The Forum > Article Comments > No increase in hot days at Bathurst > Comments
No increase in hot days at Bathurst : Comments
By Jennifer Marohasy, published 28/10/2013Climate change has been absent from the Blue Mountains area for more than 100 years, so how is it responsible for the fires?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 28 October 2013 8:34:46 AM
| |
You’ve gone to considerable lengths to demonstrate that it has not got significantly hotter in Bathurst over a long period of time. But temperature is only one aspect. What about humidity, rainfall, wind…. and the combination of factors so early in the season that have led to critical conditions for fires?
Again Jennifer, you can’t say that this is not connected to climate change. Given all the other indications of AGW around the planet, these fires should indeed prompt us to be taking more action on climate change…. or should I say; on sustainability. We should be doing largely the same sort of things to get our society onto a sustainable footing as for climate change. So whether AGW is real or not should be MOOT! Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 28 October 2013 8:36:36 AM
| |
Leaving aside the possibility/probability/likelihood/unlikelihood that the fires have been helped along by climate change, one question still leaves me shaking my head in confusion.
Why do so many people think they are entitled to put other folks' lives in danger, by buying properties in areas well-known to be at risk to bush fires? It has to be one of the most selfish property purchases ever. Leaving the crowded, filthy cities (pace Ludwig) for the sylvan delights of fresh air and stunning views, and then expecting the world + dog to come to their rescue when the landscape bursts into flame. The newspapers have been chock-full of sob-stories, complete with pictures of charred ex-houses. But not a word about how the situation was entirely self-inflicted. Knowing some of the volunteers personally - and as an employer, freely giving them time off on full pay to do their courageous, dangerous work - I am happy to do my bit when the firefighters rattle the tin. But I do not for one minute see that it is my responsibility to financially support the people who deliberately put themselves in the firing line, in order to satisfy their personal preference for rural tranquillity. Bah, humbug. Posted by Pericles, Monday, 28 October 2013 9:01:50 AM
| |
Wot, another climate change article? This has surely been done to death! In fact it is dead, buried and cremated according to our Rhodes Scholar P.M. who clearly is a wacko, quick with his lip but slow of intelligence (yawn).
As we debate the pros and cons of climate change (yawn), spare a thought for the U.S. which is trying to put Russia and China in a geographical cage so it can control the world. Keep in mind that Russia and China have lots of nukes too and will defend themselves. Why aren't we talking about this present looming threat which hangs over our heads like the Sword of Damocles? A bushfire is tiny and insignificant compared with a nuclear holocaust! It's a question of priorities. Posted by David G, Monday, 28 October 2013 9:02:38 AM
| |
Well I thought it was a good article and instead of being a polemic did at least contain some easily understandable data.
Even though they have changed to rhetoric from global warming to climate change the key hypothesis of the alarmists is that world is warming due to CO2 levels and this will be catastrophic for mankind unless it starts reducing the production of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The deputy leader of the Greens has put forward the hypothesis the NSW bush fires are due to global warming. If there are not rising temperatures the hypothesis should be rejected. You do not say there are other factors, the essence of the scientific method it that you try to disprove hypothesis not prove them. We have just had a wonderful example of the converse. Antarctic sheet ice in winter is at the highest levels since measurements began. If the reverse had been true the alarmists would have been out in force. Instead they say that other factors beside global warming have caused a distortion in the expected results. Agsin they are trying to distort the evidence to prove a hypothesis not the opposite. Posted by EQ, Monday, 28 October 2013 9:20:05 AM
| |
Another day, another climate change denial article on OLO. Jenifer have you shown your data to the climate scientist at your Uni?.....No thought not...
The science of climate change is fought out in science journals not the court of public opinion. You can’t win the argument with informed people with the technical expertise so you appeal to the ignorant masses that’s a creationist methodology. Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 28 October 2013 9:31:45 AM
| |
Well cobber, ponder this. You ask if JM had shown this to the Climate scientist at her Uni. Well there are now loads of them after we poured money into this nonsense and the completely corrupt CPP whatever the idiots call themselves.
United Nations just means corrupt and greedy! Climate Scientist, when was that made a discipline? - as soon as there was an easy and public quid in it. I was told by the BOM in 1989 that there had been no changes to the Australian climate since records began. Then they told the truth but after being thoroughly politicised are now saying a lot but meaning nothing. Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 28 October 2013 9:57:17 AM
| |
We can't say there has been no change!
We might be able to say that our winters are milder and shorter, that the springs seems to be earlier, and more windy days seem to be happening? And yes, this could also contribute to the greater release of more oil and evaporate from the forests, as they seek to compensate for the changes. In fact an acre of trees can evaporate 2.5 times the evaporate of an acre of open water! Given open water can reduce its total mass by as much as 50% annually during drought/dry conditions, one can then see in the comparison, that trees can aspire enough water to concentrate the salt in the lowering water table, causing die back, (which assists crowning) and progressive dehydration of all other companion understory. Creating in the process during frequent dry spells, tinder dry conditions; and not the sort of conditions conducive to fire hazard reduction, with traditional burning. As hard as it is for some to accept change, this is what we must have, with fire hazard reduction being surrendered to non fire methods, which would largely be done by cell grazing, assisted by very portable electric fences. If people want to build in the bush, there needs to be mandatory building codes, which must include six foot high colorbond fences, roof top sprinklers, steel frames, brick cladding, concrete and clay, in all outdoor ornaments, and no tree, bush or shrub, and short grass only, within 30 metres of any dwelling! All power/gas supply to be underground, where there is far fewer chances of interruption, or falling wires actually starting uncontrollable wild fires! But particularly where people rely on reticulated electricity/NG for emergency pumps etc. Gas bottles ought to be retained in water filled tanks, where cooling water would diminish the possibility, of radiant heat causing them to erupt with explosive force and contribute to the danger and destruction. If this means changing them requires the assistance of a truck mounted hoist or some such, so be it! Bitumen free gravel or concrete roads are safer! Rhrosty. Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 28 October 2013 11:05:32 AM
| |
Yes David G, and if you're the one battling, with your every resource to save hearth and home, or those of friends and neighbors, in the middle of a happening now, raging, crowning wild fire, racing toward you with the speed, power and sound, of a thundering express train; or a 474 passenger jet taking off, just yards from you!
The very last thing to worry about or trouble your mind, would be the very distant and hypothetical use, by some nut job dictator, of a nuclear weapon! Please let the rest of us know,why is it, in almost every thread, we see your radical views on extremely hypothetical, Middle East self annihilation, nuclear conflicts? One would be forgiven for believing, that's exactly what you want to see or somehow promote? Like yet another Hate warped, radicalizing professional agitator, who invariably loads the gun, but always requires others to take all the risks, or pull the trigger? No sacrifice is too great for radical HOMOPHOBIC Islam, as long as it is always someone Else, or entirely innocent women and children, eh? Rhrosty. Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 28 October 2013 11:33:19 AM
| |
As a volunteer firefighter myself and as a biologist I cannot do anything but agree with you that we desperately need to start actively maintaining our bushlands with prescribed burning as one of the tools.
Politics is a player in our total hands off approach but less so then money. A forgotten culprit and a real long term killer for our natural environment (I believe) is our legal system with its simplistic right/wrong winner takes all approach. Any state government that conducted hot burns would be crazy. Such fire regimes are not compatible with our risk free society. When they escaped the government would be 100% responsible regardless of how people where maintaining their properties or where they had built them. Small contained cold burns are possible but expensive, can only be done in accessible areas and limit the ability to build up a mosaic of environments which is what you are aiming to achieve for conservation purposes. That all said you cannot take the readings from one town and lay it out as proof of your beliefs. The 100 year old weather stations all change over time as is well documented. They become urbanised and the temperature readings go up, trees grow and shade them and they go down. The jail weather station might have been situated in a hot stone courtyard for all we know and the later weather station might have had a completely different micro climate. To use such a tiny set of data and then extrapolate it out like that is very manipulative. It strikes me as a bit like our legal system - the idea is to win the argument regardless of the truth. Inflexible and unchanging in the goal which is to score a point in the debate, get a bit of a rise and confirm personal beliefs. The actual problem that needs sorting out sadly gets lost a little don't you think? Posted by speedy, Monday, 28 October 2013 12:42:04 PM
| |
Pericles, you old humbug, you are right! (Ooow, does that make me an old humbug too?)
We’ve had more than adequate warning over the years of the dangers of living in firestorm-prone areas. So those who continue to live there, and those who have moved in since at least 1983 (Ash Wednesday), have got to bear a great deal of the blame for these tragedies. Hey, people can have a sea-change or tree-change without moving into areas like this! I live in a rural residential area in north Queensland, in ironbark and poplar gum savannah woodland. We don’t get firestorms here, and indeed the risk of firestorm events is not even a consideration in this part of the world. Bushfire, yes, for people living nestled into the bush in slightly higher rainfall areas elsewhere in the far north, there is a real risk. But this a much lesser thing than the southern firestorm type of situation..... and can be much more effectively dealt with by a program of hazard-reduction burning. The point is that you CAN live in wonderful bushland or semi-bushland areas that don’t have a grave fire risk. Ok, this is off on a tangent to Jennifer’s article. Well…. it shouldn’t be! It should actually be at least as important as fire-reduction burning, strict building codes and assistance to move out of these areas, as well as addressing climate change / sustainability… and requiring very strict fire safety measures for those who remain, as per Rhrosty’s suggestions. Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 28 October 2013 1:00:22 PM
| |
There's something to be said for concentrating on problems that we have a chance of influencing and correcting. The cause of the main State Mine fire was reportedly a military explosion. No explosion, no fire. This suggests that changing military policies and expanding fire-ban criteria-periods are the solutions to the problem.
Even if human caused climate change exists we Australians can do nothing effective about it. This is because India, China, the US and all of Europe (Eastern and Western) are expanding their carbon (greenhouse gas) use many times faster than any reductions in Australian carbon use. Any assumption that Australia exists in a plastic bubble isolating our climate from the world should be dispelled. Even if we halved our carbon use, thereby destroying our economy and way of life, it would have no impact. Australia providing a moral example may be a belief of greenies and the Rudds of this world. But righteous examples do not impress countries (that include China) that have a right to raise the material standard of living of their people. Again - The cause of the main State Mine fire was reportedly a military explosion. No explosion, no fire. This suggests that changing military policies and expanding fire-ban criteria-periods are the solutions to the problem. Pete Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 28 October 2013 1:07:53 PM
| |
What I am struggling to understand is why were we presented with graphs of days over 35 degrees for Bathurst as part of this argument. Most of those days would have occurred in January and February and provide no useful insight into why there was a massive bushfire in the Blue Mountains in October.
If Jennifer wanted to delve into the climate data, she could have done something more interesting like look at average maximum temperatures for September over the period. Had she done so, she would have seen that average maximum temperatures for September at Bathurst has increase significantly since 1966 (the first data in the BOM spreadsheet) by 0.7 degrees per decade. So over that 50 year period, September temperatures are on average 3.5 degrees warmer than in the 1960s. Perhaps this might be playing a role in the unprecedented bushfire in the Blue Mountains in October 2013? Days over 35 at Bathurst certainly didn’t, because the last one of those was on January 18th 2013. Even leaving that aside, the argument made makes limited sense. If the climate is warming, surely there is even more need to improve bushfire preparedness in places like the Blue Mountains and elsewhere? Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 28 October 2013 1:21:24 PM
| |
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record, again Australia’s warmest September on record Australia’s record for warmest 12-month period has been broken for a second consecutive month. This continues a remarkable sequence of warmer-than-average months for Australia since August 2012. September 2013 was easily Australia’s warmest September on record. The national average temperature for September was +2.75 °C above the long-term (1961–1990) average, which also sets a record for Australia’s largest positive anomaly for any monthly mean temperature. The previous record of +2.66 °C was set in April 2005. The mean temperature for Australia, averaged over the 12 months from October 2012 to September 2013, was 1.25 °C above the long-term average. This was also 0.17 °C warmer than any 12-month period prior to 2013. The previous record, set over September 2012 to August 2013, was +1.11 °C above the long-term average, and the record preceding the current warm spell was +1.08 °C, set between February 2005 and January 2006. Temperatures for the calendar year to date (January to September) have also been the warmest on record, at 1.31 °C above the long-term average, well above the figure set for January to September 2005 (+1.07 °C). 2005 currently holds the record for Australia’s warmest calendar year. The past 18 months have been characterised by widespread heat across Australia. The mean temperature has been above average over the entire continent. Posted by Garry in Liffey, Monday, 28 October 2013 7:27:03 PM
| |
Garry in Liffey AGW, oh sorry I mean Climate Change! Why was that changed? On your figures it is still AGW so why the change? Mate you must think that after the Y2K bug Joe Public will swallow anything. The trouble is mate that after 2000 came and went people were a little more circumspect.
Personally the BOM should have funding and management reduced by 10% this year. Then let them know if it gets any hotter they will suffer again see what happens then. Posted by JBowyer, Tuesday, 29 October 2013 6:39:02 AM
| |
JBowyer,
The reason that 2000 came and went without major problems concerning Y2K was that a lot of people put a lot of time and effort into rectifying the problem before it arose. Or has that minor detail escaped you? Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 29 October 2013 8:25:29 AM
| |
There are so many different ways the data can be dissected and plotted. I started with hottest days because the technical literature indicates that these are most important.
It would be nice if 'Agronomist' and others could, in the first instance, acknowledge that there has been no increase in hot days at Bathurst over the last years… contrary to perceptions. I do intend to do a careful analysis of the Bathurst data looking to see if this September and October are particularly unusual in terms of maximum daily temperatures and mean maximum temperatures. But I've first had a look at the minimum temp data… in particular because I received many emails explaining that Andy Pitman says that we have just had a very mild winter. So how mild was the winter at Bathurst... http://www.mythandthemurray.org/no-increase-in-warm-nights-or-mild-winters-at-bathurst/ ? Posted by Jennifer, Tuesday, 29 October 2013 1:28:20 PM
| |
Garry in Liffey - it's all well and good to declare hottest this and record that when you don't actually reveal your data source.
For example, in the BOM Hottest September Media Release they state what sites were used in creating the report. So I checked on the first one on the list - Halls Creek. They claim 40.2C this September was a new record for Halls Creek. Yet if you go to the BoM data online site and call up Halls Creek you will find that there is a closed station, Old Halls Creek, and if you check that record you will find that the highest temperature recorded in that data base was 12th September 1917 with a reading of 40.2C This is the problem we face with this current BoM. They have closed down many of the sites that have long periods of consistent data, Casino, Central Lismore, to name a couple, and have removed the data from the national data base. What we have today in the ACORN data set is an homogenized, adjusted temperature record with the predominant adjustments to a warmer present and a cooler past. Jennifer's analysis of Bathurst temperatures is a perfectly adequate method of seeing if a warming planet is in part responsible for the intensity of the recent fires. We know that globally the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years but maybe the area around the bush fire may be warming unnaturally. Yes the maximum temperatures in Bathurst from the 60s to the 2002 have risen slightly but over the past 10 years it has in fact cooled slightly. MacQuarie University created a paper for the Senate Standing Committee on Environment & Communications Inquiry into Recent Trends in and Preparedness for Extreme Weather Events. They concluded that: Research into the economic impacts from natural disasters now spans many parts of the world. No study has yet been able to detect an anthropogenic climate change influence. Anyone asserting the contrary now has a mountain of peer-reviewed literature to climb over. http://www.riskfrontiers.com/pdf/Senate%20Enquiry_Risk%20Frontiers_website.pdf Posted by Janama, Tuesday, 29 October 2013 3:49:48 PM
| |
Jennifer, whether you are right or wrong about the number of days over 35 degrees is irrelevant, because these days will occur in January and each year. They were also at Bathurst, not where the fires were. This is simply a red herring. I am sorry that you started your analysis there, because I think you wasted your time.
I am not sure I have seen anyone state that they perceive there have been more days over 35 degrees at Bathurst compared to the early part of the 20th Century, so I am not sure what these perceptions you are talking about. Perhaps you can link to them? The fires in the Blue Mountains this year are the result of increased vegetative growth resulting from the strong La Nina of 2010-2012, the lack of spring rain in 2013 and the early onset of warm weather in spring 2013 hampering efforts in fuel reduction. The last thing needed was something to set the fires off: seemingly the Army, powerlines and arsonists in this case. Did climate change contribute to the fires? I suspect the answer will be yes. As spring temperatures in 2013 in the region were about 4 degrees above the long-term average, the fires once started were able to move faster than they normally would at this time of year. Otherwise, it might have been January before there were fires. If spring temperatures continue to increase, there is a likelihood of major fires in spring more often (should all the other factors be present). Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 29 October 2013 4:34:36 PM
| |
Agronomist - I suspect you are missing Jennifer's point.
She agrees with you regarding the cause of the fire, the buildup of fuel, La Nina weather and high rainfall etc. Read her most recent article on her blog by Roger Underwood. http://jennifermarohasy.com What she is attempting to demonstrate is that there is no evidence that global warming is a factor in creating the fires as the ABC, Fairfax and the Greens have been consistently, albeit erroneously suggesting. I've shown in my previous post that there is no science in the peer reviewed literature that can find the footprint of global warming on the extreme weather events we have recently experienced. The Blue mountain fires are no different. Posted by Janama, Tuesday, 29 October 2013 4:50:27 PM
| |
Janama, that document you linked to from Risk Frontiers is not from Macquarie University, but from a research group at the University funded by the insurance industry to look at risks for the insurance industry. I have nothing against the insurance industry funding research, I just like a bit of accuracy.
Their research about economic impacts is based on insurance losses. This in itself has some issues with respect to whether it is fine enough to detect an influence of climate change. So an event like a hailstorm in the Sydney region with one death due to a lightning strike will have substantially more influence in this analysis than a bushfire in central Victoria that kills 173 people. It also only deals with insured items (structures, cars) not other economic losses, such as loss of productivity caused by burning of vegetation, flooding of agricultural land, loss of income through closure of businesses. So it really isn’t a full economic impact analysis. Lastly, the insurance industry itself responds to losses caused by natural disasters to reduce its exposure to future losses. That factor has not been included in the analysis. While the insurance industry might be quietly confident that they are not losing too much money as a result of the impacts of climate change, I am less convinced that this document genuinely reflects reality. Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 30 October 2013 1:50:21 PM
| |
Like Pericles, I find it absolutely reprehensible that people are asked to risk their lives for stupidity.
It is gobsmacking that in the 21st century homes and lives are being lost to a hazard that has been known and recognised for at least 150 years. I grew up in the Blue Mountains, at Faulconbridge. I witnessed a few fires in that time, including major ones in 1968 and (I think) 74. At no time was I, my family or my (timber/fibro) home in any real danger, despite backing on to the natural bush; simply because we had a long back yard with extensive lawns and gardens. Duh. A few years back I visited a mate who still lived in the area, and was shocked at how close the bush was to his house. He told me Council wouldn't let him cut down trees. That was at Winmalee. He has since moved on, which is fortunate, because his old house (new, brick) has recently burnt down. I think the Blue Mountains Council should be liable for all lives and property lost due to their stupid, indefensible policies. You want to solve the problem? Sensible fire breaks around all buildings, and ensure no mature trees closer than one and a half times their own height to any building. It's that simple. This is very much a case of “fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” These people have been fooled for 150 years. As to climate change, you're looking in the wrong place. Yes, Abbot is correct that fires have always occurred in the Mountains -although not usually so early in the year. Drier summers are going to create fire hazards where -and when- they haven't previously existed. Posted by Grim, Friday, 1 November 2013 7:13:56 AM
|
What? How can you assert that, Jennifer?
How can you say that hotter drier conditions this early in the season than have ever been seen before(?) or at least are highly unusual, are not connected to climate change?
You can’t! We don’t know how real the connection might be. There might be no connection, but we can’t know this. So you can’t assert that climate change hasn’t contributed to these fires, or that it isn’t the critical element that has caused these fires and that they wouldn’t have happened otherwise. This is unknowable!
< Instead of implementing the well-documented solution of prescribed burning, as a community we are distracted with commentary about a ‘clear link’ between climate change and bushfires. >
The community is not being distracted by this! They are perfectly capable of appreciating both the probable climate change connection and the need for hazard-reduction burning.
It’s not a matter of one or the other! Both need to happen.
And a lot more needs to happen, such as a complete ban on any new building in the sort of environment which fosters fires storms… and perhaps an incentive scheme to get people to move out of some of these areas.
Afterall, hazard-reduction burning in tall eucalyptus forest can only achieve so much, and can give people a very dangerous false sense of security. Fire storms travel through the oil-rich canopy. How do you effectively reduce that hazard in close proximity to buildings and property? You can’t!
continued