Smoke on the water

SmokeNZ.jpg

On Monday there was a haze over the Canterbury plains. It looked like someone was burning scrub to the west. Today’s MODIS Image Of The Day shows the source. The image captured on Feb 8th shows that smoke travelled from the Victorian fires (red dots top left — click image to see larger version) across the Tasman and over the South Island. Last weekend was also notably warm on the east coast, as air already warmed by Australia’s heatwave reached NZ and experienced additional heating due to the fohn effect when crossing the Southern Alps. The smoke followed along…

PS: For those not familiar with the local geography, the distance from Melbourne to Christchurch is roughly the same as London to Moscow, or Houston to New York.[Hat tip: MH]

[Deep Purple]

34 thoughts on “Smoke on the water”

  3. Quite right Carol. The sentence isn’t mine of course, it’s the wonderful Cranmer’s. (Whose opinions on AGW I share.)

    But the old chap (The Pope) has quite a lot of clout, don’t you think ? and his predecessor, John Paul, used his clout to bring down communism. Where will his holiness lead the faithful ?

    A pronouncement on energy saving lightbulbs perhaps…

  4. The Pope don’t have much clout with me or mine, Ayrdale, but if he is inclined to use it to encourage his followers to reduce GHG emissions and take AGW seriously, then – good.
    Actually this is an interesting point. For religious people who tend to be dubious or even hostile towards science, arguing for behavioural changes on moral grounds -because it is the right thing to do for responsible environmental stewardship – may be more fruitful than hitting them over the head with science.

  6. Well, a Prius or ‘Pious’ 😀 isn’t necessarily that good anyway, by a few accounts. Has more symbolic value than anything. Enough to save Toyota’s arse though!

  7. I’m uninterested in the pope’s views, but I am interested in the fact that this interpretation of his comments is a piece of lying bilge that seems to have originated from that fount of journalistic disrepute, The Daily Mail. When you compare it to what the Pope actually said, you find it’s yet another case of climate delusionism.

    Ayrdale, try fact-checking sometime. It’s easy and refreshing.

  8. Yes fragment. Quite right. Thank you for the link.

    Have a look at Cranmer, (link above) by the way, and his take on the issue.

    This is the key statement from his Holiness (December 2008) I think…
    “It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.”

    …prudently, uninhibited by ideological pressure, hasty conclusions…, are the key phrases.

    The prudent, unideological Al Gore would agree don’t you think ?
    Or is the science settled ?

  10. Well I don’t either StephenR, but I imagine Gareth here, and others, would defend his awful movie “An Inconvenient Truth” as being factual, rather than political disinformation.

    Am I right Gareth ?

  11. AIT got the science more or less right, whereas The Great Global Warming Swindle set out to mislead and misrepresent. But I’m not getting sucked into another sterile and endless debate about Gore’s film. If you want to fulminate about Gore, go do it on your own blog, not in a thread that’s supposed to be about the Aussie fires.

    I have to say that I’d also prefer religion to be OT here, unless I specifically post on the topic. Life’s too short, etc etc.

  12. Whoaaa! What’s this, God’s joined the skeptics. That’s it I’m changing sides again, we’ve got no hope with that team beating up on us.

  13. Quite right too.
    Politics and religion don’t mix.
    I’d prefer it if churchpeople stuck to lecturing us about morals, and politicians stuck to politics and stopped treading on each others toes. (To paraphrase Cranmer).

    However, the news that the Environment Minister for Northern Ireland has stopped a CO2 “awareness” disinformation campaign is interesting. (This snippet came with the news re his Holiness.)
    See the horrified and panicky BBC news item at:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7878399.stm

  14. where exactly in his holinesses statement does he say he doesn’t believe in AGW???

    there is no mention of GW or CC in there at all.

    he even says ‘The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short.’

    sounds like he’s an environmentalist and the sceptic trolls are clutching at straws

  15. I’m also uninterested in Al Gore, although he’s a bit more relevant than the Pope. But nearly everyone would agree with the passage that Ayrdale cites. A lot of people would say that “assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions” is a fairly good description of what the IPCC actually does.

    The Daily Mail’s attempt to spin it in some other direction completely can only be described as lying drivel.

  16. Sorry for continuing the derail, Gareth. On topic, Sunday had this crazy orange light down here in Dunedin, and in the evening the moon was a lurid yellow. I was hoping to see a satellite pic, so thanks for finding one – that smoke have is really obvious over the south, even given the cloud cover. This is a hell of a nasty disaster, my condolences to all those affected.

  17. In a backhanded swipe at Bob Brown, Aussie green MP, and others who capitalise on tragedy and focus on climate change as a fear factor during bushfires, here’s our old friend Pielke Jnr…

    “…We often hear scientists warning that it is a mistake to attribute a single extreme event to human-caused climate change, but that hasn’t stopped such claims being made quite frequently by advocates for action on climate change in this tragic case. Further, those making such unsupportable claims take another highly misleading step when they recommended changes to carbon emissions policy as a way to address future bushfire risks. Work by McAneney et al. (among others) indicates that if you really want to reduce risks, such policies are far down on the list of what might be done.

    Are these advocates who misrepresent the scientific and policy arguments in favor of action on climate policy ignorant, Machiavellian, or both? I don’t think that the issue can be soft-pedaled any longer…”
    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/

  18. “Given that this was the hottest day on record on top of the driest start to a year on record on top of the longest driest drought on record on top of the hottest drought on record the implications are clear

    Obviously if climate change makes it hotter and drier, you’d think you’d want to do something about that? Obviously there are ecological solutions to bushfires too, as NO problem ever seems to have just one simple solution, does it?

  19. No Stephen it doesn’t, but that’s not the point.

    …Are these advocates who misrepresent the scientific and policy arguments in favor of action on climate policy ignorant, Machiavellian, or both? I don’t think that the issue can be soft-pedaled any longer…

    That’s the point…

  20. Sure, but also how about:

    …Are these advocates who misrepresent the scientific and policy arguments in favor of in-action on climate policy ignorant, Machiavellian, or both? I don’t think that the issue can be soft-pedaled any longer…

    This is not unique to the issue of climate change, as fragment pointed out:

    But nearly everyone would agree with the passage that Ayrdale cites. A lot of people would say that “assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions”

    And we’re back at square one.

  21. …the problem Stephen, is that ipso facto, many green MP’s “who misrepresent the scientific and policy arguments,” and arguably the bulk of the green political movement are motivated by socialist ideology. Hence Pielke Jnr’s Machiavellian adjective.

    Keith Locke, for example. And you wouldn’t have to dig too far into Google, or http://newzeal.blogspot.com/ to find many, many others.

    So your parallell re “inaction” fails, and Pielke Jnr’s rebuke to ratbags like Bob Brown and other phonies still stands.

  22. arguably the bulk of the green political movement are motivated by socialist ideology

    It’s certainly arguable. Some might be. It does not follow that just because some closet Marxist (not necessarily Locke) reckons ramming some crazy messages on climate change down our throats would be a good way to compensate for the failure of his crazy ideology, that the bulk of the green movement are ‘motivated by socialist ideology’. Done a survey have you? Feel free to argue some science though, there’s plenty of people up for that.

    So your parallell re “inaction” fails,

    How? You’re saying those who declare ‘no warming since 1998!’ should be ignored because their heart is in the right place?

  24. The public backlash against the greens is considerable re the fires…this from the Sydney Morning Herald…

    “…It wasn’t climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend. It wasn’t arsonists. It was the unstoppable intensity of a bushfire, turbo-charged by huge quantities of ground fuel which had been allowed to accumulate over years of drought. It was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts, and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation to protect themselves.

    So many people need not have died so horribly. The warnings have been there for a decade. If politicians are intent on whipping up a lynch mob to divert attention from their own culpability, it is not arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts but greenies…”

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/green-ideas-must-take-blame-for-deaths-20090211-84mk.html

  25. That’s not public backlash, that’s a diatribe from a columnist noted for her nutty views. A bit like being savaged by Garth George: it doesn’t hurt you, but it makes him feel better.

  26. …Gareth that’s fine coming from you, frankly I wouldn’t expect anything else, but a reading of the whole article indicates a severe public backlash, and some possible legal contestability and culpability.

    As I say, I wouldn’t expect anything like a sober, reasoned response from you, but the post may be referred to by some of your more thoughtful readers and “raise their consciousness” somewhat re the harm that green ideology has done to the people of Victoria.

  27. Frankly, Ayrdale, I find your continued harping on about “green” responsibility for this tragedy about as distasteful as Devine’s article. Her track record for accuracy is appalling (one, two, three, four): from what you’ve posted here (and from a cursory glance at what you appear happy to feature on your blog), yours is not much better.

  29. …and re-reading the whole article the anger is palpable.
    This, (the SMH) is a huge circulation newspaper, and I would imagine they wouldn’t have published that article, full of absolutely incandescent rage, without thinking very carefully. (I don’t think the SMH is known for its anti-green views, correct me if I’m wrong.)

    So, we hope for a spirited rebuttal from greenpeace Australia maybe (Victorian greens at least) and to eventually get to the truth.

    But 300 odd men, women and children are dead.

    If local greens are in any way responsible for worsening the situation then, as I pointed out earlier, I would at the very least expect a lawsuit and perhaps even a Government enquiry.

    Time will tell…

  31. I was at Mt Cook for the weekend. On the Sunday we went for a short walk up the Hooker into a howling nor-wester.
    My 9 yr old daughter complained about “the smell” and how she was having trouble breathing. I thought she was overstating the case but now I realise her nose is just much more sensitive than mine.
    When driving away from the village I thought we were going to hit rain at Pukaki the haze looked so thick and grey (but of course that didn’t make any sense in a nor-wester). It wasn’t till I heard the news later about orange sky’s in Queenstown that I realised what we had seen.
    The satellite photo is amazing.

  32. It is! Only used to seeing that sort of thing as the result of volcanic eruptions, and hearing about ”red skies” thousands of miles away from the actual event is extraordinary. The eruption of the Indonesian Krakatoa in the (late?) 19th century is said to be the inspiration for a few paintings in Europe.

  33. Turner, probably the finest sunset painter (cf The Fighting Temeraire) was probably inspired by dramatic sunsets after the eruption of Tambora in 1815. Several painters were inspired by Krakatoa in 1883, notably Frederic Church in the US and William Ascroft in London, who painted over 500 watercolours of sunsets over London.

    (Or so Simon Winchester says in Krakatoa – The Day The World Exploded)

  34. There’s a slightly more balanced piece about the green-bashing here: “Mr Jennings said Victoria had burnt more than 400,000 hectares since adopting an accelerated burn-off program three years ago”.

    I only know a little about fire ecology stuff, but from what I understand it’s more complicated than burn off -> reduced fuel load -> lower fire risk. Burn-offs can encourage new growth by liberating nutrients and many Australian plants are adapted to take advantage of this, fires can have different effects depending on the time of year and frequency. Some types of burn-off policy might reduce the recurrence of smaller, cooler, undergrowth fires while increasing the risk of these disastrous, hot & explosive canopy burns.

    In short these glib accusations seem a bit short on facts that you could build an actually effective fire strategy on.

Leave a Reply