"Hot" Topic - Iconic Photo

Photo taken by Matthew Abbott on assignment for the New York Times. Scrolling down a little in the link there is a critique of the image and story more or less, behind the taking of the shot.

 

Link ...

This is the Most Iconic Image of the Australian Wildfires

 

The location was a long way further south than my residence, but that was little comfort because the largest and longest duration fire was in a locality very close to me and my concerned neighbors. It was in the same area as the famous Jurassic or "dinosaur" Wollemi Pines, which were discovered in 1994. The pines, deep in a gorge and protected by a sprinkler system, were unaffected by fires raging all around them.

 

Another fire, even closer, only a half a mile or less away, was extinguished by water bombing helicopters before it became a danger to us but I got a shot of that distant fire in the night time before the 'copters put it out. It was up on a ridge and it formed part of a ring of fire right around. It's not much of a shot, I used zoom on my compact digital and there's camera movement and whatever else. In the day time, the flames weren't visible because of thick smoke. One positive about the thick smoke is that politicians had to breath it in along with everyone else, so we might be lucky enough to get a better fire prevention action plan in the future.

 

 

Fire on ridge 1/2 mile away from my residence

I read a lot about arson. Why would anyone do that? Was there some misguided agenda?

kmac, the photos will be as good as the call to action that results from their viewing which, like you, I hope will be heard. Otherwise, iconic photos of the fire are just watching a well-lit, well-composed, pathos-laden train wreck. Good luck and please stay safe! Edited January 18, 2020 by samstevens

kmac, the photos will be as good as the call to action that results from their viewing which, like you, I hope will be heard. Otherwise, iconic photos of the fire are just watching a well-lit, well-composed, pathos-laden train wreck. Good luck and please stay safe!

 

Early warnings were ignored, they were based on severe drought conditions, high temperature forecasts for our summer this year, excessive fuel on the ground and, dare I say it, climate change. Some arsonists did their trick too, as in the past causing havoc, penalties must be too lenient

 

At times it was like watching a blockbuster movie. One community had no where to go but into the sea leaving everything behind, the Navy rescued them and took them to a safer place

 

Rain in the last two days has eased things a bit, but some fires are still out of control

Scary, @kmac! I can't imagine what it would like seeing a bushfire so close to home. Like Sam, I hope you stay safe!

 

I was surprised to read on the BBC website how many factors contributed towards the bushfires being worse this summer than in recent years.

 

Again, stay safe!

 

Mike

Scary, @kmac! I can't imagine what it would like seeing a bushfire so close to home. Like Sam, I hope you stay safe!

 

I was surprised to read on the BBC website how many factors contributed towards the bushfires being worse this summer than in recent years.

 

Again, stay safe!

 

Mike

 

 

We're pretty safe now Mike thanks. Yeah when a fire is close, all you can think about is how much closer will it get, and how quickly can I grab some treasured items to make a hurried exit.

 

Currently it's raining over wide areas here now, much to the delight of firefighters and farmers. If this rain persists, it may just break the drought and put an end to the fires, answering a lot of prayers

 

News photographers were out and about everywhere capturing many scary shots. I don't know how they got permission to go into those dangerous areas, even evacuated residents were banned from re-entering until given permission to go back in to grieve over their burnt out homes or collect any belongings still intact that they could find.

 

Link ....

bush fire - Bing images (hope the link works for you, give it a try)

"Iconic" this iconic that. The most over used and cliched adjective. Still at least we seem to have stopped saying "synergy". Bushfires in OZ are obviously tragic...

Early warnings were ignored, they were based on severe drought conditions, high temperature forecasts for our summer this year, excessive fuel on the ground and, dare I say it, climate change.

 

"Climate change" is the catch-all excuse politicians and bureaucrats use to deflect attention from their own malfeasance, incompetence and ignorance. The dangers of drought, high temperatures and excessive fuel on the ground are well known to those who have paid attention, a prime example of that being some of the disastrous forest and brush fires we have experienced in California over the last 2 decades. The politicians and bureaucrats simply devote their energies elsewhere, and when a debacle like this happens, they use it as an excuse to demand more power and tax money.

"Climate change" is the catch-all excuse politicians and bureaucrats use to deflect attention from their own malfeasance, incompetence and ignorance. The dangers of drought, high temperatures and excessive fuel on the ground are well known to those who have paid attention, a prime example of that being some of the disastrous forest and brush fires we have experienced in California over the last 2 decades. The politicians and bureaucrats simply devote their energies elsewhere, and when a debacle like this happens, they use it as an excuse to demand more power and tax money.

 

When the best scientists are saying that human caused climate change is a real and is exacerbating the problems with wildfires, wouldn't it be malfeasance, incompetence, and ignorance for the politicians and the bureaucrats not to do anything about it?

 

If you're not going to listen to the scientists who are you going to listen to? Again, I'm not saying that these wildfires are exclusively caused by climate change, but the hot weather clearly makes things much worse.

When the best scientists are saying that human caused climate change is a real and is exacerbating the problems with wildfires

 

NAME those "best scientists" and please tell us EXACTLY what it is they claim. Come on, give us an executive summary along the lines of what level of atmospheric CO2 concentration presents a significant danger, what that danger is in QUANTITATIVE terms, and based on the current and steady concentration increase of 2ppm/year (which as been constant since 1960), how many years it will take us to get to that level. We can continue the discussion from there.

 

wouldn't it be malfeasance, incompetence, and ignorance for the politicians and the bureaucrats not to do anything about it?

 

It would certainly be such if they whip up hysteria about problems they really don't understand that well in the first place, and start pushing for policies that may either be over-reaction or don't really address the problem in question. I learned a long time ago that when politicians start working people up in a panic about something, its because they don't want people questioning them or examining the possible consequences of what they are proposing.

 

If you're not going to listen to the scientists

 

In fact, I have listened to a lot of scientists and academics about a number of things, and have given some of them the impression that I actually learned something about "science", enough that the University of California, Berkeley awarded me a Baccalaureate in Chemical Engineering some time ago. You want to discuss the specifics of "climate change"? I'm all for it, and would be happy to point out a number of areas where I am quite the skeptic of the chicken-little-we're-all-going-to-die crowd.

 

Your turn...

NAME those "best scientists" and please tell us EXACTLY what it is they claim. Come on, give us an executive summary along the lines of what level of atmospheric CO2 concentration presents a significant danger, what that danger is in QUANTITATIVE terms, and based on the current and steady concentration increase of 2ppm/year (which as been constant since 1960), how many years it will take us to get to that level. We can continue the discussion from there.

 

 

 

It would certainly be such if they whip up hysteria about problems they really don't understand that well in the first place, and start pushing for policies that may either be over-reaction or don't really address the problem in question. I learned a long time ago that when politicians start working people up in a panic about something, its because they don't want people questioning them or examining the possible consequences of what they are proposing.

 

 

 

In fact, I have listened to a lot of scientists and academics about a number of things, and have given some of them the impression that I actually learned something about "science", enough that the University of California, Berkeley awarded me a Baccalaureate in Chemical Engineering some time ago. You want to discuss the specifics of "climate change"? I'm all for it, and would be happy to point out a number of areas where I am quite the skeptic of the chicken-little-we're-all-going-to-die crowd.

 

Your turn...

 

Yes, I also have a BS degree and I'm smart enough to know that it doesn't qualify to make my own claims about Climate Science any more than a degree in Chemical Engineering does. Maybe if I it called a "Baccalaureate", it would sound more impressive and make my opinion more authoritative ;)

 

So I trust these organizations' conclusions more than I trust yours. No offense to chemical engineers. They can certainly play a role in coming up with solutions.

 

And no, the increase has not been a constant 2ppm / year:

 

 

 

FWIW, I don't think we're all going to die, but I think the impacts are and will be real. Some populations will be hit very hard, and it could lead to world wide economic and political instability. I don't think anyone can tell you what the exact consequences will be and what concentration of CO2 will lead to those consequences.

 

But, the potential consequences are serious enough that we should be doing something about it.

 

Not every idea is a good one and I don't think that a run of the mill politician is going to have a complete grasp of the issue. I agree with you there. But politicians should be listening to scientists more than to the fossil fuel industry.

 

Back in the late 90's did businesses and governments know exactly what the potential outcomes of the Y2K bug might be? No. But they knew they could be really bad, so they took action and spent billions of dollars address the problem.

Edited January 21, 2020 by tomspielman

to deflect attention from their own malfeasance, incompetence and ignorance

 

Yep . . . factors that may be partially responsible for climate change.

Ignorant or apathetic?

 

They don't know and they don't care.

 

We've already passed a goodly number of "tipping points" -- the only question now is whether we've crossed the line into run-away effects that are irreversible.

...

 

Back in the late 90's did businesses and governments know exactly what the potential outcomes of the Y2K bug might be? No. But they knew they could be really bad, so they took action and spent billions of dollars address the problem.

 

But the Y2K disaster fizzled out to be a big dud.

Every time I hear the term “global warming” and its revised for universal political expedience derivative “climate change”,

I am reminded of this little gem.

It perfectly illustrates political power utilizing religion and natural cycles to manipulate, extort, and control the masses......

Note the knowing glances between the conductors of the ritual.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmtttE3u1g0

Nature has a wonderful ability to correct Man’s oversteps.

And I trust Nature much more than a carbon credit based political system that continually demands more of me and less of itself.

 

 

As far as I’m concerned, I will do my part, live conservatively and practice leaving things a little better than I found them.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Moving On

Yes, I also have a BS degree and I'm smart enough to know that it doesn't qualify to make my own claims about Climate Science any more than a degree in Chemical Engineering does.

 

Please do tell me what comprises a "Climate Science" degree and what particular areas of study might be relevant: Thermodynamics? Chemical Kinetics? Heat and Mass Transfer? Inorganic carbon chemistry? All of those were part of the Chem E curriculim @ Cal.

 

Maybe if I it called a "Baccalaureate", it would sound more impressive and make my opinion more authoritative ;)

 

Feel free to share your academic credentials with us should you think that mine are inadequate to understand the basics of the subject at hand.

 

So I trust these organizations' conclusions more than I trust yours. No offense to chemical engineers. They can certainly play a role in coming up with solutions.

 

And no, the increase has not been a constant 2ppm / year:

 

In smoothing the data for the expected noise at a given point, the 2ppm value is relatively constant.

 

FWIW, I don't think we're all going to die, but I think the impacts are and will be real.

 

Vastly overstated, which is why the doom-and-gloom types refuse to respond with specifics.

 

But, the potential consequences are serious enough that we should be doing something about it.

 

We can "do something about it" once we have a grasp on a verifiable quantitative model and the time frame necessary to make such changes. Why is such info not presented directly? There's a reason, and it has a lot to do with the fact that the so-called runaway "hockey stick" model is total BS. The fact is that Nature has its own equilibrium mechanisms to deal with CO2 production, and those mechanisms are clearly in action. There has been an estimated 18-20x increase in the total man-made CO emissions since 1960, and a ~3,8x increase in annual emissions (2.5x increase in population x 1.5 increase in emissions per capita) YET the total increase of CO2 (a MINOR greenhouse gas, the most significant one is H2O) has only been 1.4x during that same time frame. Care to propose a mathematical model that explains where all the rest of that CO2 went? Clearly it doesn't all remain in the atmosphere and even a first-order rxn kinetics model grossly over-predicts that amount (we would have 1500ppm of CO2 if that were true). Do the math yourself - you will find that the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere as a function of production rate is more on the order of a CUBIC ROOT (x to the ~0.3 power). Hardly a runaway scenario there.

 

Not every idea is a good one and I don't think that a run of the mill politician is going to have a complete grasp of the issue. I agree with you there. But politicians should be listening to scientists more than to the fossil fuel industry.

 

What makes you think that scientists in academia are any more intelligent or intellectually honest that the scientists who work in industry? The latter have to actually prove themselves at one point to earn their keep.

As population of the globe grows, so do CO2 emissions, we all have to breathe after all:)

Populations growth rates are declining.......

One little virus.....

As population of the globe grows, so do CO2 emissions, we all have to breathe after all:)

 

You bring up another point that the eco-chicken-littles refuse to acknowledge, which is that the during the time that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased by 1.4 x, human population has increased by 2.5x. Approximately 10% of the annual CO2 production currently comes from human respiration, and given that the ratio of livestock to humans is about 1:1 on a weight basis, another 10% is the result of mammalian and avian respiration. Natural causes result in another appx 5-7%, and non-fuel-production related industrial processes (cement making, plastics/polymer/pharmaceuticals production, coke for steel, etc) result in a few percent more, so the actual CO2 produced by consumption of fossil fuels for energy generation purposes is about 2/3 of the total.

Edited January 22, 2020 by eb_kidd

Mod note -

 

Please - could we direct the conversation back to to something approaching "Casual Photo Conversations".

 

And we're not interested the personal debating of who has the biggest degree, either.

 

Ta.

 

William

Ignorant or apathetic?

 

They don't know and they don't care.

 

We've already passed a goodly number of "tipping points" -- the only question now is whether we've crossed the line into run-away effects that are irreversible.

 

Please describe what those "tipping points" are, and what you consider to be "irreversible".

I thought the whole climate change issue was centered around degrees....

;) Mississippi Burning.....

Edited January 22, 2020 by Moving On

kmac, I hope things are continuing to improve there and that life for you and your fellow citizens can get back to some semblance of normal and at least safety even if it has been and will be changed for some time to come. Here in California, where we've had our own share of horrible and fatal fires, the positive note I can report (and I hope and assume you've experienced this as well) is that the incredible and numerous fire squads, police, neighbors, volunteer cooks and medics and others from near and far have come together to help. The understanding, support, and empathy of others in a time of hardship is both life saving and of great consolation. All the best.

It goes without saying that yes, our friends in Australia and California have our support.