George Monbiot Updates His Global Warming Book
reposted | 28.08.2007 15:15 | Ecology
Here is a portion of George Monbiot's speech at the Camp for Climate Change in London Aug. 18, '07. He has been studying and writing about global warming for over twenty years and is the Author of "Heat" which is about climate change and what needs to be done about it. He explains that because of recent scientific discoveries the book needs an extreme update.
**************
I'm going to start with some bad news, and the bad news is this. Two
degrees is no longer the target. And the news is contained in a recent
paper written by James Hansen of NASA in the Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society(1). And what Hansen shows is that the profoundly
pessimistic assumptions in the latest IPCC Report are insufficiently
pessimistic.
And the reason for this is as follows. The IPCC assumes that the melting
of the ice sheets at the poles will take place in a gradual and linear fashion.
And Hansen's own work with the paleontological record shows that that is
an "entirely implausible" (to use his term) scenario.
the last time we had two degrees of warming in the Pliocene 55 million
years ago, the ice sheets at the poles did not melt - as the IPCC proposes -
over a millennia, but within the course of one century. And they did not cause
a maximum sea level rise within the course of one century - as predicted by
the IPCC - of 59 centimeters, but of 25 meters.
And Hansen proposes that through a series of factors - the collapse of the
buttresses that prevent the ice from sliding into the sea, the melt water
trickling down through crevasses and lubricating the base of the ice sheets,
and melt water on the surface of the ice sheets changing the albedo, making
the ice darker and therefore absorbing more heat, will lead to the sudden
and - certainly in geological terms - almost immediate collapse of both the
West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets within the course of one a century
at somewhat less than two degrees of warming.
Not only does this lead to the immediate affect of inundation of most of the
inhabited world - something like 60% of the people live within 50 Km of the
coast - it also means that you get a severe and sudden change in global
albedo change as white stuff at the poles gives way to dark stuff absorbing
much more solar radiation.
And he proposes that we can't go beyond 1.5 to 1.7 degrees of warming
above 1990 levels.
Combine this with what Richard was talking about and the stuff contained
in the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report which shows that in order to have a
maximum cap of two degrees of warming we need an 85% global reduction
even before you take population growth into account. So when that's added
to the fact that we're going to have something like a 50% increase in population,
you can see that that pushes way over 90% even before you take the issue
of global equity into account which means that the rich nationsmust cut the
emissions much further than anybody else, you realize that we are talking at
a minimum of a 100% cut, and it looks like it might have to go to 110% or 115%.
You laugh but we're talking about sequestration and we're talking about such
things for example, as growing bio fuel and burying it, simply for growing as
much bio mass as we can and sticking it back on the ground....something.....
anything to stave off this catastrophe.
We're not talking anymore about measures which require a little bit of tweaking
her and there, or a little bit of political tweaking here and there. We're talking
about measures which require global revolutionary change.
And that is a much tougher message than any that I've put out before, and this
is the first opportunity really that I've had since that paper came out, to express
the fact that what I thought were rather bold and revolutionary proposals in my
book "Heat", those proposals don't go nearly far enough. Those proposals
have been superseded and we need to start thinking on a different scale
altogether..........
And I'm afraid the second uncomfortable message I have to put out to you tonight
is that when it comes to dealing with a problem of this scale, small is no longer
beautiful. We have to start thinking on the biggest possible terms....
We have very very little time in which to act. We have very very little time in which
to bring about the largest economical and political transformation the world has
ever seen.
***************
The entire speech along with other speakers can be listened to free online courtesy
of the UK IMC. Mr. Monbiot is the second speaker at 15 minutes in.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/378866.html
1) Dr. James Hansen's Paper, 7/15/07
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/l3h462k7p4068780/fulltext.html
I'm going to start with some bad news, and the bad news is this. Two
degrees is no longer the target. And the news is contained in a recent
paper written by James Hansen of NASA in the Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society(1). And what Hansen shows is that the profoundly
pessimistic assumptions in the latest IPCC Report are insufficiently
pessimistic.
And the reason for this is as follows. The IPCC assumes that the melting
of the ice sheets at the poles will take place in a gradual and linear fashion.
And Hansen's own work with the paleontological record shows that that is
an "entirely implausible" (to use his term) scenario.
the last time we had two degrees of warming in the Pliocene 55 million
years ago, the ice sheets at the poles did not melt - as the IPCC proposes -
over a millennia, but within the course of one century. And they did not cause
a maximum sea level rise within the course of one century - as predicted by
the IPCC - of 59 centimeters, but of 25 meters.
And Hansen proposes that through a series of factors - the collapse of the
buttresses that prevent the ice from sliding into the sea, the melt water
trickling down through crevasses and lubricating the base of the ice sheets,
and melt water on the surface of the ice sheets changing the albedo, making
the ice darker and therefore absorbing more heat, will lead to the sudden
and - certainly in geological terms - almost immediate collapse of both the
West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets within the course of one a century
at somewhat less than two degrees of warming.
Not only does this lead to the immediate affect of inundation of most of the
inhabited world - something like 60% of the people live within 50 Km of the
coast - it also means that you get a severe and sudden change in global
albedo change as white stuff at the poles gives way to dark stuff absorbing
much more solar radiation.
And he proposes that we can't go beyond 1.5 to 1.7 degrees of warming
above 1990 levels.
Combine this with what Richard was talking about and the stuff contained
in the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report which shows that in order to have a
maximum cap of two degrees of warming we need an 85% global reduction
even before you take population growth into account. So when that's added
to the fact that we're going to have something like a 50% increase in population,
you can see that that pushes way over 90% even before you take the issue
of global equity into account which means that the rich nationsmust cut the
emissions much further than anybody else, you realize that we are talking at
a minimum of a 100% cut, and it looks like it might have to go to 110% or 115%.
You laugh but we're talking about sequestration and we're talking about such
things for example, as growing bio fuel and burying it, simply for growing as
much bio mass as we can and sticking it back on the ground....something.....
anything to stave off this catastrophe.
We're not talking anymore about measures which require a little bit of tweaking
her and there, or a little bit of political tweaking here and there. We're talking
about measures which require global revolutionary change.
And that is a much tougher message than any that I've put out before, and this
is the first opportunity really that I've had since that paper came out, to express
the fact that what I thought were rather bold and revolutionary proposals in my
book "Heat", those proposals don't go nearly far enough. Those proposals
have been superseded and we need to start thinking on a different scale
altogether..........
And I'm afraid the second uncomfortable message I have to put out to you tonight
is that when it comes to dealing with a problem of this scale, small is no longer
beautiful. We have to start thinking on the biggest possible terms....
We have very very little time in which to act. We have very very little time in which
to bring about the largest economical and political transformation the world has
ever seen.
***************
The entire speech along with other speakers can be listened to free online courtesy
of the UK IMC. Mr. Monbiot is the second speaker at 15 minutes in.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/378866.html 1) Dr. James Hansen's Paper, 7/15/07
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/l3h462k7p4068780/fulltext.html
reposted
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
George Monbiot is too optomistic
29.08.2007 05:37
Yet, I just found out that Leemans and Eickhout (2004) predict if the rate of warming exceeds 0.4 C/decade, all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed. Since we are now warming at 0.2 C/decade from greenhouse gases put into the air in the 80's (there is a lag time between emission and warming), and mankind has dramatically increased their emissions since then, we can reasonably expect much more rapid warming in the next few decades.
Furthermore, carbon feedbacks, where carbon sinks become carbon emitters faster due to their own emissions, increase warming by at least one third, and possibly double or triple.
Finally, it is extremely unlikely that developing countries will cut their emissions. For instance, China has added the coal-fired power plants at the rate of France's entire powergrid last year (and Britain's the year before that). Coal is 1/6th the cost of oil or natural gas, and is a stable cheap domestic energy source for developing countries like China.
In other words, there is NO WAY growing biomass and burying it will take enough excess CO2 out of the air to successfully avoid the earth returning to the hot state it was in 55 million years ago (see quote at the end of this message).
The only concievable way to remove that quantity of carbon from the air is with a GMO. I suggest engineering an improved organism to remove the excess CO2 from the air, and fix the carbon near permanently-perhaps by seeding it into the oceans.
Got a problem seeding a GMO into the oceans? Perhaps rather than offend your delicate sensibilities, we should just accept the fact that most of mankind is going to die this century:
"We now have evidence from the Earth's history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a terraton of gaseous carbon compounds. As a consequence the temperature in the arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored. We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves. In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die." (Revenge of Gaia)
It is entirely predictable that within the next couple of decades eco-systems will collapse, and we will experience abrupt climate change that will lower the carrying capacity of the earth. Since this has happened before in history (although less severe) we know what will happen then: famine, war, pestilence, and death. Obviously, once the carrying capacity of the earth lowers significantly, there won't be the resources to rebuild our energy infrastructure away from fossil fuels.
George Monbiot is way to optomistic about the likehood of mankind drastically cutting their emissions fast. The only way out is to remove the excess CO2 from the air after it has been emitted. In my opinion, the only practically solution is the low cost, highly scalable, and technically feasible method of biosequestration using a GMO.
Brad Arnold
e-mail:
dobermantmacleod@aol.com
Homepage:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=175461475
Global Alarmicists
30.08.2007 00:19
J. Michael Skinner
Global Warming deniers and projection
31.08.2007 22:51
Ahhhh....It's all about control, isn't it?
J. Michael Skinner
No, Mr. Skinner, it is not all about control, it is all about survival. As with many in the denialist community, you project your own fear-driven need to control things onto the people who are desperately trying to warn the people of our planet that we have inadvertently created a planetary climate crisis that could easily destroy our civilization and most of the other life forms that share our planet.
projection - n.
The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.
American Heritage Dictionary
Malcolm Oneheart
Just do it!
01.09.2007 00:26
First: grow your own food. It's not at all difficult to get started, and you may get addicted and find you're growing more and more every year, and supplying neighbors with the excess. This is more like the future than you can imagine, and you'll be prepared if you can do this simple act of revolutionary defiance.
Second: get out of debt. Down-size your life. If you're lucky, you may have enough equity in your over-sized house to buy something outright that is livable. If not, you may be able to join with others and share a building. This also is more like the future than you can imagine, although doing it by choice will be a huge step over all those who will be forced into it.
Third: start a local business. Supply a service or a simple product to your local area. Choose something that involves some part of "the world" that you simply cannot give up. Now you have a tax deduction for your favorite bit of today's civilization. Start multiple businesses if you like. This, and the first one, is the key to being "comfortably poor." I can live on $12,000 and still have a new computer now and then.
Fourth: starve the beast. Withdraw from the economy. Give up the non-essential. Be a non-consumer. Eat closer to the land, meaning whole foods, rather than packaged, prepared foods. Give up meat.
Fifth: secure local energy sources. This is the most difficult. Not everyone has a micro-hydro stream in their back yard, or can make biodiesel, or heat with wood that you glean instead of buy. But it's worth working on.
No one said it would be easy, so make it a fun challenge instead. No one said it will be effective -- it's for your karma, dear! And maybe, just maybe, you'll inspire someone else to do the same thing, and they will inspire someone else, and as the times get harder, more and more people will return to the frugal living of their Depression-era grandparents or great-grandparents. Then by small individual actions, the world will recover, just as innumerable small individual actions put us in the dilemma we find ourselves in today.
Jan Steinman
e-mail:
Jan@Bytesmiths.com
Homepage:
http://www.EcoReality.org
The Pliocene 3.5 million years ago, not 55 million years ago!
01.09.2007 05:25
Kale Sniderman
e-mail:
kale.sniderman@arts.monash.edu.au
Permission to quote George Monbiot speech
25.11.2007 21:41
You can view my proposed book "A New Ethic for Humankind" by bringing up my website at fredgthompson.com, then linking to "Publications" then going down the list to "A New Ethic for Humankind" which is in .pdf format and his speech is in the Appendix.
Let me know if it is OK to include as shown.
Many thanks,
Fred.
Fred G. Thompson
e-mail:
fgthom@295.ca
Homepage:
http://fredgthompson.com