Global Warming

[HR]

greening planet = more fuel
expanding population means settlement pushing into previously uninhabited areas and more people at bushfire risk

Yes, climate change is a factor. He is concerned about his (the brigade's) people, which is understandable.

Dry conditions with low rainfall, yet too wet to backburn presents a contradiction, though.

This man is an expert on bushfires, not climate change. He makes the leap from increased bushfire incidence to greenhouse emissions without a shred of self-consciousness. It's this sort of logic (or illogic) that causes thinking people to say, hang on a minute.

People only want to hear what they want to hear.
There are so many factors involved in this current situation.
Factors that have changed on how we manage risk, factors on where we expose ourselves to risk, increased risk from both previous, inaction, action, disagreements the whole damn gamut!
One thing is for sure, our current management strategy for dealing with our fire risk needs to be revisited, the current strategy in the field is failing people like never before.
Recent ideolgy in management has failed after our great learnings in the previous century.
We need strong management to just do the right thing.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

One thing is for sure, our current management strategy for dealing with our fire risk needs to be revisited, the current strategy in the field is failing people like never before.

What are the "hazard reduction restrictions" cryptically referred to in a HS article, in relation to the NSW situation?

Why does Greg Mullins, in the article linked to by antman, go out of his way to say "Blaming 'greenies' for stopping these important measures is a familiar, populist, but basically untrue claim" ? Is preventative backburning being restricted by green policy?

Sounds as though if the worst eventuates, there's going to be a lot of finger-pointing. Mullins is just clearing the decks.

 

[DavidSSS]

I much prefer this one - true global coverage unadulterated by metropolitan focus, heat island effect, "extrapolated" historical figures and other compromising factors.

It's not about which one you prefer, it is about looking at the observed record.

But while we're on the one you prefer, can you explain why the 13 month moving average? Seems an arbitrary measure. Also, why only global lower atmosphere? A lot of the extra heat is absorbed into the oceans, one should look at both ocean and land temperatures.

Oh, and your chart shows temperatures rising too, so, nice to see you agree that climate change is an observed phenomena.

DS

 

[DavidSSS]

Why does Greg Mullins, in the article linked to by antman, go out of his way to say "Blaming 'greenies' for stopping these important measures is a familiar, populist, but basically untrue claim" ? Is preventative backburning being restricted by green policy?

Gee, pretty obvious what he is saying: green policy is not to blame for stopping preventative measures (here's a clue: he states it is untrue).

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

It's not about which one you prefer, it is about looking at the observed record.

But while we're on the one you prefer, can you explain why the 13 month moving average? Seems an arbitrary measure. Also, why only global lower atmosphere? A lot of the extra heat is absorbed into the oceans, one should look at both ocean and land temperatures.

Oh, and your chart shows temperatures rising too, so, nice to see you agree that climate change is an observed phenomena.

DS

13-month average is used to smooth out seasonal variations. Others have used a 25-month average.

For the record, rate of increase on land is 0.18 degrees per decade and oceans, 0.11 degrees.

Yes, climate changes over time. Sometimes in short cycles (global temperature decline 1940-1960), sometimes in longer cycles (Medieval Warm Period 900-1300).

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Gee, pretty obvious what he is saying: green policy is not to blame for stopping preventative measures (here's a clue: he states it is untrue).

DS

It's a qualified denial ("basically untrue").

I don't know anything about any controversy over backburning and had assumed critcism directed at authorities in the past was for simply not finding the time to do the work. Have blockers been put in place?

 

[HR]

It's a qualified denial ("basically untrue").

I don't know anything about any controversy over backburning and had assumed critcism directed at authorities in the past was for simply not finding the time to do the work. Have blockers been put in place?

Yes blockers have been put in place. Well..... new strategies that dont deal with limiting fuel loading. They worry about other stuff that just so happens to die completely during a massive "catastrophic" burn. Counter productive.
Previous managment strategies may not have been perfect, but at least they attempted to deal with limiting the ferocity and ability for a fire to be less controllable.
Fire will always be apart of our country, always has, we just need strong management to limit our exposure and deal harshly with the human element.
Reduce the fuel loading, reduce the risk.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Yes blockers have been put in place. Well..... new strategies that dont deal with limiting fuel loading. They worry about other stuff that just so happens to die completely during a massive "catastrophic" burn. Counter productive.

From a novice's perspective there seem to be parallels between this and the controversy over use of nets and drum lines to protect the beaches from you-know-what.

 

[Brodders17]

It's a qualified denial ("basically untrue").

I don't know anything about any controversy over backburning and had assumed critcism directed at authorities in the past was for simply not finding the time to do the work. Have blockers been put in place?

the party that has been in gov both at state and fed level is blaming a party that has never had the numbers to block any laws single-handedly.

 

[HR]

the party that has been in gov both at state and fed level is blaming a party that has never had the numbers to block any laws single-handedly.

As far as i know this has very little to do with the federal government. They are only influencial if the area is a federal reserve or significant land parcel for a national reason. Especially in the ongoing management.
Most of this change lays directly in the hands of the state and local bureaucracies change in mind set on why we need to manage fuel loading, the reasons and results have changed to allow for a far greater amount of fuel than for along time. They cite reasons from one end, biodiversity to the other end human health.
In my eyes they have lost the focus of why it is needed, and subsequently directly are responsible for a worse outcome to all the reasons they cited as reasons for change anyway.
There is no need for political point scoring as both sides are involved at these levels all over the country, probably more so the left and their mates. But alas no point scoring ok.

 

[Brodders17]

As far as i know this has very little to do with the federal government. They are only influencial if the area is a federal reserve or significant land parcel for a national reason. Especially in the ongoing management.
Most of this change lays directly in the hands of the state and local bureaucracies change in mind set on why we need to manage fuel loading, the reasons and results have changed to allow for a far greater amount of fuel than for along time. They cite reasons from one end, biodiversity to the other end human health.
In my eyes they have lost the focus of why it is needed, and subsequently directly are responsible for a worse outcome to all the reasons they cited as reasons for change anyway.
There is no need for political point scoring as both sides are involved at these levels all over the country, probably more so the left and their mates. But alas no point scoring ok.

i wasnt blaming anyone, just pointing out that perhaps it is not fair to blames the greens when the libs/nats have controlled both state and fed govs in nSW for the last 6 years.

 

[HR]

i wasnt blaming anyone, just pointing out that perhaps it is not fair to blames the greens when the libs/nats have controlled both state and fed govs in nSW for the last 6 years.

Fair enough.
Hopefully we see some proactive change now!

 

[eZyT]

What are the "hazard reduction restrictions" cryptically referred to in a HS article, in relation to the NSW situation?

Why does Greg Mullins, in the article linked to by antman, go out of his way to say "Blaming 'greenies' for stopping these important measures is a familiar, populist, but basically untrue claim" ? Is preventative backburning being restricted by green policy?

Sounds as though if the worst eventuates, there's going to be a lot of finger-pointing. Mullins is just clearing the decks.

An anecdote.

(hippy/greeny/lefty/pretty normal working people raising kids) friends of mine a few valleys over live on a commune called Tuntable.

they actually took NPWS to The Hague to stop them doing controlled burns, in what they argued was rainforest not supposed to be mosaic burnt.

Everybody (parks/them) knows this stand has increased their fire risk and intensified the current fire.

But the hippy greens lefty are fine and philosophical with that. Its them defending their homes, using didgeridoo vibration therapy and that.

Its like everything politicians and the media present as black and white,

its complex and nuanced and variable.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

An anecdote.

(hippy/greeny/lefty/pretty normal working people raising kids) friends of mine a few valleys over live on a commune called Tuntable.

they actually took NPWS to The Hague to stop them doing controlled burns, in what they argued was rainforest not supposed to be mosaic burnt.

Everybody (parks/them) knows this stand has increased their fire risk and intensified the current fire.

But the hippy greens lefty are fine and philosophical with that. Its them defending their homes, using didgeridoo vibration therapy and that.

Its like everything politicians and the media present as black and white,

its complex and nuanced and variable.

Sounds a lot like anti-vaxxers.

 

[eZyT]

Sounds a lot like anti-vaxxers.

not at all.

anti-vexers wouldn't stand by their decision and quarantine and nurse their own kid dying of whopping cough.

These people sat on their verandas with a hose. self reliant.

 

[eZyT]

good as spot as any to share the apocalypse lessons I learnt in my drill yesterday.

1. stay out of town (nutcases galore)
2. turn off the TV and internet (just a heap of pretty useless panic inducing *smile*)
3. Turn on some music (I made a burning playlist - midnight oil, David Byrne, Johnny Cash and some great rappers the kids threw in)
4. prepare to be self-reliant (we were packed up to go camping at the beach rather than to an evacuation centre in a shithole shopping centre in a shithole town)
5. Cut off conversations with dramatic panicky people. Seek out contact with the calm and philosophical.
6. have an esky full of frosty beer on ice. frosty cold beer makes everything feel just fine in most situations.
7. understand that 99% of your stuff is crap and better off as charcoal.
8. The Dusty shrine is the exception when celebrating impermanence.
9. If you find negative thoughts taking hold, channel them into a restful mental picture, like of David Littleproud having his *smile* and testicles chewed off by a pair of daschunds in matching rainbow crocheted coats.

if I think of a 10th top tip to make your apocalypse more enjoyable, I'll let you know.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

not at all.

anti-vexers wouldn't stand by their decision and quarantine and nurse their own kid dying of whopping cough.

These people sat on their verandas with a hose. self reliant.

As long as their beliefs aren't putting others at risk, I guess.

 

[eZyT]

As long as their beliefs aren't putting others at risk, I guess.

Couldnt agree more.

Abbott/morrison/joyce/david littleeyes

Beleifs are gonna roast, starve and drown us all

 

[AngryAnt]

Yes. Leaving climate change aside, the issue of ScoMo and Berejiklian Berelikitan Bereszik the Premier of NSW cutting firey budgets radically in the last year despite explicit pleas and warnings not to do so has got to be dealt with.

 

[Giardiasis]

Yes. Leaving climate change aside, the issue of ScoMo and Berejiklian Berelikitan Bereszik the Premier of NSW cutting firey budgets radically in the last year despite explicit pleas and warnings not to do so has got to be dealt with.

In no way am I defending those two, but in what world would any emergency service not provide explicit pleas and warnings not to cut their budget?