Climate change and firefighting: a voice from the front line
November 18, 2013
Jim Casey
http://images.smh.com.au/2013/11/17/4931120/20131117164327111367-620x349.jpg
Climate change: Our industrial muscle won't cut it. Photo: Wolter Peeters

As a firefighter, I can tell you things are not the way they used to be.

The natural environment is changing. In 2009, we witnessed the devastating Black Saturday fires in Victoria. In 2010, incredible and unexpected flooding in Queensland. Rainfall is up in parts of the country, down in others.

Temperatures are rising, wind patterns changing, storm and tempest activity becoming unpredictable - and all of this leads to more frequent and more extreme natural disasters.

The recent Blue Mountains fires are a case in point: there have always been fires in that part of NSW, but in October?
Advertisement

It's time we lifted the debate above political point scoring on climate change.

Be it bushfire, flood or storm, you will find firefighters doing what we do best. We're proud of our job. But it is a dangerous profession, and we want to make sure we can minimise the risks we face.

The vast majority of scientists and a majority of the general population agree the planet is getting warmer, as a direct result of how we interact with the natural world.

It is the impact this has on the weather that is of particular concern to firefighters, and other first responders. We are now seeing more extreme weather events. We're seeing an unstable, unpredictable climate.

In 2010, the NSW Department of the Environment released a paper titled NSW Climate Impact Profile, which says between now and 2050 we can expect: "Higher temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns will more likely than not lead to increased fire frequency. Very high to extreme fire danger days are projected to increase and the conditions conducive to large and intense fires (such as prolonged drought, low humidity, number of days with high temperature and high wind speeds) may increase."

Which is where we come in. Professional firefighters are among the most heavily unionised industries in the country. There's a reason for that. The nature of our job is dangerous. The personal protective equipment we have, the breathing apparatus, safe and effective minimum crew levels - all of these basic workplace safety matters were won by firefighters demanding it from the employer.

But on the issue of climate change, our industrial muscle won't cut it. This isn't a dispute over safe working conditions, a reasonable wage, or dignity in the workplace. This is about the way our society is organised. It is about how we all live, and it is about the conditions under which firefighters work.

We need action on climate change. Firefighters will continue to go to work, as we have always done, helping people in emergencies. But we're treating the symptoms of the problem, not the disease itself. It will require a mass movement, prepared to be bold and imaginative, to do that.

Jim Casey from the Fire Brigade Employees Union spoke at the National Day of Climate Action in Prince Alfred Park on Sunday.

I read this article with interest.

Didn't I recently read that we wave had, in the past, catastrophic fires in September?

As a professional firefighter what is his expertise in wildfire events compared to town fire events?

Not knowing the setup over east, I just thought I would ask.

I am a member of a volunteer bush brigade.

An obvious fire fighter in the agw cult. The guys an absolute idiot if he thinks all fires should be the same.
Firefighter pfft, advocate yes.

lee wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2013 at 12:30pm:

... Didn't I recently read that we wave had, in the past, catastrophic fires in September? ...

Is it a case of possibility or probability? Doesn't the science say something like: increasing temperatures increases the probability of extreme weather events, such as those that contribute to bush fires?

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2013 at 1:27pm:

An obvious fire fighter in the agw cult. ...

So AGW, which the majority of the best qualified and every scientific body say is probable, is a cult, but denial, which has no such support is ... what, exactly?

Your beliefs rely on conspiracy of improbable proportions or similarly improbable ineptitude.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

#, AR5 says-

“confidence is LOW for global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness…”

“confidence remains LOW for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone** activity  …”

“confidence in large scale trends in storminess or storminess proxies over the last century is LOW… “

“confidence is LOW for trends in small-scale severe weather events such as hail or thunderstorms.”

So much for extreme weather events. The prognostications keep changing.

lee wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

#, AR5 says- “confidence is LOW for global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness…” “confidence remains LOW for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone** activity  …” “confidence in large scale trends in storminess or storminess proxies over the last century is LOW… “ “confidence is LOW for trends in small-scale severe weather events such as hail or thunderstorms.” So much for extreme weather events. The prognostications keep changing.

Keep going. So far, you just covered the low confidence predictions. You're not cherry picking, are you?


Quote:

The prognostications keep changing.

You need to back that assertion up with evidence. What did the AR4 Report say about trends in small-scale severe weather events such as hail or thunderstorms, for example.

You do know why confidence is low for these predictions?

OK so AR5 is not an updated report from the IPCC?

So we have low confidence in extreme weather events but high confidence that the low confidence will yield greater bush fires. And that - irrespective of allowing fuel loads to increase to unsafe levels?

lee wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 4:45pm:

OK so AR5 is not an updated report from the IPCC? So we have low confidence in extreme weather events but high confidence that the low confidence will yield greater bush fires. And that - irrespective of allowing fuel loads to increase to unsafe levels?

Your post doesn't make sense. How does that relate to the fact that you are cherry picking?

From AR4

Drought - increase in total area affected - likely
Cyclones - longer lifetimes and greater intensity, no trend in frequency - likely more confidence in frequency and intensity
Extreme storms - increase frequency/intensity - likely
Small scale weather events - no assessment.

Source- .ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-8-5.html

3 out of 4 is that a pass?

They are not quite the same parameters. I think you'll find that the time scales are different in some cases. The conclusions about drought for example are not conflicting.

In some cases, the reasons may be due to lack of data as opposed to anything else. For example, a launch failure  resulting in no in-depth study. In that case, new data would be ready the next time around.

Anyway, it's pointless for me to refute every single point you bring up.   

From AR5 Technical summary:


Quote:

Confidence in the validity of a finding, based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., mechanistic understanding, theory, data, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement. Confidence is expressed qualitatively.

Quote:

Earth has been in radiative imbalance, with more energy from the sun entering than exiting the top of the atmosphere, since at least circa 1970. It is virtually certain that Earth has gained substantial energy from 1971–2010. The estimated increase in energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 is 274 [196 to 351] x 1021 J), with a heating rate of 213 x 1012 W from a linear fit to the annual values over that time period (see also TFE.4).

Quote:

It is likely that circulation features have moved poleward since the 1970s, involving a widening of thetropical belt, a poleward shift of storm tracks and jet streams, and a contraction of the northern polar vortex. Evidence is more robust for the Northern Hemisphere. It is likely that the Southern Annular Mode hasbecome more positive since the 1950s. The increase in the strength of the observed summer Southern Annular Mode since 1950 has been anomalous, with medium confidence, in the context of the past 400 years.

Quote:

Based on concentration changes, the RF of all WMGHG in 2011 is 2.83 [2.54 to 3.12] W m–2 (very high confidence). This is an increase since AR4 of 0.20 [0.18 to 0.22] W m–2, with nearly all of the increase due to the increase in the abundance of CO2 since 2005. The industrial era RF for CO2 alone is 1.82 [1.63 to 2.01] W m–2. Over the last 15 years, CO2 has been the dominant contributor to the increase in RF from the WMGHGs, with RF of CO2 having an average growth rate slightly less than 0.3 W m–2 per decade. The uncertainty in the WMGHG RF is due in part to its radiative properties but mostly to the full accounting of....

'(e.g., mechanistic understanding, theory, data, models, expert judgment) '

And we know the models are really outperforming the actual data.

So if we take our understanding from the expert judgement of the outperforming climate models we get ... ?  Especially so when we can make Climate Sensitivity whatever we like.

lee wrote on Nov 27^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

'(e.g., mechanistic understanding, theory, data, models, expert judgment) ' And we know the models are really outperforming the actual data. So if we take our understanding from the expert judgement of the outperforming climate models we get ... ?  Especially so when we can make Climate Sensitivity whatever we like.

Again, you're going off at a tangent speaking about models, when you were originally talking about degree of confidence based on observation.  How can you equate observation with models? I guess it comes with your NFI (First Class Hons.) in Climatology.


The part about making the climate sensitivity what we want is in cloud cuckoo land. "Climate sensitivity" is not an input to any model I know of.

Where did you pick up that particular gem? Anthony Watts, no doubt.

You can't equate observation with models, however the IPCC does a great job on inference.

If CO2 is increasing, which we know it is, how do we attempt to measure the effect of that CO2 on climate, if we don't attempt to correlate it.

If climate is not sensitive to CO2 then the models are are a WOFTAM.

If the models don't attempt to model Climate Sensitivity then they are still a WOFTAM.

* WOFTAM - Waste Of Flaming and Time Money

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2013 at 11:40am:

You can't equate observation with models, however the IPCC does a great job on inference. If CO2 is increasing, which we know it is, how do we attempt to measure the effect of that CO2 on climate, if we don't attempt to correlate it.

We don't attempt. We measure.  What was that bit about RF again? See if you can find what I'm talking about.

'"Climate sensitivity" is not an input to any model I know of. '

If it is Not an Input the it must be an Output.

But -
'Spread in model climate sensitivity is a major factor contributing to the range in projections of future climate changes (see Chapter 10) along with uncertainties in future emission scenarios and rates of oceanic heat uptake. Consequently, differences in climate sensitivity between models have received close scrutiny in all four IPCC reports.'

source : .ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6.html

That is merely an extract.

Edit: Models aren't measurement they are supposition based on assumptions.

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

'"Climate sensitivity" is not an input to any model I know of. ' If it is Not an Input the it must be an Output. But - 'Spread in model climate sensitivity is a major factor contributing to the range in projections of future climate changes (see Chapter 10) along with uncertainties in future emission scenarios and rates of oceanic heat uptake. Consequently, differences in climate sensitivity between models have received close scrutiny in all four IPCC reports.' source : .ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6.html That is merely an extract. Edit: Models aren't measurement they are supposition based on assumptions.

I'm not talking about models here. Let's get down to basics. Do you even know what RF is?

You were talking about the models and Climate Sensitivity weren't you? I could have sworn you were. But each time you lose an argument you just move on to another.

I give up. Climate sensitivity is about as basic as you can get.

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

I give up.

OK. RF stands for radiative forcing. It's a parameter that's easily measured. No models involved.


Quote:

You were talking about the models and Climate Sensitivity weren't you?

No. I was talking about RF and CO2 concentration. You were the one talking about models, but I'm stuffed if I know what you were on about.

First you guessed that Climate Sensitivity was an input, then you guessed that it was an output. Do you want to throw a coin and make a decision?

As I said before, it's consistent with the fact that you have an NFI (First Class Honours) in Climatology.

As I also said, it has no bearing on anything that was said before.

Radiative forcing does nothing on its own. In conjunction with Climate sensitivity we may get a viable output; depending on your figure for Climate sensitivity.

It has about much effect as 100mm of rain. We need more for context. 100mm in 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week? Is the ground already saturated? Is it all runoff?

Edit: as well as other Climate parameters- humidity, temperature, wind velocity, wind direction, cloud cover.

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2013 at 4:04pm:

Radiative forcing does nothing on its own. In conjunction with Climate sensitivity we may get a viable output; depending on your figure for Climate sensitivity. It has about much effect as 100mm of rain. We need more for context. 100mm in 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week? Is the ground already saturated? Is it all runoff?

Can you expand on that? I don't see any argument as yet.  Why does Radiative forcing do nothing on its own, and what do you understand by climate sensitivity?

How does climate sensitivity relate to past observations of radiative forcing?

'As in previous IPCC assessments, AR5 uses the radiative forcing
1
(RF) concept, but it also introduces effective radiative forcing
2 (ERF). The RF concept has been used for many years and in previous IPCC assessments for evaluating and comparing the strength of the various mechanisms affecting Earth’s radiation balance and thus causing climate change. Whereas in the RF concept all surface and tropospheric conditions are kept fixed, the ERF calculations presented here allow all physical variables to respond to perturbations except for those concerning the ocean and sea ice. The inclusion of these adjustments makes ERF a better indicator of the eventual temperature response. ERF and RF values are significantly different for anthropogenic aerosols due to their influence on clouds and on snow cover. These changes to clouds are rapid adjustments and occur on a time scale much faster than responses of the ocean (even the upper layer) to forcing. RF and ERF are estimated over the industrial era from 1750 to 2011 if other periods are not explicitly stated.
[8.1; Box 8.1; Figure 8.1] '

climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter08.pdf

However it is clear from this and other references that Radiative Forcing is NOT a measurement but a calculation or even an estimate.

If this is not so please point me in the right direction where I can find Measurement by observation

Would you regard gravitational force as being a measurement or a calculation?

Anyway Climatology 101:

ftp://ftp.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/spb/lzhou/AMS86/PREPRINTS/PDFS/100737.pdf



Quote:

P1.7 MEASUREMENTS OF THE RADIATIVE SURFACE FORCING OF CLIMATE W.F.J. Evans*, Northwest Research A ssociates, Bellevue, WA / Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario and E. Puckrin, Defense R&D Canada-Valcartier, Val-Belair, Quebec

from the link you provided-

"The simulated emission of these other gases is represented by curve B in Figure 2. "

So we simulate one figure subtract it from another figure and we get reality?

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2013 at 5:40pm:

from the link you provided- "The simulated emission of these other gases is represented by curve B in Figure 2. " So we simulate one figure subtract it from another figure and we get reality?

You're getting way ahead of yourself. Learn the basics.  Answer some of the questions I asked you (which you ignored.) That should prompt you to do some  research.

You're trying to run before you can walk, and you're tripping over your own feet.

Would you regard gravitational force as being a measurement or a calculation?

Gravitational force is a calculation, based on observation and measurement.

if the age for the Ice core data for CO2 is wrong, as has been postulated, where does that leave pre-industrial CO2 levels as a basis for calculating Climate Change?

What about electrical current then?

How much does lee charge for tutoring?  8-)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 28^th, 2013 at 11:31pm:

How much does lee charge for tutoring?  8-)

You too could have an NFI (hons) in Climatology.  ;D

Of course for a calculation based on measurement and observation must have both the measurement and the observation "True", for the calculation to be "True".

Are we talking Conventional or Electron flow theory? :)

Lol, is lee trying to have a conversation or go over everyone's head?  :-?

lee wrote on Nov 29^th, 2013 at 10:45am:

Of course for a calculation based on measurement and observation must have both the measurement and the observation "True", for the calculation to be "True". Are we talking Conventional or Electron flow theory? :)

To help you release your current brain knot, virtually all measurements have a calculation component. Even with measuring electrical current, the dimensions in the coils of the meter must be calculated and the properties of the conducting material must be included in that calculation.

To say that it's a calculation and not a measurement is disingenuous, perhaps not on your part, but on the part of Anthony Watts, who has the intelligence to know better. (Intelligence and dishonesty generally don't work well together.)

The deconstruction process starts by dismissing a measurement as a calculation, then by equating a calculation with a model. Very shonky indeed.

Radiative forcing is a measurement.

Which came first the chicken or the egg? Was a calculation down and then a meter built? Did we have a meter that served no purpose until we came up with the idea of measuring current flow and potential difference?

The idea always comes first.

And then? The calculation or the meter?

lee wrote on Nov 30^th, 2013 at 2:24pm:

Which came first the chicken or the egg? Was a calculation down and then a meter built? Did we have a meter that served no purpose until we came up with the idea of measuring current flow and potential difference?

Lol, you're circling around the uncertainty principle whilst pretending not to!  ;D

lee wrote on Nov 30^th, 2013 at 7:10pm:

And then? The calculation or the meter?

Refer to Reply 33.