Math? What math? Why - did you find it a struggle?<quoted text>As a fact, I did watch it. I think he's too simplistic about GMO and nuclear reactors. That's alright. He'll get more nuanced.
You read this one:
Can you muster the science and the math?
Brand has been working seriously on this stuff for over 40 years and originally published this "Environmental Heresies" thesis in 2005 - so I think that's all the "nuance" you're going to get.
As for "simplistic," his thesis makes the anti-nuke neo-Luddites' "analysis" look like the work of the village idiot.(Which it is).
As for the paper - largely a yawner; no news.
I did find this part interesting, though -
"Diurnal variations decreased from 1900 to 1987, and then increased; this increase is significant but not understood.""
"Some of the climate models predict that the diurnal temperature range, that is, the difference between Tmax and Tmin, should decrease due to greenhouse warming. The physics is that greenhouse gases have more impact at night when they absorb infrared and reduce the cooling, and that this effect is larger than the additional daytime warming. This predicted change is sometimes cited as one of the “fingerprints” that separates greenhouse warming from other effects such as solar variability."
"The behavior of the diurnal range is not simple; it drops from 1900 to 1987, and then it rises. The rise takes place during a period when, according to the IPCC report, the anthropogenic effect of global warming is evident above the background variations from natural causes. Although the post-1987 rise is not sufficient to undo the drop that took place from 1901 to 1987, the trend of 0.86 ± 0.13°C/century is distinctly upwards with a very high level of confidence. This reversal is particularly odd since it occurs during a period when the rise in Tavg was strong and showed no apparent changes in behavior. From 1950 to 2010, because of the recent rise, the net change we observe is -0.04 ± 0.01°C/decade. We are not aware of any global climate models that predicted the reversal of slope that we observe."
Now what do you make of that?