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.