Dear all, Lately, I discussed the issue of global warming and how to assess that with my daughter, who is an expert in environmental science. She stated that the statistical fluctuations in the global temperature are of such a nature and size that a minimum of a 30 years period of monitoring is required to obtain statistically sound and solid data. The experts who have done this, have shown a statistically significant increase in global temperature during the last decades. (The actual number of deci-degrees has escaped my memory.) This increase cannot be attributed to cosmographic effects such as earth-to-sun distance etc. So, very likely, it originates from human activity (E.I., emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases). Further, the interactions are of such a complex nature, that is very hard to say anything sensible about individual years, effects like "El Nino" and so on. Best regards, Erik --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik E. de Kluizenaar PHILIPS CFT - Electronic Packaging & Assembly (EP&A) Building SAQ-p, p/o box 218, 5600 MD Eindhoven - The Netherlands Tel/Fax: (+31 40 27) 36679/36815; E:mail [log in to unmask] PHILIPS homepage: http://www.philips.com; PHILIPS CFT homepage: http://www.cft.philips.com Internal PHILIPS only: http://pww.cft.philips.com/cfteurope/electronics/elpajo/index.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Karsten Schischke <[log in to unmask]> Sent by: EnviroNet <[log in to unmask]> 09-01-2002 09:37 Please respond to EnviroNet To: [log in to unmask] cc: (bcc: E.E. de Kluizenaar/EHV/CFT/PHILIPS) Subject: [EN] 2001 as 2nd warmest year Classification: 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