More Spring bushfire stats help put out ABC's alarmism

ABC continue the mistaken meme that the current Sydney Bushfires are unprecedented (see reply from ABC news to our query below). One reason this might be the case is that official sources of bushfire information provide incorrect data.

For instance if you look up the 1951-2 fire season, one of the worst on record, on the governments's AUSTRALIAN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT KNOWLEDGE HUB it provides the following:

BUSHFIRE - AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY AND SOUTH-WEST NEW SOUTH WALES 1 November 1951

From November 1951 to January 1952, there were 11 reported deaths when approximately 5000 fires burned 4.5 million hectares of western New South Wales. Fires were estimated to have cost £6 million at the time. November saw 371,000 hectares of cypress pine forest and bush burned in the Pilliga area, and 266,000 hectares of grass-land burnt in the Dubbo / Forbes district. In January 1952, 330,000 hectares were burned out at Mangoplah near Wagga Wagga. Two people died and 10,000 hectares were burnt in the Australian Capital Territory with fires bearing down on the urban areas of Canberra.

Note the start date of 1 November.

AEM provide a list of sources for this summary that includes the following article from the Canberra Times: The Canberra Times, 20 May 1952, ‘NSW £ 6 ½ million in six months’. This contains the following information:

"Bushfires caused at least £6,500,000 damage in New South Wales between October, 1951 and March, 1952, the State Bushfire Committee has reported to the State Government"

We have requested AEM correct the error in their dating.

UPDATE: AEM advise the text corrected:
Thanks for your email. We have corrected the copy, which now states that the fires began in October 1951.

A quick response, something ABC could learn from.

Also of note is this entry for 1968:

BUSHFIRE - BLUE MOUNTAINS AND ILLAWARRA 15 October 1968

During the period 15 October until 3 December, a bushfire damaged the Blue Mountain region. Winds recorded up to 100 km per hour, intensified the fire front. Due to an unusually dry spring, conditions allowed the fire to burn for approximately four weeks. Widespread damage was caused to infrastructure, houses and buildings. A total of 1,500,000 ha were burnt and 14 people died.

Other areas affected included; Valley Heights, Warrimoo, Blaxland and Emu Plains. The damage bill was estimated at approximately £1,500,000.

It is quite clear that the recent fires are not "unprecedented". It is embarrassing that a News organisation the size of the ABC is unable to undertake its own research on this.

Reply from ABC re Lateline misinformation received 24/10/2013:

Thank you for your recent email and research. Emma Alberici's question was based on comments in the Australian newspaper and elsewhere attributed to Mr Phil Koperberg. The Lateline program has not been able to find any record of the comments being disputed by Mr Koperberg.

Here are his comments from that newspaper, dated October 19, 2013:

The unusually early fires that swept through NSW over the past two days would have proved too fast for any warning system, according to former Rural Fire Services commissioner Phil Koperberg.

The former NSW environment minister and current chairman of the State Emergency Management Committee was yesterday appointed Blue Mountains Emergency Recovery Co-ordinator.

He said there had been worse bushfire disasters in the Blue Mountains - in 1952, 1957 and 1968 - but what was unprecedented was it happening in October.

"It's not the worst, but it is the earliest. We have never had this in October," Mr Koperberg said. "This is a feature of slowly evolving climate. We have always had fires, but not of this nature, and not at this time of year, and not accompanied by the record-breaking heat we've had."

Here is Emma Alberici's question on Lateline:  "Now, the former Rural Fire Service Commissioner Phil Koperberg says the fire in the Blue Mountains isn't the worst we've seen, but it's certainly the first time bushfires of this magnitude have happened in October. Why has the season started so early this year?"

The ABC believes Ms Alberici's question was an accurate reflection of the former Commissioner's comments.

While the material you have provided in your complaint points to a number of serious past fires, it does not seem to clearly establish that this latest one was not the worst, taking into account the factors Koperberg listed.

Again, thank you for your feedback.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Doyle

ABC News

Fact check Lateline: Bushfires in October

7:30 report Lateline last night....

EMMA ALBERICI: Now, the former Rural Fire Service Commissioner Phil Koperberg says the fire in the Blue Mountains isn't the worst we've seen, but it's certainly the first time bushfires of this magnitude have happened in October. Why has the season started so early this year?

The fires below appear to refute this statement. Had they occurred with the same spread of development and population as we currently have who knows what the damage would have been. One supposes similar to the disaster in progress.

October fires around Sydney and New South Wales, some examples:

OCTOBER 1951

From Sydney Morning Herald 24 October 1951, Page 1 headlines:

FIRES BLAZE IN BIG AREA Buildings Lost On N. Coast

Firefighters battled yesterday with more than 100 bushfires near Sydney and in the country. Some fires were still burning fiercely last night.

STATE FORESTS Fires were burning in nine State forests yesterday.

P.2 HOMES SAVED FROM FIRES NEAR SYDNEY

Scores of firemen and civilians fought three bushfires in southern suburbs of Sydney nearly all day yesterday and prevented serious damage to many homes that were menaced. Firemen said last night the fires, fanned by a strong, gusty wind, were the worst since last summer. Some firemen col-lapsed from the effects of heat and smoke.

From Sydney Morning Herald 25 October 1951, Page 1 headlines:

State Bushfires Checked: Huge N.T. Blaze
Most of the bushfires in New South Wales were brought under control yesterday, but the Minister for Conservation, Mr.G. Weir, stressed that extreme. danger remained. TERRITORY Biggest Fire Ever.

From Sydney Morning Herald 25 October 1951, Page 1 headlines:
Bushfires Devastate 64 State Forests
Sixty-four State forests on the North Coast were devastated yesterday by bushfires which firefighters described as"the worst in history." Thousands of acres of grassland in the north-east corner of the State was also burned out.

From Sydney Morning Herald 25 October 1951, Page 1 headlines:
Big Timber Loss In Northern Fires
Forestry officials say that bushfire in N.S.W. in the last 10 days have destroyed at least 250 million super feet of timber- enough to have built 40,000 three bedroom houses.
The Forestry Com-missioner, Mr. L. S.Hudson, said when he returned to Sydney last night after touring North Coast fire areas that it was "quite impossible" to estimate the damage. "But at least 50,000 acres of forest land have been burnt," he said."Probably more than this has been burnt, but we cannot give a definite figure until mopping:up operations have been finished.

OCTOBER 1948

From Sydney Morning Herald 12 October 1948 Page 1

DUST STORMS GREATEST IN MANY YEARS
Gales and the greatest dust storms in many years swept across the eastern half of the continent yesterday and last night, and blew thousands of tons of inland soil toward New Zealand and New Guinea.

Queensland's Director of Meteorological Services, Mr. A. S. Richards, last night described the dust storm  as one of the worst in the State's history.

From Sydney Morning Herald 13 October 1948 Page 1

FIGHT FOR HOMES Bushfires At Mt Colah.

More than 40 homes were threatened by bushfires in the Mt. Colah district yesterday. The outbreak started at Roff's Park on Monday after-noon. Firemen and police had con-fined it to a rocky gully by dawn yesterday, but during the afternoon the wind freshened and fanned the blaze towards homes along Pacific Highway and Galston Gorge.

From Sydney Morning Herald 22 October 1948 Page 1

Bush Fire Threatens Farms Near Mona Vale

Thirty firemen, police, and civilians fought throughout last night and early this morn-ing to prevent bushfires en-gulfing two Mona Vale farm properties.

From Sydney Morning Herald 28 October 1948, Page 1 headlines:
Many Bushfires as Heat Sets Four-year Record 
Fierce bush and grass fires swept many parts of the State yesterday as the temperature again soared over 90 degrees to set a four-year record. Temperatures in Sydney early this morning fell suddenly after a south-westerly change. Most serious outbreak was on the South Coast, where the village of Termeil, 12 miles from Ulladulla, was practically destroyed.

OCTOBER 1928
From Sydney Morning Herald 8 October 1928, Page 11 headlines:
Fires and Storm
The city was encircled by bushfires, and many buildings were Unroofed.

45 COTTAGES. DESTROYED BY FIRE NEAR WOY WOY.
Damage estimated at £20,000 was caused bya bush fire which swept through the bush country surrounding Ocean Beach, Ettalong, and Booker Bay to-day. Forty-five week-end cottages were completely destroyed. The flames were Irresistible, and in the terrible heat many of the fire-fighters dropped exhausted.

AN INFERNO ON NORTH COAST. BUSH FIRES RAGING. NEWCASTLE. Sunday. 
Bush fires have bean raging all day along the coast from the Hawkesbury River to Newcastle. Several houses along the shores of Lake Macquarie have been burnt down, and many more are in danger.

FIRES ON MOUNTAINS. Motorists' Exciting Time.
Bush fires broke out at various points on'the Blue Mountains yesterday, and residents experienced many anxious moments.

P.12
TEMPERATURE 98 DEG. GALE ' 63 ' MILES' AN HOUR.'

In common with the greater part of New South Wales and the whole of the southern States, the city experienced an exceptional wind storm and excessive heat, which created a maximum of discomfort. In the early after-noon. Great volumes of dust from Inland districts and smoke from extensive bush fires produced a thick yellow haze In the city, making visibility poor, and adding to the general discomfort.

See other reports of the above:

Gale and fire, red steer loose

Also September fires....

Spring Fires in past times

Update Nothing abnormal about NT fires

ABC provide the reply below to our complaint regarding their claims CO2 releases from NT fires are abnormal. Tainted as it is by a groupthink mentality, lack of balance and failure to live up to normal journalistic standards on environmental reporting, ABC's exceptionally low standards are fast becoming the norm. (To see how totally normal this year's fire season is, skip to the links below ABC's response-title in red).

Here's their response (in italics) received October 11, our comments in bold:
Thank you for your email of October 7 concerning the story "Science counts carbon cost of Red Centre fires".
As your correspondence raised concerns of a lack of accuracy, your email was referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and response. The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas (as separate as Chang and Eng) and is responsible for investigating complaints alleging a broadcast or publication was in contravention of the ABC's editorial standards (by providing a big rubber stamp for ABC's errors and misleading reports). In light of your concerns, we have reviewed the story and assessed it against the ABC’s editorial requirements for accuracy, as outlined in section 2 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies:http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm. In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC News.

Your complaint is that the use of the “abnormal” in relation to the fires is a “gross distortion” of the facts. The story carefully and accurately described the fact that these fires are part of the natural cycle in the Northern Territory but are, none the less, far from common.  (In the story Dr Ashley Sparrow indicates it is "an example of the boom-and-bust ecosystem in the Red Centre at work". Only activist reporters at the ABC could construe this as abnormal. It is clearly part of a well known common natural cycle.)
That you had to go back 60 years to find reports of equivalent fires, demonstrates this.
(This is a demonstration of the ignorance and laziness of ABCs respondent. I found the news articles on the National Library Newspaper site in about 2 minutes. The Archive ends in the 1950s. A fuller account of bushfires activity in the NT is provided below, this located in about 2 mintues. It seems that large fires in the NT are quite common.)
Describing such events as “abnormal” is only intended to indicate their infrequency, which is quite clear when read in context. The story is not misleading. 

(Based on the evidence of fire activity in the NT use of the term "abnormal" is indeed misleading, sensationalist and inaccurate).

Accordingly, while noting your concerns, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied the story was in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy (In other words it as woeful and as tainted by Groupthink as the rest of ABC's environmental reporting). Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments have been noted and conveyed to ABC News management (As the same mistakes keep on occurring in ABC's echo chamber one doubts that much notice is paid to any criticism).
Thank you for taking the time to write; your feedback is appreciated (I'm sure it is).
End Response

Some further information on NT Bush fires 
from Understanding bushfire: trends in deliberate vegetation fires in Australia-Northern Territory

Few people are aware of the role, the process or the scale of burning (controlled and uncontrolled) that occurs in the tropical savannas of northern Australia. Bushfires are a ubiquitous feature of the Northern Territory dry season, with the territory having the most frequent, largest and more poorly documented vegetation fires of any part of the continent. When considering Northern Territory bushfires it is necessary to discard all preconceptions of size, frequency and even harm, based on southern vegetation fire regimes, as they are simply not translatable to the savannas that dominate Australia’s north. 

Area burned: The frequency and area burned in any one year varies considerably. Nevertheless, by
southern standards the total and the proportion of land burned in any given year is extraordinarily large. In the higher rainfall savanna woodlands of the northern Kimberley, the Top End and Cape York up to half of the total area may be burned either every year or every second year (Anderson 1996, Dyer et al. 2001, Press 1998, Russell-Smith et al. 1997). Many of these fires are intense and therefore pose the most danger in terms of their capacity to devastate populations of fire-sensitive native plants and animals, to be costly and disruptive to pastoral operations, and to pose a threat to communities and property. The frequency of fires tends to decrease further south for a number of reasons. They include reduced rainfall and therefore vegetation density, reduced grass reserves due to intensive use of these savannas for grazing, and greater efforts to suppress fires to prevent destruction of valuable fodder resources.

Intense fires commonly started by lightning strikes during particularly dry seasons have occurred
throughout the Northern Territory’s modern history. The amounts of land burned in these events are extraordinary. The Council of Australian Governments report (Ellis, Kanowski & Whelan 2004) lists four major bushfire seasons in the territory since the late 1960s that collectively burned 168,000,000 ha. In 2002, approximately 38,000,000 ha burned in planned and unplanned fires. This represents 29 percent of the Northern Territory. In comparison, the January 2003 fires burned ‘only’ 226,000 ha in the Australian Capital Territory and 1,000,000 ha in Victoria. See Table 1 above.

So nothing "abnormal" about large bush fires in the NT!

See also this animation of fires around Central Australia for the period May 1999 to April 2004:
http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/natres/bushfires/research/desertfire.html

NASA image from 2007...Below Huge fires scorched grassland and savanna in the Barkly Tableland region of Australia’s Northern Territory in October 2007. 

Based on ABC's story one wonders where Fred Williams got the inspiration for this series of paintings?...

Bushfire in Northern Territory 12) (1976)

How much of Kakadu Burnt each year? Did I hear an average of 46%? And that's abnormal?

Abnormal? According to the paper...Fire frequency and biodiversity conservation in Australian tropical savannas: implications from the Kapalga fire experiment

Every year large proportions of northern Australia's tropical savanna landscapes are burnt, resulting in high fire frequencies and short intervals between fires.

Austral Ecology

Volume 30, Issue 2, pages 155–167, April 2005

From...Fire and Sustainable Agricultural and Forestry Development in Eastern Indonesia and Northern Australia Proceedings of an international workshop held at  Northern Territory University, Darwin, Australia, 13–15 April 1999. (Link Here) From Russell-Smith et al, on page 95... In northwestern and northern Australia, and possibly also on parts of Cape York in the northeast, intense wild fires typically late in the dry season burn vast tracts annually. 


Vast Tracts! And to the ABC this year's fires are somehow "abnormal"!

Lies of the Climate Commission: Part 3

Roger Peilke jnr has a guest post by Ryan Crompton of Macquarie University's Risk Frontiers dealing with the Climate Commissions treatment of Bushfires. It's titled Treatment of Bushfires by the Australian Climate Commission.

On  page 40 of its report (The Critical Decade) the climate commission, states that 'The intensity and seasonality of large bushfires in southeast Australia appears to be changing, with climate change a possible contributing factor (Cai et al. 2009c)."

Crompton is joint author of an important study the ABC did not feel newsworthy. This study, omitted from the report by the Climate Commission (whose commissioners can not be relied upon for accurate information about climate science-see Part 1.), found that "that there is no discernable evidence that normalized building damage is being influenced by climate change due to the emission of greenhouse gases". The study remains unreported by the ABC. Its authors recently comprehensively smacked down critics of the study in the peer reviewed press. 

Crompton's post deals with the use of (Cai et al, 2009) as a supporting reference for the statement made by our climate commission: 

My main issue is the report’s use of a key reference, the study by Cai et al. (2009c) entitled “Positive Indian Ocean dipole events precondition southeast Australia bushfires”, to support the statement that 

“the intensity and seasonality of large bushfires in southeast Australia appears to be changing, with climate change a possible contributing factor”

While I have no issue with the Cai et al. study itself (we cited this in our recent bushfire paper), at best, the use of it in the Commission’s report is clumsy, and at worst, misleading.

Crompton goes on to state:

If instead the statement in the report was referring to impacts, then why was the conclusion from our research not cited here – that there is "no discernable evidence that the normalized Australian bushfire building damage (1925-2009) is being influenced by climate change due to the emission of greenhouse gases"(PDF)? 

Concluding:

In sum, as far as the bushfire sub-section of the Climate Commission’s report is concerned, it seems that both accuracy and clarity have been sacrificed for economy. And that, unfortunately, will always do far more harm than good. 

Read the whole post at Roger' blog. This seems newsworthy, will ABC report it?

Missing News - Bushfire Slap Down

Neville Nicholls, a Lead Author for the IPCC's  Fourth Assessment report has attempted to find deficiencies in a recent paper dealing with climate influences on bushfires in Australia between 1925 and 2010. (Crompton, R. P., K. J. McAneney, K. Chen, R. A. Pielke Jr., and K. Haynes, 2010. Influence of Location, Population and Climate on Building Damage and Fatalities due to Australian Bushfire: 1925-2009. Weather, Climate, and Society, Vol. 2, pp. 300-310, doi:10.1175/2010WCAS1063.1.) This paper found that: "There is no discernable evidence that the normalized data are being influenced by climate change due to the emission of greenhouse gases."

Nicholls' attempt at discrediting the study has been slapped down convincingly by the study authors. Nicholls' comment is HERE. And the response HERE. The original authors conclude the exchange thus:

Our result—that there is no discernable evidence that normalized building damage is being influenced by climate change due to the emission of greenhouse gases— is not surprising, when you consider that bushfire damage is not solely a function of bushfire weather; far from it, in fact. Even given a gradual aggravation of bushfire weather due to anthropogenic climate change or other factors, a bushfire still has to be ignited. Once ignited, a bushfire then has to traverse the landscape and impact a populated area, where outcomes in terms of damage will be a function of the spatial disposition of dwellings with respect to the fire front, and especially distance of properties from the bushland boundary (McAneney et al. 2009). These factors all contribute a large degree of stochasticity to eventual event loss outcomes.

The Nicholls (2011) speculations are worthy of discussion but no evidence is presented to support these contentions. Moreover, the evidence that we are aware of and have presented here in relation to a potential bias in our normalization methodology and to the possible sources of reduced vulnerability does not undermine our findings in any way.

What's newsworthy here is not just that the evidence further supports the original conclusions (that there is no discernable evidence that normalized building damage is being influenced by climate change due to the emission of greenhouse gases), but that an IPCC lead author can put together such a poor case, backed without any evidence! Is this the sort of people the government is relying on to provide scientific advice-those that rely on idle speculation, rather than back their claims with evidence?

ABC did not report on the original study so we don't expect a follow up. This is very surprising given the lead authors are based in Australia and its a highly relevant work with broad policy implications. ABC instead promote a report by the government's climate commission that includes this misleading statement regarding bushfires: 'The intensity and seasonality of large bushfires in southeast Australia appears to be changing, with climate change a possible contributing factor" Page 40. Once again ABC severely misinform its audience.

From the vault - biased-not us!

Lateline, 16 February 2009

Summary published: Monday 11, May 2009

Complaint:  A viewer complained about a story which focused on debate about fuel reduction in the aftermath of recent bushfires in Victoria. The story included a case study of a family who had been fined by their local council some years previously for clearing trees on their property. The viewer raised a number of concerns and questioned the report’s accuracy, impartiality and balance.
Audience and Consumer Affairs response:  The ABC agreed that the report contained two inaccuracies in relation to the precise size of the fine and the cost the family had incurred for clearing trees on their property. The online transcript of the report was amended and an Editor’s Note added to explain the changes.
Other aspects of the complaint were not upheld. The ABC was satisfied that the report presented principal relevant viewpoints on matters of importance and did not unduly favour a particular perspective.
http://www.abc.net.au/contact/corp_aud_upheld_May2009.htm

"From the Vault" - digging up past corrections and clarifications from the ABC archives