Warnings about Bushfire Warnings: A Note from Roger Underwood
Posted by Roger Underwood, August 30th, 2009 - under Opinion.
Tags: Bushfires
A PERSISTENT complaint from victims of the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria was that they had “received no warning”. Over and again we heard statements like this: “There was no fire anywhere, but the next thing, we had fire all around us. There was no word of warning, and we never stood a chance”.
This issue has since been highlighted by the Royal Commission in its Interim Report, and is being taken to heart by fire authorities all over Australia. In Western Australia, for example, the Fire and Emergency Service (FESA) has rolled out a new warning arrangement based on mobile phones, and has carried out a substantial and well-publicised test in a Perth Hills suburb. It was said (by FESA) to have been a great success.
This is a delicate subject, because I don’t want to sound disrespectful to people who lost their lives or suffered in the Victorian fires. I realise that many people are perplexed by the way they were engulfed by fire and caught by surprise. I understand the desire of authorities to get warning systems in place. Officials realise that a failure to deal with this issue in future fires will come back to haunt them if complaints are made to Royal Commissions, Coronial inquiries and the media.
However, the downsides, weaknesses and dangers in bushfire warning systems must be properly understood.
The first problem is that while the behaviour of bushfires burning at low intensity in light fuels is well understood, high intensity fires in heavy fuels can behave erratically. Intense fires generate their own wind and throw spot fires kilometres ahead. This is the main reason people are caught unawares. One minute the fire may well be “miles away”. But the next minute a high wind brings a rain of burning embers. If these fall into heavy dry fuels, people rapidly find themselves enveloped by fire. High intensity fires will leapfrog across one ridge to another, and then swirl back, sucked into the intervening valleys and seemingly coming from the “wrong direction”. A bushfire can move from a mild ground fire with 1-2 metre flames, to an intense crown fire (throwing spotfires) within a matter of minutes…. it is simply a matter of a wind change turning a long flank into a headfire, or of a fire moving from an area of light to an area of heavy fuels.
Very rapid changes in fire behaviour, and mass spotfire generation present a nightmare for people with the job of activating a warning system. Decisions can only be made with very accurate and up-to-date information from the fire. Since the situation at the fire is often confused, and firefighters generally do not have any idea of the big picture, it makes decision-making about whether or when to activate a warning (and to whom) doubly difficult.
A further problem is that rarely do you get one fire at the one time, especially on a bad day. When there is a dry lightning storm, of where an arsonist is at his dirty work, it is not uncommon for several fires to start at about the same time and run parallel with each other. This can confuse efforts at fire detection, mapping, and spread prediction. When many separate fires start to coalesce and interact, fire prediction moves into the realms of the unknown, making it virtually impossible to know who to warn and when, other than in the broadest geographic sense.
Finally, any warning system based on communications technology is likely to break down in a serious bushfire situation. This is especially true of technologies that require mains electricity, which is generally the first to go when there is a fire, or static relay stations like phone towers that can be destroyed by fire or cyclonic winds. To this must be added the well-known problem of communications overload in a crisis situation.
There are two serious dangers with the whole concept of targeted warning systems. The first is that a mass warning will quite possibly lead to a mass evacution. People leaving the area will choke the roads, and these may well be the same roads on which there are incoming fire appliances. It is not clear to me that the authorities have sufficiently thought this issue through.
The second danger is that the authorities are raising expectations that they may not be able to fulfil. If people are expecting to get, and are waiting for a warning, and the warning does not arrive (for one reason or another), they are going to be set-up for calamity. I hate the idea of community and individual self-reliance being undermined.
To be effective and reliable, a bushfire warning system must meet a number of criteria. It must have access to accurate data on fire location, fuels and weather, together with the fire behaviour algorithms that can predict fire frontal development. It must be able to anticipate wind changes and instantly take on board new information from a fire where long-distance spotting is occurring. It must be flexible in responding to rapidly changing human as well as bushfire situations. There must be back-up in the event of a technological failure. Above all it must have a large and well-trained human resource to make everything work under extreme pressure, including very experienced and accountable decision-makers. A system meeting these requirements will be expensive to set up and maintain. It will also suffer steady degrade if a few years go by with no major fires.
It is will be the height of over-confidence to create an expectation in fire-prone communities that they will always receive timely warnings of imminent bushfires. The system will probably work under relatively mild weather and low fuel conditions. But the opposite will always be more likely when a killer bushfire is running. Then people will receive no warning, or warnings will be too late to enable appropriate actions.
There is another very real problem. This is when warnings are issued but are not followed by a fire. In the coming fire season or two we can expect that there will be a (wholly understandable) temptation to overdo the warnings. Fire officers with trigger fingers will not want to face a Coronial Court for failing to push the button. But if fires do not follow warnings, the result will be the “crying wolf syndrome” where people become blase, and then do not react when there really is a fire.
In my view the first priority for fire authorities should be to optimise the bushfire resilience of towns and communities – in particular reducing areas of heavy fuel within and adjoining residential areas, making houses and road verges safer, setting up local community refuge areas and maintaining a program of regular mild burning in hinterland forests. Secondly, they should be telling people that it is quite likely they will NOT be warned and that they must themselves take responsibility for finding out what is going on and having a sensible plan of action, including evacuation to a safe place well before a situation becomes remotely dangerous. In my view both of these actions will have greater value than spending millions of dollars on “technological-fix” bushfire warning systems.
The fundamental message that our governments should be putting out is this: if you live in, or close to the Australian bush, you should expect to get a bushfire on a hot windy day in summer….. and be prepared for it. To rely on a government warning system is to rely on something that is inherently unreliable.
There is a final factor. As that wise anthropologist George Silberbauer has pointed out, we already have a system in which the Bureau of Meteorology puts out twice-daily fire danger forecasts and these are published on the net and broadcast on the news. Most country roads have Fire Danger warning signs. The problem is, few people understand fire danger, and the system is unduly complicated with six, and soon to be seven, categories. It is possible that if we had a more simple way of expressing the fire danger index, which is a warning in itself, and we ensured it was more effectively transmitted and better understood by the whole community, the new technological gizmos would not be needed.
Roger Underwood
http://bushfirefront.com.au/
August, 2009
Other articles by Roger Underwood: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/roger-underwood/
RWFOH
No handouts for Heritage.
No handouts for revege work.
Some recent fencing was partially funded, the much greater portion was not, and was fenced 10 years before the “decade of landcare” had even started.
Fire trials- no hand outs
Fencing of scrubland, creeklines etc from livestock for conservation puposes is a huge additional cost, that many farmers bear because they want to pass the land on in the best order they can. Those with a small patch of scrub often do not have much fencing costs at all.
The fencing is a direct out of pocket expense, and does not increase farm income, but reduces the area able to be farmed.
If governments stop farmers from using potions of their land for farming, then why should the govt. not also pay all the costs of compensation, protecting and maintaining this comandeered property? Why should a farmer pay any further costs, for the regulations have already cost him the use of his land, for which he is not reimbursed?
I wonder if people in the city get a payment if they lose some of the use of their land due to road widening or the like for community good????
I do agree that sometimes, for the community good, some individual property or rights etc are removed, but just compensation should be borne by the community that receives the service and given to the person who provides that service. Would you expect anything less?
Government subsidies do exist for some fencing works, and while this makes up approximately 1/3 of the costs, the remainder, along with inconvenience and ongoing maintanence is borne by the farmer.
Consider the huge costs to fence either side of a creek (2 fences the length of the creek) loss of access to water, so further costs for livestock production, and what benefit to the financial affairs of the farmer???
If a level playing field was enforced, then of course the additional costs for extra good environmental stewardship would be reflected in higher farm gate prices. As you would know this is not the case, as farmers in Australia compete against the next cheapest import, and importers are not required to concern themselves with such things as environmental costs or labour costs/abuses or other countries subsidies etc.
Fortunately for those who do not grow food for themselves, the farmers also serve that fairly useful role in society.
To belive it good enough to take from the “rich” and give to the “poor”, encourages bludging, so all take it easy, so all are poor.
The goal of socialism by the elite few,is said to be the equal sharing of wealth, while the result of socialism is the equal distribution of poverty for the many.
You say you hate socialism, but seem to support socialist values? Would other “less fortunate”
people consider you to be rich and thus your “wealth should be taken from the rich and shared with the poor”?( your words) The problem with those who covert and think that “others” should have their rights restricted, is that they themselves then have no logical protection from other who would take away their own assets.
When we lose the right to private property, we loose freedom as well.
Of course there are people who see landowners as some sort of rich and undeserving bunch.
Have you ever thought of all the “house boat holidays” and “spending the kids inheritence” that goes on, by those who only own a house (maybe a small scrub block) and a day job.
Farms are usually inheritences, often still with debts, passed on by the sort of people who look to the future for their kids and are in farming for the long haul.
Would you criticise a parent working to put a child through uni? Is it any different if this “degree” comes in the shape of land?
Perhaps you should apply for a farm job for a while, you might well see a different side of life that you never knew existed!
As you have 99.5% into conservation then you must not be farming to put food on Australians plates, as others do. Nor would you need to divide farmland fom the conservation area so the costs of internal stock fencing would not be required, perhaps your house makes up the remaining portion? Would that mean that you have cleared land within scrub?
I cannot say that I have 99.5 % under conservation and have to be satisfied with only 50%.
The remaining 50% is used to help feed the nation. I’m farming on considerably more than 50Ha so maybe the percentage game you play is less hectares of actual conservation eh?! Perhaps instead of “coming out to play”, you could come out to work like the producers of this country, for there is room for conservation and production!
I’ve done plenty of hard physical work and I’ve worked on farms Tim. Busting a gut was a pleasure compared to the whinging I had to put up with from one particular farmer I worked for. I’d be there at first light and had to listen to this Princess whinge all the way through to dusk. Of course I was doing all the heavy lifting while he sat on his fat @rse in the ute or on the tractor and sooked about how hard he had it. All the while he had a fantastic lifestyle on a magnificent property while he paid me peanuts and tortured me with his incessant whining…the government… bureaucrats… dole bludgers… do-gooders… red tape… imported product… tariffs… markets… prices… hippies… druggies… local council.
I know, not all farmers are like him but every time I hear tales of the hard done by man-on-the-land I can’t help but think of that bloke. Don’t you hate stereotypes?
The profit motive works. I don’t dispute that. I also believe in a fair go so that those who work harder deserve a proportional reward for their efforts. A share commensurate with their effort.
That’s the nub of the matter, a “fair share”. I like the idea of the “Commonwealth”. The bounty of this land is our common wealth. To me, that implies we are all entitled to a fair share. Does it imply to you that whoever rigs the system to their own benefit should be entitled to grab as much as they can get their greedy hands on and then whinge if some of the commonwealth is shared amongst the people?
I think rewards should be relative to the effort made. I can’t see how one person should earn US$702 million in one year while a factory worker here gets AU$600 per week and workers in many developing countries earn less than US$1 day for working long hours in horrendous conditions.
Where’s the balance?
Basically, I’m talking about variations around the theme of “Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor” whereby the so-called “level playing field” has become tilted toward “privatising profits and socialising losses.”
We only need to look at the GFC to see where all this self serving debauchery ends up.
I pay my taxes and hope that it gets spent on people who need it. For instance, I get really annoyed seeing the gov throw billions of taxpayer $ at pie-in-the-sky clean coal theory while for decades Australian pioneers and entrepreneurs of clean energy technology have been forced offshore by lack of support. And then some relaxed and comfortable pinch faced clown who is up to their necks in middle class handouts or corporate welfare arcs up because some unemployable bogan on the dole is made to paint rocks in the back of Woop Woop as part of some idiotic Green Corp environmental program.
And that’s my gratuitous off topic rant. Now where were we?
Oh yeah, even after taxpayer funds dry up, the balance a landowner spends on fences is a tax deduction, reveg/windbreaks etc should improve productivity, and, it will add to property value so don’t come over all sanctimonious about pious acts of public service.
RWFOH. I’d like my farm to pay me $600 per week for only working 38 hours with penalty rates on additional hours, upon which my only costs are standard taxation.
The money spent on protection fencing is 4 times that of the tax saved, so 3 times the tax paid, comes in addition directly out of the “take home pay”.
And as for some far fetched idea of farms with additional environmental costs to be recouped on sale day, no, farms are bought and sold on productive income earning capacity, not as lifestyle blocks are traded for the “feel good” community.
Its strange how often self appointed experts know more about the enterprise than the bloke actually running it and having the profit when good times come, the full time responsibility, and the loss when things go pear shaped.
Regarding commonwealth, every member of Australia has the right to work to earn a farm or business, or parcel of land. It just seems some begrudge those that do.
I congratulate you on putting some dough into conservation, but while thoughtfully chewing on gum leaves, I reccommend you take a bit more regard to the flour and butter that makes up your daily bread.
Not so fast RWFOH. According to FIA Vic the annual area of harvested NF amounts to only 0.12 of 1% of the 7.9 million hectares (about 9500ha). You have consistently implied that this was a major impact on a major part of the forest estate when the facts prove that it is not even statistically relevant. There is also 832,000 hectares of old growth, of which 96% is not available for harvest. Exposed for talking through your ass, again.
And in addition to the area in National Parks and reserves, a large portion of State forests (ie riparian buffers etc) is not available for harvest under the regulations. This line of yours that the parks are not absolutely protected is pure bull$hit and you know it. There is no harvesting in parks and there is unlikely to be any in future.
Your capacity to quote research without comprehending the information is breathtaking. It was never a question of which types of soils were improved with charcoal but, rather, of the range of conditions in which various types of soils are found, which ones will be enhanced by charcoal. Research that does not distinguish between soil types in various climates and conditions is not worth a pinch of proverbial. Will the addition of charcoal offset a loss of humus in any soil? Absolutely. Talking through your ass, again. You lament a loss of humus from soil due to cold burning but refuse to recognise that the loss of one type of soil carbon is offset by the addition of another, charcoal, which can restore moisture retention capacity.
And spare us the guff about cold burns producing ash. Of course they do but the proportions of ash in cold burns are minor compared to ash from hot burns. And ash (potasium) is one of the three main nutrients (NPK). And it must be said, talking through your ass, yet again. The one eyed moron in the kingdom of the blind.
It should also be noted that the 60% of Victorian forests that RWFOH and his sinister green fellow travellers like to claim has been cleared is not at all what it seems. The are most favoured by settlers, and the forest cleared accordingly, was open woodland, not closed forest. Bateman’s description of the location of Melbourne mentioned widely spaced trees in a grassy meadow with visibility more than a mile.
This landscape only just falls within the official definition of a forest, being slightly more than 10% canopy cover. A quick look at the rainfall distibution of the state and it soon becomes clear that most of the “forest” to the west of Melbourne was similar or even more open. The so-called “clearing” of this forest did not involve much habitat modification at all because the dominant fauna species were grassland species rather than arboreal ones. The result of this “clearing” was, in most cases, nothing more than a reduction from 10 trees/ha down to 5 trees/hectare which lowered canopy cover below that of the definition. Woodland birds still nested in those trees and fed their young on bugs and grubs from the grass. ‘Roos and stock still shaded under those trees when not eating the grass. And in fact, most of the actual tree removal was the removal of vigorous regrowth stems that came after aboriginal firestick farming ceased.
The “forest” may have been officially cleared but the habitat remained much the same. Indeed, as Kangaroo populations confirm, the addition of watering points and the correction of nutrient deficiencies, combined with extended soil moisture reserves from reduced (grazed) leaf area, and the resulting extension of soil microbial activity, produced an enhanced woodland habitat that all wildlife were able to enjoy. It was only the arrival of feral predators that subsequently impacted on wildlife populations.
But RWFOH and his twisted mates would never get their heads around all this because they are too full of ideological pus.
Once again
TimC, you’re starting to sound like that bloke I mentioned.
While you reckon $600 p/w sounds OK, could you have bought your land on that wage?
How would you like to try supporting a family and paying a mortgage on that?
And as for the costs of running a farm, you’re no different to millions of Australians. Investing in your business is a fact of life and if you run it into the ground you’ll pay the price. Like everyone else in the economy, (especially contractors, sub-contractors and tradies who live a precarious hand-to-mouth existence) we all face losing our homes if we lose our work.
Farmers are no special case. Stop whinging and get on with it.
So you think the FIA are a good independent source do you Dotty? Yeah, what would foresters want with access to public forests?
Let’s dissect the spin:
In 1869 (30 odd years after first Europeans), there was around 20 million ha of native forest. Today there is 7.7 million ha of native forest. That’s about 40% of original forest cover left.
DSE’s figures , http://tinyurl.com/m63233
Where did you get the figure of 832,000 ha of old growth forest in Victoria? That’s nearly 11% of our forest. If it’s accurate, it must include all the mallee and scrubby dry forests in the west of the state that are barely 5m in height.
Using East Gippsland Forest Management Area as a case study (because it has large tracts of the relevant forest types and DSE info is readily available on their website)((my comments in double parenthesis)):
1.22 million hectares land, of which
87% is public land and 13% is privately owned
630,000 hectares of State forest. ((Clearing of forest on private land still occurs))
407,000 hectares (39% of public land) are used to produce sawlogs…
224,000 hectares of old-growth forest
83% of the total OG is protected in conservation reserves or areas excluded from harvesting in State forest ((disputed))I.E. 17% is available for logging, not 4%.
((This is where it gets muddy and you need to carefully analyse the information offered to pick up the deception.))
Timber production is significant in eight of the 44 Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs), a minimum of 60% of old-growth is excluded from harvesting in each of these eight EVCs. ((40% of old growth available for logging))
Of the remaining 36 EVCs, those with an old-growth component will have a minimum of 30% of that old-growth excluded from harvesting. ((70% of old growth available for logging))
((the timber wants to log coastal heathlands now? or are they looking at woodchipping stunted rain shadow old growth?))
About 74% of the identified old-growth forest occurred in three ecological vegetation classes: Shrubby Dry Forest (88,000 hectares), Damp Forest (43,000 hectares) and Wet Forest (37,000 hectares).
3.5% of forests on public land was found to be undisturbed; 47% was negligibly disturbed, and 43.5% was significantly disturbed.
http://tinyurl.com/lur6lu
So, three EVCs account for 168,000 ha of 224,000 ha of old growth. We can safely assume that the timber industry is not targeting the dry forest so that leaves us with 90,000 ha of remnant wet and damp old growth. If the conservation target is 60% for these EVCs (although it could be as low as 30%) that means that 38,000 ha of old growth wet and damp forest is still available for logging. Planned logging of these two EVCs alone account for 17% of what’s left. And by logging we mean clearfelling with about 85% of the timber removed from site being used for woodchips.
In the context of my argument, that these forests provide fire mitigation, logging these forests will make mega-fires both more likely and more dangerous. Such logging activities will also compromise the integrity of surviving old growth and leave them more vulnerable to future fire events. Ask Green Davey about Erdos’ theory of connectivity. He’d love to tell you how large tracts of fire resistant vegetation relates to fuel connectivity in the context of mega fires.
You only need to look at recent and future wood utilisation plans to know that DSE and the timber industry are disproportionately targeting these old growth forests. DSE even admits about 95% of its annual cut is in mature and old growth forests. The foothill forests are clapped out and unhealthy. If the timber industry was operating on sustainable 80 year rotations they would be on second or third rotations of the regrowth. A lot of that forest was the low hanging fruit but looking at it now you’d wonder if it will ever recover so they’ve moved on to greener pastures.
Already, much of that wet/damp forest at the higher elevations has already been plundered. We’re talking about what little is left.
The Croajingolong National Park which stretches for about 100km along the coast had an extensive 100+ year history of logging before it became a park. When the industry has finished with one resource it simply moves on to the next.
“The Department plans to log 35% of remaining old growth forests. (69)There is 37% of old growth forests outside conservation reserve(70) and only 52% which has
secure protection. The remainder occurs Within other less secure zones such as
SMZs and SPZB; (which can be logged or rezoned at any time). ” http://tinyurl.com/m34tdx
SPZs, SMZs etc are not secure tenure. They are mickey mouse reserves or Claytons reserves. It’s all window dressing.
“the Governor may, by notice published in the Gazette, revoke the declaration of any land as or as part of a special management zone and by that notice set apart the land as or as part of a flora reserve. ” (it doesn’t require an act of Parliament) http://tinyurl.com/m3j6e7
“2.3 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ZONE
The areas included in this zone cover a range of natural or cultural values, the protection or enhancement of which require modification to timber harvesting or other land-use practices rather than their exclusion.” DSE Website
Dotty – “Research that does not distinguish between soil types in various climates and conditions is not worth a pinch of proverbial. ”
So why did you introduce the topic? Bit of a “Gotchya!” moment that blew up in your face I reckon.
Which part of 0.12 of 1% of the total forest estate do you not understand, moron? You are quoting 1997 data compiled for a political party and you want to be taken seriously?
An annual harvest area of 0.12 of 1% is 1/833rd of the estate each year. You may dazzle your average metrobogan with your references to East Gippsland but informed readers will recognise how the volume of your cut and pastes increases as the relevance of them decreases.
And you have conveniently forgotten that we got into this topic when you falsely claimed the native forest harvesting was drying out the forest and making it more incendiary. I provided detailed explanation, based on changes in leaf area index, why this is not the case. The decline in leaf area from harvesting, thinning and hazard reduction burning extends the duration of soil moisture so that retained trees are less exposed to moisture stress and are, therefore, less incendiary.
And all you could do was throw up some 50 year old research that was not even relevant to the current circumstances. You claimed hazard reduction burns reduced humus and soil carbon in a way that seriously depleted soil moisture retention capacity. But your references only dealt with soils with full carbon profiles which did not respond to additional carbon in charcoal, not with temporarily depleted soils You have conspicuously avoided the fact that the additional charcoal from hazard reduction will offset any decline due to the burning of humus and moisture retention capacity will be maintained.
I also provided evidence that the current area of harvesting was too small to constitute a relevant change in fire risk, even cumulatively. So despite the fact that your central conceit was proven incorrect, you continued with your bull$hit quotes of regulatory text in a vain hope of leading people to believe that vast areas of national parks were seriously at risk of being harvested. In the face of hard evidence that the harvested area was statistically insignificant, you tried to stooge readers into believing that it might become significant in future.
And your complete failure to respond to the issue of woodland thinning being classified as “clearing” has been noted. A large part of historical clearing involved habitat modification, not habitat destruction. But your references to past clearing was always nothing more than a diversion from your faltering argument.
Indeed, your entire string of posts on this thread have shown you to be nothing more than an articulate bimbo. You have access to sufficient data to justify a boorish sneer but you lack the knowledge to draw it together into a coherent understanding of the situation on the ground. And your incoherence and ignorance has now been shown to be aiding and abetting a murderous clique of incompetents.
RWFOH you obviously have an axe to grind. Isn’t it time to move on in life?
Its acheivable to pay the mortgage and raise the kids contrary to what you think.
You put in more hours, run the 60 year old wood stove for heating cooking and hot water, kill your own meat, run a garden and don’t go out to MacDonalds.
None of it is free, but it does take being more observant and practical.
I’m not too sure where you came from, the only people I know were all born a part of nature, and as such, do not need a glass wall between them and nature.
I have mentioned the contribution to restoration of biodiversity that prescribed fires play, with an increase of 100 plant species in the officially supported fire trials . (50 species recorded prior to the trial and 150 afterwards). This is not hypothertical stuff but reality.
I agree that there are horses for courses without doubt, and some areas will burn more often and some less often.
The big problem is that those who have elected to take the stance than mankind should not have any influence on the present, fail to understand that change is natural, fail to understand that the sky will not fall in due to change, and in this case fail to understand that fires swept over the landscape on a more frequent, yet random basis.
The huge costs in fuel reduction burning are impossible to justify over all native vegetation areas, nor are neccessary as mosaic burning (with wild fires taking out the rest),will acheive similar goals at reduced costs,… and will enable the restoration of declining biodiversity that has slipped under the radar of most environmantalists.
Most people in society want to preserve some areas in a “pristine environment”, yet they fail to anderstand that change is a neccessary part of that pristine environment.
Instead of just looking at the negatives , why don’t you become part of the big picture, and use your skills. Grab the historical fire maps for your area, and if there are none as is often the case, search out old arial photography and generate fire maps for public information.
Get a fire trial going, and a botanist or two invloved as well.
Make sure you have a govt. department in there as well, otherwise you will have inexperienced experts trying to tell you that you don’t have the scientific wherewithall and so won’t accept the facts. …Sorry my mistake, that will happen anyway!
You may even suprise yourself and come up with some sound solutions.
Best Regards
Tim
The fraction or percentage logged each year is pretty much irrelevant if 95% of the logging is focused on the 3.5% of forest that is undisturbed because the forests previously “tended” aren’t worth your “pinch of proverbial” in terms of timber production capacity.
What does it say about foresters if, after 200 years, they still need to practice (with practice being the operative word) their “profession” in previously unlogged forests?
It tells me they’re bunch of clowns who wouldn’t know if their @rses were on fire.
Then they’ve got the nerve to tell the public they log in sustainable 80 year rotations.
“I provided detailed explanation, based on changes in leaf area index, why this is not the case.” writes Dotty.
You’ve done no such thing you demented old fool. You did not provide any references to support your crazy theory. All the evidence suggests mature/old growth forests reach equilibrium in their water budget and act like sponges. Regrowth forests are actively transpiring and evaporating at accelerated rates and this is evidenced by the reduced water yield. That reduced run-off has been observed in countless studies and is obvious to any idiot who bothers to look at a Kuczera curve. That’s all real world scientific and technical measurement not the half baked rants and idiotic blathering of hicks.
On charcoal in soil: “your references only dealt with soils with full carbon profiles”
What do you mean that research only dealt with “full carbon profiles”? What a pathetic ploy on your part! You just invent and inject some complete nonsense. That’s just another expression of your dementia. You haven’t presented any research to support your case or refute the paper cited. As with all the points you contend you back them up with your own (unreferenced) incomprehensible gibberish.
And “You have conspicuously avoided the fact that the additional charcoal from hazard reduction will offset any decline due to the burning of humus and moisture retention capacity will be maintained.” The negative effects of burning far outweigh any potential or marginal benefit charcoal MIGHT add IF the soil is macroporous. I can tell you now, virtually none of the BS fires burned on sandy soils. The research definitively shows that your proposition is categorically wrong. Got it yet dummy?
“I also provided evidence that the current area of harvesting was too small to constitute a relevant change in fire risk, even cumulatively. ”
Again, another lie. making it up as you go along. You provided no coherent theory let alone evidence to support it. You just pulled that out of your @rse in your reply. You’re an imbecile, a dunce, a cretin, a knucklehead, a peanut and possibly one of the most stupidly obstinate people I have ever come across. I can see why you like to call people sophists, it’s a raw projection of your own innate nature. Give it away, you’re a joke.
And as RWFOH is cornered, out comes the bile and spittle. The numbers are 0.12 of 1% of the total forest area is harvested each year. Funny how it is only yourself who needs a full published paper to confirm that such a small portion is, in fact, an insignificant impact. And as usual, you demonstrate your incapacity to argue in a logical sequence.
At issue was your claim that forestry was drying out the forest estate and that this drying out was at a sufficiently meaningful level to alter fire behaviour. But all you have done in your first para above is to spin out into an entirely imaginary circumstance where you apparently believe that 95% of forest harvesting is taking place in 3.5% of the forest estate. And then you launch into an irrational attack on the forestry profession which has no bearing on whether 0.12 of 1% is, or is not, a statistically relevant portion.
And then he falls back on the rudiments of catchment hydrology, using the Kuczera water yield curves like some sort of religious dogma and his quoting of it as some sort of badge of intellectual credibility. He clearly has minimal grasp of the whole science and no comprehension of the fact that adjustments in the composition of regrowth can adjust water use, and therefore water yield, beyond that produced by old growth.
I will fry this particular fish on a seperate post as it is far too good to waste on the end of an off-page thread.
One word to describe Spud Mott? Delusional.
Just a hint, RWFOH, Kuczera curves have almost zero relevance to reality on the ground. The fact that you are still flogging them more than a decade after they were comprehensively falsified highlights both your ignorance and your manic devotion to murderous green ideology. But I’ll do you slowly, in a lead post.
[...] Warnings about Bushfire Warnings By Roger Underwood http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/08/warnings-about-bushfire-warnings/ [...]