date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:16:54 +0000
from: "Clint Witchalls" <cwitchalls@hotmail.com>
subject: RE: Fwd: Urgent press inquiry: Global temperature -- politics or
to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk

<x-flowed>
OK, thanks Phil.  I'll ignore this one.


>From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
>To: "Clint Witchalls" <cwitchalls@hotmail.com>
>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" <cwitchalls@hotmail.com>
>>>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/

</x-flowed>
