Australia PM: Climate change not causing wildfires

[cronus]

http://www.newsdaily.com/article/f4b278 ... -wildfires

Australia PM: Climate change not causing wildfires

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — The government staunchly rejected arguments that climate change is causing the wildfires ravaging parts of eastern Australia following a record hot start to the spring season.

"That is complete hogwash," Prime Minister Tony Abbott told News Corp. Australian newspapers in an interview published on Friday.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt backed his prime minister, saying no individual event can be linked to climate change.

But a climate science organization abolished by Abbott's government released a report on Friday declaring a clear link between climate change and the wildfires. The severity and scale of the fires was unprecedented for this time of year, it said. Last month had been the hottest September on record in New South Wales state. The 12 months preceding it had been the hottest year on record across Australia.

The government abolished the state-funded Climate Commission after being elected last month. But the organization survives through public donations as the Climate Council to continue its independent work of communicating reliable information about global warming.

To deny the influence of climate change on extreme fire weather placed people and property an unnecessarily high risk, the report warned. The findings are interim, and the final report will be released next month.

Will Steffen, a Climate Council member and director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute, said he was frustrated that the established science on global warming was not yet accepted in Australia.

"We'd like to see a discussion in this country that gets beyond these futile debates about the science that have been settled for decades in the scientific literature and get on with the real debate about what is really the best way of dealing with the problem," Steffen told reporters. "That's where the political debate really needs to be."

Abbott argues that Australia has experienced wildfires for more than 200 years of European settlement and had suffered worse fires in the past.

This week, he accused Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, of "talking through her hat" when she referred to the Australian wildfires as the world "paying the price of carbon" in the atmosphere.

"They are desperate to find anything that they think might pass as ammunition for their cause," Abbott said, referring to people who link the fires to global warming and who criticize his government's climate change policies.

Abbott's conservative government plans to repeal laws that force Australia's worst greenhouse gas polluters to pay a tax for every ton of carbon dioxide that they emit. The tax was introduced last year to reduce Australia's abundant greenhouse gas emissions.

Australia is one of the world's worst greenhouse gas emitters on a per capita basis because of its heavy reliance on cheap coal for power generation. As the world's driest continent after Antarctica, scientists warn that Australia is also particularly vulnerable to climate extremes that come with climate change.

(continued)

[JimC]

As I said in an earlier thread, the PM and the environment minister (arseholes that they both are) are technically correct to say this. It would be very silly indeed to say "climate change caused the current NSW bush fires", and any greenie who says that is inviting deserved contempt, and doing environmental causes a disservice.

However, they both should have added that a continuation of current climate change trends is highly likely to increase the extent and frequency of Australian wildfires in the future.

[JimC]

From today's Melbourne Age:

Victoria's Country Fire Authority is predicting larger and more severe fires because of climate change, warning that emergency service workers will have less time to recover and prepare from one disaster to the next.
An authority planning strategy document identifies climate change as a key threat, concluding there will be ''more record hot weather'', more heatwaves, more drought and less autumn and winter rain.
''The conditions for large and intense fires - low humidity, high winds and extreme temperatures - are likely to become more common,'' it said.
The state and federal governments have largely dismissed the link between climate change and bushfires. But the strategy, aiming to prepare the authority for challenges likely to arise from 2025 onwards, concluded there was ''no doubt'' the atmosphere was warming.

This would mean less time for emergency services staff and volunteers ''to debrief, recover and prepare for the next emergency event and the next emergency season'', it said.
In an introductory statement, authority chief Euan Ferguson predicts climate change, including longer summers and more unpredictable weather, would ''mould'' the authority's future.
Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt triggered criticism from the federal government, and on social media, after linking this week's bushfire disaster to climate change.
Victoria's Emergency Services Minister Kim Wells joined the attack, saying it was ''disgraceful'' that the fires had been used to pursue a political agenda. Asked this week if he believed there was a link between fires and climate change, Mr Wells said: ''History has shown us time and time again that bushfires are a part of this continent and that will always be the case.''
The report, prepared in July, said the combination of weather conditions linked to bushfires had already become more severe.
''There have only been 21 days in 102 years of records where the average temperature across Australia exceeded 39 degrees; eight of these happened in the summer of 2012-13,'' it said. ''The number of 'very high' and 'extreme' fire danger days is very likely to increase.''
Details of the authority's report follow a series of warnings about the link between climate change and bushfires, including from the head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, and the Climate Council.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/link-to- ... z2injPFnog

[mistermack]

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.

[JimC]

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.

Utter nonsense. We're not talking about the "outback", we are talking about the extensive, fire-prone eucalyptus forests of eastern Australia, particularly those regions in proximity to human habitation. Straightforward scientific predictions of future changes in precipitation, and in particular the number of hot, dry days in a row show a steadily increasing fire risk in this region, already high due to the lack of indigenous burning off.

Rather than babbling on about the Sahara, why not do a science degree specialising in Australian biology, like rEv and I? Then maybe you'll be able to respond without your foot rammed so firmly down your throat...

[cronus]

Yeah, like the Bible men knew, this world burns and by it's arse first.

[mistermack]

Utter nonsense. We're not talking about the "outback", we are talking about the extensive, fire-prone eucalyptus forests of eastern Australia, particularly those regions in proximity to human habitation. Straightforward scientific predictions of future changes in precipitation, and in particular the number of hot, dry days in a row show a steadily increasing fire risk in this region, already high due to the lack of indigenous burning off.

Rather than babbling on about the Sahara, why not do a science degree specialising in Australian biology, like rEv and I? Then maybe you'll be able to respond without your foot rammed so firmly down your throat...

You certainly know how to tell em. Much respect.

Amd so a biology degree helps to forecast climate and bush fires eh?
In what way exactly?
As far as I can see, it's stopped you thinking for yourself, and helped you swallow what you're fed.

My example of deserts clearly illustrates that it's the areas in the MIDDLE, between desert and rain forest, that are most at risk of fire.
A warming climate will do nothing to increase that kind of land. Some marginal stuff would turn to desert, and produce less fuel for fires, while some wetter places would become drier and more fire prone. The net result is nil increase.

[JimC]

You have no idea whatsoever about the Australian environment, have you...

I know you deny that humans are causing climate change, but in one of your posts, I remember you agreeing that temperatures were rising, and the climate was changing, even though you disputed the causation. Well, forgetting about causes for a moment, the effect of this, specifically in the eucalyptus forests of eastern Australia, will be to increase the extent and severity of bush fires, if land management practices such as more regular burning off don't happen. Inland, desert regions of Australia are irrelevant to this specific argument...

Every single report here about forestry and fire risk in the past 10 years has said the same thing. If current warming trends continue, we will most likely see worse bushfire seasons here.

That's a long way from the blunt and somewhat absurd statements from some current Green politicians that "the current fires are caused by rising CO2 levels"

[mistermack]

Of course I recognise that the Earth has warmed, roughly by a degree, and that that will affect Australia.
But the example of desert clearly shows that there is no reason that this should cause more fires across the continent as a whole. In fact, as there is much more dry land than rain forest, it's likely to reduce the TOTAL amount of fire.
If you want to argue specific areas, then of course, some areas will become more fire-prone.
But people are just lying about the degree, and the long-term effects. It's one degree of warming.

Consider this. The areas that you are talking about, the eucalyptus forests of eastern Australia, are already fire-prone.
They are not the hottest, or driest parts of Australia. There are parts that are a bit hotter and drier, and parts that are MUCH hotter and drier.

So would you like to point out an area that is hotter and drier, and how much more fire-prone it is as a result?

[JimC]

Of course I recognise that the Earth has warmed, roughly by a degree, and that that will affect Australia.
But the example of desert clearly shows that there is no reason that this should cause more fires across the continent as a whole. In fact, as there is much more dry land than rain forest, it's likely to reduce the TOTAL amount of fire.
If you want to argue specific areas, then of course, some areas will become more fire-prone.
But people are just lying about the degree, and the long-term effects. It's one degree of warming.

Consider this. The areas that you are talking about, the eucalyptus forests of eastern Australia, are already fire-prone.
They are not the hottest, or driest parts of Australia. There are parts that are a bit hotter and drier, and parts that are MUCH hotter and drier.

So would you like to point out an area that is hotter and drier, and how much more fire-prone it is as a result?

Again, you miss the point. The serious bushfire issue in Australia is confined, largely, to the eucalyptus forests, particularly those near our large cities, in particular, Perth, Melbourne and Sydney. Yes, they are already fire-prone, to an extent that varies from year to year. On average, it is expected that there will be longer periods of hot dry days in the future, on average. Thus, greater fire risk than before, and to an extent significant enough to need changes in land management practices, and more resources devoted to fire-fighting services...

Simples

[macdoc]

Let's see MM...you don't live there and know fuck all about climate change and don't understand elevated risk....

You do not find many climate change sceptics on the end of [fire] hoses anymore… They are dealing with increasing numbers of fires, increasing rainfall events, increasing storm events. – A senior Victorian fire officer, interviewed in 2012 for a recent National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility report.
There have been fierce arguments this week about whether it’s opportunistic to discuss climate change in connection to the devastating New South Wales fires. Amid all the bluster, it’s surprising that we’ve heard so little from one group of experts: frontline emergency service workers, including the firefighters risking their lives for the rest of us.

Yet if you do ask for their opinion - as we did for a study released in June this year - many, like the senior fire officer quoted above, are not reluctant to talk about climate change. In fact, quite a few of the emergency workers and planners we interviewed said we should be talking about it more, if our communities are to be better prepared for disasters like the one unfolding in NSW right now.

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best

In 2012-13, I led a joint research team from Griffith and RMIT to prepare a report for the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) on disaster risk management and climate change.

To do so, we compared the emergency responses to Victoria’s 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, the 2011 Perth hills bushfires, and the 2011 Brisbane floods.

We started by comparing the official inquiry reports into these events to the relevant research on disaster risk management. This was followed up by interviews with 22 experts from Perth, Melbourne and Brisbane, including nine fire officers, five emergency services workers, and eight assorted planners or policy officers. The proposals that emerged were then reviewed at a set of workshops.

One of the most interesting things we found in talking to the emergency service workers was an overwhelming acceptance and concern that climate change was already affecting Australia, based on their personal experiences with disasters.

As a Western Australian fire officer told our research team, we need to “get the scientists, who have a lot to share about climate change and climate change adaptation, talking to the operational people” - a suggestion backed by many of our interviewees.

Preventing future emergencies

Our report was not the first time that firefighters and other emergency workers have spoken out about climate change.

For instance, earlier this year it was reported that the United Firefighters Union released research by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research that found almost 2 million Australians were relying largely on volunteer fire brigades to protect them and A$500 billion in assets.

The same article referred to research from the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, a collaboration between the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, on how the fire season across much of south-eastern Australia appeared to be going on for longer.

http://theconversation.com/what-firefig ... ange-19381

DO you understand what this means???



Australia had to add two additional ranges to their temperature maps last year.

Australia can be a pretty hot place in the height of summer. The country’s growing “dome of heat” however, which has helped break temperature records and ignite bush fires nationwide recently, has had another unanticipated effect – it’s broken the temperature range used by The Bureau of Meteorology.

So what does that mean? Well, as spotted by The Age, the Bureau has been forced to add two new colors, purple and pink, to its various maps and visualizations in order to extend its temperature range to 54 degrees celsius, up from 50 degrees.

http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2013/0 ... ure-range/

A separate document on “extreme climate events” states: “Impacts of climate change will mostly be felt through extreme events.

“A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, duration and intensity of droughts, floods, storms, heatwaves and fire and will test the resilience of natural and human coping abilities.

“The impact of extreme events has significant cost to the economy, society and the environment.”

It adds: “The ACCSP (Australian Climate Change Science Program) investigates extreme events to determine likely changes in their behaviour. For example, fire weather displayed a rapid increase in the late-1990s to early-2000s at many locations in south-eastern Australia.”

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013 ... nt-website

but you go right ahead....spout hogwash for our amusement.v ...

[mistermack]

Macdoc, your posts get more ridiculous each time.
Do you have a mind of your own? Or are you just addicted to copying and pasting any old rubbish?

People are accusing me of knowing nothing about Australia, but I'm not detecting any great knowledge coming back.

What part of Australia suffers most from fire? The state of Victoria.
What is the coolest, wettest state on mainland Australia? Victoria. That rather disproves the theory that warmer and drier equals more fire. The facts show the exact opposite.

And Eucalyptus loves fire. Regular burning is why the eucalyptus woods grew in the first place. Eucalyptus trees actually encourage fire, by producing leaves laced with flammable oils. It's their way of eliminating competition from other species.
These eucalyptus forests are SUPPOSED to burn. Otherwise they wouldn't be there.
But if you go building more and more amongst it, you will burn too.

[Vikki]

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.

[JimC]

Vikki!

Great to hear from you again!

[Clinton Huxley]

It's an established scientific fact that, despite the statistical improbability, none of the hundreds of phenomena potentially linked to anthropegenic warming (which doesn't exist anyway, the Earth is getting warmer because the Sun is getting bigger), are actually caused by it at all.

It's all a massive coincidence. Humbug to all of it.