decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Mankind would benefit greatly from Global Warming | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Mankind would benefit greatly from Global Warming
Authored by: eric76 on Sunday, November 25 2012 @ 06:05 AM EST
Just what is the guy's scientific credentials? He is making statements that are
just flat wrong.

Early on, he claimed that for the past ten thousand years the climate has been
remarkably stable -- that temperatures have only fluctuated by +/- 1 degree
Celsius. That is nonsense. In fact, about 8,000 years ago during the Holocene
Climatic Optimum, the Northern Hemisphere was something like two to three
degrees warmer than today!

In other words, he thinks we will be in danger if the temperature rises two
degrees when the climate that helped mankind stop being hunter-gatherers and
begin farming on a major scale was when the temperature was that much or even
more higher. It was hardly a disaster.

I don't believe his panic-mongering at all.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

OK, Watched the video
Authored by: ailuromancy on Sunday, November 25 2012 @ 07:17 AM EST

At 405 seconds, there is a chart of the effects of a 4 Centigrade increase. One bullet point is "drought over 40% of inhabited land". Here is an article in Nat ure titled: "Little change in global drought over the past 60 years". In short, previous estimates of global drought used a simple model that often gives an over estimate of the amount of drought.

At 660 seconds, an increase of 12 Centigrade causes places that were 80 Fahrenheit to become 170 Fahrenheit. An increase of 12 Centigrade is an increase of about 21 Fahrenheit, so I can see 80 Fahrenheit going to 101 Fahrenheit. Where does this 170 Fahrenheit come from?

Personal opinions:

  • You can measure the amount of light that gets absorbed by CO2 and CH4. These are green house gasses.
  • Intense radiation in the upper atmosphere converts some nitrogen into carbon 14, which is radioactive. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is constant - the decay rate matches the rate at which it is produced.
  • Carbon 14 trapped in ice decays, but is not replaced. The ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14 tells you how long CO2 has been trapped in ice.
  • You can go somewhere cold, take samples of ice, measure the amount of CO2 and the time when the CO2 was trapped. You will find a rapid increase in the amount of CO2 that correlates with sales of coal.
  • The IPCC has a hockey stick graph of global temperature against time. Flat with a sharp rise in recent decades. You can go to the IPCC and ask for the raw data and the algorithms used to make that graph. You can go home with a bunch of excuses: "the data is copyright, you have to buy a license", "the algorithms are secret" and so on. Some determined guy got a load of funding from the anti-global warming crew, and repeated the work with publically available data and an open source method. The result was a hockey stick graph I have some confidence in.
  • Climate models are secret, so you cannot download one and run it on a cloud youself. Every month I see another article showing that current climate models have a new flaw.
  • A decade ago, the future perils of global warming were not certain, but the recommendation was to do something anyway as a precaution. I have no problem with that either back then or now. Somehow in the last few years the dangers of global warning have been portrayed as a certainty, but I do not know what evidence led to this certainty.

There are plenty more places I could pick holes in that video. The sad thing is that there is plenty of evidence to support precautionary measures. There are good reasons outside climate science/religion to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. There may well be utterly convincing evidence of an impending global warming disaster - hidden amongst a pile of alarmist exaggeration and references to outdated scientific papers.

Here< /a> is an article from the Register about how dumbing down the arguments about global warming has led to such poor quality reporting on climate issues.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Mankind would benefit greatly from Global Warming
Authored by: symbolset on Sunday, November 25 2012 @ 04:39 PM EST

Actually Eric is correct. Think about how all this carbon came to be in the ground. It wasn't there when the Earth was formed. It didn't fall from the sky in a meteor bombardment. It was once plants. Plants on a wet, verdant Earth using photosynthesis to fix atmospheric carbon. Plants on an Earth warmer than it is today.

Before the industrial revolution the temperature was declining. If it had continued to decline the feedback mechanisms referenced in the video would be accelerating the decline. New York might already be covered in permafrost, and Canadian glaciers be on the march to scrape all evidence of mankind into the Atlantic. America's heartland would not be as good for growing crops. Crops don't grow well on a glacier. And the process might be irreversible. When the Earth freezes, it usually does so for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. It has nearly killed off our ancestors multiple times.

This is a balance of benefits thing. Russia and Canada, New York and Chicago will benefit. India, southern China, equatorial Africa, Arizona, Texas and Florida will suffer. Eventually we run out of carbon fuels, and it stops. Putting dollar figures on it is as absurd as pricing a thunderstorm.

Yes, the global climate changes. In response men migrate whether they want to or not. Such is as it ever has been and ever will be as long as there are Men.

But we don't have enough fossil carbon to make the Earth uninhabitable. Because that fossil carbon once was plants. The Earth is a sphere, and there is plenty of land closer to the poles.

More to the point since some benefit and some suffer and the cure is to get everybody everywhere working together to prevent it, that is not going to happen.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )