https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...convenient-facts-on-australian-bushfires/amp/
I don't really want to get into the nonsense of climate politics and the way that every celebrity and their dog have been jumping on these fires to push their own barrow. If we don't get to the true root causes then any solution will prove elusive. Some of these causes have yet to have widespread scientific research catch up to them. Some of the knowledge is esoteric - held by a culture that is actively suppressed in order to perpetuate the ongoing theft of land.
A curious article which really doesn't even mention many of the main factors responsible. A recent study found that climate change was not a factor.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL080959
Curiously, this same author found that it was a factor in the Amazon fires - rather incredulous when they were clearly as a result of a land grab. Multiple deliberately lit fires were merely the tool of this 'illegal' activity.
Logging, clearing, and the proliferation of dense shrubby regrowth that occurs is however a cause. As is the 'theft' of the country's water, the resultant destruction of wetlands and the moist soil sponge, and as is the erosion caused, and drying of the land. The other big factor is creeping urbanisation and the exponential growth of edge effects. These are not things I'm seeing reported very much at all. Chosun :gh:
You covered a lot of ground in these short paragraphs, CJ. Taking your last one, it's certainly the case that media coverage tends towards the more interesting or controversial, but much of that is due to the almost complete disappearance of correspondents with specialist knowledge or at least the ability to interpret it. However, only last week, the BBC News website had a lengthy article on how indigenous knowledge had been sidelined, and not just in Australia; it discussed many of the points you've been making, and criticised the wilful ignorance of doing so.
Now on to what you call 'a curious article'. It isn't at all curious, for it describes a set of metrics which the authors suggest is another useful tool to add to the armoury of research knowledge on the subject of fire ecology. Because it isn't claimed as a catch-all, it refers only to specifics relating to anthropegenic climatic impact of climate change: it's a way of refining our understanding of parts that previously seemed chaotic.
You say that the study found that climate change is not a factor in the fires in Australia. It did not find that at all. I've been through the paper, which contains much necessary technical information meningless to the lay person. What I found most pertinent was:
"For comparison, the multimodel median standard deviation calculated over the baseline period shows relatively high interannual variability in FWI metrics across portions of Australia which impede emergence based on a signal-to-noise ratio."
Put simply, that means that their set of metrics as they stand cannot be applied to Australia because the metrics are confounded by large year-on-year variability masking the ability of their system to distinguish 'signal' from background 'noise' in the data. The authors are pointing out the current limitations of their sytem, which is good science.
In the case of the Amazon, they found there is a low year-on-year variability (perhaps better described as a relatively stable dynamic system annually across the years), and so they were able to detect that their metrics could distinguish a signal. This does not assume that anthropogenic climate change was the main driver, only that their system could distinguish its contribution, even against all the deliberate fires. So, not curious at all.
I'm not accusing you of being underhand in any way in addressing the conclusions of this paper. I consider you are mistaken in your interpretation of the paper, which, to be fair, is not aimed at the general public.
Keep on posting!:t:
MJB