Thread: Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

A graphical representation of the problem with many of the arguments presented in this thread.

outlier.jpg

Originally Posted by 4bee

I was under the impression the Cudlee Creek fire was out but seems not, as the radio report this a.m. said they were trying" get on top of it" before the weekend when conditions are set to change for the worst again.

One would think that "on top" is the last place they'd want to be unless one is in a Water Bomber.

hell no. not contained and multiple flare ups per day,

8am til 6pm has been 60x 000 calls. im on triage today. another house was lost today.

fri-mon breakout predictions maps have it heading towards stirling.

Originally Posted by vnx205

A graphical representation of the problem with many of the arguments presented in this thread.

outlier.jpg

If you can see the bull**** you’re claiming in your chart you’re doing very well.

Nobody in this entire thread has made any such claim.

Originally Posted by vnx205

A graphical representation of the problem with many of the arguments presented in this thread.

outlier.jpg

Using the same principle as the author of that genius reply:

Guardian-bushfire_total area burned-txt.png
Graphic displaying bushfire damage by hectare in the previous 50(odd) years.

So using the outlier (on the far right of the graph), it's blindingly obvious that bushfires have got much worse in the 1985-current period during which this has happened to global temperature

enso-global-temp-anomalies-txt.png

As can clearly be seen, rising global temperatures have shown a massive increase in the size of fires in the period 1985-2018, both square areas of the respective graphs.
What it surely doesn't show, by any means!! .. as temperature has risen, bushfire damage(by area) has remained pretty much constant.

Nope! the 2019 fire data definitely shows that bushfires between 1985-2018 are getting steadily worse .. that's for 101% sure.

<sarcasm hat off>

What the graph data of fires by the (obviously neutral and unbiased) 'Centre for Environmental Risk Management of Bushfire' doesn't show is the 50(odd) period between 1920 and 1970 and how many fires of 2million hectares or more have happened in NSW alone!
Obviously those fires didn't happen, as that period is supposed to be cooler and wetter.
So if it did happen, their claims that fires are worse now than before couldn't be attributed to warming globe, or climate change, could it.
Therefore it's far easier to maintain the scientific principle that fires are worse now than previously .. as long as the previous data is omitted from the discussion.
So I won't mention AGAIN .. that 5 fires in the 50(odd) year period between 1926-1974 totalling more than >2million hectares of damage each.
That would be redneck unscientific, denialist information.

Also note that the massive 1974 NSW fires was trivialised in the Guardian news item:

"A slightly larger area burned across the 1974 calendar year, but those fires were of an entirely different nature: fuelled by above-average rainfall, it burned through mostly remote outback grasslands in the state’s far west."

OK, lets brush aside that 6 people died in those fires, afterall they were in the states far west. Far from sight, never 'bothered' anyone.
So that's how we measure fires and the harm they cause!? As long as it's not in your face or in your backyard, it's trivial, doesn't mean anything.
So the summary of current thinking is, as long as it doesn't affect them(the psuedo-science, climate priests!) .. the devastation of a monumental bushfire(1926, 1951-52, 1957, 1968-69) is OK, as long as it's far from home and or not a part of your memory.

The other anomaly(if you didn't catch it, because it seems no one is capable of reading the content and understanding it now days).

"fuelled by above-average rainfall" <- read this again!!.. and the implication it creates.
From that excerpt from the Guardian, they're claiming that excess rainfall caused the 1974 fires!
Yet the gist of the article DiscoMick linked too is that global warming, and the consequent drier conditions from that are causing the massive bushfire conditions.

Which is it? Both fingers in both pies! Can't win any argument against that. Sense can not be made of this type of commentary.
Are massive fires caused by warmer/drying or cooler/wetter conditions?

Do people actually read this kind of garbage news/info, and not question it?

So it's easier for them to write totally contradictory statements, and for most people just to ignore this fact now.

Why were there 6x more instances of massive fires between the respective periods of (cooler)1926-1974, and (warmer)1985-2019.

Originally Posted by vnx205

A graphical representation of the problem with many of the arguments presented in this thread.

outlier.jpg

Originally Posted by AK83

Using the same principle as the author of that genius reply:

Guardian-bushfire_total area burned-txt.png

Why do you think those two graphs are similar?

One shows a trend. The other has no clear trend.

Originally Posted by AK83

Using the same principle as the author of that genius reply:

Guardian-bushfire_total area burned-txt.png
Graphic displaying bushfire damage by hectare in the previous 50(odd) years.

So using the outlier (on the far right of the graph), it's blindingly obvious that bushfires have got much worse in the 1985-current period during which this has happened to global temperature

enso-global-temp-anomalies-txt.png

As can clearly be seen, rising global temperatures have shown a massive increase in the size of fires in the period 1985-2018, both square areas of the respective graphs.
What it surely doesn't show, by any means!! .. as temperature has risen, bushfire damage(by area) has remained pretty much constant.

Nope! the 2019 fire data definitely shows that bushfires between 1985-2018 are getting steadily worse .. that's for 101% sure.

<sarcasm hat off>

What the graph data of fires by the (obviously neutral and unbiased) 'Centre for Environmental Risk Management of Bushfire' doesn't show is the 50(odd) period between 1920 and 1970 and how many fires of 2million hectares or more have happened in NSW alone!
Obviously those fires didn't happen, as that period is supposed to be cooler and wetter.
So if it did happen, their claims that fires are worse now than before couldn't be attributed to warming globe, or climate change, could it.
Therefore it's far easier to maintain the scientific principle that fires are worse now than previously .. as long as the previous data is omitted from the discussion.
So I won't mention AGAIN .. that 5 fires in the 50(odd) year period between 1926-1974 totalling more than >2million hectares of damage each.
That would be redneck unscientific, denialist information.

Also note that the massive 1974 NSW fires was trivialised in the Guardian news item:




OK, lets brush aside that 6 people died in those fires, afterall they were in the states far west. Far from sight, never 'bothered' anyone.
So that's how we measure fires and the harm they cause!? As long as it's not in your face or in your backyard, it's trivial, doesn't mean anything.
So the summary of current thinking is, as long as it doesn't affect them(the psuedo-science, climate priests!) .. the devastation of a monumental bushfire(1926, 1951-52, 1957, 1968-69) is OK, as long as it's far from home and or not a part of your memory.

The other anomaly(if you didn't catch it, because it seems no one is capable of reading the content and understanding it now days).

"fuelled by above-average rainfall" <- read this again!!.. and the implication it creates.
From that excerpt from the Guardian, they're claiming that excess rainfall caused the 1974 fires!
Yet the gist of the article DiscoMick linked too is that global warming, and the consequent drier conditions from that are causing the massive bushfire conditions.

Which is it? Both fingers in both pies! Can't win any argument against that. Sense can not be made of this type of commentary.
Are massive fires caused by warmer/drying or cooler/wetter conditions?

Do people actually read this kind of garbage news/info, and not question it?

So it's easier for them to write totally contradictory statements, and for most people just to ignore this fact now.

Why were there 6x more instances of massive fires between the respective periods of (cooler)1926-1974, and (warmer)1985-2019.

We're now up to five million hectares burned, more than twice the two million mentioned above.

Climate change causes weather events to become more extreme. That includes both cyclones and droughts. There is more rain in some areas and less in others. Parts of North Queensland have had both extreme floods and extreme drought this year. Remember the news clips of cattle dying in flooded paddocks? Now cattle are dying in drought paddocks up there. I've seen it myself recently. It's not droughts OR floods - it's both.
Excess rain causes extra vegetation growth, so when the drought arrives there is more dry vegetation, which then burns hotter and spreads faster.
That is why rain in the desert can make subsequent bush fires more severe.
Desert fires are usually slow, cool burns because there isn't as much vegetation to burn. Increase the vegetation and you get hotter fires.
That's why it's currently remarkable that wet rainforests are burning. The drought has made them so dry that areas which would normally not burn because of the wetness are burning because of the dryness.
Many of the wet plants which are burning are not adapted to bush fires and so are dead and will not recover. They are gone forever.
An example is the pine plantations between Casino and Grafton. Vast areas have burned so severely that they are dead. Forestry crews are currently chain sawing large areas to take away. The areas will have to be replanted. I saw this for myself last week, as can anyone who drives that road.
Climate change is a long process which can't be judged from short term weather events. It has taken about a century for the planetary average to rise by about 1 degree. A century is a short time in the history of climate change, which usually occurs over much longer periods. That's why a 1 degree rise in global temperature in a century is remarkable. It's also why the forecasts of rises of up to 4% by the end of this century are truly frightening.
The pace of climate change is accelerating and there is scientific consensus that humans are contributing to that acceleration and making it faster than it would otherwise be. Denialists should stop denying the bleeding obvious and face reality, I think.

Originally Posted by vnx205

.....

One shows a trend. The other has no clear trend.

OK. A graph that shows a trend is proof that climate change deniers are out of touch.
Doesn't matter what the trend is, or what the trend is 'proof of' .. as long as it shows a trend .. that's all that matters.
That could well be showing number of forum comments on the fors and againsts about climate change.

No data, no idea what it's trying to prove.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

We're now up to five million hectares burned, more than twice the two million mentioned above.

....

This is for both QLD AND NSW, but of course that doesn't matter. This point isn't significant is it?
But we'll let that one through to the keeper and allow it into the comparison.
What of the '51-52 fires that damaged 5,467,000 hectares and 11 deaths in NSW alone ?

Do you dismiss that as a catastrophic event too? If so, why? Is it because it didn't affect you in some way?
Is this how science works? If it doesn't affect you in some way, it's irrelevant.
Same with the '74 fire, 4.7m ha. NSW alone. Says so in the article you linked too.
Is that also irrelevant? If so, why? You may even be 'old enough' to have been around when that one happened. You were obviously much younger(as I was) the, but you probably wouldn't remember it.
Doesn't mean it didn't happen does it.
Oor is there some scientific reason why it's irrelevant too?
Look up the stats for 1974 too before you comment about it too.
Wettest year on record in Aus. One of the coolest too(as most years pre 1986 were). In fact -1°C below the 1960-1990 baseline that's used as a gauge.
So cool and wet 1974 caused 4.7m ha fires, and somehow this means nothing scientifically speaking.

So again, read the above post re the outlier syndrome!
One major event in roughly 40 years or so of continually rising global temperatures(of which Aus is not immune too), and cause for concern? Why?

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

...
Climate change causes weather events to become more extreme. ...

Of course it does. The evidence to date clearly shows that when the globe was cooler, climactic events were far more extreme than current, that the globe is warmer.
Previously they recorded the highest temperatures ever... when it was cooler. ie. the weather(actual weather, not climate in general) .. but the month on month weather was more extreme.
Extreme is the difference in weather, not that it's just hotter. Extreme from one of the scale to the other.
All data is indicating that the majority of the increase in global climate temperatures are in the cooler(ie. non summer) periods, hence the hysteria.
If the autumn to spring period is increasingly warming relative to an already expected hot summer period, then by definition the climate, or more specifically the weather, is getting 'less extreme'.
Another way to describe it(the weather), the seasons are becoming more consistent relative to each other. The difference(ie. extremity) between seasons is less now than before.
So it poses the question; are we losing our understanding of seasons? This has happened before, so not an unreasonable expectation. I'd be hard to imagine that the seasons would simply flip, but a slow gradual change between them is more to be expected.

Anyhow, what you've confused extreme to mean is that it was 45°C one day recently, and 45°C is 'extreme' weather. Wrong. It's just hot.

Rainfall has primarily increased too ... globally. The increase is a consequence of warming. This would not only be expected, but demanded. if the rainfall had not increased in the warming period, then you'd be in an extreme climatic era.
this has all happened previously, as said many times. No evidence yet that when the globe has previously warmed, precipitation has NOT increased as a result. The current era is displaying similar traits to those past events. How is that 'extreme'?

I suspect that you're implying that with a globe that's warming, somehow this is leading to more extreme events(both weather and environmental)
This is the common sensationalist misconception rubbish that offends many people.

No, the overall global temperature IS rising, as are Australian averages. That's not sensationalism - that's just fact.

Oh, and the five million hectares burnt in just three months is for the whole country, not just two states.

It would be a lot easier just to accept reality, rather than twisting yourself into knots trying to deny the obvious.