Christopher Monckton's attempt to debunk anthropogenic global warming was full
of
errors.
In a follow-up article he only corrects three of them, and even makes another error in his correction.
Last week I said that James Hansen had told the United States Congress that sea level would rise several feet by 2000, but it was the US Senate, and by 2100; I added a tautologous "per second" to "watts per square metre"; and I mentioned the perhaps apocryphal Arctic voyage of Chen Ho.
No, adding "per second" is not tautologous -- it's wrong. "Watts per square metre per second" is a measure of how quickly the radiation flux is changing. It's no more the same as the radiation flux than velocity (metres per second) is the same as acceleration (metres per second per second).
And he seems to have gone backwards on corrections. I thought that he had conceded that he was wrong in his claim that Hansen had predicted 0.3°C of warming by 2000, but he was just admitting that his claim about sea level was wrong. Hansen's scenario B projection for 2000 was 0.15°C which is very close to what happened.
Particularly telling is the fact that he won't budge on something that is proven wrong by his own sources:
[In the medieval warm period] there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there.
Monckton seems to fall for every myth that suits his prejudices. Look:
DDT: correct solution, limit it in agriculture but allow indoor spraying against malarial mosquitoes. Actual solution: give the inventor a Nobel Prize, then say the chemical is cancerous (it's safe enough to eat) and ban it, especially for indoor spraying. Result, only this year, after 30 million and more have died from malaria, has the WHO agreed to recommend indoor spraying.
The correct solution is, in fact, what was done. Indoor spraying of DDT was not banned. DDT is not safe enough to eat -- it's a poison if swallowed. And WHO has always recommended DDT for spraying. From their FAQ in 2005:
WHO recommends indoor residual spraying of DDT for malaria vector control.
More like this
Global warming may indeed be happening, but to attribute it solely to human action is hubris. The appearance of a new storm on Jupiter (Oval BA - a storm the size of the planet Earth) over the last couple of years, and the visible shrinking of the polar ice caps on Mars over the last 40 years suggests that "global" warming is in fact a solar-system-wide phenomenon. Since human action cannot explain the increase in the energy of the atmosphere of Jupiter or the melting icecaps of Mars, anthropoegenesis loses credibility as a cause of this phenomenon (although human action could conceivably exacerbate the effect on Earth).
The real question becomes what to do about it. Artificially crippling the economies of the capitalist nations while simultaneously propping up the economies of dictatorships (and in the process not changing total CO2 output by one iota) a la Kyoto will clearly not mitigate whatever effects human action have caused.
Building safe new nuclear reactors and retiring old gas- and coal-fired electrical plants will help lower CO2 emissions. Building solar power satellites will help too, as would spreading humanity throughout the solar system, but that sort of thing takes time.
Of course, if we really want a quick fix, we could always use a few nuclear weapons in some desert somewhere and trigger a nuclear winter. ;)
Who actually attributes global warming "solely to human action?"
That is the basis of the theory of anthropoegenic global warming. Otherwise, the term "anthropoegenic" is not necessary.
The Mars article talks about a 3 year trend, not the shrinking observed over the last 40 years. The Jupiter link you gave doesn't explain the appearance of the giant red Oval BA in the 2000s but instead talks about the disappearance of some much smaller white ovals in the 1990s.
Perhaps you ought to familiarize yourself with Occam's razor.
That is the basis of the theory of anthropoegenic global warming. Otherwise, the term "anthropoegenic" is not necessary.
And the term "ham sandwich" implies that all sandwiches have ham?
And the term "ham sandwich" implies that all sandwiches have ham?
No it means that "global warming" is a commonly used Orwellian contraction of "anthropogenic global warming". Hence skeptics, who do not question that generally since the nadir of the Little Ice Age in the 17th Century, temperatures have risen globally and emphasize that climate has always varied on all timescales, are smeared with "climate change denier" because they question not the fact of warming but the supposed cause of all or most of it.
Oh and 1 Watt = 1 Joule/s, so its easy to see how to get a tautologous per second if you temporarily confuse power with energy.
I note that Lambert has yet to apologize for making a series of false claims about thermodynamics, work and entropy and has yet to show any physics textbook that shows that IN A NON-THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM, a mean temperature exists which can be defined as the simple mean of a set of arbitrarily small volumes within that system.
I suspect that we wait in vain.
I note that Lambert ignores the elephant in the room of Monckton's articles. How typical. Lambert is using a standard attack strategy of Karl Rove: "accuse your opponents of the very thing you are most guilty of", and like Rove, fails to mention the larger issues of fake reconstructions, bad economics and the acute failure of GCMs to predict anything.
I'd be intrigued if Lambert would take on the Stern Report's claim that extinction of the human race due to global warming was a distinct possibility within the next 100 years with a discussion of "a weak case" that that possible extinction could be even sooner.
But I suspect we'll wait in vain on that one as well.
So I guess ozone depletion from CFCs is also a myth?
John A, OK, if you insist from now on I will refer to it as an anthropogenic ham sandwich.
However I for one would be very interested in seeing any physics physics text book that deals with A NON-THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM and more especially why it would be relevant here. Although, if your idea of science is based on non-thermodynamic systems it would explain a great deal.
HTH
John A,
The Stern report is referring to "unceratinty about future generationss arising from possible shock, which is exogenous to the issues and choices under examination (we used the metaphor of the meteorite)"
exogenous=not climate change
Yes, it is certainly easy to make mistakes if you don't know what you're talking about.
If one is in the habit of `temporarily confusing power with energy', one would do well to shore up one's grip on the subject matter before publically making arguments where energy matters.
As to `not a thermodynamic system', you aren't making any sense. (Eg, see above). Anything is a thermodynamic system. In my effort to figure out whose talking point you were parroting without comprehending, I googled, and, well, let me give you a quote from the very first google entry on `thermodynamic system', a wikipedia entry: ``In thermodynamics, a thermodynamic system is defined as that part of the universe that is under consideration''. Is your contention that the Earth isn't part of the universe under consideration?
Maybe you mean the Earth isn't a system in thermodynamic *equillibrium*? That's certainly true. But there definately *is* a way to construct a meaningful global tempreature average in a system which isn't in equillibrium -- to figure out what the temperature would be if the system *did* reach equillibrium, and that's *precisely* the point Tim Lambert was making. Further, such a quantity is highly physically meaningful, because it's a consise description of the total heat energy in the system.
John A thinks it is important that:
Lambert "fails to mention the larger issues of fake reconstructions"
I'll mention them. According to Monckton:
"They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so)."
This is patently wrong. The proxy set that gets the most weight in the MBH98 1400 reconstruction is the North American northern treeline set. This proxy set also has a large "hockey stick" pattern. What does Macintyre have to say about these facts, very little at all. He's off on his "Bristlecones are no good" planet.
"The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations."
Hmm, ever heard of something called division? It's this magical mathematical technique that allows one to remove biasing factors from data. Monckton should probably learn about it one day. There's tons of data available to work out the CO2 biassing effect from long before it started about 1850.
The proof that Bristlecone proxies are good is the fact that we can check the reconstructions they produce all the way from 1900 back to 1450 against reconstructions using other proxies. They produce good results for all this period and there is no objective reason why they should suddenly go bad before 1450.
"They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data"."
Actually, the set they left out were the Bristlecones which Macintyre continually reminds us destroyed the medieval warm period.
"They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise"."
"Scientists", yeah that's a good one. Macintyre might be able to make up hockeystick shaped very red noise but getting it to correlate with 20th century temperature is an entirely different kettle of fish.
"but to attribute it solely to human action is hubris"
Aside from the apparent intellectual inability to grasp multiple causation, there is the minor point that elephants are responsible for the lack of trees in their African habitat, termites massively change the terrain, hippopotamuses affect the huge algal bloom in the Mediterranean, green algae are responsible for their being oxygen in the atmosphere in the first place, and human beings have essentially completely eliminated the old growth forests of both Europe and North America. But humans having the power to alter the climate? Hubris! Of course, we will without question have the power to fix it once it becomes an emergency problem, so no need to worry now.
Talk about implausible denials: as if John As don't vote for whichever party a Karl Rove is promoting to them today. The elephant in Monckton's article is trumpeting that the author knows nothing of what he speaks and its critique of John A on thermodynamics is a hoot too.
Which leaves hubris Ed as what you have when Monckton and John A types babble on authoratively about subjects they just don't understand at all. The elephant says pigs would fly ...
His PDF of positive reader feedback is a doozy. Refers quite a few people to the co2science.org website.
The opening of his 2nd article has some shades of "1421" about it as well. That author also places page hits and reader feedback on a higher standing than peer review and accuracy in determining whether his conclusions are right.
You must appreciate that "right" differs from "correct".
I think you might find that Monckton has used "1421" for a lot more than just a simple anecdote about ice. It is after all a masterful study in how to interpret evidence to support the product you are selling.
Don't be an idiot. It implies that ham sandwiches are pure ham. Which is, of course, true.
I blame global warming for the weather in Melbourne and the dire prediction for Canberra
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=161578
considering Monckton's claim to fame is making a puzzle that wasn't as hard as he thought, in which he had to sell a million-pound home to pay for his "prize challenge" -- surely he should be betting all sorts of scientists about his global warming theories?
Here's proof that there's no global warming:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=161578
If there is anyone who should avoid saying the word thermodynamic in polite company, it is John A -- who was publicly pantsed by Tim L. the first time this came up, and has only managed to compound his humiliation with every succeeding encounter.
Not that I'm objecting, mind you; it is great entertainment.
John A, I can barely get through your post as my eyes roll in reading your irrational claims. (Why am I even responding to you when your post is so off the wall?)
Indoor spraying of DDT was not banned.
In fact, despite WHO recommendations, there was a blanket DDT ban in place in Tanzania.
"I note that Lambert has yet to apologize for making a series of false claims about thermodynamics, work and entropy and has yet to show any physics textbook that shows that IN A NON-THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM, a mean temperature exists which can be defined as the simple mean of a set of arbitrarily small volumes within that system."
Stick your thermometer out the window.
Not only has it been 5-8 degrees below average in Melbourne and along a lot of the Eastern states but now there's snow falling! In Victoria! In November!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1788872.htm
Tim. All I ask is that the pro-AGW crowd explain the processes that make this happen, as it's been quite unexpected including by the Bureau of Met. Ta.
Jack,
The process is called weather. Record lows are set somewhere every day. Record highs are set somewhere every day. The average is what matters.
Glad it's chilly down in Australia; here in the U.S. the January to August period was the warmest on record. Gosh, could the denialists begin to explain that one?
Jack a: How do you explain the fact that it doesn;t get progressively warmer ever day from the winter solstice until the summer solstice and then get progressively cooler every day until the next winter solstice?
For that matter, how do you explain the quite different climates in areas at the same latitude?
Weather is a complex dynamic system. when you add more energy to that system (i.e. through increasing the greenhouse effect) you don't get a simple uniform increase in temperature and rainfall. The average increase masks both increases and decreases in different areas.
We should be thankful that that's the case - to date global warming in the arctic has been far greater in the acrtic than in other, more populated areas.
ok, this is sort of a nit, but you can chalk up one other error in the correction:
last time I checked, the US Senate was one of the two houses of the US Congress, so the original statement was actually correct. It does strike me as a little odd that a member of the House of Lords would not be aware of that, but whatever.
On the issue of units, I also noted that Monckton not only uses units of "Watts per square metre per second", but also occasionally reverts to using just "Watts". Whilst that might seem like trivia, stuff like this always raises a flag that what you're reading is slipshod analysis written by somebody who doesn't actually understand the underlying science. It isn't merely about units, but about dimensions, and that stuff matters.
I should make it clear that I'm not a climate scientist, so I'm just reading all of this as an observer, but after reading Monckton's opinion piece and doing some elementary fact checking, I'm extremely unimpressed. I'm more than willing to be persuaded, but given what I've seen so far, I'm going to tentatively conclude that Monckton's piece is pure drivel.
quick follow up from my previous post...
The opening sentence from Monckton's article here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05…
reads:
Well, umm, yeah. I think the Sun could be responsible for a couple of Watts of heating. Maybe a little more. What do y'all think? (sigh)
So when it gets really cold it's "the weather" but when there's a hot day everyone bleats about global warming? You people need to take a (cold) shower and come to your senses.
Jack Lacton, see here.
No Jack, when there are random short-term fluctuations UP OR DOWN it's the weather.
When there's a long-term change in average temperatures, it's climate change.
Like the change shown here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_trendmaps.cgi
Maybe you need to direct your anecdotes to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and see if they think they outweigh 100 years of scientific observation.
Jack Lacton think of it like this. Imagine a bathtub with a hot water tap and a cold water tap. If we try to measure or predict the temperature below where both taps empty into the tub, fluctuations will occur due to the turbulent nature of localised events in a fluid dynamical and thermodynamical system. If we set two thermometers, which are capable of responding instantaneously to the water next to it, in the tub and record continuously the temperature you will see temperature fluctuations at both thermometers because the fluid and thermodynamic flow is non-linear but there is a very real physical meaning to the average temperature, since the water will eventually mix. Even if we cant predict the temperature at a specific local point in the system we can very accurately predict the mean 'field' or system temperature.
If we now turn the hot water tap to increase the flow of hot water into the system, the thermometers we've placed in the tub will still record hot and cool instantaneous local temperatures at our thermometers and it's entirely possible that by adding more hot water we perturb the system such that one of the thermometers which usually has reasonably warm temperature readings, now has a few colder ones, yet as you full well know, the overall average temperature of the bathtub will in fact increase and become warmer.
The climate is exactly the same. Weather is a localised phenomenon, which is highly non-linear, highly turbulent. Climate however is more of an averaging of these local events and a mean field temperature or average temperature can still increase even if localised spots experience decreases. It is because the system is dynamical that this happens. It the system was at equilibrium, or steady-state, as it's properly termed, and the system was not dynamical but static then you would be correct. One would expect that an increase in the average temperature would imply a uniform increase everywhere. This is NOT the case with dynamical systems.
Basic meteorology - all climatologists know this : weather is the short-term, often seasonal, change in atmospheric conditions. Climate is the prevailing weather conditions for a location.
The confusion between the two is not acceptable for anyone trying to use this as a counter to climate-change arguments, but could be confused in the practical sense because climate change appears to be causing changes at a timescale usually associated with weather!
Today's argument in the Guardian by Monckton does him no favours - but then he is acting from a desire to maintain the political and commercial status quo. This will be forgotten in a few months when the IPCC 4th Assessment is released.
Keith Farnish writes: "This will be forgotten in a few months when the IPCC 4th Assessment is released."
Sadly no.
This is but the first shot in Climate Wars II.
Monckton had a rebuttal to George Monbiot's critique in the Guardian. Unforunately it seems that you cannot comment on this rebuttal (is Monckton afraid of criticism?.
Here is a comment I tried (twice) to respond to Moncton's piece.
"So Christopher Monckton, you are correct in everything you say? Well perhaps you should read the NAS report on the Mann papers. This report, written by scientists working in the field of climate science essentially agreed with everything written by Mann et al. Instead, you chose to believe pseudo-science written by two non-scientists who are working on an agenda not undertaking research as it is supposed to be conducted. Shame on you."
It is interesting that the George Monbiot article had pages of comments and Monckton's has none.
Ian Forrester
I hate to tell you guys something but in a system where the average temperature is increasing the statistical probability of knocking over 100+ year old records is seriously reduced. Seriously. The bathtub analogy above is banal and shows a complete lack of understanding, as does the article at Realclimate referenced above that doesn't apply in the current circumstance.
Jack Lacton: See Jack you dont know what the hell you're talking about. In a dynamical system, in a turbulent system, even if the overall system is warming, that does not mean you cant have regions which cool, either temporarily or permanently. Explain how we have polar regions and tropical regions currently Jack if a warming system should have all regions warming? The average temperature of the Earth is 15C why do they exist at all if this uniformity of warming applies?
What do you base this 'statistical probability' on Jack? Do you have a doctorate in statistics, mathematics, thermodynamics upon which you base your assertions on? Cause I do and I fully disagree with you. It is entirely possible to have a marked warming trend and yet knock over 100+ year old cold records, all one requires is that the temperature volatility increases. It's not like the warming trend is +5C per year anyway. But please Jack dazzle us with your command of stochastic analysis. I await with bated breath.
As far as my bathtub analogy go ahead and try to shoot holes in it. Don't just dismiss it outright but show where it's flawed. Can you? Your responses are beyond banal and it is you who demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding.
The bluff, bluster and bullsh*t that makes a rightwingnutter into a hero in his usual haunts only earns contempt in the real world Jack. You've got a nasty, short and butish hide calling J's quite pretty discussion "banal" and referring to your betters at RealClimate as having a "complete lack of understanding". Goes without saying you wouldn't have the capacity to back your rudeness with anything of intellectual substance or learnin' to it don't it?
"in a system where the average temperature is increasing the statistical probability of knocking over 100+ year old records is seriously reduced"
Is it reduced to zero? Such as for example the unprecedented (in the record) hot years 1973, 1981, 1988, 1990, 1998 and 2005?
You may have to go back a long time to get a colder day but that's not in the same class as breaking all-time hot records on a semi-regular basis. The point is if there was no global warming then breaking high-temperature records would gradually get rarer and rarer as the record got longer and longer. You would not keep breaking the record every time there's a big El Nino, and especially not when there's no El Nino. Not needing an El Nino to break the record in 2005 shows just how fast global warming is now happening.
Jack knows more than thermometers do, apparently.
Wondering how Monckton got his article published? This excerpt from a post on RealClimate has a possible explanation:
"...Christopher Monckton's sister, Rosie, is married to Dominic Lawson, former editor of 'The Sunday Telegraph'. Lawson himself had a crack at climate researchers a couple of months ago in 'The Independent' newspaper describing them as alarmists. Monckton's father-in-law is Lord Lawson of Blaby (Nigel Lawson, former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer), who has contributed many times to the public debate on climate change, most recently in a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies, in which he drew parallels between climate researchers and Islamic fundamentalists.
The director of the Centre for Policy Studies is Ruth Lea, who has a weekly column in 'The Daily Telegraph' (the sister paper of 'The Sunday Telegraph'), which she has used no fewer than nine times in the last six months to present her own novel views on climate research and accuse climate researchers of all sorts of misdemeanours, including Lysenkoism.
I think there might be some sort of connection here. I guess the proof will be if Nigella Lawson, celebrity supercook and sister-in-law to Monckton, is given space in a future edition of 'The Sunday Telegraph' to explain how her analysis too shows that climate researchers have got it wrong. "
the funny thing is the Monckton/Lawson types have a tighter & more incestuous "network" by far than what they accuse the climate scientists of having (also see how they self-referentially and reverently cite the same co2science & climateaudit BS)
Monckton has attempted to rebut Monbiot's arguments, here:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1947976,00.html
Though I'm sure it's flogging a dead horse, a commentary here on Deltoid would be welcome.
For mine, the only people that I will listen to on the non-sceptical side will be those who swear that they don't take ANY taxpayers dollars, in any form. Lets hear it from the truly independent scientists!
I don't believe for a second that Monckton wrote the whole of that piece himself anyway. Judging by his background surely he must be somebody's frontman?
Bruce,
If you're going to jump straight in with an Ad Hom attack upon scientists I'd suggest you try backing that up with some substative criticims of work done by scientists. Ad Hom attacks on their own won't do, they can only be used to explain why someone wrote a bunch of rubbish, not the other way round. If you look at how Tim plays it you'll get a feel for whats fair and what isn't.
Its fairly well set in stone that Monckton hasn't got a clue, this is based entirely on his published articles not his background. Having established he hasn't got a clue it's fair to analyse why he'd write a load of rubbish. Get it?
Go, Bruce! Word!
But -- while we're at it, why stop at the earth sciences?
I'm fairly sure that the entire edifice of the Standard Model was funded by the taxpayers who paid for those fancy accelerators, and constructed by an incestuous club of physicists who all read one another's papers and slurp at the same trough of public money. It's all highly fishy, and I'm having none of it. The only scientist I'll trust refuses to take a nickel from the gubmint, builds his experiments on his kitchen table, and creates his theories from philosophical first principles.
Phlogiston for me, baby!
I hear Isaac Newton received a stipend from the King during the period when he figured out what the physics were when the apple fell.
Therefore, according to Bruce's logic, there is no gravity.
Please excuse me, I must go now, as I'm floating away from my keyboard and it's getting hrder to typ ths commentnakmdl;km./
Don't forget, Bruce, to not take any medicine or accept any cures that were publicly funded.
In sceptic/denier world climate cientists drive their gold-plated Rolls Royces to work every morning.
Bruce,
Given the hostility of the American and Australian governments towards the Kyoto Protocol, shouldn;t you rather be suspicious of so-called skeptics who get money from them? Like say, a certain state meteorologist?
Just sent the following off to Monckton:
Dear Mr. Monckton:
I see from your Telegraph article that you project
warming of between .1 and 1.4C in the next century,
and a best estimate of .6C, which works out to be
.06C/decade.
I'll stick with the IPCC near-term projection of .1 to
.2C/decade, and pick the middle figure of .15C/decade.
Difference between .06 and .15 ought to be enough for
a bet. Even odds, you win if temps go up at .1C or
less over the next decade, I win if temps go up .11C
or more?
Please let me know what you think. I also have other
bets I'm willing to make on global warming [here](http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_backseatdriving_archive…)
If you want to bet someone who's got a higher profile
than myself, I expect there's a good chance that it
can be arranged.
Best regards,
Brian Schmidt
(end email)
We'll see if anything develops from it. So far with every other denialist I've challenged, nothing has developed.
I blame global warming for the fact that today, November 18th, at noon, was snowing in the center part of Argentina, precisely in Córdoba mountains (1800 m asl)-first time ever (it did snow back during the Little Ice Age, though, according to chronicles by Spanish Conquistadores).
I must blame global warming then, for the next modification of physics textbooks that will say that 'heating' will cause colder conditions. I will start cooling my beer in my oven.
I wonder I could roast beef in my freezer...
A freak hurricane does not 'prove' global warming, and a freak snowstorm does not 'disprove' global warming.
Eduardo Ferreyra, can you show that temperatures in Argentina have been on a decreasing trend, for, say, 30 years? If yes, you have local cooling. If no, STFU.
Eduardo Ferreyra, says: "I blame global warming for the fact that today, November 18th, at noon, was snowing in the center part of Argentina, precisely in Córdoba mountains (1800 m asl)-first time ever (it did snow back during the Little Ice Age, though, according to chronicles by Spanish Conquistadores".
Are you really some one called "Eduardo Ferreyra" living in Argentina, or are you a troll living in the basement of the University of Virginia churning out misinformation to bolster your misinformed ideas about AGW?
A quick google search of "Cordoba Mountains" lists numerous scientific papers talking about snow there. You can even find some photos of snow on the mountains. I'm sure they were not taken today.
If you really want to be taken seriously then I suggest you stick to the truth.
Ian Forrester
I must blame Eduardo Ferreyra for spreading FUD.
Not very good FUD either.
Best,
D
It's very easy to roast beef in your freezer. Place the freezer in a small, well insulated space, place the roast beef in the freezer, open the freezer door. Alternatively you could use a large oven and a small freezer. Somewhat hard on the freezer, but what the heck.
I was just wondering when Edufer would pop up again. Thats Eduardo Ferreyra, for those of you who have not met him before. Think of him as a rampant anti-environmentalist.
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/ENGLISH.html
His previous postings can be seen in places such as this:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/06/some-sites-show-cooling.html
For mine, the only people that I will listen to on the non-sceptical side will be those who swear that they don't take ANY taxpayers dollars, in any form. Lets hear it from the truly independent scientists!
There two correct terms for scientists who fund their own research. "Cranks" and "Underfunded".
"IN A NON-THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM"
Pardon my ignorance; what does that mean? An example might help me.
In fact, despite WHO recommendations, there was a blanket DDT ban in place in Tanzania.
Then **Tanzania** banned DDT, and clearly WHO **did not**.
If you have a beef with environmentalist extremists' hamhanded control of Tanzania, well, OK.
z,
Good question. I asked google and only got 7 responses for "non thermodynamic system," 3 of which referred to this very page.
Turns out that Monckton won't bet over his position on global warming. I put the details [here](http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2006/11/christopher-monckton-wont-b…)
z,
I suspect that a 'non-thermodynamic system' is a munged attempt at saying a non STATIONARY, non STEADY STATE, thermodynamic system but I could be wrong. This would seem to be the intent as I read it above, that one cant find a temperature measure in a 'non thermodynamic system' because the system is well dynamical. Given the word dynamic is part of thermodynamic I'm amused by the non-sensical statement.
It is however quite simple. In a dynamical system, if there are no forcings (not the case but hold with me), then the system will eventually reach steady state and as thermodynamical systems are governed by parabolic (diffusive) partial differential equations, the mean field temperature of the transiatory state (or average of a number of interior points properly weighted) will in fact be the final steady state temperature of the system (assuming it's adiabatic or accounting for radiative losses). Therefore Tim is quite correct that the mean field temperature does in fact have a very real physical meaning.