Devastating bush fires in Spring 1895, when CO2 was “safe”

Safe bush fires?

Safe bush fires?

In 1895, atmospheric CO2 levels were 290 ppm, well below the 350ppm “safe” levels that we are told we need to return to by the likes of

350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere.

Accelerating arctic warming and other early climate impacts have led scientists to conclude that we are already above the safe zone at our current 400ppm, and that unless we are able to rapidly return to below 350 ppm this century, we risk reaching tipping points and irreversible impacts such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and major methane releases from increased permafrost melt.

But even at 290 ppm, extreme weather events still occurred, cyclones still hit, and bush fires still burnt, as this extract from the Colac Herald of September 1895 recounts:

Drought, acompanied by raging gales and devastating bush fires, still afflicts the greater part of the colony. The reports from the country become daily more hopeless in tone, as vegetation gradually succumbs to the want of moisture or the quicker method of fire. A Bulli telegraph states that Sherbrooke township has been partly de stroyed. the holiday resorts in the Blue Mountains, Kurrajong Heights and scores of other places have been destroyed by the ravaging of bush fires.

The IPCC acknowledges that there is no link between recent warming and more frequent or extreme weather events. In fact, there is evidence to point the other way. In the US, it will be 3,142 days since the last Category 3+ hurricane landfall, the longest period on record. Also at that link, accumulated global cyclone energy remains at almost historical lows.

For the Climate Council to use recent bush fires as evidence of the urgent need for action on climate change is misleading, irresponsible and alarmist in the extreme.

(h/t Real Science)


  1. Old Sailor Man says:

    Why dignify the “climate council” with capitals?

    • Exactly correct Old sailor Man, as the agw crowd are just liars, they twist the truth, they sift the truth, they grab hold of something in science that helps their case and they push it down the throats of persons who don’t know what a lie it is as if it was gospel when it is still in contention and not proved, peter garret says that the World Ocean will rise by 11 meters and no one questions that, for the World Ocean to rise that much then simple math says at least 41,800,000 Cubic Kilometers of water will have to be dumped into the Ocean, and that figure is conservative and does not take into account that vast areas of dry land will be flooded and there is the curvature of the Earth, both these reasons mean that you would need much more water than that to get a rise of that much, these lunatic liars say things that cannot be supported and are just scaremongers, the things that tanya said to old persons to scare them, so none of them deserve and Capital letters as they just deserve our contempt.

  2. The stupid thing about the ‘climate council’s’ hand-wringing is that, at present, Australia still has a carbon (dioxide) tax of $24 a tonne, which had absolutely zero effect on the world’s temperatures and cut Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 0.1% at a cost of $6 billion.

    So what more ‘urgent’ action does Australia need to take that would make the ‘climate council’ happy to save us from more ‘extreme weather events’?

%d bloggers like this: