But Jennifer, clearly there have been most unusually hot, dry and windy conditions in the Blue Mountains.

So one has to conclude that there is something fundamentally wrong with your attempts to demonstrate that there is no connection between the catastrophic fires and climate change.

< Climate change theory explains that the link between bushfires and carbon dioxide relates to very hot days >

Really?

Doesn’t climate change theory say that there is a high likelihood of greater variability in all manner of weather-related factors?

So we don’t need particularly hot days to have an extreme fire risk if the humidity is low, wind is high, fuel loads are high and everything is tinder dry.

There might be no apparent warming trend. But what about the variability and the chances of the bad factors all occurring together, as they did on this occasion?

In short; we certainly can’t conclude that this catastrophic fire episode is not connected to AGW. And it is pretty reasonable to suspect that it is.

Ludwig, with respect...

>>In short; we certainly can’t conclude that this catastrophic fire episode is not connected to AGW. And it is pretty reasonable to suspect that it is.<<

That is the sort of logic that your opponents can use to entirely discredit your thought processes.

When someone puts up a case that says that weather patterns are not the same as climate patterns, it is wiser to address their own arguments, rather than put forward speculation.

All I am saying is that "it is reasonable to suspect" is not a particularly powerful argument, when faced with graphs that indicate the opposite.

Just trying to be helpful.

As always.

Have to agree with Ludwig, and add that one can't judge if climate change is occurring based on regional variability; but rather, whole of continent trend lines.
Which would have given us the warmest winter, with on average, the highest overnight ambient temperatures and an early spring?
While this might not have been apparent in the hilltops of Bathurst, it could have been apparent in the folds and gullies, where water normally pools in often shallow aquifers. And where temperature variations are rarely if ever, kept!?
A drier, shorter, warmer winter, would have resulted in more and earlier aspiration on the part of the forest, a lower water table, with resultant drier understory.
That lower water table in turn, would have concentrated the salt load, and possibly created more than usual die back, which in turn results in crown fires!
Die back in the tree tops, almost always indicates increased salt concentration in the water table!
If these recent wild fires and or fire storms were not the result of unusual tinder dry conditions, then what do you suppose caused it? And as Ludwig has so adroitly pointed out, much of that could be attributed to climate change as not!
Rhrosty.

Tony sums it up perfectly when he calls Gorr, Flannery and their disciples belief theology.

Rhrosty,

I was interested to read about your interest in 'continental trends'.

What do you think about global trends?

In December 2012 the UK Met Office admitted there had been no global warming for 16 years. In February 2013 Rajendra Pachauri admitted there had been no global warming for 17 years.

There is a relatively objective way of determining global temperatures now that we have a satellite record and ongoing measurements from satellites.

Cheers,

Ludwig: Doesn’t climate change theory say that there is a high likelihood of greater variability in all manner of weather-related factors?

That is only if you believe the 'theory'. You should be aware that there is no empirical scientific evidence to support the theory that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming