Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE James Lovelock Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby scas » Tue 24 Apr 2012, 02:40:13

James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.
Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.
He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”

However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far."
The new book, due to be published next year, will be the third in a trilogy, following his earlier works, “Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity,” and “The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It While You Can.”

The new book will discuss how humanity can change the way it acts in order to help regulate the Earth’s natural systems, performing a role similar to the harmonious one played by plants when they absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen.

It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.

He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role. “It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said.
He said he still thought that climate change was happening, but that its effects would be felt farther in the future than he previously thought.
“We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,” Lovelock said. 'I made a mistake'
As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.

Lovelock -- who has previously worked with NASA and discovered the presence of harmful chemicals (CFCs) in the atmosphere but not their effect on the ozone layer -- stressed that humanity should still “do our best to cut back on fossil fuel burning” and try to adapt to the coming changes.
Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the U.K.’s respected Met Office Hadley Centre, agreed Lovelock had been too alarmist with claims about people having to live in the Arctic by 2100.

And he also agreed with Lovelock that the rate of warming in recent years had been less than expected by the climate models.
However, Stott said this was a short-term trend that could be within the natural range of variation and it would need to continue for another 10 years or so before it could be considered evidence that something was missing from climate models.

US sees warmest March, and first quarter, on record

Stott said temperature records and other observations were “broadly speaking continuing to pan out” with what was expected.
He said there did need to be greater understanding of the effect of the oceans on the climate and added that air particles caused by pollution – which cool the Earth by reflecting the sun’s heat -- from rapidly developing countries like China could be having an effect.
On Lovelock, Stott said he had “a lot of respect” for him, saying “he’s had a lot of good ideas and interesting thoughts.”
“I like the fact he’s provocative and provokes people to think about these things,” Stott said.

In the interview, Lovelock said he would not take back a word of his seminal work “Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth,” published in 1979.
But of “Revenge of Gaia,” published in 2006, he said he had gone too far in describing what the warming Earth would see over the next century.
“I would be a little more cautious -- but then that would have spoilt the book,” he quipped.


http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... ate-change

I wonder what that's all about?
I always suspected his book was slightly alarmist, in order to motivate young people to go out and save society.
On the other hand, he may realize that we are screwed, what with the recent Arctic news regarding sea-ice and methane boiling out of the ocean.

Or perhaps, he realizes that in the near term we will cut emissions and heavily geo-engineer the planet.
I'm not sure what exactly to think of him now.
Al Gore and Tim Flannery are hardly alarmists.
And what of Peter Ward and James Hansen?
scas
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue 02 Nov 2010, 06:39:52

Re: Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby scas » Tue 24 Apr 2012, 04:49:27

"He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”


This seems fair. In a 4 degree world about 1 billion will survive according to Schellnhuber and Anderson. As well, anything over 4 degrees is considered alarmist while 4 degrees is considered realistic.

"The new book will discuss how humanity can change the way it acts in order to help regulate the Earth’s natural systems, performing a role similar to the harmonious one played by plants when they absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen."


“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.


This is due to coal plant sulfur gas. As well, he himself has mentioned in his book that before the switch to a hot-house world, that global warming may actually level off or even cool in the northern hemisphere. As well, if greenland starts to calve the northern hemisphere will cool while the southern hemisphere will heat, leading to increased storminess along the intersection.

“We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,” Lovelock said. 'I made a mistake'


This is good. That means he woke us up, broke our old belief system and now is saying we still have time. Get out there and change the world.

US sees warmest March, and first quarter, on record


Ironic.

“I like the fact he’s provocative and provokes people to think about these things,” Stott said.


Agree
scas
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue 02 Nov 2010, 06:39:52

Re: Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby dorlomin » Tue 24 Apr 2012, 05:05:31

I liked Lovelock a lot when I was a teenager. I also liked Tolkien.

Now I am older and follow the science closely you will find he has been way way out from what the other scientists in the field has been saying.

I dont think anyone who has read the runaway climate change threads in the enviroment section can have the slightest doubt that I have been prepared to take all manner of criticism for calling out some of the more alarmist stuff.

Deep Ocean methane clatherates are very real. But it takes centuries and millenia for heating to get that deep. As for no warming..... hardly an unusual occurence.

Image

Anthropogenic forced variations in the earths radiative balance will only be causing about 0.15C or warming per decade. The ENSO can have a swing of 0.6C peak to trough. So over a decade the signal can very easily be masked. This and other infradecadal signals like the solar cycle mean that it takes many years to get a clear picture. Hence why we say climate can only be measured over 30 years or more.

I am at the complete opposite end to Lovelock. I am deeply worried by the speed of some of the changes we are seeing. Climate change is not going to cause its problems initially by warming, but by change, change in where the rain falls and change in where it is warm and cold.

Here is a video on some of those changes.

Here is some work that claims to cut out the ENSO, volcanic and solar

Image
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby scas » Tue 24 Apr 2012, 06:19:26

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17400804

Meteorologist Lord (Julian) Hunt, who chaired the meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change, clarified that an abrupt methane release from the current warming was not inevitable, describing that as "an issue for scientific debate".

But he also said that some in the scientific community had been reluctant to discuss the possibility.

"There is quite a lot of suppression and non-discussion of issues that are difficult, and one of those is in fact methane," he said, recalling a reluctance on the part of at least one senior scientists involved in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment to discuss the impact that a methane release might have.


IMPACTS OF A RAPIDLY CHANGING ARCTIC

Without stopping it, sooner or later, one way or another, the loss of the Arctic summer sea ice would lead to runaway global warming.

IPCC, 2007:
"Melting of highly reflective snow and ice reveals darker land and ocean surfaces, increasing absorption of the sun's heat and further warming the planet, especially in those regions."

Meehl et al., 2007:
"The possibility of abrupt climate change and/or abrupt changes in the earth system triggered by climate change, with potentially catastrophic consequences, cannot be ruled out.... Positive feedback from warming may cause the release of carbon or methane from the terrestrial biosphere and oceans."

In other words, both the loss of Arctic summer sea ice albedo due to global warming and the inevitable (already happening) Arctic feedback carbon emissions (mainly methane) will increase the rate of Arctic and global warming.

What would be the effects of losing all the Arctic summer sea ice?
Further increasing the rate of Arctic warming - definite
Increasing the rate of Arctic carbon feedback methane emissions - definite but how much is unknown
Changes to northern hemisphere climate - definite but the outcome is unknown
Increased rate of global warming - assumed there will be some direct increase to rate of global warming but how much is unknown, definite from Arctic carbon feedbacks but how much, how fast is unknown

How much would the loss of Arctic summer sea ice increase the Arctic regional rate of warming?
Scientists now believe that the main factor in the accelerating loss of Arctic summer sea ice is the loss of albedo cooling and the increased heat absorption it causes. Loss of Arctic summer sea ice increases the rate of loss (positive feedback effect).

There is one published indication of how the loss of Arctic summer sea ice will increase the rate of Arctic warming, from David Lawrence in 2008.

He found that "during episodes of rapid sea-ice loss, the rate of Arctic land warming is 3.5 times greater than the average 21st century warming rates predicted in global climate models. While this warming is largest over the ocean, the simulations suggest that it can penetrate as far as 900 miles inland. The simulations also indicate that the warming acceleration during such events is especially pronounced in autumn. The decade during which a rapid sea-ice loss event occurs could see autumn temperatures warm by as much as 5 degrees C (9F) along the Arctic coasts of Russia, Alaska, and Canada. This is highly significant to the increase in methane emissions from thawing permafrost and the warming of methane hydrates."

What about the Northern Hemisphere?

The Arctic is the air conditioner for the entire northern hemisphere so the hemispheric climate will change along with further accelerated warming.
"Make no mistake, the Arctic is the Northern Hemisphere’s air conditioner. If the ice starts disappearing in the summer, it will have a significant impact on our climate."
— Dan Satterfield, AGU blog, August 2010

"There will be knock-on effects in the whole of the northern hemisphere. Everything changes – evaporation from the ocean, changes in wind patterns and the wetness of the winds, and amount of snowfall in the area – because you’re replacing an ice-covered centre to the northern hemisphere with an ocean-covered centre."
— Prof. Peter Wadhams reporting on the Catlin survey in 2009

Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University, at the AGU meeting in December 2011 (Does Arctic Amplification Fuel Extreme Weather in Mid-Latitudes?), presented new research in review that shows that Arctic sea ice loss may significantly affect the upper-level atmospheric circulation, slowing its winds and increasing its tendency to make contorted high-amplitude loops. Such high-amplitude loops in the upper level wind pattern (and associated jet stream) increase the probability of persistent (that is, longer-duration) weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere, potentially leading to extreme weather due to longer-duration cold spells, snow events, heat waves, flooding events, and drought conditions.

All of these spell bad news for Northern hemisphere agriculture and therefore world food security.

Research published in 2008 by C. Archer and K. Caldeira reported that the jet stream has moved northwards 270 miles in 22 years, presumably due to global climate change.

The Arctic summer sea ice loss would mean a huge amount of extra Arctic and subarctic warming, and it will undoubtedly affect the northern hemisphere, especially midcontinental regions. The northern hemisphere is warming faster than the southern hemisphere because there is more land in the north and more water in the south. Midcontental regions tend to warm fastest.

What will that do? There is little published research on this, but scientists say it will increase droughts in drought-prone and marginal dry regions — including in the United States.

Jennifer A. Francis, Winter Northern Hemisphere weather patterns remember summer Arctic sea-ice extent: , "Mechanisms by which the atmosphere 'remembers' a reduction in summer ice cover include warming and destabilization of the lower troposphere, increased cloudiness, and slackening of the poleward thickness gradient that weakens the polar jet stream. This ice atmosphere relationship suggests a potential long-range outlook for weather patterns in the northern hemisphere."

Effect on the jet stream and planetary weather patterns (http://www.arcticportal.org/effects-of- ... -reduction):
"Continued loss of Arctic sea ice may dramatically change global weather and precipitation patterns in the decades to come. The jet stream will probably move further north in response to warmer temperatures over the pole, which will bring more precipitation to the Arctic. More frequent and intense droughts over the U.S. and other regions of the mid-latitudes may result from this shift in the jet stream. Changes to the course of the jet stream affect weather patterns for the entire planet, and we can expect impacts on the strength of the monsoons and re-curvature likelihood of hurricanes."
NRDC: Global Warming Puts the Arctic on Thin Ice (http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp):

"The cold temperatures in the Arctic ... act as a sort of air conditioner for the rest of the world.... The contraction of the Arctic ice cap is accelerating global warming. Snow and ice usually form a protective, cooling layer over the Arctic. When that covering melts, the earth absorbs more sunlight and gets hotter. And the latest scientific data confirm the far-reaching effects of climbing global temperatures.

"A warmer Arctic will also affect weather patterns and thus food production around the world. Wheat farming in Kansas, for example, would be profoundly affected by the loss of ice cover in the Arctic. According to a NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies computer model, Kansas would be 4 degrees warmer in the winter without Arctic ice, which normally creates cold air masses that frequently slide southward into the United States. Warmer winters are bad news for wheat farmers, who need freezing temperatures to grow winter wheat. And in summer, warmer days would rob Kansas soil of 10 percent of its moisture, drying out valuable cropland."

How much will the loss of Arctic summer sea ice boost the rate of global warming?
There is no published research that answers this question, though for many years scientists have been saying that this will increase the global warming rate.
Sea ice loss is not accounted for in future temperature increase projections by the IPCC. The climate sensitivity used is a single linear metric that does not account for non linear changes in the climate system.
scas
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue 02 Nov 2010, 06:39:52

Re: Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 24 Apr 2012, 06:59:44

dorlomin wrote:Anthropogenic forced variations in the earths radiative balance will only be causing about 0.15C or warming per decade. The ENSO can have a swing of 0.6C peak to trough. So over a decade the signal can very easily be masked. This and other infradecadal signals like the solar cycle mean that it takes many years to get a clear picture. Hence why we say climate can only be measured over 30 years or more.

I am at the complete opposite end to Lovelock. I am deeply worried by the speed of some of the changes we are seeing. Climate change is not going to cause its problems initially by warming, but by change, change in where the rain falls and change in where it is warm and cold.

Here is some work that claims to cut out the ENSO, volcanic and solar

Image


I agree with the first part of what I quoted, alarmisim doesn't motivate people to change it just convinces them you are a nut. Cold rational facts are far far more compelling than emotional posturing.

Do you have a link to an article explaining the last graph? What year did they use for base zero temperature? Most older studies used 1950, but not everyone is using that date these days.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17056
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby dorlomin » Tue 24 Apr 2012, 07:05:05

Tanada wrote:Do you have a link to an article explaining the last graph? What year did they use for base zero temperature? Most older studies used 1950, but not everyone is using that date these days.

Discussion
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby dissident » Tue 24 Apr 2012, 10:13:29

dorlomin wrote:
Tanada wrote:Do you have a link to an article explaining the last graph? What year did they use for base zero temperature? Most older studies used 1950, but not everyone is using that date these days.

Discussion


Linear temperature trend driven by an exponential greenhouse loading increase. Perfectly consistent with known science that the temperature follows the logarithm of the greenhouse gas burden. These studies demonstrate that there are no cloud albedo or "infrared iris" effects kicking in to mitigate the raw impact of greenhouse gases. This is quite interesting in itself. The 32 year period of the analysis is enough to dismiss variability in cloud cover. They did not regress against any cloud index yet they still get a linear trend.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby scas » Tue 24 Apr 2012, 15:04:26

He probably realized too many young people were killing themselves after reading his books.
scas
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue 02 Nov 2010, 06:39:52

Re: Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby Sixstrings » Tue 24 Apr 2012, 15:34:30

Wow..

'I made a mistake', Lovelock says.

Also:

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

SO.

I WAS RIGHT.

Can I get an apology? From the people who were so bitterly rude and vicious for my having climate change doubts? I kept saying we need more time for study, and some on this forum said "it's because of people like you the planet will burn blah blah." Well here we've had a bit more time and now Lovelock is apologizing, saying they were all wrong, they were all alarmist.

So I was right.. I'm waiting for an apology here.. probably meemo and the deniers deserve an apology as well.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby Lore » Tue 24 Apr 2012, 16:18:50

Sixstrings wrote:Wow..

'I made a mistake', Lovelock says.

Also:

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

SO.

I WAS RIGHT.

Can I get an apology? From the people who were so bitterly rude and vicious for my having climate change doubts? I kept saying we need more time for study, and some on this forum said "it's because of people like you the planet will burn blah blah." Well here we've had a bit more time and now Lovelock is apologizing, saying they were all wrong, they were all alarmist.

So I was right.. I'm waiting for an apology here.. probably meemo and the deniers deserve an apology as well.


Why? Who ever said Lovelock was right in the first place, if not, why should we believe him now? I think he was just looking for something to snap in his lifetime and when you're in your 90s, that doesn't leave much time.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 24 Apr 2012, 19:40:26

dorlomin wrote:
Tanada wrote:Do you have a link to an article explaining the last graph? What year did they use for base zero temperature? Most older studies used 1950, but not everyone is using that date these days.

Discussion


Thanks, they are using 1950 as their baseline based on my reading of the link.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17056
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby Sixstrings » Tue 24 Apr 2012, 20:13:29

Lore wrote:Why? Who ever said Lovelock was right in the first place, if not, why should we believe him now? I think he was just looking for something to snap in his lifetime and when you're in your 90s, that doesn't leave much time.


It was a while back now, but some on the forum got pretty vicious when I just had climate change doubts.

Now I'm more or less convinced and turns out I was right before. :roll:

I don't know.. Lovelock backtracking aside, the weather seems to be changing. More tornadoes in recent years, and deadlier. Strange weather events. Winter finally arrived here in Florida, in April, a cold air low pressure front that the local tv meteorologist said was "unprecedented." We had a night long tornado watch, high winds, and it was cold -- very odd.

I don't know though, seems like when I finally come around to believing something I didn't used to then everyone who did believe it reverses course. I'm doomed to be a contrarian. :lol:
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby scas » Tue 24 Apr 2012, 20:33:53

If you read the whole thing, he says global warming has just been delayed a bit. There are numerous reports explaining why temperatures have not risen substantially - primarily because China's coal plants are acting to COOL the planet, while the CO2 it emits will not have full effect for 30 years. So by burning coal, China is keeping us cool.

Also, the Arctic sea ice has been melting exponentially in volume since 2000, and the Siberian ocean is boiling 1000 metre wide diameter plumes of methane.
The glaciers really are melting. Moulins really are forming. The ocean really is turning acid. The corals really are bleaching. The algae really is dieing back. We really did experience 15 000 temperature record in the US this summer. We really did get an amazing tornado season. Mexico, Texas, and North Africa really is experiencing the worst drought in 60 years. Rajendra of the IPCC really did say unless we act before 2012, it's too late...

If you read carefully, he says he is retracting on his "By 2100 only a few breeding pairs will survive"...however if you see the Oxford 4 degree conference, they say 4 degrees is regarded as realistic. 4 degrees is 2 degrees away from extinction.
People fail to understand that by making an apocalyptic prediction, you alter the probability that that event will happen.
In this case, by awakening the world to the worst case scenario, we have mobilized to develop multifacted space and stratospheric geo-engineering.

But yes, most people will jump the gun and say "See Lovelock said global warming isn't real" (note that HE DID NOT SAY THAT ) while ignoring the REAL climate scientists like Schellnhuber, Anderson, Hansen, etc..

And now this...
Death Valley’s 113°: Hottest April Temperature On Record In U.S...An unprecedented April heat wave brought a second day of sizzling temperatures to the Western U.S. yesterday, where temperatures ranging 20 – 30 degrees above normal have toppled numerous all-time April heat records.

Global Warming = Not Real.
Last edited by scas on Tue 24 Apr 2012, 21:18:02, edited 1 time in total.
scas
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue 02 Nov 2010, 06:39:52

Re: Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby Lore » Tue 24 Apr 2012, 20:51:58

Sixstrings wrote:
Lore wrote:Why? Who ever said Lovelock was right in the first place, if not, why should we believe him now? I think he was just looking for something to snap in his lifetime and when you're in your 90s, that doesn't leave much time.


It was a while back now, but some on the forum got pretty vicious when I just had climate change doubts.

Now I'm more or less convinced and turns out I was right before. :roll:

I don't know.. Lovelock backtracking aside, the weather seems to be changing. More tornadoes in recent years, and deadlier. Strange weather events. Winter finally arrived here in Florida, in April, a cold air low pressure front that the local tv meteorologist said was "unprecedented." We had a night long tornado watch, high winds, and it was cold -- very odd.

I don't know though, seems like when I finally come around to believing something I didn't used to then everyone who did believe it reverses course. I'm doomed to be a contrarian. :lol:


Seems like you get convinced rather easily, one way or the other?

Why would you base your reconversion on the adjustments of some extreme rehtoric and predictions made by one man? Like scas says there is nothing in his comments that change the basic science.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby Loki » Tue 24 Apr 2012, 21:34:21

I read Revenge of Gaia last year and even I considered it alarmist despite my doomer proclivities. His projections to 2100 seemed improbable to me. As did his discussion of artificial meat as a solution for mass starvation, among other ideas.

He came off as a hyper-doomer in Revenge of Gaia. Guess even 90-somethings can moderate their views. I value his opinion, but his voice is one of many in the choir, and he's not exactly active in the field.
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon

Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)

Unread postby wisconsin_cur » Wed 25 Apr 2012, 06:58:50

I apologize if this was posted elsewhere. I'll give the guy his props for being honest.

Lovelock, "I was a climate change alarmist

James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.

Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.


The moral: The things we talk about may be real. They may be a threat. But they are not as real or as threatening as our fearful imaginations tend to make them out to be.
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
User avatar
wisconsin_cur
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4576
Joined: Thu 10 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: 45 degrees North. 883 feet above sealevel.

Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 25 Apr 2012, 10:14:10

No, I think the message is that we are deep in the unknown.

This should not comfort us.

He admits to a capacity to be wrong about the timing.

We have yet to see if he was wrong then or now.

Most other climate scientists were far wrong on the other side.

None of the projections for Arctic sea ice melt from the 2007 International Panel on Climate Change report anticipated a (near) total ice melt before ~2080, and most put it well into the next century.

Most are now anticipating this event to come in the next very few years, or at very most, decades.

We don't really have any idea what the consequences of having a new entire ocean opening up at the top of the globe.

I suspect that in a couple more years, if he is still alive, Lovelock will again be eating his words and saying that he was right the first time.

Time will tell.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Lovelock Eating His Words?

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 25 Apr 2012, 10:59:24

Remember that he is also concerned about things like avoiding having people spoil the view from his garden with windmills.

IIRC, in 2006 he predicted a 10 C increase in global temperatures within a decade (though I think he hedged by saying "or two"). In retrospect, this is looking a bit ahead of the curve.

Many people were caught off guard by the relative stability of global temps over the last decade (though it is stability at a temp very much higher than during any previous decade on record.) Even the best climatologist couldn't have predicted that China would be building two new coal fired plants every week through the decade, each pouring out tons of aerosols, whose net effect seems to be to (temporarily) shield the globe from the full effects of the heating which would otherwise have occurred.

A down turn in the Chinese or world economy, or just a continuation or acceleration of the current Chinese policy of cleaning up the emissions of these plants, will mean a fairly rapid increase in global temperatures. And there a number of other damping effects that are about to go off line and tipping points ready to or in the process of tipping.

So my prediction is that, in another few years, if he is still alive, Lovelock will once more be changing his tune and saying that rapid climate change is in fact upon us. Of course, by then (and probably even by now), it will be far too late to avoid the very worst.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)

Unread postby wisconsin_cur » Wed 25 Apr 2012, 14:54:11

You're right in that the better moral is "we don't know." Given what he claimed to know at one time, however, I would say that this is a positive turn... unless it would have been better had he been right?
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
User avatar
wisconsin_cur
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4576
Joined: Thu 10 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: 45 degrees North. 883 feet above sealevel.

Re: THE James Lovelock Thread (merged)

Unread postby Lore » Wed 25 Apr 2012, 16:12:06

wisconsin_cur wrote:You're right in that the better moral is "we don't know." Given what he claimed to know at one time, however, I would say that this is a positive turn... unless it would have been better had he been right?


Depends on who you're referring to that's making the claims of what we know. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we're wrong about what we do know. That in itself is pretty scary.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 241 guests