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

<< 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. >>

Well Pericles, my obvious retort is, as I made clear my first post; that Jennifer’s ‘evidence’ doesn’t ‘indicate the opposite’.

There is far more to it than just the history of temperature trends at one locality, as Rhrosty suggests.

Yes I am just speculating that there is a connection between this fire episode and AGW. That’s all I’m doing, in the absence of any data, and just based entirely on the very unusual conditions which have occurred so very early in the season.

It is certainly not unreasonable to suspect (and speculate) that these fires are connected to climate change…. is it?

Rhrosty Ludwig and Pericles

The point has been made many times now by both academics and laymen. Australian seasonal conditions are just so variable that its not really possible to point to any one set of conditions and say that its due to climate change. The detailed records (as opposed to the paeloclimatology stuff) are so short that working out trends about hotter drier springs and so on would be nearly impossible, given the still very small variations involved. In any case, hotter and drier is not the whole story.. there also has to be wetter seasons to generate the fuel to burn for the really big fires.

Assertions that really its all due to climate change would be far more convincing if they were declared before the fires, not after. As it was before the fires all we heard was "hotter and dryer". Nothing was said about wet seasons generating fuel.

Jennifer,

"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."

?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/australian-pachauri-global-warming.html

"So the reality is that global warming continues unabated. Despite this reality, an article by Graham Lloyd in The Australian (paywalled) claims that the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri agreed that there has been a 17-year pause in global temperature rises. Unfortunately we don't know exactly what Pachauri said on the subject, because Lloyd did not quote him directly (which is a red flag).

The IPCC communications office tells Skeptical Science that The Australian has not provided a transcript or audio file of the interview for verification, but it does not accurately represent Pachauri's thoughts on the subject - namely that as discussed in this post, global surface temperatures have plateaued (though over the past decade, not 17 years), and that this in no way disproves global warming.

Despite the lack of useful verifiable content, the story headline has nevertheless gone viral. This is not the first time Lloyd has been caught misrepresenting climate science in The Australian - in January of this 2013 he wrongly claimed that a study had found no link between global warming and sea level rise. Oceanographer John Church, who was co-author on the misrepresented research in question and also Nuccitelli et al. (2012) from which Figure 1 above originated, set the record straight, and The Australian was forced to retract the article......"

"The claim about the "peak climate-science bodies" undoubtedly refers to another misleading newspaper article wrongly claiming that global warming stopped by the Mail's David Rose, and Lloyd's comment about the Met Office prediction is also inaccurate. Ultimately the only statement the Australian article attributes to Pachauri on this subject is that "global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming."

The Australian is first rate at misrepresenting the views of climate scientists....wrangling them into trite sentences of the ilk you have employed above.

Ludwig,

Ms Marohasy has interrogated the database in response to previous complaints about the method in her argument earlier this week, and provided seven metrics in this article. None of these show any trend that would change her previous argument. At the moment the ball is in your court to convince us otherwise. She has indicated her source, so here's your chance to go there, and extract and process some data. If you find some trend that could provide a basis for your counterview, present and defend it here. And if you can't find anything you should tell us about that too

It seems to me that the only viable option for the people who claim the fires were caused by global warming is to argue that, but for global warming, we would have seen a decreasing trend in temperature over the latter part of the period Marohasy graphs.

I also find it interesting that while Poirot could find BOM data which suggested September on the east coast has become markedly hotter over the years, it's not reflected in this long-running plot of temperature. It's interesting because the long running plots often tend to show no to little warming at all in any month of any year. The BOM figures are not long-running, and are subject to heat island effects, as well as subjective adjustment of data as weather stations are dropped or added.

I've suggested before that we ought to only use unadjusted results from those weather stations that have century long records and which have not been moved during their life, as I suspect that adjusted bureau stats measure confirmation bias along with actual temperature.

Attention Poirot: from Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis, and not, please note, the Summary for Policymakers (SFP) nor press releases derived from the SFP, we have clearly stated and agreed to by the contributing authors the following paraphrased extracts (find them for yourself):

On droughts: the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.

On heatwaves: However confidence on a global scale is medium due to lack of studies over Africa and South America but also in part due to differences in trends depending on how heatwaves are defined.

On heavy rain events: In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

On cyclones and storms: In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH).

Model response error: Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus. The discrepancy between simulated and observed GMST trends during 1998–2012 could be explained in part by a tendency for some CMIP5 models to simulate stronger warming in response to increases in greenhouse-gas concentration than is consistent with observations.

Virtually all of these summations appeared to be based on lack of standard definitions or a lack of observed data, yet you spin, spin, spin. In other words Poirot, [deleted for abuse].

Raredog,

"....yet you spin, spin, spin. In other words Poirot [Deleted - see previous comment in thread.]."

Once again a timely reminder of the pointless proposition of "discussing" climate change on OLO.

Thanks for that.

And so the arguments keep going around and around.
It's hotter. It's not.
It's drier. It rained last night.
What about last year? What about the year before that?
And anyone with eyes to see and read all about it knows without any doubt at all that there have been no storms to speak of for at least 100 years.
There may have been a bit of wave activity off Portugal recently, but, hey, the big wave riders are living the dream.
So are the shipping companies with the opening of the Northwest Passage.
A bit more acid in the oceans than previously, but acid happens.
Lotsa water. Lotsa food. Seven billion and counting.
No worries

Poirot,

Hang on a cotton picking minute Poirot.

It was you who recently told us something to the effect, that you only come back to OLO to bait the opposition. You are a self declared Agent Provocateur.

As for << Once again a timely reminder of the pointless proposition of "discussing" climate change on OLO >>

If your case cannot be substantiated on its own merits, then of course it is pointless trying because you will be caught out. That is your problem, not OLO’s.

Rather than following in the footsteps of St. Jude, perhaps you might wish to consider changing your position rather than resorting to direct and self declared provocation.

Alternatively you could buzz off until you have something constructive to add to the conversation rather than your bile.

spindoc,

I believe the term I used was "tickle up".

I see a little bit of humour goes nowhere around here.

You should stop taking yourself and your waffle so seriously.

Cheers

I'll say it again The author needs to walk down the hall a bit to the climate scientist at her Uni and ask them.
I'm guessing she will not do that becuase they might actually know what they are talking about, and disagree with her.

"Around the world news headlines have attributed the recent bushfires in the Blue Mountains to climate change."

This is not a good start Jennifer. When I look at the BBC article you link to I find no-one attributing the bushfires to climate change. The best is mention of comments attributed to an unnamed woman at the United Nations suggesting a link to climate change and mention of comments from Al Gore doing the same.

I get worried when people fail to deal accurately with source material.

You know you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble if you wanted to look at trends for minimum temperatures over winter since 1910. The BOM has already done this and produced a nice little map of NSW of the same.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ%5Bmap%5D=tmin&tQ%5Barea%5D=nsw&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0608&tQ%5Bperiod%5D=1910

In the Blue Mountains (where the fires were) the trend is between 0.05 and 0.1 degree per decade. So roughly a degree warmer on average now than in 1910.

"The technical scientific literature, and global warming theory, clearly explains that the link between bushfires and carbon dioxide relates to very hot days – to an increase in maximum temperatures, not to mild winters." [citation needed]

"It has also been claimed that this September was unusually warm; in particular the Bureau of Meteorology recently put out a special Climate Statement entitled ‘Australia’s warmest September on record’. This statement is based on the compilation of selected data from carefully chosen sites. Interestingly at Bathurst, considering just the mean minimum data, the warmest September on record with a mean minimum of 7°C occurred in 1921."

That might be interesting, but mean minimum temperatures at a single location do not themselves make a warmest month. It might be equally interesting that 2013 had the second warmest mean September maximum on record at Bathurst of 20°C, the highest being 2006 at 20.4°C.

Then answer me this Poirot: you obviously do not accept what I paraphrased the scientists have said as written in the Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis but do accept, presumably, what is stated within the Summary for Policymakers and its accompanying press releases. How then do you reconcile your interpretation of (catastrophic) global warming/climate change with your spinning/propaganda through the use of obfuscation through omission? You are well aware of what that phrase means, surely!

This is not limited to you personally; much of the whole field of climate change advocacy (not necessarily implying impropriety of the part of "climate change scientists" here, nor yourself) is built on obfuscation through omission. In other words it is not the "whole truth" (to paraphrase its courtroom use), it is propaganda designed not to inform but to persuade. You are not alone; the ABC media has done the same thing this last week with the NSW bushfires.

Probably, you are most likely just an interested player and this argument will mean little to you but when government-funded money is handed out to the ABC, climate advocates and others, then it is imperative that due diligence is followed - unfortunately, as the last few years have shown, this has not always been the case.

Furthermore, as there is talk behind the scenes about a royal commission into climate change science then, should it come about, it might be prudent for all players in receipt of government funding (not saying you are Poirot) not to continue to engage in obfuscation through omission, and to practice due diligence.

Hi Agronomist, I'm not sure about your research skills either. Here is the heading from the BBC article that Jennifer references "Australian bushfires fan global warming debate", clearly suggesting a link. Should we therefore treat your post on the basis "I get worried when people fail to deal accurately with source material."?

I have to disagree, Poirot.

>>Once again a timely reminder of the pointless proposition of "discussing" climate change on OLO<<

It is certainly pointless to expect anyone to U-turn their views on the topic, given the infinite plasticity of the statistics involved. Right now, either stance seems more responsive to one's views on the perfectibility of the human condition than to facts one can nail down with confidence.

Closer to religion than science, I would submit.

But that does not mean we should not continue to niggle and argue about it.

One day, we might actually get some solid material that is entirely separate from politics, economic and environmental wish-lists, gravy-train Qangos, column-starved journalists, rent-seeking industries, tenure-hungry academics and so on.

When it arrives, we need to be able to view it in the context of the mass of unbelief that presently exists on both sides of the debate.

N'est-ce pas?

Raredog,

"Furthermore, as there is talk behind the scenes about a royal commission into climate change science..."

Hmmm....yep, I expect they'll have a bit of a delve into Darwin's shonky ideas about evolution too.

...etc.

Ha ha. I admire your tenacity Poirot, reminds me of Monty Python's black knight - are you a university-educated science communicator by any chance? If I ran an advertising agency or was leader of a political party I would certainly employ you. Unfortunately you still come across as someone whose mind is closed to any alternate ideas, even if espoused by IPCC-based scientists themselves.

Also I doubt, if there should be a royal commission, they will be discussing Darwin's theory of evolution. They might, however, discuss whether or not there are any problems with the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and whether or not it is going to be catastrophic. But thanks for not referring to me as a "creationist" (albeit faintly); I was expecting "flat-earther"!

Personally I doubt there will be a royal commission (too many vested interests and innocent people involved) but the yet to be proposed but likely inquiry into union corruption may possibly open Pandora's Box in connection with, in part, catastrophic global warming. What's the connection? You'll just have to wait and see.

Thanks, it has been fun.

Agro says:

"I get worried when people fail to deal accurately with source material."

I bet he/she/other does because they would be tripping over Agro and the rest of the pro-AGW acolytes in the room of scientific inaccuracy.

As for no one saying the bushfires are due to AGW that is rich even by Agro's subterranean standards. Over at The NCTCS website there is a club for those people and groups who have been promulgating the alleged connection between the bushfires and AGW; they belong to a club; the BBC:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/bushfire-bastards-club-new-applications.html

Are you applying for membership Agro?

From NCTCS: "The real salt on the wound to those who wish to have a reasonable discussion about the climate and are prevented from doing so by this outlet is it is publically funded, largely by the ABC, a platinum member of the BBC. "

The BBC members have one thing in common.They, particularly the ABC, do their best to not acknowledge views contrary to AGW. They deliberately set out to fool people by attributing global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, as distinct from natural causal factors. Yet, no one has been able to provide any empirical measure of the contribution, if any, of supposed anthropogenic causal factors to global warming.

<< Australian seasonal conditions are just so variable that its not really possible to point to any one set of conditions and say that its due to climate change >>

YES, Curmy!

And it is not possible to assert the opposite either.

So one is left to suspect and speculate!

And yes; a good wet season, or string of seasons, which builds up the fuel load is indeed another important factor to add to those that I have previously mentioned.

.

<< That is only if you believe the 'theory'. >>

Not at all, Raycom. One can hold the views that I hold while not knowing whether climate change is real or not or whether the theory behind it is accurate or not.

As with my inclination to think that the fires are connected to climate change, I have an inclination to believe that AGW is real and significant. But it is only an inclination.

I am a sceptic, not a hardline warmist!

I suspect that anthropogenic climate change is real, and I suspect the fires are connected to it.

There’s nothing unreasonable about that, is there?

.

<< At the moment the ball is in your court to convince us otherwise >>

No no, Mr Agogo. It isn’t at all!

As Curmy said; there is too much inherent variation to know either way.

I have pointed out that, for all her efforts, Jennifer has not indicated at all that there is no connection between the fires and climate change.

When someone does put up apparent evidence, you’ve got to be very careful as to just how real it is.

We don’t know if there is a connection between catastrophic very early-season fires and climate change. There just ain’t anywhere near enough evidence at this point in time.

But it is a very reasonable opinion to suspect, after carefully considering all factors, that there is such a connection.

Ludwig, you are at liberty to hold any opinion you wish.

Climate change is indeed real, as it is a natural process that has been going on since Earth's beginning. No one has been able to produce compelling scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of global warming.

Ludwig.

See if you can pick out something...anything from the same or some other source that matches your...well we can't call it an argument quite yet.

What, it's too complicated? Do we leave it to the Sophists? Plenty of them.

C'mon, here's your stage. Convince me.

<< No one has been able to produce compelling scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of global warming. >>

Correct Raycom.

There is no absolutely compelling evidence.

But there is indeed a whole lot of data that points strongly in that direction.

.

<< C'mon, here's your stage. Convince me >>

Nope.

I’ve got nothing, Hugo.

Not a brass razoo of evidence to support my OPINION!

<< …well we can't call it an argument quite yet. >>

Exactly!

An opinion it is… and nothing more!

My opinion is completely baseless! There’s no foundation whatsoever!

And yet….

Guess what….

It is still a valid opinion!

So are you going to denounce it?

Are you going to say that there is definitely no connection between the fires and climate change?

If so, where’s your data and evidence?

C'mon, be a devil, give us what you’ve got hidden away there.

Or are you just expressing an opinion that my opinion is wrong?

GrahamY, you do know the difference in meaning between the words attributed and link?

Agro, read my link, you'll find all the attribution you need; heavens, an ABC devotee like you will know about Gore's sensational performance on Auntie the other night where he not only blamed the bushfires on AGW but everything else as well including I'm sure your persistent disingenuous comments here.

Are you Adam Bandt?

"Are you Adam Bandt?"

Adam gets around a bit...it seems?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6061&page=0#174466

Is that the new "skeptic" line?

What are you trying to say Agronomist? That there is a connection but it is not causal? If not, what sort of a connection is it? I'd put the shovel away if I were you, you're just digging yourself in deeper. You tried a nasty shot on Marohasy and it's ricocheted. Much better to acknowledge those things than to deny them. It does your credibility a lot more good when you do admit to your own mistakes.

Ludwig: But there is indeed a whole lot of data that points strongly in that direction.

Unless a significant causal link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and global warming is substantiated , there is no scientific or economic justification for governments to impose a carbon tax or ETS, or direct action for that matter.

Beware the Maunder Minimum,

We might all have to rethink our climate change strategies with this from the BBC.

“A leading British climate scientist claims the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there is now a real risk of a ‘Little Ice Age’. The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum. Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions. Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%. --Paul Hudson, BBC Weather, 28 October 2013”

Ooops!

Spindoc, how did the BBC censors slip up on reporting such an item? It would never happen on the ABC -- yours, not mine.

<< Unless a significant causal link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and global warming is substantiated , there is no scientific or economic justification for governments to impose a carbon tax or ETS, or direct action for that matter. >>

Raycom, I disagree.

We shouldn’t need to substantiate this link before major action is undertaken.

Simply suspecting that the massive release of fossil carbon, along with all the massive changes that man has made to the vegetation cover, transpiration rates, reflectivity water tables and runoff regimes is leading to anthropogenic climate change, then we should act.

Erring on the side of caution would be a damn good idea!

But we can do a whole lot more than just suspect that it is real. You agree that we do indeed have a whole lot of data that points strongly towards there being a strong link between human activities and global climate change.

And besides, even if AGW is a complete furphy, we should be doing basically the same sort of things anyway, in order to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and onto renewable energy sources.

With the prospect of peak oil just over the horizon… and with a fossil fuel regime that is promulgating rapid population growth and increasing per-capita usage, and thus making us ever less sustainable planet-wide, we need to act NOW. And do it in a most massive global manner.

In fact, as I have said many times on OLO; AGW shouldn’t matter! The whole debate about whether human-induced climate change is real or not is entirely off to the side of what we really should be discussing. And that is how live sustainably, with an energy regime that is progressively based more on renewable sources, a resource base that is progressively comprised more of renewables, a sustainable agricultural sector and a population that can be comfortably supported by all of this.

Raycom,

Catch up will you.

The BBC regularly gives oxygen to "skeptic" views - as does our own ABC.

Ludwig,

I have no problem with anyone expressing and supporting their views. I do have some difficulty with outrageous statements such as << With the prospect of peak oil just over the horizon >>

The USA has enough carbon based fuels for 650 years, they are exporting cheap coal to Europe and Germany is increasing its coal fired electricity production by 17% because the USA has so much oil and consequently cheap coal.

Germany now produces 29% of its electricity from Lignite from the former East Germany and the only “expensive” gas on the planet is from GazProm who charge 60% more than the USA. That’s because the EU has baulked at Fracking.

Fracking has identified enough oil/gas globally to keep the developed world going for hundreds of years and yet you still spout the “peak oil” mantra as if it were true.

New oil/gas explorations and joint ventures are appearing between the most unlikely nations such as Turkey/Russia/Israel and yet you still cling to the peak oil mantra.

It may be just over the horizon however, it is the one just behind you. Your ideology is guided by your rear view mirror. You don’t like what you see so you invent a new reality.

The peak everything brigade are running short of alarms, they can’t find any new ones so they revisit the old discredited ones to try to get some mileage. A dead cat bounce is what you are looking for and it isn’t happening.

GrahamY: I am indeed suggesting that climate change did not cause the recent fires, but there is a link to climate change.

Fires are caused by an appropriate amount of fuel, a flame to set them off and appropriate weather conditions to propagate the fire. All three were present during the recent fires in the Blue Mountains. A contributing factor to why the fires were in September, rather than say January, was the higher than normal spring temperatures experienced in 2013.

Mean temperatures in the Blue Mountains in September were about 3 degrees above the long term average http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=meananom&period=month&area=ns (mean maximums were about 4 degrees above the long term average http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=maxanom&period=month&area=ns). The fact that global average temperatures have increased by about 1 degree over the last century http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif has increased the probability that temperatures 3 to 4 degrees above the long term average will be experienced in the Blue Mountains in September.

I stated something similar in the other of these threads and don’t see anything particularly controversial about what I have written above. No doubt Mr Cox will be along shortly with an un-evidenced assertion to the contrary.

cohenite: Mr Cox, I am beginning to despair of the Australian education system that trained you to be a lawyer, because you seem to have minimal ability to comprehend the written word. A skill I would have thought to be essential to lawyering.

I criticised Jennifer Marohasy for linking to an article that did not support the claim she made for it. Had she linked to another article somewhere else where someone had said that climate change caused the fires, I would have had nothing to complain about.

But it did support the claim Agronomist, and no amount of padding to show that you understand factors that contribute to bushfires can hide the fact you impugned her unfairly. I think you should apologise. And I don't think you should cast aspersions on others for not being good at reading.

The global increase in temperature attributable to CO2 is said to be 0.6 degrees. I think you're being a bit generous rounding it up to 1 degree. But that doesn't explain temperatures 3 degrees over the average. The only thing that can explain that is a change in weather patterns bringing in hot air from further north and west where it is heated up by travelling over dry land.

So if you have a greenhouse case it has to relate to weather patterns. Good luck with that as the IPCC acknowledges their models have little to no regional skill.

Typical, 'OLO sceptics' shoot anything that moves.

WG2 won't be out till March next year. Regional impacts and affects will be released then.

Obviously some here can't wait and will say or do anything to confirm their bias.

It was a warm winter and a hot September. Agro would have us believe that has never happened before in Australia. He/she/other links to GISS and BOM records. Hardy har har. No education system in the history of the world can counter gullibility and/or commitment to an ideology. UAH again makes the BOM look second-rate and who could accept anything from GISS:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/more-bastards.html

The history of bushfires in September/October, or Spring generally can be looked at here:

http://www.emknowledge.gov.au/search/?search=&region=&cat=1&events_page=1#events_paging

Spring bushfires of major consequence are not rare.

But I suppose if you imbibe from the same pool of arrogance and bizarre condescension as the likes of Peter Fitzsimons you will believe that there was never a Spring bushfire in Australia; you could not make up this degree of ignorance:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warmist_fitzsimons_should_check_his_own_paper_not_wikipedia/

I wasn't privately educated Agro; I suppose that is what you mean. Never mind, I'm sure we'll never meet in a courtroom.

<< I have no problem with anyone expressing and supporting their views. I do have some difficulty with outrageous statements such as << With the prospect of peak oil just over the horizon >> >>

Crikey Spinny, you’ve really spun out on this one!! There’s nothing outrageous about it at all!

Peak oil is not just about the prospect of the supply rate peaking, it is about supply capability versus demand, it is about energy needed to extract this energy source and hence the energy-in / energy-out ratio and thus the ever-rising price for the consumer.

It’s about how this rising price will affect economics from the personal to national and global levels.

It’s about how the ever-rapidly increasing demand for oil, and other fossil fuels, is going to be met in an economically viable manner.

That is: not just the economics of extracting the stuff, but the economic (and social) impact that considerably more expensive fossil fuel energy is going to have, all over the world.

And we shouldn’t forget the environmental impact, on the ground, in the oceans and in the atmosphere, the cost of this and the economic impact thereof.

We certainly are heading for a peak. A peak in production. A peak in affordability. And a peak in our ability to keep the supply up to an ever-rapidly increasing demand.

All-considered, we’d be much better off if all this oil, gas and coal that is apparently still out there, wasn’t!

It’s just going to facilitate the continuously increasing demand and take us further away from sustainability and towards a bigger crunch point when it all falls apart.

The sooner we get into developing renewable energy sources, stabilising our population and learning to live sustainably, the better off we will be.

So yes, we need to be very mindful of peak oil.

And as I said earlier; regardless of whether AGW is real or not, we need to do the same sort of things.

So get with it Spinny. Your ‘she’ll be right, everything is just dandy’ attitude is… in my humble opinion… completely misplaced.

Ludwig, after indicating earlier that you were somewhat sceptical of AGW, now you are showing your true, alarmist, warmist colours.

I do not agree with your assertion " that we do indeed have a whole lot of data that points strongly towards there being a strong link between human activities and global climate change. " There is simply no empirical scientific evidence to support your belief in AGW.

Poirot, your ABC -- not mine -- long ago ditched its supposed impartiality. It simply censors out any sceptic view on AGW, and it is the loudest voice linking the bush fires to AGW.

The ABC has adopted a leftist groupthink ideological agenda. By unashamedly operating outside its charter, it effectively has passed its use-by date. Its privatisation so as to make it earn its keep, would be in order.

Oh, I don't know, Raycom.

It recently gave Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, plenty of air time spruiking his climate expertise directly from Wikipedia.

Chris Pyne yabbers away ad nauseam on Qanda.

and Peter Reith appears to be permanently camped on the Drum set.

The ABC hit Abbott repeatedly with a wet lettuce leaf on his serial rorting.

Not to mention Piers Ackerman and Co on Insiders.

I reckon you should thank your lucky stars that the ABC aren't as biased as you would have us believe.

Luddy old mate, in your quest for your "sustainability" you are loosing contact with reality.

To start with there is no alternate renewable energy available, any where near capable of doing more than waste money. To run todays world on wind, solar or ethanol would be a recipe for billions to die, a horrible death.

If you add in nuclear, it might just be possible in a centaury or so, but definitely not with less lead time than that. If you accept nuclear, or a huge increase in coal fired power generation, we could perhaps have half of our commercial distribution fleet electrically powered within 40 years. The huge infrastructure required just to recharge that much would be hard to finance, both in rolling stock, & electricity generation & distribution.

This would not of course get people to work, or the supermarket, & please don't suggest public transport. That is a total failure when asked to get people anywhere they want to go, & the subsidises required would bankrupt us, if the cost of power infrastructure had not done it already.

To be sustainable we have to find an economical way of turning CO2 back to C. Then we will have it, anything less is wishful thinking with todays technology.

Meanwhile, please don't try to deride hydrocarbons due to rising cost. It will never become as expensive as renewables, at least in the lifetime of contributors here.

Nothing wrong with dreaming, but chasing dreams will send people mad, if they don't keep one foot on the ground, & in touch with reality. I detect your gradual acceptance that CO2 can not cause anything like catastrophic global warming, so reality is gaining a foot hold, now it is time to look at what is really achievable.

GrahamY: I beg to differ. Nowhere in the article linked to was there a statement that the fires were caused by climate change. Therefore, the article did not support the claim made for it.

You then introduce a couple of irrelevancies. Carbon dioxide is not the only forcing factor leading to the increase in temperatures over the last 100 years. Both GISS and HadCRUT data sets indicate a change of about 1 degree in average world temperatures over the last 100 years (I will leave aside the blitherings of Mr Cox about UAH, as the UAH data set does not go back 100 years).

Secondly, it is unnecessary to deal with climate models and their ability to model region weather. All that needs to be done is to look at the past and then use some simple probability modelling. Mean monthly temperatures will vary around the long term mean over years. For example, the long term data might indicate there is a 2% probability of greater than 3 degrees above the long-term mean in any year. That is these conditions will occur twice in a century. If the overall average temperature increases by 1 degree, the mean monthly temperatures will now vary around the new mean. Therefore, the probability of greater than 3 degrees above the long-term mean in any one year will increase to about 10% - or once in a decade.

cohenite: Mr Cox, you appear right on cue. Not quite un-evidenced, but close. Your evidence is the website of the No Carbon Tax Climate Skeptics Party? Next time I want to know about the quality of scientific data, I will go and consult a political party. It is the only sensible thing to do.

I have also not argued that spring bushfires have never occurred before. My argument is that with higher avearge temperatures they are likely to occur more often.

Agronomist, you have some real comprehension issues.

First, the article does allege a link, which means they attributed the fires to global warming to some degree. QED. No argument.

Second, no-one has suggested that the increase in temperature over the whole of the 20th Century is due to CO2. Only that after about 1945 is said to be attributable to CO2, and that is 0.6 degrees, plus or minus a few tenths of a degree.

Not sure about your "probability model" and on the basis of your previous argument that we shouldn't give much credence to people who can't read straight, not inclined to take it seriously. Where did you pull your 10% figure from?

<< Ludwig, after indicating earlier that you were somewhat sceptical of AGW, now you are showing your true, alarmist, warmist colours. >>

Not at all.

Raycom, you are not getting the most important point of all:

It shouldn’t matter whether you or I or anyone else is an ardent denialist, sceptic or warmist, we should all be united in pushing for the same sorts of things. The whole AGW debate really is …. or should be…. largely an aside to the all-important discussion on a sustainable future.

Can you appreciate that?

GrahamY, I did ask before whether you knew the difference in meaning between the words attributed and link. I am sure you do, so I don’t know why you are choosing to confuse them here. They are not synonyms.

Indeed GrahamY, no one has suggested that the whole of the warming is due to carbon dioxide, which is why mention of how much warming is due to carbon dioxide is an irrelevance.

The probability model I constructed is simply a normal distribution centred on the mean and with a standard deviation of 1.5 degrees, which roughly matches the pattern of monthly mean temperature distributions for spring in the Blue Mountains (Katoomba to be precise – data is on the BOM site for station 063039). About 2% of the distribution falls outside 2 standard deviations (i.e. 3 degrees or more) above the mean. Now if you shift that distribution 1 degree higher, then about 10% of the distribution will fall above the same temperature. It is fairly straightforward math.

Agronomist I don't know what your problem is with English but to say that the fires and global warming are linked is the same thing as saying that the fires are attributable to global warming. In this context they are synonyms.

I also don't know why you persist in claiming the increase due to CO2 is 1 degree when the IPCC figure is 0.6 of a degree, and that has to be a maximum. I've developed this category of the "neo-denier", which is people who support the catastrophic version of global warming, but diverge from the IPCC consensus when it doesn't suit them.

OK, now I get your mathematical model, but you are plugging the wrong figure into it. You're also not taking account of the fact that this fire has been caused by the maximum temperature being 2.6 standard deviations, meaning it is well outside the normal probabilities, and has never occurred in the previous 100 years, let alone twice.

And no, the percentage of warming due to CO2 is not irrelevant at all. How can it be? Without knowing that we could just be arguing about natural variation.

Now, I've been looking at the data you referred to, which runs from 1907 through to last year. Can you explain why there was a sudden decrease in interannual variability around 1990? Is there a catastrophist rationalisation of this? If the much lower temperatures weren't there the trend to warming would decrease or disappear as there were months just as warm back in the 20s and 40s.

GrhamY: to say two things are linked is not the same as attributing one to the other. For example, there is a link between genetic factors and lung cancer, but no sensible person would attribute lung cancer to genes. Likewise, no sensible person would attribute these fires to global warming, because the causes of the fires were army exercises, power lines and arsonists. Any sensible person who looked at the data would conclude, on the basis I pointed out above, there is a likely link between climate change and these fires. The increase in underlying temperature resulting from climate change made higher temperatures more likely.

To conclude that by stating there is a link someone is attributing the fires to climate change is both careless and wrong.

GrahamY, you seem to have trouble reading what I have written. In my last post I stated “no one has suggested that the whole of the warming is due to carbon dioxide”. I don’t know how you could interpret that to mean I was claiming all the 1 degree warming was due to CO2. It boggles the mind.

I haven’t looked at how far this year’s temperatures departed from the mean. If it is 2.6 standard deviations from the mean, then those conditions would be expected in about 0.3% of years. If the underlying temperature were increased by 1 degree, then such conditions would occur more frequently; 2% of years. It doesn’t change the conclusion that increasing the underlying temperature through global warming will lead to weather conditions capable of propagating a fire to occur more often.

You are correct; if the world was as warm in 1910 as it is now there would be no global warming. One of the things that global warming does is to reduce the probability of lower temperatures occurring. Therefore, you see more of those lower temperatures back in the 1920s than you see now. But you have to remember that the temperature record is inherently variable, so a single year or even a few years in a row might depart widely from the underlying trend.

<< Luddy old mate, in your quest for your "sustainability" you are loosing contact with reality. >>

Dear o dear Hazza! Where’s your sense of sustainability??

You insist that AGW is bunkum and assert that all alternative energy sources are fundamentally unviable.

It would seem to me that you are the consummate antisustainabilityist!

So do you really think that we should just be charging forth with maximised exploitation of fossil fuels and not worrying too much about alternative energy, population growth, and economic adjustments to a largely renewable energy regime?

<< To be sustainable we have to find an economical way of turning CO2 back to C >>

YES!

So let’s work on that with all our musterable fervour…instead of putting the vast majority of our efforts globally into continuing to turn C into CO2… and at the most staggering rate.

<< Luddy old mate, in your quest for your "sustainability" you are loosing contact with reality. >>

Ludwig,

Regarding Hasbeen's take on sustainable energy, here's an interesting article based on Hockey's assertion that:

"Most of the countries around the world are moving in favour of Direct Action" and "not proceeding with emissions trading schemes or market based mechanisms".

.......which was found to be "False".

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/01/joe-hockey/hockey-says-most-countries-moving-toward-direct-ac/

Agronomist you can't get away from the clear meaning of the words in the newspaper report by talking about genes and cancer. You've badly misrepresented Marohasy and you should admit it and move on.

The issue with interannual variability isn't to do with colder temperatures being less likely as global temperature increases, which is a no-brainer, but that the standard deviation in earlier years this century was much larger than in more recent years. In other words, the spread between the higher and lower years was larger.

But the other issue is that it is quite possible for the temperature to increase while global temperature hasn't because of shifts in weather patterns, in which case the high temperatures might have very little to do with global warming at all.

Graham,

I've posted this a number of times on the forum, but it's relevant here:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DicePopSci.pdf

The climate dice, natural variability (extremely hot outliers defined as anomalies) vs global warming, using real world data.

You might find it interesting.

Poirot, Poirot, are you ever going to read anything but propaganda?

Repeating this same old completely discredited stuff is a waste of time.

If you are serious, go read the IPCC new report. Not the guide for policy, that was written by the politicians, & bears little resemblance to the science, but the real report.

If you actually read some real stuff, even the IPCC real stuff, you could not continue with the garbage your propaganda sites keep feeding you & others.

Hasbeen

Like this you mean?

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/ar5_wg1_headlines.pdf

Here's a little more on the warming of the Greenland Sea.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-02/deep-greenland-sea-is-warming-ten-times-faster-than-global-ocean/5065856

Not withstanding that your particular type of "swaggering" denial is most entertaining.

You would know all about the Antarctic sea ice then wouldn't you? I'm still waiting for the warmist spin that will explain the one million square kilometers more than the average since satellite observation.

Increasing at 4% a year, due to exceptionally cold conditions these many years.

Yes a cherry, but 2 can play the same game, & it is easier for me. Lots more cherries on my side of the argument. The warmists have not been able to come up with anything to support their bull for years.

It's not really interesting Poirot, it's trite. Of course you're going to get more hot days as it gets warmer, which is all it really says. It's just that instead of using a trend line he's using a shift upwards of the median temperature, which is really much the same thing.

However, it does have a relevance to my discussion with Agronomist in that Hansen claims that the standard deviation has increased in size, which is contrary to what we see in the Katoomba data.

Graham,

"It's not really interesting Poirot, it's trite."

Curious anomalies don't mean much to some.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/alaska-roasts-during-october-reigniting-wildfire-16678

Interesting though when they start popping up all over the place.

GrahamY: I don’t intend to debate this point any longer. The meaning of attribute is “consider as caused by something indicated”. Its meaning is quite distinct from link. The readers can look at the BBC article themselves and determine that you are misrepresenting its contents.

As to the temperatures at Katoomba from the 1990s onwards, the variance in the mean annual temperatures from 1990 to 2012 is not significantly different to the variance of the mean annual temperatures from 1907 to 1989 (p = 0.45). However, the mean of the former group is significantly higher than the latter (p = 0.0035).

If you want to have your own idiosyncratic use of language Agronomist, you can, but it will make it difficult to have a sensible discussion with you. However you twist and turn the article was attributing the fires in large part to global warming.

In fact, just to ensure I was being fair I went back and checked the article again, only to find this quote from Al Gore in its body where he uses "link" and "cause" interchangeably:

"His comments drew the ire of environmentalists. The former US vice president and climate change campaigner, Al Gore, said denying the link between this week's fires and global warming was like claiming smoking didn't cause lung cancer."

Not sure about your argument on variance. It is 2.24 for the earlier period and 1.59 for the latter. Seems significant to me. And that doesn't pick up the interannual variability that well where you see big leaps of more than two degrees between the average mean monthly maximum for September in 28% of years up to 1989 versus once in the 23 years since.

But if you don't want to talk sensibly about this then that's fine. I can't force you to converse.

Poirot, the leftist groupthink in the ABC is so ingrained that their corporate affairs people cannot spot the bias even when it is pointed out to them.

As you profess to have profound knowledge of ABC programs, enlighten us by listing the anti-AGW scientists, if any, who have participated on the ABC Radio National Science Show run by AGW-believing chief censor, Robyn Williams -- remember his outrageous insult equating climate sceptics to people who promote paedophilia, asbestos and drugs:

“What if I told you pedophilia is good for children, or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthmatics, or that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, to be encouraged? You’d rightly find it outrageous, but there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths, distorting the science.”