Bushfires in Australia

Dutchy · Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:47 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

No, per capita is the only fair way to do it.

its the only way to get your argument across does not mean its the correct way, or do you think that Luxembourg should also be treated that way with a population of 613,894 and greenhouse gases per capita 16.47t per person compared with Australia population of 25,572,766 and per capita of 16.5t

It is only fair way, because greenhouse gasses are hurting us all and we are on a carbon budget, we - as a species - can only release a certain amount. So if you use more, that means someone else must use less. That goes for someone from Luxembourg as someone from Australia alike, or any other citizen of this planet.

Or tell me, is there some other measure you would like to adopt and why? Or would you like us to continue as we do and raise the global temperature with 5 or 6 degrees?

A101 wrote:
if Australia reduced its green house emissions to zero which is physically impossible what do you think would be the net gain to overall green house gases

https://www.bettermeetsreality.com/coun ... n-dioxide/

The usual excuse of people not wanting to change their way of living. It doesn't impress me much, sorry.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
An Australian doesn't have more right to pollute than someone from Peru, Singapore, Kenia or Slovakia. Or do you think you are entitled to pollute more, perhaps even more because of your dual citizenship?

That is Australian sovereign right on how industry is regulated not someone from Peru, Singapore, Kenia or Slovakia to decide

No it isn't. Your personal freedom ends where another one begins. Same for countries, you aren't sovereign to mess up the planet and that's what we are doing. So yes, Australia is sovereign how to get its industry in line with the global goals, not if they do it.

Or are you going to tell me that you are fine with exporting your problems? Like you want to do with Brexit.

A101 · Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:58 pm

Aesma wrote:
Climate change doesn't care about sovereignty.

it also doesn't look at the aggregate population density for each nation either.

DIRECTFLT · Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:09 pm

ABC (American Broadcasting Company) News article with pictures.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/de ... d=68030661

Australia's prime minister warned that the crisis will continue until the country gets a "decent rain," The Associated Press reported.

The smoke is so dangerous that the nation's capital, Canberra, is currently ranked the world's worst on the air quality index, the AP reported. Smoke has also wafted across the Tasman Sea into New Zealand.

A101 · Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:04 pm

Dutchy wrote:

It is only fair way, because greenhouse gasses are hurting us all and we are on a carbon budget, we - as a species - can only release a certain amount. So if you use more, that means someone else must use less. That goes for someone from Luxembourg as someone from Australia alike, or any other citizen of this planet.

Countries also show a per capita for net debt for a any given nation doesn’t mean everyone contributes to it

Dutchy wrote:
Or tell me, is there some other measure you would like to adopt and why? Or would you like us to continue as we do and raise the global temperature with 5 or 6 degrees?

Yep it net emissions by country

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:
if Australia reduced its green house emissions to zero which is physically impossible what do you think would be the net gain to overall green house gases

https://www.bettermeetsreality.com/coun ... n-dioxide/

The usual excuse of people not wanting to change their way of living. It doesn't impress me much, sorry.

Contrary to popular belief most Australian wouldn’t be inclined to go out of there way to try and impress you, so have you changed your way of life to zero net emission are you living of the grid planting a home vegie patch not buying any thing that contributes to greenhouse gases

Dutchy wrote:
No it isn't. Your personal freedom ends where another one begins. Same for countries, you aren't sovereign to mess up the planet and that's what we are doing. So yes, Australia is sovereign how to get its industry in line with the global goals, not if they do it.
Or are you going to tell me that you are fine with exporting your problems? Like you want to do with Brexit.

Well the only way that’s going to happen if the nations of the world stop buying Australian resources, I don’t see the EU stopping trade with Australia because of their sovereign regulatory legislation

Dutchy · Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:52 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

It is only fair way, because greenhouse gasses are hurting us all and we are on a carbon budget, we - as a species - can only release a certain amount. So if you use more, that means someone else must use less. That goes for someone from Luxembourg as someone from Australia alike, or any other citizen of this planet.

Countries also show a per capita for net debt for a any given nation doesn’t mean everyone contributes to it

Dutchy wrote:
Or tell me, is there some other measure you would like to adopt and why? Or would you like us to continue as we do and raise the global temperature with 5 or 6 degrees?

Yep it net emissions by country

Sound like a convenient way for you, because of the country size. So you do believe an Australian or Russian is more entitled to pollute more than say someone from the Netherlands. BTW it is net emissions period, not net emissions combined with natural beauty. So we need to get rid of fossil fuel all together if we want to leave a lifeable planet to our kids and especially grandkids.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:
if Australia reduced its green house emissions to zero which is physically impossible what do you think would be the net gain to overall green house gases

https://www.bettermeetsreality.com/coun ... n-dioxide/

The usual excuse of people not wanting to change their way of living. It doesn't impress me much, sorry.

Contrary to popular belief most Australian wouldn’t be inclined to go out of there way to try and impress you, so have you changed your way of life to zero net emission are you living of the grid planting a home vegie patch not buying any thing that contributes to greenhouse gases

They don't, man, that is disappointing...... :lol:

Anyhow, I was speaking about the argumentation which is old and a distraction.
I, personally, do a lot more than life net zero. As you might know, I help others to reduce their footprint, much more effective than showering one minute less. But again it is a distraction to make it personal like that. We need to work at a system change, not something can do on its own.

Dutchy wrote:
No it isn't. Your personal freedom ends where another one begins. Same for countries, you aren't sovereign to mess up the planet and that's what we are doing. So yes, Australia is sovereign how to get its industry in line with the global goals, not if they do it.
Or are you going to tell me that you are fine with exporting your problems? Like you want to do with Brexit.

Well the only way that’s going to happen if the nations of the world stop buying Australian resources, I don’t see the EU stopping trade with Australia because of their sovereign regulatory legislation[/quote]

Part of the Green deal of your deaded EU is that it does just that. It is the way forward and in the end it will not be permitted to pollute the earth further, sovereign regulatory legislation or not. Also, Australians don't live in a bubble, it aint North Korea, although North Korea does very well with their emissions, 2,4tonCO2EQ per capita.

A101 · Fri Jan 03, 2020 4:32 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Sound like a convenient way for you, because of the country size. So you do believe an Australian or Russian is more entitled to pollute more than say someone from the Netherlands. BTW it is net emissions period, not net emissions combined with natural beauty. So we need to get rid of fossil fuel all together if we want to leave a lifeable planet to our kids and especially grandkids.

Population density has nothing to do with it, its output that determines the amount of gases released to the atmosphere and that is country specific . And yes, natural beauty helps reduce gases released

Dutchy wrote:
Part of the Green deal of your deaded EU is that it does just that. It is the way forward and in the end it will not be permitted to pollute the earth further, sovereign regulatory legislation or not. Also, Australians don't live in a bubble, it aint North Korea, although North Korea does very well with their emissions, 2,4tonCO2EQ per capita.

Ahh the climate-neutral continent by 2050, that will be interesting to watch
So, you are saying the EU will refuse to trade with anyone in the future if they don’t sign up?

Dutchy · Fri Jan 03, 2020 5:04 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Sound like a convenient way for you, because of the country size. So you do believe an Australian or Russian is more entitled to pollute more than say someone from the Netherlands. BTW it is net emissions period, not net emissions combined with natural beauty. So we need to get rid of fossil fuel all together if we want to leave a lifeable planet to our kids and especially grandkids.

Population density has nothing to do with it, its output that determines the amount of gases released to the atmosphere and that is country specific . And yes, natural beauty helps reduce gases released

No, it doesn't. It is a fallacy. Nature is a delicate system and humans have upset this balance, so it is incorrect to use this measure, you suggested. What I thought, you wanted to export your problems, now as an Australian and you again will not see the bulk of the problems it will cause because that will be there seen in a few decades. We now see the effect of gasses released in 1980-ish.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Part of the Green deal of your deaded EU is that it does just that. It is the way forward and in the end it will not be permitted to pollute the earth further, sovereign regulatory legislation or not. Also, Australians don't live in a bubble, it aint North Korea, although North Korea does very well with their emissions, 2,4tonCO2EQ per capita.

Ahh the climate-neutral continent by 2050, that will be interesting to watch
So, you are saying the EU will refuse to trade with anyone in the future if they don’t sign up?

Not refuse, read the green deal and you would actually know what you are talking about. I don't mind educating you yet again, no worries. It will work like this: if you want to have a competitive advantage of polluting the planet for free, it will be taxed to take this advantage away. Simple and effective.

cpd · Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:37 pm

46°c forecasted today in western Sydney

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/weat ... 53onw.html

Stay safe people. If you are doing anything outdoors, recommend getting it done early.

sevenair · Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:41 pm

Unfortunately the biggest culprits on climate damage are non white countries and so nothing will be said and done. Instead, us awful whities will be forced to change our ways which is a drop in the ocean. Perhaps it's time for Greta to find how to get a train to India or China?

cpd · Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:58 pm

sevenair wrote:
Unfortunately the biggest culprits on climate damage are non white countries and so nothing will be said and done. Instead, us awful whities will be forced to change our ways which is a drop in the ocean. Perhaps it's time for Greta to find how to get a train to India or China?

How does her getting on a train to India or China stop the bushfires that are raging here in Australia?

We can’t simply keep carrying on in that manner. We must change our ways. It’s no use simply saying India or China isn’t doing their bit so we won’t either.

Ryanair01 · Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:25 pm

Unfortunately, the fires are very far from unprecedented and tend to happen on this scale every ten years or so.

2009 4,000 square km and 173 deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires
https://youtu.be/R9MbMsNZgF0

1994 8,000 square km (Sydney threatened, flames within 5 miles of Sydney Harbour Bridge) and 4 deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Eastern_seaboard_fires
https://youtu.be/FYy5Opj6yHo

1983 12,000 square km and 75 deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Wednesday_bushfires
https://youtu.be/IlGWglsbIRQ

Before then similar scale fires took place in 1969 (23 deaths); 1967 (62 deaths); 1962 (32 deaths); 1951 (11 deaths); 1944 (20 deaths); 1939 (71 deaths); 1926 (60 deaths) etc etc.

Only about 11% of the fires come from nature or weather events, another 5% re-ignition (i.e. smoldering reignites). The remaining 80+% is all down to people, the largest single cause is arson (63%). The story here is less about climate change than it first looks and more about morons and mental illness.

These fires were predictable because it has been dry and there are winds. These two factors make routine fires much harder to deal with because it allows them to spread much faster than normal. The local resources and basic infrastructure, which is designed for a sparse necklace of towns each with a population of only a few hundred people, is completely inadequate to fight vast fires of this scale. What's truly shocking is that there seems to have been no game plan, no extra resources lined up, no briefing the public what to do, no supply chain contingency plans etc. Back in 1994 air and sea were the only ways in and out of Sydney, a city today of 5m people. It was always predictable such a situation would happen again, yet everything is unprepared. The states and the Federal government need to have civil contingency plans for these entirely predictable scenarios.

A101 · Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:54 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Sound like a convenient way for you, because of the country size. So you do believe an Australian or Russian is more entitled to pollute more than say someone from the Netherlands. BTW it is net emissions period, not net emissions combined with natural beauty. So we need to get rid of fossil fuel all together if we want to leave a lifeable planet to our kids and especially grandkids.

Population density has nothing to do with it, its output that determines the amount of gases released to the atmosphere and that is country specific . And yes, natural beauty helps reduce gases released

No, it doesn't. It is a fallacy. Nature is a delicate system and humans have upset this balance, so it is incorrect to use this measure, you suggested. What I thought, you wanted to export your problems, now as an Australian and you again will not see the bulk of the problems it will cause because that will be there seen in a few decades. We now see the effect of gasses released in 1980-ish.

Really natural beauty doesn’t help mmmmm

Trees/forest are the lungs of the earth, oceans are the earths heat sinks, overpopulation and the constant need to create more farming land to feed the worlds population does more damage than mining than fossil fuels, climate changers are talking about reducing livestock levels by up to 50% is that also part of you’re “The usual excuse of people not wanting to change their way of living”

We banned CFC to help to ozone now we have to ban HFC that helped restore the ozone and now we have to reduce livestock to stop the from farting and burping to much and we have to ban the mining industry for climate change

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Part of the Green deal of your deaded EU is that it does just that. It is the way forward and in the end it will not be permitted to pollute the earth further, sovereign regulatory legislation or not. Also, Australians don't live in a bubble, it aint North Korea, although North Korea does very well with their emissions, 2,4tonCO2EQ per capita.

Ahh the climate-neutral continent by 2050, that will be interesting to watch
So, you are saying the EU will refuse to trade with anyone in the future if they don’t sign up?

Not refuse, read the green deal and you would actually know what you are talking about. I don't mind educating you yet again, no worries. It will work like this: if you want to have a competitive advantage of polluting the planet for free, it will be taxed to take this advantage away. Simple and effective.

Oh, you think you are giving me an ED-U-CA-TI-ON time to step off you’re high horse me thinks, oh the EU is to become the world police on climate change and you are going to impose taxes on third countries when they trade with each other...…...so not only does the EU want to federalise Europe you want to do on the entire world as well

A101 · Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:04 pm

Ryanair01 wrote:
Unfortunately, the fires are very far from unprecedented and tend to happen on this scale every ten years or so.

2009 4,000 square km and 173 deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires
https://youtu.be/R9MbMsNZgF0

1994 8,000 square km (Sydney threatened, flames within 5 miles of Sydney Harbour Bridge) and 4 deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Eastern_seaboard_fires
https://youtu.be/FYy5Opj6yHo

1983 12,000 square km and 75 deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Wednesday_bushfires
https://youtu.be/IlGWglsbIRQ

Before then similar scale fires took place in 1969 (23 deaths); 1967 (62 deaths); 1962 (32 deaths); 1951 (11 deaths); 1944 (20 deaths); 1939 (71 deaths); 1926 (60 deaths) etc etc.

Only about 11% of the fires come from nature or weather events, another 5% re-ignition (i.e. smoldering reignites). The remaining 80+% is all down to people, the largest single cause is arson (63%). The story here is less about climate change than it first looks and more about morons and mental illness.

These fires were predictable because it has been dry and there are winds. These two factors make routine fires much harder to deal with because it allows them to spread much faster than normal. The local resources and basic infrastructure, which is designed for a sparse necklace of towns each with a population of only a few hundred people, is completely inadequate to fight vast fires of this scale. What's truly shocking is that there seems to have been no game plan, no extra resources lined up, no briefing the public what to do, no supply chain contingency plans etc. Back in 1994 air and sea were the only ways in and out of Sydney, a city today of 5m people. It was always predictable such a situation would happen again, yet everything is unprepared. The states and the Federal government need to have civil contingency plans for these entirely predictable scenarios.

yeah have to agree with you

From Fires to floods is a natural part of the Australian climate for hundreds of years and the Aboriginals have been using fire to control the bush for hundreds of years but now the greens tie up the people who have to manage all this down with red tape and let the fuel load get to high and then have the audacity to blame it on climate change when a majority of the fires were started by arsonist for their cheap thrills

cpd · Sat Jan 04, 2020 12:20 am

Now, getting back to the topic at hand, being the fires and the weather situation...

Today is another extreme day - by 10:40am this morning it was already 39ºC in western Sydney. The wind has not yet picked up but I did notice another fire had started very much closer to my house, about 1km away from where I am. Looks like someone set fire to some long dry sections of grass. Can't tell if it was a controlled burnoff or not, but it was at least extinguished when I went through past there.

VapourTrails · Sat Jan 04, 2020 1:27 am

In regard to becoming a cashless society, having cash is proving very useful in this ongoing crisis, as electronic payments are useless in the event of a power outage.

Two deaths on Kangaroo Island sadly. :worried:

Over 480 million animals killed overall so far I heard - devastating, particularly for endangered species.

A101 · Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:33 am

cpd wrote:
Now, getting back to the topic at hand, being the fires and the weather situation...

Today is another extreme day - by 10:40am this morning it was already 39ºC in western Sydney. The wind has not yet picked up but I did notice another fire had started very much closer to my house, about 1km away from where I am. Looks like someone set fire to some long dry sections of grass. Can't tell if it was a controlled burnoff or not, but it was at least extinguished when I went through past there.

Yep 44 at the moment staying with friends in the Southern Highlands south of Sydney, have seen the affects first hand, very smoky and the wind is starting to pickup

https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/fire-informa ... fu?id=6267

cpd · Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:49 am

A101 wrote:
but now the greens tie up the people who have to manage all this down with red tape and let the fuel load get to high

Sorry, I just had to comment on that because it is false. Those responsible for the hazard reduction burns take their direction from the government. The government says jump, the relevant departments do so immediately. The government in NSW since 2011 has been the LNP coalition. Nobody else.

Hazard reduction burns have been happening a lot last year.

You cannot blame anyone else but the governments currently in power. The opposition cannot be blamed, they've not been in power for a very long time in NSW and the Greens are just a very small side party who cannot do anything. You have to look at the governing coalition of Liberal-National (and potentially including Hadley-Jones with them). They've been the ones in office since 2011 up until present. The buck stops with them.

What could also help is better building standards in areas that are at potential risk from fires. Designing and building homes that are resistant to fires and embers, that can be done.

A101 · Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:56 am

cpd wrote:
A101 wrote:
but now the greens tie up the people who have to manage all this down with red tape and let the fuel load get to high

Sorry, I just had to comment on that because it is false. Those responsible for the hazard reduction burns take their direction from the government. The government says jump, the relevant departments do so immediately. The government in NSW since 2011 has been the LNP coalition. Nobody else.

Hazard reduction burns have been happening a lot last year.

You cannot blame anyone else but the governments currently in power. The opposition cannot be blamed, they've not been in power for a very long time in NSW and the Greens are just a very small side party who cannot do anything. You have to look at the governing coalition of Liberal-National (and potentially including Hadley-Jones with them). They've been the ones in office since 2011 up until present. The buck stops with them.

What could also help is better building standards in areas that are at potential risk from fires. Designing and building homes that are resistant to fires and embers, that can be done.

I don’t doubt it is the state government who ultimately are the ones to be held accountable, but over the years that I have been coming to Australia since the late 1960’s I have noticed whenever there has been large bushfires there always seems to be belief up until the 1990’s about the amount of green tape for controlled burns for hazard reductions it’s not new with most claim that the fires are unprecedented

https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/ca ... management

https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/gr ... hfire-risk

This is a PM Howard era Parliamentary inquiry not sure what it say as I can’t get it to load maybe it might work for you

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... 03/03Cib08

cpd · Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:55 am

A101 wrote:
cpd wrote:
A101 wrote:
but now the greens tie up the people who have to manage all this down with red tape and let the fuel load get to high

Sorry, I just had to comment on that because it is false. Those responsible for the hazard reduction burns take their direction from the government. The government says jump, the relevant departments do so immediately. The government in NSW since 2011 has been the LNP coalition. Nobody else.

Hazard reduction burns have been happening a lot last year.

You cannot blame anyone else but the governments currently in power. The opposition cannot be blamed, they've not been in power for a very long time in NSW and the Greens are just a very small side party who cannot do anything. You have to look at the governing coalition of Liberal-National (and potentially including Hadley-Jones with them). They've been the ones in office since 2011 up until present. The buck stops with them.

What could also help is better building standards in areas that are at potential risk from fires. Designing and building homes that are resistant to fires and embers, that can be done.

I don’t doubt it is the state government who ultimately are the ones to be held accountable, but over the years that I have been coming to Australia since the late 1960’s I have noticed whenever there has been large bushfires there always seems to be belief up until the 1990’s about the amount of green tape for controlled burns for hazard reductions it’s not new with most claim that the fires are unprecedented

https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/ca ... management

https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/gr ... hfire-risk

This is a PM Howard era Parliamentary inquiry not sure what it say as I can’t get it to load maybe it might work for you

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... 03/03Cib08

Forget Howard era investigations, those are so outdated it isn’t funny. Howard hasn’t been the leader since I cannot remember it has been so long.

If you want to complain about red tape then it’s up to you to ask what the governing conservative parties have been doing all these years (nearly a decade I think) with their commanding majorities.

What they’ve been doing (with the exception of a few hard working MPs among them) is living the good life and behaving like spoiled children fighting over toys. They aren’t above inventing their own red tape for those purposes where it suits them.

Controlled hazard reduction burns have been happening, you have to admit it. I’m not going to spend my entire afternoon digging out the times and locations for each one, but you know they have happened when numerous times last year the city has been hit by the smoke from those efforts.

What else should they do, bulldoze down every single tree and cover every kilometre of our country with concrete?

When the rebuilding starts happening, all those houses cannot just be rebuilt like before, it’s time to do them properly and make them resistant to bush fires. Some of those changes in design might also make the houses more energy efficient too.

qf789 · Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:41 am

VapourTrails wrote:
In regard to becoming a cashless society, having cash is proving very useful in this ongoing crisis, as electronic payments are useless in the event of a power outage.

Two deaths on Kangaroo Island sadly.

Over 480 million animals killed overall so far I heard - devastating, particularly for endangered species.

Speaking of Kangaroo Island, the world famous Southern Ocean Lodge is gone, unfortunately the fires on Kangaroo Island are in places of the island which are very hard to get to.

I do hope after everything has settled everyone considers visiting the country towns that have been badly affected, forget the big cities

A101 · Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:17 am

Hottest day records were broken in NSW today, still currently 43 where I am 1815 AEST

https://www.9news.com.au/national/weath ... 22222b47b7

Dutchy · Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:40 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

Population density has nothing to do with it, its output that determines the amount of gases released to the atmosphere and that is country specific . And yes, natural beauty helps reduce gases released

No, it doesn't. It is a fallacy. Nature is a delicate system and humans have upset this balance, so it is incorrect to use this measure, you suggested. What I thought, you wanted to export your problems, now as an Australian and you again will not see the bulk of the problems it will cause because that will be there seen in a few decades. We now see the effect of gasses released in 1980-ish.

Really natural beauty doesn’t help mmmmm

Trees/forest are the lungs of the earth, oceans are the earths heat sinks, overpopulation and the constant need to create more farming land to feed the worlds population does more damage than mining than fossil fuels, climate changers are talking about reducing livestock levels by up to 50% is that also part of you’re “The usual excuse of people not wanting to change their way of living”

Don't you want to understand how it works because it doesn't help your narrative of keeping consuming and exporting your own problems or are you incapable of system thinking? What is it?

A101 wrote:
We banned CFC to help to ozone now we have to ban HFC that helped restore the ozone and now we have to reduce livestock to stop the from farting and burping to much and we have to ban the mining industry for climate change

Yes, we have banned CFC's, are you against that? What is your point? We have done the right thing as a world community once and it worked, so we will never do it again? :lol:

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

Ahh the climate-neutral continent by 2050, that will be interesting to watch
So, you are saying the EU will refuse to trade with anyone in the future if they don’t sign up?

Not refuse, read the green deal and you would actually know what you are talking about. I don't mind educating you yet again, no worries. It will work like this: if you want to have a competitive advantage of polluting the planet for free, it will be taxed to take this advantage away. Simple and effective.

Oh, you think you are giving me an ED-U-CA-TI-ON time to step off you’re high horse me thinks, oh the EU is to become the world police on climate change and you are going to impose taxes on third countries when they trade with each other...…...so not only does the EU want to federalise Europe you want to do on the entire world as well

The EU wants to take its responsibility for the world, doing it's part, what is wrong with that?

I think you are stuck in your own way of thinking, so no, I don't think anything I say will have any effect on you what so ever. You have many characteristics of babyboomers, thinking you are right, believing you are entitled, feeling superior. These things don't help you to understand what other people, me included but I am certainly not the only one here, are talking about.

A101 · Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:32 am

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

No, it doesn't. It is a fallacy. Nature is a delicate system and humans have upset this balance, so it is incorrect to use this measure, you suggested. What I thought, you wanted to export your problems, now as an Australian and you again will not see the bulk of the problems it will cause because that will be there seen in a few decades. We now see the effect of gasses released in 1980-ish.

Really natural beauty doesn’t help mmmmm

Trees/forest are the lungs of the earth, oceans are the earths heat sinks, overpopulation and the constant need to create more farming land to feed the worlds population does more damage than mining than fossil fuels, climate changers are talking about reducing livestock levels by up to 50% is that also part of you’re “The usual excuse of people not wanting to change their way of living”

Don't you want to understand how it works because it doesn't help your narrative of keeping consuming and exporting your own problems or are you incapable of system thinking? What is it?

3 basic words supply and demand

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
We banned CFC to help to ozone now we have to ban HFC that helped restore the ozone and now we have to reduce livestock to stop the from farting and burping to much and we have to ban the mining industry for climate change

Yes, we have banned CFC's, are you against that? What is your point? We have done the right thing as a world community once and it worked, so we will never do it again?

So it was the right thing to do hey, replacing a gas with a gas that’s just as bad for the environment.....makes sence to me :banghead:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Oh, you think you are giving me an ED-U-CA-TI-ON time to step off you’re high horse me thinks, oh the EU is to become the world police on climate change and you are going to impose taxes on third countries when they trade with each other...…...so not only does the EU want to federalise Europe you want to do on the entire world as well

The EU wants to take its responsibility for the world, doing it's part, what is wrong with that?

I think you are stuck in your own way of thinking, so no, I don't think anything I say will have any effect on you what so ever. You have many characteristics of babyboomers, thinking you are right, believing you are entitled, feeling superior. These things don't help you to understand what other people, me included but I am certainly not the only one here, are talking about.

Part in bold is the only sensible thing you said

Dutchy · Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:36 am

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Oh, you think you are giving me an ED-U-CA-TI-ON time to step off you’re high horse me thinks, oh the EU is to become the world police on climate change and you are going to impose taxes on third countries when they trade with each other...…...so not only does the EU want to federalise Europe you want to do on the entire world as well

The EU wants to take its responsibility for the world, doing it's part, what is wrong with that?

I think you are stuck in your own way of thinking, so no, I don't think anything I say will have any effect on you what so ever. You have many characteristics of babyboomers, thinking you are right, believing you are entitled, feeling superior. These things don't help you to understand what other people, me included but I am certainly not the only one here, are talking about.

Part in bold is the only sensible thing you said

Thank you for proving my point, couldn't have done it better myself.

DIRECTFLT · Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:37 am

Live coverage from ABC

http://abc.net.au/news

VapourTrails · Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:39 am

A101 wrote:
Hottest day records were broken in NSW today, still currently 43 where I am 1815 AEST.

37°C (98°F) here at 20:30 AEDT. Got to 44°C (111°F) the highest reading ever recorded in the Canberra, beating a 1968 Canberra Airport record and a 1939 record. The other main issue here for now is power outages, with damage to infrastructure in the Snowy Mountains. We may have to be load-shedded. :optimist:

VapourTrails · Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:50 am

qf789 wrote:
VapourTrails wrote:
In regard to becoming a cashless society, having cash is proving very useful in this ongoing crisis, as electronic payments are useless in the event of a power outage.

Two deaths on Kangaroo Island sadly.

Over 480 million animals killed overall so far I heard - devastating, particularly for endangered species.

Speaking of Kangaroo Island, the world famous Southern Ocean Lodge is gone, unfortunately the fires on Kangaroo Island are in places of the island which are very hard to get to.

There’s an aviation link here, one of the victims was an experienced pioneer outback bush pilot. I had never heard of him, but his career spanned 40 years. His son was one of Adelaide's leading plastic and reconstructive surgeons.

From the article: “Lang was one of South Australia's premier outback pilots, flying rescue operations through the desert and later moving to charter tours across Australia. The two victims of Kangaroo Island's devastating bushfires have been identified as well-known bush pilot Dick Lang and his son, Clayton.” Source: https://7news.com.au/news/bushfires/kan ... n-c-632652

cpd · Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:27 am

I went outside at just after 9pm, it was still really hot, like opening an oven door. It is very windy now, that’s even worse.

The canopy in my neighbours backyard looks about ready to lift off, that’s how gusty it is.

Penrith, a little further west than I am was the hottest place in the world today at 48.9°C. :melting:

ltbewr · Sat Jan 04, 2020 1:16 pm

The problems from these massive fires and extreme temperatures in Australia are just beginning. They involve multiples of affected area vs. previous fires there and in recent years in California so short and long term affects will be huge.
Air quality with related increases in respiratory diseases, higher than normal rates of death, higher health care costs
Inability to distribute food and other consumer needs as main roads blocked.
The temperatures will put in particular persons in urban areas at grave health risk who cannot afford air conditioning, even a fan or power outages from destruction of power lines from winds and fire meaning no power to run them. 'Cooling centres' are a necessity as were developed in USA cities in the 1990's after a series of severe heat waves caused over 1000 excess deaths in the cities of Chicago and Philadelphia.
Ruin of the peak tourism season in NSW and Victoria state that is vital income to locals there.
Destruction of electrical power and other infrastructure with their costs to rebuild. The level of destruction of power infrastructure in California in recent years put the main power supply utility PG&E into bankruptcy.
Large increases in property and car insurance premiums as well as for re-insuance due to the Billions in losses and to cover future losses.
Destruction of so much wooded areas that when the rains come back, it will not be absorbed in the land, runoff causing flooding and other problems.
Loss of 1000's of homes and their contents, people homeless with nowhere to go to, no money to fall back on or rebuild, their property worthless.
Losses of entire sub-species of animal and plant life, with who know what the aftereffects will be - likely not good.
The serious psychiatric and mental health affects on persons for the rest of their lives.

Perhaps the best things to come out of this mass disaster will be to show more concern for our warming planet, current 'conservative' governing parties out of power and a return to more reasonable ones, recognizing that maybe we shouldn't have so many living in wooded areas at risk, and recognize how powerful nature is and how to better coexist with it.

frmrCapCadet · Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:41 pm

I have asked forestry friends this question, and received ambiguous answers. How large an area needs to be cleared in isolated areas to provide a refuge? Answers vary from: clear fire materials 50 feet from your house. (obviously helpful, but not for a really big fire) Fire can jump more than a mile, so you have to clear more than a mile. (probably not possible). In almost all cases a refuge with upwards of a mile clearance in all or most directions, and roadways adequate to move people would save lives. Safe vegetation and highly fire resistant building only within the refuge. Perhaps someone from Australia knows more about this.

Ryanair01 · Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:23 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
I have asked forestry friends this question, and received ambiguous answers. How large an area needs to be cleared in isolated areas to provide a refuge? Answers vary from: clear fire materials 50 feet from your house. (obviously helpful, but not for a really big fire) Fire can jump more than a mile, so you have to clear more than a mile. (probably not possible). In almost all cases a refuge with upwards of a mile clearance in all or most directions, and roadways adequate to move people would save lives. Safe vegetation and highly fire resistant building only within the refuge. Perhaps someone from Australia knows more about this.

Unfortunately it doesn't really work that way. Australian bush fires are different from other wildfires because of the Eucalyptus trees, with their unusual type of paperbark. When these trees burn large chunks of paperbark fly off into the wind and travel quite large distances. It's not like other ember (e.g. leaves) because these chunks are much larger.

Although you can do things to minimise the risk (e.g. clearing leaves and hosing water just before the fire takes hold) cleared areas such as those with garden grass and road bitumen can both catch fire from paperbark fires.

In terms of building design, there are features which stand a better chance from what I have always understood. Buildings sat on a wider concrete slab, built without a void underneath, built of brick, with ceramic roof tiles, clear metal gutters, metal fly screens, without any timbers used in construction (e.g. frames), plus with an emergency sprinkler system in the grounds which also covers the roof, garages/cars in a separate building (oil leaks) and any water tank located away (because they can explode as heat builds up). I'm not an expert though.

frmrCapCadet · Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:14 pm

Ryan - every area, including California and my home state of Washington has peculiarities regarding types of fires, roads to safety, and refuges. Australia is no exception. The question is how do rural people, cities in the midst of Eucalyptus forests, etc keep their citizens from dying, preserve buildings (ever increasing insurance rates are a bad solution). I am sure experts in Australia are working on this.

Political will is another thing. Solutions can be expensive (although not as expensive as replacing a house), undesirable (but I want to live in the middle of dense second growth), and sometimes permanent retreat (long before the fire or tsunami or flood). I do note that deaths may be lower given the magnitude of the current disaster. Is that from better evacuation warning and plans?

Kiwirob · Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:26 pm

cpd wrote:
When the rebuilding starts happening, all those houses cannot just be rebuilt like before, it’s time to do them properly and make them resistant to bush fires. Some of those changes in design might also make the houses more energy efficient too.

There was a home on Grand Designs a few years ago that was designed to be fire resistant, it’s was hugely expensive, how are average income people going to be able afford to build them?

Ryanair01 · Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:55 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Ryan - every area, including California and my home state of Washington has peculiarities regarding types of fires, roads to safety, and refuges. Australia is no exception. The question is how do rural people, cities in the midst of Eucalyptus forests, etc keep their citizens from dying, preserve buildings (ever increasing insurance rates are a bad solution). I am sure experts in Australia are working on this.

Political will is another thing. Solutions can be expensive (although not as expensive as replacing a house), undesirable (but I want to live in the middle of dense second growth), and sometimes permanent retreat (long before the fire or tsunami or flood). I do note that deaths may be lower given the magnitude of the current disaster. Is that from better evacuation warning and plans?

When it comes to deaths, at the moment we are only mid fire season, so there will be more. So far the fires have been in largely unpopulated areas and fire conditions less severe than 2003, although yesterday came close in NSW. My worry is that they are getting steadily closer to more populated areas. In 2003 the toll was high mostly due to one fire which hit a town close to Melbourne. In that case gale force winds off the desert turned direction and a huge fire traveling at 80kph wiped out townships before an evacuation could be completed. In fact most of those killed were mid-evacuation at the time. So if those same circumstances occurred again, the results today would probably be similar.

I grew up near where the fires in NSW are spreading and still have family in the area. There's no equivalent to the Dept of Homeland Security, so pretty much you're on your own and planning is limited. In NSW (I don't know about elsewhere) they use predictive modelling to work out where the fires are likely to hit and residents get messages asking them to evacuate. The Fireries won't try to save your property because they get overwhelmed, so a lot of people choose to stay and do it themselves. When I lived in Queensland way back in the 1990s they seemed a little bit more advanced when alerting the public to fires and storms.

Literally whilst typing just heard from family that pretty much everything around them is burnt out and that their immediate surrounds seem to have been saved by continuous water bombers. The rest of them have all evacuated their homes to family on the coast, so just got to wait and see if their houses survive.

TSS · Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:37 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
cpd wrote:
When the rebuilding starts happening, all those houses cannot just be rebuilt like before, it’s time to do them properly and make them resistant to bush fires. Some of those changes in design might also make the houses more energy efficient too.

There was a home on Grand Designs a few years ago that was designed to be fire resistant, it’s was hugely expensive, how are average income people going to be able afford to build them?

Masonry walls (cinderblock or glazed block), metal roof, no exposed wood (metal deck if present), and no combustible landscaping within 10 meters of the structure.

cpd · Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:31 am

The local fire nearest to my house seems to have been started by fireworks.... :gnasher:

(the remains were spotted).

So the (illegal) New Year celebration appears to have got out of control and could have put the entire street of houses nearby under threat. Whoever it was, I hope they are proud of themselves - and hopefully they are caught and face the full weight of the law.

It's completely dry, and that night it was very windy as well and these fools are doing that? :grumpy:

They know it is banned and dangerous and still go ahead.

And the smoke has rolled in again, it is very heavy at the moment.

Dutchy · Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:55 am

cpd wrote:
And the smoke has rolled in again, it is very heavy at the moment.

Good luck!

Aesma · Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:47 pm

My house is made out of cinderblocks and reinforced concrete, with a flat roof. It can probably withstand fires, inundations, and tornadoes, yet there are none of those here. Wood construction is a novelty in France, chosen for environmental reasons (better insulation, and carbon capture).

As for China being a big polluter, let's keep in mind it's the manufacturer of the world. If we take for ourselves the emissions linked to all the made in China stuff we use, and give them the emissions for what we sold them, it would paint a fairer picture, where we are the biggest polluters.

cpd · Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:01 am

Dutchy wrote:
cpd wrote:
And the smoke has rolled in again, it is very heavy at the moment.

Good luck!

It's cooler today thankfully and there was even a tiny little bit of rain, though not really enough to do much good.

More deliberately lit fires, this one at Sydney Olympic Park:

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-ac ... 3ba7239282

Complete idiots, seems like it was illegal fireworks yet again. :grumpy:

Why do people think this is fun or even acceptable to do is beyond me. They know fireworks are illegal, and surely they can understand the consequences of these things with everything being so dry.

And it looks like the conservative federal government is finally going to fund more firefighting aircraft after dodging the issue for years:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 53ozq.html

It's a shame it took the deaths of many people and the losses of many homes to make this happen. I'm sure they'll try and blame someone else however.

frmrCapCadet · Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:42 am

Along the Mississippi, levees are economic life and death. If the town across from you suffers a levee failure you town will see the river drop. Along with psychopathic saboteurs there are economic miners of levees. Life is not pretty during big floods. Arsonists are a strange bunch, psycho-babble speaking. And res geology, climate, weather, and earthquakes/tsunamis us humans and our infrastructure are penciled in. Most of us should not find it difficult to muster empathy with those suffering in Australia. I see US fire fighters are on the way. I seem to remember Australia sending people to the US recently. Those fire fighters are brave people.

A101 · Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:18 pm

https://m.facebook.com/1248343255/posts ... 356672063/

Food for thought

cpd · Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:44 pm

A101 wrote:
https://m.facebook.com/1248343255/posts/10216306356672063/

Food for thought

What is supposed to be the food for thought? I'm not just clicking through to a link without some explanation on what it is.

Additionally, the forum rules state:

i. Low Quality Posts
3. As this is a discussion forum, do not post links, news stories or press releases without adding your own comments to them. Links should always be accompanied by some description of the link content.

It is somewhat cooler today and it rained overnight as well as on and off drizzle this morning too for a couple of hours while I was out riding on a bicycle.

But I don't think the rain is really heavy enough to do a lot, though it certainly made conditions slippery.

Aaron747 · Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:48 am

Pretty stark footage here apparently taken within the last two days of a B738 landing at Canberra in smoke haze:

https://youtu.be/nfO8IoBZwyU

VapourTrails · Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:09 am

Aaron747 wrote:
Pretty stark footage here apparently taken within the last two days of a B738 landing at Canberra in smoke haze. https://youtu.be/nfO8IoBZwyU

Thanks for that. This is my home. I am just like that person - on those flights, and was out there somewhere when that was filmed. I am devastated to see that POV.. :cry2:

I chose to live in the region, I wasn't born and bred here. One of the things I liked was the clean air and blue skies. The Impulse Airlines 'cockatoo' circa 2000 livery was very Canberra to me. On a positive note, can I say today it is much more normal, for now. The air, not everything at ground level which is of course very sooty.

Qantas flights were cancelled during that weekend when it seems that video was taken. Might have been a VA flight.

I saw some kangaroos today when I was out walking, yes, the ones that are left. If we can't look after our beautiful and unique native wildlife, then we don't deserve to be here.. this has to be the turning point of change for us. Over 500 million animals in total I read, native and non-native species.

Regarding the 'food for thought' video.. I agree with what he says about the fuel load. I see it often. :headache:

Fires are increasing and in their intensity all over the world, it is not just us. I dread to see what the next northern summer may bring.. :worried:

dtw2hyd · Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Apologies for asking these dumb questions. How did this happen? Australia is not a overpopulated continent and most of them are nature loving folks. How come millions of animals killed in such a short period. Was there prolonged drought and build-up of dead brush?

casinterest · Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:37 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Apologies for asking these dumb questions. How did this happen? Australia is not a overpopulated continent and most of them are nature loving folks. How come millions of animals killed in such a short period. Was there prolonged drought and build-up of dead brush?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/01/australi ... index.html

ustralia is experiencing one of its worst droughts in decades -- the country's Bureau of Meteorology said in December that last spring was the driest on record. Meanwhile, a heatwave in December broke the record for highest nationwide average temperature, with some places sweltering under temperatures well above 40 degrees Celsius (about 113-120 degrees Fahrenheit).

Strong winds have also made the fires and smoke spread more rapidly, and have led to fatalities -- a 28-year-old volunteer firefighter died in NSW in December after his truck rolled over in high winds.
Experts say climate change has worsened the scope and impact of natural disasters like fires and floods -- weather conditions are growing more extreme, and for years, the fires have been starting earlier in the season and spreading with greater intensity.
Several high-ranking emergency service

High winds , extreme temperatures, and a severe drought .

Australia's lack of population means there is less ability to attack multiple fires at once, and when people are deliberately setting them, it gets things out of control rather rapidly.

stratosphere · Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:34 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Apologies for asking these dumb questions. How did this happen? Australia is not a overpopulated continent and most of them are nature loving folks. How come millions of animals killed in such a short period. Was there prolonged drought and build-up of dead brush?

How bout arson ? All you climate change worriers on here can chew on this..

https://www.theepochtimes.com/nearly-20 ... 95827.html

cpd · Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:48 pm

stratosphere wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Apologies for asking these dumb questions. How did this happen? Australia is not a overpopulated continent and most of them are nature loving folks. How come millions of animals killed in such a short period. Was there prolonged drought and build-up of dead brush?

How bout arson ? All you climate change worriers on here can chew on this..

https://www.theepochtimes.com/nearly-20 ... 95827.html

I’m sure I read this comment somewhere else.

But if it wasn’t so extremely dry (the drought) we wouldn’t have had such severe fires.

Normally something like a small firework wouldn’t set off such a fire.

And yes, we have extremely tight water restrictions at the moment too because of the drought.

Is that drought caused by arson as well? Is the 48.9°C day in Penrith a few days back also caused by arson?

This is a wake up call for Australia (my country, where I live) to change the way it lives. We’ve got to be more sustainable in the way we use energy, the way we create it, how we use water (houses should have tanks to capture rain water so it can be used for suitable purposes), etc. Reducing pollution would also be a nice start, some days where I live the pollution from vehicles is extremely bad.

There are so many places to start. I’m doing what I can locally around my house and in terms of things like how I get to work, etc. A lot of others are starting to do so as well.

VapourTrails · Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:52 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Apologies for asking these dumb questions. How did this happen? Australia is not a overpopulated continent and most of them are nature loving folks. How come millions of animals killed in such a short period. Was there prolonged drought and build-up of dead brush?

One of the problems making the severity of the fires what they are, is the mismanagement of national parks. These videos are examples of cultural burning, or indigenous fire methods. That is, working with the landscape, not ignoring it in the name of conservation, or fighting it when the problem arrives on our doorstep.

Source: https://youtu.be/KZ_En7x8tzU
Source: https://youtu.be/RM72NtXxyLs

windy95 · Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:50 pm

ltbewr wrote:
The increase in bushfires/forest fires isn't just in Australia, but some areas of the USA, in particular California, as well as places like Brazil. Part of this is due to Global Climate Change, but also excesses of control to prevent fires in the past, more people living in and around forested areas and poor choices in construction.

Yes the magical climate change that has an effect on everything and anything. Global cooling, global warming, climate change, climate disruption are all caused by hot air coming out of political scientist, politicians and left wing environmental zealots.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net