CLIMATE CHANGE: what does it mean?

Day 2 - Global Warming Predictions: Fact or Fiction

The characters in this seven-day dialogue are described in the Foreword. Please read it first to get a better appreciation of what they're saying.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chaud: Why are you against climate change?

Froid: I never said I was. How can you be for or against climate change? It just happens!

Chaud: I meant, why are you against doing something to control climate change?

Froid: Wow! What a loaded question! It's like you're asking me, how can I be against Motherhood? I am not! I'm still trying to understand what we're trying to control.

Chaud: Why are you playing with me? You know as well as I do that greenhouse gases are a problem; and reducing them, regardless of model predictions, is a good thing. You can't argue with that.

Froid: I have nothing against reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but for a different reason, which I will explain later. For now, if we are headed towards global warming, reducing greenhouse gas emissions might make sense. However, if we're headed towards a mini ice age like the one Europe went through a few centuries ago, then it may not be such a good idea.

Chaud: If that's the case, why did you just say that you aren't against reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

Froid: That's the million-dollar question I was waiting for. You global warmers are misguided, I'm sorry to say. You jumped on the emission reduction bandwagon for the wrong reason. You're concerned about global warming, which, even if the model predictions are correct, could be a problem by the end of the century; and, as I have told you, even the model reviewers have their doubts, so global warming is not an immediate threat to us.

Chaud: That's true. But scientists tell us that unless we act now it will be too late.

Froid: That's another little white lie that's been perpetrated on the public. Are scientists speaking directly to the public, or is someone else speaking on their behalf? The typical warming that takes place after an ice age is ten to twelve degrees Celsius and the associated CO2 increase is about 100 ppm (from 180 to 280). We have already gone from 180 to 400 ppm during this cycle, and the temperature rise is within the 12C limit – the upper range for the all the interglacial periods for which we have data.

Chaud: What's an interglacial period?

Froid: That's the 20,000-year global warming period that takes place between ice ages, which occur regularly every 100,000 years.

We broke through the 280 ppm limit more than eight decades ago and nothing drastic has happened. Why isn't the temperature rise much higher? That's what the models are predicting, but it's not happening!

I'll return to the reason why it's not happening later. Now, I would like to finish answering your question.

Why do I believe that it's a good thing to reduce greenhouse gases, even though we may be heading into global cooling? It has to do with burning coal. Electricity production from coal burning is the biggest source of greenhouse gas and particulate emissions into our biosphere. It's the latter that concerns me, and should also concern you.

Chaud: Why do you say that?

Froid: Because those particulate emissions are toxic and carcinogenic; and they are the cause of suffering and premature death NOW, not a century from now! The World Health Organization (WHO) has already declared the air we breathe hazardous to our health. But we can't stop breathing, can we?

Chaud: Are you fear mongering?

Froid: I have no reason to do that. In any case, you can read the same WHO report and see for yourself. You don't have to take my word for it. It's readily available on the Internet, and it's free of charge. Your question tells me that you haven't heard about the hazardous air declaration, and my question is why haven't you?

Chaud: I try and keep abreast of what's happening around the world, but I can't read everything. Some things fall through the cracks.

Froid: I don't buy that Chaud! The reason is that the powers that be don't want us to know, and the media are going along with them.

Chaud: But why would they do that? Our health is such an important issue. Governments would surely have intervened!

Froid: But they haven't! So what does it tell you?

Chaud: It tells me that you're overreacting.

Froid: You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you know that powerful interests control both the media and the government. You've worked in the financial industry long enough to know that. Ask yourself the question, why does everyone talk about climate change and not about the hazardous air we breathe? Isn't clean air a more urgent global priority?

Chaud: You're right about the urgency of clean air, but haven't we done about all we can to reduce pollution? Our cars have catalytic converters so we reduce hydrocarbon emissions. It's the Chinese that's the problem. They don't have the same level of pollution control that we do, and all that pollution traveling around the world also affects us.

Froid: Blaming our problems on the Chinese is not helpful. Their cities are heavily polluted, there is no question about that, but their per capita GDP is still much lower than ours. Even though they have become the world's factory, they consume less per capita energy than we do. If you ask a Chinese what the biggest government priority should be, I'm sure they would answer air pollution. Why is global warming our biggest priority, even though the coal industry is slowly killing us all with hazardous particulate releases?

Chaud: Because we are emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates. And if we don't do anything we will have a global warming problem. Mountain icecaps are melting everywhere, and even the arctic ice sheet is thinning.

Froid: Other than for aesthetic reasons, why should we care about the icecaps? Clean air is essential for our health, snow-peaked mountains are nice to look at, but they don't do anything for us. Why should we worry?

Chaud: They're important because they store fresh water, which is also essential for life. When they are gone we won't have that supply of fresh water. Then we'll be in trouble.

Froid: Why are the glaciers more important than underground aquifers, which we have been exploiting without remorse? It's okay to deplete the aquifers, but we're concerned that the icecaps will disappear! Ultimately, the only sustainable fresh water we have is what comes down by precipitation from the atmosphere. The aquifers were like shock absorbers in a car: they absorbed the shock of too much or too little precipitation. But because we have been wasting water for too long, they may not be there to save us from future shocks. You may not like to hear this, but, on a per capita basis, North Americans consume more than twice the amount of water as the rest of the world.

Do you have another reason why climate change is more important than clean air?