It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Global Warming Is Irreversable Says Gaia Principle Scientist.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:37 PM
Professor James Lovelock, who was amongst a group of scientists who first briefed British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1989 about Global Warming and Climate Change, claimed this week that Global Warming is irreversible and billions of people will die before the end of this century. Lovelock is the scientist behind the Gaia Theory, which presents the principle that our planet is a self regulating interconnecting system. Lovelocks further claims that the arctic will be the only place on Earth that can sustain human life. where the temperature remains tolerable.
He believes pollution in the northern hemisphere has actually helped reduce global warming by reflecting sunlight.

However "this 'global dimming' is transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse". "We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke," he says.

Climate-change scientists have been warning about the rise in temperatures reaching a "tipping point" when carbon and methane locked up in the Amazon rainforest and Arctic ice would be released into the atmosphere as the climate becomes drier and warmer.

I think Jim's sort of going for the worst-case scenario. In terms of billions of dead, I don't know that anyone really knows what the cost of climate change is going to be in terms of lives.

He's thinking of the possibility of very sudden, rapid climate change.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Once again Lovelocks words have bought a flurry of statements from the Global Warming/Climate Change, scientific community. Locklock is about to release a new book in which he publishes his theories and which has already sparked furious debate amongst scientists from both sides in the issue.

Many scientists say while his words are a timely "warning" they should not be taken as base facts as the outcomes are still not able to be ascertained with accuracy. Lovelock sparked debate amongst environmentalists last year with his comments on Nuclear Energy being the Green Energy source of the future.

Thanks to Astronomer68.

Related News Links:

[edit on 17-1-2006 by Mayet]

[edit on 14-2-2006 by DJDOHBOY]

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 12:41 PM
Not that you'll see this Mayet, since you have me on ignore...

Perhaps part of what makes global-warming "irreversable" is that it may have a very powerful natural ally.

I will put a link to your story with mine, as well, as I think the two are clearly better discussed in the context of each other.

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:14 PM
I'm somewhat familiar with Lovelocks work and I have to say based on that, I believe what he is saying right now. Our planet or rather the feedback systems within our planet are very delacite, push them to far and they will collapse and with out no feedback the planet cannot regulate itself.

Global warming is only going to accelerate as the temperature rises, forest fire's will become more commonplace. As our rainforest's dry out massive fire's on a scale like we've never seen before will release millions of years worth of co2 in a matter of week's.After that co2 and other gases under the ocean will eventually,due to rising temperatures sublimate and be released into the atmosphere, at this point theres nothing we can do, it may be too late already.

Edit : Spelling

[edit on 19-1-2006 by Merkeva]

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:02 PM
I appreciate the consensus appears to be that man-made global warning is real, *however*, it has never been adequately explained why there have been significant climate fluctuations even in the past 1000 years - for example, the 'little ice age' of about 300-400 years ago, and the wamer climate about 800-1000 years ago.

The fluctuations which happened in global temperatures and CO2 have never really been explained to my satisfaction, either.

Here's a partisan website that *appears* to be written by some pretty serious scientists, basically saying that the science behind global warming is pretty poorly thought-out.


new topics

top topics

log in