Here is why civil engineers need to engage (and lead as opportunities arise) in responding to climate change. Civil engineering for the built environment is based on the foundational assumption of
stationarity: the statistical properties of engineering design parameters will be the same in the future as they have been in the past. That assumption allows us build long-lived infrastructure, confident that the resulting civil works will be safe, functional and reliable throughout their design life. But because of climate change, that assumption is no longer reliable. Several centuries of human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, has disrupted the Earth's climate regulating services. Heat energy that used to escape into space, is now being retained. As a result, many of the environmental operating conditions (engineering design parameters) have and continue to change significantly, and in ways that are not readily predictable.
Non-stationarity is now the new normal.
The challenge for civil engineers for the foreseeable future is how to meet society's infrastructure needs under conditions of non-stationarity. We need to create new standards and practices that accommodate changing conditions. That means leaving the comfort zone of commoditized civil engineering. This is the place where everything we need to know has been documented in engineering handbooks. Here, innovation has relegated to doing the same stuff, only better, faster or cheaper. Winning the assignment to do the "n+1" project is based on how you did the last "n". In this zone, new science is interesting but irrelevant.
But hey. Don't listen to me. Listen to your clients or bosses. DOT has produced a lot of material on this subject, and has worked out processes to assess climate vulnerability on transportation projects. EPA has produced similar tools for water resources. Organizations working on dams and airports are doing the same.
Responding to a changing climate requires nothing less than a complete overhaul of civil engineering practice. This should be an exciting time for civil engineers. To respond, we need to create new knowledge: how to deal with the new dynamics of non-stationarity and still deliver infrastructure projects that are safe, reliable and functional. But to participate, we need to step out of the commodity engineering comfort zone.
I've been talking to civil engineers about these issues and opportunities for quite some time. My sense is that most of you are very comfortable in your commodity engineering role, and you don't want to change. Good luck with that.
------------------------------
William Wallace ENV SP, F.ASCE
Wilsonville OR
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 03-15-2017 20:00
From: Richard Goodwin
Subject: Climate Change
As life member of ASCE and an energy-environmental engineering consultant, we as engineer have an obligation to provide peer-review based input to appointed and elected officials on issues that affect the Health and/or Safety of USA residents – the Climate Change Debate and concomitant engineering construction costs Please see
Recent peer review articles [April and May 2016] reflect a shift in scientific opinions on Global Warming and Climate Change.
Goodwin. RW. “Recent peer review articles [April and May 2016] reflect a shift in scientific opinions on Global Warming and Climate Change” Oil Pro; June 5, 2016
http://oilpro.com/post/24917/polemics-vs-peer-review-science-global-warming-and-climate-change
------------------------------
Richard Goodwin Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE
Envir Engr Consultant
Lake Worth FL
(561) 432-9369
Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCEEnvir Engr ConsultantEnvir Engr Consultant
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 03-15-2017 07:13
From: Robert Ryan
Subject: Climate Change
Here is my 2 cents: We tend to conflate two questions when discussing climate change. The first: "Is it really happening/Are humans responsible" and the second: "What should be do about it". The first question needs to be answered by those who study the phenomenon and is beyond opinion or belief. The facts, while open to interpretation, will speak for themselves. And in fact after 150 years or more of study, those who have actually spent the time and resources to delve into this question have concluded that yes, the earth is warming and the actions of we humans are a significant cause of that warming. The second question can only be answered based on our values and beliefs and is beyond science. Science indicates that the earth's temperature will increase, the earth's oceans will acidify, precipitation patterns will shift, dry areas will get drier, wet areas will get wetter, etc, etc. Our values dictate what we should do about it. There is a reasonable argument to be made for doing nothing. This argument suggests that there is uncertainty in the predictions and thus we should not spend our limited resources to protect against something that may not happen. If the climate does change the way it is predicted to change, we humans can develop a technical response that will protect us (build more air conditions, adjust water supply systems, increase flood protection, etc). You (and I) may disagree with this response, but that is what politics is for. We engineers and scientists have a role to play in politics, but it is not to keep stoping our feet and demanding that everyone listen to the 'facts' that we have laid out. We engineers and scientists too often forget that science is not the only way of knowing (as a previous commentator noted). And sometime the 'logical' response is not the most appropriate.
------------------------------
Robert Ryan Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE
Associate Professor
Temple University
Philadelphia PA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 03-14-2017 10:45
From: Stephen Hemphill
Subject: Climate Change
There is a new concept being thrown about: "Fake News." It goes along with the emotional concept of "Perception is Reality". We as engineers should be better than that. If the current perception turns out to be false what will history have to say about civil engineers? I could agree that 97% of climate scientists believe there is an anthropogenic factor in changing climate now, but that doesn't mean 97% of climate scientists believe human emissions of CO2 are the predominant factor, and that it will be devastating. Fits nicely with the concept of Original Sin, but that's religion. Belief is a religious thing and has no place in science.
Another concept worth reviewing is the "Broken Window Fallacy". Can replacement of one energy source by another by seen as economically beneficial? To be sure, coal power has its pollutants, e.g. mercury, SO2, NOx, etc., but let's not confuse the effort required to scrub those with reversing the exothermic reaction that creates CO2. Engineers should know better. And again, if the money that has gone into lining the pockets of those collecting tax breaks for producing widespread inefficient alternative energy solutions had gone into research instead might those methods now actually be more efficient?
Uncertainties in climate science are huge, and when applied locally are even larger. We should not let environmental considerations be hijacked
by those wanting to make a quick buck.
------------------------------
Stephen Hemphill P.E., M.ASCE
Semi-Retired
Rio Rancho NM
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 03-12-2017 16:06
From: John O'Connor
Subject: Climate Change
Anthropogenic Global Warming
Before joining in the national political sport of name calling, backbiting, and sloganeering, the first question that one should clinically address is: ‘are human activities responsible for the observed increases in world temperatures over the past century?’ There is no real question that the earth is warming. Some really competent members of the human race, now with the help of earth-orbiting satellites, have gotten very good at measuring temperature.
I am not qualified to answer that pivotal question. I am not even in the game. To really be ‘in the game’, one must actually examine historical data, read volumes of pertinent technical literature, develop and test one’s own mathematically-based hypotheses, and, finally, publish the results of one’s calculations and models in peer-reviewed scientific literature where they can be challenged and, possibly, refuted. From a strictly scientific standpoint, those who cannot or will not sacrifice the time required to formulate the problem in this fashion might be considered dilettantes, somewhat like the loud and shirtless fans criticizing the action at a football game.
Instead, in our democratic society, even with questions of this magnitude and complexity, we are inclined to put them to a public referendum. Pundits abound. Scientific illiteracy is no barrier. Even the third graders at elementary school may voice their opinions for the media.
For a politician, a decisively held opinion on the matter of global warming is essential. Often, for those dreading the economic impacts of mitigation, the answer to an anthropogenic warming component is a resounding 'No!'
Still, some concerned scientists and engineers have given the matter serious thought. After consideration, the American Chemical Society published their study group’s consensus in a policy statement entitled, Global Climate Change.
In calling for the development and application of technology to “cost-effectively (most ACS members are keenly aware of the costs of energy and materials production) protect the climate”, the ACS policy statement argues that “deploying these technologies would reduce energy costs, increase productivity, improve the U.S.’s energy independence, improve air and water quality, and reduce environmental hazards, in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Considering the multiple ancillary benefits, one might imagine that government sponsorship of the application of these technologies would be welcomed even were greenhouse gases not reduced.
Addressing the probable impact of human activities, the ACS policy statement concludes: “The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time.” Moreover, “ACS believes that public and private efforts today are essential to protect the global climate system for the well-being of future generations.”
However, pursuing a prudent and responsible course of action in America is difficult because, when facing a national policy involving a change in lifestyle (particularly, requiring conservation), many U.S. citizens do not respond solely as ‘Americans’. Some super-elevate the economic interests of their state; some consider solely those of their city; others, still more narrowly, of their individual business or occupation; while the meanest among us defend our interests alone.
To the besieged administrator who adopts his primary accounting stance as ‘defender of the state/community/business/university budget’ rather than the steward of the future economic welfare of the nation, it might seem reasonable to not only oppose any measures which threaten to increase financial burdens, but, further, to argue that the problem is debatable -- and may not even exist.
It has always struck me as especially odd that many of us who most enjoy the prosperity brought by modern technology (and who also have faith that future technological developments will overcome current material and sociological problems), will turn to vilify those in that community of technologists when confronted with a message they prefer not to hear.
That seems a lot easier to do when you are not in the game.
------------------------------
John O'Connor, D.Eng., P.E., F.ASCE
CEO
H2O'C Engineering
Columbia MO
(573) 234-1012
John@...
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 03-01-2017 10:56
From: Jeffrey Keaton
Subject: Climate Change
The geological record shows lots of effects of climate change. In fact, the world has been warming since the end of the last ice age, right? Is the weather variability we see today the same or different?
------------------------------
Jeffrey Keaton Ph.D., P.E., D.GE, P.G., ENV SP, F.ASCE
Principal Engineering Geologist
Amec Foster Wheeler
Los Angeles CA
------------------------------