Hacker News Reader

You mean the bushfires which have to date exceeded the total area burned in 74-75 in NSW[1]? Which are noted from that article as having a decidedly different burn characteristic then 74-75 which was mostly grassland, as opposed to the forest fires we currently have, including large areas of rainforest in Queensland which has not previously been dry enough to support a bushfire?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/07/recor...

View on HN

A significant factor in the 74-75 fires was extra plant growth from unusually heavy rainfall in the two years prior providing extra fuel[1]. Very different circumstances to the current situation.

[1] https://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/6C98BB75496A5AD1C...

You're actually saying that a Eucalypt forest(Kanangra-Boyd_National_Park), trees that are adapted to fire, that actually promote fire with highly combustible leaves(eucalyptus oil), whose seeds only sprout after a fire, has never been dry enough to support a bush fire. I sincerely doubt it.

> including large areas of rainforest in Queensland which has not previously been dry enough to support a bushfire?

He talked about rainforest, not Eucalyptus forest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com