Interview 1514 – Jo Nova on the Australian Bushfires

02/11/202052 Comments

In this conversation (recorded before the recent record rainfall in New South Wales), Joanne Nova of JoanneNova.com.au joins us to analyze the recent Australian bushfires and debunk the notion that they were caused by climate change. We discuss the historical patterns, the lack of drought trends in the long-term data, and the reality that this type of mega-fire could be prevented with simple and well-known land management techniques like controlled burns.

Watch this video on BitChute / Minds.com / YouTube or Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES
About Joanne Nova

Jo Nova on The Corbett Report

Climate change is the excuse to hide an Inferno of Incompetence — heads must roll for the billion dollar bushfire mistakes

57 Bushfire Inquiries isn’t enough. We need one more for leaders to hide behind

178 years of Australian rain has nothing to do with CO2, worst extremes 1849, 1925, 1950

Climate change and bushfires — More rain, the same droughts, no trend, no science

On average bushfires burn an amazing 50 million ha every year in Australia

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (52)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. n4x5 says:

    7:20: “A highly intense fire is described as one that’s three megawatts per meter on the fire line, so that’s three thousand watts of energy per meter on the fire line, but these fires are getting up to 70 megawatts of energy per meter.” I don’t know if she misspoke or if she doesn’t know, but corrections are in order here. The prefix mega- of course means one million (10^6), not one thousand (10^3), which would be kilo-. Also, watts are not units of energy but rather power, the rate of energy transfer per unit time. One watt is one joule per second. They may seem like minor nitpicks, but these kinds of basic errors can be seized on by opponents looking to discredit the source as unknowledgeable.

    • stephen11 says:

      Yea, she got the conversion wrong when she said ‘thousand’ but she said ‘seventeen megawatts’ not ‘seventy’, Mate.

      • stevie says:

        One number in the interview is not accurate. Jo said 3MW/m was equivalent to 3000 watts, when she should have said 3000 kilowatts. I would suspect she misspoke. (1000 kW equals 1 MW.) Also, she clearly stated fire intensity was reaching 70 MW/m, not 17. The NSW fires in 2019 and 2020 did reach intensities of 70,000 kW/m or 70 MW/m, according to the NSW Rural Fire Service.

        Fire intensity, expressed in kilowatts per metre (kW/m), is the amount of energy released from each metre of headfire edge. One kW/m is equivalent to the energy released by a small bar radiator. Fire intensity depends upon how much fuel is burnt and how fast it burns. Severe bushfires, such as the Victorian Black Saturday fires in 2009, can generate intensities in excess of 100,000 kW/m [100MW/m], whereas prescribed fires are usually less than 500 kW/m [0.5MW/m]. Only bushfires of less than 2,000 kW/m {2MW/m] can be safely and effectively suppressed by people and machinery working directly on the flaming edge of the fire.

        https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/fire/fire-and-the-environment/51-fuel-loads-and-fire-intensity

        • n4x5 says:

          It does look like she meant 3000 kW/m rather than 3000 W/m. However, watts (W or kW or MW or whatever prefix is used) are not units of energy. They are units of power. In layman’s terms the two may be considered interchangeable, but technically this is like using km and km/h interchangeably. One is a rate of change with respect to time; the other is not. You be the judge as to whether it’s an important distinction or not, but there is a difference. The linked article is technically incorrect. A correct sentence would read “Fire intensity, expressed in kilowatts per metre (kW/m), is the amount of power released from each metre of headfire edge.” Or, alternatively (and more understandably for the general public unacquainted with the definition of power), “Fire intensity, expressed in kilowatts per metre (kW/m), is the amount of energy released from each metre of headfire edge per unit time.”

          • stevie says:

            I agree, your last sentence is more accurate. The point the link makes is to do with energy released. It left out time. In physics, power is the rate of doing work or of transferring heat, i.e. the amount of energy transferred or converted per unit time.

            In any event, the intensity of the fires is the issue. And what we do about it.

        • manbearpig says:

          She certainly seems to know what she’s talking about on this thread:

          http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/off-the-charts-current-fires-are-20-times-more-intense-than-the-largest-fires-humans-can-control/

          “…Deano
          January 27, 2020 at 11:53 pm · Reply
          I have seen buildings burn with such intensity that they soften large section steel ‘I’ beams to sag under their own weight. But 70 MW/m (I assume that’s per square metre) – is that possible for more than a very short time when wood and cellulose are the fuels? Can anyone work out how much O2 would be consumed per second? It seems a bit odd.

          Sapel Mirrup
          January 28, 2020 at 7:26 am · Reply
          It’s per metre, as derived by the Byram equation given at the head of Jo’s article:
          kg/sq metre X kJ/kg X metre/sec = kJ/(metre.sec) = kW/metre

          The rate of combustion depends on oxygen supply as mentioned by others, as well as the surface area to volume ratio of the fuel. Thus a finely dispersed powder such as flour can ignite in an instant. The more ‘open weave’ and finer the tinder, the faster the combustion. The variation in dimensional thickness of fallen branches, leaves and twigs results in variable combustion rates at any given moment and creates the mosaic pattern of fire intensity referred to by Jo. You can imagine this mathematically as a 3D surface with the Z axis representing fire intensity; this would have knolls,hills and valleys. So in one locus the intensity might be 73 MW/m and a few metres away it could be 58 MW/m and so on. As the fuel is consumed this mathematical surface would be in dynamic fluctuation, peaks diminishing and valleys rising. It appears from the published work that the value of 70 MW/m has been determined by measurements to be the empirical maximum value attained for bush-firelines to date.

          G’day Deano,
          I also balked at the MW/m usage, but it is the unit quoted in several sources, where the “m” is linear length of the fire front. My guess is that it’s a measure of what you’d be exposed to if you stood in front of an advancing fire.
          Cheers
          Dave B

          • manbearpig says:

            Jo Nova thread continued (part 1 in the moderation queue):

            70
            #
            Jo Nova
            January 28, 2020 at 2:28 pm · Reply
            I balked at the units too, but confirmed it with several experts (thank you Roger, Phil and Neil).

            It is indeed the “fireline” per metre, not the area, m2.

            Because there is a time component, a rate per minute — that burning line effective moves forward across ground at a set rate. The units check out. I did not want to make a mistake. I knew all the engineers here would spot it in a moment…

            The intensity is in MW/m. It applies to the fire front. So if you have a 5000m long fire front and 70MW/m then that front will be producing energy at 350GW; roughly ten times the maximum power output in the NEM electrical power grid.

            If the front is moving at 10m/s then it needs a fuel load of 7MJ/sq.m to achieve the power output. Dry wood has an energy content of up to 20MJ/kg. So it requires less than 1kg/sq.m to achieve a 70MW/m fire front moving at 10m/s.

            The faster a fire front moves, the more fuel it has available. That is why they become uncontrollable. The radiant heat rapidly dries any fuel ahead of the front so the front accelerates as the intensity increases.

            Greg Cavanagh
            January 28, 2020 at 9:13 pm · Reply
            I love the in depth knowledge of people on this site. Thanks guys 🙂

            50
            #
            Deano
            January 28, 2020 at 10:25 pm · Reply
            Thanks to all for answering my query and for clearing up my misunderstanding – without anyone needing to be Superglued to the footpath…”

            Credibility intact I’d say.

            • n4x5 says:

              “The units check out. I did not want to make a mistake.” Indeed kW/m (or MW/m or BTU/ft/s or any other units of power per unit length) are appropriate units for fire intensity. However, there are several errors.

              “A low intensity fire is defined as less than 0.5 MWh/m.” Units should be power per unit length, not energy (MWh) per unit length. “With intensities above 1 MW the 70 MW firestorms would barely register across the top corner in this logarithmic graph.” The quantities should have units of power per unit length, not power (MW). Ditto for the following three examples.

              “Seeds only need fires greater than 0.5 MW to be activated.”

              “Direct control and suppression of fires only works at 2-3 MW of fire intensity, above that only ‘indirect methods’ are left.”

              “Prescribed burning should be done with fire intensities of only 0.3 MW.”

              “In Figure 1 the 2000 BTU per foot squared [curve] is equivalent to a 7 MW fire, 70 MW/m is ‘off the charts’.” This should read “In Figure 1 the 2000 BTU per foot per second curve is equivalent to a 7 MW/m fire, 70 MW/m is ‘off the charts’.” The energy per unit area (the product of H and w in Equation 1) is plotted on the horizontal axis, expressed in BTU per square foot. Each curve corresponds to a different value of intensity, expressed here in BTU per foot per second. These are not interchangeable units.

              I don’t guarantee that these are all the errors, just the ones I caught. These units issues are not just matters of style or convention. They represent different physical quantities. Mistakes happen, but this looks like a much more systemic problem.

              • manbearpig says:

                hmmm, interesting…

                thanks for taking time and effort to point it all out…

                for my personal gratification I’ll have to read this all more carefully and see if I can find someone in my entourage who can corroborate or not…

                wth my physics climate expert alarmist friend I’m all too aware of the misconceptions that can permeate academic and journalistic circles…

                hamsterwheel

  2. Lefkos says:

    Hello James and Joanne and thank you for all your work.

    I want to ask if you have researched any of the following points (they are a lot, so i hope that you bear with me) regarding the Australian bushfires:

    1) The traces of Aluminum, Strontium and Barium (essentially sparkler dust) that have been allegedly sprayed over Australia’s wilderness throughout the last 2 decades, which have again allegedly resulted in fires that “cannot be put out” and 100 meter explosive fireballs, as per firefighter’s testimonies,

    2) The drying-out of Australia’s wild flora and making firefighter’s work even more difficult, by closing-off and selling Australia’s water supplies out to foreign interests,

    3) The mining of precious materials like lithium (for lithium batteries) by foreign interests, that are allegedly greatly profiting from the “clearing-out” that is caused by these fires, like in Kangaroo island, and lastly

    4) The alleged inability of most of the residents of the burned-out areas to return and rebuild their homes, due to the areas being designated as fire hazard areas, as well as because of the lack of house insurance, caused by the extreme cost of house insurance in those specific areas.

    Thank you, i hope that was not too long, cheers.

    • Qno says:

      In case the cake needed nay icing, is it true that a bullet train is being planned on a route that coincidentally crosses all those destroyed conservation areas?

  3. manbearpig says:

    What a pleasure to listen to so much excellently articulated info (with such a sumptuous accent!!)

    What an incredible site this is.

    • miriam.b says:

      It concerns me that CLIMATE ENGINEERING was not one of the main topics discussed in this interview.

      • paul823 says:

        Discretion being the better part of being smart. Most people are not ready for climate engineering in the same way they were not ready for the ‘Bilderburg’ group back in the 70’s and 80’s….do you understand? 🙂

        • naturalfreehuman says:

          Oh, I guess we should just not talk about it then until those folks are out of their diapers and able to walk around… lol. C’mon people, reality is calling! Time to face our makers!! Cheers.

        • miriam.b says:

          No Paul823, I do not understand. Why must we tiptoe and speak in hushed tones about CLIMATE ENGINEERING when it’s been proven that there is a massive spraying program, ongoing, WITHOUT our consent? Everyone needs to breathe……..

      • naturalfreehuman says:

        Yes!

      • manbearpig says:

        I understand your frustration

        but this woman has already gone out on a burning limb professionally speaking to even state that these fires may’ve been allowed to happen to further a climate change agenda which will probably NOT be miraculously positive for her career. I haven’t had the time or gumption to check out the kilo/mega watt allegations made above (that ought to be clarified and rectified if credibility is not to go up in smoke) but she is a reporter doing her best to master a technico-scientific issue to bring the unpopular truth to the masses.

        Because I promote similar ideas a student actually asked me yesterday in all seriousness if I thought the Earth was flat…

        What’s great about the Corbett Report is that with all of the extraordinary interviews you can piece together the truth, no one single person detaining the entire truth.

        Perhaps you could pick up where JoNova has left off? Or perhaps you have?

        good day t’ya! hamsterwheel calling!

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      manbearpig says:

      “What a pleasure to listen to so much excellently articulated info (with such a sumptuous accent!!)

      What an incredible site this is.”

      I agree, ManBearPig.
      I was extremely impressed with Joanne Nova and enjoyed her entire demeanor.

      When you women talk, we guys listen.
      Smart guys are trained that way. 😉

  4. paul823 says:

    And a bunch of farmers are suing our useless government for their malfeasance and incompetence over at least one of the fires. Good luck to ’em, hope it sets a precedent.

    https://tinyurl.com/to7589s

  5. s511 says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8XmlMpJSJ8&list=PLg8_Df7lKXNTlizSkpfPuiQKT8XiLxBTb&index=11&t=27s

    I also read that Australia has had 20 private dams built by privately owned agribiz corporations since 2003. Some are owned by China, and that not a few cabinet membership have financial interests in these entities. The dams have perverted the natural flow of waters for years and now the pigeons are coming home to roost. It is not climate change but something simpler, political expediency, short sighted financial gains at the expense of sound sustainable management of our natural resources that have set the stage.
    INDUSTRIALIZED NATURE: Brute Force Technology and the Transformation of the Natural World is a great book on where this mindset of controlling nature began and is resulting in a juggernaut of devastation that is building speed.Max Igan made six videos that are worth watching. They are not so simple for me to find. The link above should be to Australian Fire Series Part 2: Drought by Design – The Genociding of Australia

  6. Qno says:

    James, it would be great to see you here in Australia. Just be sure not to mention vaccines, or they won’t let you in…

    • paul823 says:

      Or reptillian aliens, they banned that guy last year as well. 🙂

      And don’t plan any public talks or you might get hit with a huge bill from the guberment like Lauren Southern and Stephan Molyneux did (they were smart enough not to pay it though).

  7. bladtheimpaler says:

    Some of these fires were set by arsonists, with 200 such persons under investigation according to one Australian media release. Interestingly the same sort of information has come out of Brazil and its Amazon fires.

    Tony Heller, an American scientist/engineer and educator has done an excellent job in looking at Australian weather and climate history that puts these fires, floods and temperatures into the context that this year’s terrible fires are really not that much out of the ordinary for Australia at all.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMrV9qnmeeg

  8. scpat says:

    I would like to give my input on this issue. I graduated from college with a degree in Forestry, concentrating in Wildland Fire and Fuels Management, so this kind of talk is right up my alley.

    The primary reason for raging, out-of-control wildfires that burn intensely and decimate large areas of forest is excessive fuel loading, as Jo Nova stated.

    In the early 1900’s there formed two competing philosophies of how forests should be managed. Gifford Pinchot stood behind the management strategy of Conservation. This involves managing forests almost like farmers manage crops, by responsibly harvesting portions of a forest for economic benefit and to maintain lesser fuel loads. John Muir, a Preservationist, believed that forests should remain relatively untouched by humans, including for logging purposes.

    In the spirit of the preservationist approach, the “Smokey The Bear” campaign began with the goal of preventing as many forest fires as possible. The campaign, and the general belief of how to manage forests, suppressed the natural phenomena of a forest to manage itself through periodic fires. Without human interference, these fires would burn and clear out the forest understory and built up fuel loads. By suppressing fire, fuel loads grow and grow, resulting in extremely severe fires when they do eventually burn.

    I’d recommend listening to this 5-minute NPR segment where they do a good job of covering this issue.
    https://www.npr.org/2012/08/23/159373691/how-the-smokey-bear-effect-led-to-raging-wildfires

    Conservation vs. Preservation
    https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2016/03/22/conservation-versus-preservation

    • Step says:

      I would agree with John Muir for rainforest or wet forest (leave them alone) but definitely agree with Gifford Pinchot or the smokey bear campaign for the management of eucalypt dominated forest. It’s not nice to see all the beautiful under-story plants being destroyed by fire but that’s the way eucalypt forests have been managed for millennia.

  9. Libertydan says:

    Indeed, there is much to be said for controlled burns. The U.S. Forest Service used to extinguish every bush fire, but has learned to allow natural fires (such as those started by Lighting) to burn out naturally. Many small controlled burns can prevent, or at least, provide a margin of safety from out of control fires.
    I was in Salem Oregon last year as the fires were raging in California, and I was getting reports from my niece in San Francisco who could not/would not leave her house because the air quality was so bad. Blame it on what you will, but this kind of mass destruction has made a lot of people homeless and should be investigated.
    The Climate does change, and areas that were once wet may become dry, however linking this to CO2 and pretending that blocking out the Sun with Geoengineering is going to fix things is nuts. “Climate Change” is guaranteed no mater what we do. It’s like trying to prevent “Terrorism” by making everyone a potential Terrorist. These are but ploys being used to put more and more power into fewer and fewer hands.
    Wars are the biggest waste of all, and little is being said about the Cities leveled in the Mideast for greed, and power, and Oil.
    To me, the Australian Brush fires are diverting attention away from the never ending Wars, while dividing the masses over Climate change.
    Does anybody even remember what happened on 9/11/01 and why it changed the world? It did, because the elites planned it out so carefully, years in advance. Americans lost their freedoms with the passage of “The burn the Bill of rights Act of 2001”, and the world has indeed, changed.

  10. parzival says:

    “Honest Government Ad | After the fires” “Get F*ckin used to it…” The Juice Media https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BmbvTvFQ3g

    • manbearpig says:

      Wow. Talk about smoke and mirrors and the lowest common denominator…

      Excellent example of Chomsky-style gatekeeping, using the truth to further the lie…

      not to mention exploiting people’s ignorance and good intentions…

      toxic

  11. naturalfreehuman says:

    Yes! the mighty geoengineering question! She is cool, reminds me of some folks here in California where our weather and forests have been hacked! Man I’ve watched the dry storms come off the pacific in January at 80 degrees with 15% relative humidity! Nature doesn’t do that! Our Santa Ana’s happen all the time now, at all times of year, used to be a somewhat rare enjoyable event with clear skies, always, high pressure. Now? It’s all chemtrail installed high pressure with tons of cirrus aviaticus! and all their other metallic airplane made clouds. All our “cloudy” days, save for real storms, are now our hottest days! Had one a couple summers back go to 117! with airplane clouds everywhere! Thomas fire was a 13 day Santa Ana event named for a Jesuit school it was started near. thirteen days and all were cloudy! high thin airplane clouds that magnify the sun as opposed to creating shade, they are chemical/metal clouds. that this topic is not mentioned in geoengineering nor in a woman like this’ conversation is a joke. I understand from her point because somehow everyone is afraid to mention the obvious for fear of being discredited. That’s how they get ya! Both the Aussie fires and the California fires are basically military operations serving the global elites new agendas and phony green economies. They really are beginning to cull the herd, should get interesting… thanks James!

  12. Step says:

    If we go back further into the past, to the time before any humans lived on the Australian continent, almost the entire eastern seaboard and much of the south east was rainforest. With the arrival of aboriginal people and their methods of forest management (fire), much of the rainforest flora perished. The thick jungle floor was regularly burned to provide easy pedestrian access and to make it easier to hunt game. This regular burning destroyed many of the rainforest tree saplings and seedlings, causing a wave of extinction. The parent trees eventually died of old age but there were no seedlings to replace them.
    The survivors of this slow but sure ecological holocaust were the plants that either needed fire for propagation or were able to regenerate after fires. This greatly reduced the biodiversity of most Australian woodlands. As Joanne Nova said, eucalypts recover from fires quite quickly. It only takes a few years for the immense amount of litter that they drop (yearly shedding of bark and constant self pruning by dropping branches and twigs) to build up to dangerous proportions. Before the arrival of Europeans the indigenous people managed these eucalypt forests with fire as they had always done. The European ‘invasion’ had an extremely devastating effect on their tribal and family networks, leaving vast tracts of previously managed land vacant (of human habitation). It is this vacant land that burns with such intensity now, because the regular cool burns are not being carried out.
    If we look deeper into the problem, it is the lack of biodiversity and the dominance of eucalypts that is a major problem. The cool burns, while preventing a major tragedy occurring, are also an environmental problem because they are gradually reducing the humus in the soil, causing further loss of biodiversity. So it is a complex issue and I am sure everyone in Australia would like to see it resolved but we must admit to ourselves that the eucalypt forests are not natural, they are a human modified forest.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Interesting.
      I did not know that about eucalypts.

    • mkey says:

      but we must admit to ourselves that the eucalyptus forests are not natural, they are a human modified forest.

      Not only that, but these trees are planted because of their fast growth to achieve CO2 sequestration and to offset CO2 credit crunch. So, these trees are planted due to … climate change and then end up fueling massive fires which are in return blamed on … climate change? That actually makes sense. They were planted due to climate change, they burn due to climate change. But climate change(TM), not actual climate change.

      • Step says:

        When I wrote “not natural” it was not the best choice of words. In other countries eucalyptus trees are planted in plantations however in Australia the majority of eucalyptus forests are naturally occurring i.e. wild regrowth but modified in the sense that the original biodiversity has been reduced by centuries of regular fire.
        One of the great paradoxes existing in Australia is that while there is social and political pressure to reduce carbon emissions from the transport and energy industries, the fuel reduction fires in the forests may release more carbon into the atmosphere than both of these industries combined.
        People who are genuinely concerned about the ecological future of the planet may choose to attribute these forest fires to CO2 induced climate change. As far as I am aware the Australian continent has been subjected to climate extremes such as severe drought, severe wet seasons and severe storms since long before the current industrial age.
        I would surmise that the most serious ecological issue we are facing today is the extreme reduction of biodiversity, the main cause of that being the destruction of old growth forest. These forests are essential to maintain the natural cycles of the atmosphere and water.

  13. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Hammond Family Ranchers – Arson Case – Eastern Oregon

    Some of you may recall watching the videos of January 2016 when protestors descended on eastern Oregon to support the rancher’s rights against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
    Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, was shot and killed by law enforcement officers, which was recorded on YouTube video.

    Backstory via Wikipedia…
    The Hammond arson case was a court case culminating from 20-year-long legal disputes between Harney County, Oregon ranchers Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, his son Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, and federal officials. In 2012, both Hammonds were charged with several counts in relation to two fires in 2001 and 2006, and eventually convicted of two counts of arson on federal land. Knowing they would face the statutory minimum of five years, the men waived their right to appeal these convictions in exchange for dismissal of several unresolved charges. After this mid-trial agreement was entered, the Hammonds were sentenced to a few months in jail, which they served. In 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated these sentences because they were shorter than the statutory mandatory minimum. The Ninth Circuit remanded to the district court for resentencing. The district court subsequently re-sentenced both Hammonds to the mandatory minimum of five years in prison, with credit for time served.

    By late 2015, the Hammond case had attracted the attention of Nevada activists Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who planned a protest against the re-sentencing, though the Hammonds rejected their assistance. However, the protest still went into effect on January 2, 2016, and resulted in the Bundys and associates staging a 40-day armed occupation of the headquarters area of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

    On July 10, 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump issued full pardons to Dwight and Steven Hammond.

    But now…
    April 2019
    Fire-starting ranchers get a new blessing from BLM
    The agency hopes the Hammonds’ cows will reduce fire risk in eastern Oregon.

    https://www.hcn.org/issues/51.9/public-lands-fire-starting-ranchers-grazing-public-lands-again

  14. Siren says:

    Thanks for making this James. I live overseas and its been driving me crazy hearing all the stupid shit broadcast about my home country. Standing at the station in Europe, seeing it flick by on rotating billboards… and I sigh. Like nobody knows that Australia has heavy fires like this every 10 years, its super normal. Foreigners generally know nothing about Australia, except it has dangerous animals and some cuddly ones. That’s about it, from my experience. Its so ridiculous to hear the world going crazy about “saving it”.

    Australia gets practically no natural disasters. No earthquakes, no tsunamis, only cyclones right at the top and rarely (#ripbananas). Fires are our only natural disasters and being told they are not normal is fucking weird. Its Australia’s way of refreshing itself, its the natural climate breathing new life into its bushland.

    I appreciate you making this video, as I’m so used to being asked about the fires, no matter who I talk to. Having to describe Il Nino and La Nina weather cycles (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/ENSO-what.shtml) and the percentage of land that gets destroyed every 10 years and how so few people have died because generally Australia has protocols of dealing with it. As its normal.

    People caring about “saving the kangaroos”, man we cull kangaroos by the millions each year because there are too many of them and we killed all their natural predators (https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d63444f30556a4d/share_p.html). I appreciate hearing a structurally minded discussion on the issue and hearing at least that its not just me getting offended by the news on this issue.

    • Step says:

      Thanks for your comment Siren, there have not been many Australians on this forum. What were the predators for kangaroos? I am totally ignorant of the fact that they had a predator. I assumed it was the ‘pasturisation’ of our landscape that gave rise to the population explosion of roos. I have trained my dog not to chase marsupials, she is only allowed to chase rabbits, hares and foxes. She would love to chase a roo though.

  15. Bigpicguy says:

    It’s all about the sun..
    geomagnetic reversal means more extreme weather until the cycle restarts. Bunker down..! Or is it hunker down..? Either way, prepare yourselves

  16. Camille says:

    Couldn’t this tinder, that Nature gives freely, be harvested and used to power something?

    • Step says:

      Actually that is not such a bad idea although much of the country is rugged and difficult to access. I look after a small patch of forest in Australia and I remove all of the tinder by hand. This preserves the micro-habitat and the fungi in the soil that even a ‘cool’ fire would destroy. Much of the material that I remove is made into compost piles which provide protection to small reptiles and marsupials from predators. The larger branches are either cut up for firewood or piled up for bonfires outside the forested area. These bonfires are lit on a drizzly cold day during winter.

  17. Taffekles says:

    Has anyone estimated how much CO2/greenhouse gasses are being emitted by these fires? Add in the ones in California and the Amazon and surely dwarfs all human activity?
    I dont know the calculations but it does all seem to make a mockery of wanting me to stop having the odd BBQ in the garden.
    Has anyone done the maths?

    • generalbottlewasher says:

      Well Taffekles; you may not need math to understand a vacuum. The scale of anthropamorphic burning is infinitesimal to the planetary systems equilibrium. Carbon is stored then released. A timeless cycle if you believe in timelessness. We live in a vacuum. You , I , us all, live in a vacuum that recycles, cycles. The equilibrium returns instantly. The only way to knock the equilibrium out of whack would be to find some way to take out the sun. Hmmm that sounds familiar.
      Today the planes are staying south of me. The gosimer film is thick.

    • mkey says:

      I’ll echo the take from above. All of the carbon that was sequestered by those trees is returned to the ecosphere. There is a certain time shift in effect which should be taken into account, but knowing what we know (that is carbon is the base of life as we know it) with those trees and whatnot burning down a whole lot of life bringing carbon got back on the market, ready to be sequestered all over again.

      And help move along some carbon credits to boot.

  18. JadeEyes says:

    WELL…I think that Jo has got a grasp on approximately 25% of what is really going on. I have lived in ‘National Forest’ (California, USA) for over 2 decades, and there can be no doubt that suppression of natural fire has lead to many woes. HOWEVER, that is not what is happening the WUI (Wildland Urban Interface). And when one attends a few ‘community’ meetings on active fires, one can see (if one is paying attention) that the Agencies and the Corporations (sorry, are they separate?) the bald-faced lies that are being fed to the public. Shame. Shame. Shame. Weather-modified drought, chemical aerosols, DEWs, and many other factors MUST be considered when viewing (literally SEEING) this issue.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top