nitram

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:28:22 GMT, [email protected] (Charles
Hawtrey) wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >>A friend who went to a climate conference said that there were as many
    >>different theories and forecasts as there were attendees.
    >It's called healthy scientific debate. That's how science is done --
    >one guy (or gal) proposes a hypothesis; another tries to shoot it
    >down, a third proposes an alternate hypothesis, and they argue it out
    >in public forums like conferences and journals, referring to
    >quantitiative data and calculations.

Often using data that was iffy, when it was first collected.
Guestimates made in the nineteen sixties are used as if they are fact.


--
Martin

Charles Hawtrey

[email protected] wrote:

    >On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:28:22 GMT, [email protected] (Charles
    >Hawtrey) wrote:
    >>[email protected] wrote:
    >>>A friend who went to a climate conference said that there were as many
    >>>different theories and forecasts as there were attendees.
    >>It's called healthy scientific debate. That's how science is done --
    >>one guy (or gal) proposes a hypothesis; another tries to shoot it
    >>down, a third proposes an alternate hypothesis, and they argue it out
    >>in public forums like conferences and journals, referring to
    >>quantitiative data and calculations.
    >Often using data that was iffy, when it was first collected.
    >Guestimates made in the nineteen sixties are used as if they are fact.

Please give enough examples from recent peer-reviewed publications to
convince us that this is "often" done.

What the heck, give us even a few examples from recent peer-reviewed
publications.

We're waiting...



--
Ich bin kein Mitglied dieser Konferenz, dennoch möchte ich einen Pinguin.

nitram

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:52:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charles
Hawtrey) wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:28:22 GMT, [email protected] (Charles
    >>Hawtrey) wrote:
    >>>[email protected] wrote:
    >>>>A friend who went to a climate conference said that there were as many
    >>>>different theories and forecasts as there were attendees.
    >>>It's called healthy scientific debate. That's how science is done --
    >>>one guy (or gal) proposes a hypothesis; another tries to shoot it
    >>>down, a third proposes an alternate hypothesis, and they argue it out
    >>>in public forums like conferences and journals, referring to
    >>>quantitiative data and calculations.
    >>Often using data that was iffy, when it was first collected.
    >>Guestimates made in the nineteen sixties are used as if they are fact.
    >Please give enough examples from recent peer-reviewed publications to
    >convince us that this is "often" done.
    >What the heck, give us even a few examples from recent peer-reviewed
    >publications.
    >We're waiting...

Give me an example of peer reviewed publications that have verified
every measurement used dating back to 1850 for accuracy.
--
Martin

Charles Hawtrey

[email protected] wrote:

    >On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:52:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charles
    >Hawtrey) wrote:
    >>[email protected] wrote:
    >>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:28:22 GMT, [email protected] (Charles
    >>>Hawtrey) wrote:
    >>>>[email protected] wrote:
    >>>>>A friend who went to a climate conference said that there were as many
    >>>>>different theories and forecasts as there were attendees.
    >>>>It's called healthy scientific debate. That's how science is done --
    >>>>one guy (or gal) proposes a hypothesis; another tries to shoot it
    >>>>down, a third proposes an alternate hypothesis, and they argue it out
    >>>>in public forums like conferences and journals, referring to
    >>>>quantitiative data and calculations.
    >>>Often using data that was iffy, when it was first collected.
    >>>Guestimates made in the nineteen sixties are used as if they are fact.
    >>Please give enough examples from recent peer-reviewed publications to
    >>convince us that this is "often" done.
    >>What the heck, give us even a few examples from recent peer-reviewed
    >>publications.
    >>We're waiting...
    >Give me an example of peer reviewed publications that have verified
    >every measurement used dating back to 1850 for accuracy.

Ah, since you're attempting to change the subject, you're admitting
that you can't come up with the requested examples?

Being in good humor today, I'll respond to your red herring.
Verifying "every measurement used dating back to 1850" is not a
relevant scientific endeavor (though it might seem so to a
non-scientist). What one does is to verify the accuracy of
measurements that are relevant to a specific scientific problem, and
in particular to look for systematic sources of bias or error.

The bottom line is that yes, we would like to have an infinitely large
record of perfectly accurate and representative data. In reality, if
this requirement were imposed we would have to shut down all inquiry
in every field of science. So we use the best data that we have
available, throwing out questionable observations and correcting for
known biases and errors. (By "we" I mean scientists in general --
climatologists, chemists, nuclear physicists, you name it.)

If you want to read about how this is done for measurements relevant
to the problem of global change, the following paper from the National
Acadamey of Science gives a good starting point (including a summary
for laymen):

Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change (2000)
Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources. Web link:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309068916/html/

Oh, and I'm still waiting for your examples...




--
Ich bin kein Mitglied dieser Konferenz, dennoch möchte ich einen Pinguin.

nitram

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:03:07 GMT, [email protected] (Charles
Hawtrey) wrote:



    >If you want to read about how this is done for measurements relevant
    >to the problem of global change, the following paper from the National
    >Acadamey of Science gives a good starting point (including a summary
    >for laymen):
    >Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change (2000)
    >Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources. Web link:
    >http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309068916/html/
    >Oh, and I'm still waiting for your examples...

Try pages 35 - in the source you quote.
--
Martin

Charles Hawtrey

[email protected] wrote:

    >On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:03:07 GMT, [email protected] (Charles
    >Hawtrey) wrote:
    >>If you want to read about how this is done for measurements relevant
    >>to the problem of global change, the following paper from the National
    >>Acadamey of Science gives a good starting point (including a summary
    >>for laymen):
    >>Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change (2000)
    >>Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources. Web link:
    >>http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309068916/html/
    >>Oh, and I'm still waiting for your examples...
    >Try pages 35 - in the source you quote.

Did you actually read the text that went along with the figure, or did
you just pull a figure out at random? There's an entire section in
that chapter entitled "Sources of Uncertainly in Trend Estimates".
Extensive discussion of data quality and limitations is not consistent
with your original contention that "guestimates made in the nineteen
sixties are used as if they are fact."

It's understandable if you overlooked it; the authors sneakily tried
to hide the section dealing with limitations of their data and
analysis by putting its heading in a large boldface font.

Ob r.t.e.: Some of the scientists cited are European, and you can get
guided tours of places like the Hadley Centre. :-)


--
Ich bin kein Mitglied dieser Konferenz, dennoch möchte ich einen Pinguin.

nitram

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 23:20:48 GMT, [email protected] (Charles
Hawtrey) wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:03:07 GMT, [email protected] (Charles
    >>Hawtrey) wrote:
    >>>If you want to read about how this is done for measurements relevant
    >>>to the problem of global change, the following paper from the National
    >>>Acadamey of Science gives a good starting point (including a summary
    >>>for laymen):
    >>>Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change (2000)
    >>>Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources. Web link:
    >>>http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309068916/html/
    >>>Oh, and I'm still waiting for your examples...
    >>Try pages 35 - in the source you quote.
    >Did you actually read the text that went along with the figure, or did
    >you just pull a figure out at random? There's an entire section in
    >that chapter entitled "Sources of Uncertainly in Trend Estimates".
    >Extensive discussion of data quality and limitations is not consistent
    >with your original contention that "guestimates made in the nineteen
    >sixties are used as if they are fact."

I read the whole section.

    >It's understandable if you overlooked it; the authors sneakily tried
    >to hide the section dealing with limitations of their data and
    >analysis by putting its heading in a large boldface font.

You speak as if there is only one group making these predictions there
is not. There are groups, who present guestimates as fact.
Everytime they put up a plot of annual temperatures, going back 150
years and do not state that they have reservations about the quality
of the data collected they are doing it.

    >Ob r.t.e.: Some of the scientists cited are European, and you can get
    >guided tours of places like the Hadley Centre. :-)

I worked until recently in the place that procures European weather
and earth observation satellites and I spent two year s in the early
sixties in the Met Office in Bracknell.
--
Martin

Charles Hawtrey

[email protected] wrote:

    >You speak as if there is only one group making these predictions there
    >is not. There are groups, who present guestimates as fact.
    >Everytime they put up a plot of annual temperatures, going back 150
    >years and do not state that they have reservations about the quality
    >of the data collected they are doing it.

Scientists always have to justify their data in peer-reviewed papers
either by analysis, or by citing previous literature where the data
sets were evaluated. The disconnect happens when things get filtered
through the popular press. (Not to mention groups such as Greenpeace,
etc. who have their own axe to grind.) The typical case is that a
scientist gives a long interview with a journalist of which only the
most sensational and headline-grabbing snippets get published. A
cautious, reasoned explanation with qualifications on data,
assumptions, etc. gets turned into "Scientist says global warming to
end life as we know it". Unfortunately, non-specialists have little
choice but to get their information from the mainstream press.

As a result of being constantly misquoted (or worse), lots of
objective and careful scientists have soured on the press, leaving a
vacuum that that the likes of Michaels and Baliunas are more than
happy to fill.

    >>Ob r.t.e.: Some of the scientists cited are European, and you can get
    >>guided tours of places like the Hadley Centre. :-)
    >I worked until recently in the place that procures European weather
    >and earth observation satellites and I spent two year s in the early
    >sixties in the Met Office in Bracknell.

Good that you have some technical background. By the way, the Met
Office has moved most of their operation to Exeter. I hear the move
wasn't exactly a morale-booster...



--
Ich bin kein Mitglied dieser Konferenz, dennoch möchte ich einen Pinguin.

Jim Ley

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:29:10 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

    > I spent two year s in the early sixties in the Met Office in Bracknell.

Were you working, or just squatting there?

Jim.

Earl Evleth

in article [email protected], Charles Hawtrey at
[email protected] wrote on 5/12/04 21:52:

    >> Often using data that was iffy, when it was first collected.
    >> Guestimates made in the nineteen sixties are used as if they are fact.
    >
    > Please give enough examples from recent peer-reviewed publications to
    > convince us that this is "often" done.
    >
    > What the heck, give us even a few examples from recent peer-reviewed
    > publications.
    >
    > We're waiting...


Global warming was NOT a big subject in the 1960s. The
atmospheric sciences were polarized towards the problem of urban
pollution caused by automobile emissions. The transportation
industry and the public itself was not enthusiastic about
being blamed, and denial was the story of the day. The next
commonly held idea was that such pollution would only occur
in LA basin, the rest of the world did not have the conditions
to produce such smog.

At the time (1962) I took a job at IBM research in San Jose,
my fellow scientists there had the opinion that this was only
a LA problem. I told them at the time that Santa Clara Valley
would develop urban smog easily, it was hemmed in a miniature
LA basin like geography. The growing population and automobile
traffic would bring the same conditions. Urban ozone was hard
to detect in the east since is presence was masked by other
pollutants, mainly SO2. The same thing was true in Europe.
The early method of measuring ozone was to measure the cracking
time of a bent piece of native rubber. There were no instrumental
methods which did not conflict with other pollutants.

There were non-believers in the ozone "thesis" but eventually`
the chemistry was all worked out. The original hypothesis
of Haganschmidt at Caltech were born out-it began with NOx
exhaust emissions.

The other worry of atmospheric scientists was acid rain. The
emitted SO2 and NOx from power plants produced deposition
in the eastern part of the USA, some lakes became so acidic
so not support either fish or plant life. This problem was
initially found in the 1960s and by the beginning of the 80s
it was well worked out chemistry-wise. Power industry interests
effectively blocked anything being down in the US until the
mid-1990s. I remember reading a Wall Street Journal article
entitled "Acid rain, what acid rain"? This problem remains
and not enough reduction in SO2 emissions has occurred
to return eastern grown water back to a "normal" acidity
(from CO2 in water). Recently, the increase in global CO2
has brought out some article that the ocean acidity is increasing
due to CO2 hydrolysis enough to produce biological changes.

Still through the 1970s no real broad interest in global warming
had occurred. The ozone hole in the Antarctic attracted a lot of
attention. There too there was the denial crowd. Reaction to
that threat occurred rapidly although still there has been no
reduction in the ozone loss, there is some major control of
the chemicals which produce it. Still, it will take perhaps
100 years of no emissions to bring the upper atmosphere
ozone back to normal.

One of the reasons the global warming issue did not take off is
that there was no warming in the '60-'70 period, temperature
rises did not occur. Increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations
were continuing but the global measure of these increases
had only come on-line intensely since the 1960s, and ice
core CO2 data is fairly recent.

Earl

nitram

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:43:36 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >in article [email protected], Charles Hawtrey at
    >[email protected] wrote on 5/12/04 21:52:
    >>> Often using data that was iffy, when it was first collected.
    >>> Guestimates made in the nineteen sixties are used as if they are fact.
    >>
    >> Please give enough examples from recent peer-reviewed publications to
    >> convince us that this is "often" done.
    >>
    >> What the heck, give us even a few examples from recent peer-reviewed
    >> publications.
    >>
    >> We're waiting...
    >Global warming was NOT a big subject in the 1960s.

Global cooling was still being suggested at the beginning of the
sixties.

    >The
    >atmospheric sciences were polarized towards the problem of urban
    >pollution caused by automobile emissions. The transportation
    >industry and the public itself was not enthusiastic about
    >being blamed, and denial was the story of the day. The next
    >commonly held idea was that such pollution would only occur
    >in LA basin, the rest of the world did not have the conditions
    >to produce such smog.

and London, where dramatic smogs in the fifties lead to the Clean Air
Act.

    >At the time (1962) I took a job at IBM research in San Jose,
    >my fellow scientists there had the opinion that this was only
    >a LA problem. I told them at the time that Santa Clara Valley
    >would develop urban smog easily, it was hemmed in a miniature
    >LA basin like geography. The growing population and automobile
    >traffic would bring the same conditions. Urban ozone was hard
    >to detect in the east since is presence was masked by other
    >pollutants, mainly SO2. The same thing was true in Europe.
    >The early method of measuring ozone was to measure the cracking
    >time of a bent piece of native rubber. There were no instrumental
    >methods which did not conflict with other pollutants.
    >There were non-believers in the ozone "thesis" but eventually`
    >the chemistry was all worked out. The original hypothesis
    >of Haganschmidt at Caltech were born out-it began with NOx
    >exhaust emissions.
    >The other worry of atmospheric scientists was acid rain. The
    >emitted SO2 and NOx from power plants produced deposition
    >in the eastern part of the USA, some lakes became so acidic
    >so not support either fish or plant life. This problem was
    >initially found in the 1960s and by the beginning of the 80s
    >it was well worked out chemistry-wise. Power industry interests
    >effectively blocked anything being down in the US until the
    >mid-1990s. I remember reading a Wall Street Journal article
    >entitled "Acid rain, what acid rain"? This problem remains
    >and not enough reduction in SO2 emissions has occurred
    >to return eastern grown water back to a "normal" acidity
    >(from CO2 in water). Recently, the increase in global CO2
    >has brought out some article that the ocean acidity is increasing
    >due to CO2 hydrolysis enough to produce biological changes.
    >Still through the 1970s no real broad interest in global warming
    >had occurred. The ozone hole in the Antarctic attracted a lot of
    >attention. There too there was the denial crowd. Reaction to
    >that threat occurred rapidly although still there has been no
    >reduction in the ozone loss, there is some major control of
    >the chemicals which produce it. Still, it will take perhaps
    >100 years of no emissions to bring the upper atmosphere
    >ozone back to normal.
    >One of the reasons the global warming issue did not take off is
    >that there was no warming in the '60-'70 period, temperature
    >rises did not occur.

In Western Europe there were no exceptionally hot summers in the
sixties in fact there were two or perhaps three exceptionally cold
winters. In the seventies only 1976 was particularly hot and 1979-1980
winter was particularly long and cold.

    > Increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations
    >were continuing but the global measure of these increases
    >had only come on-line intensely since the 1960s, and ice
    >core CO2 data is fairly recent.

The use of satellites to systematically globally gather detailed
accurate information led to a greater awareness too.

AFAIR in the sixties in the North Atlantic, away from the coast, there
were just three weather ships collecting data systematically, mainly
for short term weather forecasting.
--
Martin

nitram

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:13:03 GMT, [email protected] (Charles
Hawtrey) wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >>You speak as if there is only one group making these predictions there
    >>is not. There are groups, who present guestimates as fact.
    >>Everytime they put up a plot of annual temperatures, going back 150
    >>years and do not state that they have reservations about the quality
    >>of the data collected they are doing it.
    >Scientists always have to justify their data in peer-reviewed papers
    >either by analysis, or by citing previous literature where the data
    >sets were evaluated.

It's not trivial to analyse and verify a vast amount of data extracted
from paper records and summarised in paper form.
Now that most data is computerised in databases, it's much simpler.

    >The disconnect happens when things get filtered
    >through the popular press. (Not to mention groups such as Greenpeace,
    >etc. who have their own axe to grind.

Yes I agree.They do themselves no good.

    >) The typical case is that a
    >scientist gives a long interview with a journalist of which only the
    >most sensational and headline-grabbing snippets get published.

Worse is when a journalist distorts a well thought out press hand out.

Everything has to be dramatic in their world.

    > A
    >cautious, reasoned explanation with qualifications on data,
    >assumptions, etc. gets turned into "Scientist says global warming to
    >end life as we know it". Unfortunately, non-specialists have little
    >choice but to get their information from the mainstream press.

Yes

    >As a result of being constantly misquoted (or worse), lots of
    >objective and careful scientists have soured on the press, leaving a
    >vacuum that that the likes of Michaels and Baliunas are more than
    >happy to fill.
    >>>Ob r.t.e.: Some of the scientists cited are European, and you can get
    >>>guided tours of places like the Hadley Centre. :-)
    >>I worked until recently in the place that procures European weather
    >>and earth observation satellites and I spent two year s in the early
    >>sixties in the Met Office in Bracknell.
    >Good that you have some technical background. By the way, the Met
    >Office has moved most of their operation to Exeter. I hear the move
    >wasn't exactly a morale-booster...

I'd have thought they would have been pleased to escape from Bracknell
a sit is now.

I worked in Bracknell just after the Met Office had moved from
somewhere else.
--
Martin

Earl Evleth

in article [email protected], [email protected] at
[email protected] wrote on 6/12/04 11:09:

    > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:43:36 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >


    >>
    >> Global warming was NOT a big subject in the 1960s.
    >
    > Global cooling was still being suggested at the beginning of the
    > sixties.

The point is that it was not a subject which capture a lot of attention.
The rise in CO2 recognized as a long term problem however. So efforts
were made to make measurements for the future. This started
about 1960. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~martin.../ms/sld028.htm,
namely at Mauna Loa.

Next, the perception of global warming even hit the popular press.
For instance in 1950 the Saturday Evening Post published an
article ""Is the World Getting Warmer?"

The term "global warming" only appeared from the 1980s on.

There is a bibliography on the discovery of global warming

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm


    > and London, where dramatic smogs in the fifties lead to the Clean Air
    > Act.

These were not ozone urban smogs of today, but SO2, coal generated acid
smogs and immediate killers. The London '52 smog which killed an
indeterminate number of people (in the thousands). I lived in
Pittsburg at one time, and it was a dirty city in the 40s, the dust
was soot colored. Pennsylvania (Donora) had on in 1948. The
excess deaths due to urban smog now are difficult to estimate
since they are not sudden attacks but persistent pollution.

    > In Western Europe there were no exceptionally hot summers in the
    > sixties in fact there were two or perhaps three exceptionally cold
    > winters. In the seventies only 1976 was particularly hot and 1979-1980
    > winter was particularly long and cold.

The winters have been mild for years in Paris, the '90s in particular.
One French TV problem had a coverage on the relationship between
the summer temperature and the vindage. The summer of 2003 was the warmest
in 600 years!

Earl

nitram

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:02:39 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >in article [email protected], [email protected] at
    >[email protected] wrote on 6/12/04 11:09:
    >> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:43:36 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>> Global warming was NOT a big subject in the 1960s.
    >>
    >> Global cooling was still being suggested at the beginning of the
    >> sixties.
    >The point is that it was not a subject which capture a lot of attention.

The cold winters at the beginning of the sixties captured some
attention in UK, it's not every year that the Thames freezes over and
when it happened twice in three years it focused peoples minds on the
weather.

This guy has put a lot of effort into "Was an imminent Ice Age
predicted in the '70's? No"
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

A pity he got the wrong decade.

    >The rise in CO2 recognized as a long term problem however. So efforts
    >were made to make measurements for the future. This started
    >about 1960. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~martin.../ms/sld028.htm,
    >namely at Mauna Loa.
    >Next, the perception of global warming even hit the popular press.
    >For instance in 1950 the Saturday Evening Post published an
    >article ""Is the World Getting Warmer?"
    >The term "global warming" only appeared from the 1980s on.
    >There is a bibliography on the discovery of global warming
    >http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm
    >
    >> and London, where dramatic smogs in the fifties lead to the Clean Air
    >> Act.
    >These were not ozone urban smogs of today, but SO2, coal generated acid
    >smogs and immediate killers. The London '52 smog which killed an
    >indeterminate number of people (in the thousands). I lived in
    >Pittsburg at one time, and it was a dirty city in the 40s, the dust
    >was soot colored. Pennsylvania (Donora) had on in 1948. The
    >excess deaths due to urban smog now are difficult to estimate
    >since they are not sudden attacks but persistent pollution.
    >> In Western Europe there were no exceptionally hot summers in the
    >> sixties in fact there were two or perhaps three exceptionally cold
    >> winters. In the seventies only 1976 was particularly hot and 1979-1980
    >> winter was particularly long and cold.
    >The winters have been mild for years in Paris, the '90s in particular.
    >One French TV problem had a coverage on the relationship between
    >the summer temperature and the vindage. The summer of 2003 was the warmest
    >in 600 years!

Thanks for that Earl.

Here's a list of papers published by H H Lamb father of British
Climatology
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/byauthor/lamb_hh.htm
--
Martin

Frank F. Matthews

Earl Evleth wrote:

    > in article [email protected], [email protected] at
    > [email protected] wrote on 6/12/04 11:09:
    >
    >
    >>On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:43:36 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    >>wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>>Global warming was NOT a big subject in the 1960s.
    >>Global cooling was still being suggested at the beginning of the
    >>sixties.
    >
    >
    > The point is that it was not a subject which capture a lot of attention.
    > The rise in CO2 recognized as a long term problem however. So efforts
    > were made to make measurements for the future. This started
    > about 1960. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~martin.../ms/sld028.htm,
    > namely at Mauna Loa.
    >
    > Next, the perception of global warming even hit the popular press.
    > For instance in 1950 the Saturday Evening Post published an
    > article ""Is the World Getting Warmer?"
    >
    > The term "global warming" only appeared from the 1980s on.
    >
    > There is a bibliography on the discovery of global warming
    >
    > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm
    >
    >
    >
    >>and London, where dramatic smogs in the fifties lead to the Clean Air
    >>Act.
    >
    >
    > These were not ozone urban smogs of today, but SO2, coal generated acid
    > smogs and immediate killers. The London '52 smog which killed an
    > indeterminate number of people (in the thousands). I lived in
    > Pittsburg at one time, and it was a dirty city in the 40s, the dust
    > was soot colored. Pennsylvania (Donora) had on in 1948. The
    > excess deaths due to urban smog now are difficult to estimate
    > since they are not sudden attacks but persistent pollution.
    >


As I remember it the Donora problem was actual contamination from local
industry. A galvanizing plant as I remember but it was a while ago & I
was young so the memory may be bad.



    >
    >>In Western Europe there were no exceptionally hot summers in the
    >>sixties in fact there were two or perhaps three exceptionally cold
    >>winters. In the seventies only 1976 was particularly hot and 1979-1980
    >>winter was particularly long and cold.
    >
    >
    > The winters have been mild for years in Paris, the '90s in particular.
    > One French TV problem had a coverage on the relationship between
    > the summer temperature and the vindage. The summer of 2003 was the warmest
    > in 600 years!
    >
    > Earl
    >