The bushfires of 1851-52

[Cosmick]

81 Years ago

 

13th JANUARY, 81 YEARS AGO WAS KNOWN AS ‘BLACK FRIDAY’

 

On this day, Eighty-one years ago (13th Jan 1939) with temperatures above 110°F (45°C) across Victoria and the state in drought, bushfires consumed 3,700 buildings across the state, 71 lives were lost and 5 towns completely destroyed- never to be rebuilt.

 

The Royal Commission into ‘’Black Friday’’ concluded;

 

“There had been no fires to equal these in destructiveness or intensity in the history of settlement in this State, except perhaps the fires of 1851, which, too, came at summer culmination of a long drought.

 

‘’At midday, in many places, it was dark as night. Men carrying hurricane lamps, worked to make safe their families and belongings Travellers on the highways were trapped by fires or blazing fallen trees, and perished. Throughout the land there was daytime darkness’.’

 

“The speed of the fires was appalling. They leaped from mountain peak to mountain peak, or far out into the lower country, lighting the forests 6 or 7 miles in advance of the main fires. Blown by a wind of great force, they roared as they travelled. Balls of crackling fire sped at a great pace in advance of the fires, consuming with a roaring, explosive noise, all that they touched.‘’

 

‘’On that day it appeared that the whole State was alight.”

 

 

[ATTACH]50602._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]50603._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[Old Koreelah]

I notice it's the Murdoch media pushing this story, while they're pretty much denying any link between the current fire season and climate change.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I have read a lot of factual material about past fires. There seems to be no evidence that climate change has made the recent ones larger or more severe. The facts stand alone for me, regardless of who is reporting them.

 

 

[octave]

I have read a lot of factual material about past fires. There seems to be no evidence that climate change has made the recent ones larger or more severe. The facts stand alone for me, regardless of who is reporting them.

 

The problem is what you are saying is that you have expertise that is superior to and have spent more time examining data than the Australian Academy of Science and CSIRO et al.  Perhaps you have done so much rigorous research that you have been able to come up with '"the answer". Surely though you must be able to understand that  any thinking person would need more to go on than just "I think there seems to be no evidence" This needs hard data to be considered to be anything more than your opinion.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

There is lots of evidence of past conditions and it is easily accessed. I have seen no evidence from the alarmists that supports what they are asserting, they simply ask us to trust them. If there is evidence that the recent fires are different in any way from past fires than I call on someone to produce it.

 

 

[octave]

There is lots of evidence of past conditions and it is easily accessed. I have seen no evidence from the alarmists that supports what they are asserting, they simply ask us to trust them. If there is evidence that the recent fires are different in any way from past fires than I call on someone to produce it.

 

Perhaps you could address the issues in this article especially the quotes directly from CSIRO and Bom.  So do you consider CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science Bom as alarmists?  

 

 

[Cosmick]

This topic is the same as Politics and Religion, we all have our own opinion and no amount of bias argument and especially condescending comment is going to change that opinion.  I agree that climate is changing because it is always changing from cold to hot and back. Have humans accelerated the change, yes of course, 8 billion people farting an average of 1 litre per day for a start and yes you and I have a carbon footprint. Everything we use has been manufactured from vegetable or mineral by the use of energy.

 

I think most conservative thinkers don't appreciate the alarmists purporting we are going from Utopia to Armageddon. I think we all agree something needs to be done to reduce emissions for example look at the uptake of Rooftop Solar.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Perhaps you could address the issues in this article especially the quotes directly from CSIRO and Bom.  So do you consider CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science Bom as alarmists?  

 

Have either of those bodies published evidence that the recent fires are different? I haven’t seen it.

 

Edit...which article are you referring to Octave?

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't think you can say the uptake of rooftop solar was caused by people wanting to reduce climate change. It was to reduce the cost of electricity to themselves.

 

It has worked for most of us, even though the supply companies may have increased fees. the fact that we can sell what we don't use ourselves lessens the cost. What we need is a good way to store the electricity we produce, then we could go off grid. The mad thing was that government set the price we can sell to the supply company at more than our cost to buy.

 

I am a firm believer that it would be better to be off grid as it would cut down the costs of transmission. in the same way I have been producing most of my water needs in the last 50 years, by using rainwater, rather than town water. Not such a good idea as I have to pay the council about $500 a year for the privelige of having piped water to my property, that is before I use any at nearly $2 per Kl

 

 

[octave]

Have either of those bodies published evidence that the recent fires are different? I haven’t seen it.

 

Edit...which article are you referring to Octave?

 

oops I forgot to post the link

 

https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391

 

I would suggest that anyone who thinks they have pinned down the factors involved in the early start to the fire season is being a bit  premature.    CSIRO has many studies on bushfires.  I did post a link to a study from I think the late 80s which fairly accurately predicted the lengthening of the fire season and the severity. I think you rejected the validity of the study and you did present your own "findings"  but not with an data.  

 

My understanding is that the fires season in California has also lengthened.  

 

The part of the above article that I thought was interesting with regards to the lack of  El Nino which normally is associated with a bad fire season. 

 

Basically I accept this document although I am open to persuasive arguments that are presented with data.  Arguments such as CSIRO and Bom are fraudsters who are trying to bring down the economic system or are just trying to scam research funds are not persuasive. 

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/State-of-the-Climate-2018.pdf 

 

 

[old man emu]

It's too bad that the debate of this topic has no moderator to call a stop to it so that a consensus motion can be created.

 

This debate as to the causes will not end so long as each side counter-punches every time the other raises a point. 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I have posted lots of links and videos in the past that I think are persuasive of my viewpoint. I guess I am just too lazy to research every aspect for this forum. But let me take one example.

 

I clicked on the link provided by Octave and started reading. I didn't go far before reading:

 

Human-induced warming has been evident in Australian temperatures since 1950. 

 

That link (since 1950) takes me to a technical paper by Karoly and Braganza. Karoly is a meteorologist, Braganza is a mathematician and is now the Manager of Climate Monitoring at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The paper was written in 2003 and published in 2005, there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then. I read the paper. The key conclusion is the final one:

 

In summary, we find ...very small chance that the observed changes can be explained by natural externally forced climate variations, as simulated by these models.

 

Its a b....y   model again! These blokes created a computer model 17 years ago and concluded that their simulation suggested human induced global warming. And alarmists are quoting it as evidence in relation to fires that a burning today.

 

I am confident that I could go through the whole article from The Conversation and find a raft of similar nonsense. This is not evidence. Evidence is records of rainfall, temperature and bushfires. These are easily accessed and anyone can read them.

 

 And who said CSIRO and BOM are fraudsters who are trying to bring down the economic system or are just trying to scam research funds?

 

 

[octave]

 And who said CSIRO and BOM are fraudsters who are trying to bring down the economic system or are just trying to scam research funds?

 

 

 

This is the often stated assertions made the the likes of Heller/Goddard

 

Peter do you accept the following statements? If not do you believe that they are the product of bad science or are they being deliberately misleading and to what end?  

 

• Concentrations of all the major long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase, with carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rising above 400 ppm since 2016 and the CO2 equivalent (CO2-e) of all gases reaching 500 ppm for the first time in at least 800,000 years. • Emissions from fossil fuels continue to increase and are the main contributor to the observed growth in atmospheric CO2. • The world’s oceans, especially in the southern hemisphere, are taking up more than 90 per cent of the extra energy stored by the planet as a result of enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. • Global sea level has risen by over 20 cm since 1880, and the rate has been accelerating in recent decades. • Globally averaged air temperature has warmed by over 1 °C since records began in 1850, and each of the last four decades has been warmer than the previous one.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Concentrations of all the major long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase, with carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rising above 400 ppm since 2016 and the CO2 equivalent (CO2-e) of all gases reaching 500 ppm for the first time in at least 800,000 years.  - Accepted

 

• Emissions from fossil fuels continue to increase and are the main contributor to the observed growth in atmospheric CO2.  - Accepted

 

 

• The world’s oceans, especially in the southern hemisphere, are taking up more than 90 per cent of the extra energy stored by the planet as a result of enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations.  - There are many scientists who not accept that rising temperatures are due to greenhouse gases. The climate record shows that global temperature is not correlated with CO2 levels, either in past Millenia or in the last century or two.

 

• Global sea level has risen by over 20 cm since 1880, and the rate has been accelerating in recent decades. - the sea level always rises or falls, never stays the same. It was metres higher  and tens of meters lower in the past few thousand years. 

 

 

• Globally averaged air temperature has warmed by over 1 °C since records began in 1850, and each of the last four decades has been warmer than the previous one - not accepted. There was very little coverage of much of the globe in temperature records before quite recent times. It was warm in the 1930s. There was little warming for about 15 years from 1990. Globally averaged, in any case, means nothing. Climate is a descriptor of regions, not the world as a whole. How can you average different areas, on land or sea, over a whole year? It is meaningless. How many very cold days in Norway are used to offset hot days in Alice Springs? The warmists have “adjusted” past mercury thermometer readings, which I believe are the true and reliable records. I believe the newspaper reports from the past, about droughts, floods and temperature. I do not believe in computer models or adjusted data.

 

 

[octave]

The warmists have “adjusted” past mercury thermometer readings, which I believe are the true and reliable records. I believe the newspaper reports from the past, about droughts, floods and temperature. I do not believe in computer models or adjusted data.

 

 

 

By the warmists do you mean Bom and CSIRO?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Keepers of weather records in the USA and Australia have adjusted historical records, reducing past maximums in particular. In Australia  it is people within BOM. They are not in a conspiracy, they believe the adjustments are necessary. But adjusted data is not primary data, someone else can come along next year with a different idea about the adjustment factors.

 

 

[octave]

Keepers of weather records in the USA and Australia have adjusted historical records, reducing past maximums in particular. In Australia  it is people within BOM. They are not in a conspiracy, they believe the adjustments are necessary. But adjusted data is not primary data, someone else can come along next year with a different idea about the adjustment factors.

 

 

 

So you are in fact alleging serious fraud if not by an organisation  certainly by individuals and one would think that the Bom generally would be responsible for the quality of its data.

 

The temperature data is not merely written down by some dishonest fellow and left at that , the data is audited.    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/#tabs=Expert-review

 

Your suggestion that the temperatures are only adjusted upwards surely would only work if you suppress the raw data, it is my understanding that you can download the raw data.   Do you believe that the raw data would not show a warming trend?  My understanding is that the raw data shows more warming. Or do you believe the raw dat has been altered.

 

 Presumably you believe that other meteorological organisations from around the world corrupt their data also. 

 

The case for climate change does not hinge on the temp data from one country but from many countries as well as satellite measurements. 

 

This kind of fraud would surely be easy to detect and would.   It would also involve high level collusion not only within Bom but with other organisations. it would in fact be a conspiracy.

 

 

[octave]

By the way  PM here is an explanation of methods used and reasons for it.

 

https://skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html

 

It is certainly not done haphazardly

 

 

[willedoo]

 

So you are in fact alleging serious fraud if not by an organisation  certainly by individuals and one would think that the Bom generally would be responsible for the quality of its data.

 

No, He's not Octave. Read his post again:

 

Keepers of weather records in the USA and Australia have adjusted historical records, reducing past maximums in particular. In Australia  it is people within BOM. They are not in a conspiracy, they believe the adjustments are necessary. But adjusted data is not primary data, someone else can come along next year with a different idea about the adjustment factors.

 

and especially this part:

 

They are not in a conspiracy, they believe the adjustments are necessary. But adjusted data is not primary data, someone else can come along next year with a different idea about the adjustment factors.

 

I'm not sure how you can interpret that as alleging serious fraud.

 

 

[octave]

I'm not sure how you can interpret that as alleging serious fraud.

 

The suggestion is that temperature measurements are being adjusted and this falsey shows an increase in temperature at least that is what I think is being said.  There are many who claim a conspiracy such as Tony Heller as seen in the youtube clips that PM posts.   What I find hard to understand  is how multiple data sources such as our Bom and meteorological bodies from around the world come up with similar data. The point I am making is either they come up with similar data because they are measuring accurately or they are colluding to produce the same data if it is the latter then I would call it scientific fraud.

 

Perhaps it would be better for the doubters to criticize the harmonisation process itself rather to suggest a haphazard process of changing data to suit a theory.

 

There is plenty of information freely available about how and why the harmonisation is done as well as the negligible effect it has on the results.

 

My use of the word fraud was also prompted by going back to the beginning of this thread and re reading it, here is a sample:

 

"Yes and there is plenty of fraud going on. The facts are there in historical records. This is not the hottest, wettest,  most turbulent time on record. Seek the facts, don’t drink the Koolaid."

 

 

[pmccarthy]

the fraud is by the alarmists who selectively report scientific data. I am not alleging fraud by research organisations.

 

The hottest time in Europe was the mid Holocene, see graph below. There are any number of papers supporting this. For Australia, we don’t know but I can point to studies speculating about the drying up of the inland.

 

Extreme weather such as hurricanes? Either no trend, or a downward trend in recent decades. Lots of published papers. See graph below.

 

There are plenty of studies showing rainfall has not decreased or increased globally or in Australia ( of course we have had a recent severe drought) nor have extreme weather events such  as the following which identifies past extremes in Sydney and Melbourne. Where I live the extreme event was on January 1 1889.

 

 

Historical extreme rainfall events in southeastern Australia

 

 

 

 

 

Author links open overlay panelLindenAshcroftabDavid J.KarolyacAndrew J.Dowdyb

 

 

 

a

 

 

School of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia, 3010

 

 

 

 

 

b

 

 

Bureau of Meteorology, Docklands, Australia, 3008c

 

 

 

 

 

Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub, CSIRO, Aspendale, Australia, 3195

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ATTACH]50606._xfImport[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]50607._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[willedoo]

My use of the word fraud was also prompted by going back to the beginning of this thread and re reading it, here is a sample:

 

"Yes and there is plenty of fraud going on. The facts are there in historical records. This is not the hottest, wettest,  most turbulent time on record. Seek the facts, don’t drink the Koolaid."

 

Well then I'd respectfully suggest you have quoted the wrong post when you posted this:

 

Keepers of weather records in the USA and Australia have adjusted historical records, reducing past maximums in particular. In Australia  it is people within BOM. They are not in a conspiracy, they believe the adjustments are necessary. But adjusted data is not primary data, someone else can come along next year with a different idea about the adjustment factors.

 

 

 

So you are in fact alleging serious fraud if not by an organisation  certainly by individuals and one would think that the Bom generally would be responsible for the quality of its data.

 

If you are saying someone is alleging serious fraud, it would be the correct thing to quote the relevant post and not another a post where no such thing is being said. It would make it a lot easier for others to follow the thread debate.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Bjorn Lomborg says the area burned in Australia is deceasing, including the recent fires. I cant copy his chart. See

 

https://m.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/photos/a.221758208967/10158659486713968/?type=3&theater&fbclid=IwAR277Mm7fFm9Sm6KIA7qbDa2xnMUzcs1zSW8sIb0xgpNIYNiKWxfGec469c

 

 

[octave]

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

An excellent analysis, but most voters will never see it. It's about 15 minutes too long.

 

They'd rather get their info in short, condensed bites: something the right wing/coal dominated media specialise in.