Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 Next
Comments 8751 to 8800:
-
Hank11198 at 09:06 AM on 10 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Ignorant Guy @ 19
I don’t know where you found a 10-20% increase in wind speeds but I would be interested to see a link. Here is a link to a study on global warming and hurricanes. (I may not have inserted the link so it can be one-clicked so I included the text)
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
That study showed a 4% increase in wind speed per degree Celsius increase. For a 2C increase that would be an increase in wind speed of 108%. Wind power dissipation may well be as you say proportional to the cube of wind speed but structures are based on wind pressures which are a function of the wind speed squared. That would be an increase in pressure of 17%. The 10x comment was made by dkeierleber during a discussion of designing safe buildings. I don’t think I was being unreasonable in assuming he was referring to wind pressures in that discussion since wind pressures are how buildings are loaded. Right now the design code requires in southern Flordia a building to be designed for 180 MPH for risk category II and 200 MPH for risk categories III and IV. A 10x increase in pressure would change that to 570 MPH for risk category II and 630 MPH for risk categories III and IV. I do think that is harmful to the cause of those that think there is a climate crisis. Right now the Glacial National Park is taking down signs that state the Glacial will be gone in 2020. I don’t know what was behind them putting those signs up to begin with but as you can imagine the deniers are having a field day with it.
As for 10x the cost of damages you may be right although that still seems to me a very high bar. For everything I’ve read the damages are usually due mostly to flooding, not so much wind. My understanding is that rising sea levels, flooding, and heat & drought will be more costly than increased winds.
-
Hank11198 at 08:15 AM on 10 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
OPOF @ 18
As I’ve said I can’t speak for codes in other countries. In the US the IBC has been legislated in all 50 states and anyone demanding those laws be broken are subject to prosecution. Clients I have dealt with did not even know the code enough to know what the design requirements were.
My argument has mainly been with dkeierleber’s comments that building built previously were structurally better than today and that today’s codes are written by people with high school education. That is simply not true.
As for structural failures because of a lack of proper maintenance you are absolutely correct. In the US, ASCE has been warning for years that our infrastructure is being poorly maintained. They give a grade every year and for the last several years it has been a D-.
It certainly appears the pedestrian bridge you referenced had design problems. That doesn’t mean the design codes are responsible for engineers that don’t follow the code. And quicker and cheaper does not mean the structure is not safe. We have been lowering the cost and time to build structures for years with better materials and manufacturing technology. It is an engineer’s job to design the most efficient structure that meets all safety requirements.
Maybe you don’t have an answer to why the US failed to investigate the potential risk of the A36 specification is because it’s very difficult to predict potential risk. As they say 20/20 hindsight is always correct. But being able to predict the future is difficult. I just did a search for structural failures and they happen all over the world including Canada.
Resistance to change is not limited to the US. All countries and most individuals struggle with change. I have no idea why railway rail spacing has anything to do with this. Railway rail spacings are different in multiple countries around the world. And profit-motivated resistance to correction is present in all countries, not just the US.
I completely agree with you about the dangers of 1.5C increase. We are on the same side about the need to rapidly end fossil fuel use. I don’t know what you have done but I’ve put in solar panels and changed out my A/C units to more efficient units which dropped my average electrical bill from $350/month to $136/month. But that’s a different subject from saying the structural codes are written by high school graduates.
-
nigelj at 05:34 AM on 10 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Some scientists and commentators are talking about a need for category 6 hurricanes here and here.
We have millions of buildings designed to resist certain wind strengths. With more frequent winds above what the buildings are designed to withstand, you get more damage overall, and this is where we are heading. Given the lifespan of buildings is typically 50 years minimum and often considerably more, a lot of buildings will be at risk, particularly housing. Strengthening these structures will be an expensive pain in the proverbial.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:45 AM on 10 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Ignorant Guy @19, Good Point.
Defining how bad climate change consequences will potentially be should not be expected to be restricted to "Specific Units of Measure". Like attempts to perform economic evaluations, many things cannot, and should not, be expected to be fully Quantifiable. What can be quantified can be when it is reasonable to do so, along with all of the unquantifiable considerations.
Things being 10x worse is indeed a murky point.
The fundamental related understanding is that it is unacceptable for any individual to act in a way that potentially creates negative consequences for another individual. That understanding involves many unquantifiable considerations. And it does not allow a trade-off where one person decides it is OK to have negative impacts on another because they 'mathed it out and overall it is Good (they figure that their benefit exceeds the harm they think they do to others)'.
What is actually important is to stay focused on: Any negative consequence inflicted on future generations, or Other current day people, due to a lack of correction of harmful unsustainable ways of living is simply Unacceptable.
In spite of the fact that it is a distraction to discussion of how much worse things will be due to human caused climate change there is some merit in those things being discussed, even extreme potential consequences. Structural engineers have to consider possible effects that are not covered by Code Minimum Requirements (at least responsible ones do that - including considerations of safety of construction of their structures).
I am aware of the cube relationship for wind. A 10x increase of maximum wind force requires more than doubling the wind speed. So I suggest that is a 'long way off'.
However, I did not mention that how far into the future that worse condition is is actually not a relevant factor. The future of humanity on this planet is potentially more than a billion years. It does not matter how much later that worse condition is caused by harmful unsustainable activity (some economists incorrectly believe that such future costs can be Discounted, when they incorrectly also believe that they can quantify all aspects of this issue for Their analysis).
However, on the point of Hansen's concerns, the following 2017 Washington Post article, "Ancient storms could have hurled huge boulders, scientists say – raising new fears of rising seas" refers to a study that suggests that the dramatically worse impacts that were part of what Hansen was expressing concern about (boulders being moved by waves) could happen with lower wind speeds.
-
John Hartz at 00:52 AM on 10 January 2020Fossil fuel political giving outdistances renewables 13 to one
Adding fuel to the fire...
Thanks to the coal industry’s rapid decline, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions likely dropped slightly last year. But don’t get too used to that trend, because the oil and gas industry is poised to more than offset that reduction. By 2025, oil and gas companies have plans to expand enough to release as much new greenhouse gas pollution as 50 new coal-fired power plants.
According to state and federal records, oil, gas, and petrochemical industries are on track to build or expand 157 projects—such as refineries, oil and gas drilling sites, and plastics plants—in the next five years. New research from the Environmental Integrity Project shows that the projects could emit 227 million tons of additional greenhouse gas pollution by the end of 2025. That means the U.S. could produce 30 percent more greenhouse gas pollution by 2025 than it did in 2018.
“This analysis shows that we’re heading in the wrong direction and really need to slow emissions growth from the oil, gas, and petrochemical industries,” Courtney Bernhardt, Research Director at the Environmental Integrity Project, said in a statement.
The US Oil and Gas Industry's 5-Year Plan Is a Climate and Health Nightmare by Dharma Noor, Earther, Gizmodo, Jan 8, 2020
-
Doug Bostrom at 18:36 PM on 9 January 2020Fossil fuel political giving outdistances renewables 13 to one
Putting that $359 million spent on influence by fossil fuel interests during the 2017-2018 election into perspective: 2017-2018 revenue for US oil and gas was ~$317 billion. These companies are buying their own customized reality for barely over 1/10th of 1% of their revenue.
Really, corruption should be handled like taxation: a minimum percentage should be charged.Politicians selling us out for chump change add insult to injury.
-
Ignorant Guy at 17:35 PM on 9 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
There was some controversy about future storms going to be "10X worse" (mentioned first dkeierleber, #9) and Hank at #10 said that claims of storms 10X worse is unrealistic and unhelpful and then OPOF, #11, said "I [...] agree that wind forces 10X worse are a long way off". But "worse" is not a SI-unit or in any way rigorously formally defined. I don't think what was meant from the beginning was 10X windspeeds. I tried to find the paper by Hansen 2015 to look for mentioning of 10X worse storms but didn't really find it. I did find this:
"increment [...] as much as 10-20%. Such a percentage increase of wind speed in a storm translates into an increase of storm power dissipation by a factor ~1.4-2, because wind power dissipation is proportional to the cube of wind speed " (mentioned in "Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2°C Global Warming is Highly Dangerous", Hansen et al, 2015).
So wind power increases much faster than linear with wind speed. I can imagine then that damages also increases faster than linear with wind power. So it is not completely unreasonable to to foresee future storms to be 10X as destructive, "destruction" measured as cost of damages. -
nigelj at 06:09 AM on 9 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick Palmer @46, my experience of online denialists is similar, and they do indeed fall into those three groups. You could add another very small group of apolitical scientific cranks with massive dunning kruger (Victor over at RC). As my Dad used to say "it takes all sorts to make a world".
Dealing with politically motivated denialists frustrates me. Hard to know whether to delve into the politics, or just stick with the science, and let their politics be on show for people to see their motives and reach their own conclusions. However one thing is for sure, we have to try to win over as many people on the right of politics as possible, and violently attacking their world view won't do that. Discussion needs to be subtle and more upbeat. But you know that.
-
william5331 at 04:52 AM on 9 January 20202019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research
Agriculture, the 'bad boy' of many ecologists, could be a major part of the solution of putting carbon back into the soil which bad agricultural practices stetching back a few millenia has vented into the atmosphere. Read the three books by David R Montgomery, Dirt, Growing a Revolution and The Hidden Half of Nature for chapter and verse. What is great about the approach he reports on is that it improves the bottom line of farmers from the small-holding life-style-blocks right up to giant agri-businesses.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:07 AM on 9 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Hank @14,
I have seen foreign clients demand that their buildings in Canada be designed for less loading than the Canadian code (some claiming the USA code is Universal). The basis for their demand was that they did not believe that the code load was justified and as the client they thought they could dictate the design requirements (like they apparently could in other nations that did not require Registered Professional Engineer's to be gate-keepers against desires for things to be cheaper or done quicker).
And there have been cases of structure failures because of a lack of proper maintenance. In some cases the owner sought out an inspector who would deem everything OK like the Elliot Lake shopping plaza collapse (some people love being able to find someone who will say what they want to hear). Many bridges, including in the USA, are becoming disasters waiting to happen.
And a recent pedestrian bridge collapse while under construction in Florida is a dire warning about New Design. The video of the NTSB meeting is enlightening. That bridge was designed and built as an example of a quicker cheaper way to build bridges.
Regarding the delay in the USA updating their structural steel from the A36 standard: The delay I am referring to was not a delayed response to the identified tragedy of Northridge. I am referring to the fact that the old lower-strength A36 specification was very slow to be upgraded to the higher-strength more stringent specifications that were implemented for basic Structural Steel around the planet long before the problem of continuing to use that old lower quality specification was exposed by Northridge.
The change of structural steel production from raw-iron to recycled steel was the cause of the problem. A36 was written in those old days of raw production when contaminants in recycled steel did not need to be restricted by the A36 specification. Exactly why the USA failed to investigate the potential risks of continuing to use the A36 specification when recycled steel production began is a mystery I do not have an answer to. What I am aware of is the history of USA protectionist actions like the continued use of Imperial Units which delayed and limited the competition from foreign producers (but also limiting the ability of USA made products to be exported if their production did not go metric - the USA coming up with its own Railway Rail Spacing is an earlier example). That resistance to stop using Imperial can also be argued to be 'simple resistance to change'. But it is almost certain that there is more to it than just a resistance to change. I presume, in a similar way, the delay of updating the A36 was also more than just 'resistance to change' (which relates to dkeierleber's correct observations of the potentially serious negative consequences of pursuits of popularity and profit).
And that protectionist profit-motivated resistance to correction (that can also easily be popular) can be seen in the actions of certain factions in the USA and other nations as they fight against the corrections of unsustainable creation of negative consequences that are identified by the improved understanding of climate science.
The science is clear that total global impacts exceeding a 1.5C increase of global average surface temperature is unsafe (harmful) for future generations. There is fairly well understood significant negative consequences due to that amount of warming, And beyond 1.5C warming there are significant uncertainties regarding how much more negative things will be.
There is virtually no chance that there will be Positive Future Impacts of warming beyond 1.5C. And since perceptions of wealth today are so heavily based on unsustainable activity there is serious doubt about today's wealth continuing to exist in the future.
A correction to Sustainable Development, not just the rapid ending of fossil fuel use, is urgently required. Resistance to that required correction is seriously detrimental to the future of humanity. And the reality that change/correction resistance can be so powerfully fuelled by desires to Protect Developed Perceptions that are popular and profitable is a serious threat that humanity needs to figure out how to Govern and Limit.
The uncertainty regarding the severity of negative consequences of combined climate change impacts is more reason to more rapidly pursue Sustainable Development and all the changes and corrections of current incorrect over-development that are required.
-
tag at 03:18 AM on 9 January 2020It's not bad
It seems that one negative of the Artic melt is missing.
The amount of fresh water released by the Artic melt is diluting the Gulf Stream and has started to impede its normal circulation
This will bring intense cold to Europe as warm water will not reach the continent in winter
-
MA Rodger at 03:01 AM on 9 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
While the 'robust' discussion on the damage that would be wrought by a BAU future appears to have abated, I'm not surprised such discussion can become 'robust'. I think you need to keep firmly on mind what BAU is, on what it will cause climate-wise and also how quickly, if the consequences of BAU are to be discussed. And I would stick to temperature as a gauge of 'what it will cause.' SLR is too much of a long-term thing. According to IPCC AR5, even at +1.5ºC we are due 4 metres of SLR, evenyually.
As for what increased global temperatutre will bring, I note an article in the UK's Daily Mail that presents an interesting extreme, although there was already one critique of XR's Roger Hallam that made a similar claim. The Mail quotes a report from pension company Aviva saying:=
Aviva warns that the world is on track to warm by more than 3C by 2100 – double the 1.5C limit that was set in the 2016 Paris Agreement.
The fund manager estimates that warming on this scale would wipe £10trillion off the value of global stock markets.
The cost would rise to around £33trillion if temperatures rise by 6C. 'While the likelihood of that much warming is low, the results would be catastrophic,' the report said.
This mixing of the £33trillion cost (that is 30% of global share values) with it being 'catastrophic' does raise the question of 'catastrophic to whom?' It is perhaps pension-fund managers and presumably not the global population as a whole.
I note a similar conclusion on financial terms was given by Ken Caldeira when criticising Hallam:-
Climate damage has been discussed extensively in various IPCC reports and in the peer-reviewed academic literature. Estimates of climate change damage for this century, in business-as-usual scenarios, are typically in the range of a few percent of global GDP to tens-of-percent of GDP for the most extreme damage functions in the most extreme scenarios. There is no analysis of likely climate damage that has been published in the quality peer-reviewed literature that would indicate that there is any substantial likelihood that climate change could cause the starvation of 6 billion people by the end of this century.
So for those who are saying that +3.0ºC would leave 90% of the global economy functioning happily and that even +6.0ºC would still leaving two-thirds in tact; for such folk, the idea of +4.0ºC causing six billion deaths will take some explaining.
-
Nick Palmer at 00:24 AM on 9 January 20202019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research
I think the paper referenced above in the article is of enormous use to those who come up against the 'Mediaeval Warm Period was global' argument.
"No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common EraRaphael Neukom, Nathan Steiger, Juan José Gómez-Navarro, Jianghao Wang & Johannes P. Werner"
-
nigelj at 12:54 PM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Hank @16, thank's for the comment and I do understand there has to be a sensible compromise between code requirements on property protection versus cost. However it appears the buildings in the Canterbury earthquake suffered more damage than buildings in Japan and other places subject to the same forces. I recall discussion in our media on this but I can't find anything using google. I can tell you earthquake codes were reviewed.
It looks like our codes are weighted a long way towards lowest cost. However I doubt that has anything to do with the engineers on the committees that develop codes. In my experience structural engineers in NZ are very commited to tough building codes, I've worked with plenty of these guys. Several times they have recommended going above code.
However heres another couple of examples where ideology combined with cost cutting appears to have intruded. Our building code was revised in 1995 and the fire code was changed from something that included both safety and a mild level of property protection to just safety. And the construction code was changed removing the requirement for treated timber framing and metal flasings around windows etc, and this lead directly to an expensive leaky homes crisis.
Insulation requirements were downgraded to a bare minimum. During all this the government of the day was promoting deregulation, austerity, freedom of choice, lower costs, etc the whole neoliberal paradigm. These definitely look to be factors in the changes Ive mentioned.
While you dont want to over regulate and cause massive expense, these three examples of downgrading the code were stupidity and a disaster. As a result, the code was revised yet again, and insulation requirement was increased and we went back to treated timber etc around 2005.
-
Hank11198 at 11:52 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
@13 nigelj
Nigelj I can only speak for the US but I have researched the European codes since we sell around the world and their codes are very similar. There is a very logical reason buildings are designed to just prevent the building from collapsing during a high seismic event and it has nothing to do with neoliberal ideology.The forces on a building during a seismic event are a function of the building mass. The mass of a building results in loadings that are up to 8-10 times the forces due to extreme wind pressures. Therefore a building that is designed for extreme wind at $200/sq ft would be $1000/sq ft if designed to the same requirements. Just a foundation to support the additional weight would be massive. For the billionaires this might be acceptable, however a developer that was investing in a building for rent would never be able to find any clients. Therefore the tradeoff is a building that is safe for humans but at risk of having to be rebuilt or even destroyed if a high seismic event happened. This type of risk happens every day in the stock market.
With the committee that was writing the design code I served on there was never a discussion of trying to minimize the code requirements. There was lots of discussions about how to assure the code produced structures that were safe and operational. Structural engineers are the most sued engineering profession in the US. That’s not because they are incompetent or because they try to cut corners. It’s because structural failures are usually much more expensive, not to mention lethal, than designs in the other engineering professions. We lose a lot of sleep hoping we didn’t divide by 2 instead of multiplying by 2.
-
Hank11198 at 11:22 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
@12, dkeierleber
You have stated before that buildings built to standards of 1890 are structurally better than buildings built to current standards. Yet you have not provided any evidence of that. Nor have you stated what standards you are talking about in 1890.
If you are talking about residential buildings you are correct that SOME developers build the cheapest and fastest they can. If you are talking about commercial and industrial buildings that is something different. Commercial and industrial buildings as well as other structures in the US require they be designed and certified by a professional engineer. Only a very small number of structural engineers would risk their license by designing a building that does not meet code requirements. That is evidenced by the small number of structural failures in the US.
The three US building codes were combined into the International Building Code in 1994 so other countries that do not have the resources for research could adopt it as their own code. Structural design has never moved out of the code book. The three original codes also referred to AISC for steel design and the other codes for concrete, aluminum and wood. They also used the wind speed maps that were based on ASCE 7. The IBC is primarily a fire code that specifies ASCE 7 and the material codes for the structural loading and design sections. I don’t know where you get the idea that those codes are written by individuals that only have a high school education. They are written mostly by engineers with advanced engineering degrees.
-
Hank11198 at 11:00 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
@11 OPLF
Nice to see engineers are represented here and concerned about climate change.I am only familiar with the US codes. I do know that in the 1980’s steel mills started suing more modern production processes that resulted in steels specified as A36 had a higher yield strength of around 50 ksi are more. As a result the beam to flange weld metal at the joints became under-matched which may have contributed to excessive strains at the joint. The Northridge earthquake in 1994 resulted in several studies that were initiated by AISC and the AWS over the next few years which revealed the problem. Soon after the codes were changed to address this and numerous other issues. I did not realize there was ever a delay in updating any codes due to protectionist actions. However I’m always eager to learn so would appreciate any documentation you know of regarding this.
I graduated in 1971 and have worked in 5 different industries, transmission lines, railroad bridges, large satellite antennas, consulting engineering, and high voltage sub-stations. Maybe I’ve just been lucky but I have never been asked to compromise any design based on costs or any other factor. I have of course been asked if a less expensive product could be substituted for some part but only if it checked out to meet code requirements. The only thing close to this was a somewhat humorous experience when I was going over a part with some people in the shop. One of the welders stated he had built many of these and the plate was too thicker than needed. I handed him my pin and stated “Ok just write that on the drawing and sign and date it”. He didn’t make any more comments.
I certainly realize the need to stay on top of changing weather and agree with you that areas can experience changing environmental requirements. I believe the engineers on the committees that write and revise the codes in the US do track extreme weather events and take this into account. Living in the South ice and snow are not usually controlling conditions so I’m not as familiar with those types of loading. With the exception that even in the South, ice on wires combined with wind can control the design of supporting structures.
Concerning your final note. The US code does not consider hurricane categories. Instead it has wind maps that specify the wind speed at locations throughout the US. At this time the highest wind speeds are 180 MPH along the Gulf Coast. I don’t think any hurricane has hit the US with those wind speeds. I would also point out that the highest wind speeds in a hurricane are limited to near the eye of the storm. In addition for most structures the maximum wind speed must attack the structure from one specific direction for the structure to be fully loaded to the design load. That reduces the likelihood that a structure will be fully loaded in a hurricane. But as I said, structural loading is statistical in nature. So there is always the risk that any storm could exceed the design loading on a structure. We just want to lower that risk to an acceptable number.
-
Nick Palmer at 10:00 AM on 8 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Sorry if I went outside the forum rules. While I was writing #41 I was simultaneously taking on a very tricky, very agressive denialist/sceptic and I probably slipped into the mindset I use when taking on such types, which I have found extremely effective - not at convincing them (which is very hard) but it is one of the best techniques I have discovered for drawing out into the open, where the audience can see them, 'what lies beneath' - the underlying motivations that make such types so incorrigible. Call into question their rationality or intelligence and 9 times out of ten they will come back with stuff attacking one's own position which reveals that they are mostly hard line right wingers scared of left wing solutions, a smattering of evangelicals who believe God so loves us that he has designed Earth with hidden negative feedbacks which will prevent us doing anything much, or (rare these days) hard line left wingers who believe climate science was faked up so the West can deny energy and development to the Third World.
-
nigelj at 08:36 AM on 8 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Evan @44, in a word, yes. A guy called Mike over at Reaclimate.org posts a lot of weekly, monthly and yearly data on MLO CO2 levels. I've thought much of this is a bit to short term to mean much, but I'm beginning to think he's the only guy with his eye firmly fixed on the ball, for want to a better description.
-
nigelj at 07:38 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Hank, I also share many of your views, but the truth on this thing is possibly more nuanced. I'm a semi retired Architect, involved in the design of both housing and highrise construction in New Zealand.
Our building codes are quite detailed on everything including structure. There was a massive earthquake in Christchurch recently and modern buildings survived better than older brick masonry buildings and concrete framed buildings, as you would expect.
However there are huge caveats around all this. dkeierleber has a point to some degree. Our codes are minimal codes, so for example earthquake and fire codes target only life safety, not property damage. This is because of neoliberal thinking that constantly aims to minimise building codes.
As a result although modern highrise buildings and timber farmed houses survived the earthquake and not many people were killed, these structures suffered considerable damage and many had to be demolished and rebuilt. The bottom line is the codes are pretty minimal, and neoliberal ideology is definitely involved. I dont have time to go into all the details, but I know this for a fact.
-
dkeierleber at 07:15 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
@10, Hank, very happy to see your reasoned response. I have a fondness for engineers and engineering but I’m not sure where you’ve been working.
There were about 30 steel moment frame buildings in SF at the time of the ’08 quake. Around 20 were still in service in 2000 when CA had just finished extensive repairs to a lot of more modern steel moment frame buildings. The problem with the newer buildings was that the moment connection was too stiff. The older buildings had riveted (likely) connections. For a while we had creative solutions for that joint but those all went away when the same prescribed welded connection was again approved. It is supposedly now safe because we have a new alloy and new rules on how to make the full pen weld between the beam flanges and the faces of the column flanges. We’ll see what happens in the next big one.
Older buildings generally had the steel frame protected by masonry which made a pretty durable joint. It was an accidental benefit of engineers realizing that steel needed protection from fire. Engineers forgot that some time ago. Tell an engineer he should be responsible for protecting his structure and you will have an angry engineer. Engineers can’t be bothered to get a bigger portion of the design fees.
I read a paper in the Structural Journal, some years ago, that claimed steel buildings could not fail due to a fire. This despite the fact that we lost a steel building to fire in 9-11 (the third collapsed building). The paper was based on tests done in England in the 1970s but 9-11 showed that fire loads are much higher now, esp in office occupancies. The journal paper was arguing for performance based codes. Do some research on how well that’s worked for the Chinese.
Hurricane Andrew was a wakeup call to the insurance industry. Whole subdivisions were leveled due to shoddy construction practices. Roofs without hurricane clips had partial failures that let in water, turning particle board sheathing to mush. The response, instead of requiring better construction practices and better code enforcement, was to completely change how wind loads were calculated and applied, especially to low, gable roof buildings. That was likely the beginning of the end for the UBC (Uniform Building Code).
The UBC grew from a small, easy to understand book, with design standards for the common building materials, to 3 large volumes in 1994. The last UBC was 1997. Since then the same private industry has produced the International family of codes. The design standards in the UBC were written by prominent engineers who sat on the industry boards and advisory groups. IBC language is voted on in conventions of code officials. The minimum requirement for a building official is a high school diploma (It’s in both the IBC and IRC). After the IBC, structural design info moved out of the code book. You now have to get the current ASCE 05 for loads, the AISC for steel design, etc. At least the AISC now makes a passing mention about fire protection of steel members.
Over the years a system of weighted design has been suggested. I’m sure it’s now being used. The idea is to set a level of design standards to match an expected level of performance for given events. Instead of being an option for building developers to choose, it’s being incorporated into codes based on occupancy (I think). Part of the problem in the built environment is that nobody has a building built for them. Developers put up the cheapest, fastest building they can and then sell it. What’s worse is that many buildings are sold piecemeal. Condo projects will never have any defects corrected or be demolished because they are building ownership by a bunch of building owners, none of whom are very knowledgeable about buildings.
You are probably fed up with me by now but I still think that it’s frightening to think that buildings built to standards of 1890 are structurally better than buildings built to current standards. Of course, then there are the old clay brick buildings (I did a fair amount of seismic upgrades to those). -
nigelj at 06:52 AM on 8 January 20202019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research
Tree planting is obviously useful for soaking up some emissions, but these tree planting schemes do still need a dose of cold, hard realism, because there's a serious risk people will assume they can solve a huge part of the climate problem thus obviating us from the urgent requirement to reduce emissions.
For example the article usefully says "Luedeling also takes issue with the map that Crowther’s team ultimately produced that shows where additional trees could grow globally. Many of those areas aren’t available for tree regrowth because they’re already in use.” Those regions include land used for livestock grazing, as well as populated areas such as Kinshasa, the capital of Democratic Republic of Congo... etcetera.
Nobody seems to mention that there will also be competing uses for waste lands and cattle grazed lands, from both biofuels production and for food production for a population heading towards 11 billion people by the end of the century. Obviously the food supply will take precedence over trees, because it simply has to.
And obviously there will be huge demands for timber for construction although the bright spot is there are alternatives like steel framing.
In addition there is Red Barons suggestion that properly rotationally grazed land can also sequester carbon, which has at least some evidential backing ( a bit more research would be helpful).
Planting forests looks like a useful wedge measure to soak up some carbon, but relying on it as a major player capable of soaking up a third of emissions to date doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Cooper13 seems to have made an extremely good point.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:36 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Hank,
I am a Structural Engineer with 40 years experience, including participation in design code update processes. But I am Canadian with experience in many other nations, including the USA.
I share your understanding of structural design, and sort of agree that dkeierleber has offered an unfounded opinion. However, dkeierleber is correct about the harmful influence of competition for profit.
The A36 grade of steel was a decent material for seismic design before 'recycling of steel became common'. It had fairly reliable performance values allowing it to be used for the 'designed to yield first' components of a structure. However, 'recycled steel meeting the crude criteria of A36' often ended up being a much stronger steel than expected. It was those 'over-strong A36' parts of seismic structures that led to the tragic failures that resulted in the USA belatedly updating its steel material specifications and design codes. That delay of update could be seen to be a protectionist action by the USA profit interests (related to dkeierleber's correct concern) to keep imported steel out of the USA because, though imported steel was based on better specifications, it wasn't A36.
Now on to the climate condition point you made @7:
I am well aware of what you refer to, and agree that wind forces 10X worse are a long way off. But I would state that inland wind speeds could increase to levels currently thought to only happen near a coastline. And in some nations, like Canada, the regional design requirements are based on the history of local conditions rather than the less location-specific (cruder) USA approach of generalized climate conditions.
I would add that your comment misses the need to design for climate related things like ice accumulation during freezing rain events and 'maximum accumulated snow loading'. Climate change can increase the amount of accumulation of freezing rain, and introduce it to regions that previously never had that type of event. And climate change can result in more snow falling. And a warmer snow event will also be wetter heavier snow.
So there are many aspects of building design that can end up being exceeded as climate change alters the nature of regional climate events.
As a final note about coastal wind speeds, did you notice that this year there was a storm near the USA coast with wind speeds that were well above the threshold of Category 5, high enough to warrant consideration of adding a Category 6?
-
Hank11198 at 04:16 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
@ 8 & 9, dkeierleber
I have to disagree with you on every statement. As a Registered Professional practicing Structural Engineer I have no idea where you get your information.Out of the millions of building that are erected in the US there have been relatively very few failures. Of those failures, only a small percentage are due to improper design. That’s not an assumption, that’s a fact. That shows we DO put up safe buildings.
Buildings built at the end of the 19th century were not based on codes since they didn’t exist. There was also almost no knowledge of seismic loading or how to resist that loading. They were simply built very conservatively. That said you didn’t provide any references that show they have performed better than more recent structures. Seismic design is very complicated and every occurrence allows engineers to study the results of current design practice. It is known that buildings designed with the more recent codes perform better than previous designs.
Building codes DO ABSOLUTELY have structural design information. Otherwise they would have no purpose. Today’s codes have probably 10 times the amount of design information as in the past. That’s just an estimate on my part based on the size of the codes. In addition they have extensive commentaries that explain how and why each formula should be used. I served on the ASCE committee for Design of High Voltage Substations a few years ago and I can assure you it was not written by people with only high school educations. Out of about 40 representatives there were several PhD’s, including the lead, along with probably 20 graduate engineers with masters degrees. There may have been a few industry representatives without college degrees but they were only there for guidance in specifying materials that might be unavailable and other minor advice.
The buildings destroyed in the Florida town you mentioned are a testament to design codes. Residential buildings are seldom designed by an engineer. The one that was standing was reinforced concrete construction and WAS designed by an engineer for 250 MPH winds. After that the codes in Florida were changed so that an engineer must sign off on residential designs and the design wind speeds were increased. That doesn’t agree with your statement that codes are being affected by deregulation.
I am a strong believer that we are failing future generations by not addressing climate change. I am in favor of laws that decrease the amount of CO2 were a putting in the atmosphere. Storms will be worse and we need to account for that. But I don’t think unrealistic claims that storms will be 10X worse are helpful to our cause.
-
Cooper13 at 04:04 AM on 8 January 20202019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research
I sent this comment to the SS inbox, but seems relevant here as well.
I really wish the scientific community in the US and those communicating the +1°C change (and +1.5°C target limit) would convey what this really means to land-dwellers in the US and around the world.
It is well established from observations, and from projections/models, that land temperatures (where most of us live, and where we grow our crops and livestock) increase at roughly 2x the rate that global temperatures rise.
Thus, discussing a "+1.5° target limit" is very misleading to most Americans (and becomes a talking point for deniers that it's too small to worry about).
EVERY time the +1.5°C target limit is mentioned, it should be pointed out that this implies a +3°C increase over land, where you live. And for those in the US who are much more familiar with the Farenheit scale, that becomes nearly +5.5°F.
EVERY time we talk about a +1.5° target - explain that this equates to +5.5°F over land.
The +1°C we are already experiencing means +2°C over land, and that is already over +3.5°F; people are lulled to sleep with the +1.0 and +1.5°C global increases and are completely unaware that we're talking much larger (2x larger) amplification over land.
I strongly suspect that if you start explaining to staple crop farmers and livestock farmers they will see +5.5°F with the current target (which we may not even meet), they will raise their eyebrows at that.
In a nutshell:
+1.5C global = +3C land = +5.4F land
+2C global = +4C land = +7.2F land
+2.5C global = +5C land = +9F land
+3C global = +6C land = +10.8F land
Make a simple graphic; educate people, so they understand when someone dismisses a +1.5C global rise, it's actually MUCH more pronounced than that for where they live and play!!!
-
dkeierleber at 02:36 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
@7, Hank, we know how to design safe buildings, we just don't. Did you see the pictures of a town in FL destroyed by a hurricane? Did you read about the one house that survived because the owner wanted a stronger house?
Last years hurricane that stalled over the Bahamas is a peek at what is to come. Hansen, Et Al (2015) talks abut Atlantic storms 10x worse than today's during the last interglacial, with temperatures only 1C warmer than we are.
-
dkeierleber at 02:29 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
As a retired structural engineer, you guys brought up a subject I used to have to deal with. To begin with, why do you guys assume we put up safe buildings? Steel moment frame buildings built at the end of the 19th century have proven to be more durable to earthquakes than ones built in the late 20th century. The build environment has suffered from faster/cheaper while design fees keep falling. Commercial building codes no longer have structural design info because the codes are written by people with high school educations. Welcome to deregulation.
Look into the neoliberal race to the bottom and the rise of authoritarian governments as a response to the resulting destruction of the middle class in the west. You will begin to see why we aren't going to fix anything (including a looming climate disaster) until it's too late. (Neoliberal economic theory called neo-conservative in America. Remember Bush and the neo-cons? The reason we invaded Iraq.)
-
Hank11198 at 02:24 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
OPOF
“A signficant structure design challenge is accurately identifying things like the worst case climate events that a structure could face. Rapid climate change makes that very difficult to do, and raises doubts about every already built structure.”
I realize what you are trying to say but I don’t think you understand the process that engineers use to determine the loading on a structure. Structures are not designed for the worst case climate event that a structure could face. In the US wind loading is divided into hurricanes that occur along the gulf and eastern coast, and storms that occur in other locations. Hurricanes are based on 1200 year probability and storms are based on 700 year probability. A 5000 year hurricane or storm COULD occur. However it has been agreed that the code design probabilities are a reasonable value that allows structures to be built without costs being unreasonable. In addition, structures are divided into 4 risk categories which determine a risk factor for a structure. Category 1 is for structures that represent low risk to human life like agricultural buildings. Category 2 which is everything not in the other categories. Category 3 which represents substantial risk to human life. Category 4 which includes essential facilities (hospitals, fire stations, etc). Basically the risk factor changes the design hurricane or storm probability.
Rapid climate change is dangerous. However changes in maximum wind speeds for hurricanes and storms are not enough to raise doubts about existing structures. -
One Planet Only Forever at 02:23 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Some structure design is incredibly complex. Dynamic response is a very complex behaviour to evaluate. But the real issue is 'not doing something when there is uncertainty regarding the potential for negative consequences'.
Some of the most complex design is dynamic response of a structure with partially yielding elements of a structure system (parts stressed beyond their elastic behaviour). That includes seismic and blast resistance design (things I have personally done). And that complex dynamic system response gets combined with the understanding that lateral motion of a structure is amplified by vertical loads acting concurrently on the off-set structure (the vertical load is no longer straight down a support column).
My main point remains. The knowledge that the combination of effects of climate change are not yet well understood should have been enough to cause the leadership of the highest impacting people to dramatically reduce their impacting while pursuing the required expanded awareness and improved understanding. That is what they would expect to happen in Structure design, even though a flawed structure design would only affect a tiny portion of the global population, and have almost no effect on generations in the distant future.
The real problem is the fatally flawed of belief that the 'power of innovation' requires anything that is competing for popularity and profit to be allowed in the competition before the potential negative consequences are well understood. Competitive consumerism, especially the Patent/Copyright systems and related limited time period for benefiting from owning patent/copyright protection, tempts people to try to get away with harmful and unsustainable activity (because it is easier and cheaper than the alternatives).
Harmful unsustainable developments can be seen to be defended if they become popular and profitable. The demand is that evidence of it being harmful 'must be very certain', with higher certainty of unacceptability required the more popular and profitable it is. In some people's minds that has quickly gotten to the absurd point where no amount of evidence will 'meet the demanded level of proof' (on many issues, not just fossil fuel abuse). The 'learning resistant people' who enjoy benefiting from the popular and profitable activity, or developed a liking for an incorrect understanding, can claim that any evidence is Fake and demand that any presentations of information on the issue be 'Balanced or Moderate' which means 'Compromised'.
Compromising expanded awareness and improved understanding of how harmful something may be may seem appealing to the Kumbaya types who just want 'everyone to get along and let everyone live the way they want'. That attitude has its place, when no profit or personal benefit at the expense of others is involved. But that attitude would never cut it in Structure design. And it certainty should not apply to the issue of the future disaster creating potential of the popular and profitable fossil fuel abuse.
Everyone's actions need to be governed and limited by the avoidance of creating harmful impacts on others, even if that means having to forego potential personal benefit because of uncertainty regarding the acceptability of an activity.
-
nigelj at 17:44 PM on 7 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Actually designing structures to withstand combined effects can get quite complicated at times.
-
nigelj at 17:36 PM on 7 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Designing structures for combined events is not too complicated. You design a structure to withstand a certain snowload, and then the structure has to be designed to withstand a certain wind load, on the basis that it is also sustaining the designed maximum snow load at the same time.
The climate problem is the inverse of this, but harder to work out.
This insidious combined cimate effect is what needs to be front and centre of discussions aimed at the public, not the arm waving, highly speculative apocalyptic stuff that many people will scoff at.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 16:14 PM on 7 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
bozzza,
Not sure what the question is, but here is an attempt to clarify.
A signficant structure design challenge is accurately identifying things like the worst case climate events that a structure could face. Rapid climate change makes that very difficult to do, and raises doubts about every already built structure.
And proving the reliable performance of all the materials and shapes and connections has been constantly improved through the efforts of countless institutions around the planet.
But the need for a structure to be safe is not compromised by a desire to carry on doing something questionable just because it was popular or profitable. Things that were dicsovered to be unsafe or harmful stopped being done and are corrected.
-
Eclectic at 15:38 PM on 7 January 2020There is no consensus
Hmmph. If Dr Curry were an actor, then you would see her in B-grade movies, at best.
Dr Lindzen would be the equivalent of Marlon Brando in his last few years ~ someone who once received some respect from those in the industry . . . but was now "washed up" and coasting along on the remnants of his past reputation. Sic transit.
Dr Happer . . . also the Emeritus Syndrome, plus something a bit uglier.
Let's move on from the Ad Hom sketches, and look at the actual arguments that Curry puts forward as a "contrarian".
Her arguments ~ well, she doesn't have any really. She has asserted that for late 20th Century warming, "up to about 60%" of it might (possibly) be caused by a concurrence of several long-cycle periodic ocean current phases (multi-decadal Atlantic overturning current plus other much longer century/multi-century cycles . . . cycles which most scientists consider to be no more than a twinkle in the eye of their "discoverers"). In other words, a load of balderdash. But a straw which the desperate denialists like to grasp at.
All the while, Curry wears heavily-shaded glasses which are pachyderm-polarised to show very little of the Elephant in the Room i.e. CO2 .
Yes, Curry does admit that CO2 has a mild effect on global warming, but maintains that after you subtract the surface warming effect of those concurrent ocean cycles, the remaining minor warming shows that CO2 is a minimal problem because it must be that the planet's ECS (climate sensitivity) is quite low.
That's about the size of it. The rest of her rhetoric is simply empty rhetoric ~ confusing & vague distractions from the underlying reality. Just what certain American senators/Congressmen wish to hear. So they call her up to speak to "committees" and thus provide themselves with a veneer of excuse to take no action on AGW.
Essentially Curry is a misinformer, through the use of vagueness and innuendo. Like an expensive barrister arguing for a guilty-as-sin client, she usually does not step over the line of absolute mendacity. Not quite.
-
bozzza at 13:46 PM on 7 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
How difficult are these structure design codes to formulate!??!
-
TVC15 at 13:46 PM on 7 January 2020There is no consensus
To add to KR @ 870
PatrickSS kept propping Judith Curry up as some sort of climate expert who is being hushed from publsihing papers. I also suggest PatrickSS that you look up her credentials.
It always cracks me up as Judith is always the wild card deniers pull out of their back pockets and try to prop her us as some sort of credible climate science researcher such as Katharine Hayhoe.
Here are a few links about who Judith is as well as her agenda.
Judith Curry Was For Me Before She Was Against Me
Climate Misinformation by Source: Judith Curry
IPCC attribution statements redux: A response to Judith Curry
-
TVC15 at 09:26 AM on 7 January 2020There is no consensus
One Planet Only Forever @ 875
Trust me I do discuss human population with deniers. Human activity and consumption has a huge impact on global warming.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:08 AM on 7 January 2020There is no consensus
TVC 15,
In response to the point about everyone having the right to be as bad as Others, you may face a further angle of denial claiming that population is the problem. And you may preempt that by sharing a version of the following rather than waiting to see if it comes up.
The consensus understanding is that human impacts are causing significant negative climate changes to occur. And it is the total global impact that matters.
A good way to argue against the simple claim that 'increased population is the problem' is to point out that each person's impacts add up to the total impact, and though total population is a concern it is the impacts of the highest per-person impacting portion of the population that needs to be reduced (along with the point that every person has the right to be as harmful as Others).
A related item to point out regarding total impacts is that the impacts that developed more fortunate circumstances in the national regional environment that a person is born into should also be counted as impacts of that person. That was part of the Kyoto understanding. It was recognised that the current more fortunate population of the more fortunate nations owed a debt for the impacts caused by the development of their more fortunate circumstances.
-
zzupdown at 08:43 AM on 7 January 2020How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
Could limited detonations of nuclear warheads be a short-term stop-gap measure to fight global warming, then? The world might be willing to trade lowered food production and a slight increase in cancer rates to buy some time to solve global warming permanently. As for wildlife, Chernobyl shows that human habitation is far deadlier to wildife than radiation is. How many detonations do you think it'd take?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:19 AM on 7 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Combining the impact of climate events makes sense. Structure design codes have required that for decades.
An example is the need to combine the weight of ice collected on a high-tension power line with the increased wind force of a strong wind blowing on the larger diameter feature (increased because of the ice). The required cable and support tower design is substantially impacted by that combination.
The difficulty in investigating the 'combinations of climate impact' should have been a justification for more aggressive action to reduce the rate of climate change impacts until the severity of the consequences was better understood.
A knowledgable person in a more advanced nation today would not try to build a building with new materials or a novel structural system without very thoroughly investigating and understanding its behaviour, and proving it would be safe under a massive diversity of combined potential impacts.
Why is the future of humanity on this planet continuing to be be significantly geo-engineered by current day actions of the 'supposedly most advanced people in the supposedly most advanced nations' without the consequences being 'very well understood'?
Any person claiming it's OK to carry on doing whatever is popular and profitable needs to be challenged to answer why that is morally acceptable.
-
TVC15 at 06:35 AM on 7 January 2020There is no consensus
Thank you Electric,
I try to not focus on things that make my soul sad for all living creature and plants on this earth but when I look at the denial machine and how humans are so divided by over climate change due to science illiteracy, anti-science folks, confirmation bias, political stances etc....it can be quite discouraging. Especially knowing we are in the midst of a very serious mass extinction event. I sometimes wish I was not a biological/medical scientist. I would be just as clueless as most of the planet with respect to human impacts on earth.Thank you One Planet Only Forever for offering great insightful suggestions.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:41 AM on 7 January 2020There is no consensus
TVC 15 @871, Building on Eclectic's response.
The Delayer you have encountered is attempting to distract attention from expanded awareness and improved understanding of the current day and future problem.
The current day and future problem is the result of the highest per-capita impacting people, and the nations they controlled, in the 1980s failing to responsibly lead the correction of economic activity.
Instead of doing the harder less popular and less profitable work of correcting the incorrect direction of development, the populations of those nations willingly accepted leadership messages that encouraged them to continue to over-develop in the Unsustainable Damaging direction they were headed in. When and where did one of the most absurd opposites of responsible correction, Hummers, become a popular expression of Winning? The same nation that spawned the misleading marketing attacks against climate science.
The Kyoto deal included nations like China and India agreeing to be tied into restricting their development to the 'per-capita' impact levels that the higher impacting nations were showing leadership towards by lowering their per-capita impacts (while sustainably improving the living conditions of their poorest).
China and India are still 'developing up to the per-capita levels' of the USA and its correction resistant hangers-on. And they have every right to develop up to the per-capita impacts of the highest impacting nations.
Some portion of the current day global population clearly deserves to be blamed today. And it is the highest per-capita impacting people and the nations they try to hide in and get defended by. And many of them deserve to be penalized for how they behaved through the past 30 years, and they know it.
That fundamental understanding can be applied to a diversity of claim making by the Delayers.
Tell the Delayer that everyone has the right to benefit by behaving as badly as the worst behaving cheating Winner they see. And everyone should compete to be an even worse Winner in everything they do (including Sports). Then tell them you personally disagree with that attitude, you understand it to be incredibly destructive and that any perceptions of Wining that way are unsustainable, but you understand that it is an accurate description of the actions of the Delayer you are dealing with. Finish the point by stating that you know everyone continues to have the ability to learn to behave more helpfully no matter how old they are and hope they choose to learn to behave better, to be more helpful, to be less harmful.
-
Eclectic at 17:57 PM on 6 January 2020There is no consensus
Cheer up, TVC15. Put a smile on your face, and know that things will get worse before they . . . er . . . stop getting worse.
It sounds like your denier friend is a quitter ~ he gives up, just partway into the battle to do the right thing. I wonder what his great-grandparents would have thought of his lack of moral character?
Sure, most countries are dawdling on carbon emission reductions ~ and there's no realistic hope of limiting world temperature rise to merely 1.5 degreesC. The question is, will we collectively take enough action to hold things to a 2 degreeC rise (or will it be much more)?? Already we are seeing problems & extremes cropping up more intensely . . . with only the (so far) rise of 1 degreeC. A full 2 degrees or 3 degrees will give our great-grandchildren some very "interesting times" indeed !
Eventually there will be no choice ~ almost all nations will have to (rather desperately & expensively) take belated major action against emissions. Common sense tells you that the ground-swell from voting citizens will simply get stronger and stronger. And future politicians will become increasingly nervous about "the alternative use of lamp-posts" !!!
The denialist's thinking is crazy if he reckons the upper echelons of government want to fund truth-speaking science researchers ~ in reality, most politicians want the the whole AGW thing to disappear as an election issue. They'd rather not hear about it. (It sounds like his brain is switched to stand-by mode.)
Such people as your denialist, who think that humans mostly just do stuff for money . . . well, the psychologists would say that these denialists are "projecting" their own trashy money-grubbing attitude onto everyone else.
-
TVC15 at 15:15 PM on 6 January 2020There is no consensus
Well he's some denier comments that seem misinformed...especially the bit about funding. How do deniers know how funding works in the academic setting?
However I do think this denier has a point in that many countries are never going to agree to lower carbon emissions.
Not all climate scientists agree with the current CO2 modeling being used. Academics and other grant seekers are producing what the government wants to market. No agreement no funding. Universities don't lift a finger unless they get a grant.
If the US went dark it would not change or reverse the climate dynamics on a global scale.
Certainly China, India, Africa, et al, will not comply with the Paris agreement or any other agreement in the next 12 years or next 5 generations. So what are you going to do today? Support countries like China and India, buy vinyl siding, heat your home, drive a car? Logic and common sense have been left behind and the only way to run a government is with the aid of a propaganda machine to create a false reality.
The more I see what is occurring worldwide with respect to climate change and all the dreadful news we are seeing now in Australis and the Amazon, how can anyone feel hope for this situation?
-
Evan at 08:01 AM on 6 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nigel@43, yes, we need to tone things down.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the Keeling curve is accelerating upwards. Not only is it a tall order to stabilize CO2 concentrations, but at some point the dynamics of the Keeling curve move out of our control, and no amount of climate negotiations, nor wind mills, nor solar panels are likely to help us reverse course.
We really don't need dire scenarios to know that we are out of time to take serious, drastic action. Soon our plans will mean very little. We may become climate passengers.
-
nigelj at 06:03 AM on 6 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Guys, its getting very testosterone charged, and remember we are supposed to be on the same team.
This is my take:
I think the problem is this: I agree with MS, the IPCC have definitely lowballed things, certainly on sea level rise. Maybe not on temperatures. But a few scientists and media people have highballed things to the maximum as NP alludes to. Its created decades of confusion on who to listen to.
This is why I suggest we need a solid middle ground. We need to focus on scenarios that are extreme and low probability, but evidence based ones, not ones at the truly ridiculous end of the spectrum. The hand waving stuff.
I have lost count of the number of times I've seen Hansens New York will be underwater by 1928 quote. Its provided denialists ammunition for decades, its so easy to shoot down. The general public read this stuff and it hands them an excuse to dismiss the whole climate issue. Now before you attack me, I'm well aware Hansen has been quoted out of context, and it was based on a very high emissions scenario, but explaining all this has us on the back foot. I'm hoping you see the point.
The Paris commitments along with actual coal reserves and deployment of wind power etc look like they kill the very most extreme scenarious dead, although they by no means kill dangerous scenarios dead. The trouble is the commitments are not bedded in enough to be sure. Am I missing something?
-
Eclectic at 02:55 AM on 6 January 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
MAR @384 , your comment is doubtless kindly meant. There were numerous indications (including the first sentence of #382) that it was a case of "non-native English". And no-one should object to grammatical and spelling trespasses, where the underlying meaning is obvious enough. Just as each of us would hope to be forgiven our own trespasses. (And I am very happy for posters to post comments in their native tongue . . . although often it would be prudent for them to provide a rough translation into English, for the benefit of the majority readership.)
Nevertheless, to borrow a non-English word, there was in #382 a considerable chutzpah in making an improper spelling of physicist , while criticizing/berating the mainstream scientists for inattention to proper detail. The irony was amusing.
MAR, you have a formidable depth of knowledge of climate matters, and I find it hard to believe that you could find it credible that Rero would come up with anything to back up his statement that "many scientists were starting to doubt". That's why I asked Rero to name some scientists & supply a modicum of the evidence on which any true scientist could base his "increasing doubt". Of course, a real scientist is only wishing to entertain credible doubt [my phrasing, not Rero's].
-
MA Rodger at 00:53 AM on 6 January 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rero @382,
Picking up on some of your comment, I would echo the view @383 that if you do mention their existence you should give some indication of who these 'recently doubting scientists' are.
You also mention the figure in the OP of Spectrum of Greenhouse Radiation described in the OP as measurement of FTIR spectroscopy. This is clarified in the paper referenced which states "The measurements have been obtained using commercial Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers." You ask for a more substantial reference than Evans & Puckrin (2006) 'Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate' which is a conference paper. The figure is not controversial so I am not sure why further reference is required. The same result can be obtained using the UoC MODTRAN model (with Water Vapor set to zero, altitude to zero and looking up). But if you insist on a peer-reviewed published paper, perhaps Ellingson & Warren (1996) would be what you are looking for.
Your following statements are not entirely clear. When you state "my main criticism is that experimental procedure seems to be incorrect," this seems to be separate from the criticism of using consensus to define the science (which is not a valid crticism. The consensus rests on science, not the other way round). If your "main criticism is that experimental procedure seems to be incorrect" and if this is separate from your consensus consideration, please set on why you consider the "experimental procedure seems to be incorrect".
-
MA Rodger at 00:35 AM on 6 January 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Eclectic @383,
I fear you fail to spot the linguistic limitations within the comment of Rero @382 who doesn't sound like a native English speaker. And I do not see Rero @382 saying there are "well-qualified & well-informed scientists who have recently developed a credible doubt about the mainstream physics of climate." Rather it is "recently many scientist start to doubt" (my bold). There is no mention of "credible doubt."
-
michael sweet at 22:41 PM on 5 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick Palmer:
Reading Nigelj's link, Dr. Joelle Gergis, one of the lead authors of AR6, says:
"I can assure you that the planetary situation is extremely dire.
It’s no exaggeration to say my work as scientist now keeps me up at night."...
"The scientific community is acknowledging this by including new sections on abrupt climate change throughout key areas of the upcoming IPCC report. We now consider these “low probability, high impact” scenarios an increasingly critical part of our work."
It appears that the IPCC scientists agree with me.
I have provided extensive references to support my claims that previous IPCC reports were low ball. Naomi Oreskes et al show IPCC reports are low ball. You have provided nothing to support your claim that "The figures from the IPCC represent MIDBALLING, being the most likely figures." Changing the goal posts again and claiming scientific reports already contain extreme results is simply false. Provide references to an IPCC summary for policy makers that contains references to the fat tail.
Changing the goal posts to RCP8.5 again is not helpful.
Take your complaints about having to provide references to WUWT.
-
Eclectic at 21:51 PM on 5 January 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rero @382 ,
What a happy co-incidence that you have posted here! I am delighted to find another fellow phisicist. There are so very few of us, and our scientific field of specialty is so very new, that it has not yet even been incorporated into the Oxford English Dictionary (but I have hopes it will be so, in February).
More to the point, Rero, you have unfortunately been extremely vague in your commentary ~ amounting to little more than semantic nihilism.
Best if you start from the beginning, and provide some names of well-qualified & well-informed scientists who have recently (say in the last 100 years) developed a credible doubt about the mainstream physics of climate.
More importantly, you should specify the plausible (and preferably peer-reviewed) evidence which justifies their doubt. Because we phisicists abhor empty words, do we not?
Prev 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 Next
