Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Australia Burns Turning Sydney into Smog Covered Scene from Hell

posted by martyb on Tuesday December 10 2019, @04:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the There-Is-No-Such-Thing-As-Climate-Change dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Australia is on fire. Again. Happens every year around this time, but this year is worse. A lot worse, with smoke and haze covering large parts of the eastern seaboard. The effect of the fires can be felt in New Zealand where the smoke is causing blood red sunsets. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister of Australia has briefly offered a prayer in support. The deadly fires have killed hundreds of drop bears while scourging the countryside across several states.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Australia Burns Turning Sydney into Smog Covered Scene from Hell | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 83 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Tuesday December 10 2019, @08:17PM (5 children)

    by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 10 2019, @08:17PM (#930747) Journal

    Nah. The poisonous things will mostly grow back, quickly or slowly. It burned badly there in 1982/1983, too. They suppressed the natural fires so long that when it finally was able to burn, it burned unnaturally hot and thoroughly and took everything leaving a barren, charcoal landscape. It looked a lot like the moon photos but black. Then a surprising number of plants, and even some animals, moved in. Some species had not been seen in generations. Now the abnormally hot, dry weather caused by the climate disaster is making things much worse, but the fire suppression allows way too much fuel to accumulate and is no small part of the problem. Gum tree bark, for example, burns better than a match and lights more easily than dry newspaper. Letting that build up on the ground is just asking for trouble.

    These excessive fires are nonetheless very harmful and destroy ecosystems even if fire is an essential part of the natural cycle there and some things are ready to move back into the torched areas. The seeds of quite a few plants need fire to germinate. There are even a couple of kites and a falcon or two that pick up burning twigs and drop them off some distance from the main fire, in order to further its spread. However, these big fires are wrong and disruptive, to stay natural they need more frequent, smaller fires. But that's not going to happen there. Nor, despite the need, will it happen in California which also has parts with fire based ecologies.

    --
    Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 10 2019, @09:21PM (4 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday December 10 2019, @09:21PM (#930784) Homepage Journal

    The smart path would be to build large fire breaks near(ish) the populated bits and not fuck with any fires outside them, what with how Oz populations are distributed. Guess that's asking too much of politicians and bureaucrats though.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday December 10 2019, @11:45PM (3 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 10 2019, @11:45PM (#930861) Journal

      The smart path would be to build large fire breaks near(ish) the populated bits and not fuck with any fires outside them

      This from the "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" category, right?
      Do you have any warranty that catastrophic fires won't develop even if you don't fuck with them?

      ---

      Feed this in your input slot [thebushfirefoundation.org]

      During a fire, embers can travel up to 40 kilometres ahead of the fire front and fire speeds can reach over 25 kilometres per hour.
      ...
      For every 10˚ slope, the fire will double its speed. For example, if a fire is traveling at 5 km per hour along flat ground and it hits a 10˚ slope it will double in speed to 10 km per hour up the hill.

      Firestorms create their own weather [bbc.com]

      The fire grows in danger because it will carry along the characteristics of a storm - turbulent winds that can send embers shooting off in all directions. Sometimes it can also create its own lightning, which can spark more fires.

      Despite being a thunderstorm there is no rain. Instead the storm sucks in more embers and flings them far ahead of the fire front "so the fire advances in big jumps", says Prof Evans.
      ...
      "When you get a decent thunderstorm the rain comes from all directions," says Associate Prof Sharples. "Now imagine the same for embers."

      Fire officials in New South Wales reported that embers were landing 30km (18 miles) ahead of the front on Tuesday - three times more than the usual distance.
      ...
      "The only real way you can stop them is five years before they start," said Associate Prof Sharples.

      See also pyrocumulonimbus [wikipedia.org] and related, fire whirl [wikipedia.org] and fire tornado [smh.com.au]. Excerpt form the latest:

      "Our analysis indicated that the tornado had a rating of at least a 2, on the Enhanced Fujita scale [wikipedia.org] of tornado severity.

      "It had major effects on the behaviour of the fire on the urban edge and had enough force to remove roofs from houses and to blow cars off the road," Mr McRae said.

      "It moved at over 30 km/h across the ground and had a basal diameter of nearly half a kilometre when it reached Chapman. It was a major tornado, but was barely noticed given the setting," he said.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 10 2019, @11:58PM (2 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday December 10 2019, @11:58PM (#930862) Homepage Journal

        You forgot sharkwithfrikkinlaserbeamnados.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.

        • (Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Wednesday December 11 2019, @12:13AM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 11 2019, @12:13AM (#930872) Journal

          sharkwithfrikkinlaserbeam...

          They don't live on the land of Oz.
          Very likely because the species is not venomous enough for the admission in the club of Australian fauna.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @03:00PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @03:00PM (#931057)

            It wasn't just the lack of venom. They were very tasty.