Climate change and firefighting: a voice from the front line

Jim Casey

Climate change: Our industrial muscle won't cut it. Photo: Wolter Peeters

As a firefighter, I can tell you things are not the way they used to be.

The natural environment is changing. In 2009, we witnessed the devastating Black Saturday fires in Victoria. In 2010, incredible and unexpected flooding in Queensland. Rainfall is up in parts of the country, down in others.

Temperatures are rising, wind patterns changing, storm and tempest activity becoming unpredictable - and all of this leads to more frequent and more extreme natural disasters.

The recent Blue Mountains fires are a case in point: there have always been fires in that part of NSW, but in October?
Advertisement

It's time we lifted the debate above political point scoring on climate change.

Be it bushfire, flood or storm, you will find firefighters doing what we do best. We're proud of our job. But it is a dangerous profession, and we want to make sure we can minimise the risks we face.

The vast majority of scientists and a majority of the general population agree the planet is getting warmer, as a direct result of how we interact with the natural world.

It is the impact this has on the weather that is of particular concern to firefighters, and other first responders. We are now seeing more extreme weather events. We're seeing an unstable, unpredictable climate.

In 2010, the NSW Department of the Environment released a paper titled NSW Climate Impact Profile, which says between now and 2050 we can expect: "Higher temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns will more likely than not lead to increased fire frequency. Very high to extreme fire danger days are projected to increase and the conditions conducive to large and intense fires (such as prolonged drought, low humidity, number of days with high temperature and high wind speeds) may increase."

Which is where we come in. Professional firefighters are among the most heavily unionised industries in the country. There's a reason for that. The nature of our job is dangerous. The personal protective equipment we have, the breathing apparatus, safe and effective minimum crew levels - all of these basic workplace safety matters were won by firefighters demanding it from the employer.

But on the issue of climate change, our industrial muscle won't cut it. This isn't a dispute over safe working conditions, a reasonable wage, or dignity in the workplace. This is about the way our society is organised. It is about how we all live, and it is about the conditions under which firefighters work.

We need action on climate change. Firefighters will continue to go to work, as we have always done, helping people in emergencies. But we're treating the symptoms of the problem, not the disease itself. It will require a mass movement, prepared to be bold and imaginative, to do that.

Jim Casey from the Fire Brigade Employees Union spoke at the National Day of Climate Action in Prince Alfred Park on Sunday.

An obvious fire fighter in the agw cult. The guys an absolute idiot if he thinks all fires should be the same.
Firefighter pfft, advocate yes.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

lee wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:


Keep going. So far, you just covered the low confidence predictions. You're not cherry picking, are you?

Quote:


You need to back that assertion up with evidence. What did the AR4 Report say about trends in small-scale severe weather events such as hail or thunderstorms, for example.

You do know why confidence is low for these predictions?

lee wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 4:45pm:


Your post doesn't make sense. How does that relate to the fact that you are cherry picking?

They are not quite the same parameters. I think you'll find that the time scales are different in some cases. The conclusions about drought for example are not conflicting.

In some cases, the reasons may be due to lack of data as opposed to anything else. For example, a launch failure  resulting in no in-depth study. In that case, new data would be ready the next time around.

Anyway, it's pointless for me to refute every single point you bring up.   

From AR5 Technical summary:

Quote:



Quote:

Quote:

lee wrote on Nov 27^th, 2013 at 11:25am:


Again, you're going off at a tangent speaking about models, when you were originally talking about degree of confidence based on observation.  How can you equate observation with models? I guess it comes with your NFI (First Class Hons.) in Climatology.


The part about making the climate sensitivity what we want is in cloud cuckoo land. "Climate sensitivity" is not an input to any model I know of.

Where did you pick up that particular gem? Anthony Watts, no doubt.

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2013 at 11:40am:


We don't attempt. We measure.  What was that bit about RF again? See if you can find what I'm talking about.

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:


I'm not talking about models here. Let's get down to basics. Do you even know what RF is?

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:


OK. RF stands for radiative forcing. It's a parameter that's easily measured. No models involved.

Quote:


No. I was talking about RF and CO2 concentration. You were the one talking about models, but I'm stuffed if I know what you were on about.

First you guessed that Climate Sensitivity was an input, then you guessed that it was an output. Do you want to throw a coin and make a decision?

As I said before, it's consistent with the fact that you have an NFI (First Class Honours) in Climatology.

As I also said, it has no bearing on anything that was said before.

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2013 at 4:04pm:


Can you expand on that? I don't see any argument as yet.  Why does Radiative forcing do nothing on its own, and what do you understand by climate sensitivity?

How does climate sensitivity relate to past observations of radiative forcing?

Would you regard gravitational force as being a measurement or a calculation?

Anyway Climatology 101:

ftp://ftp.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/spb/lzhou/AMS86/PREPRINTS/PDFS/100737.p...


Quote:

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2013 at 5:40pm:


You're getting way ahead of yourself. Learn the basics.  Answer some of the questions I asked you (which you ignored.) That should prompt you to do some  research.

You're trying to run before you can walk, and you're tripping over your own feet.

Would you regard gravitational force as being a measurement or a calculation?

What about electrical current then?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 28^th, 2013 at 11:31pm:


You too could have an NFI (hons) in Climatology. 

Lol, is lee trying to have a conversation or go over everyone's head? 

Which came first the chicken or the egg? Was a calculation down and then a meter built? Did we have a meter that served no purpose until we came up with the idea of measuring current flow and potential difference?

And then? The calculation or the meter?

lee wrote on Nov 30^th, 2013 at 7:10pm:



Refer to Reply 33.