Global warming: Is it too late to save our planet?

[gulfcoastliberal]

GLOBAL warming is irreversible and billions of people will die over the next century, one of the world's leading climate change scientists claimed yesterday. Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed the Gaia principle (that Earth is a self-regulating, interconnected system), claimed that by the year 2100 the only place where humans will be able to survive will be the Arctic.

snip

Lovelock, 86, who now lives in Cornwall, reckons temperatures will rise dramatically over the next 100 years: "We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses the temperature will rise eight degrees centigrade in temperate regions and five degrees in the tropics.

"Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert; before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs that survive will be in the Arctic, where the climate remains tolerable."

The scientist says he has been loathe to write such a depressing book: "I'm usually a cheerful sod, so I'm not happy about writing doom books. But I don't see any easy way out."

http://news.scotsman.com/features.cfm?id=76062006

:nuke:

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Yes.

[NMDemDist2]

2. the planet will be fine for millennium to come

the people and other animals on the other hand.... well... not so much.......

[htuttle]

9. The Planet will survive, but I don't know if I'd say 'fine'

It will have wasted quite a lot of time if all higher mammals fail. That evolutionary gambit took a few hundred million years, and introduced a lot of resource entropy into the environment as well. If the biosphere is knocked back to a pre-mammalian state, how long will it take to develop another species capable of reproducing the biosphere somewhere else? What is it going to start from, considering the likely state of the oceans? Will there be sufficient time before the aging sun becomes a hazard? These are the things that biospheres 'worry' about, I think, if biospheres were capable of worrying. I'd imagine that some biospheres never do make it out of 'puberty'...

[Progressive4Life]

3. Sad but true

Glad I never had kids. Now, I just hope I don't live to see this catastrophe happen. :(

[flvegan]

4. We can all do our part...

Decrease your use of fossil fuels, and stop eating meat.

[greenman3610]

5. this is deeply disturbing to me -

as a parent.
I continue to hold hope that we can get on top of the
problem before the feedback mechanisms like
methane release from arctic tundra and
carbon from the oceans kick in.

The fact that Lovelock is the world
expert on these systems leaves me
melancholy tonight indeed.

Still, nothing gets accomplished without
some faith and optimism. We still have
to do whatever we can for the sake
of our children and those unborn.
Total pessimism assumes too great a certainty
about things we can not know.

I just finished re-watching "Return of the King", and
I will always remember the steadfast faith with which all
those in the story fullfilled their respective roles, even
when they could not be sure it would make a difference.
We should all struggle to do as much.

[tocqueville]

6. no

step one :

an environmentally aware US President

[gulfcoastliberal]

7. If we don't get Gore, we're screwed.

I've been pretty depressed about the incestous incumbent dems lately. They're just as much minions of corporate power as the repukes. With a very few notable exceptions, of course.

[The Traveler]

8. AzDemDist is right ... the planet will be fine

The survival of the human race is questionable. The continuation of high energy technology civlization is doubtful. The Bushista dream of a return to feudalism is likely to be achieved, though probably not in the form they are expecting.

The planet will heal ... with or without us. Life will go on ... with or without us.

[Boomer]

10. Can we say "denial"?

>> The collapse of the Gulf Stream appears to be unlikely to happen at least in the next 100 years, but it's theoretically possible it could happen. It's low probability, but would have a high impact. <<

What planet is this commentator living on? I fully expect it to stop in my lifetime. The slowing has been dramatic just within the last 10 years.

[Strelnikov_]

11. Looks Like He Is Talking About A 'Encyclopedia Galactica'

or a 'Foundation'.

http://www.energybulletin.net/12126.html

One of the most striking ideas in his book is that of "a guidebook for global warming survivors" aimed at the humans who would still be struggling to exist after a total societal collapse.

Written, not in electronic form, but "on durable paper with long-lasting print", it would contain the basic accumulated scientific knowledge of humanity, much of it utterly taken for granted by us now, but originally won only after a hard struggle - such as our place in the solar system, or the fact that bacteria and viruses cause infectious diseases.

Does that mean that those remaining in the US, as Trantor, will be reduced to selling off the scrap of industrial civilization?

Also:

The international community accepts the reality of global warming, supported by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In its last report, in 2001, the IPCC said global average temperatures were likely to rise by up to 5.8C by 2100. In high latitudes, such as Britain, the rise is likely to be much higher, perhaps 8C. The warming seems to be proceeding faster than anticipated and in the IPCC's next report, 2007, the timescale may be shortened. Yet there still remains an assumption that climate change is controllable, if CO2 emissions can be curbed. Lovelock is warning: think again.

With this kind of temp increase, it seems the Greenland ice sheet is gone, with the resultant displacement of billions due to sea rise.

[One_Life_To_Give]

12. Planet will survive

Human survival is a totally different question.

[livvy]

13. Have you read his other books?

If so, which would you recommend reading, or if all, any particular order important?
His ideas really interest me.

edit for punctuation