I see a market opportunity for a new cemetery, located in what was subtropical rainforest in Northern NSW - maybe back of Kempsey, or something.

The unembalmed remains would be placed in a hessian sack, deposited in a hole dug with a 50 cm post-hole digger, and a cedar sapling planted on top.

"Is there any statistical evidence that there are more bush fires as a result of human activity?" - Yes, go check out the work that NASA are doing with their MODIS instrumnent which records all global bush fires from space every 10 days as it flies around our planet.

They actually produce some really cool images

Also, I'm pretty sure the scientific community have openly said we are currently experiencing climate change, its not something thats going to happen, its happening now and its going to get worse.

Take Black Saturday as a typical example. 10 fires, 10 caused by human activity. Bushfires are usually caused by arson, escaped fuel reduction, infrastructure failure or machinery (welder/slasher/grinder, etc). These days fires that are due to natural causes - lightning, etc. are the exception.

Secondary issues contributing to the drying of forests is fragmentation due to logging or agriculture increasing the edge effect (increased sun/wind exposure drying the vegetation). Those forests allowed to regrow following logging are much drier than mature forests due to the density of the trees, greater water take up of the younger trees, understorey species composition, etc.

Here I was thinking geology was where the big money was (oil, coal, uranium, etc.). Must try to get into alarmist climate forecasting to cash in on all that "grant money"...

Its safe to say that we can now blame climate change for just about anything.

Clearly can't blame your ignorance of climate science on climate change.

The point being that we seem to be linking too many ecological events to climate change. Is this the ecologist's easy way for a research grant buck? It's a way to generate media attention for sure. The points made that most fires are human started is far more important than the effect of climate change on the fire regime. Bad science or bad reporting. Professor Bowman should be smarter than that and so should you Tim.

The one thing that is predictable about climate science deniers is that they just have to deny, and in the process reveal their utter ignorance about that which they claim "skepticism"

http://www.sage.wisc.edu/pubs/articles/M-Z/Narisma/PitmanCC2007bushfire.pdf

"The impact of climate change on the risk of forest and grassland fires in Australia"

http://ottokinne.de/articles/cr2006/31/c031p085.pdf

"Potential impact of climate change on fire risk in the Mediterranean area"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060710084004.htm

"More Large Forest Fires Linked To Climate Change"

On Hurricanes (and Cyclones) the current concensus (and the basic physics) suggests that Climate Change is unlikely to have increased the frequency of Hurricanes/Cyclones (in fact possibly the revers) but is likely to have and will continue to impact their severity (especially water impact) and associated damage

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/hurricane-cost-rising-climate-change/63881

But hey, we wouldn;t want to let some actual science and evidence enter the tiny minds of deniers now would we?

Mark, it is exactly this high and mighty nearly religious like porochialism of people of your ilk that fuel the fire for deniers. I am not a denier, but if most bushfires in tassie over the last 200 years have occurred through direct human ignition regardless of climate change, then we need to manage that. Let climate scientists do the modelling, data collection and accumulation and analysis and let fire management people manage the forest. Stop connecting when the immediate causal link is just not there.

Read the papers befrore you preach at me.

It is about the risk of extreme fire intensity - not the source of ignition. This risk is increased by climate change

Fair call Mark, but we live Ian world of risk.

You haven't looked at the fuel load and dryness index that shows the impact of longer and hotter summer periods is having on fire risk.

Pathetic reply. Of course we live in a world of risk. The question is the risk and impact increased by climate change - something you appear to wish to deny or refute.

The evidence says otherwise

http://wildland-fires.sciencedaily.com/

You can use this to look at the last 50 years in the USA - it's quite clear the extent and intenisty is MUCH higher in the last decade than previous decades.

Om what basis do you call yourself a statistician??

Chris Owens,

As one who spent much of his time in the fire seasons waiting in the afternnon for the fires to start by lightening I find your comment quite amazing. Lightening has always been the main cause of bushfires followed by arson and accident. The aborigines controlled the situation by traditional burning. Modern man is not allowed to do that, or to cut appropriate fire breaks much of which was done by the earlier loggers.

Human life suffers as a consequence of fantasies by green groups who advocate building houses beside the forest whithout a fire break. You may remeber that in the earlier Victorian fires, the one house in the most risky area which was saved, had been protected by a fire break which cost the owner a fifty thousand dollar fine. He was laughing all the way to the bank!

A statistically unadjusted association means very little in good science. Potential confounders would be a nice mention. I think they call it the caveats. Human encroachment on bush, higher population density. Please!

John Nichol,

Historically lighning may have been the main cause of fire, but not any more. Between 1976 & 1996 lighning caused approximately one third of fires in parks and state forests: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/102090/Bushfires_Across_Victoria.pdf

The figure is much less for other land uses.

Where exacly did I say I was against firebreaks for housing? My comment about the edge effect was in relation to forests which are now more fire prone due to fragmentation. Also where have "greens" said they want to build beside a forest without a firebreak? What makes you think a "green" wants to live somewhere that is unsafe? Not that a firebreak made much difference at Marysville on Black Saturday with the forest some 400m from the town centre, still the buildings burned.

As someone who lives in the bush, it is a choice and I understand and plan for the associated risks.

Chris Owens,

Thanks for your response.

Yes, I can accept that more fires are now caused by arson or accident. I was merely pointing out that lightening has always caused fires, whereas someone on this post (not you)seemed to be implying that lightening was more frequent now because of “Global Warming” than in the past.

Could you then explain your reasoning behind “fire prone because of fragmentation”?

I do not believe I had suggested you were against fire breaks. I was merely pointing out in perhaps a clumsy way, that had there been firebreaks surrounding the towns in Victoria where170 people were killed, as there had been around the house of the survivor who was previously fined $50,000 for protecting his own house in that way, there could have been no deaths at all. There was also a requirement that natural “fall” along the roads be left where it was which allowed burning close to traffic on the roads, which in turn prevented some from escaping by car.

Who else but a green would have imposed such restrictions. People complained that by council regulation they could not clear around their hoses as is exemplified in the case of the person who was fined. Not a good look whichever way you wish to interpret it.

At Marysville, as I understand it, the fire was, as you say 400 metres from the town centre but it was NOT 400 metres from the houses on the perimeter of Marysville, at least as reported at the time and shown on television after the fires had done their damage. Sure the fires spread to the town centre by burning houses along the way..

Thanks John.

Islands of forest in a sea of agriculture have a significant edge effect which contributes to lower humidity, higher wind speeds and sunlight levels and therefore dries the adjacent vegetation.

What annoys environmentalists is people who buy land in a forest when there are existing vegetation overlays and they then want to clear the vegetation. If they want to live away from trees, why buy there in the first place when huge swathes of land in Victoria which have been already cleared?

I worked in Marysville post fire, in association with the Shire of Murrindindi and the survivors. The town shops and houses were burnt down due to ember rain igniting mostly exotic town vegetation and roof gutters full of leaves.

We need to retain vegetation links (often roadside corridors) betweens islands of habitat to maintain the means by which native animals can disperse and interbreed with nearby colonies to maintain genetic diversity. Large areas of Australia have already been cleared. We live in one of the most fire prone countries in the world. If people don't like the risks associated with bushfires, don't live near forests. There are plenty of alternatives available.

So the 0.1 c degree increase or whatever it is, is a major threat. This conversation is ridiculous like the article and Prof Bowman should know better. I restate that money and grants and another, the media are the drivers off this dribble.

I'm so scared. Are we that dumb that we will not adjust/adapt?

Well, given that the positive feedback mechanisms hypothesised by the models used by the IPCC don't seem to exist, a 3 Celsius increase implies three doublings of the CO2 level. That is not going to happen in the near future anyway.

Typical ignorant statement made by denialists based on flawed understanding of the science (which they make no effort to understand)

"while warming is expected everywhere on Earth, the amount of projected warming generally increases from the tropics to the poles in the Northern Hemisphere."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf p 27

Well said Toby.

I hope that if public policy is formed on the basis of such science, that when the predictions turn out to be wrong, the scientists are jailed for fraud or even manslaughter, just are those in the finance industry. I would start with Tim Flannery with his rainfall not filling up the dams anymore advice. How many were killed when the Brisbane dams overflowed because they were not supposed to fill? Likewise, conservation groups with their native tree mantras. Forget the science, it is hopelessly obvious that native trees do not suit our lifestyles and should not be grown in residential areas. How many children are killed every year by falling Eucalyptus branches? Likewise, the Greens with their no clearing of native vegetation mantra. If you remove the fuel, you remove the risk.

"Losing their religion as evidence cools off" in today's Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/losing-their-religion-as-evidence-cools-off/story-e6frgd0x-1226510184533

One day someone will teach Mark Harrigan that forecasts and projections are not evidential since they are merely extrapolations.

Presumably you have applied your much-touted, highly skilled forecasting methodology skils to demonstrate that the predictions will be wrong? Where will the paper be published?
How many financiers have been jailed for fraud and manslaughter recently? They just crashed the world economy, there must be a few you can point to?
At what point did Tim Flannery become an infrastructure advisor to the Queensland Government?
Children killed by falling branches - about 1 every two years. Almost all on camping trips into forests/national parks, not residential areas: http//www.latrobe.edu.au/downloads/brookes_a_preventing_death_serious_injury.pdf . Hardly a national emergency. The majority of deaths due to falling trees are due to land clearing and the tasmanian logging industry...

Just read and weep:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/losing-their-religion-as-evidence-cools-off/story-e6frgd0x-1226510184533

That's a very strong claim, Chris. Saying the IPCC is wrong about positive feedback implies either that heating the world will not cause water to evaporate, or you are positing a MASSIVE cloud cooling effect. Citations?

The UN wrong! How could the UN ever be wrong?

A link to an article behind a paywall of the Mudoch press - known denialists - from Spiros?

This is not a forecast

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/piomas1.gif

Nor is this

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/graph1.jpg

One day, Mr Vlachos will realise the idiocy of denialism

Only an idiot cant get past the Murdoch paywalls.

Type the title into google and hey presto. Since of course, it has been read 1000's of times already today.

No not the Murdoch paywalls! Would you prefer the Green-Left weekly?

The question is whether or not it takes a bigger idiot to want to

http://www.psmag.com/environment/fox-news-viewers-misinformed-on-climate-change-47492/

I note you have no answer, apart from silly rhetoric, to the evidence of disappearing arctic ice and increased damage from climate related distasters - or risign sea levels, increased oceanic heat content or a myriad of other clear evidence of the reality of climate change.

Typical denier

As I said read or red.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/losing-their-religion-as-evidence-cools-off/story-e6frgd0x-1226510184533

Just copy and paste into google and there you go. You know you want to know what they think about ya, dont ya?

Mark, don't take too much notice of AR4–no one else does.

Your link is to a page that has not a single reference on it. Neither peer reviewed nor gray. Its no better than animal chatter noise.

No one else except the vast majority of the climate science community - but then an evidence free denier such as yourself would say that wouldn't they?

Evidence it something that can be determined. Projections of the future cannot.

From your link:

"There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases."

Where have we seen evidence of "ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes"? All we have is claims made in the 1980's that we would all be gone by now. Utter nonsense.

Murdoch's loss-making vanity press produces another fact free rant pretending global warming isn't happening. Number 79 in the series (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/11/04/the-australians-war-on-science-78-2/).
Is this senile rant, based on a discredited fabrication by David "Invade Iraq now now now before they kill us with their WMDs" Rose, all you've got to bolster your evidence-free faith that climate change isn't happening? You must be desperate. Or perhaps this is an acceptable standard of evidence in your economics department? If I write a rant that calls you the high priest of the neoclassical economics religion, will you promise to see the light and become a Marxist?

As comical as it is.

If you actually read the literature on how climate models are built and tested, you would know about their ability. You are using an argument from ignorance. Skeptical Science has a good introduction to climate models here, with links to further readings:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

You're getting hysterical again, Spiro.

oh yes, read how models are built and tested and how data is generated and how data from different sources are combined etc. etc. but, the greatest ignorance is realising that a forecast or a projection is not science at all.

Hysterical about the UN? How could they wrong? They are the UN.

I suppose it is pretty funny that someone on an academic discussion site treats The Australian seriously.

Its pretty funny that those that vote for our leaders, the democracy (not the proletariat), are beginning to become unenlightened with scientists thanks to blokes like yourself.

I'm pretty sure I wrote "IPCC", not "UN". Are you dyslexic? Your grammar is certainly decaying.

Oh, and the IPCC was a spin off of the UN. Was there an IPO?

If scientists didn't make forecasts or projections, hypotheses couldn't be tested. So denying that forecasting or projecting is part of science seems very puzzling.
Furthermore, you had a concise, well-laid out explanation of how climate scientists do forecasting from Kevin Walsh, a distinguished climate scientist (http://www.climatescience.org.au/staff/profile/kwalsh), given to you on the "Losing higher ground" article. You thanked him for it. If you had further problems with the forecasting methodology, why didn't you take it up with him then?

I guess that makes me a scientist. So stop demeaning me, I am a scientist. I am making scientific arguments.

Do you intend to actually say something about climate feedback and sensitivity, or indeed anything approaching coherence, salience or relevance, at some point, or are you attempting to disappear in a fog of self-squirted acronyms and snark, like a frightened octopus?

"All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat".
Keep up that level of logic and you'll go far in your career, I'm sure.

Why didn't you stand by your convictions when you had the opportunity to talk to Kevin Walsh?

Oh, so scientists use forecasts, but forecasters are not scientists is your line. It must be then, that the scientists forecasts are not scientific.

Your like a Jehovahs Witness. Except what you consider textual is not the bible, but peer-reviewed science. Keep knocking.

"Scientists make forecasts. Astrologers make forecasts. Therefore, scientific forecasts are astrology".

You didn't cover logic as an undergrad, did you?

So my forecasts are unscientific, but Richard Lindzens are not?

As always, you've run out of arguments (not that you had anything really recognisable as such) and started going for naked abuse. Considering that I agree with the author of this piece, and you are the one banging on the virtual door posting unwanted comments telling us everything science tells us is wrong, I think it's you who is playing the Jehovah's witness here.

Why didn't you take up your objections with Kevin Walsh? Was it cowardice, or dishonesty?

I am just contributing to this comedy.

I guess your red nose and baggy trousers should have been my first clue.

Mark, I supplied evidence in support of my claim that the IPCC is not at all the authority that some think it is. See: http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php

Laughable idiocy. A link to a non peer reviewed blog that references no climate science, claims there is no scientific concensus and confuses climate with weather shows you must have forgotten any physics you calim to have learned,

When you can address the actual evidence, such as I have posted above, you might have a leg to stand on.

As it is your posts just makes you look like a foolish desperate denier.

Mark, are you telling us that its okay for the IPCC to try to pass off over 5,500 non-peer reviewed items as scientific references in their AR4 report to the member governments of the UN.

People who are not trained scientists are quite able to understand that the following are not suitable support for proper science:

press releases, newspaper and magazine articles, discussion papers, MA and PhD theses, working papers, and advocacy literature published by environmental groups.

Your absence of comment indicates acquiescence.

Toby you can rant about any errors that others claim about IPCC reports as much as you want.

It doesn't change the evidence - which I have presented to you on numerous occasions - and in your denailism ignore and conspicuously fail to refute or address.

The point is, regardless of what you, or your denialist web sites, or even the IPCC, may say the evidence is clear that artic ice is melting, sea levels are rising, temperature anomalies are increasing, weather related distasters are increasing, oceanic heat content is increasing, temperatures are rising - and we continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere in escess of the narutal cycles ability to cope which is causing all of the above.

failure to acknowledge or deal with these established facts is denialism - which you and others are practicising.

Perhaps it doesn't change the evidence - perhaps there is no evidence. But the Chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, said that the use of non-peer reviewed 'references' were voodoo science.

5,500 of them are not "errors that others claim about IPCC reports"