Discussion: View Thread

CLIMATE Change

  Thread closed by the administrator, not accepting new replies.
  • 1.  CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-07-2017 12:28 PM
    No replies, thread closed.
    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
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-08-2017 03:33 PM
    No replies, thread closed.
    Studies of the Arctic temperature trend are enlightening when compared to other latitudes.  CO2 is well mixed throughout the atmosphere, yet temperature trends studied by latitude are not.  A clue to this disparity can be observed just by looking at the snow and ice itself.  Arctic snow and ice are dirty, contaminated by black carbon from incomplete combustion, and general particulate pollution (dirt).  This is a clue as to how humanity is ravaging Earth.  In contrast, Antarctic ice and snow are quite pristine with a much higher albedo. 
    In order to view these trends, one must use satellite data to get spatially accurate views. 

    Some interesting trends (in degrees C per decade):
    Northern hemisphere is over double the southern hemisphere: 0.21 vs. 0.1
    The USA lower 48 vs. Australia (approximately the same size) 0.25 vs. 0.15
    Northern extent land (20N - 85N) vs southern extent land (85S - 20S) TRIPLE at 0.27 vs. 0.09
    Finally, North Pole (60N - 85N) vs. South Pole (85S - 60S) 0.46 vs. 0 (using insignificant digits = -0.0001) 

    All of this and more is available from the University of Alabama (Huntsville).  Over two dozen breakdowns for 40 years.  Very interesting perusing, if one wants to actually delve into the facts:
    http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

    This suggests that maybe CO2 is not the problem it is being sold as (literally?).  I am not suggesting climate is not changing.  I would submit that before the recent population explosion the Arctic ice was just as pristine with a similar albedo to what the Antarctic ice has now.

    ------------------------------
    Stephen Hemphill P.E., M.ASCE
    Semi-Retired
    Rio Rancho NM
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-09-2017 09:34 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    Suggest you take a look at the latest IPCC report from Working Group I, AR5, Climate Change 2013:  The Physical Science Basis, Figure SPM.5, page14.  Black carbon has been accounted for as one of half-dozen or so compounds seen as the drivers of climate change.  The graphic displays the compounds and the resulting radiative forcing, along with confidence limits.Figure SPM.5

    ------------------------------
    William Wallace ENV SP, F.ASCE
    Wilsonville OR
    (970) 819-2188
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-09-2017 01:44 PM
    No replies, thread closed.
    This is the problem with looking at the IPCC's SPM (Summary for Policymakers).  While the real scientists were busy with the Technical Summary, someone decided to put out the Summary for Policymakers before the Technical Summary was complete.  Here are a couple of quotes from the Technical Summary itself:

    On page 55 under "TS.3.3 Radiative Forcing from Anthropogenic Aerosols":
    "The RF from black carbon (BC) on snow and ice ... causes a two to four times larger GMST change per unit forcing than CO2 primarily because all of the forcing energy is deposited directly into the cryosphere, whose evolution drives a positive albedo feedback on climate."

    On page 114 under "TS.6.2 Key Uncertainties in Drivers of Climate Change":
    "uncertainties in aerosol forcing remain the dominant contributor to the overall uncertainty in net anthropogenic forcing"

    In addition, see this from the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme "study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres ...  Accounting for all of the ways it can affect climate, black carbon is believed to have a warming effect of about 1.1 Watts per square meter (W/m²), approximately two thirds of the effect of the largest man made contributor to global warming, carbon dioxide."  That would be a global figure.  If it's 2/3rds of global warming from CO2, how much would it be in the northern hemisphere, let alone on the snow and ice in the Arctic?



     



    ------------------------------
    Stephen Hemphill P.E., M.ASCE
    Semi-Retired
    Rio Rancho NM
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-12-2017 09:34 AM
    No replies, thread closed.

    Okay, here's how this discussion appears to be headed.  Dov Rosen offers a new report about Arctic ice melting.  (Thanks, Dov!)  Stephen Hemphill writes stuff implying that CO2 isn't the problem and says, "…if one wants to actually delve into the facts…" (implying that we don't) and offers up a 12,000+ point data set that has no definitions.  Stephen then suggests that from this indecipherable data set, "…CO2 is not the the problem it is being sold as (literally?)…", implying that the work and conclusions of the IPCC (and literally all the scientific institutions of developing countries) is incorrect.

    I, naively thinking that Stephen thinks black carbon hasn't been accounted for, offer a graphic from the IPCC showing that it has.  Stephen, somehow having obtained special insights on who the "real scientists" in the IPCC are, responds with some elements from the IPCC Working Group 1, AR5 Technical Summary that point to the uncertainties in radiative forcing from black carbon.

    Now at this point, I could counter with Figure TS.7 (page 57 of the Technical Summary) which again shows the relative radiative forcing of (along with their relative uncertainties) the various contributors to climate change.   In this graphic, both CO2 and black carbon accounted for and it shows that CO2 is still considered the major contributor, with black carbon being significant although with substantial uncertainty.  But, I'm pretty sure that would be fruitless.  I suspect Stephen will come up with other citations seemingly designed to cast doubt on validity of the approach and conclusions offered by the world's institutions that bring together the work of credible scientists who study these phenomena. 

    My suggestion is that if Stephen thinks that CO2's contribution to climate change is being "sold", then he needs to show how the IPCC conclusions (high radiative forcing, high confidence) are incorrect, not how black carbon has not been properly accounted for.  My understanding is that climate scientists are very aware that black carbon is a significant contributor to climate change, and are working hard to sort out it's contribution and reduce the uncertainty.




    ------------------------------
    William Wallace ENV SP, F.ASCE
    Wilsonville OR
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-12-2017 09:33 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    There is an error in Figure SPM.5 - Water Vapor is omitted.  Water vapor constitutes about 95% of the greenhouse gas potential.  CO2 constitutes about 4%.  The remaining constituents in the table constitute, in the order shown, the remaining 1%.

    ------------------------------
    Neil Jordan P.E., D.WRE, M.ASCE
    Civil Engineer
    Irvine CA
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-13-2017 09:39 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    Neil, suggest you take a look at the full IPCC reports, also the NOAA, NASA, the National Academies reports on climate change.  Water vapor is a big factor in the greenhouse effect and has been taken into account in the models.  But, it's short lived, varying as temperature rises and falls.  Additional concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere set up a reinforcing loop, adding more water vapor to the atmosphere and increasing the greenhouse effect.

    ------------------------------
    William Wallace ENV SP, F.ASCE
    Wilsonville OR
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-13-2017 10:38 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    I wouldn't call it an "error": the IPCC graphic refers to anthropogenic emissions and comparisons to baseline. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas that has allowed for our existence, but the global water budget has remained constant, and atmospheric water vapor continues to behave in accordance with that budget. So that piece of the puzzle hasn't changed.

    ------------------------------
    Timothy Groninger P.E., M.ASCE
    White Plains NY
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-13-2017 04:19 PM
    No replies, thread closed.

    In response to William Wallace's straw man, I offer up corrections in my defense.

    As for the "12,000+ point data set that has no definitions" if one goes to the bottom of the page, one finds the definitions. Also, as to his statement that it's "undecipherable" I submit that's a subjective evaluation. In fact, following the links up i.e. going from

    http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

    to

    http://www.atmos.uah.edu/

    One can find much information.

    Also, I did not say CO2 was not an important greenhouse gas as he insinuates. In fact, the last excerpt in my previous post states "black carbon is believed to have a warming effect of about 1.1 Watts per square meter (W/m²), approximately two thirds of the effect of the largest man made contributor to global warming, carbon dioxide." Note that first, CO2 is described as the "largest man made contributor" to global warming.

    Second, the statement says "largest man made" - meaning a couple of things - one, "largest" does not necessarily mean "majority of" and "man made" excludes natural.

    The language in the Technical Summary (TS) - yes, written by scientists for a technical audience exceeds the accuracy and precision of the sales pitch in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) written by an entirely different group than the authors of the Technical Summary.

    An important point missed by Mr. Wallace is that the SPM was released before the TS. I think he misses the gravity of that fact.

    One important fact concerning black carbon is that China is bringing on line a couple of coal powered power plants every week, and accelerating that pace. That has a huge impact on the albedo of the Arctic.

    As I said, I agree with the Technical Summary, especially the last couple of pages. We are learning more and more about climate, mostly that it is incredibly complex and the one thing we are learning the most is that there is more and more that we don't know.



    ------------------------------
    Stephen Hemphill P.E., M.ASCE
    Semi-Retired
    Rio Rancho NM
    ------------------------------



  • 10.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-14-2017 01:53 PM
    No replies, thread closed.
    Yes, the research climatologists and other physical earth scientists are doing their best to pin down the science behind the geologically rapid changes happening on earth.
       The original crude climate models from 25 years ago predicted this climate weirding, and pointed to extreme weather. The hydrological cycles are doing their thing moving extra heat energy around the globe. The greater land mass in the northern hemisphere is storing and reflecting heat into the CO2 richer atmosphere, creating more temperature rise in the north.  My local Atlantic marshes are reaching superflood level ever more often (1 cm of ocean level increase from just the warmer ocean causes some big changes in the Gulf of Maine).
      We're engineers, right? We can make efficient use of energy in systems we design (negawatts), and clean energy is a critical part of a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren. Preventing polluted rainwater from running straight to the sea (along with our plastic trash) is an important way to respect and protect the hydrologic cycle and ensure that all have pure water to drink (without too much additional cost and infrastructure).  
      Who is helping floodproof our structures and roadways? restore and build the wetlands that will mitigate flooding?  personally, I do the air quality things like supporting biogas power with low emissions of criteria air pollutants. Let's share some of our expertise with the local politicians and others to use as they plan for their citizens' thriving future  Sustainability
    Sustainability remove preview
    Sustainability
    sCityNetwork.com is presented by Sustainable City Network, Inc. to provide city and county government officials and municipal professionals with news and information about sustainability.
    View this on Sustainability >


    ------------------------------
    Sarah Simon P.E., M.ASCE
    Environmental Compliance Manager
    Ipswich MA
    ------------------------------



  • 11.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-15-2017 09:40 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    Well said, Sarah!  And, thanks for the link to the Sustainable City Network.  In case you weren't aware of this, we on ASCE's Committee on Sustainability have been charged by the ASCE Board to "transform" civil engineering to account for the changes taking place in environmental operating conditions, due to a changing climate.  This, obviously is a huge undertaking, and cringe-worthy if you compare the Committee's resources to the scale of the required transformation.  What we're trying to do is to get the civil engineering community to understand the problem and start to change the standards and practices to address the changing environmental operating conditions.  As it turns out, we're playing catch up with many of the government agencies, the DOT Federal Highway Administration in particular, that have already developed guidelines for handling these new dynamics. 



    ------------------------------
    William Wallace ENV SP, F.ASCE
    Wilsonville OR
    ------------------------------



  • 12.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-19-2017 11:31 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    ​How has magnetic pole shifting been incorporated into climate change please?

    Regards,

    ------------------------------
    Harlan Kelly P.E., M.ASCE
    President
    KNE2 Ltd
    Vancouver BC
    ------------------------------



  • 13.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-19-2017 01:46 PM
    No replies, thread closed.

    John L. Casey makes an excellent case in his book Dark Winter that it is solar activity and not carbon dioxide that is causing "climate change".  His model seems to work significantly better than any of the AGW models.  According to IPCC report AR4(2007) the antarctic continent will be gaining ice mass for the foreseeable future.  He quotes a satellite survey of Antarctica from 1992-2003 that found Antarctica had gained 45 billion tons of ice mass.  I seem to recall that more than 90% of the planets glacial ice is in Antarctica.  As a previous commentator has pointed out, the planets water budget has remained constant.  Perhaps the sea level rises are due to other factors.  A number Scientists are predicting global cooling over the next 20 years.  An upcoming 206 year bicentennial cycle of reduced solar activity is of particular concern.  The last time it happened Napoleon was defeated by "General Winter" in Russia in 1812 and there was significant starvation in the northeastern United States due to crop failures.  Global Warming got changed to "Climate Change" when studies showed that the planet was getting cooler, not warmer.  Recent studies of the proliferation of sink holes in unlikely places suggest that the planet is changing shape as a result of reduced solar activity.  That certainly would have an impact on coastal areas.  There are plenty of good reasons to clean up stack gas emissions to remove toxic materials in order to improve our environment but perhaps the emphasis on carbon dioxide is being overdone.



    ------------------------------
    James Anderson P.E., M.ASCE
    Consulting Engineer
    North Richland Hills TX
    ------------------------------



  • 14.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-20-2017 09:52 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    James Anderson, John Casey is not a climatologist. Global cooling theory was dismissed not long after it was introduced.  Additionally, Antarctic sea ice increase is likely due to an increase of snowpack. Warmer air holds more moisture and thus more precipitation falls over the continent. The Southern Ocean Circumpolar Current buffers the continent from warmer oceans as well, which also slows ice loss. Global sea ice is still decreasing overall. 

    I'm attaching a link to the fifth assessment from IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). I hope you find it informative and helpful for keeping up to date on scientific consensus.  http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

    ------------------------------
    Selina Lambert S.M.ASCE
    Corvallis OR
    ------------------------------



  • 15.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-20-2017 03:44 PM
    No replies, thread closed.

     

      Good points Sarah. After all, sustainability is what we're after, right?
      The greater land percentage in the northern hemisphere reflects more heat into the atmosphere, whereas the greater ocean area down south soaks up more. The top two meters of the ocean have more heat capacity than the entire atmosphere. That is also related to the increased black carbon and destruction of arable land in the north, part of the huge albedo difference between the northern ice and the southern ice.  That doesn't completely explain the fact the high latitude southern hemisphere shows no warming when the spatial coverage is equalized.
      I once compared long term temperature with long term CO2 and discovered that yes, indeed, temperature change *led* CO2 change by about a thousand years (the data I used came up with 900 years), matching ocean overturning, aka the "warm coke effect." If you overlay Al Gore's two hockey stick graphs you will see that temperature change leads CO2 change.  Alarmists don't get that an effect cannot happen before a cause, or they don't know that basic timing difference.
      Another, deeper, fallacy is that when they slice open ancient ice cores to find CO2 levels they assume that all the enclosed bubbles, of all the infinitely variable sizes and shapes, close at exactly the same depth. That averages out the CO2 levels at their average age and covers up previous spikes and dips.
      As engineers we need to realize that the uncertainties, magnified on local levels, preclude a lot of certainty in effecting changes for local climate regimes. If all the money granted to corporate interests in the form of tax credits had been spent on research instead, we would know a lot more about climate change than we do, and maybe then be able to institute some local adaptations.   However, making changes to CO2 emissions in the US based on our existing level of ignorance is not helping reduce global CO2 any appreciable amount anyway, nor helping our financial ability to adapt in the future when we will understand more of what's going on with climate and will be able to focus on actual cost effective solutions.
      I have often wondered if the second best use of our US tax dollars (after more research) and inefficiencies from climate adaptations here would be to pay for scrubbers for all of the new coal power plants springing up like weeds in the developing world.

      I think you are giving more credit to the models of 25 years ago than they deserve though. For example, none of them predicted the warming hiatus of the last decade.



    ------------------------------
    Stephen Hemphill P.E., M.ASCE
    Semi-Retired
    Rio Rancho NM
    ------------------------------



  • 16.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-21-2017 09:37 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    ​In Australia we are doing the reverse of China and with alarming results - we are turning Coal Fired power station off, unfortunately at a quicker rate than the renewable power e.g. Wind Farms and Solar - are coming online. Net results has been that the State of South Australia was in total power black out for 18 hours  a couple a months ago and with a recent major power station closure in Victoria, further grid failures are predicted.  This is what happens when Political policy gets ahead of reality..............................

    ------------------------------
    John Harris CPEng, A.M.ASCE

    Melbourne, Australia
    ------------------------------



  • 17.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-19-2017 11:31 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    Dear colleagues,
    For those who asked for additional data sources here are a few (not new) links:
    IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    Ipcc remove preview
    IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    View this on Ipcc >

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



  • 18.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-20-2017 09:50 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    Thank you again, Dov.  What is most puzzling to me in this and similar discussions in this group is the predisposition of some members to dispute the work of the very scientific institutions that we in the U.S. and other developed nations have set up to study and advise decision-makers on important matters of science, engineering and technology.  As in this discussion, their basis for dispute is usually some special insight they claim to have, their own interpretation of the peer-reviewed results published by the institution, and/or some article/book/paper they ran across which poses some contrarian view that they take as gospel. 

    Scientific advancements come about because of skepticism of a few who find something wrong with the current paradigm and work to make corrections.  Indeed, the whole history of climate science, dating back to the early 1800s is a story of changing paradigms.  See "The Discovery of Global Warming" (www.SkepticalScience.com).  What's important here is that these advancements were worked out by credible scientists using credible and transparent scientific methods, and reviewed/challenged by other equally credible scientists. 

    Today, on this and other issues, that's what we set up our scientific institutions, e.g., the National Academies, NASA, NOAA, IPCC, to do.  If their conclusions and advice is wrong, then we're wasting a whole lot of money.  Also, if one believes these institutions are wrong, then why engage this discussion group?  We don't control the scientific debate.  Is your purpose to sow doubt in the science?  Or is this just how contrarians have fun.

    ------------------------------
    William Wallace ENV SP, F.ASCE
    Wilsonville OR
    ------------------------------



  • 19.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-21-2017 09:36 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    Dear William,
    Thank you for your remarks. My reasons for posting the information references were due to the skepticism expressed by a few colleagues. As a retired scientist I'd say that critical review is always welcome, provided it is based on reliable and sound arguments. Unfortunately even in our topic, there were few irrelevant comments on whether the climate change is due to anthropogenic activity or natural activity.  I certainly agree that in the end, the solar activity has its impact on our climate, including increased sun spots activity every 11 and 22 years, but the changes observed in the last decades appear not to be related to natural activity but to human greenhouse gases increased rates. And while I agree that non specialists in the specific climate change fields should rely on professional bodies, the conclusions of those bodies can and should be open for fair professional criticism. I was one of the last IPCC report section on sea level rise external reviewers and I believe I had a few relevant remarks. Also, please remember that IPCC is not completely independent, but is controlled by the states governments, which were able to remove/change/redirect certain statements from the report. Nevertheless, my view is that criticism should be professional, sound, relevant and fair. Hence, I believe that most of our discussions on the climate change topic are useful for our ASCE colleagues, in the endeavor to prepare and plan for resilience to climate change impacts.
    With warm regards, Sergiu Dov


    ------------------------------
    Dov Rosen P.E., M.ASCE
    Sergiu Dov Rosen Sea Shore Rosen Engineering Consultants
    Haifa
    ------------------------------



  • 20.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-20-2017 09:50 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    Dear Colleagues, 
    here, are some links on a new event related to climate change and ice caps melting: ice landslides inducing tsunami:
    A huge landslide generated tsunami waves damaging some villages in Greenland - 4 people (remain) missing
    Earthquake-Report.com remove preview
    A huge landslide generated tsunami waves damaging some villages in Greenland - 4 people (remain) missing
    This damage was detected by our colleagues of the 2017 Earthquake Impact Database - EID on Google Docs Update 14:03 UTC: Below video via Dave Petley, global landslide specialist It is now confirmed that the tsunami in Greenland was triggered by an extremely large landslide.
    View this on Earthquake-Report.com >

    Earthquake & tsunami cause major flooding in Greenland (VIDEO)
    RT International remove preview
    Earthquake & tsunami cause major flooding in Greenland (VIDEO)
    The western coast of Greenland has been struck with a 4.0 magnitude earthquake, triggering a tsunami that swept away several houses in coastal villages. At least four people are feared missing, as a rescue mission in the village hardest hit by waves is under way, local police reports.
    View this on RT International >

    Four people missing after possible tsunami hits remote Greenland village
    the Guardian remove preview
    Four people missing after possible tsunami hits remote Greenland village
    Four people are missing after large waves flooded a remote settlement in Greenland this weekend, Greenland officials said on Sunday. A Danish media report said the waves late on Saturday might have been caused by an earthquake creating a landslide into the sea, which in turn would have generated a swell.
    View this on the Guardian >


    ------------------------------
    Dov Rosen P.E., M.ASCE
    Sergiu Dov Rosen Sea Shore Rosen Engineering Consultants
    Haifa
    ------------------------------



  • 21.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-20-2017 09:50 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    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
    ------------------------------



  • 22.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-20-2017 11:48 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    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
    ------------------------------



  • 23.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-20-2017 03:45 PM
    No replies, thread closed.

    Unlike William Wallace, I would tend not to rule out healthy discussions and skepticisms (some are quite remarkable) even on scientific works done by credible scientists (I hope there were some engineers in the IPCC team and other similar climate change study teams). Credibility aside, the reason is not that one does not agree with the scientific findings and conclusions, rather due to the uncertainty of such findings. Many conclusions on climate change (evidences and projections) are not definitive – qualified either in terms of confidence level (very low to very high), or in terms of probability (exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain), or both. In fact such scaling of things applies to all research and study findings.

    Therefore when engineers come across using those findings, it is only imperative that they screen them carefully to sort out acceptable and defensible ones – because stakes can be high when translation leads to misinterpretation or even to misunderstanding.



    ------------------------------
    Dr. Dilip Barua, Ph.D, P.Eng, M. ASCE
    Consultant - Coastal, Port and Marine Engineering
    Vancouver, Canada
    ------------------------------



  • 24.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-21-2017 09:35 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    I don't rule out healthy discussion and skepticism, but the operative word here is "healthy".  What I've observed over the past year or so in this forum is that healthy discussions about climate change being trolled by some who seemed to be on a mission to cast doubt on the conclusions of the very scientific institutions that society has set up to study and advise about important scientific issues.  Their tactic is what social scientists call the Scientific Certainty Argumentation Method, which by the way goes by the delightfully appropriate acronym, S.C.A.M. 

    Science is filled with uncertainty and ambiguity, which is true in the case of climate change.  So, if you wanted to delay actions that might address climate change, the SCAM tactic is quite effective. It plays to our sense of fairness. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt, not wanting to take actions outside the norm until all reasonable doubt is removed and we are really "certain" that such actions are fully warranted.  You work the audience with SCAM by bringing up points, factual or otherwise, that cast doubt on the current scientific consensus on climate change.  You simply demand that reasonable doubt be removed before taking any action to mitigate or adapt to the consequences.  (Oh, and you get to define "reasonable doubt".)  You point to contrarian and questionable studies, or personal theories as "proof" that uncertainty exists.  This "uncertainty space" offers rich opportunities for gaming the system.  For more on SCAM, see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00219.x/full

    Take Mr. Hemphill's latest comment.  When speaking about the Earth's climate and the Industrial Revolution, he chooses to change time scales at will, mixing up geologic epochs (tens of thousands of years) with human generations (a few hundred years).  He suggests that ocean iron fertilization is a climate change cure-all when National Academy studies show the potential as being much less and have serious concerns on its effects on marine life. He paints a picture of a 3rd World disaster with at CO2 atmospheric concentrations at 280 ppm (pre-industrial conditions), but doesn't bother to mention that the effects of 400 ppm CO2 (extreme drought) are now devastating Sub-Saharan African communities that rely on rain-fed agriculture.

    ------------------------------
    William Wallace ENV SP, F.ASCE
    Wilsonville OR
    ------------------------------



  • 25.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-20-2017 04:29 PM
    No replies, thread closed.
    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
    ------------------------------



  • 26.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-22-2017 10:09 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    ​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
    ------------------------------



  • 27.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-22-2017 11:13 PM
    No replies, thread closed.

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



  • 28.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-23-2017 10:02 AM
    No replies, thread closed.
    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
    ------------------------------



  • 29.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 06-26-2017 12:44 PM
    No replies, thread closed.

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



  • 30.  RE: CLIMATE Change

    Posted 07-07-2017 03:16 PM
    No replies, thread closed.

    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.

    You are likely aware of the ASCE Policy Statements, several of which address water and environmental issues as well as climate change.  If you have any comments on an ASCE Policy Statement that you would like to be heard by ASCE, I recommend that you start by sending an email to the ASCE-EWRI Governing Board ewri@... with your comments.  I've spoken with the ASCE-EWRI President Elect regarding the discussion threads and she is willing to make time available on the fall ASCE-EWRI Governing Board Agenda for this topic, if necessary.

    We look forward to you participating on a number of other environmental and water related discussions.



    ------------------------------
    Brian Parsons M.ASCE
    Eng. Director
    ASCE
    Reston VA
    ------------------------------