Environment, Coasts, Oceans, & Infrastructure

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.