Hacker News Reader

Comment by soperj | Hacker News Reader

Definitely. Definitely. And what about the other bushfires they've had that were over twice as large as the ones they are currently having? Like the 74-75 bushfires that were 6 times as big as the current ones? Or the ones in 69-70 that were twice as big? or 68-69 (also twice as big)?

You're talking about one of the most fire prone places in the world that has had massive bushfires documented since 1851.

edit: @mrpopo, can't reply to you. But it looks like the largest set of bush fires ever recorded in Australia (290 million hectares) occured in a year where the temperature was below average for pretty well the entire country. Far below in some parts of the country.

View on HN

You mean the bushfires which have to date exceeded the total area burned in 74-75 in NSW[1]? Which are noted from that article as having a decidedly different burn characteristic then 74-75 which was mostly grassland, as opposed to the forest fires we currently have, including large areas of rainforest in Queensland which has not previously been dry enough to support a bushfire?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/07/recor...

A significant factor in the 74-75 fires was extra plant growth from unusually heavy rainfall in the two years prior providing extra fuel[1]. Very different circumstances to the current situation.

[1] https://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/6C98BB75496A5AD1C...

You're actually saying that a Eucalypt forest(Kanangra-Boyd_National_Park), trees that are adapted to fire, that actually promote fire with highly combustible leaves(eucalyptus oil), whose seeds only sprout after a fire, has never been dry enough to support a bush fire. I sincerely doubt it.

> including large areas of rainforest in Queensland which has not previously been dry enough to support a bushfire?

He talked about rainforest, not Eucalyptus forest.

Australia is a big place, you should get a little more familiar with it when you want to think about the scope of this fire. It's not the size alone that's unprecedented (because as you point out that's obviously not true), it's the fact that it's so big, so early, and in such a weird spot. Very new for that area. If all of the east coast of the US burned and we shrugged and said, "Eh, California's were bigger in '88" it wouldn't be a meaningful comparison at all.

Quicky edit: All that said, I'm no expert either. I think we're both more or less parroting sources, so feel free to respond with new info :)

I've literally been to every state in Australia. Worked in western aus (Kalgoorlie, up to Port Hedland) then up to Darwin. Spent some time in Perth, and down to Margaret River. Adelaide, Melbourne, all around Sydney and up the gold coast all the way to Cairns. Even went over to Tasmania to visit a friend. I've got really good friends who lived in Katoomba. I know the area. I'm not parroting anything.

Climate change makes extreme weather more likely. Pointing out that extreme weather existed in the past too is not a sufficient counterargument.

On the other hand, automatically labeling everything temperature related as "caused by climate change" is not a proper argument as well.

I mean this is most likely actually related to climate change, but this should be verified/modelled before coming to conclusions. Even when it is absolutely obvious.

Square kilometerage is not on its own a useful measure. There's different terrain types, that have different responses to fire.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com