Lovelock Addresses Royal Society On Climate - Short Version: Game Over

[hatrack]

Cutting greenhouse gases and switching to sustainable development are unlikely to prevent disasters caused by climate change, one of the world's most respected environmentalists warns today. Professor James Lovelock, the leading independent environmental scientist, claims that even the most pessimistic outcomes predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fail to recognise the speed with which global warming will progress.

In a speech at the Royal Society, Prof Lovelock will describe how he has arrived at an "apocalyptic view" of the future, in which 6 to 8 billion people face diminishing food and water supplies in an increasingly intolerable climate.

Earlier this year, the IPCC published its final report on the likely extent of global warming. It concluded that average global temperatures could rise by as much as 6.4C by the end of the century if carbon emissions continue to increase. A rise of 4C was most likely, the panel said.

EDIT

He believes computer models used by IPCC scientists underestimate the magnitude of climate change by failing to consider the world as an entity in which living organisms inextricably feed into the environment, for example by releasing or absorbing greenhouse gases. Instead, scientists treat deforestation, changes in marine populations and ocean acidification separately from other aspects of climate change such as melting ice sheets.

EDIT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/29/climatechange.sciencenews

[Teaser]

1. Lovelock is a smart guy but

there is no more reason to believe his worst case scenarios than the best case models others advance. His scenario is as much an outlier as that of global warming-lite advocates.

[Emillereid]

2. Actually I think his predictions thus far fit the data coming in better

than many of the computer models. The IPCC report is a consensus document -- everyone has to sign on -- and has tended to underestimate the speed of events. In fact, if there is one constant in climate change news it is that what ever is said today is sure to be contradicted in a few months time with "It is happening faster than our predictions...!" Lovelock has so far been among the most accurate -- I think his chemistry background serves him well.

[hatrack]

3. I'm sorry, were you saying something about "outliers"?

http://www.carbonequity.info/docs/arctic.html

[kestrel91316]

17. The black line on that chart bears a striking resemblance to a CLIFF.

[kestrel91316]

16. Given that the past year has revealed previous climate change

worst-case scenario estimates to be far too conservative, I tend to think Lovelock is correct.

Doesn't mean we don't ALL have a DUTY to mitigate to the greatest extent possible, BTW.

[Pachamama]

21. In his book "Revenge of Gaia" he explains some of the experiments he had conducted that actually

demonstrate a much closer result to current data coming back than current computer models. Its hard to summarize, but its essentially the feedback loop of how this planet has been able to continually keep its temps etc. pretty constant, but that its almost as if to use the analogy that we have a patient (planet earth) with a high fever, instead of putting the patient in cold water to lower its temp, we are instead turning up the heat in the room and weakening the patients ability to fight off the fever. Lovelock's Gaia theory is that the planet is a living self-regulating organism and it can't regulate its temp anymore.

[gateley]

4. I'm with Lovelock - I believe it's far worse than is generally believed, and his

point about the world being an entity is right on. I've always been baffled by those who think if they solve one problem, everything is taken care of - they don't address the interdependency of all life on our planet.

[Delphinus]

7. That's the key, gateley -

the interdependency of everything.

Chief Seattle called it the web of life; the Unitarian Universalists have as part of their creed respect for the interdependent web of all existence; naturopathic doctors look at the entire system, not just one thing.

The interdependency idea is so important to understanding how to live in this world - imho.

[GliderGuider]

9. Not to mention the Deep Ecologists

for whom interdependency is the core of their credo.

Humanity has told itself that we're preternatural for so long now we have started to believe it. The only way we will ever establish a sustainable presence on this planet is if we undergo a radical value shift. After so many hundreds of thousands of years of practicing competition, exploitation, dominance and growth, how likely do we think a shift to cooperation, consensus, nurturing and respecting nature's limits really is?

[gateley]

12. Speaking of Chief Seattle, check this out...

I just now logged on to DU to post this - looks like my old home town listened to him

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003982610_kyoto30m.html

And you know I'm in total agreement with you. :hi:

[Delphinus]

22. That's amazing!!

A city the size of Seattle able to do this - my goodness, what an example they've set for the rest of us! Good on them and all their citizens!! :toast:

[GliderGuider]

23. Yes, it is.

An 8% reduction in only 15 years, and they only had to reduce the output of two cement plants to do it.

Lord love a duck, their hearts are in the right place for sure but does anyone else see the lesson this example holds about the problems of scale? George Monbiot figures we'll need 90% by 2050, and I happen to agree with him. I'm also a great believer in the power of large numbers, as in large numbers of people making small contributions can make a large difference. Now all we need is for every other city in the world to meet this "remarkable milestone" and by 2023 we'll have reduced the whole world's emissions by 8%, leaving us only 82% to go in the next 25 years.

Lest I be accused of advocating fatalism, here are some things we could do with that effort that's useful. Put in place rail and transit systems that reduce passenger miles traveled - not to reduce CO2 but because we're going to need them when oil is $300 a barrel. Promote compost-based community gardening everywhere, because fertilizer prices and transport costs are going nowhere but up, and unless we all want to eventually starve we'd better start growing food. Improve the community gathering spaces in our towns and cities, make them a place where people want to hang out - they'll develop better social networks and may be less inclined to shoot people they know if times get tough (plus it's just plain good for your mental health to have friends). Block the development of big-box stores and more subdivisions, and encourage the development of smaller full-service, localized communities (I know, the developers have the upper hand, but if the fight is a forlorn hope anyway, this one has a better chance of helping than trying to reduce the planet's CO2).

Basically, forget about the CO2. It's a done deal, it's transnational, and all we need is one China to queer it for us all. Concentrate on making your immediate local surroundings as livable as possible. There's a good chance you'll have some success, and wouldn't it feel better to know you helped get segregated bike lanes in your community rather than staring at the CO2 numbers in next year's IPCC report and thinking, "All that work didn't help at all!"

[The Traveler]

5. Lovelock is probably correct

It seems that whenever the climatology geeks look for positive feedback loops (processes triggered by warming that accelerate warming) they are finding them ... when they look for negative feedback loops, they don't find 'em. It has recently been reported that the rate at which the oceans store carbon has been halved in the past decade. We all know about deforestation. What natural systems are left that can possibly put the brakes on this?

I think we are past the tipping point. If that is correct, prevention of climate change is, of course, moot. The question then becomes how do we deal with it? Can we allow the operation of an unfettered free market based, high energy technology civilization to continue? Is that question itself moot ... will we have that option at all? The implications to economic and political philosophy and policies derived thereby are way beyond my capacity to predict them.

Climate change is real. It was triggered by a variety of human activities, not just release of C02 into the atmosphere. It is a freight train running full throttle down hill and "old Charlie stole the handle ... no way to slow down". To resolve this, we have to do more than switch to hybrids or wind mills. We have to repair the damage done to entire ecosystems. And that is something that is probably quite beyond our power ... and it is certainly beyond our power to do so quickly.

We can survive this as a nation, but we're going to have to get creative.

[malakai2]

6. Creative is a nice word for it

Step 1-Convince people that the problem is so enormous and imminent that they take an active role in shaping policy solutions, with or without politicians. I'll believe it when I see it. How did Lewis Black put it? "Democracy is great, 'cause you don't have to fuckin' do it!"

Step 2-Demonstrate to people the magnitude of the policy changes required to reverse climate change, while being honest and explaining to them that the benefits are not likely to be seen by even their grandchildren. I'm guessing the average person hears this, thinks for a few seconds, and decides that he'd rather enjoy the ride for 10 more years, and to hell with the coming generations.

Step 3-Maintain whatever momentum you build through several "Have Less" generations, who will be subsidizing the past lifestyles of dozens of "Have More" generations, in the face of political opposition, for long enough to actually reverse some of the more damaging effects. All it takes is a single Ronald Reagan to make people feel good about their greed and selfishness, and...we're right back where we started.

Step 4-A few hundred years from now, maybe things stabilize, even begin to improve. By then, easy fossil fuels will be long gone, renewables will be struggling to provide a smaller quantity of energy than we use today, the human population will be smaller (maybe much smaller), the arable land base will have shrunk, trophic cascades will have rippled through most ecosystems, and the loss of easy energy and biodiversity will have foreclosed on so many possibilities at a better world that our descendants will be like those last Easter Islanders, puttering around in leaky stick canoes for want of a real tree.

[greenman3610]

8. I always give people the worst case news, but I make sure

to finish up with the amazingly rapid advances in alternatives.
There are even emerging "Carbon Negative" technologies which
could be deployed widely if we had the leadership.
You've got to paint a picture that empowers people or they
will turn you off.

Finally, pessimism is not useful - it is a luxury that only
sophomore philosophy majors can afford.
To despair is to flatter oneself - it assumes that we know more than
we know. There is great uncertainty here, and in that, there
is hope for creative change.

[The Traveler]

24. I like your attitude

"There is great uncertainty here, and in that, there
is hope for creative change."

Indeed, that is where hope lies in this case. But these chickens are coming home to roost with unforeseen speed. Time is short. And the task is huge.

[XemaSab]

13. I deeply suspect

that the whole "trying to fix ecosystems" attitude is more symptomatic of the disease than the cure.

Breaking a Ming vase and making a whole new Ming vase are two totally different propositions...

[The Traveler]

25. You are exactly correct

And that, actually, was my point. How the hell do you restore an ecosystem you burnt to the ground? I may be wrong, but I strongly suspect that is far beyond our power and knowledge.

[jpak]

10. Lovelock was wrong on the impact of CFCs on stratospheric ozone, Gaia and he has no data or studies

to back these claims.

He has no credibility *whatsoever* among professional biogeochemists or climatologists.

The effects of global warming are dire, but to give credence to a psuedoscientist on this subject just plays into the hands of the denier crowd.

ugh

[razzleberry]

11. false dilema

people will take matters into their own hands.

coal
biofuel
sell the SUV
stop using oil to make electricity

etc, etc

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. It’s dangerous to stop burning fossil fuels, says Lovelock

http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/business/green/?p=110

It’s dangerous to stop burning fossil fuels, says Lovelock

James Lovelock developed the theory of Gaia, a view of the earth as a self-regulating system that was once pooh-poohed by most of the scientific establishment. Now Lovelock’s views are regarded by many scientists as one of the best ways to understand how the earth will react to large amounts of carbon dioxide emissions.

On Monday night I went to see Lovelock speak to a packed audience of scientists, journalists and interested members of the public at the Royal Society in London. He started off his lecture by acknowledging his “apocalyptic view of the future” — perhaps to warn the audience of precisely what was to come.

His first message was that even the gloomiest predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which just received the Nobel Peace Prize — underestimate the severity of climate change.

He said recent studies showed that temperatures are rising and Arctic ice is melting much faster than IPCC forecasts. He also said the IPCC’s climate model was flawed because there would be sudden shifts upward in the global temperature once the concentration of carbon dioxide reached certain levels, instead of temperatures that rise or fall smoothly with increasing or decreasing carbon dioxide, as the IPCC’s model suggests.

His second message was that human beings had found themselves in a trap, because cutting back on fossil fuel use entirely would exacerbate global warming. He said that aerosol particles in the atmosphere from pollution had produced a global haze that offsets warming by two or three degrees. That meant any sudden downturn in fossil fuel use would intensify heating, and that the earth’s temperature could become stable at those higher levels with disastrous results for life on earth.

“We live in a fool’s climate,” Lovelock warned. “We’re damned if we continue to burn fuel, and damned if we stop too suddenly.”

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. James Lovelock: Reducing emissions could speed global warming

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/29/eaclim129.xml

James Lovelock: Reducing emissions could speed global warming

By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 29/10/2007

A rapid cutback in greenhouse gas emissions could speed up global warming, the veteran environmental maverick James Lovelock will warn in a lecture today.

Prof Lovelock, inventor of the Gaia theory that the planet behaves like a single organism, says this is because current global warming is offset by global dimming - the 2-3ºC of cooling cause by industrial pollution, known to scientists as aerosol particles, in the atmosphere.

His lecture will be delivered as Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, launches the results of a public consultation on the Government's proposed Climate Change Bill which is intended to cut Britain's greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.

Prof Lovelock will say in a lecture to the Royal Society: "Any economic downturn or planned cutback in fossil fuel use, which lessened aerosol density, would intensify the heating.

...

[kestrel91316]

18. Sounds like Hobson's Choice:

....“We live in a fool’s climate,” Lovelock warned. “We’re damned if we continue to burn fuel, and damned if we stop too suddenly.”........

[Pachamama]

19. Read his book last summer "The Revenge of Gaia" - very sobering...

And guess what...we just bought property way, way up North in Canada....I figure if he's right, that I'll be able to grow grapes there within the next 15 years.... sigh....

[ananda]

20. yes, the UN report was after all..

.. a compromise.

Lovelock is right.