Future Fire reads his own papers
A public service announcement
At a meeting with some colleagues and industry partners today, we discussed a research report done by some other academics a few years ago. It was generally agreed that the report was good, but that we weren’t across all the details and we weren’t sure how relevant or applicable they were to the task we were discussing in the meeting. Our partners wanted us to take a closer look at this report and if necessary build on it. The song Another One Bites The Dust started playing in my mind.
I was reminded of an idea I’ve had for some time, for some kind of platform, service, tool or mechanism for unearthing, extracting and sharing goodness from the absolute Mariana Trench-deep ocean of reports that currently lie dormant on digital shelves, gathering digital dust (often within days or weeks of their ballyhooed release). I am not just talking wildfire or climate change, or even science. Governments of all sizes and stripes are constantly putting together hefty tomes on all manner of topics. Some of these reports are really, really good. And what happens to many of them? They sink, with nary a trace. What a waste.
In the spirit of not forgetting, I thought I would take a very quick tour of the work I’ve been involved in since getting into this whole research business. We’ll go in reverse order
A big study of global patterns of forest fire, the atmosphere’s thirst and climate change ramping up flammability. Lots of ink has already been spilled on this one.
A small simulation study suggesting the Black Summer fires - and by extension the warmer world we are building ourselves brick by brick - massively decreased the effectiveness of prescribed burning.
Three separate studies led by the indomitable Eli Bendall, who powered through a huge amount of field work to understand the response of tree growth to fire, drought and elevated atmospheric CO2.
Two fire severity-themed studies led by the brilliant Luke Collins. One was about the shocking extent (but less so proportion) of high severity fire during the Black Summer, and the other was about longer term trends which make the Black Summer fires seem less like they came out of the blue.
Two studies by rising star Sarah McColl-Gausden exploring the thorny issues of fire regime change and contrasting effects of fuel and weather, using a fancy fire simulation setup.
Two studies on the Black Summer fires led by the incredible Rachael Nolan. One was short and punchy, the other was a big synthesis on the season from many different angles, both are indispensable for understanding that season. There is a bonus third one actually, a reply to a comment on the first one, led by my supervisor of many years, Aussie fire science legend Ross Bradstock.
A study led by the scarily good Nico Borchers-Arriagada on the smoke health costs of wildfire and prescribed fire. Go and read it now please.
A study led by the superb Anne Griebel on the recovery of mistletoe from extreme heat.
A truly collaborative study led by climate science superstar Nerilie Abram on the climate drivers of the Black Summer and their long term context. Another must read.
A study led by climate scientist and public servant extraordinaire Giovanni Di Virgilio on climate change impacts on prescribed burning weather conditions. This was a follow up of sorts to an earlier paper (read on).
A study led by my current boss and the reigning overlord of Australian wildfire risk research, Trent Penman, on the cost implications of alternative prescribed burning strategies.
A study that tackled the ‘four switches’ concept in southern Australian forests and grasslands using real data. We drew lessons for climate change and fire effemanagement.
A study led by polymath Brett Cirulis on risk quantification of alternative fuel treatment strategies in ACT and Tasmania.
A study of the weather conditions required for conducting prescribed burning, and what climate change might do to them.
A study that developed a multi-source ignition model for Victoria and then tested it in South Australia and Tasmania.
A comprehensive look at possible fire weather futures in south-eastern Australia.
A study led by biogeopyro guru and former sometime boss Matthias Boer on how VPD-driven fuel moisture drives fire risk in Portugal.
The last paper from my PhD, where we wade into the possible effects of climate change on both weather and fuel load in Australia.
A study led by my former boss and leading luminary on fire ecology, risk, smoke and everything in between, Owen Price, that tests the empirical evidence for a change in wildfire activity as a result of prescribed burning.
A study led by aforementioned legend Ross Bradstock on whether fire has actually changed in southeast Australia and what role climate played.
A study of how well a widely used regional climate model is able to represent south-east Australian fire weather conditions.
A study of observed changes in Australian fire weather.
A study of possible future fire weather conditions in eastern Australia.
As a bonus for those reading this far, a study led by neuroscientist extraordinaire Thomas Fath, which included my Honours research on a cytoskeletal protein involved in neuronal development.
It is quite shocking to me that I have written (or helped write) 30 odd scientific papers. It seems like a very big number, for someone who still feels like they’re near the start of their career. It also seems like a very small number, for someone who generally compares themself to people who are doing better. Of course, the idea of Number of Papers being a sign of success is a bit of a sad, modern phenomenon. To survive in university these days, you must arm yourself with cold, hard evidence of your elite status, or at least your promise of eliteness. How many papers? How many citations? How many citations per paper? How many citations per paper compared to other people in your field? What about when you take away self-citations? What about the journals you publish in - are they highly ranked? There are some pretty sophisticated automated tools (‘bibliometrics’) these days for fleshing out your case for that job/promotion/grant/prize.
All of this is a far cry from doing good science, discovering something about the way the world works, helping others understand it and maybe even seeing it spur some kind of positive change out there in In Real Life. Those lofty goals are harder to measure and are preceded by pathways that are often long, winding and densely overgrown.
Quite a contribution Hamish.