Separate names with a comma.
If you recently registered and have not received a confirmation email - please check your 'Spam or Junk' folders. Especially if your email is Hotmail. More help with confirmation issues
NOTE: This notice may be closed.
Discussion in 'Alpine & Southern' started by Jellybeans, Mar 1, 2019.
Imagine if windy was correct - just had a look at 7.30am today (Tuesday)
Imagine if mountain watch was correct
Well there is some lunatic on here predicting a 3m snow base before the end of July
Anyone else in the Sydney area dying from HR burns yesterday.
Just got back from a surf and I could hardly breathe bobbing around out the back. Sneezing and itchy eyes are now killing me.
Anyone else suffering?
Yeah, the city is very smoggy (I think that’s a word) this morning. I’m coughing like crazy this morning....
take a look at this nitrogen dioxide map from ESA
- explains poor air quality
The HR is about 500m from my parents place on the escarpment, I'm about 1500m as the crow flies. Its not the worst it's been at my place but it's up there. Still waiting for that research on the health effects from HR burns in Sydney and surrounds.
I am all ears, because I feel like I've smoked a pack of Stuyvos this morning already... Being an anti-smoker, I am filthy off it.
I don't get HR burns. You give everybody respiratory problems every year to save the odd house from burning down. Let the odd house burn down and let everyone enjoy the best seasons of the year in fresh air - IMO.
From Redfern looking to the city
I don't really get it either, particularly when the effectiveness of prescribed burns is tenuous at best and detrimental at worst. There are several cases of HR's that have run away and damaged properties as well over the years.
Anecdotally I have noticed a big increase in the number and duration of HR's in the Blue Mountains and Greater Sydney region over the last 5-6 years. Certainly the air quality problems seem to have gotten much worse and I find it unbeleivable that the research is not in place to assess the impact on those with respiratory issues at the very least.
Since the start of the EBMP in 2011:
The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) has carried out hazard reduction burns covering more than 680,000 hectares on NSW parks and reserves. This is more than double the previous 5-year total.
Yes. I had a surf at North Avalon early this morning and the smoke wasn’t as stingy in the eyes and throat as sometimes but I could definitely feel it.
I guess you can televise houses burning down but you can't televise the long slow deterioration of someone lungs. So we react to the spectacular only.
From the post above: centre point tower is now completely gone and I’ve take refuge inside
I think part of the problem is that the NPWS and RFS are tasked with protecting property and life but are not tasked with measuring the impact on the health of those they are trying to protect.
The Living with Fire in NSW National Parks strategy document makes no mention of the health implications from the air pollution caused by prescribed burns. Nor whether the air pollution from more intense but less frequent wild fires is better or worse as a result of the HR's. Nor strategies that might be used to reduce air pollution from burns. The fact that they have doubled the area burnt (and presumably shooting for an even larger area burnt in the future) without even considering these points is completely insane.
Can't help but feel RFS feel they have a right (not the obligation) to complete as many HR as possible because public perception is that it's the right thing to do.
Pretty windy AF in wollongong.
Smoke all blown on.
However... I reckon i've done 800kms driving around the basin over the last few days.
Its been horrid.
Sutherland shire has been the worst.
no wonder I've been feeling shit and sneezing/coughing when starting work in the mornings... frikkin HR smoke really gets into the system.
I dont know, I think that they have a tough job to do and that HR's are effective in most cases, especially around the fringes of the bush where people are most at risk. But the lack of research available or cited on their websites makes me dubious and the massive increase in not just the area burnt but the number of properties "protected" should surely take into account the potential health impacts. If they haven't even considered them then how can they measure them?
Bit going on in Africa
This is a problem with any process. Considering the overall impacts is done by noone. Everyone in their little department focusses on their little bit of speciality.
In development assessment for example:
We focus on effecting one frog and knock back a quarry. As a result rock has to be transported from 200kms further away meaning we generate a shitload more greenhouse gases to move rock to where it is needed. Causes climate change and we wipe out all frogs.
You can usually see the ocean to the east and the BMs to the west in Autumn, these HR burns can’t be good for the elderly and people with respiratory problems
There is...but thankfully the Snowies look alright
Funny little trough just offshore tomorrow evening.
Weak low that gets a mention in BoM's district forecast. To me looks like the mid-level remnants of that trough extending through the inland at the moment.
Some good instability once it hits the Tasman proper. Caught between the light low-level stuff and the jet. All offshore, doubt it'll touch the sides here for us.
I was hoping a wee bit of onshore action may occur.
This is typical of NPWS. It is a very callous Dept. when it comes to considering the social consequences of its operations. Raise any said matter with them and they fall into lockstep denial. Unfortunately the executive have contracts to meet, and which include include HR performance targets. HR annoy the shit out of me; notwithstanding their ill-health effects, one travels for 1000s of kms to see some of our country's beautiful places ... and what do I see, ... I would consider that HR as a property and life protection measure is increasingly becoming redundant given GW. Nothing could stop the Canberra or Victorian fires, the repeat of which we can only but anticipate.
Never know... but the light steering winds are nothing but Westies. Stranger things have happened, I guess.
Here’s an Autumn sunset looking towards the mountains tonight while we wait for the models to bed in. Can’t explain the line across the sky. It’s just how it was tonight......
Latest MJO summary has been released. The most consistent MJO circulation for 2019.
Special mentions to the ERW @rocketboy identified near the Date Line (last week). Worthy of a read HERE.
Axs-r showing 10mm for us.
GFS & EC both now (00z) showing some mid level directional shear. & light showers along the coast.
Touch and go. Still not so sure it'll come onshore.
Yeah its green on AXS-R...few splotches.
The 27.2C today was nice. The water temp is glorious, easily fine in boardies for over an hour and we are 10 days from winter!
The smoke, however, was not glorious.
The University of Sydney estimated (conservatively in its view) that HR caused 197 deaths and 1,200 hospitalisations in the city over a 12 year period 2001 to 2013.
I doubt HRs saved anywhere that number by reducing wild fire impacts. The article states that 77 deaths in NSW were directly attributed to bushfires in 110 years from 1901 to 2011, though to be fair, you would need to add on indirect deaths like those from the pollution of the wild fires to be comparing like with like (though to counteract that, this is for NSW whereas the HR death stat above is for Sydney only). In the end I'd be really surprised if deaths and hospitalisations from relatively uncommon uncontrolled events added up to more than the HR rate of death for the same area and length of time.
One would also have to be careful to assess the additional deaths in a wild fire - the majority of deaths may occur anyway even with controlled burns.
One HR ‘event’ in Sydney in May 2016 was estimated to have killed 14 and hospitalised 87.
This is madness.
Even if the net effect of HR is to save lives (and the vibe of the data I've seen is that it probably isn't), given it’d be a close-run thing, letting nature take its course rather than actively killing our own would be the more morally sound approach, not to mention a whole lot less effort and expense. And less annoying for everyone else who is inconvenienced multiple times per year.
I feel as though the current arrangement has deeply entrenched vested interests that no one can seem to break through.
Was 14 when I chose it... 19 years ago!
No arguments from me.
Well I was 31 when I chose mine
Now please no tradional smoking ceremonies for the rest of the week!Sydney where has it gone?
Gums leaves are go in Sydney!
But to the south....fine sunny settled weather continues for Melb.
The Indian Summer continues....no offence to Indians past are present!
Smoke haze over Sydney yesterday, as seen yesterday via the MODIS sensor oboard Terra.
Models now showing some Southerly steer.
But I still don't think we'll see much along our coast - perhaps a shower at best. I think the Northern Beaches& Newcastle coast may see a little more.
Potentially some storm way offshore though.
I wish I could find it, but I was reading some research a few months back pretty much showing areas that are having "fuel reduction burns" are in fact dryer and create more fuel from fallen limbs and the death of small trees etc than areas that are left in their natural state and get passed the stages of regrowth as after a while the ground will hold more moister and the correct balance restored after a period of time left on its own. The bush thickens after a burn with small trees ad shrubs sprouting to then die and leave more fuel. In other words, if it was left alone over a period of time, it would have about the same amount of fuel than burning it every 2 or 3 years etc, but it would have more moister in it than they do when burned all of the time.
They were also trying to link this to how this effects rain as generally forest environments create their own climate if left alone.
Note I am no expert in this, just trying to simply put forward what I read and I wish I could find this article/research again to post the link.
2 other things to consider - there would be less smoggy days, pollution output and health concerns by stopping it and the second thing is - If you chose to live near the bush because of its beauty etc, it is a reality that bush fires occur in Australia, so wanting it burnt off all of the time makes no sense, just move away from it if the concern out ways the benefits in your eyes.
If we chose to live on a river, do we try and reduce the flow of the river to try and stop it Flooding ? The fact of the matter is we get floods, so we don't other than try and control the dam level, but if a proper flood occurs, nothing stops it. I think the same goes with fires, you can try and burn and tinker with the bush to try and stop the effects if a fire starts, but in reality if the weather and timing suits, it doesn't matter if the bush has been recently burnt off, the fire would be burning twice the height of the trees and would burn quickly across grass 40mm high. In other words, if a force of nature is to occur as it did in Vic on black sat - no fuel reduction can stop something like that occurring.
sorry about the rant.
Also sorry off topic
Altocumulus Castellanus along the Sydney coast this morning, underpins the mid level instability around the Sydney region. But the fuse isn’t lit until it hits the coast this arvo.
I have some experience on this topic as it was my part of my research assignment while studying.
You are quite correct with your assertions. I live in the bush and do no burning at all. I use a rake a brush cutter and loppers and thats all I need to provide me with enough space around the house to provide a suitable barrier to slightly lesson a fires impact. I live in the bush because I want the bush.
On the weather another very warm May day here in Bywong.
good post... even though its off topic, its relevant to what sydney is experiencing like at the moment.
This morning was horrible... almost choking with smoke on the way to work, and it's gets into the building air conditioning units so there is no escaping it at work.
It could well be it's all about politics and the government showing the public they are protecting small pockets of the community who choose to live near the bush.
This topic could also have it's own thread.
And geez, these summer temperatures in Sydney are not helping.
it was 27 degrees yesterday... over 7 above average.
that's pretty scary, especially since it's not predicted to drop below 25 until Monday.
Edit... Apart from tomorrow where 23 is the predicted top.
I predict much webcam watching next Tuesday
There's some solid noise being thrown around about HR burns in here. The overall results and impact to the community can be questioned, but to assert that there is no benefit from burns is pretty out there.
Most burns are done 10-15 years apart on the same land, not every couple of years. They're also not meant to stop a fire, but assist in slowing it down or lowering the intensity, so that other firefighting strategies have a higher chance of success.
I think the comments about overall impacts vs individual organisational remit and goals are spot on, but then that's the way the world goes around