date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:16:54 +0000 from: "Clint Witchalls" subject: RE: Fwd: Urgent press inquiry: Global temperature -- politics or to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk OK, thanks Phil. I'll ignore this one. >From: Phil Jones >To: "Clint Witchalls" >CC: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk >Subject: Fwd: Urgent press inquiry: Global temperature -- politics or >science? >Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:52:37 +0000 > > >> Dear Clint, > > The Neils Bohr Institute may be reputable, but they have been taken in > hook, line and sinker on this one. The first two authors are well know > climate skeptics, against Kyoto and all other initiatives to try to >reduce > greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. I would expect the 3rd > one is as well. > > The IPCC concluded in its Feb 2 SPM (for WG1) that the warming > was unequivocal. We now seem to be in the backlash period, where > the skeptics are going hammer and tongues at a number of issues to > try and discredit the science. > > I would ignore it completely and don't give it any publicity >whatsoever. > There is no politics at all in what we do. We have been measuring the > global temperature in CRU since about 1980. At the time, we thought > it was a good thing to do. It had been done earlier, even back in the > 19th century. > > I could go on and on, but don't have the time. > > Cheers > Phil > > >>>From: "Clint Witchalls" >>>To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk >>>Bcc: >>>Subject: Urgent press inquiry: Global temperature -- politics or science? >>>Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:19:07 +0000 >>> >>> >>>Dear Professor Hulme >>> >>>I just received the press release (below) from the Niels Bohr Institute >>>which questions the validity of an average global temperature (if I'm >>>reading their argument correctly, that is). The press release sounds >>>quite controversial, and I would have ignored it, only it does come from >>>a very august institute. Can you give me your views on the argument put >>>forward in this press release? >>> >>>I'm looking to put a pitch together for Newsweek. >>> >>>I write for Newsweek, the Economist, the Guardian, the Observer, the >>>Times and the Independent. I'm not a mathematician or a meteorologist, >>>so I would really appreciate your help on this one. >>> >>>--start of press release-- >>>Global temperature -- politics or science? >>>The entire debate about global warming is a mirage. The concept of >>>'global temperature' is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an >>>impossibility, says professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of >>>Copenhagen, Bjarne Andresen who has analyzed this hot topic in >>>collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of >>>Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, both >>>Ontario, Canada. >>> >>>It is generally assumed that the atmosphere and the oceans have grown >>>warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is >>>an upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called 'global >>>temperature'. This is the temperature obtained by collecting measurements >>>of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the >>>Globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then >>>calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding >>>all values and dividing by the number of points. >>> >>>Average without meaning >>> >>>"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as >>>complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert >>>of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous >>>system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. >>>Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the >>>storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate". >>> >>>He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically >>>locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for >>>Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot >>>just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average >>>phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about >>>economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of >>>two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average >>>'global exchange rate'. >>> >>>If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the >>>average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an >>>entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, e.g. >>>it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is >>>25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average >>>is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely >>>different types of climate, because in the former case one would have >>>pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be >>>no wind. >>> >>>Many averages >>> >>>A further problem with the extensive use of 'the global temperature' is >>>that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures. >>> >>>Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one >>>glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two >>>numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. >>>That is called the arithmetic average. >>> >>>Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 >>>degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square >>>root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This >>>is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees >>>Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.) >>> >>>The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which drives all the >>>thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc. >>> >>>More politics than science >>> >>>These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all >>>equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one >>>above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of >>>measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward >>>trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a >>>consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers >>>point out. >>> >>>What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical >>>arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is >>>needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of >>>Earth, not tradition. >>> >>>The currently used method and the consequences drawn from it therefore is >>>more politics than science, they explain. >>> >>>### >>>C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen: Does a Global Temperature Exist?; J. >>>Non-Equil. Thermod. vol. 32, p. 1-27 (2007). [= Journal of >>>Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics] >>> >>>--end of press release-- >>> >>>Regards, >>>Clint Witchalls >>>tel. 0208 674 9126 >>> >>>_________________________________________________________________ >>>Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile. >>>http://www.msn.txt4content.com/ > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _________________________________________________________________ Solve the Conspiracy and win fantastic prizes. http://www.theconspiracygame.co.uk/