If the U.S. media refuse to make the connection between record breaking wildfire, drought, and heat waves and human-caused global warming, why would anyone be surprised if the U.S. public doesn’t put it as a higher priority or make the connection itself (see here)?
Australia knows it’s facing climate-driven impacts that threaten it with complete collapse (see here). AFP (French international media) get this: “Australian wildfire ferocity linked to climate change: experts.” So does Reuter’s climate change correspondent in Asia: “Australia fires a climate wake-up call: experts.”
I saw the CNN and ABC stories, and you can read the AP’s stories, which have been published in the Washington Post and NY Times (though the NYT redeemed itself, see below). The media love a good calamity of Biblical proportion:
“Hell in all its fury has visited the good people of Victoria,” Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told reporters as he toured the fire zone on Sunday.
But for the vast majority of the U.S. media, you won’t find any mention of global warming driven heat wave or drought as the underlying cause of this calamity. ABC’s Charles Gibson said “the worst wildfires in Australian history” were “part natural disaster” and “part man-made crime” because arson is suspected in some of the fires. No, Charlie, the natural disaster is not entirely natural, so this is mostly a man-made crime.
The AP story in the Washington Post ends lamely:
Wildfires are common during the Australian summer. Government research shows about half of the roughly 60,000 fires each year are deliberately lit or suspicious. Lightning and people using machinery near dry brush are other causes.
Contrast that to AFP, which leads their story with:
Australia is naturally the most fire-prone continent on earth but climate change appears to be making the wildfires that regularly sweep across the country more ferocious, scientists said Monday.
The story also contains the warning:
Research by the Bureau of Meteorology and the government science organisation CSIRO predicts the number of days when bushfires pose an extreme risk in southeastern Australia could almost double by 2050 under a worst-case climate change scenario.
The Reuters Asia story notes:
Some analysts say the fires were predictable and that climate scientists have been warning for years about Australia’s vulnerability to rising temperatures and declining rainfall across much of the nation’s south.
”I would compare this current bushfire event to one of the ghosts in Dickens’ Christmas Carol that visits Scrooge and showed him what his future would be like if he didn’t change his ways,” said professor Barry Brook, director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide.
Hmm. Maybe Prof. Brook reads ClimateProgress (see here). I’ll have to track down his email address and send him a query.
As an aside, while one part of Australia is burning like “Hell in all its fury,” some readers note the incredible flooding in Queensland: “60 percent of the state is under water!”
WATER water everywhere ... gigalitres of water gush over the Burdekin Falls Dam spillway as rain relentlessly falls on far north Queensland.
See, for instance, the story, “Far north Queensland in chaos after heavy flooding.”
So, yes, the point of this semi-digression is that Australia is simultaneously experiencing hell and high water.
The New York Times ran a much better story today than their earlier AP-inspired stories, no doubt because “Andrew C. Revkin contributed reporting from New York.” The story noted:
The firestorms and heat in the south revived discussions in Australia of whether human-caused global warming was contributing to the continent’s climate woes of late—including recent prolonged drought in some places and severe flooding last week in Queensland, in the northeast.
Climate scientists say that no single rare event like the deadly heat wave or fires can be attributed to global warming, but the chances of experiencing such conditions are rising along with the temperature. In 2007, Australia’s national science agency published a 147-page report on projected climate changes, concluding, among other things, that “high-fire-danger weather is likely to increase in the southeast.”
The flooding in the northeast and the combustible conditions in the south were consistent with what is forecast as a result of recent shifts in climate patterns linked to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, said Kevin Trenberth, a scientist at the United States National Center for Atmospheric Research.
So kudos to the NYT for a much more complete story then most everyone else in the U.S. media. Too bad the story is on page A9, the paragraphs cited are at the very end, and the headline is “Australia Police Confirm Arson Role in Wildfires.”
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Threaded
amazingdrx Posted 8:35 pm
10 Feb 2009
Where will it happen first? Australia or LA?
It will gave to go on until mother nature puts it out, with human intervention finally seen as totally fuitless. At this point it seems inevitable.
From wiki:
A firestorm is a conflagration which attains such intensity that it creates and sustains its own wind system. It is most commonly a natural phenomenon, created during some of the largest bushfires, forest fires, and wildfires. The Great Peshtigo Fire and the Ash Wednesday fires are two examples of a firestorm. Firestorms can also be deliberate effects of targeted explosives such as occurred as a result of the aerial bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, Stalingrad, Tokyo, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and The Blitz during World War II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestorm
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
archigeek Posted 1:22 am
11 Feb 2009
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
newsnerd Posted 3:39 am
11 Feb 2009
"'I would compare this current bushfire event to one of the ghosts in Dickens' Christmas Carol that visits Scrooge and showed him what his future would be like if he didn't change his ways,' said professor Barry Brook, director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide."
Newsy.com compared the coverage from a broad range of video and print reports, but their coverage doesn't mention global warming or climate change either.
http://www.newsy.com/videos/australia_s_darkest_day/
Is this really a case of corporate bias or just poor parachute journalism combined with poor science and environmental journalism across the board?
A musing from the corner cubicle.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 4:14 am
11 Feb 2009
There is plenty of excellent environmental journalism out there (e.g., High Country News). There is plenty of good science out there (e.g., IPCC). The problem is big corporate dollars, which show no particular enthusiasm for supporting either. (And, frankly, why should they, if it will hurt their bottom-line over the next few quarters or years?)
Which is why it is a major, major mistake to leave all cable 'news' delivery (newsertainment?) and health-care services and education and prescription-drug businesses to be solely in the unregulated hands of the private sector ...
... that is, if we want to hold on to an informed and fully participatory democracy. (Which I happen to want.)
All the above said, there is a tendency these days to ascribe every flood or drought or fire or hurricane to the effects of global warming. Of course the frequencies/probabilities of those events change with global warming, but you can't ascribe any individual event to that specific cause. When we do, we risk undermining public credibility.
Permalink
Chris Harries Posted 11:39 am
11 Feb 2009
The poor folk of Victoria were subject to a week with temperatures in the mid 40s (Celsius) - I think that's somewhere up around 115 degrees F. Add wild winds and the fire-prone nature of the Australian bush and we had conditions close to spontaneous combustion. We've had them bad before, but this bushfire was totally without precedence.
Angry victims understandably want to blame somebody, so the spectre of the fire bug is raised and then this spectre dominates the airwaves.
I can't blame climate change automatically, but we have to bear in mind these events are entirely in accordance with the forecasts of climate experts. The evidence is no longer circumstantial.
Australia is the canary-in-the-coal-mine when it comes to climate change. Many parts of our country have become too inhospitable or too uninhabitable to live in.
Permalink
gogreener Posted 12:16 pm
11 Feb 2009
---- ---- ----
Go Greener, Australia - you know you want to.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 12:32 pm
11 Feb 2009
When the 3-day heatwave hit Melbourne at the end of January, there were a lot of asinine comments connecting it to AGW. For instance our great federal minister of that stuff; Penny Wong made that connection, but I suspect that 18 months (?) ago, when she was not "the authority", that she could not even spell anthropogenic!
When various climate experts and that "qualified climate scientist" Joe Romm made the AGW connection to serious infrastructure failures in Melbourne, they overlooked the fact that Adelaide's heatwave was much worse both in temperature and duration, and yet they did not have such failures. (For instance, Melbourne train services collapsed in a big way because of buckled rail-lines. It turned out that since Melbourne rail was privatised, the scheduled program of replacing old rotten timber railway sleepers had fallen badly behind.... Even red-gum is inferior long-term to concrete!)
Speaking about Adelaide, which although much hotter for longer, it was nevertheless very quiet on the bushfire front etc, and how about this exquisite gem:
Atmospheric scientist Warwick Grace... ...South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) Climate Applications Unit claims:
"...Adelaide, with 15 days over 35 degrees, returns a one in 3,000 year event."... [yes 3 thousand... blah blah blah] ...The all-time national heatwave record was set in Marble Bar in northern Western Australia, which had 160 consecutive days at or above 37.8 degrees celsius (or 100 degrees fahrenheit) in the summer of 1923-24."
http://news.theage.com.au/national/adelaide-heatwave-one- ...
One of my favourite mountain towns only ~75 to 90 minutes away in my camper-van, (cruising); a winter base-camp for the Lake Mountain XC ski resort, and holiday destination for Melburnites to escape summer heat is apparently no more. It is still closed-off as an arson crime-scene. It has (had) magnificent forest walks and waterfalls, and scenic lookouts. Fortunately, most of it's inhabitants appear to have escaped, via a good road, one of three, in the right direction. Marysville was also one of my favourite places for "Sunday lunch"
Nearby my beloved Marysville, there are (were?) some groves of the largest hardwood trees in the world. (Eucalyptus Regnans, or Mountain Ash). They are awesome, and challenge the Californian redwoods. Unfortunately this eucalyptus, one of about 600 species, is unique (reportedly) in having no resistance to wildfire. There was a tragic case of Tasmanian Forestry killing the biggest giant a few years ago during a "controlled" burn-off, that was intended to reduce fire risk. I intend to post some magnificent photos of E. Regnans new growth forest from the massive 1.4 million hectare fire back in 1939 sometime, just to show that not all is lost to future generations.
Kinglake (and Kinglake West) was tragic. Atop the Kinglake Ranges, some ~30+ minutes north of me, it is almost on an escarpment, with difficult very narrow windy and dangerous roads climbing up it with sheer drop-offs to the side. Only one of them is sealed. There is a good east-west road along the top, but apparently this was roughly parallel with the fire-front. I saw video scenes of cars all piled-up on that road, and burnt-out. Kinglake and it's National Park and en route to Toolangi etc, is another favourite of mine
Prior to this wildfire (7 Feb) there were other fires on the go in Victoria NSW and S.A, but without strong winds. There were announcements that the conditions on that Saturday were predicted to be worse than the very tragic fires in Victoria and S.A. back in 1983. (75 killed and 2000+ homes destroyed and more). People were advised (5-6 Feb) to the effect; You must decide whether to stay and defend your assets, OR, you must leave in plenty of time, before the fire gets there. Boy, that is quite a matter of judgement eh.... All your belongings and home or business or livestock whatever at stake, and how quick-bad will it be?????
The situation is that despite all the tragic history of bush and grass fires, few seem to be aware. For instance, I have seen video of people hosing and beating-out flames wearing just shorts and shoes. (Radiant heat from flames at over 1,000 degrees C; Wot's that?) One young lady decided to run from her burning house but did not have time to put shoes on and suffered badly burnt feet!
Last night I was half listening to an expert on radio from an Oz university, before I pricked-up with, (paraphrasing): Staying to defend your house is OK because it only takes about 15 minutes for the flame front to pass. [Uh? No mention of wind speed or anything thought I]. Then he continued: So, if your house does catch fire, [despite your measures], just hang around as long as you can, and then make a dash for it, by which time the fire-front will have passed, and it will be OK, providing you have a plan and have cleared sustaining incendiaries such as loaded sheds or log piles whatever around your escape route. [And have predicted the correct direction to escape through the smoke etc]. This was after helicopter videos show whole townships totally burnt down! This expert deprecated the idea of dugout protection, because of the possibility of asphyxiation or toxic gasification.
I think I'll end with one question [asked on that thread]: Has anything been learnt from the long history of wildfires in Oz? The Victorian bushfires in 1939 were comparatively massive, and one of the lessons learnt was that low-tech dug-outs saved very many lives, providing that they not only protected the occupants from killer radiant heat, but also ensured adequate protection from toxic gases. There were big losses of life where there were no dugouts or the latter issue was not covered. The Royal Commission that followed recommended the simple use of dugouts to save human life in all fire-prone areas. How many lives have been saved since in dugouts? I have not seen any evidence of it!
In 1969, 17 people died in their cars, or running from their cars, on a straight four-lane highway, from a grass fire near me. Was anything learnt? I don't think so!
I'd better stop there.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:30 pm
11 Feb 2009
That of 1969 is by no means massive, but is unique and of memory to me because I was driven along that straight 4-lane highway during a heatwave, to take-up my new job in Geelong, right-off the plane from snow-bound South England, just weeks after that grassfire.
Some of these historical fires extended into other States, and other states have had their own separate major fires. Only the Victorian info is shown here.
The current tragic fire near me is actually modest in scope, (historically), but it had some bad hits on some towns with especially disastrous circumstances.
1851 - 6 February `Black Thursday'
Fires covered a quarter of what is now Victoria (approximately 5 million hectares). Areas affected include Portland, Plenty Ranges, Westernport, the Wimmera and Dandenong districts. Approximately 12 lives, one million sheep and thousands of cattle were lost.
1939 - 13 January 'Black Friday'
From December 1938 to January 1939, fires burnt 1.5 to 2 million hectares, including 800,000 hectares of protected forest, 600,000 hectares of reserved forest and 4,000 hectares of plantations. The fire severity peaked on Friday January 13 - "Black Friday". The fires caused seventy one fatalities and destroyed more than 650 buildings and the township of Narbethong. The findings of the Royal Commission that was held following the fires were highly significant in increasing fire awareness and prevention throughout Australia. [except that the most important recommendation of fire dug-outs (shelters) to save human life was as far as I can tell, not adopted]
1969 - 8 January
280 fires broke out on the 8th of January 1969. Of these, 12 grass fires reached major proportions and burnt 250,000 hectares. Areas seriously affected included Lara, Daylesford, Dulgana, Yea, Darraweit, Kangaroo Flat and Korongvale. Twenty-three people died, including 17 motorists at Lara, trapped on the Geelong to Melbourne freeway. The fires also destroyed 230 houses, 21 other buildings and more than 12,000 stock.
1983 - 16 February `Ash Wednesday'
Australia's most well-known bushfire event. Over 100 fires in Victoria burnt 210,000 hectares and caused forty seven fatalities. More than 27,000 stock and 2,000 houses were lost. Areas severely affected included Monivae, Branxholme, East Trentham, Mt Macedon, the Otway Ranges, Warburton, Belgrave Heights, Cockatoo, Beaconsfield Upper and Framlingham (see also Ash Wednesday
2003 - Eastern Victorian (Alpine) Fires
Eighty seven fires were started by lightning in the north east of Victoria on 8 January 2003. Eight of these fires were unable to be contained and joined together to form the largest fire in Victoria since the 1939 "Black Friday" bushfires. Burning for 59 days before being contained, the Alpine fires burnt over 1.3 million hectares, 41 homes and over 9,000 livestock, with thousands of kilometres of fencing also being destroyed.
BTW, some may remember that the massive Victorian bushfires of 2003 were associated with those in NSW and the ACT, but 1983 was much worse in terms of asset loss including up north:
The Canberra bushfires of 2003 caused severe damage to the outskirts of Canberra, the Australian capital city. Almost 70% of the Australian Capital Territory's pasture, forests and nature parks was severely damaged, and the renowned Mount Stromlo Observatory was destroyed. After burning for a week around the edges of the ACT, the fires entered the suburbs of Canberra on 18 January 2003. Over the next ten hours, four people died and more than 500 homes were destroyed or severely damaged, requiring a significant relief and reconstruction effort...
Permalink
PeterMartin Posted 4:09 pm
11 Feb 2009
According to the Australian BOM, who do incidentally provide excellent data on historical weather and climate, there are parts of central Australia which have been warming at 0.6 deg C per decade for the last 40 years.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps. ...
And where did the high winds originate which were responsible for recent record high temperatures in Melbourne and Adelaide?
Yes. Where else but central Australia.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:01 am
12 Feb 2009
It may be worth noting that the gap between the above bushfire events is: 88 years, 30 years, 14 years, and now 6 years. Which is what you'd expect, of course, if the Aussie climate was indeed getting warmer.
First of all, the 2008 list of major bushfire history in Victoria alone; (the smallest mainland state); is more substantial than just those I detailed above. Putting aside for the moment how to define the gravity of a bushfire, and what might cause it, these are the dates listed for Victoria alone for major fires. (It is probably true to say that there are fires somewhere every year, that are relatively less serious)
1851, 1898, Early 1900's# (1905, 1906, 1912, 1914, and 1919), 1926, 1932, 1939, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1952, 1962, 1965, 1968, 1969, 1972, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1997, 1998, 2002, 2003 [and now; 2009]. Those in bold are the ones I selected. # ~1898 to ~1914 was a period of massive drought.
The estimated size of the current bushfires so far is reportedly about 330,000 hectares, compared with 210,000 on Ash Wednesday + another less tragic 216,000 nearby in 1983, 1.3 million in 2003, (that's without NSW and the tragic ACT fires), 1.4 - 2.0 million in tragic 1939, and 5 million in 1851.
So, the tragedy of bushfires tends to be measured not in terms of their size, but in human life and assets loss.
In the current fires, it is a matter of chance that those townships-no-more were in their paths. Kinglake near me was particularly tragic, but it could be argued that it is perfectly designed for fire disaster when there is a northerly wind, because the long escape road is parallel to the fire-front, atop what is almost an escarpment.
Once fires are started, commonly by lightning, (and ignoring the plight of the fire-fighters themselves), those 1,000+ degree centigrade flames pay little head to the ambient temperature. The speed and ferocity of a bushfire front is exponentially related to wind speed. As I write, it has been rather cool right now and ever since the 8th, but I just heard on the radio, that residents in parts of Healesville should be alert for ember attack. So, around there, the wind seems to have picked-up. (perfectly still here ~40 minutes away by car)
The savagery of these fires has been from a combination of circumstances, but primarily strong northerly wind, followed by very dangerous southerly reversal as a cool front came through. Other factors include fuel accumulation and adequate planning etc, but all other things being equal, there does NOT appear to be any connection between global warming and wind speed. (or lightning strikes or arsonists).
You also wrote:
According to the Australian BOM, who do incidentally provide excellent data on historical weather and climate, there are parts of central Australia which have been warming at 0.6 deg C per decade for the last 40 years.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps. ...
And where did the high winds originate which were responsible for recent record high temperatures in Melbourne and Adelaide? Yes. Where else but central Australia.
I hope you are not suggesting that the high winds from the desert heart were a consequence of the temperatures there.
It is actually the consequence of high and low pressures systems moving across typically from west to east. The closer together that the isobars are, the stronger the wind. A case in point was the recent SE heatwave, where there was mercifully almost no wind.
Otherwise, I have no difficulty with what you wrote, but I think you need to understand the Bob_FJ post over at Harmless Sky, concerning the magnitude of anomalous temperature regional variation. That post will probably appear here shortly, dare I say.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:47 pm
12 Feb 2009
Meanwhile, as further clarification on your following comment:
It may be worth noting that the gap between the above bushfire events is: 88 years, 30 years, 14 years, and now 6 years. Which is what you'd expect, of course, if the Aussie climate was indeed getting warmer.
Out of the original list of nearly 30 major bushfires in Victoria alone, since 1850, I picked five, upon which you made the above observation.
That of 1969 was a particularly memorable shock to me because of the tragedy of 17 people dying from a grass fire, just weeks earlier, on the first four lane highway I had travelled on immediately after getting off the plane from England. This particular fire was atypical of all other major fires.
That of 2003 was of truly massive proportions, somewhat like that of 1939, and of long duration in Victoria. However, unlike the tragic 1939 fires, no human lives were lost, and it is largely forgotten in Victoria except by mountain and bush-lovers.
Thus, I might just as well have excluded these two atypical fires from my list of five:
1969 - 8 January
280 fires broke out on the 8th of January 1969. Of these, 12 grass fires reached major proportions and burnt 250,000 hectares. Areas seriously affected included Lara, Daylesford, Dulgana, Yea, Darraweit, Kangaroo Flat and Korongvale. Twenty-three people died, including 17 motorists at Lara, trapped on the Geelong to Melbourne freeway. The fires also destroyed 230 houses, 21 other buildings and more than 12,000 stock.
2003 - Eastern Victorian (Alpine) Fires
Eighty seven fires were started by lightning in the north east of Victoria on 8 January 2003. Eight of these fires were unable to be contained and joined together to form the largest fire in Victoria since the 1939 "Black Friday" bushfires. Burning for 59 days before being contained, the Alpine fires burnt over 1.3 million hectares, 41 homes and over 9,000 livestock, with thousands of kilometres of fencing also being destroyed. Areas affected include Mt Buffalo, Bright, Dinner Plain, Benambra and Omeo.
Then we would have had for the big ones:
1851, 1939, 1983, and the one now in progress. (please pray for low winds)
So what were your sums, and conclusions again?
Permalink
BobFJ Posted 6:08 pm
13 Feb 2009
Max and Peter Martin have exchanged views on whether the recent tragic wildfires in Victoria [SE Australia] have any connection with global warming. Also, whether the recent very high temperatures in the SE region have any such connection. Yesterday, I compiled the following graphic of temperature anomalies, (Per Oz BOM, relative to 1969-1990 average), which I feel should help clarify the issue. Here are some relevant points:
In 1939 the Melbourne max temperature was recorded at 45.6C (BTW, Adelaide was 46.1C in 1939) compared with recently at 46.4. One question is: are we comparing apples with apples... See 2) UHI effect, or even if the Melbourne temperature is all that relevant to the mountain areas where most of the severe bushfires occur.
(Quoting): "Victoria's population [the smallest mainland state] is drawn from some 160 different nationalities and number around 4.7 million people. Of this state total, Melbourne's population is about 3.8 million people." I can't find a population number for the 1930's, but Melbourne exploded by about 1 million Greek and Italian immigrants alone, shortly after WW2, and more recently with changed immigration policy, Asians now comprise over 16% of the Melbourne population. Back in 1861, Melbourne's population reached 125,000. In recent years its growth exponentially exceeded Sydney, and in not many years Melbourne is expected to be bigger than Sydney
I argue that the SE temperatures reached in both 1939, (See 1), and recently are exceptionally abnormal, and are nothing to do with AGW. It may also be that there is a UHI effect in the recent numbers for the city, which was much smaller, and of lower density [e.g. without skyscrapers] and energy consumption back in 1939.
The [recent] HOT anomalies of up to and over 12C, are truly massive compared to the global land anomalies as published by Hadley and GISS. There is no rationale that I'm aware of that can make a connection to AGW!
At the same time as the hot anomalies there were [also] cold anomalies up to and over 12C, and just by eyeballing it would seem that the average max temperatures of the entire continent seems to have remained somewhat stable. [or uniform/ rather constant]
A logical explanation of why there is a regional [interchanging] variation in distribution, is very simple: It is a matter of wind direction. (This can be seen [similarly] in the harsh weather recently in USA, associated with cold winds from up north) In Australia, the central desert regions are very hot, and northerly winds from that area heats the south. However, when a weather front crosses from the west, the wind direction reverses, and if the wind is strong, temperatures can drop in minutes some 20 or even 30 degrees C! (as it did on [wildfire] 7 Feb in Melbourne)
In that latter situation, wildfire risk is heightened, (even though cooler) because the diminished flanks of fires may turn into a new strong front, more so in mountainous areas with directional wind swirl and gusting.
The sustained period of heat [somewhat] prior to 7 Feb, [the heatwave] per se on the graphs, would seem to suggest much greater [fire] risk, but it was a slow moving high pressure system with low wind speeds, and the fires that existed then were relatively benign.
There were strong winds on 7 Feb, and a common radio warning was: The following communities... ... should be alert to ember attack. This is also known as "spotting", where embers are blown ahead of the main front and start new fires. Another effect of wind is the compound effect of the flames leaning forward and superheating the fuel ahead of the front, so wind is the big factor, once fires start by lightning or arson whatever. [Another effect of wind can also be likened to that of bellows blowing more air (oxygen) into a blacksmith's charcoal fire, which is otherwise subdued without it]
Concerning the alleged heightened risk of very high danger with very high ambient temperature, I would say that this is over-played, other than in it gets very tough for the fire-fighters themselves. Once lightning or arsonists have done their work, I find the idea of a few degrees C [ in ambient temperature]having much contribution to flames burning and superheating fuel ahead at over 1,000C, a touch trivial.
BTW: Temperatures have since been below average, and winds relatively modest, and it is only this morning [12 Feb ], that authorities are saying things are currently under control. (some threats removed or on hold to townships). Some significant rains overnight helped too. [However, today; 14 Feb, some new threats are evolving, despite below average temperatures... ]
Please click the link to the following graphic illustration of temperature anomalies:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3326/3273333142_1b04be86b1 ...
Listen to good news
Permalink
Backcut Posted 5:04 am
14 Feb 2009
These Aussie fires will be mirrored here in the US for the same reasons as down in Oz. "Green" Americans are against any human intervention in our forests, just as Aussie greens were. This ongoing American disaster cannot be stopped but, we CAN mitigate impacts and avoid deaths.
C'mon Obama. Get to it!!
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
BobFJ Posted 5:16 pm
27 Feb 2009
Do you have any reponses to the realities that I have described to you?
Listen to good news
Permalink