Is Climate Change Affecting Bushfires? 397
TapeCutter writes "After the devastating firestorm in Australia, there has been a lot of speculation in the press about the role of climate change. For the 'pro' argument the BBC article points to research by the CSIRO. For the 'con' argument they quote David Packham of Monash university, who is not alone in thinking '...excluding prescribed burning and fuel management has led to the highest fuel concentrations we have ever had...' However, the DSE's 2008 annual report states; '[The DSE] achieved a planned burning program of more than 156,000 hectares, the best result for more than a decade. The planned burning of forest undergrowth is by far the most powerful management tool available...' I drove through Kilmore on the evening of the firestorm, and in my 50 years of living with fire I have never seen a smoke plume anything like it. It was reported to be 15 km high and creating its own lightning. There were also reports of car windscreens and engine blocks melting. So what was it that made such an unusual firestorm possible, and will it happen again?"
Why don't the Austrailians build differently? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some years ago, Fine Homebuilding did an article about houses that did and did not survive wildfires in California. The houses that survived had certain characteristics. They were clad with non-burning material like stucco. They had metal or tile roofs. They didn't catch heat under the eaves. They didn't have trees near the house. The plantings they did have mattered. There was one kind of ground cover that was full of water and that would burst if heated, releasing the water and cooling the fire.
The Australian houses I have seen (in pictures, I haven't been there) had almost none of the characteristics of the houses that survived the California fires. So, my question is; if you live in a country that has bush fires, why don't you build your houses to accommodate that fact?
Climate Change? No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Every year, dry areas with lots of vegetation catch fire. This is natural. Every year, humans that are stupid enough to build flammable houses in fire prone areas fight the fires and put them out. This is not natural. If the fire was let to burn out on its own, the thick and highly flammable undergrowth would turn into fertilizer for the larger, healthier, and more fire resistant plants that have historically survived such wildfires. Unfortunately, because society likes to coddle the retards that build in fire prone areas, the undergrowth survives year after year and becomes thicker and thicker. Then when the conditions are especially ripe, like during a drought and wind storm, the brush that had been saved for all those years suddenly goes up and creates a massive fire with the fury of all the years that human intervention prevented nature from taking care of the problem. Lo and behold, the massive super fire is much more destructive than the natural fires would have been. Good job.
Flood prone areas with human settlement have the same problem. Levees prevent the natural yearly floods and deprive the land of the silt deposits that would have normally been left after the flood plains have lived up to their name. This causes the land to over time sink and become less fertile, and then when the levees fail OH MY GOD BUILD AN ARK THIS IS THE WORST FLOOD EVAR!!!1
tl;dr climate isn't the problem, retards fighting nature is
Goverment failed to back-burn, that is the story (Score:5, Insightful)
David Packham is our foremost expert in this area, he "wrote the book".
It is clear that when you let 35-50 tonnes of fuel build up per hectare by not backburning then you will get these sized fires.
We have had similar fires in the 1850s, 1870s, 1930s, 1980s. The common factor is the amount of fuel ready to be burnt.
Shouldn't Climate Change have actually reduced fuel load by killing the trees?
It has a lot to do with the fact that the Government departments failed to conduct the necessary backburning.
There will always be arsonists, lightning strikes and stray cigarettes. We can't stop ignition. We CAN reduce the amount of fuel available to a bushfire. Climate change has nothing to do with proper back burning.
Re:Goverment failed to back-burn, that is the stor (Score:3, Insightful)
There will always be arsonists,
Yes but I do think that if we made less of a song and dance about forecast fire risk days, fewer arsonists would see the opportunity to make a name for themselves.
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your post ignores:
1. Science
No, climate change hasn't affected it either way.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate change hasn't affected bushfire occurrences significantly in any way. This is all speculation and from a very unscientific standpoint as far as I can tell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfire#Significant_bushfires [wikipedia.org]
Notice where many of these fires occur...Australia. And the documented dates go back to 1851. Climate change has nothing to do with anything, a bushfire is longstanding and naturally occurring event, and has been observed that way for 150 years on record.
Where is the data that shows that fires have occurred more often and burn longer and stronger AND the reason so is climate change and not the fact that suburban sprawl introduces woodland areas to power lines, lit cigarettes as litter, and other human fire related causes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_wildfire [wikipedia.org]
There is the same issue with wildfires occurring in California. And an even bigger threat or cause of wildfires than global climate change is still lit cigarettes being discarded in woodland areas. More on that later.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2327145120071023 [reuters.com]
Here's a short article from Reuters discussing some basic wildfire facts in California.
* During Santa Ana conditions, fires can be easily ignited by nature, in the case of lightning, or by humans. Some are arson, while others can be sparked by machinery operated near dry brush, campfires or carelessly tossed cigarettes. Downed power lines also pose a fire hazard. Once the wildfires are whipped by the winds, they spread quickly and are extremely dangerous and difficult to fight.
* "Fire Season" officially begins in early summer and lasts through October, though officials say that as the state suffers through cyclical drought conditions, they consider the season to be almost year-round in Southern California.
http://ca.prweb.com/releases/20061010/6/prweb393120.htm [prweb.com]
In September 2002, a wildfire that scorched 247 acres on the Camp Pendleton, California base was started by a cigarette butt tossed by a passing motorist.
In January 2001, a motorist driving along Interstate 8 in San Diego County flicked a cigarette butt onto the center median, sparking a fire that burned more than 10,000 acres, destroyed 16 homes and charred 64 vehicles.
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/40452047.html [kbtx.com]
In Texas, people cause 95 percent of wildfires. The Texas Forest Service says residents should not engage in activities, such as throwing out lit cigarettes, welding and burning debris, that could lead to an accidental wildfire start.
So we are causing a vast amount of wildfires. In some places even 95 percent.
Maybe climate change plays a large role in bushfires, but I need way more evidence to convince me that it's not people being careless with litter, downed power lines, or household electrical fires, etc. causing the majority of these fires.
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
We wait until its too late to act.
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
Science is a human endeavor and subject to limitations of humans. There is one thing that has and will continue to often trump and cause the revising of science:
reality
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:2, Insightful)
If climate change can literally destroy the planet, shouldn't we understand it before we act?
Re:Why don't the Austrailians build differently? (Score:4, Insightful)
Traditional wood-framed (cheap shit) construction is popular because it can be assembled with a three-man crew. The components are light (therefore easy to lift) and do not require much in the way of tools on-site. Wood, wood products, plastic, and so forth are very easy to work with for a contractor with modest experience. The tools fit in a pickup truck.
People don't think about what they are buying other than wanting it to look like everything else.
People don't think about using fire-resistant materials like concrete which are far superior to wood, nor do they choose modern metal roofing which is durable and easily outlasts shingles (and weighs less, is stronger in storms, and is much easier to install).
If you want a house to resist fire, simple concrete block construction on a cement slab with a steel roof on steel trusses is a fine way to go. Cut GENEROUS firebreaks around it (fires need fuel, so cut down the brush and trees and compost them away from structures) and have some amount of water under pressure available to fight fire should it reach your home.
If you want outbuildings to resist fire, store flammables outdoors in lockers away from them, and use metal for your structures. I use two forty-foot ISO containers (buy the 9'6" High Cubes if you have a choice) and a Steelmaster garage.
Concrete is durable, termites don't eat it, it doesn't burn, and it lasts far longer than wood. If you want sexy, rustic concrete then mimic adobe structures. Containers are also excellent and could easily replace single-wide mobile homes, and are far stronger and more weatherproof (good to 100mph winds!).
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:2, Insightful)
You seem to misunderstand what a "testable" hypothesis really is.
It doesn't mean that we need to somehow develop a laboratory test to evaluate climate change. Obviously that poses some problems.
A hypothesis only needs to explain observed phenomena and make predictions concerning future related phenomena which can be verified or falsified by observable evidence.
In that sense, climate change as caused by increasing CO2 levels is a testable hypothesis.
Consider an analogous situation: astrophysics. How can we ever "test" any astrophysical hypothesis we develop?
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
You entirely miss the point because you ask the wrong questions. It is not about testing climate change. During the Cuban Missile Crisis they hypothesized that if one country launched an nuke, we'd all launch them and it would be the end for us all. That was untestable, but we avoided it anyway on far less testable science than we have today to suggest that climate change is occurring and will alter life on this planet. If the sum of humanity's knowledge suggests that under a certain situation (launching a nuke, or business as usual carbon emissions) something bad has a probability very close to 1 of occurring, it is probably best to avoid it.
Science is frequently about using proxies and models to test whether something will occur without actually having to perform an experiment (which may be impossible). This type of science has been regularly used for climate change. So let's lay out the basics really quickly:
So, science hasn't given up on climate change yet. It's not as if they are saying "there, we've proved it, now we only need to respond." No, scientists are providing as much evidence as possible to help us understand just how much this will or will not affect us.
If they haven't given up on climate change yet, why have you? While you sit there convinced that it's not occurring, we continue to blindly provide an input (carbon) into an extremely dangerous system (climate). All of the knowledge we have says that there is an extremely high probability that doing so will result in extreme shifts and war, famine, drought, etc - and you want to wait for a directly testable hypothesis? Goodness.
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, with the population of the earth, going back to the stone age would be catastrophic. People would build wood fires for heat, light, and cooking. That would require mass deforestation, and the burning fires would release more pollutants than we are now.
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry but this is ridiculous.
You don't need to understand exactly how a toilet works to know to shut off the water if it overflows.
Similarly, it doesn't take any extreme level of understanding to recognize the benefits in limiting our emissions.
Or are you trying to make the case that the byproducts of fossil fuels are actually HELPING our environment?
Re:No, climate change hasn't affected it either wa (Score:1, Insightful)
Read these two assertions carefully:
excluding prescribed burning and fuel management has led to the highest fuel concentrations we have ever had
However, the DSE's 2008 annual report states; 'The DSE achieved a planned burning program of more than 156,000 hectares, the best result for more than a decade.
The intended effect is this; two conflicting statements cancel each other out. The net impact on the reader is therefore zero. This is an intentional deception.
The skeptical reader notes that the two statements do not, in fact, conflict. The first statement asserts insufficient fuel management. The second asserts some quantity of fuel management, but does not attempt to counter the original assertion.
The second argument asserts a quantity of prescribed burning that amounts to a square 24 miles on a side. Now that we've dispelled the ambiguity of a figure like "156,000 hectares" we can see that very little fuel management was performed relative to the size of the Australian bush, and this is asserted to be the "best result" in a decade!
This is now to be the basis for story after story, year after year of how "global warming" caused the bush fires. You people wonder why there are global warming skeptics? Shut down the boneheads that publish this sort of blatantly obvious nonsense in the name of "global warming" and maybe there wouldn't be so many. Or maybe there wouldn't be much to talk about.
Hmm.
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:1, Insightful)
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 Ã" 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and Ã" in the end Ã" are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are different ways of acting.
Stopping dumping tons of crap into the atmosphere is unlikely to make things worse. Now trying to fix things by releasing some other chemical to try to balance the problem could backfire.
The first is like "Shouldn't we understand the complete ecosystem of the lake before we stop using it as a garbage dump?". It's generally unnecessary to wait to have a 100% complete understanding. Maybe the fish are dying for some other reason, but stopping dumping junk is unlikely to make things get any worse.
The second is more like "The lake seems too acid, maybe we should compensate by dumping several tons of base to neutralize". Now this kind of solution will require a complete understanding, lest it turns out that wasn't the problem, and things become even worse than before.
Don't Bother Thinking... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you really, really wanted to save the polar ice caps, you'd create a time machine and travel back..say, 19,000 years ago. Back when the polar ice cap extended down into what is modern day Illinois.
Which predates SUVs and industrialization by around...19,000 years or so.
That is one of the global warming metrics, right? Save the shrinking polar ice cap, right? You'd need to go back to a time when you can't blame humans. Even then, you'd have to go back yet again to the previous ice age, or any of the numerous ice ages.
In order to understand that simple scientific concept, you'd to do more than regurgitate Al Gore and co.
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:2, Insightful)
The real issue is that there is currently no unambiguous method of measuring the global temperature. Because of this, the degree of interpretation required to actually test the hypothesis makes it very difficult to make a strong case either way. When coupled with the amount of money involved, (and perhaps the very continuance of our planet as we now it) almost everyone has a stake. It becomes very easy to politicize the process, because the scientific portion is so murky.
Considering the degree of pushback on evolution, a theory which has been tested in numerous places and has been well understood by scientists for over a hundred years, it's not suprising that theories involving climate change have an even higher degree of pushback.
There's little question that humans have some impact on the environment, and certainly on climate, but we always end up back at the big question: How can we mitigate the impact of humans to acceptable levels while maintaining an achievable and sustainable level of technological development and advancement?
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
We restrict our energy sources so tightly that we cannot continue to feed our growing population and starve to death
How would driving smaller cars and using energy more efficiently cause people to starve?
Re:No, climate change hasn't affected it either wa (Score:3, Insightful)
You misunderstand. The argument is not that global climate change is causing more fires but that global climate change is causing the fires to be more intense.
As another poster pointed out, this part of Australia is suffering from one of the worst droughts recorded, the week before had record temperatures and the day the fires started was a record hot day. No matter whether human caused or otherwise fires start easier in hot dry conditions.
Whether the unusual hot dry spell is caused by natural cycles or is part of climate change is hard to say
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was working under the assumption that the GP was indicating that we were suggested to step back into the stone age. That would be the entire population of earth, without modern technology to assist us. Really, I think the farthest back we would go would be to agrarian society, but that would have significant drawbacks.
Say something cataclysmic happened tonight, and in the morning there was no power grid, no city water, no supply chains for food, fuel, etc. I'll focus on only the United States, because I am more familiar with it, and finding numbers relating to it.
According to the 2000 US census [dot.gov], just about 226 million people lived in 3,629 population centers that could be considered "Urban". That's just over 79% of the US population.
Assuming these people had exactly what they started out with before they went to bed, they typically would have 0 to 14 days of food supply on hand, and assuming the use of any water supplies available (i.e., toilet tank water, bottled water, etc), they may have a 3 to 4 day supply of water. Right now, if there is sufficient snow on the ground, some people may be smart and gather all the fresh fallen snow that they can. Virtually no one has any provisions for collecting rain water for drinking or cooking use.
In up to 11 days, people will begin dying of dehydration. In up to 28 days, mass starvation would take effect. Sometime between day 1 and day 10, people will begin using force to horde supplies from weaker people.
Some people will realize the futility of remaining in an urban area, and attempt to leave. In a best case scenario, starting with a fully fueled vehicle, and ideal cruising conditions, passenger vehicles can travel 400 miles. That's a best case. In reality, it won't be just one person saying "we have to get out of here", it will be hundreds of thousands. One accident, vehicle running out of fuel, or mechanical failure, and all vehicles behind them will come to a stop.
The 21% living in "Rural" areas may have a better chance. If (IF) they are lucky, they have a fresh water supply that does not depend on electricity. Most rural homes I've seen are supplied with water from electric pumps. If they are lucky, they have a good on-hand food supply. If they are lucky, they already have a food crop that can be harvested on a regular basis.
In reality, the numbers dwindle. Less than 1% of the 79% of the urbanites will be lucky enough to get to somewhere survivable, but they won't be alone. Less than 25% of the 21% rural dwellers will have the necessities on hand for continued survival without our modern infrastructures. i.e., how do you plow a field without a tractor (no fuel). How do you trade bare essentials with your neighbors who you can't reach without a car (no fuel).
But, if the 285 million people in the United States did manage to disperse from the urban centers, to areas that could sustain them temporary for food, water, and shelter, and they managed to have or improvise hand tools to cut down trees, make fire for warmth and cooking, it would be absolutely disastrous for the environment.
This is an easy game to play. Go into your garage and shut off the main breaker (or pull the main fuse in older homes). Shut off the water and gas mains. Take all the money out of your wallet, and your credit cards, and stick them in an envelope somewhere safe that you won't touch them. Now, survive for 6 months.
In reality, if we stepped back to the "stone age" tonight, only small pockets of humanity would survive, and they would be the rural dwellers who live in fresh water rivers, have farms, and can live off the land. Everyone else will die.
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why don't the Austrailians build differently? (Score:2, Insightful)
Part of the problem is that many of the people who live in these regional areas can't afford to rebuild in a more 'modern' or fireproof way. A lot of them didn't even have insurance because they couldn't afford it.
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is we don't know. If our survival depends on a strict range of natural conditions, then removing too much CO2 from the environment could spell disaster as well.
Removing CO2 from the environment isn't a concern. That won't happen for a long long time.
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:4, Insightful)
Climate hange cannot destroy the planet, the life on it, or even the human race. It can - and very likely will - simply make things extremely uncomfortable (= billions die) for us, as growth zones of various plants change and weather patterns become chaotic for the duration of the change.
However, those who most profit from not cutting fossil fuel consumption will be able to use those profits to shield themselves from the consequences, so resistance is useless.
Politics and half-truths (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, CO2 does rise with temprature however this is a deliberate misunderstanding of cherry-picked facts by the person who popularised this peculiar fiction.
The ice core data does indeed support the half-truth you state but the reason for the initial temprature rise at the end of an ice age is clearly related to the Earth's orbit. When this causes the ice to receed the permafrost melts releasing large amounts methane and CO2 which then ADD to the warming (ie a feedback). In the current situation humans are the ones who are adding CO2, which then causes the globe to warm, the ice to melt, and more CO2 and methane released from the permafrost [youtube.com].
We have had many exchanges in the past and I recognise you have the right to ignore the prefered cap and trade solution and rant against a tax solution in order to misinform and push your own politicaly inspired anti-science agenda.
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
The hockey stick [realclimate.org] has not been debunked, in fact it has been made more robust by a recent follow up paper [realclimate.org]. If you are genuinely interested in the science as opposed to the politics then I urge you to re-read your own wikipedia link, particularly the first paragraph in the "updates" section.
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:1, Insightful)
Since when did we stop talking about Global Climate Change and care only about US Climate Change?
From your source: "The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought)..."
All 10 of the hottest global temperature years have been since 1997, despite that correction.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:2, Insightful)
You're forgetting that some of the louder proponents of 'big chang' to address global warming envision ideological side-benefits for those changes.
Re:CO2 causes Global Warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
Climate change will not destroy the planet, in fact all environmental change generated by humanity will not destroy the planet. The logical target of all environmental protections is not to preserve the planet but to preserve the conditions under which we evolved. The further those conditions change from what our bodies have adapted to the more problematic and difficult our survival becomes. The more new chemicals we introduce into the environment that we have not evolved protections against the more we will suffer.
Climate change has it greatest impact not directly upon people but upon the infrastructure of society. So destroyed coastal cities, rural economies disrupted due to climatic shifts and, of course unpredictable weather extremes, will all cause significant disruption to society. People of course being the short haired, cranky, rock throwing monkeys that they are will not react well to those disruptions and start killing each other (not that they need much excuse to do that) passing around the blame and the violence for the damage done to the environment.
The planet and all life on it will continue to grow and evolve long after the minor dip of humanity in life value of the planet has disappeared. Meanwhile the minority rich and greedy will continue to exploit the planet at the expense of future generations, with a complete lack of feeling, remorse or any guilt, why, because they are hard wired that way, they really do lack any shared measure of empathy for the harm and suffering they cause. It is really amazing that such a mentally ill minority in fact just minor percentage points can lead the rest of human society down such a destructive path, literally thousands killing hundreds of millions.