'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change
Source: MSNBC
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."
<snip>
Read more: http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
I've said a number of times that Joe Romm has the most reality-based analysis,
here's some posts he's made about Lovelock in the past:
James Lovelock turns everyone into a climate optimist
By Joe Romm on Oct 26, 2007 at 8:40 am
No, the profile of famed scientist James Lovelock in Rolling Stone will not give you renewed hope about humanitys fate in the face of global warming. It will make you or Al Gore or James Hansen or even me look optimistic by comparison:
<snip>
Anyway, I dont agree with Lovelocks projected impacts this century (it wont be THAT severe that fast and humans are more resilient than he believes) nor do I agree it is too late to avoid the worst, but it is definitely much later than people think. I dont think the engines are about to fail, but the ships out-dated coal-fired boilers may be about to blow if they dont get replaced by the next President with something much, much cleaner .
Lovelock: Malthus was right, and Climate Progress is way, way too optimistic
By Joe Romm on Mar 22, 2008
Lovelock still makes me look like Paula Abdul, warns climate war could kill nearly all of us, leaving survivors in the Stone Age
By Joe Romm on Jun 29, 2009
relayerbob
(6,544 posts)but data from the arctic and antarctic, both temperature and methane release data, as well as melting Greenland ice cover would imply that it is actually going faster than expected.
panopeagenerosa
(44 posts)someone will put a megaton range ground penetrating physics package into Yellowstone from 30 thousand feet agl before it gets too warm. So...yeah...the thing about a few survivors in the arctic is not very likely. More like a few survivors dodging cannibals while trying to move south. Like in The Road.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Ice extent is about average for this time of year. Ice age is younger and hence the ice is thinner and more susceptible to summer melt.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Lovelock is getting senile in his old age. We do know what the climate is doing, we do know that feedbacks are already happening, we do know that catastrophic climate change is right around the corner.
We know 500 billion tons of land ice is melting worldwide every year. That's almost 120 cubic miles of ice. MELTING EVERY YEAR: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=volume+500+billion+ton+ice+to+cubic+miles
Goddamn, the denialists are going to embrace Lovelock like a plague now. This is factually incorrect, though.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)He may be right that it isnt happening as fast as some expected but that does not mean we should not be alarmist. We need to start making changes now if we are going to be able to reverse the catastrophic effects that are already beginning. I dont think we can be alarmist enough. Im afraid it is going to take some devastating effects to happen before world leaders get serious about this crisis at hand.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)It's defined by a whole series of various effects.
For example, while the last decade has been slow to have high temperature rises, 2010 was the hottest year on record. Record highs out pace record lows (this is beyond an anomaly). Droughts are at an all time high. Land ice is melting at an extremely high rate (120 cubic miles a year). There will be effectively no more sea ice in the northern hemisphere in just a few short years (this decade).
Temperature is not the only metric and Lovelock is falling for a denialist tactic. Give it just a few more years for the sea ice to melt and then you'll see temperatures skyrocketing.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)The problem is many have been predicting and expecting more dramatic effects like sea levels to rise significantly. That has not happened yet but that could change quickly if a big chuck of Greenland or Antartica land ice starts to slide into the sea.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)when he said that nuclear power was the only way to stop global warming. He's most likely wrong about this, but he's been right about much more. God knows I hope he's right about the pace of climate change, but the real question should be: had we listened to him in the 70s would we be having this discussion today?
PSPS
(13,599 posts)HotRodTuna
(114 posts)Don't get angry. As a geologist I just can't help myself.
saras
(6,670 posts)The fact that new science has left him behind is entirely typical, and unfortunately normal.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Much more at:
James Lovelock Finally Walks Back His Absurd Doomism, But He Still Doesnt Follow Climate Science
By Joe Romm on Apr 23, 2012 at 7:10 pm
<snip>
redqueen
(115,103 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The problem is, they're not individual problems. They are elements of an interlocked, interacting, mutually amplifying system of problems, and trying to solve one makes others worse.
Here's my 50,000 foot view of the Planetary Predicament: http://www.paulchefurka.ca/50000_Foot_View.html
We are in the beginning stages of a "multiple organ failure" scenario, and no matter whether we keep average temperature rise under 4 degrees C or not the crisis is going to intensify very rapidly from here on.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)Writing before this century is over billions of us will die" is not helpful.
NickB79
(19,246 posts)Once the methane from the Arctic permafrost melt starts to hit the atmosphere in a big way, we're pretty much locked in for 4-7C of warming in the next century or two. That kind of increase will literally make large parts of this planet uninhabitable: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100504155413.htm
ScienceDaily (May 4, 2010) Reasonable worst-case scenarios for global warming could lead to deadly temperatures for humans in coming centuries, according to research findings from Purdue University and the University of New South Wales, Australia.
So, that translates into a mass exodus of humanity from the tropics and a massive loss of farmland and seafood production, all as many parts of the planet that are still technically cool enough for humans to live in see food production plummet due to drought or flooding.
That means a massive flood of climate refugees away from the tropics at the same time that the remaining farmland is seeing its yields plummet due to drought or flooding.
Billions WILL die this century. It is pretty much inevitable now.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Notwithstanding the fact that six billion people will die of natural causes this century, we are facing a "multiple organ failure" scenario involving energy, ecology (including climate change) and economics that could - and IMO will - depopulate the planet quite radically before the end of the century.
It's possible we could do something to reduce the impact, and in the process preserve some of the other life that's going extinct as the result of human activities. But we won't even begin to act until people start getting a bit alarmed - that's just the way our brains are wired.
Positions like Lovelock's are integral to this effort, which is why I'm disappointed to see him walking back his level of concern.
Mosaic
(1,451 posts)Read the gaia crap in college. New age crap. He has no credibility with me, and he's probably senile and conservative. Ignore him.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)It's kinda hard to tell.It does seem like he hasn't rejected AGW out of hand but on the other hand, if some of these claims are correct......frankly, I'm sticking with Joe Romm here.