PowerSwitch

Updating the book on global warming

by George Monbiot

[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.
- Indymedia editor "reposted"]


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 nations must 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. www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/378866.html

1) Dr. James Hansen's Paper, 7/15/07 www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/l3h ... ltext.html

Maybe Captain Petrocollapse can save the day!!!



(distant sound of people singing 'always look on the bright side of life' . . . )

Anyone got the number for the Samaritans?

bobthebaker wrote:Anyone got the number for the Samaritans?

Soon to be Submaritans

It's not just melt water that's changing the albedo on the ice - it's all that pollution and soot too. No doubt ensuring that the melting is even more rapid than in the past.

Was waiting for the paperback version of "Heat" to come out before buying but by then it was plain it was way out of date anyway.

("There may be trouble ahead, but while there's moonlight and music, and love and romance ...let's face the music and dance.")

http://www.energybulletin.net/34174.html

That Monbiot chap has just ruined my weekend ... at what point do I simply give up and descend into a sybaritic lifestyle whilst I still have the chance?

A further feedback that I've yet to see evaluated,
but which has to be relevant even under just a few metres of sea-level rise,
is that of the submersion, and thus melting, of very large areas of low-lying permafrost tundra,
with its additional massive release of CO2 & CH4.

The physical and thermal interactions between feedbacks are a further area of research on which very little is being published.

Hansen's perspective on non-linear polar melt rates also alters the interaction between PO & GW,
in that the current climatic impacts on the global economy can be seen as mere fleabites compared to what is coming
if we fail to achieve what Monbiot terms a "Social Revolution"

[I doubt that name will stick - "An Ecological Revolution", in which humanity accepts that we are just a part of nature, or are just dead,
looks a better bet for a title]

Thus it might be said that, if we fail to address GW to successfully avoid more than 2dC and a runaway greenhouse,
then PO would be largely irrelevant,
in that we are unlikely to retain a society sufficiently coherent to extract and use even the available fossil energy resources.

From this perspective, PO is of course utterly relevant, but as a destabilising factor in the economy
just as the entire planetry energy infrastructure needs sufficient investment for its rapid replacement,
and as comparable investments are needed both in carbon sequestration (preferably self funding once established)
and in the various energy efficiency options..

Which is a very poor look out, particularly given the beginnings of withdrawal of insurance cover from coastal areas (Allstate in the USA)
without which assets no longer have any collateral value for use in new investments..

While Monbiot is patently right to say that we need to address the issue of GW on the largest scale we can,
there is plainly more to useful strategy than that -

First, if we fail to formulate the response to PO as an integral part of the response to GW,
we are unlikely to see anything like sufficient investment for the scale of change required to avoid 2dC.

Second, titanicism in technology development has been a large part of the problem
of new (non-fossil) entrants to the energy supply market being excluded.

So yes, we certainly need to produce sustainable energy in "city-scale" facilities
(for instance in 200MW Offshore Wave Energy Planes)
but we also need urgently to focus at least as much effort on those village and farm-scale facilities,
whose operation may well prove far more durable, and thus culturally productive,
under the all too likely prospect of a general geo-economic collapse.

With apologies for length, spelling, etc,

regards,

Bill

I've come to realize that Monbiot writes hogwash. I've also come to realise that scientists appear to make things up as they go along. 59 cms to 25 metres! Give me a break.

I certainly won't be listening to this propaganda.

You get 59cm from a little bit of melting and 25m from a lot. Hanson's point, that Monbiot was reporting, is that the 25m might come sooner after the 59cm than had previously been thought. Where is the hogwash, and why?

biffvernon wrote:You get 59cm from a little bit of melting and 25m from a lot. Hanson's point, that Monbiot was reporting, is that the 25m might come sooner after the 59cm than had previously been thought. Where is the hogwash, and why?

Monbiot is a man on a mission - to promote himself. Climate change is his pet subject and has brought him the recognition he craves and in most cases he presents a good argument. It's when he strays into other subjects that he loses all credibility which makes me wonder whether I should listen to him at all. I am talking, of course, about his current views on peak oil and also his vile ramblings about a subject I know very well; the 9/11 truth campaign. His assumption that peak oil is not an issue compared with climate change is a very odd view indeed. How he can claim that there is no connection or that climate change is more important is quite absurd. With reference to 9/11 and I make no apologies for raising the subject again, his articles in the Guardian earlier this year showed him to be a fool and he lost many followers with his words. His decision to lambast 9/11 followers like me and call us idiots without having even a scant understanding of the arguments and, by his own later admission, a knowledge of the key players in the movemenet and what they have to say proved to me that he is choosy about his beliefs and speaks before he understands.

If Monbiot wants to do something brave then he should bring together the leaders of the developing world and direct them accordingly. Geldof has with poverty. Since that won't bring him an income then I doubt he will do such a thing.

To start promoting the extreme words of Hanson is just another way for Monbiot to raise the tension so that we all look back in his direction. Anything as long we don't forget that climate change is his subject and we should respect him for that. But if his reporting of the subject is as bad as his attitude to other subjects then why should we bother?

For once I agree with Monbiot. Sequestration is key to this. At least on the picture my office in the House of Commons wouldn't be flooded (It is on the top floor because I am low down in the food chain).

I am not sure about the 25m figure, but there is no question about the issue of ice melt being non-linear.

Quite frankly, Bozzio, when comparing the two, PO isn't as big an issue as climate change. PO isn't a threat to the biosphere, it's just a threat to industrialised civilistaion.

And as for the 911 truth movement...

John -

given the uncosted and somewhat unproven nature of geo-sequestration plans,
and the paucity of information on the prospects of their being scaled up
to provide even a significant volume of CO2 storage for the coming decades' emissions,

I wonder if you could outline your party's policy with regard to Terra Preta ?

On the pretty faint offchance that the latter is new to you,
I would explain that it's a trad Amazonian soil improvement technique with remarkable impacts on crop yields,
that entails the burial of quite large volumes of ground charcoal per hectare,
thus sequestering near pure carbon potentially for millenia.

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/ is one of the better web sites on the issue.

I'd be very interested indeed to hear your thoughts on this technique's potential.

Regards,

Bill

syberberg wrote:Quite frankly, Bozzio, when comparing the two, PO isn't as big an issue as climate change. PO isn't a threat to the biosphere, it's just a threat to industrialised civilistaion.

And as for the 911 truth movement...

Excuse me, since when has the concept of climate change ever meant the destruction of the planet? PO is purely a human issue. Climate change is a whole life issue. Neither will destroy the biosphere and neither will cause the end of life, they'll just change it although the world has been imposing such changes for years.

As for 9/11, I suggest you take time to read a little about the inconsistencies and subsequent changes in the official story to counter these before rolling your eyes in disgust. Us humans could be affected far sooner by global war started as a result of 9/11, long before PO and climate change have had chance to affect us significantly, which will be sad because 9/11 is a lie and you have been fooled into accepting the propaganda. Before making further criticisms I suggest you read the books of David Ray Griffin. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions and Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory should educate you a little. Or in case you are too lazy (a common trait of the proponents of the official 9/11 conspiracy story) I've given you a couple of links to Mr Griffin talking on video below. If you listen to him then you'll do better than Monbiot who admitted to never having heard the intelligent and well structured arguments of the guy before he made his silly attacks in the Guardian.

here and here although there are more.

johnhemming wrote:
I am not sure about the 25m figure, but there is no question about the issue of ice melt being non-linear.

Are you saying that climate models have thus far been based upon purely linear models? For people to turn around and suddenly start saying that it's much worse than we thought because nature works in a non-linear way which we didn't take into account is deeply troubling. What have scientists being doing all this time with their models?