to sustain fuel loads necessary for big fires. The other fact that you appear unaware of is that the catastrophic fires in Australia occur IN THE CANOPIES OF GUM TREES. That is, once they get into the canopies of the gum trees, and the conditions are right, they don't need fuel on the ground. Eucalypts are basically little bombs waiting to go off if the conditions are right. And dryer and hotter conditions from global warming (with high winds thrown in) are the right conditions.

I don't know why I am bothering with this, though. You'd prefer to believe in an idiotic conspiracy theory than science and reasoning.

To be honest, I don'k know why I bother reply to YOUR posts. I suppose it's the football in front of an open goal syndrome.
You dream this stuff up, and it's just too tempting to walk past.
You dream up more extreme downpours, and then you dream up a magic land that conveniently swallows it up. It's all pure bollocks, coming straight out of your imagination. You try to repair the previous stupid post, with another that's just as bad.

Yes, fire can travel across the tops of gum trees. Where the fire is well established, and the trees are growing close together. Which will occur less in a drier climate. Except for areas that have been felled and replanted. Those are the most fire-prone of all, as the trees grow at a higher density. Yes, that's manmade fire risk, but nothing to do with warming.

In contrast a eucalyptus forest tends to promote fire because of the volatile and highly combustible oils produced by the leaves, as well as the production of large amounts of litter which is high in phenolics, preventing its breakdown by fungi and thus accumulates as large amounts of dry, combustible fuel.[19] Consequently, dense eucalypt plantings may be subject to catastrophic firestorms. In fact, almost thirty years before the Oakland firestorm of 1991, a study of eucalyptus in the area warned that the litter beneath the trees builds up very rapidly and should be regularly monitored and removed.

If you want to get it right, I suggest you stop inventing stuff, and actually read something. It will give you a better chance, anyway.

[pErvinalia]

I don't even know how to respond to this nonsense. What I am telling you is simple environmental science basics. Until you get yourself an education, there is nothing you can add to the debate.

[Tero]

Here is the retired weatherman syndrome
http://karireport.blogspot.com/2013/08/ ... nding.html

[Tyrannical]

Dead plant debris is what causes forest fires. They are guaranteed to happen sooner or later, and the more frequent the better. The longer a burn is delayed, the more available fuel for fires and the more destructive it will be. Now I may not have some Australian Biology degree, but it doesn't take one to realize that it is the stupid eucalyptus trees that are a problem. They have evolved to start forest fires after all.

[mistermack]

I do think that Eucalyptus are the main problem. But not necessarily every variety. Some are worse than others, when it comes to the threat of fire. But there are a lot of factors in play. There's definitely been a big rise in people visiting the forests, with arson and accidental fires. That's just a fact of modern life. Then there's the rise of housing, spreading out into wooded areas, which increases the chances of fires starting, and damage being caused.

Also the way that felled forests are replanted more densely to produce a better return, and tall straight tree trunks, suitable for human use.

The global warming thing is not proved in any way. It might have a slight negative effect, or it might not. My bet is the effect is zero.
It's a half of one degree in my lifetime, since 1950. Fuck-all.

It's amazing how every single effect of GW is held to be harmful, without any thought or evidence. Nobody questions it. You can claim it without having to provide any supporting evidence at all.

If Australia was really worried about the fires, there are loads of things that they could do. Replant with other species of trees, when a forest is cut down for example. Clear areas around developments. Remove litter under trees in built up areas.

The LEAST effective thing that they could do, would be to waste money on windmills.
That wouldn't prevent one single fire.