Disagreements over the Science Behind Global Climate Change

[Chris]

You know Chip, I just had a thought (yes, it happens sometimes ).
Storm water systems you say. This is a serious question OK. What, if any attention do you as designer pay to the quality of the water going into the system, and to the catchment of the water? Or is it only a matter of getting the water out of the way where people may live or work or drive? Is there any attention paid to water conservation in your trade generally?

There is a reason for asking. The DR is going to have a huge problem with fresh water. In fact certain areas are already problematic in terms of water - both drought conditions as well as . So, given the fact that we have feast or famine in terms of water, how would you handle this?

[Chip]

Originally Posted by Chris

You know Chip, I just had a thought (yes, it happens sometimes ).
Storm water systems you say. This is a serious question OK. What, if any attention do you as designer pay to the quality of the water going into the system, and to the catchment of the water? Or is it only a matter of getting the water out of the way where people may live or work or drive? Is there any attention paid to water conservation in your trade generally?

There is a reason for asking. The DR is going to have a huge problem with fresh water. In fact certain areas are already problematic in terms of water - both drought conditions as well as . So, given the fact that we have feast or famine in terms of water, how would you handle this?

The State of Florida I believe leads the nation in protecting it's groundwater as I have done engineering in many States on the eastcoast. As is typical with most engineering fields, engineers typically put in place methodologies already researched by phd's to have the desired effect. In this case, the various methodologies we have available are assumed to "clean" the runoff of of developed(impervious) sites by catching the rainfall runoff and directing it to a retaining pond whereby the polutants in the water either bind with the minute particulants of the soil and fall to the bottom of the pond where they remain instead of discharging to the receiving drainage system (wet pond) or the runoff is filtered the a natural sand filter at the bottom of the pond before it can reach the pond bottom. The contaminants typically consist of tire rubber and oil from cars.

I actually had a couple of engineers, one actually the owner of the largest engineering firm in cibao ask me why there are so many retaining ponds in Florida. When I explained it to them I could tell they had never heard of such a think. I/ have talked to quite a few other civil engineers about drainage too and they say they have few guidelines other than dump the discharge off your site and the people downhill be damned. As far as civil engineering goes here in the DR, they are probably 120 years behind the US, as most complicated engineering procedures really started in NYC in the late 1800's. That is pretty bad that they so unadvanced but it is true.

All this ties into protecting the groundwater and streams, where almost all of the drinking water is pulled from to be treated. The State of Florida and many States for that matter learned that, not only was it a lot cheaper to treat the water pulled from these sources to make them potable, but that it also protected the animals and subsequent economies that they may affect due to the effect of the food chain.

What would I do if I had any power in the DR, well first I would line up all of the politicians to be sho... hey wait , I'm Catholic - I can't do that. No really, I would implement a whole host of changes, probably copied verbatim from tried and true practices in the US. Of course, if their are no agencies that can enforce the laws it would all be for naught. That is the difference between most third world govts and western govts, when the gringo make a law, they set aside funds for the creation of an agency to enforce the laws whereas in the third world countries they set aside funds for their back pocket, sad but true.

[Chris]

That is a nice description. Thanks. I see certain similarities with the climate change talk. Where you talk of 'retaining ponds', where certain things happen to the water to clean it to an extent before it goes into the groundwater, the climate change scientists talk of 'carbon sinks', where the green house gasses are supposed to get 'cleaned' before they go on their merry way, into the atmosphere and the other 'spheres'.

So, on this note, back to the science. Before I post the scientific reports, I want to say clearly that I do not belong to any organization that pushes climate change. I get no money from anyone for talking about this. In fact, I don't belong to any political organization, besides the one in my home country where I still vote. Although I have a lively interest in world political affairs, the rest of my household is apolitical. I am not an earth scientist but with careful reading, I get the gist of what is being presented in the IPCC's scientific reports.

So, with that out of the way, let's get back to the science of the IPCC's 4th report on climate change. I would prefer to keep this conversation civil, non political and non religious. Again, I think we need to understand this material. I don't think it is completely free of bias but this the only longitudinal multi-disciplinary scientific study that we have. This thread is supposed to run in parallel with the other thread talking about the DR specifically. I think (but I don't know) that the moderator opened this thread to ensure that there are no accusations of censorship and undue influence on an issue that is truly a political hot potato. I hope we can have a reasonable discussion without the politics. While it is not directly DR related, the other thread should provide DR specific inputs.

Again, to set it in perspective, this 4th round of reports include:
- Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"
- Working Group II Report "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"
- Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change"
- The AR4 Synthesis Report

I'll carry on in a new post.

[Chris]

So, again, the focus of this thread is to discuss the Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis", and debate the realism, the applicability and the accuracy (for sure add a few words here if you like). Simply stated, do we believe the science people or not? Again, my opinion is that if you have any interest in this, you should understand this material. Acceptance is another story.

Here is the link to the full set of 4th reports
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Here is the link to the Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"

Again, please understand the material before posting, or if you ask a question, let's keep it civil. I don't mind searching through for answers if you have a legitimate question, and again, the best source that I know about to get both sides of the issue, is this one RealClimate , specifically the large number of Highlight links on the right, and the Other Opinions links.

To summarize, and my summary may be shortsighted and simplistic; the issue as I understand it, is that manmade pollutants (from fossil fuel sources) in our atmosphere (and the other spheres) have reached a tipping point. Since around 2000, the percentages of green house gasses increased dramatically. These green house gasses interfere with the normal function of our climate and our weather. Refer to the very controversial 'hocky stick' discussions that you can find on realclimate.org. It is on this basis, and many others, that the scientists can say that man is responsible for climate change. I'm using an example that is in front of us now. As Chip and his industry try and keep the groundwater clean by way of ponds, the environment does this as well, by way of carbon sinks. These carbon sinks are full, se fue and they don't do their job any longer. So, pollutants in the form of green house gasses are changing the way that our climate works, much faster than the normal evolutionary planetary processes. For me, it is still uncertain (and in a sense not very important) what the specific percentages or numbers of the 'thisses and thats' are. But, of course, in this thread, it is open for discussion.

Specifically in terms of carbon dioxide (CO2), it may be good to check out Professor Keeling's work - this is a short article. BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 50 years on: The Keeling Curve legacy

In short, from that article .. TIMELINE: carbon monitoring

1957: Charles David Keeling starts work monitoring CO2 at the South Pole and Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii

1958: Keeling starts first direct continuous atmospheric measurements of CO2

Early 1970s: Noaa, the US federal agency, starts monitoring CO2 worldwide

1995-2003: Noaa's Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) at Boulder, Colorado, develops and maintains the world's standard references for CO2 and other greenhouse gases

And again a short but readable article on carbon dioxide (CO2), referring a recent study that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen 35% faster than expected since 2000. Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas, but is the one most discussed. BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Unexpected growth' in CO2 found

[Victor Laszlo]

I thought this link might be of some interest to you: Climate Debate Daily; a little something for everyone it seems.

By the way, when are you two mixed-up kids going to realize that you're crazy about each other...

[Chris]

LOL. Cobraboy is too young for me (both in philosophy as well as in years ...). But I've been fixing to deal with the other thread for a while now. You may just have given me the impetus to do so.

[A.Hidalgo]

Some more info on topic.......

“As part of the initial phase of international climate change negotiations in 2008, there needs to be a focus on designing the mechanisms to support and enable action by developing countries, no least by countries in your region,” Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said at a regional ministerial-level meeting in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

Latin American, Caribbean countries have key role in tackling climate change – UN

[Chip]

Being a scientist more or less I would like to note that over the centuries new "theories" have for the most part been reviewed with skepticism. This is based on the fact that many if not the majority are proven wrong by time and or stringent peer review. This is part and parcel to the scientific process and in fact there are hundreds if not thousands of universities the world over filled with science major students looking to refute or modify existing "theories".

If fact, in the scientific world, there are only "theories", not "laws"; even Einsteins theories are now being modified.

That being said it should not be difficult to understand that the theory of global warming, a very complex model in itself, will be attacked and questioned. It may turn out to be the case in another two thousand years(if we make it that long) we discover that the global warming "trend" we saw was actually a minor event and that it merely was a normal process in the changing climate of the world we live in. This shouldn't be a stretch to believe if one just studies past climatic changes of the earth. then again it could turn out to be true. Nonetheless, being a Catholic, I believe we are stewards of this temporary home that we have been given and that we should "keep our room" clean for the others we leave behind.

That being said, the major developed countries need to go to nuclear power in my opinion with a combination of hybrid cars and pure electric ones. Yes, this brings into the question of the potential waste issues of so many batteries not to mention nuclear spent fuel but this will just have to be managed effectively, which is certainly possible.

Given the undeveloping countries inability to maintain infrastructure in general due to relatively ineffective corrupt governments, I really don't think the nuclear/electric solution would be viable. Therefore, they would just have to rely on more traditional combustion engines as a source of transportation and energy albeit much more efficient models.

[A.Hidalgo]

Originally Posted by Chip

If fact, in the scientific world, there are only "theories", not "laws"; even Einsteins theories are now being modified.

Primo you are making the same mistake that some others repeat when it comes to what "only theory" means. In common parlance it can mean a speculation or a conjecture, but in the scientific world it means.......

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.......also there are many scientific laws....

A scientific law is a description of a natural phenomenon or principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions and will occur under certain circumstances.

Scientific Hypothesis, Theories and Laws

[Chip]

Originally Posted by A.Hidalgo

Primo you are making the same mistake that some others repeat when it comes to what "only theory" means. In common parlance it can mean a speculation or a conjecture, but in the scientific world it means.......


Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.......also there are many scientific laws....




Scientific Hypothesis, Theories and Laws

Thats all fine primo for you laypeople types... ...however, when one goes to graduate school for a scientific profession, one learns different things altogether. What I told you is what is commonly being taught in graduate schools the world over. There are no true "facts" in science, just theories, sorry.