Dilip: That's an excellent question, but I don't have a simple answer at hand. The IPCC reports express such comparisons in terms of Effective Radiative Forcing, which I am sure to mangle if I even tried to explain. Perhaps someone else in this thread can do a better job
Greenhouse gasses are easier for me. One simple comparison I recall is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Data indicates that it has fluctuated between about 150 and 300 ppm over the past 800,000 years. In the industrial age it has risen to about 400 ppm. Is it reasonable to say that the human-induced increase is on the order of 30%+ so far? IPCC's best case scenario has it falling slightly and their worst case scenario has it increasing to about 2000 ppm.
I'm hoping someone can provide a better answer.
Original Message:
Sent: 07-15-2022 04:04 PM
From: Dilip Barua
Subject: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?
Bill, these are very thorough and well thought-out responses. I have a quick question on your response to question # 2". . . the scientific consensus is that human activity has contributed to climate change in addition to natural cycles and trends, it has not caused all observed changes."
Is there a separation between human-made causes and those caused by natural cycles and trends? The answer to this will help public to do away with their confusion – by knowing how much is caused by humans on top of natural causes. I have not seen such a separation in IPCC documents (or perhaps I have missed it).
If such a separation is not there, does IPPC have plans to do some research to look into it?
Thanks again.
-----
Dr. Dilip K Barua, PhD
Website
Google Scholar
Original Message:
Sent: 07-14-2022 08:51 AM
From: William McAnally
Subject: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?
Kirk: Your questions (in italics) and my answers are given below. I welcome corrections and differing perspectives.
Is the IPCC a credible, reliable, and truthful source? Yes. The six IPCC reports were prepared by top scientists in each field, based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and reviewed by independent experts before publication. In my area of knowledge and practice, I find their analyses of sea level rise to be sound and well supported by evidence.
Is it true that 97% of all scientists believe in man-made climate change? First, a correction. The scientific consensus is that human activity has contributed to climate change in addition to natural cycles and trends, it has not caused all observed changes.
The 97% number came from a survey of published papers rather than a poll of all scientists. I don't know what the precise number is. I know this: all of the related-area scientists that I worked with in industry, government, and academia who expressed an opinion said that human activity is responsible for the acceleration of global warming beyond ongoing natural processes.
Do the man-made climate change believers, such as the IPCC, allow for debate from the opposing side? Scientific debate is welcomed and even noted in the IPCC reports; however, rigorous scientific debate should take place in the peer-reviewed literature. That's where data and analyses are published for careful scrutiny, debate, and correction as needed. Online videos and discussions, such as this one, do not substitute for the scientific literature.
Is NASA immune to joining this huge climate change effort by adjusting data? All data-gathering organizations perform quality control on their products, including adjustments as needed for changes in equipment and location. I have experienced many such adjustments in water resources data for the past 50 years and the agencies have been transparent and honest in those adjustments. NASA has a web page addressing their temperature data adjustments for those who are interested (https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/).
Is the federal government truly concerned with our planet, or is this another fearmongering effort for them to gain more power and make more money? Questioning motives is a diversion from a fact- and logic-based discussion and leads to questioning the motives of the previous administration, the one before that, and so on. It's partisan bickering rather than a discussion.
If the oceans truly are rising, then we should plan for it, but why blame it on the use of fossil fuels? You are correct that we should plan for rising sea levels in most USA locations. Many local, state, and national organizations, both governmental and private, are doing so – actively planning and designing for higher sea levels. Estimating how fast sea levels will rise requires estimates of future global and regional temperature increases. Those increases depend in part on present and future greenhouse gas emissions, which is where uncertainty about public policy on fossil fuels affects our planning. The Corps and NOAA recommend using three possible sea level change scenarios in the planning process to identify risks and address the risks as necessary.
Why was "Global Warming" changed to "Climate Change"? There has been no change. They are two different but related processes. More greenhouse gasses lead to global warming. Warmer temperatures cause changes to climate (statistical descriptions of precipitation, wind, etc.).
The current administration has been using the climate change agenda as the reason to stop oil drilling in the U.S., thus causing huge increases in gas prices. Are you happy with this? Oil drilling has not stopped in the USA. Drilling and pumping continue. Some, but not all, oil lease auctions for future drilling have been cancelled. Petroleum, and thus gasoline, prices increased worldwide as a result of worldwide supply and demand, not because of events in the USA. Gasoline prices have fallen the last week or so as a result of those market forces.
Shouldn't we make sure that climate change truly is caused by humans, before going ahead with economy destroying policies to combat climate change? The best science available tells us that:
- "Human influence on the climate system is now an established fact" IPCC 2021
- "It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth's climate." U.S. National Academies of Science and Engineering 2020
Similar conclusions have been expressed worldwide by research institutions and government agencies.
I recall complaints from the 1970s onward that environmental protection laws were going to bring economic ruin. They didn't. The country prospered with new technologies and our air and water quality improved substantially. The National Academy of Sciences is producing a report on "no regrets" climate policies that address climate goals along with social and economic goals. We must also note the increasing cost of climate-related disasters, so doing nothing harms our economy. What to do and how much we should spend is a valid public debate.
------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS
Original Message:
Sent: 07-05-2022 11:09 AM
From: Kirk Uchytil
Subject: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?
I am grateful to ASCE for allowing us to have this discussion on these topics, especially when some of us don't completely agree with ASCE's point of view regarding climate change. If this thread is any indication of the overall number of ASCE members who disagree with ASCE's stance on man-made climate change, suffice it to say that there is a percentage who are deniers, or in other words, outside the realm of science, there is no overwhelming consensus.
For those of you who have not made up your minds on this topic, in my opinion, there are several key questions to consider:
- Is the IPCC a credible, reliable, and truthful source?
- Is it true that 97% of all scientists believe in man-made climate change?
- Do the man-made climate change believers, such as the IPCC, allow for debate from the opposing side?
- Is NASA immune to joining this huge climate change effort by adjusting data?
- Is the federal government truly concerned with our planet, or is this another fearmongering effort for them to gain more power and make more money?
- If the oceans truly are rising, then we should plan for it, but why blame it on the use of fossil fuels?
- Why was "Global Warming" changed to "Climate Change"?
- The current administration has been using the climate change agenda as the reason to stop oil drilling in the U.S., thus causing huge increases in gas prices. Are you happy with this?
- Shouldn't we make sure that climate change truly is caused by humans, before going ahead with economy destroying policies to combat climate change?
------------------------------
Kirk Uchytil
Structural Engineer
Original Message:
Sent: 05-05-2022 10:54 AM
From: Kirk Uchytil
Subject: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?
Thank you Debra for writing about this topic in this related thread! This has been a pet peeve of mine for years and I understand your frustration with ASCE. I have to disagree with you on the statement "There are valid arguments supporting both sides of the climate change...". There are no proven or overwhelmingly convincing arguments. Now there are many companies that have jumped on this bandwagon including the one I work for. Thanks to the age of technology, we now have suppression, disinformation and censorship that have helped this cause to grow.
I work in the Power Generation Industry and the company I work for has become a big supporter of the green movement otherwise known as clean energy. I'm all for protecting our environment, but when things like the Winter Storm of 2021 in Texas occur, that should be a huge red flag suggesting that this direction is not good, or needs some major steering adjustment. Even with these red flag events occurring, the blindness of this movement ensures a path of driving off a cliff, like Texas and California did.
The story is told of a boy walking to school one morning and he found a kitten. He picked it up and took it to school. During "Show and Tell" the boy showed the class the kitten. Another boy asked, "Is it a boy or a girl?" The teacher didn't want to go down that rabbit hole, but another boy quickly offered the idea of voting on it to determine what the gender of the kitten was. If the kitten was a female, even if all the votes were in favor of it being a male, this would not change the truth of it being a female kitten.
The same is true with man-caused climate change, no matter how many government officials, media and companies claim it's true doesn't make it true!
Kirk Uchytil S.E.
Taylor, AZ
------------------------------
Kirk Uchytil
Structural Engineer
------------------------------