Sunday, November 10, 2019

Fires, drought and climate change within New England

The land has been on fire. Across the broader New England fires have raged with loss of property and life. ABC Coffs Coast reproduced a poem by Armidales' Troy Gerdes based on I love a sunburnt country that caught the situation.

"I love a Sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains.
But I’ve gotta tell ya mate, I like it better when it rains.
The countryside is dying and there’s just no end in sight, and just to rub salt in the wounds, the bush has caught alight.
The landscape is on fire from Brisbane to the Gong
And everybody’s asking “where the hell did we go wrong?
But we can get through this one if we help each other out, take care of your neighbour , that’s what Aussies are about.
The rain is going to fall again , the good times will return. But living in Australia means at times it’s going to burn.
So if you need a helping hand, just give a mate a call. We’re all here to help you out and catch you when you fall.
The RFS, the SES, the Firies, and police, all put their lives upon the line to help to keep the peace.
So hats off to these heroes and thanks for all you do
And I hope when this is over we can make it up to you!"

The fires have been dreadful. Last night's NBN News, (the link is to NBN News general site; I couldn't find the specific story), contained some of the most gripping and dramatic coverage that I have ever seen. They deserve an award for the coverage.

Community reaction to the fires has been truly remarkable in terms of those who fought and those that responded to events in whatever way they could. 

I would have followed the story anyway, but now living back in the area  I followed with particular interest. Exactly where were the fires, what did it all mean, who did I know who lived in the immediate area? I followed the social media feeds from people I knew especially on the Tablelands wondering if changing wind directions would bring the fires towards them.

The fires have become caught up in the debate about climate change especially among the political warriors of left and right, but also among worried citizens.

The fires have been hailed, if that's the right word, as exceptional, a much misused word, evidence for climate change. This has led to responses pointing out, correctly, that there have been worse fires and that the fires of themselves prove nothing.

The problem with these generalised discussions is that they lack practical content. If anything, they sidetrack discussion on the problems we face.

To avoid becoming caught in unnecessary arguments over climate change, I suppose that I should make my own position clear. 

As an historian, I am well aware that climate varies over time. As a simple example, sea levels have varied by around 130 metres over the last 100,000 years. I therefore have no problem with the idea that the climate may change. Indeed, I would expect it.

I also find the idea of human induced climate change intuitively plausible because I find it hard to see how the pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution could not have an effect. I accept too, if cautiously, that part of the effects of climate change is likely to be increased variability in climate, more extreme events. However, this is where my problem with some of the discussion on the New England fires comes in.

Climate change is a macro problem and has to be dealt with first at that level. This requires action to limit the emission of green house gases.

My personal preference here has been some form of carbon tax because it provides a market mechanism. The tax could have been set low and then adjusted as more evidence became available. Among other things, this would have taken a lot of the heat out of the debate over coal.

This is a macro debate. Accepting that climate change is happening, it is already clear that the effects will be a geographically distributed, creating a pattern of winners and losers. If one is going to respond in a sensible way to things like changes to the risk of fire in a particular area, one has to know what the changes might be. Otherwise discussion becomes sound and fury signifying nothing. Generalised statements won't cut it except at a very high level of generality. 

This is where the debate over the Northern fires come adrift. They lack real policy content because we just don't know what the specific effects of climate change might be in the broader New England. Here I want to put forward a specific hypothesis based on history over the last few thousand years that is potentially testable by those more knowledge in climatology than me.

Northern NSW is generally wetter than Southern NSW. The reason for that is that the area lies in the overlap between northern and southern weather systems. The dividing line is traditionally based on a line running inland from around Port Macquarie. South of that line, southern patterns dominate. North of that line to the Queensland border, systems overlap. Further north, northern weather patterns dominate.

I accept that this simple analysis is a gross generalisation. I stick my head up with a degree of trepidation. However, given all this, what happens if the effect of climate change is to move the northern systems north, the southern systems south? The result is likely to be a drought/fire zone in what was a previously a relatively well watered area.

9 comments:

Winton Bates said...

The best comment I have seen so far on the possible link to climate change is that a one degree increase in average world temperature could be expected to make bush fires more frequent and more damaging. However, that probably just shifts the debate to the accuracy of the one degree measurement.

Rod H said...

The uncertainty around climate change and what might be expected is very difficult. You are correct in pointing out the fires are not proof of anthropogenic climate change.

I will however, respond to Winton, if I may... An increase in temperature does not necessarily mean an increase in bushfire intensity and frequency, the converse may actually be true. Increasing temperatures (especially sea temperatures) generally leads to more evaporation and therefore more precipitation. The conflict in effects and feedback 'loops' with regard to how the climate will change (either due to natural or artificial causes) is far beyond our ability to understand.

oldphart said...

Thanks for your thoughts Jim.

As someone who has some knowledge of Climate Science, I do contest a couple of things.

Bushfires are showing signs of getting more severe as our standard control methods begin to fail. Largely due to Global warming, the winter controlled burning period is shrinking, leaving considerable areas at higher risk of catastrophic fires. This is happening Australia wide and is independent of local weather and the current drought.

We understand the science of wildfires much more than we did even 30 years ago but that is being counteracted by both the current drought which has resulted in the fuel loads in even the wet coastal forests being very dry and dangerously combustible.

Climate change, which I prefer to call global warming is not only scientifically proven but long term effects are showing up in a variety of places from the melting of polar icecaps to the warming and acidification of the oceans. This is fast becoming a real emergency which needs immediate and radical action. The costs are rising and the more we delay the greater the cost.

Jim Belshaw said...

Thank you all for your comments. I phrased what i said fairly carefully and localised it. Are the weather patterns in Northern NSW changing? I put a specific hypothesis here for test based on my historical knowledge.

The problem with macro arguments about climate change (I see global warming as one element) is that they have limited action content beyond the argued need to reduce green house gas emissions to minimise global adverse consequences. This is an important issue but a global one.

Starting from my premise that climate change is occurring, not all agree with that, it is clear that the effects are geographically as well as time variable. Rod pointed to some issues here because climatic and weathers conditions are a complex system. This gives rise to a problem in policy terms because most discussion on impacts and policy responses are based on a application of generalised responses. They can give rise to silly conclusions that lead to bad policy responses and have the adverse effect of discrediting elements that are sensible. A lot of water stuff is a case in point.

So I want to know what evidence, if any, exists for my hypothesis. recognising the uncertainties involved. I make no apologies for being parochial. How, on earth, can I advocate sensible responses for the broader New England if we don't have a sensible regional framework within which to work?



Crissouli said...

CONGRATULATIONS!
Your blog has been included in INTERESTING BLOGS in FRIDAY FOSSICKING at

https://thatmomentintime-crissouli.blogspot.com/2019/11/friday-fossicking-22nd-nov-2019.html

Thank you, Chris

Thank you for a balanced presentation about all we are facing... I will leave others to express their opinions, but your post was chosen as it portrays the devastation all around us.

Johnb said...

My personal observation is that the public debate would have been better understood if the terminology used had stuck with “The Greenhouse Effect”. The atmospheric physics as to the how the Earth’s atmosphere retains sufficient of the Sun’s heat as is necessary for the emergence of Carbon based life forms has been well understood since the 19thC. Climate Change is but a consequence of atmospheric change generated from the Physics underlying the Greenhouse Effect. The two primary factors involved in retaining heat within a controlled atmosphere are CO2 and water vapour with CO2 the dominant. Current Human societies are without doubt increasing the CO2 values present in Earth’s atmosphere via our combustion of archeo Carbon locked over Geological time into both Coal and Oil. We are releasing Carbon back into the Commons of the atmosphere within human life times not Geological time to predictable effect. Increased heat applied to a gas or liquid state increases turbulence. Applying the knowledge of the Water Cycle imparted to most of us in Primary School increased heat also increases evaporation from a body of water which in turn increases the water vapour present in said atmosphere. Increased turbulence changes established weather patterns, increased water vapour gives somebody rain of Biblical proportions on a quite random basis. Climate Change doesn’t arrive with a label round its neck or a tag in its ear, hence we see endless obfuscation and debate, the demonstrable Physics of the Greenhouse Effect provides a sound platform for policy and actions.

Jim Belshaw said...

I'm sorry for the very slow response, John. I think that's a good analysis John. I was especially struck by the water vapour component.

Unknown said...

https://zimnative.com/blogs/historical-sites-and-ancient-ruins

Jim Belshaw said...

I'm sorry for my slow response!!!!! I have bookmarked your site.