[scas]

I think what a lot of people fail to realize is that when an extremely influential figures writes a polemic-worst case scenario, he influences the probability that that event will happen. In this case, many political and youth figures paid attention, and are working to create social tipping points. Personally I suspect his campaign was part of something bigger, to break belief systems and get society to mobilize against climate change. What Lovelock did, was paint a picture of where we are headed...so as to make us change direction.

There is another possibility. With the Arctic sea ice going away, and the oceans boiling methane, he may figure that there is no point alarming anyone anymore and that our remaining hope is with geoengineering and land-management. As well, he wants to prevent a flood of refugees or terrorism based on his remarks. The fact is there is more carbon as methane locked up in the Arctic, than in all the atmosphere. It is also true that many of the subtropical regions already exist at the edge of famine.

Note he says we should still "cut emissions and adapt to coming changes".
I recall the Oxford 4 degree conference, which posits 3-4 degrees by 2060 as realistic, based on slow methane feedbacks. It certainly seems to me, that the methane feedbacks are much faster than expected.

But here is a questions..with the Arctic sea ice gone within a few years, what will happen to the global climate? Hasn't all that ice been acting to keep the planet cool, much like an iced-drink keeps the temperature near 0 until the ice is gone, at which point it abruptly rises (because it takes 80x as much energy to phase change ice than it does to raise it 1 degree)? What will happen to the methane hydrates? What will happen to the onland permafrost? What will happen to the subtropics? What will happen to food production?

[scas]

Here is a graph of Arctic temperature anomalies.
To me, it looks like in the last 12 years, temperatures have been climbing.
But I guess if I sit at a 45 degree angle, I could argue it is not rising..

[wisconsin_cur]

I am referring only to Lovelock.

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.

[Revi]

Lovelock's recanting has enchanted the deniers. I read an editorial in which the author said that not only is there nothing to fear from climate change, but now there's plenty of oil and gas around as well.

What they are all conveniently forgetting is that the IPCC's milktoast report is still a nightmare. If we have 4 degrees C of warming that's the end of the grain belt in the US and Australia. It means lots of refugees and death. The degree of devasttion wouldn't be quite as severe as Lovelock's prediction, but it's still dire.

[ralfy]

"Climate change proponent realizes he was wrong, but for the wrong reasons"

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/201 ... easons.ars

[scas]

We are probably screwed, and he just wants those to see it to stop panicking, and those in the stricken zones not to worry or flood the north.

Natural selection.

The Arctic is about to abruptly release a 50 Gt methane burst, and increase global warming by a factor of 12, putting us 150 years ahead in global warming.

Remember, in 2010 December they prorated to 3.5 Gt, from methane plumes 10 m across, while in 2011 those methane plumes had grown to 1000 metres across. That is two magnitudes in size. Remember, that temperatures may flatten, right before an abrupt temperature climb. Remember, that Greenland calving may keep the north cool, even as the south burns, leading to severe tornadoes and storms along the central latitudes.

What we could do, is have China build coal plants even faster, and mandate that every ship and power plant must burn unfiltered high sulfur coal.
Another option is to suddenly slash emissions by 60%, share food, develop synthetic food, and deploy stratospheric/tropospheric/space-based geo-engineering.

Re: this Article above. The author is a credulous gullible fool. He doesn't talk about why the IPCC underestimates and by how much, he doesn't mention that they don't include algae or methane feedbacks or numerous others, the doesn't mention that 20-1 new studies show climate change is much worse than expected, he doesn't mention thousands of methane plumes boiling out of the Arctic, many over a km wide, he doesn't mention the Arctic is now self-reinforcing, he doesn't mention methane hydrates of which there are enough to warm us over 15 degrees, he doesn't mention global dimming, and he assumes that just because the middle-case scenario falls in the middle of a bell curve, it must be correct. Well guess what, when you fall off a cliff, there is no "middle case scenario". You are either on or off. James Lovelock has more awards than you. His inventions allowed us to detect CFCs that were destroying the ozone hole. He has instruments on mars. He invented the microwave. He authored the Gaia-Medea hypothesis. In other words, he is smarter than you.


Why Did Earth Die?
Earth died because of a case of runaway global warming, triggered by a massive release of Arctic methane...
But proximally...
Earth died...
Because nobody cared.
gg ee. You Had A Good Run.

[Graeme]

Gaia: The death of a beautiful idea

THE idea that we live on a planet that takes care of us is intuitively appealing. So it's no wonder that James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis – that the biosphere acts like a living organism, one that self-regulates to keep conditions just right for life – became so popular. Although rooted in science, Gaia appeals to the same side of human nature that gods and guardian angels do.

It's a complex hypothesis, and was never going to be easy to test. But the evidence has been mounting since Lovelock put it forward 40 years ago, and now the first major review of that evidence has been conducted. The verdict? Gaia doesn't hold up (see "My verdict on Gaia hypothesis: beautiful but flawed").

Gaia may yet bounce back. But if it has been struck a fatal blow, it could be the most fitting example yet of what T. H. Huxley called "the great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact".

That's science. Some will lament the demise of a beautiful, comforting idea, but Gaia should be remembered for being an elegant hypothesis that stimulated vital research on what is now (inelegantly) called the Earth system. There will be no tragedy in its passing.

newscientist

[Plantagenet]

Gaia: The death of a beautiful idea

THE idea that we live on a planet that takes care of us is intuitively appealing. So it's no wonder that James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis – that the biosphere acts like a living organism, one that self-regulates to keep conditions just right for life – became so popular.

The Gaia hypothesis has nothing to do with the planet taking care of us.

The Gaia hypothesis says the earth takes care of itself.

If the earth suffers a catastrophe ---an ice age or a meteor impact or stupid humans burning coal to make electricity----the Gaia hypothesis says nothing about how to stop it.

What the Gaia hypothesis says is that the earth will respond and adjust to the catastrophe in such a way that over eons life will modify the earth to return to equability.

[SeaGypsy]

Taken to it's logical extreme, humanity's purpose under Gaia is to get the locked up Carbon out of the ground and back into circulation. If there is any logic to the beast, this must be more important than just about anything else happening on the planet- given the mess, mass extinctions etc. Being about halfway through unlocking the Carbon resource at some point Gaia will determine 'enough' already and smack us down.

I have had this argument in real life with many 'permie' people who seem mostly able to see ours as a virtually alien invader to the pristine and perfect Gaia- a common view which denies the fundamental theorem. If Gaia is 'real' we are part of it, including our mess. Before we came along and started purging the Earth of locked hydrocarbons it was slowly but surely being starved of available Carbon.

[Plantagenet]

Taken to it's logical extreme, humanity's purpose under Gaia is to get the locked up Carbon out of the ground and back into circulation.

Humanity doesn't have a purpose anymore than a meteor that crashes into the earth or a volcano that explodes has a purpose. Nothing has a purpose---everything just is what it is.

Gaia itself doesn't have a purpose. Its just the name given to a conceptual model that describes the way the biosphere interacts with the larger earth system.

[SeaGypsy]

'Gaia' does have a purpose- to sustain the requirements of life on Earth. The thesis was originally developed to juxtapose entropy. Humanity is an intensely paradoxical influence in this mega paradox.

[Plantagenet]

'Gaia' does have a purpose- to sustain the requirements of life on Earth.

Gaia doesn't have a purpose. Gaia has no volition or consciousness. Gaia is just the name given to a conceptual model of how the earth's biosphere and geosphere interact.

Lovelock's hypothesis is that over long periods of time life modifies the geosphere to its own benefit. The name he gave to this concept is the "Gaia Hypothesis". Its no different than saying fire burns wood or the sun's warmth produces winds. The purpose of fire isn't to burn wood---its just what it does. The purpose of the sun isn't to make the wind blow---its just what happens.

[SeaGypsy]

The 'balance' in favor of LIFE. Whether defined as purposeful or not- it is contrary to entropy. Life, globally interactive- defined as 'Gaia'- vs Universal Entropy- Death. Human paradox is that we act as a force for both.

[ROCKMAN]

Gypsy - "'Gaia' does have a purpose- to sustain the requirements of life on Earth." Hmm...was Gaia doing her thing on Mars or any of the other planets that may have life at some point? And I gather sustain just some life...not all life given the innumerable species that have gone extinct.

Maybe my doubts come from imagining the earth prior to life and picture a very nice place.

[Plantagenet]

The 'balance' in favor of LIFE. Whether defined as purposeful or not- it is contrary to entropy.

So what? Many chemical processes are "contrary" to entropy.

When you stir a pot of soup you set up turbulence so some of the soup swirls "contrary" to the direction you are stirring. Even something as seemingly simple as stirring the soup involves things like turbulence and convection and is "contrary to entropy." Thats just the way material systems work. The universe isn't progressing monotonically towards entropy---its too big and complex so many things happen that are "contrary to entropy".

Life, globally interactive- defined as 'Gaia'

Life is not defined as "Gaia." Life is life. Gaia is something different---it is the name Lovelock gave to the interplay between the complex biochemical and geochemical processes operating on the earth system. Many of these processes are entirely inorganic (i.e. have nothing to do with life).

[SeaGypsy]

Personalist vs impersonalist philosophy is thoroughly studied in Eastern mystical/ spiritual traditions. Not understood above an infantile- 'is there- isn't there a 'God" level among western schools of thought. Lovelock's invocation of 'Gaia' was- is about personalist philosophy. If you want to argue with me about this Planty or Rock or whoever else- I suggest doing some reading on these key concepts first. Thanks in advance

[Tanada]

Has Lovelock actually come out and said point blank that he based his Gaia concept on Eastern Mysticism rather than on the Earth Mother concept of ancient Greece?

[SeaGypsy]

I doubt he has felt the need lol. It's not a run of the mill patriarchal idea as alluded to by those I was responding to.

[Loki]

Has Lovelock actually come out and said point blank that he based his Gaia concept on Eastern Mysticism rather than on the Earth Mother concept of ancient Greece?

I listened to a couple interviews with him recently. The term Gaia was suggested to him by one his neighbors, novelist William Golding. He had already formulated the broad outlines of the theory before using the term Gaia. He developed the theory while working for NASA (or JPL?) and trying to figure out how it might be possible to determine if a planet had life on it. It had nothing to do with either Asian philosophy or ancient Greek mythology.

[Subjectivist]

Has Lovelock actually come out and said point blank that he based his Gaia concept on Eastern Mysticism rather than on the Earth Mother concept of ancient Greece?

I listened to a couple interviews with him recently. The term Gaia was suggested to him by one his neighbors, novelist William Golding. He had already formulated the broad outlines of the theory before using the term Gaia. He developed the theory while working for NASA (or JPL?) and trying to figure out how it might be possible to determine if a planet had life on it. It had nothing to do with either Asian philosophy or ancient Greek mythology.

The way I understood the term Lovelock means that life acts on the planet in such a way that it promotes the survival of life. Basically when CO2 gets too low life dies back promoting more CO2 accumulation and when it gets too high life draws down the level acting rather like a thermostat.