Lovelock says we can't save the planet

[Rum]

The guy who invented the Gaia theory says its too late.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 594561.stm

[Pappa]

Not being funny... but the guy who invented the Gaia theory is mostly full of shit.

[Loki_999]

DOOMED... we are all doomed!

I think the earth will survive ok until the Sun dies or some other event occurs. We may screw the planet until it is unfit for our form of life, but I think DNA will be ok... after all, it formed in the early days of the earth when humans would not have been able to live in the conditions that existed. Cockroaches are widely quoted as being able to survive almost anything and there are exrtemophiles that live in some pretty harsh conditions.

Hell, it may give a chance to a new form of intelligent species to arise from the ashes of our extinction.

[Rum]

Not being funny... but the guy who invented the Gaia theory is mostly full of shit.

*Be* funny. I hope he's wrong!

[JimC]

The guy who invented the Gaia theory says its too late.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 594561.stm

I'm partly fatalistic myself, but will still hope for at least some increased effort in renewable energy...

[Feck]

DOOMED... we are all doomed!

I think the earth will survive ok until the Sun dies or some other event occurs. We may screw the planet until it is unfit for our form of life, but I think DNA will be ok... after all, it formed in the early days of the earth when humans would not have been able to live in the conditions that existed. Cockroaches are widely quoted as being able to survive almost anything and there are exrtemophiles that live in some pretty harsh conditions.

Hell, it may give a chance to a new form of intelligent species to arise from the ashes of our extinction.

+1 shame about all the life we are going to take with us but "the planet" will be fine without us .....

[Pappa]

The guy who invented the Gaia theory says its too late.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 594561.stm

I'm partly fatalistic myself, but will still hope for at least some increased effort in renewable energy...

I've previously heard him say that the only solution to global warming is to build nuclear power stations everywhere. It just isn't true. We could easily survive on a combination of renewable energy and energy saving of there was the political will and public acceptance to do so.

[Woodbutcher]

DOOMED... we are all doomed!

I think the earth will survive ok until the Sun dies or some other event occurs. We may screw the planet until it is unfit for our form of life, but I think DNA will be ok... after all, it formed in the early days of the earth when humans would not have been able to live in the conditions that existed. Cockroaches are widely quoted as being able to survive almost anything and there are exrtemophiles that live in some pretty harsh conditions.

Hell, it may give a chance to a new form of intelligent species to arise from the ashes of our extinction.

+1 shame about all the life we are going to take with us but "the planet" will be fine without us .....

+2 Cockroaches and mice. They will inherit the earth.

[macdoc]

Pappa you are in the science forum and with sincere respect you are very very wrong on renewables and Lovelock and others like Hansen are correct. His views here

Time to get over our hang-up about nuclear power

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi ... 24788.html

Nuclear is the ONLY route to save a catastrophe - there is not a hope that renewables can fill the space....

The scale of the problem is simply too large and thinking renewables can do it is wishful thinking of a very dangerous sort....

Do some reading including the links in my sig

The best place to understand the scale of the energy problem is here

http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fas ... ear-power/

and Dr Brooks DOES know what he is talking about and has the background to support it....

Professor Barry Brook holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide.

He has published two books and over 150 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and regularly writes opinion pieces and popular articles for the media. He has received a number of distinguished awards in recognition of his research excellence, which addresses the topics of climate change, computational and statistical modelling and the synergies between human impacts on Earth systems.

and the detailed analysis on the site will tell you very clearly why renewables will not suffice

Hansen is also frantic to get fast breeders in operation to blunt the destruction that coal wreaks....

Here is a journey one person took on nuclear...

This the entire journey for one who was virulently against nuclear energy and then changed his mind once he was better informed

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 17&t=94863

from here

I made the below post because I was sick of all the attacks on the messengers by MacDoc without dealing with the issue or answering a single question posed by those who question or challenge the nuclear paradigm. YEs I am sick of all the put downs, the brow beating, the insults, and the avoidacnce of each and every question and challenge posed. That has been the epitomy of the nuclear industry's method over the last more than 70 years - killing us softly and nice kind words out front, plus unfulfilled promoses to make us complacent and greedy, as well as to stand in awe of our betters who have tamed the universe.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 17&t=94863


to here

Alright. I'm not too proud to admit the necessity to change my mind on nuclear for several reasons.

1. Fissile material already exists so not having nuclear will not stop weapons grade materials becoming available. On the other hand it has to be recognised that civilian nuclear power will create skills and opportunities for more countries or actors to generate weapons grade materials and possibly nuclear bombs so;
2. IAEA needs to be strengthened in safeguards. Multiplied in fact.
3. Many climate change deniers are still prepared to go with nuclear power so it gets past the denialists objections. However nuclear power should only be used in order to shut down the worst coal fired power stations. Otherwise there is no net reduction in emissions.
4. All efforts should be made towards implementing fast breeder reactors so that devastating, poisonous uranium mining can be discontinued and old waste and weapons material used instead.
5. This should not, must not interfere with efficiency goals, and electricity use reduction by way of price signals.

Other baseload options should be pursued with all haste, such as solar thermal in desert areas such as the vast deserts of Australia where sun reliability is close to 100% and thermal capacity can deliver 24/7 baseload.

Still further options such as geothermal from radiogenic intrusions should be pursued with all haste and money.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... &start=330

The reason he was not answered in the Climate Science thread was he was asked to make it a separate topic as it was off topic on that thread...
He finally did and got his answers...39 pages of them and not a few from those in the industry.
Each of his challenges were answered within the thread many with the supporting source material.

and he to his credit, shifted his stance...
worth preserving as many have a similar opinion about nuclear - fear that is unwarranted...

and while Lovelock certainly is on the fringe the reality is that his worries are a being shared more and more....

MIT and others would beg to differ with you on catastrophic change....
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/clim ... -1002.html

as would the UK Met Office
http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/28/u ... -50-years/

and NOAA
http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/15/u ... ed-states/

For China and Australia....it's right NOW.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010 ... 653182.htm

http://www.surfersvillage.com/surfing/45848/news.htm

I think you have no understanding of what IS coming....climate scientists do...

Even if we quit pumping CO2 right now hysteresis would indicate another .6C without taking into account additional feedbacks..
There is more C02 in the atmosphere than in 15 million years ....that WILL have consequences..
Carbon, from a human perspective, is forever...
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812 ... 8.122.html
We are heading to temperatures in mid century far outside the holocene norms that we built our civilization on.

Take up the offer in my sig and get up to speed on this.....you're clearly not at the moment and it's very very important....
take the time and follow the links in this post and then tackle the sig which might give you a year or so of reading..



too few understand what is coming in the next 30 years.....and it's not pretty...

and it's going to be very very hard on cheese production....

[PairOfFeet]

DOOMED... we are all doomed!

I think the earth will survive ok until the Sun dies or some other event occurs. We may screw the planet until it is unfit for our form of life, but I think DNA will be ok... after all, it formed in the early days of the earth when humans would not have been able to live in the conditions that existed. Cockroaches are widely quoted as being able to survive almost anything and there are exrtemophiles that live in some pretty harsh conditions.

Hell, it may give a chance to a new form of intelligent species to arise from the ashes of our extinction.

+1 shame about all the life we are going to take with us but "the planet" will be fine without us .....

+2 Cockroaches and mice. They will inherit the earth.

Don't forget water bears.

[Pappa]

Pappa you are in the science forum and with sincere respect you are very very wrong on renewables and Lovelock and others like Hansen are correct. His views here

Time to get over our hang-up about nuclear power

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi ... 24788.html

Nuclear is the ONLY route to save a catastrophe - there is not a hope that renewables can fill the space....

The scale of the problem is simply too large and thinking renewables can do it is wishful thinking of a very dangerous sort....

Do some reading including the links in my sig

The best place to understand the scale of the energy problem is here

http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fas ... ear-power/

and Dr Brooks DOES know what he is talking about and has the background to support it....

Professor Barry Brook holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide.

He has published two books and over 150 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and regularly writes opinion pieces and popular articles for the media. He has received a number of distinguished awards in recognition of his research excellence, which addresses the topics of climate change, computational and statistical modelling and the synergies between human impacts on Earth systems.

and the detailed analysis on the site will tell you very clearly why renewables will not suffice

Hansen is also frantic to get fast breeders in operation to blunt the destruction that coal wreaks....

Here is a journey one person took on nuclear...

This the entire journey for one who was virulently against nuclear energy and then changed his mind once he was better informed

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 17&t=94863

from here

I made the below post because I was sick of all the attacks on the messengers by MacDoc without dealing with the issue or answering a single question posed by those who question or challenge the nuclear paradigm. YEs I am sick of all the put downs, the brow beating, the insults, and the avoidacnce of each and every question and challenge posed. That has been the epitomy of the nuclear industry's method over the last more than 70 years - killing us softly and nice kind words out front, plus unfulfilled promoses to make us complacent and greedy, as well as to stand in awe of our betters who have tamed the universe.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 17&t=94863


to here

Alright. I'm not too proud to admit the necessity to change my mind on nuclear for several reasons.

1. Fissile material already exists so not having nuclear will not stop weapons grade materials becoming available. On the other hand it has to be recognised that civilian nuclear power will create skills and opportunities for more countries or actors to generate weapons grade materials and possibly nuclear bombs so;
2. IAEA needs to be strengthened in safeguards. Multiplied in fact.
3. Many climate change deniers are still prepared to go with nuclear power so it gets past the denialists objections. However nuclear power should only be used in order to shut down the worst coal fired power stations. Otherwise there is no net reduction in emissions.
4. All efforts should be made towards implementing fast breeder reactors so that devastating, poisonous uranium mining can be discontinued and old waste and weapons material used instead.
5. This should not, must not interfere with efficiency goals, and electricity use reduction by way of price signals.

Other baseload options should be pursued with all haste, such as solar thermal in desert areas such as the vast deserts of Australia where sun reliability is close to 100% and thermal capacity can deliver 24/7 baseload.

Still further options such as geothermal from radiogenic intrusions should be pursued with all haste and money.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... &start=330

The reason he was not answered in the Climate Science thread was he was asked to make it a separate topic as it was off topic on that thread...
He finally did and got his answers...39 pages of them and not a few from those in the industry.
Each of his challenges were answered within the thread many with the supporting source material.

and he to his credit, shifted his stance...
worth preserving as many have a similar opinion about nuclear - fear that is unwarranted...

and while Lovelock certainly is on the fringe the reality is that his worries are a being shared more and more....

MIT and others would beg to differ with you on catastrophic change....
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/clim ... -1002.html

as would the UK Met Office
http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/28/u ... -50-years/

and NOAA
http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/15/u ... ed-states/

For China and Australia....it's right NOW.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010 ... 653182.htm

http://www.surfersvillage.com/surfing/45848/news.htm

I think you have no understanding of what IS coming....climate scientists do...

Even if we quit pumping CO2 right now hysteresis would indicate another .6C without taking into account additional feedbacks..
There is more C02 in the atmosphere than in 15 million years ....that WILL have consequences..
Carbon, from a human perspective, is forever...
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812 ... 8.122.html
We are heading to temperatures in mid century far outside the holocene norms that we built our civilization on.

Take up the offer in my sig and get up to speed on this.....you're clearly not at the moment and it's very very important....
take the time and follow the links in this post and then tackle the sig which might give you a year or so of reading..



too few understand what is coming in the next 30 years.....and it's not pretty...

and it's going to be very very hard on cheese production....

Reading.... mulling...

[SevenOfNine]

The use of nuclear power is ONLY justified to provide the energy to build up to complete reliance on renewables. Any other actions just delays the inevitable because the supply of uranium is limited, especially if a wholesale switch to nuclear power is envisaged. In any case, power reduction and conservation must be used-very strictly, and the Industrialized nations must bear most of the pain. The per capita use of energy WORLD-WIDE must come down, which means if we are to be equatable ablout it, we need power consumption to go up in the poorer nations. Nuclear power, is a "fossil" fuel also and the use of such "capital" can only be used in the generation of new "income" [renewable] type energies, and a very minimum of consumption for domestic and industrial use. The increased production of renewable infrastructure will at least partly offset the loss of "business as usual" production of consumer goods.

As MacDoc says, the Co2 already in the atmosphere will continue to warm until it is absorbed by autotrophs, even if HUMAN carbon dioxide emissions are cut to ZERO. Besides, methane is a major problem because large inventories are being released already due to warming, and methane is 20 times the greenhouse gas of CO2.

It will take the political and economic will like what happens in a major world war to get things right, and even then it will be serious. Nor are these the only problems, because overpopulation, pollution and species extinction are going to have serious effects on human support systems also.

Personally, I think we are in VERY deep shit, because we won't have the will to do what needs to be done. The correction to the problem [by nature] will mean the death of billions. Food production will collapse BIG TIME [both on land and in the seas]. Nations will probably fight each other for the crumbs that are left. It could be a total extinction event.

Lovelock may be part -crazy but I think his estimates are actually too conservative. Unstable weather patterns will get even worse, with droughts and floods, storms etc decimating crops. Not quite as bad as the KT event 65 million years ago, but bad enough. The likelihood that wars will go nuclear is actually probable. Hungry populations will riot, so governments will be forced to take desperate measures, including nukes to try to secure food and what is left of anything else. It will not be rational, or cooperative. Corporations will be pulling the strings, and they won't be rational or humane either. Nuclear war will kill off any remaining photosynthesis and food production and world human population will stabilize at a few hundred thousand, if we are lucky..or maybe no-one will survive. Total collapse.

As in other major extinction events, it may take about 10 million years for the ecology to recover, and it may not include humans. This is the most likely scenario, given the realities. There are too many irrational, inhumane and greedy people in power in government and industry for it to play out any different. This includes the religious states and theocracies.

A good or very lucky result would still mean massive kill rates in the billions, but the shock may wake even the stupidest out of their torpor. World population stabilizing in the aftermath at about 600 million or so. That is about the best we can hope for in my modeling. A "happy" result, with bags of optimism built into the model.

To fix the problem without loss, we would need the resources of about 3 Earths. We're fucked I'm afraid.

[JimC]

To me, Lovelock's only major craziness is his somewhat mystical identification of the whole Earth as a living organism. His opinions on global warming and nuclear power are shared with many others, and although aspects of them may be debatable, they are firmly within the normal range of mainstream science.

Fusion, please, although I know it is a forlorn hope that always seems 5 years away...

[macdoc]

I am uninformed, I suppose, and I really should look into the global warming issue

Yes you are and following the links
http://www.macmagic.ca/ubbthreads.php?u ... #Post45753
will correct that providing you bring a modicum of science understanding to the table

[Gawdzilla Sama]

DOOMED... we are all doomed!

I think the earth will survive ok until the Sun dies or some other event occurs. We may screw the planet until it is unfit for our form of life, but I think DNA will be ok... after all, it formed in the early days of the earth when humans would not have been able to live in the conditions that existed. Cockroaches are widely quoted as being able to survive almost anything and there are exrtemophiles that live in some pretty harsh conditions.

Hell, it may give a chance to a new form of intelligent species to arise from the ashes of our extinction.

+1 shame about all the life we are going to take with us but "the planet" will be fine without us .....

...and better off, by and large.