A question for all to ponder:

Why was Al Gore awarded the Nobel Peace prize for his efforts on Global Warming, instead of the Nobel Prize for Physics or Chemistry?

The answer is that Global Warming is not science.

re:
"So in a theoretical scenario where every one of those 24 records exhibits an equal rise in temperature consistent with the global trend, only 3, the summer daytime maximums, are known to exacerbate bushfire intensity. The other 21 inputs to the annual mean (87.5%) do so at times that do not exacerbate bushfire intensity."

I would allow the possibility that your other 21 inputs may not +directly+ exacerbate bushfire intensity. However, they may well have indirect effects. If they contribute to drought, to lack of watershed recharge and fuel drying over the winter, for example, then they may well indeed be significant factors in a nonlinear process, and increase the risk of bushfires.

I do not understand why you are so entrenched against the idea of global warming contributing, along with poor policy (where it is demonstrated), to bushfire risk. I would have thought that good policy would encompass a changing, warming environment. Surely a bushfire policy which accounts for the possibility (which is generally well accepted these days) of global warming is to be preferred, in line with the precautionary principle.

Do you not believe in the precautionary principle?

Sir Vivor, you may not be aware of the fact that the precautionary principle has two parts, the principle itself and a test of significance. Without a test of significance it is nothing more than a blank cheque for any spiv who can dream up a scary scenario, "a scarenario", in support of their favoured action.

That test is embodied in the words, "Where there are threats of serious or irreparable harm", which then leads to the second, overly quoted part of the principle, which states, "the absolute certainty of harm should not be used to postpone measures to prevent harm".

The second part, by itself, has been seriously abused by the green movement to avoid any burden of substantiation of the need for their proposals. The first part, and the fact that it is subordinate, in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment to the requirement to employ cost effective measures and conduct thorough investigations of threats etc, clearly establishes a need to reach "reasonable certainty of harm", or a "substantial risk or probability of harm", before implementing a measure.

And in terms of bushfire risk and intensity, the substantial risk or probability of harm is already clearly established in the case of fuel reduction burning. The decision by EPA/DNRM to stop fuel reduction burning was not subjected to the level of rigour demanded by the precautionary principle. Indeed, they did what their political whims desired without any consideration of the consequences.

Ditto for the claimed impact of global warming on fire intensity. There is no "reasonable certainty of harm" from global warming and compared to the clearly demonstrated harm that is taking place already from other measures (the lack of action), it would amount to a serious abuse of the precautionary principle to apply it when more immediate threats are ignored.

There is also the duty of care requirement to take all resonable and practical steps to prevent harm.

Any introduction of climate politics into fire management is at best a distraction and at worst, culpable negligence or the criminal supression of evidence of misconduct.

Perseus, thank you for that very cogent and interesting reply, concerning the precautionary principle.

I have no concrete information on whether any forest management agencies have implemented any recommendations based on IPCC findings.

As an informed layperson, as one with some understanding (however amateur) about systems science and the key nature of nonlinear feedback in living systems at all levels, from subcellular through global ecosystem pathways, I feel at liberty to apply my layman's understanding and offer my qualified opinion to others, about the pertinence of IPPC model scenarios to bushfire management in Victoria (and elsewhere in Australia).

It may be that some forest managers have done so, in a more accountable manner; that they have incorporated the precautionary principle after duly evaluating a "reasonable certainty of harm", or a "substantial risk or probability of harm". Naturally I would be interested in hearing from someone who can provide pertinent links.

And I do hope that their precautionary-principle-based forest management policies are not so narrow and blindly prescriptive as to eventually render them liable to charges of criminal negligence.

I concede that there may be non-linear influences from winter warming, etc, but in the case of dryer fuel, that will only apply from the last rainfall event. So warming and drying prior to that will have no relevance. And again, these non-linear events are really marginal in the broader scheme of things.

The last post by Perseus bothers me particularly this bit “in the case of dryer fuel, that will only apply from the last rainfall event” as both grass and trees die despite the odd showers.

Grass dies over weeks of warm windy weather trees die over years of drought. I see more birches, spruces and eucalypts failing to recover every summer. The pines get a sad look months before shedding a critical mass of needles, eucalypts tend to bounce back after each winter cool. All living tree giants drag a pyramid of moisture from the sub soils unless of course it is too dry.

Unfortunately green stem moistures are not recorded on a weekly basis.

It’s worth noting here, even heavy showers don’t penetrate the hardened soils on the slopes of the Murrumbidgee, neither do they reach the river with much more than a trickle. Dry winds are the enemy of long term flows.

Much of NSW remains in drought, See the Dept maps and the variation month to month (May-Oct 2007)

http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/drt-area

“So warming and drying prior to that will have no relevance” ?

“these non-linear events are really marginal in the broader scheme of things” ?

When the pines dried out in 2002 their needles fell and they burned in January 2003 like gas in a furnace