posted by
martyb
on Tuesday December 10 2019, @04:00PM
from the There-Is-No-Such-Thing-As-Climate-Change dept.
from the There-Is-No-Such-Thing-As-Climate-Change dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.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
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 5, Informative) by Mojibake Tengu on Tuesday December 10 2019, @04:11PM (1 child)
Had to ddg for "drop bear". Not disappointed at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear [wikipedia.org]
Any efforts pending to save those deadly monsters?
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday December 10 2019, @07:22PM
Koala chlamydia, on the other hand, is completely real.
They're doing god's work over at The John Oliver Koala Chlamydia Ward! [theguardian.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 10 2019, @04:39PM (7 children)
Maybe the fires will cut down on the overwhelming numbers of things that are poisonous, want to kill you, or both down there. They'd have to repopulate the ecosystem if that happened though, since even the grass falls into one of those categories in Oz.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @05:14PM
Buzzard, meet Mojibake Tengu. [soylentnews.org] Mojibake, Buzzard. Looks like you two will have a lot to discuss.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Tuesday December 10 2019, @08:17PM (5 children)
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.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 10 2019, @09:21PM (4 children)
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)
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]
Firestorms create their own weather [bbc.com]
See also pyrocumulonimbus [wikipedia.org] and related, fire whirl [wikipedia.org] and fire tornado [smh.com.au]. Excerpt form the latest:
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)
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)
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
It wasn't just the lack of venom. They were very tasty.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday December 10 2019, @05:13PM (3 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 10 2019, @07:52PM
"Red sky at night, shepherds delight" I believe is the term, but no, we don't have many sheep left at all. The moas ate them. [wikipedia.org]
The light is slightly red during even the middle of the day at the moment, which is slightly weird.
(Score: 4, Funny) by theluggage on Tuesday December 10 2019, @10:38PM
A terrible crime - your verse doesn't rhyme.
"Red sky at night - Sydney's alight!"
Sorry, tasteless - but TFA started it with the drop bears.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday December 11 2019, @05:38AM
Well.... I wouldn't call them "shepherds" as such. Sheep-fanciers maybe.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by EJ on Tuesday December 10 2019, @05:27PM (8 children)
"A lot worse, with smoke and haze covering large parts of the eastern seaboard."
^ is not a sentance. Learn to grammer.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @06:17PM (3 children)
Adding the preceding sentence, it becomes: "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."
In this context, "A lot worse, with the smoke..." turns out to be one of those uncommon sentences where the subject of the sentence ("this year", or the pronoun "it's") is an implied subject. You will find similar constructions with directive sentences like "Go home now." The subject (you) is implied, without being explicitly stated.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Tuesday December 10 2019, @06:20PM (2 children)
Conversational language does not apply to the written word in this context.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by EJ on Tuesday December 10 2019, @06:54PM
Its not my problem that your bad at speling.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 10 2019, @10:39PM
Why? The author clearly disagrees and you understood the writing. What makes your opinion any better?
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday December 10 2019, @06:44PM (1 child)
My grammer has fine grammar, thank you.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Tuesday December 10 2019, @06:56PM
Its not my problem that your bad at speling.
(or taht I'm bad at replying to the rite post)
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday December 10 2019, @09:40PM
The construct's Chomsky-approved - what are your creds?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @11:38PM
I can grammar, thanks, when I want to, but for this no. I'ts a news article. Not a submission at school for marks. Feel free to become an editor to fix my horrible sub-missions. Heaven knows I try. Keep talking about it though, don't hold it back anymore. Your opinion is warranted and needed, so we're not going to just slam teh door. Really, though, it's fluff, so perhaps you should just let it go. Others will take up the championship of the greatest language on earth. Don't care what they are going to say. Let the storm rage on. Or, whatever. Be supergreen.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @06:25PM (2 children)
Oh, what happened last solar minimum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires [wikipedia.org]
This solar minimum is even deeper than the last. The sun has been blank for a month: http://www.sidc.be/silso/dayssnplot [www.sidc.be]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @06:29PM (1 child)
How about the minimum before that, in 1998:
http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER/9801/07/australia.fires/ [cnn.com]
Maybe if these people would listen to science instead of politically motivated BS they could prepare better for the particularly bad bushfire seasons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @07:02PM
We're too busy beatifying St. Greta the Sullen.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Appalbarry on Tuesday December 10 2019, @06:28PM (27 children)
These fires are not an "every year" thing, and have become more and more severe after repeated droughts.
The current government has been challenged on their repeated refusal to acknowledge that climate change is a significant factor in the changing weather patterns.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @06:31PM (25 children)
Nope, the bad ones are just every 11 years on average but getting worse as we approach the grand solar minimum.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 10 2019, @07:57PM (24 children)
Can you explain how the sun causes fire in New South Wales?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @08:24PM (23 children)
Yes. Can you think of anything? Your question suggest you think it is a ridiculous prospect for some reason.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 10 2019, @08:51PM (22 children)
I do think it is ridiculous, and will continue to think that, unless you can supply a compelling argument to the contrary.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @09:08PM (21 children)
It is well known that solar cycle correlates with precipitation on Earth. Here is a paper from the 1970s: https://www.nature.com/articles/251594a0 [nature.com]
Here is NASA talking about it: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/ [nasa.gov]
The usual explanation is a less active sun means more cosmic rats which means more ionization of the atmosphere. That effects redistribution of precipitation over the Earths surface: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JA022689 [wiley.com]
(Score: 5, Funny) by FatPhil on Tuesday December 10 2019, @09:46PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 10 2019, @09:52PM (6 children)
I have looked through your links, and apart from the first one, which I cannot read without a subscription, the answer is "not really".
I also did a couple of web searches on the subject myself, and did find several sites that told me about how the coming grand solar minimum was going to cause earthquakes, so there is that I suppose.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @10:09PM (5 children)
So you have no problem with what it says in the links, or a problem with the sources, but do not understand how forest fires are connected to the solar cycle (which they obviously are). Westworld: "It does look like anything at all to me".
You brainwashed bro.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @10:12PM
This is how artificial selection works I guess. If you think 90% of humans need to die to save the planet but don't care much which ones, may as well cast out your brainwashing net and make it the willfully ignorant.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 10 2019, @11:11PM (3 children)
No. I read the links, and took note of bits like this:
and this:
Among others.
So I'm still not seeing where forest fires are connected to the solar cycle (because they're obviously not).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @12:41AM (2 children)
Why are you quoting something about temperature record when we are talking about bushfires (ie, precipitation)? And yes, UV-driven photochemistry is not thought to be the mechanism... it is ionization due to cosmic rays.
Your response is total nonsense.
(Score: 3, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 11 2019, @12:57AM (1 child)
Quoted from your links.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @01:47AM
Yes, why are you quoting irrelevant stuff from the links instead of the stuff related to precipitation and the mechanism via which it is supposed to work?
I mean this is nuts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @10:51PM
More papers:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117716304835 [sciencedirect.com]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969708000867 [sciencedirect.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday December 10 2019, @10:53PM (11 children)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 10 2019, @11:14PM
I don't think the A/C can explain any of it, other than trying to link two things that probably have not much to do with each other.
If you search the Internet for this stuff you can wind up in the Electric Universe if you're not careful.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 11 2019, @12:01AM (5 children)
At the very best, one may argue more rain during winter create more fuel for the summer bushfires and be right in most of the cases.
A pity it didn't happen in this case, with Queensland [qld.gov.au] and NSW [nsw.gov.au] under intense and prolonged drought conditions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @12:43AM (3 children)
Yes, there are obviously more/worse droughts during the solar minimums in Australia.
Seriously... I don't know why I keep returning to this site.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 11 2019, @01:00AM (2 children)
No there aren't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @01:50AM (1 child)
Yes there are, that why there is always an exceptionally bad bushfire during the solar minimum (as seen in the links above).
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 11 2019, @07:38PM
As your links show. You do realise there are people who point to the solar minimums causing volcanic eruptions?
They're using the same umbers you are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @01:21AM
Here's some satellite comparisons, and you can see the current smoke from space:
https://www.weatherwatch.net.au/weather/burnt-forests-drought-seen-by-space-satellite-comparison-of-previous-years/ [weatherwatch.net.au]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @12:35AM (3 children)
Where are you getting the idea there is more precipitation in Australia during the minimum? There is obviously less, making it drier. The rain is used up elsewhere.
There is a serious problem with making up strawmen on this site, maybe too many old people.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 11 2019, @02:53PM (1 child)
So you claim. But going from more global precipitation to less Australian precipitation requires evidence that it actually happens.
There is, but it didn't happen this time. Must be too many lazy people.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday December 11 2019, @03:15PM
If the solar cycle effect exists, it is minor compared to the El Nino / La Nina (ENSO). When it's El Nino, South America gets extra rain and AU gets less. La Nina, the other way around.
Having said that, if a 0.01% change in atmospheric composition is going to be the end of civilization then I guess a change in the driving engine is going to have effects too.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 11 2019, @03:40PM
Where do you get that idea? I found it interesting how the only thing said about solar cycles is that there's more precipitation during minimums. That's it. By that logic then we arrive at Australia receiving more precipitation during solar minimums. If there is some argument to make that proves whatever you think you're saying, then by all means make that argument. But it's silly to accuse me of "making up straw men", when your (or perhaps some other AC's) argument really was that flimsy.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Wednesday December 11 2019, @02:55AM
Oh really? I remember learning about Australian brush fires as a kid in school decades ago, half a world away. Arson was the culprit back then.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday December 10 2019, @08:46PM (2 children)
Yes, that's what it looks like when wildfires burn. It's what the summer looked like nearly every year growing up in the American West. It's not fun. But almost every place has something that makes it less enjoyable. The South has hurricanes. The MidWest has tornadoes. And so on.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @09:00PM (1 child)
As an asthmatic the bit that hurt my brain this week, in Sydney, was going outside with the smokers on my coffee break and wondering if they were getting cleaner air than I was ..
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 11 2019, @11:52AM
I read a funny anecdote by an American expat in Beijing who decided it was healthier for his lungs to give up jogging there, except the poor air quality was man-made by the coal-burning power plants the wise Communists placed in the middle of the city.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by corey on Tuesday December 10 2019, @09:08PM (20 children)
Video of Sydney with the smoke yesterday:
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-10/businesses-close-and-ferries-cancelled-as-hazardous-smoke-/11784578 [abc.net.au]
I heard it was 20x the hazardous levels in terms of air quality. Worse than any other city in the world.
I was talking to the my work office guys up there yesterday, they said almost everyone has been sneezing heaps, one has a throat infection caused by the smoke. And dozens of buildings in the city had their fire alarms set off, causing thousands of people to have to evacuate. It a huge strain on the fire services to respond to all the false alarms.
Here's how big the fires are:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2019/dec/07/how-big-are-the-fires-burning-on-the-east-coast-of-australia-interactive-map [theguardian.com]
It was a 60km (37mi for the American folk) fire front.
Experts are all linking it to climate change. Commenters here are not experts, just saying before you jump in and refute it. This scale of fire had never been seen before in Australia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @10:52PM
Your colleague cannot have a throat infection caused by the smog. Exacerbated, perhaps, but the causative agent is a bacteria or virus.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 10 2019, @11:07PM (10 children)
Experts are also linking it to massive buildup of fuels in the areas affected. Given that never before seen scale of fire would have happened due to this fuel buildup, whether or not climate change happened, guess which experts should be the ones we listen to?
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday December 11 2019, @12:10AM (9 children)
[Citation needed]
No, seriously, put up or shut up, the latter being strongly recommended** ('cause the latest drought map [bom.gov.au] contradicts what you're saying).
---
** I can't stop you making a fool of yourself if that's what makes you feel better. So, I'm not even trying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 11 2019, @06:29AM (8 children)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday December 12 2019, @02:10AM (7 children)
The linked don't provide any information as to the causes of current fires around Sydney.
I can't find any explanation on what the burning suppression between 1900 and 1950 has to do with the fires around Sydney in 2019.
At the best, I can take your assertion as a hypothesis, on the line of "Maybe those prescribed burnings haven't taken place and that is why the current fires are so fierce".
From the cited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 12 2019, @03:45PM (6 children)
They provide information about a broader class of wildfires than just the present ones afflicting Sydney.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday December 12 2019, @09:01PM (1 child)
Without any warranty that the broader class of fires include the ones Sydney experiences now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 13 2019, @02:23PM
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday December 12 2019, @09:09PM (3 children)
FYI [smh.com.au]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 13 2019, @04:05AM (2 children)
Funny how the most extreme claims about who we should listen to come from the non-experts, isn't it?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday December 13 2019, @05:03AM (1 child)
Funny how some suggest that a Fire and Rescue NSW commissioner for 13+ years [wikipedia.org] has no expertise. I wonder what are the credentials in regards with fires in NSW of those that make such suggestions?
(me, smiling politely and....)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 13 2019, @02:09PM
I have expertise too. And it too is not in climatology.
How about evidence?
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Wednesday December 11 2019, @02:57AM (7 children)
But we should take your word for who the experts are? Maybe there are no experts, just a bunch of activists who are claiming to be experts.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday December 11 2019, @06:54AM (6 children)
You've just summed up the organised deniers.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Wednesday December 11 2019, @01:05PM (5 children)
In high-school I learned that "appeal to authority" is a logical mistake. That mistaken appeal is the whole basis for people who are marching on the street about CO2.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday December 11 2019, @09:08PM (4 children)
Whether it's mistaken or not depends on the credentials of the authority.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 13 2019, @04:07AM (3 children)
If you're depending on credentials instead of logical argument, you are mistaken.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday December 13 2019, @10:44AM (2 children)
If you're depending on a logical argument which has at least one fellatious premise you're mistaken.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 13 2019, @02:21PM (1 child)
But having said that, it still remains that argument from credentials is a logical house of cards. For starters, what are credentials? Who gets to decide which credentials are relevant? And why are credentials more relevant than evidence?
My take on this is that Australia is particularly resistant to climate change propaganda because of the large fossil fuels extraction industries it has. So any claims of climate change induced harm have to be sold particularly hard. I agree that there is probably some contribution to fire severity and damage from climate change. But climate change doesn't explain other effects like fuel build up, more buildings in harms way, the effectiveness of emergency response, or past large wildfires - several which are of similar scale to the present ones of the story.
There will always be big disasters, whether or not some sort of climate change is involved. The hard sell won't always be around.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday December 13 2019, @09:21PM
Proven history in the field, ie qualifications (which may or may not include formal education); everybody, although not everybody understands what they're dealing with; they're not, but they do indicate whether the authority's interpretation of the evidence is credible.
That is, unfortunately, the case. The government is owned by big business.
One or two big fires probably aren't due to AGW. A trend of more common, unseasonal and severe fires over time probably is.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday December 10 2019, @09:31PM (1 child)
Breathe through water soaked cloth? Gas mask? Does anything help?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Tuesday December 10 2019, @11:07PM
I cycled to work with a P2/N95 dust/aerosol filter mask. I don't wear the mask just walking around, but when cycling hard for 30 minutes the mask made a HUGE difference.
I see heaps of people with 'k-pop' masks, surgical masks, bandanas, handkerchiefs, etc. But those don't do much for the particulates in the smokey air. Probably still better than nothing though.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @10:16PM (2 children)
"I see you've played knifey-spoony before".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @11:33PM
No.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday December 11 2019, @01:46AM
That's a funny name. I'd have called them chuzz wozzas.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?