3 ms·
This article missed the chance to be much more interesting. While the 2019-2020 Australian fires were undoubtedly catastrophic, there have been other much worse
by fwlr 4y ago
This article missed the chance to be much more interesting. While the 2019-2020 Australian fires were undoubtedly catastrophic, there have been other much worse fires in recent times. This one killed 34 people; a decade prior, the bushfire season killed 5 times as many people, with 174 deaths. Four decades prior to that, the bushfire season burned 5 times as much land area as the 2019-2020 season, with over 15% of Australia’s total land area suffering fire damage.
It was the particularly intense burning, causing smoke to travel much further than usual, that caused this season to loom so large in people’s minds. There are astounding figures, like that 80% of the populace experienced days or weeks of heavily smoke-filled air, or that it arguably killed as many as 450 people indirectly through smoke inhalation interacting with existing respiratory issues.
That intense burning was due mostly to the extremely high fuel density of the particular areas that were on fire - forests rather than grasslands. And the intense burning caused some incredible phenomena: flames at ground level that would reach the 20th floor of a skyscraper, radiant heat so extreme that you could be standing on the other side of an 8-lane highway and it would still give you 2nd degree degree burns in seconds and kill you in minutes, fire fronts that travel for days at an average of 6-8 miles an hour (even an ultra-marathon runner with a head start could not stay ahead of the fire) and reach peak speeds over 80mph (overtaking you in your car)… and all throughout, the roar of a thousand jet engines as vegetation literally exploded at the fire’s approach - gaseous decomposition from the ambient heat.
These fires were so intense that they launched smoke far higher into the atmosphere than fires usually do, and so we got to see some very unusual chemistry happen in the atmosphere.
I criticize the article for not being as interesting as it could be because it exhibits the same malady as so much of the other reporting on that bushfire season - the unique physics ignored in favour of using the tragedy for political purposes.
- magicalist 4y ago> the unique physics ignored in favour of using the tragedy for political purposes. A new study attempting to explain a previously noticed phenomenon in the ozone layer is "for political purposes", seriously?
- fwlr 4y agoPerhaps I am being a little unfair, there is a lot of discussion of the physics and chemistry in the article. It may seem like a wild leap to start talking about politics because of a few paragraphs at the end of the article, to which I offer the defense that the Australian media landscape during that season was extremely, aggravatingly politicized. I did try to make sure most of my comment was focused on the interesting physics of extreme wildfires, leaving my criticism as a one-line post-script at the end.
- magicalist 4y agoThis isn't an article about how crazy wildfires are, it's about the effect on the ozone layer, so not sure why any of that would be relevant. If the objection is that the lead author used the term "climate change" out loud, the article seems to go out of its way to be precise so the "any mention of climate change is political" crowd won't be aroused: > Haywood would like to see the new chemistry integrated into a climate model to forecast how ozone depletion might be affected if intense wildfires become more common.
- epgui 4y agoI agree with the other commenter and I would even say you're completely failing to understand the medium, context, and purpose of the piece of writing you're criticizing.