Gwynne Dyer

[Dan Andrews]

What do you think of this Gwynne Dyer guy that writes in the editorial portion of the paper once a week? He did an article on climate change today in the Review that scares the hell out of me. Most times he seems very intelligent and on the ball.

[knightfisher]

Can you suppy a link or copy and paste what he said.

[Dan Andrews]

Not unless I scan it. Google his name and you'll find allot of past articles but nothing really recent.

[longmayyourun]

Recent article by Gwynne Dyer

December 2, 2008

Gwynne Dyer: Four harsh truths about climate change

By Gwynne DyerFood will be the key issue as temperatures rise more quickly than expected.

About two years ago, I realized that militaries in various countries were starting to do climate-change scenarios in-house—scenarios that started with the scientific predictions about rising temperatures, falling crop yields, and other physical effects, and then examined what that would do to politics and strategy.

The scenarios predicted failed states proliferating because governments couldn’t feed their people; waves of climate refugees washing up against the borders of more fortunate countries; and even wars between countries that share rivers. So I started interviewing everybody I could get access to, not only senior military people but scientists, diplomats, and politicians.

About 70 interviews, a dozen countries, and 18 months later, I have reached four conclusions that I didn’t even suspect when I began the process. The first is simply this: the scientists are really scared. Their observations over the past two or three years suggest that everything is happening a lot faster than climate models predicted.

This creates a dilemma, because for the past decade they have been struggling against a well-funded campaign that cast doubt on climate change. Now, finally, people and even governments are listening. Even in the United States, the world headquarters of climate-change denial, 85 percent of the population now sees climate change as a major issue, and both major presidential candidates promised 80-percent cuts in American emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.

The scientists are understandably reluctant at this point to announce publicly that their predictions were wrong, that it’s really much worse, and that the targets will have to be revised. Most of them are waiting for overwhelming proof that climate change really is moving faster, even though they are already privately convinced that it is.

The second conclusion is that the generals are right. Food is the key issue, and the world food supply is already very tight: we have eaten up about two-thirds of the world grain reserve in the past five years, leaving only 50 days’ worth in store. A 1°C (1.8°F) rise in average global temperature will take a major bite out of food production in almost all countries that are closer to the equator than to the poles, and that includes almost all of the planet’s “breadbaskets”.

So the international grain market will wither for lack of supplies. Countries that can no longer feed their people will not be able to buy their way out of trouble by importing grain from elsewhere, even if they have the money. Starving refugees will flood across borders, whole nations will collapse into anarchy—and some countries may make a grab for their neighbours’ land or water.

These are scenarios that the Pentagon and other military planning staffs are examining now. They could start to come true as little as 15 or 20 years down the road. If this kind of breakdown becomes widespread, there will be little chance of making or keeping global agreements to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and avoid further warming.

The third conclusion is that there is a point of no return after which warming becomes unstoppable—and we are probably going to sail right through it. It is the point at which anthropogenic (human-caused) warming triggers huge releases of carbon dioxide from warming oceans, or similar releases of both carbon dioxide and methane from melting permafrost, or both. Most climate scientists think that point lies not far beyond 2°C (3.6°F) hotter.

Once that point is passed, the human race loses control: cutting our own emissions may not stop the warming. But we are almost certainly going to miss our deadline. We cannot get the 10 lost years back, and by the time a new global agreement to replace the Kyoto accord is negotiated and put into effect, there will probably not be enough time left to stop the warming short of the point where we must not go.

So—final conclusion—we will have to cheat. In the past two years, various scientists have suggested several “geoengineering” techniques for holding the temperature down directly. We might put a kind of temporary chemical sunscreen in the stratosphere by seeding it with sulphur particles, for example, or we could artificially thicken low-lying maritime clouds to reflect more sunlight.

These are not permanent solutions; they are merely ways of winning more time to cut our emissions without triggering runaway warming in the meantime. But the situation is getting very grave, and we are probably going to see the first experiments with these techniques within five years.

There is a way through this crisis, but it isn’t easy and there is no guarantee of success. As the Irishman said to the lost traveller: “If that’s where you want to go, sir, I wouldn’t start from here.”

[Dan Andrews]

Thank you

[knightfisher]

How many scientists were interviewed.

What are their names.

What countries are they from.

What do they specialize in.

What weather stations were used.

Generalization will not do.

That's what scares people. Generalize on some subject

and watch the panic begin.

Facts, where are the facts.

Why would the scientists be reluctant at this point to announce publicly that their predictions were wrong.

Doesn't make sense, I mean come on man, times a wasting.

One would think they would be all over the media screaming the sky is falling.....

Again, how many scientists, and who are they.

Journalism at it's worse-----generalizations,

not one fact presented.

Not one person's name mentioned.

Garbage piece, don't sweat it ( no pun intended)

[Dan Andrews]

Hard not to generalize when you got to print it in 200 words or less!

[Tom Chopin]

What about the shortening of ice fishing season? Is that a plus or a minus?

[knightfisher]

After rereading his spew, one could easily get rid of at least two paragraphs.

In it's place he could of at least cited....scientists...including the likes of ..name,

military, blah blah blah.

You get my point.

This is just a piece of sensationalism.

A feeble attempt of shock and awe.

Without one credible fact, reference or name.

If I had a bird....I know where this piece of paper would end up.

Next !!!!

[Dan Andrews]

I'll see what I can round up.

[Sharpie]

What because you don't see all the names you want to, you disregard the article. My wife heard him speak at Brock U a few weeks ago and it was very interesting what he was saying. There is some truth to the article. If you know better then you write an article and let us pick it to pieces. My wife said that during his lecture at Brock he had all the information that you are asking for , but it would be a book if is was written down.

Here's your chance to right your article...

[hammercarp]

If it's in the editorial section then by definition.

An editorial, leader (UK), or leading article (UK) is an article in a newspaper or magazine that expresses the opinion of the editor, editorial board, or publisher.

There are rules for them.

Editorials are generally printed either on their own page of a newspaper or in a clearly marked-off column, and are always labeled as editorials (to avoid confusion with news coverage). They often address current events or public controversies.

Since this is just someones opinion and not hard news or scietific fact it does not need to meet the criteria that governs them. It does not mean that the man is lieing either. It is meant to spark interest and debate.

The piece does spark a question in me though. If the debate about global warming/climate change is over and as has been stated many times by "enviromentalists" that it is accepted as fact by the scientific community. Why are these scientists afraid to speak out about it? Why did it take the research of a writer in another field ( the military ) to uncover it. Seems a little odd to me and does cast doubt on his opinion. JMHO of course.

[knightfisher]

Sharpie I didn't ask for all the names, just one would of done, like I said above. So yes I

disregard the article. Bunch of generalization.

Good your wife heard him.

I did not, and I don't know him, so as a result for all I know he could be a nut case.

I'm sure there is some truth to the article, we are all aware the climate has been changing.

Never implied I know better, but I know enough not to just generalize. I would give specific

references and or names to give the article some credibility.

You get two articles written one with specifics and one with generalizations, which one

do you figure most people are going to respect, agree with, or heed as truth.

Obviously the one with specifics.

As far as writing my own article, well it wouldn't be on climate change, as I have not

had the pleasure of interviewing all these scientists and such.

Hammercarp thanks for the response. Opinion, now that makes more sense.

However, it would have had alot more clout if he gave specifics.

And because it doesn't, it's the writer's way of sensationalizing his viewpoint.

Forcast for tomorrow cold with some windy periods

Forcast for tomorrow cold -10 with winds up to 25 miles per hour.

Which one is going to be of benefit to anyone.... the last one of course.

At least you will know how to dress for the day,if you should leave your

dog out, or whatever.

It's information one can use, or at the least, be aware of.

Generalizations have their place, but in articles and such, where you would

assume the writer would want you to take him seriously, generalizations

will not do.

Good day

[longmayyourun]

Gwynne Dyer may be speculating in his article, but one cannot deny climate change, whether it be global warming or cooling. We are only 12 000 years away from the last Ice age, which is a tick on the clock in Geological time. Humans, being part of the world ecosystem must have some impact on it, as do all living and non living things. It is the magnitude of this impact that is debatable.

I stumbled upon these facts on the net today. Here are some names and scientific facts.

Im not arguing for or against Global Warming, but climate changes would result in human migration as they have in the past..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...-change-weather

2008 will be coolest year of the decadeGlobal average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, but cooler temperature is not evidence that global warming is slowing, say climate scientistsComments (…) James Randerson

guardian.co.uk, Friday December 5 2008 15.00 GMT

This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.

The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing however, say climate scientists at the Met Office. "Absolutely not," said Dr Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office's Hadley Centre. "If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends."

Prof Myles Allen at Oxford University who runs the climateprediction.net website, said he feared climate sceptics would overinterpret the figure. "You can bet your life there will be a lot of fuss about what a cold year it is. Actually no, its not been that cold a year, but the human memory is not very long, we are used to warm years," he said, "Even in the 80s [this year] would have felt like a warm year."

And 2008 would have been a scorcher in Charles Dickens's time - without human-induced warming there would have been a one in a hundred chance of getting a year this hot. "For Dickens this would have been an extremely warm year," he said. On the flip side, in the current climate there is a roughly one in 10chance of having a year this cool.

The Met Office predicted at the beginning of the year that 2008 would be cooler than recent years because of a La Niña event - characterised by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. It is the mirror image of the El Niño climate cycle. The Met Office had forecast an annual global average of 14.37C.

Allen was presenting the data on this year's global average temperature at the Appleton Space Conference at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Didcot yesterday. The 14.3C figure is based on data from January to October. When the Met Office makes its formal announcement next week they will incorporate data from November. "[The figure] will differ from it, but it won't differ massively," said Stott, "We would expect the number to go up rather than down because the early parts of the year were still under the La Niña conditions."

Assuming the final figure is close to 14.3C then 2008 will be the tenth hottest year on record. The hottest was 1998 - which included a very strong El Niño event - followed by 2005, 2003 and 2002. The data are a combination of measurements from satellites, ground weather stations and buoys which are compiled jointly by the Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

In March, a team of climate scientists at Kiel University predicted that natural variation would mask the 0.3C warming predicted by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change over the next decade. They said that global temperatures would remain constant until 2015 but would then begin to accelerate.

[hammercarp]

Whirlpoolhunter

Your article directly contradicts the editorial by Gwynne Dyer. He stated that scientists are frightened by an the fact that global warming was happening much faster than the predicted models and the article you found states that scientists are frightened that a temporary slowing down of global warming will revive the debate on global warming. Either way I guess we have a whole lot of scared scientists out there.

[Dan Andrews]

However, it would have had alot more clout if he gave specifics.

This is exactly why I posted this. Guess what I was asking is for peoples opinions who are FAMILIAR with his work to comment on whether they thought he had any clout. So far from what I've read from him over the last few years, I think he's been dead on. He's not one to sensationalize so this particular piece seems kind of shocking.

[Smokin Joe]

And in the end we are still talking in circles