Comments on: Gore Effect explained

By: zoomster

zoomster — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 02:10:15 +0000

Radpiper – you missed mine. As the last sentence of mine you quoted shows, I was pointing out that the recent fires defy what one would hypothesise, given no change in circumstances.
that is: better fire prevention techniques, better fire prediction techniques, better fire fighting techniques should (all other factors being equal) = smaller fires, of lower intensity, which are controlled fairly quickly.
If this isn’t happening, and in fact the severity of fires are increasing (try coming to NE Victoria, which has had major fires in 2003, 2006 and 2009, with a gap since 1983 since the previous major fire and telling them it’s situation normal), then one has to ask what else has changed.
If there is a theory which fits the observed facts, then one has to at least take the theory into account. That’s how science works.
Now, climate change theory has been predicting for a considerable number of years now that the incidence of bushfires will increase, as a result of global warming. It is therefore quite reasonable to link the recent increases in fire activity with global warming.
This explains why, despite better fire prevention techniques, better fire prediction techniques, better fire fighting techniques, the incidence of catastrophic fire events have become more frequent (1983…2003,2006,2009) than one would predict.

By: Tobias Ziegler

Tobias Ziegler — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:33:08 +0000

And with that, Rad Pipper has taken the argument in a full circle. I would appreciate it if we can avoid going around for another lap – let’s find some new issues on the topic to discuss instead.

By: radpipper

radpipper — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:27:03 +0000

So your statement that there was ‘a bigger frequency of fires in the first half of the 20th century’ is (i) difficult to prove or disprove, due to the holes in the data; (ii) what one would expect, given the reaction to the 1939 fires; (iii) irrelevant when one is considering whether or not increased likeliness of fire is linked to climate change.
BTW, the CFA’s fire index rating is set at 100 as the maximum, presumably based on their experiences since 1939. ALL of the State yesterday was rated at over 300.
In other words, the CFA, with all their experience, have never before encountered conditions like these.

You missed my point. I was disputing the notion that the current bushfires are an indication of AGW. Bushfires have always been a natural problem in South Eastern Australia so it is wrong for Climate Change evangelists to be desperately trying to use the recent bushfires to push their agenda & belief in AGW.

By: twobob

twobob — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:26:45 +0000

We’ll al be ruunned said Andrew bolt
By the global warming mobs
They’ll wreck our lives and steal our fun
They’ll even take our jobs
Scientists the world around
Have got the story wrong
I alone in this whole world
Knows what’s going on
The world is getting colder folks
Anyone can see
That’s why the ice is melting
Please listen to me

By: zoomster

zoomster — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:56:08 +0000

Radpiper – don’t forget 2003 and 2006, which were extensive fires over long periods of time (this one has only eclipsed them because it involved deaths).
Also take into account that there has been increasing sophistocation in fire control, detection and fighting since 1939 and the Stretton report. Prior to 1939, there were no controls on fire lighting, no controlled burns, no such thing as a fire ban, no attempts to fight fires once they were established in any systematic way, etc.
When I first moved to this very fire susceptible area, I was told by more than one CFA volunteer that fires of the extent of 1983 COULD NOT happen again, due to the early detection of fires after storms (planes go up almost immediately, identify spot fires and crews are sent in to put them out). 2003 and 2006 were started by multiple (in the hundreds) lightning strikes, which were totally unknown previously (Monash Uni is studying this), making it impossible to get to all of them in time.
So, after 1939, with the introduction of fire bans, fire detection, early response to fires regardless of location, more sophistocated and coordinated fire fighting etc, one would predict a DECREASE in the number of fires and in their severity.
Prior to 1939, many fires were not reported officially, despite having severe impacts on local areas – there was no obligation to and no central body to report them to anyway.
So your statement that there was ‘a bigger frequency of fires in the first half of the 20th century’ is (i) difficult to prove or disprove, due to the holes in the data; (ii) what one would expect, given the reaction to the 1939 fires; (iii) irrelevant when one is considering whether or not increased likeliness of fire is linked to climate change.
BTW, the CFA’s fire index rating is set at 100 as the maximum, presumably based on their experiences since 1939. ALL of the State yesterday was rated at over 300.
In other words, the CFA, with all their experience, have never before encountered conditions like these.

By: radpipper

radpipper — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:30:33 +0000

But the interesting thing is the frequency: 47 years between 1851 and 1898, then 41, 44 and lately 26. Ah hah! Maybe this year’s (and last) are showing the expected increase in frequency predicted from AGW? Not conclusive, but within bounds

LOL you can’t be serious. I didn’t mention the other devastating fires of 1909, 1919 & 1926. So there was a bigger frequency of fires in the first half of the 20th Century when you also take into account 1939.

Even then, the earliest settlers remarked on how much drier the district had become, from a time when it would take weeks of hacking through bush to get from Dandenong to Korumburra, to one where, 40 years later, most of the trees had been cut down, ringbarked or burnt and Gippsland’s grazing land created.

Maybe because they were going through a drought. Once again, a normal part of the climate in south Easter Australia. Remember the poem? A land of drought & flooding rain.

By: John Surname

John Surname — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:12:57 +0000

A Bolt reader not getting the hilarious "satirical joke". Soooooo tragic.

By: Brett Coster

Brett Coster — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:53:12 +0000

radpiper – Have you noticed the correlation in the dates you’ve given for the fires? Victoria’s most devastating recorded fires have been in 1851, 1898, 1939, 1983 and 2009 (you could also throw in last year’s fires, too). All occurred at times of extreme heat and high winds, largely in heavily forested areas. And the temperatures etc were in the 40s, within a few degrees of one another.

Now, we all know that AGW has not caused any of the fires, but it has perhaps increased the likelihood of them.

And as an illustration, I’ll use a bit of family history. First, I remember my great-Aunt Rose telling me about the 1898 fires that devastated much of Gippsland, where I grew up. Now, you may not think that AGW had anything to do with those (and it may not have) but in 1917 the Korumburra Shire published a history of its early settlement, during the 1870s, called “Land of the Lyrebird”, that incuded reminisces from the settlers. Even then, the earliest settlers remarked on how much drier the district had become, from a time when it would take weeks of hacking through bush to get from Dandenong to Korumburra, to one where, 40 years later, most of the trees had been cut down, ringbarked or burnt and Gippsland’s grazing land created. The history even had rainfall records that showed a dramatic drop from the 1890s to a bit after 1900, from which the “normal” rainfall stabilised at the new, lower, level.

Now, that’s a small part of the picture, not proof, but evidence. And it fits the other evidence from so many other areas that have identified the effects of pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere over the last few hundred years.

By: bertus

bertus — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 04:53:09 +0000

enzaii – well, the Club of Rome in their day provoked furious debate. They basically argued that we would run out of raw materials like oil, copper, zinc, iron, bauxite etc and we’d all be living in a global rubbish dump, scrabbling around for recycled raw materials.

The Club of Rome’s arguments inspired the Mad Max movies and many other similar works. They also helped Mal Fraser and John Howard win the 1980 Australian election by enabling them to argue that Australian raw materials such as bauxite would become enormously valuable as supplies ran out. The Alcoa Aluminium Smelter near Geelong stands testimony to the mania.

http://www.baddevelopers.green.net.au/Docs/Pointhenry.htm

The principal counter-argument came from a still-going organisation called the Hudson Institute, which argued that it would be many many hundreds of years before supplies of anything ran out.

Turned out they were both partly right and both partly wrong. It has to be said the Club of Rome got their timelines wildly out – they were saying we’d be running out of oil by the ’90s, but as we know, we now live in the age of Peak Oil and pretty much the consensus is the CoR was right, at least about oil.

Paul Ehrlich also inspired furious debate – his book The Population Bomb inspired the film Soylent Green again amongst many other works, and similarly, it has to be said Ehrlich and his detractors were both partly right and partly wrong.

Yet another example would be the ongoing debate about decriminalizing certain drugs such as marijuana.

By: confessions

confessions — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 04:42:53 +0000

@ enzaii: there are numerous examples of credible scientific information being ignored or tried to be discredited to further ideological or commercial interests. here are 2 that immediately come to mind:

1. the scientific consensus on smoking as a cause of lung cancer was some 40 years old before the tobacco industry and lawmakers in some countries would accept it.

2. despite overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus of evolution and the age of the planet, there are still jurisdictions that legislate ‘intelligent design’ must be taught in schools alongside traditional science.