Hi, Charles,
just one remark to your comments: Take care of a northern-hemisphere point
of view. As it's all about global temperature the mean temperature of
November and December should be as high as the rest of the year. As the
earth comes closest to the sun also in the end of the year (hard to believe
for inhabitants of the northern hemisphere) I assume the global mean
temperature should even slightly increase each November / December.
Oh, and a second remark: I think there is no recorded worldwide data before
the 1860s / 1870s, thus, you can't make quantified statistical year-by-year
statements for the time before.

Karsten Schischke

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Dolci" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:08 PM
Subject: [EN] 2001 as 2nd warmest year


> This is my response to the posting on the lead-free mailing list about
2001 being
> the "second warmest year on record".
>
>
> Me thinks this is an exercise for a statistician.  Certainly there must be
one (or
> at least a math type person) out there.  This article by Brown raises many
> questions:  first of all is "why do it in the first place?"  Here it is,
past the
> second week in December and they are saying "Global temperature data for
the first
> 10 months of 2001 indicate that it LIKELY [emphasis added] will be the
second
> warmest year since recordkeeping began in 1867" Why the first 10 months?
Why
> exclude two months that will be among the coldest?  What temperatures are
they
> estimating for November and December?  They don't say.  Or maybe they just
took
> the 10 months of data, divided by 10 to get a monthly average and then
multiplied
> by 12.  That would skew the data by assuming that Nov.  and Dec.  will be
the
> average of the first ten months, which is highly unlikely.  Couldn't they
wait
> until January 2, 2002 (I'll let them celebrate New Year's Day) when all
data would
> be in?  Wouldn't that make for a more accurate statement?  This article
reeks of
> manipulation of data.
>
> Also, note the way this article tries to gain credibility by associating
itself
> with NASA.  "Monthly global temperature data compiled by NASA's Goddard
Institute
> for Space Studies in a series based on meteorological station estimates
going back
> to 1867 show that September 2001 was the warmest September on record."
NASA does
> not say that 2001 was the hottest, they merely compiled the data.
Earth-Policy
> took that data to make their "analysis".  Also suspect is the statement
"...in a
> series based on meteorological station estimates going back to 1867..."
So the
> data is from meteorological stations (i.e.  ground based stations - which,
unless
> adjusted for the urban heat island effect, are highly suspect) and they
are
> "...ESTIMATES [emphasis added] going back to 1867..."  So what is so
magical about
> 1867?  As long as they are estimating why not go back to 1866 or 1766 or
1066
> during the Medieval Optimum when temperatures were much higher than they
are
> today?
>
> As for the science:  Two recent news items that you all might have seen.
One was
> about a "cold snap" in Europe, with a photo showing a van near Barcelona,
Spain
> buried under snow.  Certainly there are members of this mailing list who
live in
> Southern Europe, perhaps they can confirm - or refute - that this is an
unusually
> cold winter for them.  For the story see:
>
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/ap/20011215/wl/1008434528spain_snow_mad110.ht
ml
>
> The other story was "Study Suggests Mars Ice Caps Eroding" about global
warming on
> Mars.  See
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011206/sc/snows_of_mars_1.html
>
> "By PAUL RECER,
> AP Science Writer
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) - Vast fields of carbon dioxide ice are eroding
> from the poles of Mars, suggesting that the climate of the Red Planet is
warming
> and the atmosphere is becoming slightly more dense.
>
>            Experts say that over time such changes could allow water to
return to
> the Martian surface and turn the frigid planet into a 'shirt-sleeve
environment.'"
>
>
>
> "How could that be?"  you may ask.  Who's driving big American cars on the
red
> planet, where are the electricity plants?  Is NASA withholding something
from us?
> What is happening of course is that the Sun is warming the planet and the
carbon
> dioxide sinks, in Mars' case - the ice caps - are giving up their CO2 to
the
> atmosphere.  In other words, global warming causes increases in CO2 in the
> atmosphere - on Mars.  But why not on the earth, too?  Are the rules of
physics
> different on Mars than on Earth?
>
> As an aside, I was amused by this statement in the AP article:  "Some
experts
> suggested that any speculation about a Martian climate change is
premature.  'This
> is a really neat observation,' said Allan H.  Treiman of the Lunar and
Planetary
> Institute in Houston.  But he said the pictures span a time too short to
make
> predictions about permanent changes in the Mars climate.  'We don't have
enough
> data on Mars to draw any clear conclusions about climate change'' he
said."
>
> No kidding!!
>
> Maybe it is happening on Earth too.  See the study done by Dr Jarl Ahlbeck
of the
> Abo Akademi University, Finland entitled "Increase of the Atmospheric
Carbon
> Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming" at
> http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm .
>
> Also there was an article which appeared in the March 15, 1999 Washington
Post
>
> "Studies May Alter Insights Into Warming"
> By Curt Suplee
> Washington Post Staff Writer
>
> Page A7
>
> ....  studies of the Earth's ancient atmosphere may alter the way
scientists
> understand the relationship between airborne carbon dioxide and climate
> change--and hence the dynamics of future "greenhouse" global warming.
>
> In [a] study, reported in the March 12 issue of the journal Science,
Scripps
> [Institution of Oceanography] investigators addressed one of the most
vexing
> "chicken-and-egg" questions in climate research.  Namely, when the Earth
shifts
> from glacial to warm periods (as it does every 100,000 years or so), which
comes
> first:  an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, or an increase
in global
> temperature?  Contrary to what many believe, the team concluded that the
> temperature rise comes first, followed by a carbon dioxide boost 400 to
1,000
> years later.
>
> That's what the researchers found at glacial-interglacial transitions from
> 240,000, 140,000 and 13,000 years ago.  That sequence of events appears to
> contradict the fundamental logic of simple greenhouse warming theories,
which
> argue that increases in heat-trapping gases will be followed by higher
surface
> temperatures.  **** The Scripps-Bern authors writing in Nature found that
at the
> beginning of the Holocene, the atmosphere contained about 268 parts per
million by
> volume of carbon dioxide, up from 180 to 200 ppmv in the depths of the
last ice
> age about 18,000 years ago.  By the late 1700s, it had risen to 285 ppmv.
(Since
> then, the concentration has climbed to 364 ppmv and is still growing.
That is, it
> rose by the same amount--80 ppmv--in the past 200 years that it had from
the
> coldest part of the previous ice age to the late 1700s.)
>
> In accordance with orthodox notions, 'one commonly referred to the
'preindustrial
> CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv,' ' as if it were constant, Stocker said.
But now
> "this has to be revised," he noted.
>
> As the world warmed its way out of the last ice age, carbon dioxide levels
first
> dipped to 260 ppmv about 8,200 years ago, probably because receding
glaciers made
> way for the increasing vegetation that took up a lot of gas.  But then the
carbon
> dioxide content began to creep back up as ocean temperatures rose
(decreasing the
> amount of dissolved gas oceans could hold) and land masses cooled and
dried out
> (decreasing the carbon-trapping activity of photosynthesis).
>
> 'The direct relevance of this finding,' said Jean Lynch-Stieglitz of
> Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, 'is that we can
expect
> that as climate warms, the terrestrial biosphere will probably be capable
of
> holding more carbon than it can today.' "
>
>
> One last comment.  A laboratory study undertaken by Dr.  Heinz Hug,
Wiesbaden,
> Germany (see The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact?  -
> http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/artifact.htm  - states "Laboratory
measurements of
> the infrared absorption of carbon dioxide using an FT-IR spectrometre
suggest that
> the radiative forcing for CO2 doubling must be much less than assumed by
climate
> scientists until now.  A reduction factor of 80 is likely."  In other
words, CO2
> is a lousy greenhouse gas if warming is what you are looking for.
>
> Chuck Dolci