Austrailia on Fire!

Chromer J

Active Member
Better get your rake out and start clearing the undergrowth then...

The problem with your theory is that it boils a highly complex issue down to a simple dog whistle that is proven to effectively rally the deniers. Denying historical record? How is this for historical record:

Australia’s climate in 2019
  • Australia's warmest year on record, with the annual national mean temperature 1.52 °C above average
  • Both mean annual maximum and minimum temperatures above average for all States and the Northern Territory
  • Annual national mean maximum temperature warmest on record (2.09 °C above average)
  • Widespread warmth throughout the year; January, February, March, April, July, October, and December all amongst the ten warmest on record for Australian mean temperature for their respective months
  • Significant heatwaves in January and in December
  • Australia's driest year on record
  • Nationally-averaged rainfall 40% below average for the year at 277.6 mm
  • Rainfall below average for most of Australia
  • Rainfall above average for parts of Queensland's northwest and northern tropics
  • Much of Australia affected by drought, which was especially severe in New South Wales and southern Queensland
  • Widespread severe fire weather throughout the year; national annual accumulated Forest Fire Danger Index highest since 1950, when national records began
  • One of the strongest positive Indian Ocean Dipole events on record; El Niño–Southern Oscillation neutral throughout the year

You're the one denying the obvious. This is the hottest year they have had on record with a prolonged fire season exacerbated by heavy drought. Only a fool could look at those stats and fail to connect the dots. It isn't a coincidence that Australia's worst wildfires came on the heels of their driest year. Sure, forestry practices, controlled burns, etc. are part of the equation and not to be overlooked, but the obvious elephant in the room is that their/our fire seasons are getting longer and drier almost every year.

Ask yourself this... If Australia had implemented the fire suppression policies you are talking about since day one, do you think they still would have had a bad (possibly their worst) fire season this year given the precipitation and heat they faced in 2019? If you are answering no to that then you might as well quit while you're behind... Shameful...
Great, I acknowledge that there are many factors at play which collectively impact the risk level for fires in a given year. Obviously drier hotter years elevate those risks for fire as does incidences of arson and human negligence. It is the scale of the fires which could have been mitigated with management policies. To answer your hypothetical, yes, even with sound managment policy, it would still have been a bad year for fires there, but the scale would have been much more limited.
 
Last edited:

girlfisher

Active Member
Cherry Picked? A native who has spent her life studying the effects of CC on her own country. I would beg to differ and feel that 60 minutes did a great job interviewing the right people to highlight their message. I sincerely believe your cliche would also apply to climate change deniers!
View attachment 226922
Wonder if Australia's chief science minister was in that 60 minutes interview? I'll likely never know.

And an oldie but a goodie from right here in Washington. If his slide presentation graphics don't scream that he's not funded by deep pocketed special interests, I don't know what else would:
They have asked Trump about NASA manipulation of data and still hope to maintain credibility?
 

Chromer J

Active Member
They have asked Trump about NASA manipulation of data and still hope to maintain credibility?
You'd have to ask him what he hopes for. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it has less to do with his credibility, and more to do with the credibility and integrity of climate data handling by NASA's Goddard institute. When transparency is refused, suspicion should be raised
 
Last edited:

girlfisher

Active Member
They have asked Trump about NASA manipulation of data and still hope to maintain credibility?
Don Easterbrook = Global Cooling - are you serious?

This is not cherry picking?
 

The T.O. Show

Buenos Hatches Ese
Great, I acknowledge that there are many factors at play which collectively impact the risk level for fires in a given year. Obviously drier hotter years elevate those risks for fire, and they did have a long, hot dry season. It is the scale of the fires which could have been mitigated with management policies. To answer your hypothetical, yes, even with sound managment policy, it would still have been a bad year for fires there, but the scale would have been much more limited.
Okay, well then I would echo what Boot already told you which is that isn't how your original post reads at all. You specifically said that it's shameful for people to invoke climate change in relation to these fires and placed the blame squarely on past fire suppression policies. There are many factors to consider.
 

Chromer J

Active Member
Okay, well then I would echo what Boot already told you which is that isn't how your original post reads at all. You specifically said that it's shameful for people to invoke climate change in relation to these fires and placed the blame squarely on past fire suppression policies. There are many factors to consider.
I emphasized that it is the SCALE of fire being the metric which could be better controlled with improved management policies, not the risk level of fire any given season. Pehaps I left out the word "SCALE" in some spots where I meant "scale of fire", and simply stated "fire." Again, historical record supports that the larger SCALE of fires we've experienced in recent times is primarily due to the unintended consequence of over a century of aggressive fire suppression policies. This was not a surprise to many.
From an Australian bushfire scientist's concerns voiced 5 years ago. " ....unless the annual fuel reduction burning target, currently at a minimum of 5 per cent of public land, "is doubled or preferably tripled, a massive bushfire disaster will occur. The forest and alpine environment will decay and be damaged possibly beyond repair and homes and people [will be] incinerated."
 
Last edited:

smc

Active Member
WFF Supporter
A lot of cognitive dissonance exhibited here by Chromer J. Should probably expect a lot more of this from the deniers and conspiracy theorists as the global climate continues to heat up and the sea levels continue to rise.
 

SilverFly

Active Member
I think skepticism, generally, is a good thing. Especially when there is the potential for bias.
Which would seem likely in any politically charged issue funded by government grants.

Unfortunately, when skepticism is taken too far, the trap it lays is falling into the same oppositional/defiant, "camp", "us-vs-them" mentality. It never hurts to actually listen to the opposing side, if for no other reason than as an objectivity check.

Empirical evidence, logic, and common sense are the only things that should be guiding us. NEVER, personal feelings about the source, political alignment, or God forbid, the seemingly unbreakable human need to be right.

All that said, I'm sure I'm biased to some degree, but in spite of trying to keep an open/apolitical mind, I'm having a hard time denying human activity as the primary driver behind climate change.

I'm sure Scientific American is biased to some degree, but at least it's based on peer reviewed science, instead of profit-driven popular media.


 
Last edited:

Chromer J

Active Member
A lot of cognitive dissonance exhibited here by Chromer J. Should probably expect a lot more of this from the deniers and conspiracy theorists as the global climate continues to heat up and the sea levels continue to rise.
20200220_075622.jpg
 

smc

Active Member
WFF Supporter
Gee thanks Chromer J. You must keep all yours on the shelf next to your "dozens of university texts". :p

Anyway. I do agree with one important point you make, although I would contextualize it a bit differently.

As our climate continues to warm and forests experience more drought and disease, controlled burns will be an important tool to help prevent even more catastrophic conflagrations.

As you say, "It's unfortunately that sad of a world".

Be well.
 

Chromer J

Active Member
Gee thanks Chromer J. You must keep all yours on the shelf next to your "dozens of university texts". :p

Anyway. I do agree with one important point you make, although I would contextualize it a bit differently.

As our climate continues to warm and forests experience more drought and disease, controlled burns will be an important tool to help prevent even more catastrophic conflagrations.

As you say, "It's unfortunately that sad of a world".

Be well.
Native peoples had the use of burns figured out before Europeans arrived and interfered with the ecological balance that existed. I'm certain we can rediscover the sense it makes. :cool:
 
Last edited:

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top