What’s Behind California’s Surge of Large Fires?

[multiweb (Marc)]

Interesting article here with comparison maps over the past five decades. The drought graph since 2000 is sobering.

[xelasnave]

When I joined the fire brigade the Captain's very first words to the new members assembled for the introduction talk was..."There are three things that start fires, men women and children"... And always when one says that, those who refuse to recognise that fact, because of their determination to inject politics into the mix will say " no most are started by like lightening".
I expect some are started by lightening but failure to sheet home the blame and work harder to manage the problem created by humans and doggedly blaming climate change is just plain politics and must be denounced.
Alex

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

When I joined the fire brigade the Captain's very first words to the new members assembled for the introduction talk was..."There are three things that start fires, men women and children"... And always when one says that, those who refuse to recognise that fact, because of their determination to inject politics into the mix will say " no most are started by like lightening".
I expect some are started by lightening but failure to sheet home the blame and work harder to manage the problem created by humans and doggedly blaming climate change is just plain politics and must be denounced.
Alex

Yes, unfortunately that seems to be a common misconception Alex

See page 53-59 of the 466 page Final Report of the NSW Bushfire Inquiry into the 2019/20 bushfire season, released end of July last year.

Summed up here...

2.1.3 How did the fires start?

"Lightning was the suspected, immediate cause of ignition for the vast majority of the largest
and most damaging fires across NSW in the 2019-20 season. The dryness of the
landscape due to prolonged and widespread drought meant that lightning ‘caught’ well to
start fires and provided suitable conditions for them to spread once they were alight."

Cheers

Mike

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Yes, unfortunately that seems to be a common misconception Alex

See page 53-59 of the 466 page Final Report of the NSW Bushfire Inquiry into the 2019/20 bushfire season, released end of July last year.

Summed up here...

2.1.3 How did the fires start?

"Lightning was the suspected, immediate cause of ignition for the vast majority of the largest
and most damaging fires across NSW in the 2019-20 season. The dryness of the
landscape due to prolonged and widespread drought meant that lightning ‘caught’ well to
start fires and provided suitable conditions for them to spread once they were alight."

Cheers

Mike

I don't believe that is a misconception: those fires started well away from people and after recorded lightening strikes. However, the report does acknowledge human agency in starting the fires, so let's quote the rest of 2.1.3 for completeness:

"NSW RFS has also reported that power lines were a suspected cause of a few of the larger,
damaging fires listed in Table 2-1.42
Some fires were also started by people – either deliberately or by accident. For example,
early in the season in northern NSW, many early fires were suspected to be due to private
burns that started on private land.
Some fires were suspected to have started by machinery. For example, the Orroral Valley
fire in January 2020 is thought to have started by the heat from lights on an Army MRH-90
helicopter. While this fire started in the ACT, it spread into NSW.
There were also instances of suspected arson during the 2019-20 season, but these were a
very small proportion of the area burnt. Strike Force Tronto reported to the Inquiry that there
were 63 offences under the Crimes Act 1900 under the category of ‘intentionally cause fire
and be reckless to its spread’ from 1 July 2019 to 3 Feb 2020. Fifty-nine of these fires were
deliberately lit and, of those, 11 were lit with intention to cause a bush fire."

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Of course some bushfires start from arson or people in general, I was only pointing out reputable findings that are contrary to the RFS Captains words referred to by Alex ie.

"There are three things that start fires, men women and children"

This is misleading and not really true

Mike

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Of course some bushfires start from arson or people in general, I was only pointing out reputable findings that are contrary to the RFS Captains words referred to by Alex ie.

"There are three things that start fires, men women and children"

This is misleading and not really true

Mike

Sorry Mike, I got you completely wrong. I thought you were supporting Alex's ex-RFS Captain and disputing the finding of the Bushfire Inquiry. I'm a goose (well, a gander actually).

[xelasnave]

Well at least we have at least brought some recognition into the mix that humans do in fact contribute to many fires...that was my hope..and the Captain went on to tell of all the things that could start a fire but emphasised that most fires in his experience had a human who started it.....I find it irritating that the bush fire situation has become so political..I was on a web site, very left wing, where certain members would not concede humans start fires and insisted on blaming climate change and refusing to address the human element.

There are many things that can start fires but imagine how many less there would be if no human was responsible.

I feel the significance in general of how fires start is down played by those who are preoccupied with global warming and frankly I detected, in my opinion, glee from the left wing element on that site, who mainly exhibited a "I told you so" attitude rather than wishing to address the main issue of not letting fires start in the first place. AND lie ..one member insisting the forrests are burnt to the ground which observation tells us that is not so..but she was only interested in pushing a particular political wagon...Their solution was never to get more firefighting resourses but the same old mantra of get rid of fossil fuels and the fires will magically go away.
Personally I believe there should be a satellite monitoring system that detects the smallest of fires, in a total fire ban, and immediately dispatch water bombers to put it out while it is only a couple of acres...in the current system the response time just wont cut it as, ( and I concede the climate change means more dangerous dry conditions,) by the time a fire is noticed, called in and a crew sent etc, in these times, the fire is out of control.
In the senerio I suggest, in a total fire ban, if the satellite detects a fire even if it is a bbq the bombers are sent and that fire is extinguished. Extreme sure but consider if we were at war and the enemy was left to invade and damage property and take lives we would not be so casual.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

2.1.3 How did the fires start?

"Lightning was the suspected, immediate cause of ignition for the vast majority of the largest
and most damaging fires across NSW in the 2019-20 season. The dryness of the
landscape due to prolonged and widespread drought meant that lightning ‘caught’ well to
start fires and provided suitable conditions for them to spread once they were alight."

Cheers

Mike

Sounds like a political statement to me...lightening was suspected...the vast majority...now I could be wrong but one could expect that anyone making such a statement would state the numbers ..the actual numbers...without them you cant suspect anything or claim that you have allocated your suspicion the status of "vast majority"....like if you make a claim is it not reasonable to require more than..lightening was suspected...the vast majority...
And if one making such nebulous statements does not support such statements with evidence why should we pay it any heed?

Alex

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

I'm a goose (well, a gander actually).

We'll call you M17 then...said as I duck for cover

...sorry

Mike

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Of course some bushfires start from arson or people in general, I was only pointing out reputable findings that are contrary to the RFS Captains words referred to by Alex ie.

"There are three things that start fires, men women and children"

This is misleading and not really true

Mike

Let's put this one to bed then.

"There are four things that start fires, men, women, children and lightning strikes"

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Let's put this one to bed then.

"There are four things that start fires, men, women, children but mostly lightning strikes for the largest and most devastating ones, at least as far as the widely recognised as unprecedented, NSW fire season of 2019-20 goes"

aaaaalmost...just a slight amendment, so we are perfectly clear and based on the evidence presented in this thread so far

[Sunfish (Ray)]

Pretty sobering scenarios indeed from the final paragraphs.

Abatzoglou noted that some of the harrowing scenes across Northern California in 2020 were due to an extreme and unusual dry lightning siege in mid-August that ignited thousands of fires in one night. “But in 2021 I am less convinced of bad luck,” he said. “Climate change is aiding in the warming and the more rapid drying of fuels that predispose the land to large fires.”

Originally Posted by multiweb

Interesting article here with comparison maps over the past five decades. The drought graph since 2000 is sobering.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

aaaaalmost...just a slight amendment, so we are perfectly clear and based on the evidence presented in this thread so far

You've spent too much time in Canberra Parliament House mate.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

Pretty sobering scenarios indeed from the final paragraphs.

Abatzoglou noted that some of the harrowing scenes across Northern California in 2020 were due to an extreme and unusual dry lightning siege in mid-August that ignited thousands of fires in one night. “But in 2021 I am less convinced of bad luck,” he said. “Climate change is aiding in the warming and the more rapid drying of fuels that predispose the land to large fires.”

Yeah it's all linked unfortunately all heading the same way and cascading down hill with us all riding on a dinghy still arguing about it

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Sounds like a political statement to me...lightening was suspected...the vast majority...now I could be wrong but one could expect that anyone making such a statement would state the numbers ..the actual numbers...without them you cant suspect anything or claim that you have allocated your suspicion the status of "vast majority"....like if you make a claim is it not reasonable to require more than..lightening was suspected...the vast majority...
And if one making such nebulous statements does not support such statements with evidence why should we pay it any heed?

Alex

Settle down Alex. The phrase 'suspected, immediate cause' is surely science speak for 'we saw the lightening and we saw the fire soon after but we weren't there to see the bolt ignite the tree'. Table 2-1 of the report list 24 of 32 fires as due to lightening - I would have said 'substantial' or 'large' majority, but lets just leave it at 75%.

When the first Australians arrived here >60ka ago they found a fire-adapted flora. We have the fossil, pollen and charcoal evidence that fires occurred even 60Ma ago and that the role of fire increased as the continent dried after about 25Ma. If the landscape is susceptible to fire something will eventually ignite it.

It appears that indigenous Australians did not attempt outright fire suppression. They prevented damaging fire by controlling the landscape (fuel load and vegetation type) with frequent smaller fires. In places where the traditional knowledge has not been lost we know this directly, in other places we have the reports of early settlers (or usurpers). There is now a push to incorporate this knowledge in present management practices, though of course not having people living on country, and the presence of modern technology (cars, aircraft, satellite monitoring etc) means things can be, and have to be, done differently.

Of course immediate suppression of accidental fires is often warranted and the failure to have the necessary resources in place for this task contributed greatly to the scale of the recent disaster. Months, even years before the disaster, relevant fire authorities were warning the various gov'ts and requesting more resources, including water bombers. (The lefties merely repeated the warnings of these professionals.) These warnings were ignored ..... and fair enough too - no one has ever heard of a spot-over reaching Hawaii.

[xelasnave]

[QUOTE=AstralTraveller;1536971]Settle down Alex. The phrase 'suspected, immediate cause' is surely science speak for 'we saw the lightening and we saw the fire soon after but we weren't there to see the bolt ignite the tree'. Table 2-1 of the report list 24 of 32 fires as due to lightening - I would have said 'substantial' or 'large' majority, but lets just leave it at 75%. QUOTE

Your calming direction has me at peace with the world more so because you direct me to the evidence. OK given lightening is such a problem what are we to do about it...
Is it possible to monitor fire outbreaks via satellite..or at least as lightening strikes are detected ( they are detected I believe but I need to establish that my belief is correct) that spot is looked at, and I suspect that can be done, and determine if there is a fire sooner than the current system ...it stands to reason the longer it takes to respond the harder it will be to put the fire out..if it is only an acre or two you have a chance.
Alex

[glend (Glen)]

If you follow Juan Browne's Utube channel (Blancolirio), he investigates every fire in his home state of California. He is a professional pilot (777s) and has a small plane he uses to over fly the fires, plot the destruction, educate people on water bombing, etc, etc. Juan lives near the Cal Fire Grass Valley air strip, where he bases his light plane.

His conclusion, in terms of the central California fires, is that most were started by "human activity". Time and time again a fire breaks out at a campground, picnic area, etc in a state park, reserve, etc.These fires then inevitably follow vegetation up water courses spreading through valleys to higher elevations. Drought is definitely a contributing factor, and some places seem to burn on a regular basis, like the recent Bridge Fire ( likely caused by a human flicking a cigarette butt out of a car).

https://youtu.be/dRV2ISr2vX4

[RB (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Let's put this one to bed then.

"There are four things that start fires, men, women, children and lightning strikes"

I'll see your four and raise you a fifth....

"Little green tree frogs"

[Sunfish (Ray)]

“Denounced” sounds like a political statement to me.

Are you trying to say climate change does not contribute to the frequency and severity of bush fires with this argument?

I think the RFS and all science are telling us climate change is making the inevitable fires worse, irrespective of the ignition source.

Originally Posted by xelasnave

doggedly blaming climate change is just plain politics and must be denounced.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

“Denounced” sounds like a political statement to me.

Are you trying to say climate change does not contribute to the frequency and severity of bush fires with this argument?

I think the RFS and all science are telling us climate change is making the inevitable fires worse, irrespective of the ignition source.

Hi Ray,
I went to great pains choosing my words very carefully as I always do but as you have missed my point let me state this...the problem of bush fires must grow as the temperatures continue to climb that is a given...the response by most folk is fix climate change by eliminating all fosil fuel and the problem will go away .. However we can not wait that long and the aspect to address is preventing fires from starting..and in my view folk who are concerned with climate change seem to exhibit an attitude of "I told you so" meaning that they foretold of these things and now that we see more fires it really seems, on the forum I have discussed the matter, that they are somewhat happy and to suggest that the aspect of preventing fires starting is totally ignored...now I expect my experience could be wider however I will leave anyone reading my words to think about what I say
Rather than exclude climate change as you seem to think is where I am heading I say that the very fact climate is changing and we are being affected it is time to examine more carefully the question of how fires start...my question would be does anyone rely think the problem is going to go away? Does anyone really think we will get rid of fossil fuels and return the temperatures to perhaps what they were 50 years ago? Does anyone think that addressing the aspect of human involvement a waste of time...I still believe if we eliminated humans starting fires we would be a long way ahead and also there needs to be a quicker response time and a more forceful attack on fires...AND we must get real because of climate change and it is not going away any time soon..stop all fossil fuel tomorrow ..when do you think we will see a turnaround..the day after? AND what do you think the real chances are of getting day China to stop using fossil fuel...
Anyways read my posts carefully and if you find something that hints at me holding a position that climate change is not the big factor here just show me..I will then edit dame to make it very clear my concern is about fires starting and the necessity to implement better systems of discovering a fire and stronger action in the first instance to put it out.
Alex