ASCE-EWRI Staff and the COLLABORATE Community Manager have followed the posts on the subject "Climate Change" and "IPCC Additional Information" on the ASCE-EWRI COLLABORATE site. We're very appreciative that you've taken time to share your points of view and references that you feel should be shared with others.
I've advised the moderator to cap the current discussion such that other members are not receiving correspondence best suited for private email exchanges. We take this opportunity to remind the COLLABORATE community that healthy debate is most beneficial when using civil discourse.
We look forward to you participating on a number of other environmental and water related discussions.
Eng. Director
Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2017 11:52
From: Stephen Hemphill
Subject: CLIMATE Change
Well, I would need to thank Mr. Wallace for setting me straight about the iron fertilization theory. That is if he actually gives the references to the National Academy of Sciences publications he allegedly quotes.
I absolutely do agree we need to ensure there are no deleterious effects on the environment. Geoengineering has had some unfortunate side effects - for example, introduction of salt cedar to the western hemisphere for erosion mitigation.
According to my information:
http://www.nature.com/news/dumping-iron-at-sea-does-sink-carbon-1.11028
It would take 3 fairly large freighters full of iron (not the really big ones, but small enough to fit through the Suez Canal) to drop Global CO2 by 1 ppm, distributed over a minuscule area of the ocean. How and where is certainly important to ensure it doesn't backfire. We know that in some locations it certainly would be problematic. That's the type of research we should be spending tax dollars on, instead of lining the pockets of people with tax advantages for supplying solutions that are not cost effective.
Also, Mr. Wallace states the current "sub Saharan drought" is due to climate change. However, here is a link attributing it to deforestation, which we do in fact know is a problem. Actually, during the Holocene Maximum the Sahara was not a desert at all.
And, once again, I have to say that I am the one who agrees with the scientists, particularly about the uncertainties listed at the end of the IPCC Technical Summary. As engineers, we should especially note the last one:
"There is low confidence in projections of many aspects of climate phenomena that influence regional climate change, including changes in amplitude and spatial pattern of modes of climate variability."
------------------------------
Stephen Hemphill P.E., M.ASCE
Semi-Retired
Rio Rancho NM
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-23-2017 09:47
From: Dwayne Culp
Subject: CLIMATE Change
Just to note Harvey's referenced report. No group ever is non-partisan. Any group with the word "Lobby" in their name has a political agenda.
That being said, I agree with most of what Harvey says. As engineers, we have responsibility for efficient use of our limited resources.
When efficient, renewables can be very effective at helping us to be responsible. My question is "Are wind turbines in Oklahoma efficient?" They do create a lot of energy. The demand for the electricity they produce is not in Oklahoma. We won't get people to move to Oklahoma to use the electricity. Therefore we have to create a transportation system to get the electricity generated to the place where it is used. The manufacture of the wire, the construction of the towers, the construction of the wind turbines, roadways, etc. all cost resources, most of which are also limited. By the time you factor all these things in, wind turbines in Oklahoma would not be profitable, except for the money that the government takes from the oil industry to pay to the turbine industry. Anything with a 20 year life span and a 40 year pay back period is not efficient.
A couple of other examples of inefficient uses of limited resources. California is one of the biggest wasters of water in the world. Yet, no one can tell them to stop sending water across a desert because the have superior rights. They should be required to be more efficient with the Colorado River water that they have rights to that on gallon per every 20 pumped arriving at the use point. Southern California uses more electricity per capita than any other part of the world. Most of their power comes from Arizona and Nevada because they will not allow the construction of systems closer. This means instead of constructing wind turbines along the coast, we construct them in the mountains. Then we need to construct roadways, power line corridors, towers, and other big projects to get the power there. And then when they have a problem, they require Arizona and New Mexico to ration water and power so that they can have it.
All these projects pay lots of engineering salaries. But are they really efficient?
------------------------------
Dwayne Culp P.E., P.Eng, M.ASCE
Culp Engineering, LLC
Richmond TX
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-22-2017 21:25
From: Harvey Oslick
Subject: CLIMATE Change
Uncertainty in the amount of climate change caused by fossil fuel usage should motivate action; it should not be used as an excuse for inaction. Civil engineers are called upon to protect lives and property. Therefore, civil engineers should work to identify and support the most cost effective means to protect lives and property from harm due to fossil fuel production and use. However, this is complicated because engineers also need to focus on the immediate economic interests of clients, rather than the long term interests of society. Unfortunately, neglecting long term issues is not sustainable.
Engineers need to address the impacts and resilience of their projects. Fossil fuel production and use causes release of greenhouse gases, ocean acidification, health problems due to emissions, and pollution from spills. This leads to more extreme storms, coastal flooding, food insecurity, human migration, species die-offs, increases in disease and other health impacts, and geo-political instability. Therefore, civil engineers need to design water resources, transportation, energy, residential, commercial and industrial projects to be resilient to unavoidable impacts of uncertain magnitude, while striving to do so in a sustainable manner. Part of the solution to achieve sustainability is to design for rapid reduction in fossil fuel usage.
Civil engineers should promote policies and projects that will lead to a sustainable future. Determining what policies and projects to support requires an understanding of factors of safety. Factors of safety are used to address uncertainty and risk. Obviously, no one cannot precisely predict all consequences. So, engineers often apply conservative assumptions to provide for the protection of lives and property. Achieving a sustainable future will require implementation of projects that provide a reasonable factor of safety to the uncertainties related to climate change.
Not taking action to limit, and mitigate for, the potential impacts of fossil fuels is illogical. It would be like not designing a major dam to withstand a potential flood. In response to someone pointing out that something (such as an infrequent flood or a climate change scenario) might not happen, engineers should ask, "What if it does?" Policies and projects that protect lives and property from potential negative impacts of fossil fuel are clearly logical. Downplaying the potential negative impacts may be catastrophic.
Transitioning away from fossil fuels can be good for the current economy, future generations, and the civil engineering profession as a whole. How can this be so? A non-partisan organization did a study of a possible solution. Information about it and a link to the full report can be found at: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-report/. This solution could help align the economic interests of project owners with the long term interests of society.
------------------------------
Harvey Oslick, PE, Env SP, CFM, CPSWQ, M.ASCE
Associate
Wood Rodgers
Sacramento CA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-22-2017 09:33
From: Michael Byle
Subject: CLIMATE Change
I am constantly amazed by the ability of humans to justify whatever they believe. The more complex the subject, the more the data can be manipulated to support different and sometimes opposing positions. I think we are over-analyzing and over-discussing this. I think that the question at hand should not be whether there is or is not global climate change, nor whether humans are impacting that. The question is really whether we as humans can afford to be oblivious to the impacts of our choices on our environment. I think we have come a long way and now realize that dumping Dioxin and PCB's in our water supply is not a good idea. We have come to discussing the subtler impacts that are not so obviously immediately toxic. Thus far the only reasons I have seen not to attempt to reduce our carbon emissions is economic. The economy is important and cannot be ignored. What gets in the way of solid discussion seems to be nostalgia for the times of Manifest Destiny, when the United States was young and there seemed to be no limits on the resources available or the means we can use to obtain them. All things change and in recent decades, the rate of change has increased to the point where tolerance for change is wearing thin. If we were all altruists and not capitalists, we might have a different perspective and be willing to trade some of our economic gains for the possibility of sustaining our environment for future generations; but we are neither altruists, nor are we certain that the economic gain we sacrifice will have the desired result. Because of its complexity, if we wait to have absolute certainty before acting, it may be too late. So here we are.
------------------------------
Michael Byle P.E., D.GE, F.ASCE
Tetra Tech Inc.,
Langhorne PA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2017 16:00
From: Stephen Hemphill
Subject: CLIMATE Change
Christina - I agree with you about sustainability. In the big picture, when one compares the previous length of interglacials during the Pleistocene, particularly the last one, the Eemian, then looks at the length of this interglacial and compares the rate of temperature decline out of the Eemian with the rate of temperature decline since the Holocene Maximum one might surmise the industrial revolution saved us from that temperature decline. One might also surmise the cooling Earth prompted Homo sapiens to become more educated in the use of fire, which could have led to the industrial revolution itself.
Here is one very realistic scenario. Somehow we are able to decrease the atmospheric CO2 concentration to the pre-industrial revolution level of 280ppm. We realign global temperature to the level we would have declined to barring the industrial revolution. Then, the entire world's population begins burning plastics or whatever else they can to stay warm - especially in the third world. Imagine the global air pollution? We actually have the ability to quickly reduce the CO2 level by fertilizing the upper ocean with iron filings. The ensuing CO2 uptake by the ocean could dwarf the excess in the atmosphere.
There are many possibilities, and continuing to enrich a few pseudo-environmentalists while they have third world labor build semi-efficient solar cells with disastrous environmental consequences at the point of manufacture has its downside.
As engineers, we should not hide in our ivory towers and let others hide in theirs while issuing decrees based on science with huge uncertainties.
I prefer to quote Albert Einstein - "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
------------------------------
Stephen Hemphill P.E., M.ASCE
Semi-Retired
Rio Rancho NM
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2017 11:29
From: Christina Bryz-Gornia
Subject: CLIMATE Change
I've found these discussions to be interesting. No matter what the causes or primary constituents responsible for climate changes, I think it's our duty as engineers to work toward minimizing our eco-footprints. Minimizing all of our waste streams (solid, liquid, and gas) and increasing methods and availability of reuse/recycling can make a tremendous impact if everyone participated. If the IPCC does not currently recommend making those changes, I think that they should (especially if that's the only way to encourage people take responsibility for their actions).
------------------------------
Christina Bryz-Gornia P.E., M.ASCE
Civil / Environmental Engineer
Ellicott City MD
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2017 09:02
From: Dov Rosen
Subject: CLIMATE Change
and another link I forgot to add
NASA study links Greenland ice loss to 'gigantic invisible wave'
RT International |
remove preview |
|
NASA study links Greenland ice loss to 'gigantic invisible wave' |
Greenland's ice is not only melting in at a much higher rate than previously thought, but in a way that is invisible to the naked eye, according to new research from NASA. |
View this on RT International > |
|
|
------------------------------
Dov Rosen P.E., M.ASCE
Sergiu Dov Rosen Sea Shore Rosen Engineering Consultants
Haifa
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-19-2017 00:30
From: Dov Rosen
Subject: CLIMATE Change
Dear colleagues,
For those who asked for additional data sources here are a few (not new) links:
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/9780784479193?ai=z0&ui=1h4&af=H
ACP - Peer review - Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous
Atmos-chem-phys |
remove preview |
|
ACP - Peer review - Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous |
We use climate simulations, paleoclimate data and modern observations to infer that continued high fossil fuel emissions will yield cooling of Southern Ocean and North Atlantic surfaces, slowdown and shutdown of SMOC & AMOC, increasingly powerful storms and nonlinear sea level rise reaching several meters in 50-150 years, effects missed in IPCC reports because of omission of ice sheet melt and an insensitivity of most climate models, likely due to excessive ocean mixing. |
View this on Atmos-chem-phys > |
|
|
------------------------------
Dov Rosen P.E., M.ASCE
Sergiu Dov Rosen Sea Shore Rosen Engineering Consultants
Haifa
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2017 12:08
From: Dov Rosen
Subject: CLIMATE Change
Dear Colleagues,
On the Climate Change Topic, please find a new summary document on the ice melting acceleration in the Arctic, clear sign for climate change.
------------------------------
Sergiu Dov ROSEN P.E., Life Member ASCE
Sergiu Dov Rosen Sea Shore Rosen Engineering Consultants
Haifa
------------------------------