In a message dated 96-07-11 03:07:53 EDT, Jane Jackson writes:
<< If you go to the AAPT Summer meeting in College Park on Aug.5 - 10, be
sure
to attend the plenary session on Wednesday: "Earth on Fire: the
Atmospheric, Climatic, and Biospheric Implications of Global Burning". The
abstract reads, "Recent satellite measurements ...suggest that on the
global scale, biomass burning is much more extensive and widespread than
previously thought....Biomass burning may be an important driver for global
atmospheric and climatic change."
Of course you all know that last year was the warmest year in the 130 years
of record-keeping. The global warming is even more alarming when you look
at the trend on a graph. >>
Last fall, a local newspaper ran an article that showed the average global
temperature versus year for about the last 100 years. The temperature scale
was blown up, and did show an upward trend, although the data was quite
scattered at this magnification. In the article, the conclusion was that the
data suggested an increase of as much as 6 degrees F was possible over the
next 100 years. Having been using least squares analysis in my physics lab
courses, I decided to analyze the data in a spreadsheet. The result was a
slope of 1.08 plus or minus 0.18 degrees F per 100 years with 95% confidence.
This is well below the 6 degrees stated in the article. Has anyone else
taken the time to analyze the data? If so, what were your results? What are
the natural temperature fluctuations for earth per 100 years? Is one degree
F within these natural fluctuations?