Sunday, May 13, 2007

James Lovelock's strange bedfellows

Scientist James Lovelock stunned the scientific community last year with his assertion that it is too late to do anything about global warming. Even if we have not yet reached the tipping point, he said, the vast momentum of industrial society will soon carry us crashing through it and dash any hope of arresting a deadly planetary heat wave that will wreck civilization as we know it. Lovelock detailed his assessment in a new book entitled The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity.

Lovelock is no ordinary researcher. He is a world renown independent scientist and inventor. One of his inventions helped to uncover the role of chlorofluorocarbons in the destruction of the ozone layer. He is probably most famous for his thesis that the Earth is a living organism that regulates its temperature and conditions to make the biosphere amenable to life. He explained his theory in a book published almost 30 years ago entitled Gaia: A New Look at Life On Earth.

At the other end of the spectrum of the global warming debate are the so-called climate change skeptics. They have been known to employ something akin to a modified dog-bite defense. In a classic joke a man whose dog has bitten a passerby defends himself in court by saying: "My dog doesn't bite, it wasn't my dog, and furthermore, I don't have a dog." And, so it is with the so-called climate skeptics. They claim variously that global warming is good for you or at least not so bad that we need to do anything about it; that global warming is not caused by human activity; and that furthermore, there's no global warming.

Most of the skeptics, which comprise a small and dwindling group of scientists and a much larger contingent of professional propagandists, have strong financial ties to the fossil fuel industry. Their intent is not to enlighten, but to confuse and thereby delay any action that could inflict financial pain on their benefactors. But with the evidence so overwhelming that a worldwide warming trend is underway, the skeptics have largely dropped the third part of their modified dog-bite defense. Instead, they've to begun to focus on the second part, namely, that global warming is not caused by human activity. It is here that they have unwittingly walked into a trap. And, it is here they now find themselves in the same camp as Lovelock.

Lovelock's essential point is that humans can no longer do anything about global warming. This is because we have reached or will shortly reach the point at which the Earth's processes will begin to greatly amplify and accelerate warming without any need for further inputs from us. This is often called runaway global warming. It is the point at which the Earth's climate switch has been flipped and after which there is no hope of going back to our former climate. And, it is the reason that climate scientists are calling for immediate action on deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in hopes of avoiding flicking this planetary switch.

Lovelock, of course, thinks it's too late. Now, the only thing to do, he counsels, is to adapt. But ironically, the so-called skeptics' main argument has become essentially the same. Of course, they arrive at their conclusion through a different route: Humans aren't causing global warming, so they can't really do anything to stop it. But this is really only another way of saying that we may have entered runaway global warming. The causes cited include increased solar radiation and cyclical warming of the Earth unrelated to human activity. The skeptics cite the geologic record as proof that the Earth periodically undergoes such warmings, and that it's nothing to get excited about. Although the first part of this statement is true, it does not constitute proof that this warmup is natural. The second part of the statement, however, deserves special scrutiny. That's because, inconveniently, the geologic record is full of sudden, dramatic climate shifts, some occurring in as short a period as a decade.

With global warming on a dangerously accelerated schedule, Lovelock believes that governments and societies have no time to lose. They must begin planning now to secure energy and food supplies. They must brace themselves for early and dramatic rises in sea level. He also believes that basic knowledge must now be committed to long-lasting, durable books that won't deteriorate over time. The computer-driven, electricity-filled life we currently lead will not survive the massive dieoff that he predicts will leave only "a few breeding pairs" in the Arctic by the end of the century.

Since the skeptics and Lovelock are now basically in agreement that nothing can be done to stop global warming, why haven't the skeptics outlined a plan for adaptation (even emergency adaptation) as Lovelock has? Perhaps the skeptics are falling back on the first part of their modified dog-bite defense that global temperatures won't rise enough so that we need to do anything to adapt. But, this does not square with their almost constant assertions that there is a great deal of uncertainty about future temperature rises. While true, the uncertainty runs in both directions. Global temperature rises could just as easily turn out to be much higher by the end of the century than current estimates. But so heedless are the skeptics of their own contradictory thinking that in testimony before the U. S. Congress one bona fide climate scientist who styles himself a skeptic simply deleted the median and high temperature estimates from a study done by NASA's famed climate researcher, James Hansen.

The fact that the climate change contrarians 1) have no plan for adaptation to a warming climate; 2) ignore the obvious warnings of the geologic record they cite; 3) claim that the future of climate change is terribly uncertain and then claim to know it with certainty; and 4) deploy mutually contradictory arguments supports the widespread belief that they have a rather narrow agenda, namely, to defeat any attempts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

But this still leaves them in the same camp as Lovelock (albeit by different reasoning), a position that cries out for a credible plan of adaptation based on the great uncertainties that the skeptics themselves admit surround the future of global warming. Just to be safe, however, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to give me such a plan.

7 comments:

Dunc said...

Even if Lovelock's right, at least many of the adaption strategies he recommends also reduce GHG emissions. Unlike the denialists, whose primary adaption strategy seems to be "pursue business as usual".

Anther interesting contradiction in the denialist camp is the one where our knowledge of climate is far too imprecise to be certain the warming is either happening or anthropogenic, whilst simultaneously our knowledge is sufficiently accurate to design and implement massive geo-engineering schemes to avert the disaster that we can't be sure is going to happen. I love that one!

Danny said...

This is a great initiative to develop sustainable energy. Technology buffs will be interested in how these turbines look like regular wind turbines.
With Peak Oil nearly upon us its time we all start working to develop this technology.
http://giftofireland.com/Siteblog/2007/06/29/worlds-largest-tidal-turbine-being-built-off-ireland-2/

dan said...

POLAR CITIES ENVISIONED TO SURVIVE GLOBAL WARMING

Webposted: July 1, 2007

Environmental activist Dan Bloom has come up with a solution to global
warming that apparently no one else is talking about: polar cities.
That's right, Bloom envisions future polar cities will house some 200
million survivors of global warming in the far distant future (perhaps
in the year 2500, he says on his blog), and he's lobbying on the
Internet for their planning, design and construction -- NOW!

"Sounds nutty, I know" the 58-year-old self-described "eco-dreamer"
says from his home in Asia, where he has been based since 1991. "But
global warming is for real, climate change is for real, and polar
cities just might be important if humankind is to survive the coming
'events', whatever they might be, in whatever form they take."

Bloom, a 1971 graduate of Tufts University in Boston, says he came up
with the idea of polar cities after reading a long interview with
British scientist James Lovelock, who has predicted that in the
future, the only survivors of global warming might be around 200
million people who migrate to the polar regions of the world.

"Lovelock pointed me in this direction," Bloom says. "Although he has
never spoken of polar cities per se, he has talked about the
possibility that the polar regions might be the only place where
humans can survive if a major cataclysmic event occurs as a direct
result of global warming, in the far distant future. I think we've got
about 30 generations of human beings to get ready for this."

Does Bloom, who has created a blog and video on YouTube, think that
polar cities are practicial?

""Practical, necessary, imperative," he says. "We need to start
thinking about them now, and maybe even designing and building them
now, while we still have time and transportation and fuel and
materials and perspective. Even if they never get built, the very idea
of polar cities should scare the pants off people who hear about the
concept and goad them into doing something concrete about global
warming. That's part of my agenda, too."

For more information: http://climatechange3000.blogspot.com
GOOGLE: "polar cities"
WIKIPEDIA: "polar cities"
BLOG SEARCH: "polar cities"

dan said...

Kurt, you wrote: "Lovelock, of course, thinks it's too late. Now, the only thing to do, he counsels, is to adapt. "

True.

So here's my take for adapting to the reality of it all.

CLIMATE CHANGE: Time For A Slightly Mad Idea?

Dan Bloom is not a scientist and he does not have a PhD in anything.
He's a 58 year old American journalist who has lived in Asia for the
past 15 years, working as as a copy editor at several English
language newspapers in Tokyo and Taipei, and now he has started a new side
career as a global warming blogger calling for -- are you ready for
this? -- polar cities to house survivors of cliamte change in the far
distant future.

Bloom, a graduate of Tufts University in Boston, says he is not a
> doomsayer, and that he is actually an optimist about life. But after
> studying global warming, both its actviists and its denialists, he
> says he came to the conclusion that the world needs to think seriously
> -- now -- about planning, designing, locating and building model polar
> cities. He has created a blog about this idea, and asked an artist to
> create some architecutal blueprints as well.
>
> INTERVIEW FOLLOWS

dan said...

''Many thanks, Danny, for your thoughtful images of polar cities. It may well happen and soon.''

Kurt,

guess who sent that to me? email me and i will tell you. and then maybe you can blog on this polar cities idea? he is _______, well,.... guess who!

danny

PlanetThoughts said...

Thanks for the thoughtful article, Kurt. Funny thing is, George Bush's science adviser, John Marburg, came out in late 2007 with a statement that global warming IS human-caused and could make the planet unlivable, his word. Surprising? Well, maybe not when within two weeks George Bush gave a major talk promoting what he calls "clean technologies such as nuclear and clean coal". And within two more weeks, the first nuclear power plant license application in 25 years was filed. Coincidence? I don't think those guys know the meaning of the words "spontaneous" and "coincidence".

PlanetThoughts said...

Sorry, the science adviser is John Marburger, not John Marburg. Google cares about that!