The discussions presented by Stuart and Stephen opened a new door to some interesting issues not limited to climate change.
Peer-reviewing process of scientific (including engineering) contributions evolved as an institution to ensure the publications of true science in findings and research – in a manner to limit lousy works, and minimize under-interpretation (lacking scholarly aptitude) and over-interpretation. The quality of scientific publications reflects the level and standard of scientific communities of a certain institution or a country.
Having said all these, one is tempted to say that peer-reviewing is no guarantee that a scientific publication meets all the expectations one wishes for. One of the reasons could be attributed to the quality, depth-of-understanding and standard of the peers reviewing the contributions – or their personal motivations. The other reason is the fact that as a society we got used to worshiping money, power and fame – therefore truth has all the chances of becoming a casualty if gone against the wind. The example of such peer-reviewing trickery has been demonstrated by none other than one of the greatest Giants of modern science – Isaac Newton (1643 – 1727) as president of the Royal Society completely destroyed the reputation of Leibniz (1646 – 1716) in order to claim the sole credit for himself in developing Calculus. In addition, there are many examples where a declined contribution turned out to be scientific breakthrough.
Similar to the peer-reviewed materials, non-peer-reviewed communications (broadly speaking: main stream media, social media, entertainments, advertisements, opinions, blogs, etc. – one should not forget that the economy sustained by these activities totally eclipse the economy related to the peer-reviewed materials) also have a value – may be not in a sense of scientific truth – but in a sense that they reflect the standards and values on which a certain social canvas stands. Moreover, they are the breeding grounds for thoughts and ideas – the filtration of which often yields greater social benefits of visions, tools and methods. Philosophies, discoveries, religious teachings – all that humanity inherited – started through such a process.
One can also think of the dark sides of such communications – something indicative of and have detrimental effects on social transformation – in an undesirable direction of decadence, intolerance, aggressiveness and mistrusts.
------------------------------
Dr. Dilip Barua, Ph.D, P.Eng, M. ASCE
Consultant - Coastal, Port and Marine Engineering
Vancouver, Canada
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-21-2017 13:54
From: Stephen Hemphill
Subject: Climate Change
Stuart is true that we find out more and more about climate science every day. However, one of the biggest things finally becoming accepted is that it is an interdisciplinary science. Also becoming accepted is that we are finding out that what we don't know is increasing faster than what we *do* know. I would not call it a shift, per se, but a realization by most scientists that we have no clue how much anthropogenic effects have as a proportion of total climate change. There is more heat capacity in the top two meters of the ocean than the entire atmosphere.
Peer review is a good thing, but unfortunately peer review in climate science has, for some, become nothing more than a round robin of back slappers as was pointed out in a statistical analysis that was, itself, peer reviewed.
Once again, I will point to the latest IPCC report written by scientists, not by politicians. That would be the Technical Summary, and the most important part is in the last two pages where they list some of the uncertainties.
------------------------------
Stephen Hemphill P.E., M.ASCE
Semi-Retired
Rio Rancho NM
"That's not data, that's a piece of paper" - unk
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-21-2017 09:19
From: Stuart Schwartz
Subject: Climate Change
I was surprised and disappointed in reviewing the articles - and editorials and news briefs, and other features in April-May Science to discover the inaccurate nature of the statement:
"Recent peer review articles [April and May 2016] reflect a shift in scientific opinions on Global Warming and Climate Change."
In looking through the April and May issues of Science, I find no "Peer reviewed" articles that suggest a "shift in scientific opinions" as suggested. To the contrary, the "peer reviewed articles" in these issues speak to the continuing progress in incrementally refining understanding of climate change. These issues also contain articles that speak to the increasing ability of scientists to improve the attribution of (some) extreme weather events to climate change. That article clearly lays out the differences between climate and weather and the very significant (though not insurmountable) challenge of attribution for individual extreme events.
There was also an "early view" report on an ongoing research project about ocean surveillance from ocean gliders, that has produced some preliminary data indicating the relationship between ocean circulation patterns and coastal sea level observations is indeed more complex than expectations from "common wisdom". That article however is not a "peer reviewed" research paper. Rather it is a preview of early results from ongoing research written by a science writer, and is a standard feature in Science - separate and apart from peer reviewed research articles.
As with all science, the search for improved knowledge and understanding is a continuous process, fueled by new and surprising discoveries that challenge us to test and improve our hypotheses, and advance our knowledge and understanding. One requirement for this professional pursuit is the accurate ethical professional representation of scientific research - and honestly distinguishing peer reviewed research from opinion blogs, editorials, news articles, and unreviewed contributions to industry magazines and other gray literature..
------------------------------
Stuart Schwartz A.M.ASCE
Sr. rsch Scientist
University of Maryland Baltimore County
Baltimore MD
------------------------------
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
------------------------------