Archinect
anchor

Net-Zero energy, what is holding us back?

107

The number of people who say something, and/or their credentials or positions in the official power structure, are entirely irrelevant to scientific knowledge.

Whew! For a minute there I was worried that the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, InterAcademy Council, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, United States National Research Council, Royal Society of New Zealand, African Academy of Sciences, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Science Foundation, American Geophysical Union, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Australian Institute of Physics, European Physical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, European Federation of Geologists, European Geosciences Union, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of London, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, American Meteorological Society, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Royal Meteorological Society, World Meteorological Organization, American Quaternary Association, International Union for Quaternary Research, American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Society for Microbiology, Australian Coral Reef Society, Institute of Biology (UK), Society of American Foresters, The Wildlife Society, American Astronomical Society, American Statistical Association, Engineers Canada, The Institution of Engineers Australia, International Association for Great Lakes Research, Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand and The World Federation of Engineering Organizations

might be right.

May 21, 14 6:33 pm  · 
 · 
Volunteer

Below is a list of scientists who do not buy into the man-made global warming doomsday scenario. These skeptics are usually smeared as "deniers"as a propanganda tool  to link them ti the "Holocaust deniers" of course.   Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced StudyFellow of the Royal SocietyRichard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of SciencesNils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU]Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, StockholmPhilip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London. Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological InstituteFritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry. Khabibullo Abdusamatovmathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of SciencesSallie BaliunasastronomerHarvard-Smithsonian Center for AstrophysicsTim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of WinnipegRobert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook UniversityIan Clarkhydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.  Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of AucklandDavid Douglasssolid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of RochesterDon Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington UniversityWilliam M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State UniversityWilliam Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopyPrinceton UniversityOle Humlum, professor of geology at the University of OsloWibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for ClimatologyDavid Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of DelawareAnthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of MissouriTad Murtyoceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of OttawaTim Pattersonpaleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada. Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide. Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego..Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie UniversityNicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke UniversityTom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of OsloFred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of VirginiaWillie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for AstrophysicsRoy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in HuntsvilleHenrik SvensmarkDanish National Space CenterGeorge H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State UniversityJan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of OttawaSyun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris). Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State UniversityJohn Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCCreports. Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National LaboratoryDavid Deming, geology professor at the University of OklahomaIvar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteVincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global ChangeAntonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists. Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.

May 22, 14 7:51 am  · 
 · 
Non Sequitur

Volunteer, what's your point? Even smart people believe (in this case, wrongfully) dumb things. Appealing to authority is a rather obvious and easily ridiculed logical fallacy.

May 22, 14 8:19 am  · 
 · 
Volunteer

So people who have advanced degrees from respected universities in the matter under discussion and a lifetime of research in those fields should be discounted in favor the latest preachment of Al Gore and Bob Kerry? Not only discounted but shouted down? Curious position to say the least.

May 22, 14 9:19 am  · 
 · 
Non Sequitur

Whosssssses.

well, that went right over your head.

May 22, 14 9:34 am  · 
 · 
3tk

Going to back to original question, I would think cost; there's a point of diminishing returns (financially, and including money), some 'net-zero' standards are easy to meet for some types of construction, others not so much.

I'm assuming y'all who are debating climate change in the thread has looked at the models, their assumptions, limitations, and flaws to come to their own conclusions?  I've sat through a fair number of conversations and dissertation defenses of those that do the modeling - only thing I get is that the last 30yrs data doesn't sit comfortably in any model that works over larger scales of time; some of those models try to account for post-industrialization anthropocentric changes and that seems to fit.  Authorities said the earth was flat at one point so gathering up high officials and academics doesn't do much good other than point to the fact that a lot of people seem to think it's worth looking into. 

p.s. academics are really only good at their focus - and not everyone in geoscience or atmospheric science focuses on climate modeling.

May 22, 14 9:42 am  · 
 · 
Volunteer

NS, Guess I don't have my sarcasm detection glasses on this morning. My bad. Thanks!

May 22, 14 9:45 am  · 
 · 
Non Sequitur

Volunteer, the point was that listing people based on a generalized agreement on a controversial subject is never a strong, or even respectable, position... for either side. Some of the names you've listed I recognize as not deniers per-se but people who refuse to take a definite side without sufficient evidence. What they consider evidence however is another discussion and the quality of that varies greatly between the individuals hence why grouping them as a whole does nothing: it merges the crack-pots with the realists and out of that grouping the loudest and craziest will stand out more... and confuse the hell out of people looking at the subject from a layman's point of view.

The point is, climate change and global warming are different things and anyone can cherry-pick statistics and make lists of supporters for either side.

May 22, 14 9:58 am  · 
 · 

Volunteer, you left a few off your list, including

Koch Industries, Murphy Oil Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Corporation, ExxonMobil Corporation, Valero Energy Corporation, Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Caterpillar Inc., Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Peabody Energy Corporation, Denbury Resources Inc., NextEra Energy, Inc., Tesoro Corporation, TECO Energy, Inc, DTE Energy Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, Progress Energy, Inc, Xcel Energy Inc., Waste Management, Inc., FMC Corporation, Boeing Company, General Electric Company, Ameren Corporation, Applied Materials, Inc., Sempra Energy, NRG Energy, Inc., Alcoa Inc., NIKE, Inc., AES Corporation and the host of PACs and corporate industry groups they fund.

May 22, 14 10:54 am  · 
 · 
Volunteer

Actually the listings I posted are ALL individuals. Many are tenured professors who can call BS for what it is.

May 22, 14 12:01 pm  · 
 · 
ReddishEgret

Even ExxonMobil acknowledges climate change. Get with the times, man.

May 22, 14 12:38 pm  · 
 · 

Greenwashing. They fund denial groups in order to prevent legislative action that might impact profits. Reminds me of BP's green sunburst logo. 

Volunteer: the Koch brothers are individuals and they profit massively from fossil fuel in all its forms. They also pay people to represent their interests. And if you truly believe that taking billions of tons of geologically sequestered material and dumping it into the atmosphere has no effect on the biosphere, good for you. That kind of obstinate stupidity is something to be proud of. 

May 22, 14 1:07 pm  · 
 · 
curtkram

if exxon accepts science, who's paying volunteer?

can you really disregard the conclusion of 97% of climate scientists, while touting the academic credentials of the 3% who disagree?  of course you can.  ignore most of the facts, then criticize people for ignoring the few that have been designed to support your dogma.  the only way this conversation could sink any lower is to bring in the nazis.

oh, i just reread volunteers post again.  looks like we're talking about genocide now?

These skeptics are usually smeared as "deniers"as a propanganda tool  to link them ti the "Holocaust deniers" of course

it's like paying chess with a 5 year old.  you hope they learn at least a little how to play, but you mostly just expect a temper tantrum.

May 22, 14 1:19 pm  · 
 · 
gwharton

LOL at these battling lists of authorities. Again, they are totally irrelevant to the scientific merits, or lack thereof, of AGW alarmism. There was a time, not so long ago, when all the most prestigious, authoritative, and credentialed experts believed the Earth was the center of the Solar System. It was a settled issue with a large consensus among all the authorities of the age.

It also was not true.

Any argument that refers to the numbers or identities of the people who support or deny it is not scientific. It is political: an attempt to circumvent argument on merits by an appeal to social proof. Human beings are social animals, so this can be an effective rhetorical device for silencing opposition. But it sure as hell isn't scientific in any way.

We're seeing a lot more of this sort of thing in our society these days, and it's is a worrisome symptom of the degradation of several of the core intellectual traditions of western civilization. Many people, particularly those in positions of authority, have become extremely allergic to dissent and respond to it with moral condemnation, emotional outrage, and appeals to tribal loyalty rather than dialog. That is a very bad omen and that kind of behavior should be challenged wherever it appears, regardless of who is doing it, lest it metastasize into something worse.

May 22, 14 1:21 pm  · 
 · 
curtkram

help me out here gwharton.  are you suggesting the minority opinion of scientists should be held to a higher standard due to the fact the minority was right once somewhere around the 16th century?  or are you saying we shouldn't listen to scientists who spend their lives studying these issues at all, unless they conform to the preestablished beliefs nurtured by fox news or whatever other source your climate denial comes from?  or, are you suggesting it isn't fox news that's feeding your beliefs, but rather the fact that your education background in drawings pictures of buildings and finance has placed you in a better position to determine the causes and effects of climate change, when compared to people who are actually competent in that field?

what makes you believe the climate isn't changing, or that people haven't had an effect on the climate?  it can't be the science, because the scientific studies that support your claim are in the minority.  if you have developed your opinion from actual research, either you've cherry picked only those studies that conform to your beliefs, or by some really unlikely coincidence, you've just passed over most of it.

do you know why people in the 16th century believed the sun revolved around the earth?  because that's what they church told them to believe, and then threatened them with hell and excommunication if they claimed otherwise.  it's not a realistic comparison to today, where scientists have peer review journals and testing each other's hypotheses is encouraged.

May 22, 14 1:39 pm  · 
 · 
Non Sequitur

"it's like paying chess with a 5 year old.  you hope they learn at least a little how to play, but you mostly just expect a temper tantrum"

Curt, perhaps it is more likely that the 5 year-old flips the board and runs it over with their tricycle claiming that's how the game should be played.

Gwharton, the listing of for & against reminds me of Project Steve from a few years back. Rather interesting parallel:  http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

May 22, 14 1:42 pm  · 
 · 
Volunteer

You seem to think that everyone who questions global warming is on the take from the oil companies. No one accuses you of being willing to sell your reputation for a few dollars; why do you think distinguished scientists with reputations built up over a lifetime would sell theirs? I am no fan of the oil companies, I think atmospheric pollution, especially in Los Angeles and DC up through Boston, is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed. The chemical by-products of incompletely oxidized long-chain hydrocarbons can be very toxic. That is different than saying that carbon dioxide and water vapor, which are used by plants in photosynthesis, and which are being continuously taken out of the atmosphere as well, are a threat.

May 22, 14 1:46 pm  · 
 · 
gwharton

curtkram,

You're arguing with your straw-man idea of what I'm saying, not what I'm actually saying. Step outside of your tribal domain for a minute, drop all the rhetorical flourishes (e.g. Deniers!, FauxNews!, SettledScience!, Consensus!) and re-read what I wrote from the presumption that I am not part of the tribe opposing yours (because I'm not). Then take a deep breath and start over.

I've never said the climate isn't changing. In fact, I've said the exact opposite. Of course the climate is changing. It's ALWAYS changing, and always will be. That's what climate is: the sum effect of lots and lots of environmental conditions that are in a state of constant flux over time.

What I AM saying is that there is no significant evidence to support the theory that there is significant global warming in recent decades caused by human activity, and furthermore that the methods and advocacy employed by those who have been promoting this idea are unscientific and highly political. You seem to be hyper-critical when it comes to determining the motives of those who disagree with your prejudices, and hyper-gullible when it comes to the presumptive motives of those who support them. Let me suggest to you that as you are freaking out about the Koch brothers or whichever particular Judas Goat you're focused on these days, that your own team is playing your credulity for their own purposes. Or do you think it's just a coincidence that all the policies proposed by the advocates of AGW just happen to be perfectly tailored to increasing their power and wealth at the expense of their opponents? Al Gore is a billionaire now mainly because of his political activism on AGW. And yet you seem to give him a pass for that. And never mind that the vast majority of the academics and institutions who are pushing this idea have been using it to channel lots of money their way. That couldn't possibly be relevant to their motives, amirite?

And why was it that the Catholic Church pushed the Ptolemaic Model of the Solar System? Politics. And why is the official power structure of the present day pushing so hard for AGW? Could it possibly be for the same reason?

May 22, 14 2:06 pm  · 
 · 

there is no significant evidence to support the theory that there is significant global warming in recent decades caused by human activity

 

 

So burning fossil fuels (releasing geologically sequestered carbon into the atmosphere) and deforestation (human industrial activity) are without impact on the biosphere?

the methods and advocacy employed by those who have been promoting this idea are unscientific and highly political

Everything is political, especially the attempts to stifle science. Unscientific seems to be whatever you disagree with. Been to the Creation Museum lately?

That is different than saying that carbon dioxide and water vapor, which are used by plants in photosynthesis, and which are being continuously taken out of the atmosphere as well, are a threat.

Global deforestation continues at the rate of about 3.5 square miles per hour, reducing the rate of recovery of CO2 and water vapor from the atmosphere. Accumulation of these in the atmosphere is proven to cause the greenhouse effect.

Unless of course you don't believe in basic science.

May 22, 14 2:34 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

Volunteer, you say photosynthesis relies on co2.  Correct.  So don't you think that when we reduce the number of plants and increase the amount of co2 through human activity we increase the net amount of co2 in the atmosphere.   It's common sense.  The more co2 in the atmosphere the warmer the planet is.  Period.  Simple.  By your own point to deny global warming would mean that you need to deny a few simple solid facts.  One, that burning fossil fuels creates co2.  Two, that deforestation is occurring, three that co2 increase is directly correlated to temp increase (greenhouse effect).  All three of these things are facts.  

May 22, 14 2:40 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

When we then look at simultaneous problems like the melting permafrost and the  potential collapse of the ocean evology We are looking at a serious serious problem.  50% of the worlds co2 is processed into o2 by the phytoplankton.   

May 22, 14 2:47 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

Also can't forget about the melting ice caps and the albedo effect.  

May 22, 14 2:49 pm  · 
 · 
gwharton

Miles,

Burning fossil fuels does contribute CO2 to the atmosphere. However, it is not the primary source of atmospheric CO2, even by a long stretch. Nor is it at all clear how sensitive the global climate is to CO2 levels temperature-wise. Clearly, the AGW climate models have got that totally wrong, since they keep predicting climatic changes that keep not happening.

As far as deforestation goes, it does have a substantial effect on the ecology of the areas where it occurs. No question about that. But the global effect is much less clear. In particular, the last several decades have seen a substantial increase in global plant coverage. According to NASA, the planet is getting more green, not less. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/

May 22, 14 2:56 pm  · 
 · 
ReddishEgret

And why is the official power structure of the present day pushing so hard for AGW? 

If "the official power structure of the present day" was pushing so hard for action on climate change, then why hasn't the US signed the Kyoto Protocol? Why was Copenhagen such a flop? Why is there a deregulated fracking boom? Why are some states fighting renewable energy incentive programs?

May 22, 14 2:57 pm  · 
 · 
gwharton

jla-x,

The polar ice caps are currently increasing, not decreasing. http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/latest-data-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html

May 22, 14 2:58 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

All of these things listed are well understood.  This ain't string theory it's basic science.  What the effects will be on civilization is debatable.  We really don't know how or if people will adapt.   My guess would be that some people will do fine and others will suffer.  We will likely see IMO a dark age for the majority with a few thriving areas.   

May 22, 14 2:59 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

Gw.  That article says the area of ice has decreased while the volume has increased.  This implies that the ice is deeper but less surface to reflect sun.  

May 22, 14 3:02 pm  · 
 · 
curtkram

drop all the rhetorical flourishes

you mean like hyper-critical, hyper-gullible, freaking out, Judas Goat (?)

there is evidence that the temperature of the ocean is rising, right?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120401135345.htm

this is not contrary to volunteer's claim that temperatures are cooling.  i don't know where his study is from, but assuming it's valid, someone put a thermometer somewhere (or some places) and temperatures went down.  despite the fact that things are getting colder, the glaciers are still melting.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060140/abstract

https://nsidc.org/

so you're dismissing the evidence that suggests global warming is happening, and only considering the evidence that supports the conclusion you want, which is that there is no global warming.  if not fox news, where does your desire to not believe in global warming come from, or otherwise why are you dismissing the evidence that it does exist and only accepting the evidence that agrees with you?

so global warming really is happening, but it may not be "significant" enough for you.  the other thing you seem to disagree with is whether human activity influences climate change.  this is a difficult question to answer precisely, due to the fact that there are a lot of different thing that effect the climate.  i consider the overwhelming agreement among those who study this to be a good indicator that people are probably influencing the climate.  this is different than the church repressing galileo's views.  today, these scientists can work together to test each other's theories and independently verify whether their conclusions are correct or not.  that system of peer review makes 'consensus' a useful tool in judging what's true or not.  galileo did not have peer review journals to help him develop and strengthen his case.

being an architect does not make you more qualified to say whether people have contributed to global warming when compared to those who are actually competent in that field.  so again, i'm asking why you chose to believe there is no global warming and that human activity doesn't contribute to climate change, despite the somewhat overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  if not from fox news, is there some other reason you just happened to miss the evidence that supports that view, and by coincidence you only have access to the information that supports that view?

i understand you don't believe people have had an effect on climate change.  dismissing the majority of experts in the field as a "strawman" argument isn't going to help you understand.  people are tyring to get the information in front of you to help you understand where you're wrong.  why not pay attention to them?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/talking-about-climate-change-how-weve-failed-and-how-we-can-fix-it-180951070/?no-ist

May 22, 14 3:06 pm  · 
 · 
JonathanLivingston

What the effects will be on civilization is debatable.  We really don't know how or if people will adapt. My guess would be that some people will do fine and others will suffer.  We will likely see IMO a dark age for the majority with a few thriving areas.

This is where our conversation should be focused. On something individuals particularly architects can do something about. This is what is lacking in almost all of the conversations I have seen around the topic. There can be distinct architectural and planning interventions that address potential outcomes. 

May 22, 14 3:09 pm  · 
 · 
gwharton

"Overwhelming evidence" ... let's look at the raw data, shall we?

RSS Satellite data shows no significant increase in global warming since 1997. Even IPCC admits this, though they're pitching it as a "pause" for obvious reasons. It has forced them to quietly revise all their models, however, in order to avoid the embarrassment of having been very wrong.

Now, there may in fact be a broader warming trend in the global climate taking place that could resume at any time. I don't dispute that, and actually think a warming trend would be a net positive for human quality of life over the next couple of centuries. We can certainly bracket the measurement data in a number of different ways that indicate that is the case. But the important point here is that the actual climate data DO NOT MATCH what the AGW alarmists have been predicting for some time now. In fact, that's a pattern that goes back many years. I'm old enough (barely) to remember when the alarm was all about imminent global cooling and an impending return of the Ice Age. That was urgent and it was SCIENCE! and it was, to put it charitably, premature. And of course, we all remember when Global Warming was conveniently re-branded as Climate Change because, as I noted above, the warming wasn't actually happening the way it was predicted.

And, of course, there's the uncomfortable reality that the climate data we DO have aren't very reliable until we started being systematic about collecting it 20 or so years ago. And it's conjectural at best if we go back more than about a hundred years. When talking about climate change - real climate change - we're talking about a time scale of thousands of years at least. It's just not reasonable or scientifically justified to take 20-30 years of good data, combine it with a few decades of questionable data and a lot of conjecture about tree rings, and pitch that as certain or definitive in any way whatsoever. With a hundred years of good data, you'd have a start. With a thousand years of good data, you'd have the basis for a serious analysis. Until then, nothing is even close to settled about any of it.

Bringing this back to architecture and sustainability strategies, why we would want to design buildings that way is just as important as how or how much.

May 22, 14 4:48 pm  · 
 · 

gwharton: Next you will be standing in front of a snowdrift in February telling us that global warming is hoax. You want us to have millennia worth of documented evidence but then cite "increasing polar ice caps" with a cherry-picked study showing a single year's variation from 2012-3.

This is contrary to NASA studies over the last 32 years that show a very different picture. In fact, a number of countries are now competing for mineral rights to once ice-locked sea beds, and new shipping routes have opened up through seas that have historically been ice-bound.

Oh, and by the way, deep ice cores are accurate indicators of climate conditions going back 800,000 years or so. There is a lot of accurate historical record in this science.

Antarctic ice cores show us that the concentration of CO2 was stable over the last millennium until the early 19th century. It then started to rise, and its concentration is now nearly 40% higher than it was before the industrial revolution (see Fig. 2). Other measurements (e.g. isotopic data) confirm that the increase must be due to emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel usage and deforestation. Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years.

Photo

 

The fastest large natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 20ppmv (parts per million by volume) in 1000 years (a rate seen during Earth’s emergence from the last ice age around 12,000 years ago). CO2 concentration increased by the same amount, 20ppmv, in the last 11 years! Methane (CH4), another important greenhouse gas, also shows a huge and unprecedented increase in concentration over the last two centuries. Its concentration is now much more than double its pre-industrial level. This is mainly due to the increase in emissions from sources such as rice fields, ruminant animals and landfills, that comes on top of natural emissions from wetlands and other sources.

Or maybe that's bad science, too?

May 22, 14 6:06 pm  · 
 · 
curtkram

let's look at the raw data, shall we?

so i read that, and i thought 'here gwharton has provided some real data which he may have used to form his opinion.'  so, instead of just taking in the 30 second soundbyte like the average listener of conservative radio talk shows, i clicked the link to read what they were saying that would lead you to believe:

What I AM saying is that there is no significant evidence to support the theory that there is significant global warming in recent decades caused by human activity,

what they said on the website you linked includes:

  • Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly.  The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
  • Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
  • The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming.  See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

---- and -----

Over the oceans, we can monitor decadal-scale changes in the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere using our merged water vapor product, derived from measurements made by SSM/I, SSMIS, AMSRE, and WindSat.  For a description of this dataset, see the Atmospheric Water Vapor Measurement page.  As the Earth's troposphere warms, it is able to "hold" more water vapor without the vapor condensing into clouds and then rain.  Assuming the relative humidity remains constant, the amount of extra water vapor is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, and is about 7% more water vapor per degree Kelvin increase in temperature.    The global increase in water vapor is easy to see in Figure 5, which shows the global mean time series of total column water vapor over the worlds oceans, expressed in percent change from average. 

 

Figure 5.  Time series of total column vapor anomaly, averaged over the world's oceans, from 60S to 60N. 

 

This increase can be formally attributed to human-induced climate change -- see Santer et al, 2007.  While there is a substantial overall increase in water vapor, it is by no means spatially uniform.  Figure 6 shows a map of water vapor trends over the 1988-2012 period

-------

so, you couldn't have formed your opinion by reading their data, since they are very clear that a) global warming exists and b) it's caused in part by human activity.

all i was asking is why you think you know more about this stuff than the competent people, and why you choose to disregard evidence that doesn't support your opinion.  i'm humble enough to say that i don't know everything, and sometimes rely on help from people smarter than me.  in this case, i'm counting on the vast majority of scientists researching this information to analyze it so i can go about my life as an architect.  i don't have the education in meteorology or any other science to do that as well as they can.  your claims that these groups don't understand their own research as well as you do doesn't seem to hold much weight.

May 22, 14 7:44 pm  · 
 · 
gwharton

Ice core data is for CO2 levels, Miles. Not temperature.

May 22, 14 8:14 pm  · 
 · 

By measuring the ratios of different water isotopes in polar ice cores, we can determine how temperature in Antarctica and Greenland has changed in the past. The oldest ice core we have was drilled by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) from Dome C on the Antarctic plateau. It extends back 800,000 years and shows a succession of long cold ‘glacial’ periods, interspersed roughly every 100,000 years by warm ‘interglacial’ periods (of which the last 11,000 years is the most recent). This succession of events is well-known from other records, and the coldest periods in Antarctica are the times when we had ice ages. 

Ignorance is lack of knowledge. Stupidity is lack of intelligence.

May 22, 14 9:00 pm  · 
 · 
cg_8
The notion that 2030 is a solution to the climate change problem is simply a pat on our backs.

Although, I'll say I do appreciate that the challenge exists. Let's see how much we take that challenge seriously if we have another recession and claw our way to find work that simply is not capable of the word "sustainable" being used as often as the word "cheap".

My opinion is if we truly wanted a real solution to climate change, we need to fund research. Research in things like chemical engineering, where they can synthetically create things that actually absorb CO2, thereby cleaning the air. You want a true 2030 challenge? How about one that actually creates a solution (my proposal above, or one similar) and not one that "kind of" addresses it in the most broadest way possible. Although, I still believe we should try. I also believe that we do try. Some more than others, but we all do in some way shape or form.
May 23, 14 12:38 am  · 
 · 
x-jla

cg-8, they already have those things...they call em trees.  

May 23, 14 5:00 am  · 
 · 
Non Sequitur


 

May 23, 14 7:43 am  · 
 · 
Volunteer

Jla-x, There is no money in "trees". You gotta have high-tech, computer-controlled machines sucking the co2 out of the air to be trendy. Then you can have a stock offering on the co2 vacuum machine manufacturer on one hand while you are making profits with your carbon-credits trading scheme with the other hand. Might even make enough to have your own corporate jet. Try to keep up.

May 23, 14 8:02 am  · 
 · 
3tk

Not all trees are net CO2 collectors...

So what's the worry?  We have a population bubble, it'll take care of itself sooner or later.

May 23, 14 10:11 am  · 
 · 

In the meantime, pump and dump, baby!

May 23, 14 10:14 am  · 
 · 
curtkram

Jonathan Livingston, apparenlty "urban resilience" is a movement trying to accomplish the goals you're setting.  i don't necessarily agree with it in the sense that you're just kind of pushing the problem onto the next generation, but maybe in 40 years i'll really wish someone had the foresight to design an environment where i'll be less likely to die due to exposure or inclement weather.

May 23, 14 11:19 am  · 
 · 

Sustainability isn't architecture. It's consumerism and politics.

May 23, 14 1:16 pm  · 
 · 
gwharton

Odds are good that all the alarmist predictions are wrong. Their track record so far is laughably bad.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

Also, this thread is proof that most people don't understand epistemology of science or how science works.

May 23, 14 1:20 pm  · 
 · 
Purpleshrubh

This survey is actually pretty cool! I like how it is organized and am definitely interested to see the results. It's simple, but I'm betting there are still a lot of answers that many people in the profession do not know. Thanks for sharing!!

May 23, 14 1:38 pm  · 
 · 
curtkram

gwharton, you're saying the scientists don't understand how science works.  you honestly think you're smarter than everyone?  even people who are experts in fields unrelated to yours?  how does one arrive at such a ludicrous notion?  has anything ever happened in your real life that would actually support that, or is it all in your head?

obviously (to most people) a debate over whether climate change is happening and is effected by people is pointless, since it's settled science.  we still have a lot to learn, so it's a good thing the people who actually do understand science are still trying to learn more, unlike those who have given up on thinking all together.  it's like you see education as a bad thing for some reason.  it's not.

the real question, as i see it, is where gwharton go the idea that global warming isn't happening, which lead him to accept only opinions that confirm his belief and cast aside all other evidence contrary to that position, and why he doesn't try to expand his understanding of the issue by learning from the sources he disagrees with, even if that means he might have to admit he isn't as smart as he thought.  is it pride?  arrogance?  paranoia?

the problem isn't that you can find someone on the internet that wants to spin something into "evidence" that global warming isn't happening, or that people can't effect the climate.  that's easy.  the problem is that you refuse accept any contrary opinion.  your justifications are incredibly weak.  you just linked a list of bad predictions.  how the hell does that invalidate the widely accepted consensus that global warming is happening, and that human activity is a contributing factor?

May 23, 14 2:06 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

I'm less afraid of the flooding and drought than I am of the way people will likely react.  I'll evaporate sea water and hunt squirrels if I have to, but not much I can do when my fellow human decides to blow my brains out for a few apples.  If history is any predictor of the future we will probably be the most threatening natural disaster.  War  is usually the way we solve resource problems.  Thats gonna suck.   

May 23, 14 2:34 pm  · 
 · 
3tk

better continue working on that bunker...

May 23, 14 2:39 pm  · 
 · 
gwharton

curtkram,

You seem to have some issues with reading comprehension, so let me clarify for you:

I have never once said that global warming isn't happening. I have said that it is not at all clear that observed temperature variations have a man-made cause. Nor is it at all clear that the trend direction of observed temperature variation is monotonic and linear. And even less clear that the magnitude of the variation should be cause for alarm.

In fact, I happen to agree that the evidence clearly shows a warming period during the 20th century during the period in which we have reliable data. And it also shows that warming period halting withing the last 15 years or so. That's a scientific result.

I have further said that the claims that the etiology of climate variation is largely man-made do not conform to the scientific method and show lots of signs of being politically motivated as well as a product of groupthink. In fact, what they really look like is bullshit (in the technical sense, as defined by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt - read his seminal paper on the subject here: http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf). What I mean by that is summarized by Le Wik's overview of Frankfurt:

"Frankfurt argues that bullshit either can be true or can be false; hence, the bullshitter is a man or a woman whose principal aim — when uttering or publishing bullshit — is to impress the listener and the reader with words that communicate an impression favorable to the speaker, with no concern for the truth of what they're saying. Likewise, the bullshitter is not concerned with consistency between what they're saying at the moment, and anything they've previously said. Consequently, "the bullshitter is faking things, but that does not necessarily mean he gets them wrong."[2] He simply doesn't care. In contrast, the liar must know the truth of the matter under discussion in order to better conceal it from the listener or the reader being deceived with a lie, while the bullshitter’s sole concern is personal advancement and advantage to his or her agenda. Bullshit thus is a greater enemy of the truth than are lies."

That's it.

In fact, I'm open to considering the theory that human activity is substantially changing the global climate, but so far there hasn't been a solid scientific argument made showing reasonable grounds for believing that to be the case. I'm not the smartest guy in the world, nor am I an expert on climate science. However, I do know a fair bit about quite a few things, and am smart enough to understand when arguments don't make sense and people pushing them are trying to dodge criticism.

Your own emphasis on the political rhetoric of AGW (e.g. "Deniers", "Settled Science", "Consensus", etc.) only reinforces my opinion that you don't know what you're talking about. Science operates by corrigibility. That is a central aspect of the scientific method. You make statements or propose theories, support them with both evidence and logic, make predictions based on what you propose, and continue to refine and revise as your results and theories are challenged and new evidence or methods become available. There is quite literally NO SUCH THING as "settled science." The idea that there could be is blatantly unscientific in the most fundamental sense. Challenging results absolutely IS part of the scientific method. So when I see so-called "scientists" vilifying those who are challenging them, conducting PR campaigns to discredit those who disagree, and using emotionalism to gain support, I know with a high level of certainty that they are not doing science when they engage in those behaviors. They are quite literally being anti-scientific when they do so.

Just because something is peer-reviewed and published doesn't make it true. In fact, more than 95% of published results in scientific research are ultimately shown to be false. That's how science works. Over time, through challenge, falsifiability, new data, experiment, etc. we are able to separate a few kernels of probable truth from all the chaff. Doing that is a very rigorous process in which there is no room for PR campaigns or silencing of dissent through intimidation. Dissent is an essential requirement of the process.

(In fact, there's plenty of dissent. A large number, maybe even a majority, of climate scientists do not agree with AGW. So much for "consensus".)

So, the fact that these AGW alarmists are trying so hard to avoid challenges and silence dissent indicates that they are not scientists and are not being scientific. They are playing politics, and that's it. To the extent that you join that effort, you not being scientific either. So don't pretend that you are.

May 23, 14 2:45 pm  · 
 · 
pale shelter

Please note from the IPCC Website:  'Summary for Policy Leaders' (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): you can download the 44 page report:

< " Human interference with the climate system IS occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems...(1)" >

footnote (1): “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid 20th century.”

haha; I get enjoyment out of that. The world coalition and leader of reporting climate change - the IPCC - begins its assessment addressed to world leaders with a fact statement... but sub-notes/sites that it actually is not a fact - instead a prediction.

- wanted to throw that out for discussion - please don't anyone assume my personal viewpoints!

May 23, 14 3:45 pm  · 
 · 
curtkram

pale shelter, instead of leading us to assume your personal viewpoints, why not just state them?  also, the second 'likely' statement includes the qualifier "dominant," so i don't think there is an inconsistency, though there is still a fair chance the editor didn't look close enough to catch all inconsistencies.

gwharton, i just read through most of your link you labeled "maybe even a majority."  from the article (in the introduction no less, won't take long to find it);

Indeed, while there is a broad consensus among climate scientists (IPCC, 2007a, 2007b), scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains

the term "consensus" isn't political rhetoric.  what it means is that there is a consensus.  that's in your link.  other than that, i'm not sure what you read, but i don't see how it supports your earlier assertion:

What I AM saying is that there is no significant evidence to support the theory that there is significant global warming in recent decades caused by human activity,

again, arguing global warming or mankind's effect on global warming is somewhat pointless.  what i'm more interested in is learning what happened that caused you to choose to believe that global warming isn't a problem and that human activity doesn't contribute.  it's just not a popular position for people who understand the science to hold.  also, i'm interested in understanding why you choose to hold on to research that says "skepticism remains" while disregarding the parts that say "there is broad consensus." 

a side note about the link you're using to support your claim, this is what they're studying:

Research context: an instrumental case

The petroleum industry in Alberta is an instrumental case (Stake, 1995; per Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006) to examine the debate of climate change expertise given the economic centrality of the oil industry, the oil sands as a controversial energy source, and the dominance of professionals that gives them a privileged position as influencers of government and industry policy. Frames are always socio-historical constructions and, thus, time and location play an important role.

The petroleum industry is the largest single private sector investor in Canada (~CAD 35 billion in 2009) (CAPP, 2009) and it is projected that the petroleum industry will contribute CAD 1.7 trillion to Canada’s GDP and create over 456,000 jobs over the next 25 years (Canadian Energy Research Institute, 2009). There are 540 multinational integrated, midsized, and junior oil and gas companies in Canada (nearly all headquartered in Calgary, Alberta) with operations worldwide. Further, Canada’s oil reserves are considered to be a strategic resource (see Figure 1) with most reserves in Alberta and the oil sands. Given the relative political stability of Canada as a source of oil to the US, the Alberta oil sands are undergoing a CAD 250 billion expansion (AII, 2008).

May 23, 14 4:30 pm  · 
 · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

Archinect


This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.

  • ×Search in: