We’ve had about 5 weeks of smoke haze across the greater Sydney basin and it doesn’t look like clearing for a while yet
There’s a huge out of control bushfire west of Sydney and a couple in the Mountains and Hawkesbury areas ( you can see them on the satellite stream)
I put the bins out last night and couldn’t stop coughing it was that bad in my area
While the westerly winds prevail , the Sydney basin will fill up with smoke and this week is no different
Thankfully no reports of loss of life or property with these current fires
I cannot remember the last time we had such a long spell of continuous smoke haze
Hopefully we get some good solid rain soon.
Had to happen sooner or later IMHO when you look at how long it has been since most of it was last burnt. Especially the Jamison valley water catchment. If you consider doing fuel reduction burns of say 5% of the state every year, on the basis that each area is burnt roughy once every 20 years, we're falling way short of that - the greenies have effectively locked up the national parks and forested areas and stopped all serious efforts at hazard reduction.
I cannot remember the last time we had such a long spell of continuous smoke haze
Down here in the alternate universe I can't remember the last time we had such a long spell of cloudy, wet weather. The paddocks still haven't gone brown since winter.
The smoke hazy is more intermittent down here, depending on the wind. When things were really bad a few weeks ago there were times when we had NE winds that I couldn't see the escarpment from 1.5km away. I developed bad hay-fever symptoms. However, once the next front moved through things were back to normal.
On Sunday we had soot dropping in the yard and the moon was deep eclipse-red that night. Yesterday it cleared and by last night I could see both Magellanic clouds with a 25% moon in the sky. Today is fine and clear but the haze is predicted to return tomorrow.
Can't comment on hazard reduction. I'm not a firie on the ground or a specialist in that area. I'd say though that the morons who light fires get away with too little too often. There's no real deterrent. And the bloody problem is not the odd lightning strike or natural causes. It's people doing stupid sh|t.
Can't comment on hazard reduction. I'm not a firie on the ground or a specialist in that area. I'd say though that the morons who light fires get away with too little too often. There's no real deterrent. And the bloody problem is not the odd lightning strike or natural causes. It's people doing stupid sh|t.
For me (or anyone) to elaborate would break the TOS. Needless to say, I agree.
Been checking the fire maps for a month now and see the progression. Something I am wondering. I realise there are a finite number of funding, fire fighters, trucks, heli, planes, etc... and also that some areas just have no access by ground. Having said that some of the fires start really small then get bigger then bloody huge and start other fires, etc... Wouldn't it make sense to hammer the small ones before they get over a certain size? Obvioulsy when the sh|t has hit the fan and it's too late and everything is burning you save houses and people, but at the very beginning. When they're only really small spot fires. Or am I missing something?
We know that the forest floor fuel loads are increasing year by year which increases the risk exponentially, and we know a small scrub fire or spot fire can turn into a 10km raging fire front in a matter of hours if a dry strong westerly wind whips up
My question is, how do these small spot fires start in the first place when they are located mostly in remote state forests with limited or no road access
Surely lightning is not the only cause ?
Down here in the alternate universe I can't remember the last time we had such a long spell of cloudy, wet weather. The paddocks still haven't gone brown since winter.
There must be some astronomy happening somewhere
Theoretically, up here but it's unusually dry and hot...not the usual humid and tumultuous sub-tropics. Everything is so dry. It's normally lush and green at this time of year (from the spring rain storms).
I say "theoretically" as I'm not convinced the seeing has been any good, and BrisVegas has sporadically had some smoke blow in...
I feel for you folks down there, not only because of the fires ...it must be ' choking ' for some ...terrible.
Because of my heart condition , I have chronic fatigue and have a breathing issue ...some days aren't too bad,...but others I just have to rest all day.
If I lived down there, no doubt I would be at A&E in no time.
Stay Safe
Col
Last edited by FlashDrive; 05-12-2019 at 02:41 PM.
As I said before - fires will do what should have been done previously, ie get rid of the gumtrees.
Australian used to be covered in rainforest. Go back far enough and the place was dominated by Glossopteris and the ancestors of the Wollumi pine. Even after the rise of flowering plants it was all thick lush vegetation. Early Acacias (wattles) included rainforest giants. Then, as the continent drifted north two things happened. First the opening of the Southern Ocean and the establishment of the circum-antarctic current cooled and dried the global climate. Second, Australia moved under the descending side of the Hadley circulation.
The combined effect was to dry Australia, leading to an increased fire regime. Under these conditions a new genus, Eucalyptus, became successful in the remaining woodlands because it can tolerate fires better than competing species. Some parts of the continent became too dry even for Eu. and they are now dominated by a drought-tolerant Acacia (mulga) or Triodia grass (spinifex).
The point is that the climate lead to the fires and they lead to the Eucalypts. Replacing the Eucs would simply lead to forests that can't recover after a fire. I also wonder where the understory vegetation fits in your plan. Also, what about native animals and birds? I haven't seen many nesting hollows in Pinus radiata.
