Are more bushfires a symptom of climate change? The ongoing blazes in New South Wales and Victoria have again brought this question to the fore, and it comes as no surprise that many scientists believe in a link between climate change and an increased likelihood of bushfires. Of course, nobody can point to any one blaze and say “that fire is the result of climate change”; mother nature will invariably deliver natural disasters without compunction. Furthermore, bushfires have always been an important part to many Australian ecosystems, so to attribute all future blazes to global warming would be specious.
It stands to reason, however, that as fire-prone areas become hotter and drier as a result of climate change, the number of days marked by ‘extreme’ fire danger will grow.
In October 2008, the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, established in 2003, issued a report highlighting the link between climate change and bushfires. While careful to point out that bushfires are not in and of themselves bad things, the report notes that the south-east region of Australia is one of the world’s three most fire-prone areas. That makes it particularly important to know about the effect that global warming might have on bushfire frequencies, so that the groups who respond to fires can prepare.
But it’s not just more bushfires that Australia might have to brace for. It’s commonly held that climate change will result in an increase in all sorts of extreme weather events. You could take a tour of Australia for a few examples. Floods in Queensland, fires in Victoria and New South Wales and drought throughout much of the country; some would say that’s pretty strong evidence that climate change is already taking its toll. Others, however, would argue that these events are nothing new in Australia and provide no evidence for climate change, and even the claim that there has been a global trend toward more extreme weather events is hotly debated.
But according to Senator Bob Brown, the trend exists. In his opinion the tragic bushfires that have consumed much of Victoria in the last few days could be a harbinger of future flare-ups. Speaking with Sky News, he reportedly said:
Global warming is predicted to make this sort of event happen 25%, 50% more. It’s a sobering reminder of the need for this nation and the whole world to act and put at a priority our need to tackle climate change.
So what do we think?
Image via guadian.co.uk
9 Comments
Anyone with an ecological background will accept the inceased chances of extreme weather conditions, including the likelihood of more and bigger fires. In such a situation it is only sensible to follow the lead of those who have the porfessional responsibility to look into such matters. While we can all hope for the best the only prudent approach is to preapre for the worst. If 6 months ago the idea that some billions of dollars should be spent in Victoria on bushfire control measures it would have been pushed to one side or debated to exhaustion. As a result of this disaster we will HAVE to send billions, and stil endure the loss of so many lives. Until governing bodies at all levels are required to pay strict attention to the science and to respond accordingly then such disasters will continue. The real disater is not the fire, but the unwillingness of leaders to make unpopular (and costly) but sensibly based actions before what is predicted comes to pass. The same applies to the situation of the Lower Lakes of the Murray – 30 ears or more of research, prediction, non action and now an even greater costly mes to fix – at the expense of the environment and the people who have supported the warnings.
“…Five percent of all ecosystems cannot adapt more quickly than 0.1 C per decade over time. Forests will be among the ecosystems to experience problems first because their ability to migrate to stay within the climate zone they are adapted to is limited…opportunistic species will dominate, and the breakdown of biological material will lead to even greater emissions of CO2. This will in turn increase the rate of warming.” “Not for what we will do, BUT FOR WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.”
‘Leemans and Eickhout (2004) found that adaptive capacity decreases rapidly with an increasing rate of climate change. Their study finds that five percent of all ecosystems cannot adapt more quickly than 0.1 C per decade over time. Forests will be among the ecosystems to experience problems first because their ability to migrate to stay within the climate zone they are adapted to is limited. If the rate is 0.3 C per decade, 15 percent of ecosystems will not be able to adapt. If the rate should exceed 0.4 C per decade, all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed, opportunistic species will dominate, and the breakdown of biological material will lead to even greater emissions of CO2. This will in turn increase the rate of warming’ –Leemans and Eickhout (2004), ‘Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change,’ Global Environmental Change 14, 219–228
Here is what Climate Code Red says:
–Human emissions have so far produced a global average temperature increase of 0.8 degree C.
–There is another 0.6 degree C. to come due to “thermal inertia”, or lags in the system, taking the total long-term global warming induced by human emissions so far to 1.4 degree C.
–If human total emissions continue as they are to 2030 (and don’t increase 60% as projected) this would likely add more than 0.4 degrees C. to the system in the next two decades, taking the long-term effect by 2030 to at least 1.7 degrees C. (A 0.3 degree C. increase is predicted for the period 2004-2014 alone by Smith, Cusack et al, 2007).
–Then add the 0.3 degree C. albedo flip effect from the now imminent loss of the Arctic sea ice, and the rise in the system by 2030 is at least 2 degree. C, assuming very optimistically that emissions don’t increase at all above their present annual rate! When we consider the potential permafrost releases and the effect of carbon sinks losing capacity, we are on the road to a hellish future, not for what we will do, but WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.
In other words, all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed, no for what we will do, but WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.
“The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state.” –Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
How can people go out of their way and start stating it is Climate change for the Victorian fires? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a skeptic. However in periods of high temps and low humidity where bushfires thrive. The key thing to look for is how the fire started. If every year I go out and light a fire in the bush, would there be people soon be saying “Oh it’s that Climate Change aye” ?
Most of those fires down in Victoria were from an Arsonist. The question that should be raised is would that fire existed if that arsonist didn’t start it.
Sure the weather has something to do with it. Having one of the hottest heat waves recorded in SA and parts of NSW being the hottest place on earth at that period of time. Although to prove it is Climate change, the only way to measure change is look at the present and compare that with the past.
Nimbus: You’re thinking about it wrong. It’s a statistical thing. Consider this:
The probability of a fire starting from whatever source is a function of the daily temperature and humidity. So the higher the temperature and the lower the humidity the higher the probability of a fire starting, and the higher the chance of the fire burning out of control. This holds true even if you get rid of the deliberate arsonists, although the probability would drop a bit (but probably not by much in the long-term)
Now, under a climate change scenario, you now face the situation where there are more days in each year where the temperature is high enough and the humidity is low enough that there is a high probability of out of control fires (compared to baseline). With more days with high probability, this will result in more frequent and more intense fires over the long term.
To Executive Producers of Channel Nine, Ten and Seven.
I am angered by the way your hosts have handled this tragic fire situation. It’s an obvious ratings grab. The extended coverage of this disaster is only re-hashing and drawing out re-told stories of people who are clearly in too much shock to tell your hosts to pull their heads in.
If the major networks have any credibility or real compassion, I ask you to donate every dollar from advertising that has been slotted in during this extended coverage. It would go a long way towards helping people rebuild their broken lives. You owe it to the victims. Prove that your coverage isn’t purely a ratings grab.
I plead that you try and regain some standing as credible journalists and prove that your coverage is in the community’s best interest. Cover the story with empathy and credibility,
These beyond reproach reporting tactics from your “journalists” on A Current Affair, Today Tonight, Sunrise and for that matter The Today Show, show very little compassion. Do not parade vulnerable victims of this tragedy through their burnt out homes to search for loved ones whilst they have a leech tabloid reporter on their backs desperately trying to make ‘good television’. __
Of course all the unreconstructed foresters who dominated the CSIRO up to the 1970s are being wheeled out to say how the only cure for bushfires is to burn off of “the bush” at a rate of 2% per annum and plant lots of exotics and lawns in the gardens around houses.
All extreme events regarding weather can be directly related to natural Climate Change. This can be seen from true scientific data from millions of years before mankind. However Man made carbon does not drive climate change. Only government is taking us for a ride along with the so-called Climate Change hysterics.
Why is it after all the billions of dollars spent on green energy in Australia that it has not affected the weather by one millionth of a degree warmer or colder? In ending.
Why you ask yourself do you see this apocalyptic scenario of Climate Change disaster on your daily news. Mainly because it’s fashionable and profitable for all who jump on the bandwagon. It is a bit like politicians and would be experts trying to play God.
I think how pathetic can people be that they will use their fellow Australians sad misfortunes such as the recent bushfires. Just to promote their Flawed Climate Change Bandwagon. If they want to do something constructive. Clean up the pollution in our cities by using clean electricity on better public transport.
You could close all the industry in Australia down. Take all the traffic off the roads. Remove all human activity from our great continent and you would still have global warming and cooling. Look to the Sun (It’s the weather).