"Gaia" scientist says life doomed by climate woes

[Karmadillo]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE51O5EU20090225?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

LONDON (Reuters) - Climate change will wipe out most life on Earth by the end of this century and mankind is too late to avert catastrophe, a leading British climate scientist said.

James Lovelock, 89, famous for his Gaia theory of the Earth being a kind of living organism, said higher temperatures will turn parts of the world into desert and raise sea levels, flooding other regions.

His apocalyptic theory foresees crop failures, drought and death on an unprecedented scale. The population of this hot, barren world could shrink from about seven billion to one billion by 2100 as people compete for ever-scarcer resources.

"It will be death on a grand scale from famine and lack of water," Lovelock told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday. "It could be a reduction to a billion (people) or less."

By 2040, temperatures in European cities will rise to an average of 110 Fahrenheit (43 Celsius) in summer, the same as Baghdad and parts of Europe in the 2003 heatwave.

more...

[BlooInBloo]

1. Yah, but I just saved a bundle on my car insurance.

:P

[msongs]

2. rising oceans = MORE salt water we can convert to fresh....

and I am sure there are other positives to be developed as well.

Msongs

[ret5hd]

5. I don't think a shortage of salt water has ever been a problem.

Ever.

Repeat: ever.

[Xipe Totec]

3. That "Gaia" scientist is an idiot

If giant meteors smashing into the Earth didn't wipe out life, puny humans have no chance.

Oh, climate woes may wipe out human beings as a species, but life will go on...

[Withywindle]

4. "Life after People" is on the History Channel right now.

I love that show. It makes me want to install a cat door so if I die or vanish with all the other humans my girl can get out and join the population of feral predators.

It always makes me happy to see places where the forest is reclaiming human things.

[G_j]

9. cat door

I like the way you think..

[Xipe Totec]

28. Me too (n/t)

[dustbunnie]

13. That was a great doc! Just watched it again recently.

[SoCalDem]

41. A while back , a website I frequent had a photoshop challenge

"What if the Indians had won"..

Some of the photoshops were priceless..there was a dirt path leading into Manhattan

[Warpy]

15. He might be a little more pessimistic than we'd like

probably because he's nearing the end of his own life, but something needs to reduce the number of humans on the planet. If climate change and famine don't do it, the next pandemic will.

He seems to think we'll survive. However, some think we might be the rough draft for intelligent life on the planet. If that's the case, my money's on the cephalopods as our successors.

[Xipe Totec]

24. I think intelligence is over rated as a survival trait.

behold the cockroaches.

[Lorien]

45. Actually he's quite brilliant and has been proven right on many occations

so I think that we should take what he says into consideration. I know many scientists who agree with him, and that's one of the primary reasons that I never had kids.

Life may not go on. Mars may have once been covered with life. The earth CAN be turned into a lifeless rock.

[Xipe Totec]

47. If he is right, we will never know...

contemplate that...

But so far, he has been wrong betting against life.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. It may be bad reporting - the actual words attributed to him in the article don't say that

it just appears in the reporter's first paragraph summary.

He says:

"It will be death on a grand scale from famine and lack of water," Lovelock told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday. "It could be a reduction to a billion (people) or less."
...
"The land will gradually revert to scrub and desert. You can look at as if the Sahara were steadily moving into Europe. It's not just Europe; the whole world will be changing in that way."
...
In his book, "The Vanishing Face of Gaia," he adds: "We have to stop pretending that there is any possible way of returning to that lush, comfortable and beautiful Earth we left behind some time in the 20th century."

He presumably thinks something will be left for the 1 billion to be living on. It's possible that the reporter turned 'wipe out most human life' into 'wipe out most life'. If he does think the whole world will become scrub and desert, then that does sound like a bad prediction (after all, we already have high rainfall areas that are hot too; predictions I've seen from climate models don't predict everywhere drying out, but most places will change in some way).

[ClarkUSA]

6. He sounds depressed. Nature abhors a vacuum. I doubt "most life" will disappear in a century.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. 65 million years ago the top predators did go the way of the dinosaurs, no pun

if anything he is wrong... if this is as bad as he thinks it is... we are the next dinos.

[whoneedstickets]

7. Its this kind of nonsense that hampers intelligent responses to GCC

Doomsday predictions make our side seem no less idiotic than the 'end of days' crowd. Global climate is a complicated system and its irresponsible to posit end-states like desertification when equally plausible warm-wet worlds can be generated out of similar models.

[Still Sensible]

14. Absolutely. It's clowns like this that make an idiot on the

other side--like Inhofe--sound reasonable.

[omega minimo]

30. And it's "clowns like this" above that seem uninformed and unaware of who or what they're dissing

:puke:

At least know something about the man and his research if you're gonna piss all over it.

[kimmerspixelated]

8. It may not be higher temps that does it,

but an ice age. THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW movie was based on real possibilities. If sea levels rise they slow down the currents that moderate our temps in general. Warming would be lessened.

[acmavm]

10. Extinction events (what a quaint name) have been happening forever.

This is like weather forecasting. Too many things can happen.

[Deja Q]

11. Note to Lovelock: Get laid or join the Emo Scouts of America.

[gristy]

12. If the world would limit itself to 1.3 kids/family, the planet's population would drop by 1.3/2

per generation. So by 2040, we would have 7 billion * (1.3/2)**(130/25) = 0.74 billion people

Problem solved!

[tigereye]

16. I'll keep that in mind when I adopt a third of a kid...

I prefer my children intact, thank you.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deja Q]

17. Tell that to those who breed the most. And watch an episode from 'All in the Family' (1972)

Archie (the bigot) was all in a huff because this other couple had a large quantity of kids. Everybody clapped when the other couple's father said it was because he loved his wife which was why they made so many children.

"The Elevator Story" I think was the name of the episode.

In the context presented, it was good.

Times have changed and there are other perspectives to consider.

Neither is it really a racial problem per se; it's a human problem.

[tigereye]

29. it typifies western cultural blindness to expect everyone on the planet

to have one child. It's easy to say that they should, and harder to view the complexities of why people have kids. I was merely trying to make a joke about the absurdity of using .3 in this context.

It isn't going to happen.

[Tesha]

27. I'm not getting where you got that exponent from.

You used an exponent of 130/25; presumably you then meant "by 2140",
not "by 2040". Otherwise, your exponent should be 31/25 to get you to
just 2040.

Tesha

[gristy]

57. Holy cow. You are right. I had misread.

So by 2040, we would have 7 billion * (1.3/2)**(31/25) = 4.10 billion people

And it's even worse than that, because this equation implicitly assumes that each person lives for just 1 generation (25 years). Since people live longer than that, there will be a time lag of a generation or two before the population finally starts to drop at the rate of 1.3/2 per generation.

We are so screwed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. By 2050, there will be 4.35 billion people over 40, ie more or less already born

(or conceived, at least :D) I did the calculation 3 weeks ago:

See http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html , and select '2050' for the world population query at the bottom of the page. So even if there were no births at all for the next 40 years anywhere in the world, we'd still have over 4 billion people.

There's a lot of momentum in population growth - we're going to reach a population of 8 billion almost whatever we do. For example, despite its 'one child' policy having been around for several years, China's population isn't expected to peak until 2030 or so. Without mass deaths due to starvation, war etc., you won't get the world population below 3 billion in under a century, even if every couple limits themselves to 1 or 2 children.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5013281&mesg_id=5014835

Assuming the death rates remain what they are predicted to be at the moment, of course.

[NutmegYankee]

51. Math is wrong.

In just thirty years, most of the people alive right now, will still be alive. So, at that is least 6.3 billion under your scenario.

[leftofthedial]

20. In a related story, Tim Geithner says Wall Street bankers can be saved...

[upi402]

22. when Krakatoa's baby goes off

it may be the tipping point.

[MrPerson]

23. WAS IT OVER WHEN THE GERMANS BOMBED PEARL HARBOR?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. Well, he's 89. 'Apres moi le deluge'

[Urban Prairie]

26. By 2040, I will be 83, but more likely, have joined the choir invisible by then

If Lovelock's prediction of huge human and also likely mammal population decline comes true, I hope that reincarnation theories prove false...

I might, instead of a human, reincarnate as a rat or a cockroach.

[Thothmes]

31. Life on this planet is 3.5 billion years old

There have been at least 5 major extinction events in the worlds history. The worst casued the extinction of 95% of the species on the planet. I seriosly doubt that actions of humans will end life on earth. That said, I suspect that our actions may well bode ill for the continued survival of Homo sapiens.

[robdogbucky]

34. On Lovelock

I have read DU since its inception, right about the time that CNN ditched its own community message boards around the time of 9/11 and Chandra Levy and when it became apparent that public sentiment expressed on those boards on items such as wars, drug laws, elections, smear campaigns, etc., led to CNN abolishing those boards. I found DU and the rest is lurking history. Through the Bush years I was always reticent about exposing my opinions, as in my youth had been somewhat persecuted for my political beliefs and came to trust no one. I have lurked long enough and this particular story resonates, so I shall offer my first post on what I consider an important topic;

For all those that denigrate Dr. Lovelock here, please learn of whom you criticize.

He invented instruments that have made it possible to explore deep space without risking human life to do so.
An electron capture detector (ECD) is a device for detecting atoms and molecules in a gas through the attachment of electrons. The device was invented in 1957 by Dr. James E. Lovelock<1><2> and is used in gas chromatography to detect trace amounts of chemical compounds in a sample. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture_detector

I have been noticing him since he wrote the Gaia book, re: a new way of looking at life on earth, and kind of like the trilogy by the Tofflers, Future Shock, etc., I have kept in mind items discussed as we move through time. Dr. Lovelock was in recent years a skeptic of many of the doomsdayers expounding on GCC, but most recently, he has changed his position. I, for one tend to listen to those that are wise enough to admit when they have erred.

Dr. Lovelock probably knows more about what is truly happening on our planet than almost any other person alive. Certainly among the few leading scientists still alive. Like Douglas Adams of Hitchhiker's Guide fame and others that have observed and written about what is taking place, I feel that we are in an exceptionally accelerated mode of species extinction. But don't take my word for any of this. Please look it all up and try to understand.

"Nature bats last."

I don't think that was from Yogi Berra either.

robdogbucky

[Delphinus]

36. Good on you for uncloaking, robdogbucky!

Welcome to non-stealth mode. :hi:

Good first post and thank you for sharing your insights.

[omega minimo]

46. a voice of reason. Thank you and

welcome to posting on DU :toast:

[Thothmes]

48. Lovelocks opinions

do not differ very much from mine. Life will continue on the planet, 80% of the Homo sapiens may die out in a global warming cycle that may last 100,000 years. Life existed 3.5 billion years on this planet before we arrived. It will continue for a considerably long time after our species has died out.

[omega minimo]

49. .

:kick:

[Karmadillo]

58. Even if one disagrees with Lovelock, it's difficult to understand

the vitriol. The present trend lines certainly don't look good and there are a fair number of fairly bright people saying we are quite likely on the verge of Very Bad Things Happening. Lovelock is hardly a crank. It may turn out he's wrong and technology will provide a miracle solution or we will grow wise enough to voluntarily reduce our population and our excessive consumption patterns, but as things stand right now, those developments seem far from guaranteed. Things are bad enough globally right now, and it hardly seems unwarranted to suggest we are moving towards something even worse in the not so distant future.

[Karenina]

32. As a kid, I was CERTAIN

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED ON VENUS!!! :rofl::tinfoilhat::rofl:

[cobalt1999]

33. "Gaia" scientist is on the same level as a "Creation" scientist.

Hard to take either seriously.

[robdogbucky]

35. Further on Lovelock

Yup, he's a real flake alright:

A lifelong inventor, Lovelock has created and developed many scientific instruments, some of which were designed for NASA in its programme of planetary exploration. It was while working as a consultant for NASA that Lovelock developed the Gaia Hypothesis, for which he is most widely known.

In early 1961, Lovelock was engaged by NASA to develop sensitive instruments for the analysis of extraterrestrial atmospheres and planetary surfaces. The Viking program that visited Mars in the late-1970s was motivated in part to determining whether Mars supported life, and many of the sensors and experiments that were ultimately deployed aimed to resolve this issue. During work on a precursor of this program, Lovelock became interested in the composition of the Martian atmosphere, reasoning that many life forms on Mars would be obliged to make use of it (and, thus, alter it). However, the atmosphere was found to be in a stable condition close to its chemical equilibrium, with very little oxygen, methane, or hydrogen, but with an overwhelming abundance of carbon dioxide. To Lovelock, the stark contrast between the Martian atmosphere and chemically-dynamic mixture of that of our Earth's biosphere was strongly indicative of the absence of life on the planet<4>. However, when they were finally launched to Mars, the Viking probes still searched (unsuccessfully) for extant life there.

Lovelock invented the electron capture detector, which ultimately assisted in discoveries about the persistence of CFCs and their role in stratospheric ozone depletion<5><6><7>. After studying the operation of the Earth's sulfur cycle<8>, Lovelock and his colleagues developed the CLAW hypothesis as a possible example of biological control of the Earth's climate<9>.

Lovelock was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1974. He served as the president of the Marine Biological Association (MBA) from 1986 to 1990, and has been a Honourary Visiting Fellow of Green College, Oxford since 1994. He has been awarded a number of prestigious prizes including the Tswett Medal (1975), an ACS chromatography award (1980), the WMO Norbert Gerbier Prize (1988), the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for the Environment (1990) and the RGS Discovery Lifetime award (2001). He became a CBE in 1990, and a Companion of Honour in 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock


robdogbucky

[cobalt1999]

37. Engineer does not equal Scientist.

You showed he was a good engineer, but the Gaia hypothesis displays he was a crappy scientist.

[G_j]

38. sounds like a lot more than engineering

did we read the same thing?

[Occam Bandage]

40. I don't see a lot more than engineering, really.

[cobalt1999]

42. Really?

Beyond creating and developing many scientific instruments (engineering), what pure science did you read?

Gaia theory is considered bunk. So, what else did you read?

[originalpckelly]

50. To consider the whole planet alive, is wrong. To considerate it self-regulating...

is probably very accurate.

I think the same physics that goes to cause life is probably the same physics that goes on to cause a self-regulating earth, or a self-regulating any other system.

[omega minimo]

43. that comment makes you hard to take seriously

since you know nothing about him or his work

[originalpckelly]

54. Yes, that's very obvious.

I remember watching an assbackwards old comp. simulation from the '80s called DaisyWorld, it is based on this idea. And that has intrigued me for a while. I don't know how much of what he posits is true, but quite a lot of it makes sense from the perspective of a physics interested person.

If the same laws of physics at work in life apply to the planet, why shouldn't it exhibit some of the same behavior?

[Occam Bandage]

39. Climate change is a real problem, but Lovelock is a quack. nt

[omega minimo]

44. and you base your condemnation on.......

:popcorn:

[NutmegYankee]

52. I shall destroy this planet...

[originalpckelly]

55. The predictions are quite dire, but his general idea is not a bad one.

[originalpckelly]

53. I remember seeing Daisyworld, it has definitely influenced my thinking...

but this prediction is bullshit. If the planet is following the same laws of physics that produce life, it stands to reason it will follow all other them, including the ones that produce the behavior of evolution. Earth will adapt.

[Phoonzang]

56. It's not too late. That's what geo-engineering is for.

That's the way we'll be forced to save the Earth, and it's inevitable.