My mind has always felt like wrapping Lovelock and Strangelove together, so I've generally avoided seeing or reading anything written by him.
Unfortunately, this evening's exploration of youtube involved Lovelock videos.
Most unfortunately.. its apparent that I'm a disciple.
rats.
PeakOil is You
THE James Lovelock Thread Pt 2 (merged)
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by AgentR11 » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 00:32:37
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
- AgentR11
- Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 6374
- Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
- Location: East Texas
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by scas » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 01:02:49
A bit on methane...
Visually alone we can see the sea ice retreating from the continental shelf and allowing methane to thaw. 2011 sea ice is tracking close to 2007.
Silence Before The Storm – By Sam Carana
Here's an analogy to describe the precarious situation we're in. When heat is added to water at boiling point (100°C or 212°F), vapor will appear at the surface, while bubbles of gas are formed throughout the water, but the water's temperature will not rise. All added energy is absorbed in the water, transforming it from a liquid to a gas. This is illustrated by the image below, adapted from ilpi.com.
Similarly, Earth is now at boiling point, i.e. the situation has reached a point where - at first glance - it may appear as if there's little or no change. Rises in global temperature, as illustrated by the chart below, based on data by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with standard polynomial trendline added, may seem only mild.
Many will hardly notice global warming, due to the variability of short-term weather conditions locally.
Furthermore, we’ve had a strong La Niña, which pushes temperatures down, while we’ve been in a solar minimum, as some call it: “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century”. As the image on the right shows, differences in irradiation can amount to a difference in warming of up to 0.25 W/m2.
So, impressions that the impact of global warming was only mild can be deceptive. The NOAA image below shows a steady increase in carbon dioxide over the years. At the same time, the image also shows little or no increase at all for some other emissions over the past decade, particularly for methane (CH4).
Again, such impressions can be deceptive, as this may make people assume that methane will continue to show little or no increase in future. Instead, the boiling-point analogy is more appropriate to describe the situation regarding methane. Similar to bubbles that start forming in water at boiling point, methane bubbles are forming in the Arctic.
Arctic Sea Ice losses
At the European Geosciences Union annual meeting, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who works at Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, unveiled the results of advanced computer modeling that produces a "best guess" date of 2016 for Arctic waters to be ice-free in summers. The study follows his team's 2007 projection that the dramatic loss of ice extent in 2007 set the stage for Arctic waters to be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.Also illustrative is the image below, from Arctic Sea Ice Blog.
Feedback Effects in the Arctic
Disappearing sea ice will cause albedo changes in the Arctic, amplifying the warming taking place there. The color of the sea is darker than the ice that previously covered it.
Another albedo change is taking place on land. The forested landscape in Siberia may over the course of a year absorb between 2 and 7% more solar radiation, reinforcing local warming trends.
Temperature rises are further amplified by additional feedback effects such as releases of nitrous oxide and methane. So, while it may appear that there has been little or no rise in methane for some time, the prospect of future methane emissions looks very scary. Due to amplification of global warming in the Arctic, temperatures can now be 10°C or 18°F higher than average temperatures were 1951-1980 (NASA image left)..
Most methane emissions occur at the northern hemisphere's high latitudes (Wikipedia image below).
At first glance, it may seem as if there's nothing to worry about. Methane releases have historically been stronger at high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, as illustrated by the NOAA image left (with Mauna Loa data highlighted in red).
However, levels of methane in the Arctic can be expected to rise dramatically, as discussed below.
The image below shows the current extent of Arctic permafrost, as part of a study by Edward Schuur that estimates that there is some 1672 petagrams (GT or billion metric tons,) of carbon in the Arctic permafrost - roughly equivalent to a third of all carbon in the world's soils and about twice the amount of carbon contained in the atmosphere.
The figures mentioned in above paragraph were also used in the report by the Copenhagen Diagnosis, where authors further pointed at the amplifying feedback effect in high northern latitudes of microbial transformation of nitrogen trapped in soils to nitrous oxide. Indeed, while Arctic releases of carbon dioxide are worrying, even more worrying are releases of nitrous oxide and especially methane, due to their high initial global warming potential (GWP). Release of just a fraction of this 1672 Gt of carbon in the form of methane could cause runaway global warming, since such releases will come with their own feedback effects, as further discussed below.
The terrifying prospect is that, within a time-span of only a few years, huge methane releases in the Arctic will spread around the globe, covering Earth in a heat-trapping blanket and moving our biosphere beyond its boiling point.
Methane's Global Warming Potential (GWP)
The image below, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), shows that methane levels have already been rising dramatically since the industrial revolution.
Over the years, the IPCC has upgraded methane's global warming potential (GWP). In 1995, the IPCC used a figure of 56 for methane's GWP over 20 years, i.e. methane being 56 times more powerful than carbon dioxide by weight when comparing their impact over a period of 20 years. In 2001, the IPCC upgraded methane's GWP to 62 over 20 years, and in 2007 the IPCC upgraded methane's GWP to 72 over 20 years.
Large releases could make that much of the methane could remain in the atmosphere longer, without getting oxidized. Initially, much of the methane is oxidized in the sea by oxygen (when released from underwater sediments) and in the atmosphere by hydroxyl. Over time, however, accumulation of methane could cause oxygen and hydroxyl depletion, resulting in ever more methane entering the atmosphere and remaining there for a longer period.
A two-part study by Berkeley Lab and Los Alamos National Laboratory shows that, as global temperature increases and oceans warm, methane releases from clathrates would over time cause depletion of oxygen, nutrients, and trace metals needed by methane-eating microbes, resulting in ever more methane escaping into the air unchanged, to further accelerate climate change.
A 2009 study by Drew Shindell et al. shows that chemical interactions between emissions cause more global warming than previously estimated by the IPCC. The study shows that increases in global methane emissions have already caused a 26% decrease in hydroxyl (OH). Because of this, methane now persists longer in the atmosphere, before getting transformed into the less potent carbon dioxide.
A Centre for Atmospheric Science study suggests that sea ice loss may amplify permafrost warming, with an ice-free Arctic featuring a decrease in hydroxyl of up to 60% and an increase of tropospheric ozone (another greenhouse gas) of up to 60% over the Arctic.
Extension of methane's lifetime further amplifies its greenhouse effect, especially for releases that are two or three times as large as current releases. The graph on the right, based on data by Isaksen et al. (2011), shows how methane's lifetime extends as more methane is released.
The image below, from a study by Dessus et al., shows how the impact of methane decreases over the years. In the first five years after its release, methane will have an impact more than 100 times as potent as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide.
The GWP for methane typically includes indirect effects of tropospheric ozone production and stratospheric water vapor production. The study by Isaksen et al. shows (image below) that a scenario of 7 times current methane levels (image below,medium light colors) would correspond with a radiative forcing of 3.6 W/m-2.
Such an increase in methane would thus add more than double the entire current net anthropogenic warming (for comparison, see Wikipedia image below).
For many years, the amount of methane has remained stable at about 5 Gt annually (NOAA image below). A scenario of 7x this amount would lift the amount of methane in the atmosphere to about 35 Gt.
A scenario of seven times the amount of methane we're used to having in the atmosphere would give the methane a lifetime of more than 18 years, so there's no relief from this burden in sight, while this would triple the entire net effect of all emissions added by people since the industrial revolution.
Arctic concentration makes the situation even worse
What makes things even worse is that all this methane would initially be concentrated in the Arctic, whereas GWP for greenhouse gases is typically calculated under the assumption that the respective greenhouse gas is spread out globally.
All this methane will initially be concentrated locally, causing huge Arctic amplification of the greenhouse effect in summer, when the sun doesn't set.
The methane will heat up the sea, causing further lack of of oxygen in the water, while algae start to bloom, making this worse, and lack of hydroxyl in the air.
In a vicious circle that will further accelerate the permafrost melt, this will cause further releases from permafrost and clathrates.
Uninhabitable Planet
Back in 2009, I pointed at projections of a MIT study showing that, without rapid and dramatic action on global warming, global median surface temperature will rise by 9.4oF (5.2oC) by 2100.
The wheel on the right depicts the MIT's estimate of the range of probability of potential global temperature rise by 2100 if no policy is enacted on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
The wheel on the left assumes that aggressive policy is enacted, and projects a lower rise.
The projections show rises ranging up to 13.3oF (7.4oC), based on probabilities revealed by 400 simulations.
But even the worst-case scenario in the above MIT-study may actually understate the problem and the speed with which this may eventuate, since the model does not fully incorporate positive feedbacks such as large-scale melting of permafrost in arctic regions and subsequent release of large quantities of methane.
Several teams of scientists warn that we can expect a rise of 4oC within decades. A rapid rise in temperature is likely to make the areas where most people now live uninhabitable, leaving humans, mammals and plants little on no time to migrate to cooler areas. The image below (edited from New Scientist) shows that the currently inhabited part of the planet would become largely uninhabitable with a global temperature rise of 4oC.
Above image gives some suggestions as to action that can be taken, such as reforestation and construction of clean energy facilities. The image also shows that habitable areas may be restricted to the edges of the world where there's little sunshine. A specific area can become uninhabitable due to sea level rises or heat stress. Humans simply cannot survive prolonged exposure to temperatures exceeding 95°F (35°C), explains Steven Sherwood. An area can also become uninhabitable due to recurring wildfires, floods, droughts, storms and further extreme weather events that cause erosion, desertification, crop losses and shortages of fresh water.
Back in 2007, I pointed at the danger of tipping points beyond which human beings face the risk of total extinction, particularly if many species of animals and plants that humans depend on will disappear. The boiling point analogy shows that there may be a window of time to act, like a silence before the storm. This realization should prompt us to speed up implementation of the necessary policies while we can. In fact, abrupt large releases of methane may close that window rather quickly, as described in Runaway Global Warming.
Visually alone we can see the sea ice retreating from the continental shelf and allowing methane to thaw. 2011 sea ice is tracking close to 2007.
Silence Before The Storm – By Sam Carana
Here's an analogy to describe the precarious situation we're in. When heat is added to water at boiling point (100°C or 212°F), vapor will appear at the surface, while bubbles of gas are formed throughout the water, but the water's temperature will not rise. All added energy is absorbed in the water, transforming it from a liquid to a gas. This is illustrated by the image below, adapted from ilpi.com.
Similarly, Earth is now at boiling point, i.e. the situation has reached a point where - at first glance - it may appear as if there's little or no change. Rises in global temperature, as illustrated by the chart below, based on data by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with standard polynomial trendline added, may seem only mild.
Many will hardly notice global warming, due to the variability of short-term weather conditions locally.
Furthermore, we’ve had a strong La Niña, which pushes temperatures down, while we’ve been in a solar minimum, as some call it: “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century”. As the image on the right shows, differences in irradiation can amount to a difference in warming of up to 0.25 W/m2.
So, impressions that the impact of global warming was only mild can be deceptive. The NOAA image below shows a steady increase in carbon dioxide over the years. At the same time, the image also shows little or no increase at all for some other emissions over the past decade, particularly for methane (CH4).
Again, such impressions can be deceptive, as this may make people assume that methane will continue to show little or no increase in future. Instead, the boiling-point analogy is more appropriate to describe the situation regarding methane. Similar to bubbles that start forming in water at boiling point, methane bubbles are forming in the Arctic.
Arctic Sea Ice losses
At the European Geosciences Union annual meeting, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who works at Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, unveiled the results of advanced computer modeling that produces a "best guess" date of 2016 for Arctic waters to be ice-free in summers. The study follows his team's 2007 projection that the dramatic loss of ice extent in 2007 set the stage for Arctic waters to be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.Also illustrative is the image below, from Arctic Sea Ice Blog.
Feedback Effects in the Arctic
Disappearing sea ice will cause albedo changes in the Arctic, amplifying the warming taking place there. The color of the sea is darker than the ice that previously covered it.
Another albedo change is taking place on land. The forested landscape in Siberia may over the course of a year absorb between 2 and 7% more solar radiation, reinforcing local warming trends.
Temperature rises are further amplified by additional feedback effects such as releases of nitrous oxide and methane. So, while it may appear that there has been little or no rise in methane for some time, the prospect of future methane emissions looks very scary. Due to amplification of global warming in the Arctic, temperatures can now be 10°C or 18°F higher than average temperatures were 1951-1980 (NASA image left)..
Most methane emissions occur at the northern hemisphere's high latitudes (Wikipedia image below).
At first glance, it may seem as if there's nothing to worry about. Methane releases have historically been stronger at high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, as illustrated by the NOAA image left (with Mauna Loa data highlighted in red).
However, levels of methane in the Arctic can be expected to rise dramatically, as discussed below.
The image below shows the current extent of Arctic permafrost, as part of a study by Edward Schuur that estimates that there is some 1672 petagrams (GT or billion metric tons,) of carbon in the Arctic permafrost - roughly equivalent to a third of all carbon in the world's soils and about twice the amount of carbon contained in the atmosphere.
The figures mentioned in above paragraph were also used in the report by the Copenhagen Diagnosis, where authors further pointed at the amplifying feedback effect in high northern latitudes of microbial transformation of nitrogen trapped in soils to nitrous oxide. Indeed, while Arctic releases of carbon dioxide are worrying, even more worrying are releases of nitrous oxide and especially methane, due to their high initial global warming potential (GWP). Release of just a fraction of this 1672 Gt of carbon in the form of methane could cause runaway global warming, since such releases will come with their own feedback effects, as further discussed below.
The terrifying prospect is that, within a time-span of only a few years, huge methane releases in the Arctic will spread around the globe, covering Earth in a heat-trapping blanket and moving our biosphere beyond its boiling point.
Methane's Global Warming Potential (GWP)
The image below, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), shows that methane levels have already been rising dramatically since the industrial revolution.
Over the years, the IPCC has upgraded methane's global warming potential (GWP). In 1995, the IPCC used a figure of 56 for methane's GWP over 20 years, i.e. methane being 56 times more powerful than carbon dioxide by weight when comparing their impact over a period of 20 years. In 2001, the IPCC upgraded methane's GWP to 62 over 20 years, and in 2007 the IPCC upgraded methane's GWP to 72 over 20 years.
Large releases could make that much of the methane could remain in the atmosphere longer, without getting oxidized. Initially, much of the methane is oxidized in the sea by oxygen (when released from underwater sediments) and in the atmosphere by hydroxyl. Over time, however, accumulation of methane could cause oxygen and hydroxyl depletion, resulting in ever more methane entering the atmosphere and remaining there for a longer period.
A two-part study by Berkeley Lab and Los Alamos National Laboratory shows that, as global temperature increases and oceans warm, methane releases from clathrates would over time cause depletion of oxygen, nutrients, and trace metals needed by methane-eating microbes, resulting in ever more methane escaping into the air unchanged, to further accelerate climate change.
A 2009 study by Drew Shindell et al. shows that chemical interactions between emissions cause more global warming than previously estimated by the IPCC. The study shows that increases in global methane emissions have already caused a 26% decrease in hydroxyl (OH). Because of this, methane now persists longer in the atmosphere, before getting transformed into the less potent carbon dioxide.
A Centre for Atmospheric Science study suggests that sea ice loss may amplify permafrost warming, with an ice-free Arctic featuring a decrease in hydroxyl of up to 60% and an increase of tropospheric ozone (another greenhouse gas) of up to 60% over the Arctic.
Extension of methane's lifetime further amplifies its greenhouse effect, especially for releases that are two or three times as large as current releases. The graph on the right, based on data by Isaksen et al. (2011), shows how methane's lifetime extends as more methane is released.
The image below, from a study by Dessus et al., shows how the impact of methane decreases over the years. In the first five years after its release, methane will have an impact more than 100 times as potent as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide.
The GWP for methane typically includes indirect effects of tropospheric ozone production and stratospheric water vapor production. The study by Isaksen et al. shows (image below) that a scenario of 7 times current methane levels (image below,medium light colors) would correspond with a radiative forcing of 3.6 W/m-2.
Such an increase in methane would thus add more than double the entire current net anthropogenic warming (for comparison, see Wikipedia image below).
For many years, the amount of methane has remained stable at about 5 Gt annually (NOAA image below). A scenario of 7x this amount would lift the amount of methane in the atmosphere to about 35 Gt.
A scenario of seven times the amount of methane we're used to having in the atmosphere would give the methane a lifetime of more than 18 years, so there's no relief from this burden in sight, while this would triple the entire net effect of all emissions added by people since the industrial revolution.
Arctic concentration makes the situation even worse
What makes things even worse is that all this methane would initially be concentrated in the Arctic, whereas GWP for greenhouse gases is typically calculated under the assumption that the respective greenhouse gas is spread out globally.
All this methane will initially be concentrated locally, causing huge Arctic amplification of the greenhouse effect in summer, when the sun doesn't set.
The methane will heat up the sea, causing further lack of of oxygen in the water, while algae start to bloom, making this worse, and lack of hydroxyl in the air.
In a vicious circle that will further accelerate the permafrost melt, this will cause further releases from permafrost and clathrates.
Uninhabitable Planet
Back in 2009, I pointed at projections of a MIT study showing that, without rapid and dramatic action on global warming, global median surface temperature will rise by 9.4oF (5.2oC) by 2100.
The wheel on the right depicts the MIT's estimate of the range of probability of potential global temperature rise by 2100 if no policy is enacted on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
The wheel on the left assumes that aggressive policy is enacted, and projects a lower rise.
The projections show rises ranging up to 13.3oF (7.4oC), based on probabilities revealed by 400 simulations.
But even the worst-case scenario in the above MIT-study may actually understate the problem and the speed with which this may eventuate, since the model does not fully incorporate positive feedbacks such as large-scale melting of permafrost in arctic regions and subsequent release of large quantities of methane.
Several teams of scientists warn that we can expect a rise of 4oC within decades. A rapid rise in temperature is likely to make the areas where most people now live uninhabitable, leaving humans, mammals and plants little on no time to migrate to cooler areas. The image below (edited from New Scientist) shows that the currently inhabited part of the planet would become largely uninhabitable with a global temperature rise of 4oC.
Above image gives some suggestions as to action that can be taken, such as reforestation and construction of clean energy facilities. The image also shows that habitable areas may be restricted to the edges of the world where there's little sunshine. A specific area can become uninhabitable due to sea level rises or heat stress. Humans simply cannot survive prolonged exposure to temperatures exceeding 95°F (35°C), explains Steven Sherwood. An area can also become uninhabitable due to recurring wildfires, floods, droughts, storms and further extreme weather events that cause erosion, desertification, crop losses and shortages of fresh water.
Back in 2007, I pointed at the danger of tipping points beyond which human beings face the risk of total extinction, particularly if many species of animals and plants that humans depend on will disappear. The boiling point analogy shows that there may be a window of time to act, like a silence before the storm. This realization should prompt us to speed up implementation of the necessary policies while we can. In fact, abrupt large releases of methane may close that window rather quickly, as described in Runaway Global Warming.
- scas
- Coal
- Posts: 487
- Joined: Tue 02 Nov 2010, 06:39:52
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by Shar_Lamagne » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 01:22:11
James Lovelock on the Die-off
Talks about how exciting it will be for the young people, a great adventure, just like Cid does. Must come from being old.
Talks about how exciting it will be for the young people, a great adventure, just like Cid does. Must come from being old.
We are not so much as disillusioned but illusion free – Miranda Devine - journalist
-
Shar_Lamagne - Tar Sands
- Posts: 572
- Joined: Sat 14 Feb 2009, 01:57:14
- Location: Perth
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by dohboi » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 01:48:22
Thanks for the nice presentation and set of graphs, scas. One small quibble is that your graph for methane increase stops at 2009 and there has been significant increase since then.
The Lovelock tape was a good, clear message of the problem. He is of course famously and bizarrely harsh about renewable energy--much more effort is being wasted on all sorts of much more useless crap that he could be railing about with much more reason.
I had to turn it off when he started glowing about going on his moon shot (I know, he's just going into lower orbit--did he ever go??). So one of our best informed scientists on GW sees no problem spewing more masses of GHG just for a lark?? We are so utterly and totally farked.
On the population thing, just a note--we are probably at or near the point of reaching 7 billion globally. The official date is Oct. 31, but that's just a more or less wild guess. We may have already passed it.
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article2412108.ece
I know it's just a number, but it sure feels like another milestone has bit the dust. It was about three billion when I was born. So when does the great die off begin?
Here's hoping the world birth rate continues to drop at a rapidly accelerating pace:
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=xx&v=25
And the world death rate stalls out at above 8/1000/year:
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=xx&v=26
(Weird how they skipped last year on the graphs. Budget cuts??)
The Lovelock tape was a good, clear message of the problem. He is of course famously and bizarrely harsh about renewable energy--much more effort is being wasted on all sorts of much more useless crap that he could be railing about with much more reason.
I had to turn it off when he started glowing about going on his moon shot (I know, he's just going into lower orbit--did he ever go??). So one of our best informed scientists on GW sees no problem spewing more masses of GHG just for a lark?? We are so utterly and totally farked.
On the population thing, just a note--we are probably at or near the point of reaching 7 billion globally. The official date is Oct. 31, but that's just a more or less wild guess. We may have already passed it.
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article2412108.ece
I know it's just a number, but it sure feels like another milestone has bit the dust. It was about three billion when I was born. So when does the great die off begin?
Here's hoping the world birth rate continues to drop at a rapidly accelerating pace:
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=xx&v=25
And the world death rate stalls out at above 8/1000/year:
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=xx&v=26
(Weird how they skipped last year on the graphs. Budget cuts??)
-
dohboi - Harmless Drudge
- Posts: 19990
- Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by americandream » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 04:13:50
Shar_Lamagne wrote:James Lovelock on the Die-off
Talks about how exciting it will be for the young people, a great adventure, just like Cid does. Must come from being old.
A planet stripped of its resources. Very exciting. These old doffers like Lovelock who waffle on out of one side of their mouths (whilst flying about with the likes of Branson), and without really examining the issues, are a waste of time.
- americandream
- Permanently Banned
- Posts: 8650
- Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by Cid_Yama » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 07:00:46
No. It's over. Too late, like anyone was going to act anyway. So the option you have left is to survive. To set upon the great adventure and make the most of the time you have left.
I would easily trade places with someone in their early 20's, just to have the opportunity.
I understand exactly where Lovelock is coming from. And his going into space doesn't make a bit of difference. It's too late. So lay off. He knows it, I know it, you know it.
Not going would amount to bailing out the Titanic with a teacup. It's time for fullfilling dreams not useless gestures.
I should contact Branson myself, and pay to go with him.
I would easily trade places with someone in their early 20's, just to have the opportunity.
I understand exactly where Lovelock is coming from. And his going into space doesn't make a bit of difference. It's too late. So lay off. He knows it, I know it, you know it.
Not going would amount to bailing out the Titanic with a teacup. It's time for fullfilling dreams not useless gestures.
I should contact Branson myself, and pay to go with him.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
-
Cid_Yama - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7169
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by americandream » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 07:41:19
Absolute bollix Cid. With the present state of human intellect, the Cold War manipulation of religion to advance certain geo-political goals and the current state of thinking in most of the world as regards pro-life style family issues, you might as well piss in the wind with euthanasia and population controls. For every one thats taken out, another 10 will be bred like rabbits in some remote mountain region in the Hindu Kush or Chechnya or even in your own backyard amongst the tongue speakers in redneck hillbilly land.
Contemplating or suggesting population limits in the present cultural climate is stupid with capitals. Gallivanting in the skies with one of the worlds biggest polluters is equally stupid especially whilst warbling on about a dying world and then calling for drastic remedies like culling humans conditioned to breed.
The man is old enough to at least understand that where the human populace are dumbed down to the degree they have been, nothing will work to cull numbers. Either he should come clean and tell it like it is or shut up. With almost both feet in the grave, is his legacy going to be an embatteld world fighting against insane odds to plug the dyke of ignorance with a finger. We've enoigh to deal with at the moment. Coralling humans breeding for god....wow!! There's nothing more tragic and more symptomatic of a wasted social order than a geriatric fool. Even the tribal boonies enjoyed the gift of age, circumspection and wisdom.
Contemplating or suggesting population limits in the present cultural climate is stupid with capitals. Gallivanting in the skies with one of the worlds biggest polluters is equally stupid especially whilst warbling on about a dying world and then calling for drastic remedies like culling humans conditioned to breed.
The man is old enough to at least understand that where the human populace are dumbed down to the degree they have been, nothing will work to cull numbers. Either he should come clean and tell it like it is or shut up. With almost both feet in the grave, is his legacy going to be an embatteld world fighting against insane odds to plug the dyke of ignorance with a finger. We've enoigh to deal with at the moment. Coralling humans breeding for god....wow!! There's nothing more tragic and more symptomatic of a wasted social order than a geriatric fool. Even the tribal boonies enjoyed the gift of age, circumspection and wisdom.
- americandream
- Permanently Banned
- Posts: 8650
- Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by Cid_Yama » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 07:52:09
Don't know where you got all that crap, perhaps you should have watched the rest of the video.
No one was suggesting population controls.
Lovelock's position was that a massive dieoff is inevitable.
Just as I have stated.
It's the end of the world and no actions can change that.
You just got yourself all worked up about something that existed only in your own head.
No one was suggesting population controls.
Lovelock's position was that a massive dieoff is inevitable.
Just as I have stated.
It's the end of the world and no actions can change that.
You just got yourself all worked up about something that existed only in your own head.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
-
Cid_Yama - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7169
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by americandream » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 08:07:39
@ Cid
Piffle. The man has stated as much that he favours capitalism and he had this to say:
We need a more authoritative world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.
But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
You think he is advocating authoritarianism for a better and whiter wash, especially given his calls for vigorous population controls? Useless, dumb and ought to know better.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... s-lovelock
This was a world made in the Cold War. Live with it.
Piffle. The man has stated as much that he favours capitalism and he had this to say:
We need a more authoritative world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.
But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
You think he is advocating authoritarianism for a better and whiter wash, especially given his calls for vigorous population controls? Useless, dumb and ought to know better.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... s-lovelock
This was a world made in the Cold War. Live with it.
- americandream
- Permanently Banned
- Posts: 8650
- Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by dohboi » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 10:59:19
(Cid, if you haven't noticed, anti-capitalism is ad's one-note samba--what he reduces all issues to. Not that I'm not sympathetic, but it gets a bit monotonous after a while.)
On doing whatever you like because the end is here, I guess each must be guided by their own lights.
For me, I don't take any great joy in kicking our dying gramma in the face even if she is already in her death rattle.
Others apparently see things differently.
On doing whatever you like because the end is here, I guess each must be guided by their own lights.
For me, I don't take any great joy in kicking our dying gramma in the face even if she is already in her death rattle.
Others apparently see things differently.
-
dohboi - Harmless Drudge
- Posts: 19990
- Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by AgentR11 » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 11:12:12
dohboi wrote:For me, I don't take any great joy in kicking our dying gramma in the face even if she is already in her death rattle.
I suspect this image is exactly why we write about the same things but use such different adjectives and point of views.
I don't view us as kicking gramma. I see a 6ft tall, armored Valkyrie with a massive mace bludgeoning a writhing mass of humanity, exclaiming, "I have had enough of you primates and your s****** in my garden."
Which is why I philosophically fall back to mammal 101, be small, hide, be quiet, be unnoticed, leave the surround as undisturbed as possible, and maybe the lady with the mace won't bash my skull in.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
- AgentR11
- Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 6374
- Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
- Location: East Texas
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by Sixstrings » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 11:25:25
americandream wrote:You think he is advocating authoritarianism for a better and whiter wash, especially given his calls for vigorous population controls? Useless, dumb and ought to know better.
I didn't see the authoritarian part but noticed this:
The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they're scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven't got the physics worked out yet.
One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn't got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They've employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I'm puzzled why politicians are not a bit more pragmatic about all this.
We do need scepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It's almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it's wrong to do it.
Damn he's good..
this man thinks like a skeptic, I like it. Is this really James Lovelock? On the climategate emails:
I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn't want to do anything else other than be a scientist. They're not like that nowadays. They don't give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: "Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work." That's no way to do science.
I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.
Now see, this man sounds honest. A genuine scientist. Objective. Whereas someone like Al Gore won't even admit those areas the skeptics are right about. Al Gore and so many others like him can never admit they're wrong about anything, and that's why people don't trust them. That's how data gets falsified.
Quite a nuanced and fascinating view Lovelock has.. he openly admits it's ridiculous to predict climate 50 years from now. He readily admits the science is still in its infancy, and for all they know "it could be the sun and aerosols" -- that caught my eye, that's what CERN just proved.
Basically, James Lovelock seems to have all the same doubts that I do, so why have I been yelled at so much on the climate issue.
-
Sixstrings - Fusion
- Posts: 15160
- Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by dohboi » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 12:52:27
Every person, including scientists, have their quirks. Lovelock seems particularly irked by the idea that his bucolic vista might be sullied by windmills.
In his books he is quite clear that the main things that scientists aren't doing is looking at the whole picture, and his take on the big picture is that things are very bleak indeed.
You may be misinterpreting what he is saying about aerosols. There is some uncertainty about aerosol effects, but not in a good way. Aerosols from dirty coal plants may be blocking enough sun to 'put off' perhaps two degrees C of warming we would otherwise already have. But the amount might be much more than this, or perhaps a bit less--certainly not nothing.
When 'skeptics' ever see the word 'uncertainty' they always seem to assume that it is likely to break in just the right way. But we can model uncertainty too, and most of the uncertainty in GW breaks toward higher probability that we are wrong in the not-so-nice direction.
In his books he is quite clear that the main things that scientists aren't doing is looking at the whole picture, and his take on the big picture is that things are very bleak indeed.
You may be misinterpreting what he is saying about aerosols. There is some uncertainty about aerosol effects, but not in a good way. Aerosols from dirty coal plants may be blocking enough sun to 'put off' perhaps two degrees C of warming we would otherwise already have. But the amount might be much more than this, or perhaps a bit less--certainly not nothing.
When 'skeptics' ever see the word 'uncertainty' they always seem to assume that it is likely to break in just the right way. But we can model uncertainty too, and most of the uncertainty in GW breaks toward higher probability that we are wrong in the not-so-nice direction.
-
dohboi - Harmless Drudge
- Posts: 19990
- Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by Cid_Yama » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 13:36:02
Shar_Lamagne wrote:James Lovelock on the Die-off
Talks about how exciting it will be for the young people, a great adventure, just like Cid does. Must come from being old.
The above is the video I was refering to. I didn't see any of what any of you are saying in that video.
He is just talking about the inevitability of the die-off. He did mention that scientists today are in it as a career rather than a vocation, so are prone to keep their mouths shut rather than ring the alarm bells.
He certainly isn't a sceptic. His main line these days is, enjoy what time you have left. That it's too late, and you can't fix it.
This has the greenies all up in arms. But this isn't the enemy of my enemy is my friend kind of situation. The whole last part of his carreer has been spent talking about the planet having a fatal fever and we being the cause.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
-
Cid_Yama - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7169
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by efarmer » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 13:55:37
Lovelock has done sound science and reached a conclusion. I can't see
how he is wrong on the overall scenario until and if we come up with
a non-hydrocarbon centric energy supply. He points out that if one
is young, they can have an exciting and relatively decent life if they
are willing to relocate to a place that is more probable to be an
area that has later consequence of our 150 year long big hydrocarbon
fiesta.
how he is wrong on the overall scenario until and if we come up with
a non-hydrocarbon centric energy supply. He points out that if one
is young, they can have an exciting and relatively decent life if they
are willing to relocate to a place that is more probable to be an
area that has later consequence of our 150 year long big hydrocarbon
fiesta.
-
efarmer - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2003
- Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by Cid_Yama » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 14:11:42
Lovelock names this illness polyanthroponomia, a condition in which humans are so plentiful they do more harm than good. More to the point, the condition is untreatable. Renewable energy projects, cutting carbon footprints and promoting sustainable development and other green ideas are no more than the posturing of "tribal animals bravely wielding symbols against the menace of an ineluctable force". In short, we are heading towards a climate catastrophe that will leave only pockets of humanity left alive, says Lovelock.
link
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
-
Cid_Yama - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7169
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by Sixstrings » Fri 02 Sep 2011, 15:41:44
Cid_Yama wrote:He certainly isn't a sceptic. His main line these days is, enjoy what time you have left. That it's too late, and you can't fix it.
Well I know he's not a "skeptic" per se, other than a healthy skeptic in the same way every honest objective scientist is supposed to be. Always be skeptical, skeptics keep scientists honest.. I've always said that, turns out Lovelock agrees.
I need to read this guy's work, I can tell he's objective and not all about an agenda.
-
Sixstrings - Fusion
- Posts: 15160
- Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by dohboi » Sat 03 Sep 2011, 06:42:00
Science IS essentially skepticism--science, unlike most religion, requires rigorous and repeated proof of claims. That is why when every established scientific body in the world comes to the conclusion that AGW is real and dangerous, I listen.
One needs to also be at least as skeptical towards those claiming to be skeptics. When so called skeptics on GW constantly found to be cherry picking or out and out misrepresenting the fact, and often end up being in the pay of major ff corporations, I find my self being quite skeptical of such self-described 'skeptics.'
But perhaps you have a different approach?
Speaking of skeptical science you might find this site interesting:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Here is some other food for thought:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/on-experts-and-global-warming/
One needs to also be at least as skeptical towards those claiming to be skeptics. When so called skeptics on GW constantly found to be cherry picking or out and out misrepresenting the fact, and often end up being in the pay of major ff corporations, I find my self being quite skeptical of such self-described 'skeptics.'
But perhaps you have a different approach?
Speaking of skeptical science you might find this site interesting:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Here is some other food for thought:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/on-experts-and-global-warming/
-
dohboi - Harmless Drudge
- Posts: 19990
- Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by basil_hayden » Sat 03 Sep 2011, 10:53:19
AgentR11 wrote:dohboi wrote:For me, I don't take any great joy in kicking our dying gramma in the face even if she is already in her death rattle.
I suspect this image is exactly why we write about the same things but use such different adjectives and point of views.
I don't view us as kicking gramma. I see a 6ft tall, armored Valkyrie with a massive mace bludgeoning a writhing mass of humanity, exclaiming, "I have had enough of you primates and your s****** in my garden."
Which is why I philosophically fall back to mammal 101, be small, hide, be quiet, be unnoticed, leave the surround as undisturbed as possible, and maybe the lady with the mace won't bash my skull in.
Very well put, R11. I agree wholeheartedly.
-
basil_hayden - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: CT, USA
Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)
by beamofthewave » Sat 03 Sep 2011, 11:43:30
She is our Mother and even should we choose to kill ourselves by making our environment something else than what can let us live, she still loves us and will miss us. She love us so much, I can feel it when I walk the skin of the earth. I honestly believe we delight her when we noticed how beautiful she is, when we hug a tree, when we tell her, "thank you." My soul feels fortunate to have known this good earth and she is on a journey as well. I have been blessed. 
-
beamofthewave - Peat
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sun 10 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests