Discussion Central

Topic: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Anonymous Member
11 days ago   This post was removed

1.  PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 13 days ago
Edited by Dave Chun 13 days ago
Considering the information cited in the "Help AIChE Craft Its Climate Policy" blog post and the "PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches" blog post, what do you believe is the appropriate level of scientific certainty for climate change science?

Do you have specific disagreements with the IPCC or the Paris Agreement, and if so, what are they and why?


------------------------------
Thomas Rehm PE,CPSP,CSP
Principal
Terehm Consulting LLC
Humble TX
------------------------------


2.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 12 days ago
Edited by Neil Yeoman 12 days ago
It isn't totally clear to me how to follow the rules set forth by Monica, but I will give it a try.

It is with total certainty that I accept that climate change is real, that the Earth is getting warmer, that it is caused by the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, that the increase is caused primarily, if not exclusively, by human activity, and that the rising temperature threatens humanity more than anything else that has happened since Homo Sapiens first walked the Earth.  There are myriad documents which explain all this in detail and I have seen nothing reliable that suggests otherwise.   One very good document is the 2014 study by the American National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society that can be found at

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

The information this study supplies is comprehensive and easy to follow, and anybody really interested in this subject should retain a copy.  If I offer additional comments on this subject I may refer back to this study.

Submitted 201708092320
Neil Yeoman, PE, FAIChE



------------------------------
Neil Yeoman, PE, FAIChE
Merrick NY
------------------------------



3.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 12 days ago

Neil

I personally agree with your conclusions. However, there are many who have doubts. My hope within this discussion series is that we can dispassionately discuss all issues surrounding AGW so that the evidence does not become clouded with emotion.

The 2014 study which you cite, by the American National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society, is an excellent summation. The first sentence in the second paragraph of the Foreword acknowledges uncertainty (italics are mine): "The evidence is clear. However, due to the nature of science, not every single detail is ever totally settled or completely certain."

"Uncertainty" in AGW discussions has such a major bearing on the outcome of the discussions. There are some who hope to use this "uncertainty" to stop all discussion. All of us, those convinced and otherwise, must rationally discuss this issue. If I could get all of us in a room, lock the door, with nobody leaving until we resolve the issue, I would. The issue is gravely important. I am so discouraged that our species cannot come together to solve it.

I found a presentation online which pertains to the uncertainty issue, with respect to global warming. I think it enlightening: http://www.meadowscenter.txstate.edu/CCTW/PDF/Uncertainty%20-%20Dessler.pdf.

I also recently read a book published in 2009 entitled "Climate Cover-Up." It deals with the issue of uncertainty from a public relations perspective; James Hoggan et al, Greystone, 2009. Also see https://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up. Hoggan, a public relations expert, began the DeSmogBlog Project in January 2006, which is a major source for accurate, fact based information regarding global warming misinformation campaigns, i.e., uncertainty.

There is uncertainty. At what level of uncertainty do we dismiss AGW? What risk are we willing to accept by dismissing it?

I am younger than you, only 66, but retired with ten grandchildren. I feel I must do all I can to resolve this issue. My grandchildren, and their children and grandchildren, will remember what I have, or have not, done. I'm sure you have the same sentiment. We will be gone, but what will we leave?



------------------------------
Thomas Rehm PE,CPSP,CSP
Principal
TERehm Consulting LLC
Humble TX
------------------------------



4.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 11 days ago
Just to understand how this is being structured.  Thomas Rehm will be introducing a sub-topic every two weeks on the general topic of Climate Science.  Within the two weeks, AICHE members are invited to comment on the sub-topic.  These comments may be used to craft a new AICHE policy statement to replace the June 2014 "AICHE and Climate Change" policy statement.  The current sub-topic consists of three questions asked by Thomas.  In general these questions are regarding.

1.  Climate Change Uncertainty
2.  IPCC
3.  Paris Agreement


Thanks



------------------------------
Ted Porter
Houston TX
------------------------------



5.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 11 days ago
Hi @Ted Porter,  Tom is one of many members of the PAIC Climate Task Force.  Others will post future discussions, which will be indicated by a subject line "PAIC Climate Task Force" and then the topic at hand.

You are correct that the only topics at hand for this particular discussion thread are the appropriate level of scientific certainty for climate change science, and whether anyone has any specific disagreements with the IPCC or Paris Agreement.

All should review the recent blog posts about this discussion prior to posting responses.

Blog Posts
"Help AIChE Craft Its Climate Policy"
"
PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches"

Thanks!


------------------------------
Monica Mellinger
Senior Membership Associate & Engage Community Lead
AIChE
------------------------------



6.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous
Posted 11 days ago
This post was removed


7.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 11 days ago

Re August 9 posting by Jack Hipple

            I participate in the discussion communities of three organizations, AIChE, NSPE, and Sigma Xi.  In all of them the subject of climate change has been discussed and debated.  In all of them I have asked the same two questions.1)  Do you know, and can you repeat, the bases upon which the climate science community supports the reality of anthropogenic global warming?  and 2)  With what specific aspect or aspects of what they claim do you disagree, and why?  I have never had any skeptic or denier even attempt to answer both questions.  When I hear about "natural cycles" I always ask the additional question "What natural cycle?" and for that I also never get an answer.  Everything that happens has a cause, including what happens in nature.  How the warming is caused by human activity is readily explained by anybody who can answer question 1 above.  The concepts are very straightforward and unambiguous.  How the warming might be caused by some natural phenomenon, cyclic or not, has never been explained.

            My background is totally in industry.  I have no ties to academia except the friendships I have made with academic volunteers working for AIChE.  The suggestion that all the world's climate scientists, all the world's scientific organizations that have taken a position on climate change, every government in the world except Syria, Nicaragua, and, now, the US, and including such other entities as NASA, Wikipedia, and the Vatican, are all in a giant conspiracy to defraud the world to get grant money for research is not only preposterous, it is highly insulting.

            The scientific community never endorsed the cooling scare of the 1970s.  It was purely a media event.  That the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is not relevant.  Things are happening now that have never happened before.  I invite readers to go to http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4574615.htm and watch the video.

            Submitted 201708101512

            Neil Yeoman, PE, FAIChE



------------------------------
Neil Yeoman, PE, FAIChE
Merrick NY
------------------------------



8.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 10 days ago

All

To help keep the discussion positive and progressive, please follow the posting rules, stick to the topics, be specific, and provide authority (links to substantiate your comments).

If your post is moderated, you may have inadvertently broken a posting rule. We will point this out in the moderation process, and you will be able to revise your post accordingly and repost!

If in doubt about the rules, please refer to the Welcome Post on ChEnected:  https://www.aiche.org/chenected/2017/06/help-aiche-craft-its-climate-policy.

The topics in each discussion are intentionally narrow so as to direct this discussion series along the way, from observations (discussions 2 and 3) through to mitigation and adaptation (discussions 7 and 8).

This first discussion narrowly focuses on two points:

  1. What do you believe is the appropriate level of scientific certainty for climate change science, i.e., the threshold at which action must be taken? Do you personally require climate science to be 99% certain? 50% certain? 10% certain?
  2. What is your level of agreement with the IPCC or the Paris Agreement?

Please substantiate your opinion with peer-reviewed sources, e.g., data, analysis of data.

Thank you, we appreciate your participation!



------------------------------
Thomas Rehm PE,CPSP,CSP
Principal
TERehm Consulting LLC
Humble TX
------------------------------



9.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 8 days ago
Edited by Kurt Rindfusz 8 days ago
All,

I would like to introduce myself. I am an active member of AIChE (not an AIChE employee). I have participated in many volunteer initiatives for the Institute over the years and offered to help the PAIC Climate Task Force with this important project. Specifically, I will be assisting Tom by serving as a "co-ambassador", essentially an on-line facilitator for discussions. My job is to encourage discussion and ensure we remain on-topic, without offering my personal views.

As my first direct involvement, I would like to clarify an earlier post pertaining to the Rules of Engagement that inadvertently included some typographical errors. That post was recently removed to avoid confusion. Below are the corrected Rules:

Posts to the Climate Statement discussion threads must also meet these additional requirements:

  • Posts must pertain to the specific Climate Policy topic currently under discussion
  • Factual posts must be evidence-based and provide links to evidence, e.g., links to data, links to analysis of data, or citations of peer-reviewed literature whose authors conduct research in the topic under discussion as their profession 
  • Factual posts must introduce any link they provide
  • A factual post must not be a repeat of a previous factual post
  • Posts that are declined can be edited to correct deficiencies and resubmitted
  • Most valuable will be posts updating previously accepted scientific positions and/or that legitimately rebut with new science an EPA conclusion supporting previous rulemaking
  • Each topic will be discussed for two weeks and when it is closed, the next topic will be introduced

Posts that do not meet these requirements will be moderated and will not appear in the Climate Statement thread. If a member's post is moderated, the member will be given the opportunity to edit the post so that it meets the requirements for the Climate Statement threads and resubmit it. If a post is moderated, AIChE staff will provide a specific explanation of the reason it was moderated.

Thanks, I'm looking forward to the next ten days of discussion!



------------------------------
Kurt Rindfusz
Vice President, Senior Chemical Engineer
Eastern Research Group
Chantilly VA
(703) 633-1676
------------------------------



10.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 2 days ago

I disagree with the IPCC report because it failed to provide significant consideration of the rising levels of atmospheric heat caused by  (1)deforestation-induced reduction of heat loss via  evapotranspiration and shading; and (2) increased retention of radiative heat from concrete, asphalt, steel, and glass created in the growth of urban development(i.e., the urban heat island effect). Examples of these effects are attached, as follows:

1) The Los Angeles Times(2/9/17) http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-sci-cooling-los-angeles/  presented data and studies of how much LA Basin temperatures are increased by the above phenomena and what mitigation actions are being considered. The temperature variations attributed to these effects exceed observed or forecasted temperature variations caused by increased atmospheric CO2; e.g., see the NASA data in the link below.

2)An Associated Press report http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/war-torn-south-sudan-at-grave-risk-on-climate-change/ describes the impact of deforestation on climate change in South Sudan.

Although these examples cover small geographic areas, urbanization in China and population growth in cities around the world, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, are causing the same heating affects over vast areas. The greater extent of development in the Northern Hemisphere  can help explain why warming has been greater in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php .

As a chemical engineer who retired 14 years ago, I have adopted the stereotypical retiree activities like golf and spending time with grandchildren. Thus, I do not have the technical resources or staff necessary to conduct the heat balances and other calculations necessary to prove that the man-made causes of warming described above are  more significant than increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2. But I'm confident that within the AIChE community, these resources exist.  Mitigation policies(covered in future blog topics) to counter the effects I've described would be vastly different from policies to reduce CO2 concentrations, so the necessary studies are worthy of serious effort.

Martin Javinsky

PhD, Chemical Engineering

University Of Michigan (1967)

 



------------------------------
Martin Javinsky
Moraga CA
------------------------------



11.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted yesterday

Martin, thank you for your comments.

After consultation with the PAIC Climate Task Force members, Kurt Rindfusz and I would like to comment on the concerns you raised regarding the IPCC report, specifically your observation that the IPCC failed to sufficiently consider (1) deforestation-induced reduction of heat loss via evapotranspiration and shading; and (2) increased retention of radiative heat from concrete, asphalt, steel, and glass created in the growth of urban development (i.e., the urban island effect), as contributors to rising levels of atmospheric heat.

The impacts of deforestation and regional urbanization are both known to have effects over the near and long term.

The IPCC authors acknowledge uncertainty in the impact of deforestation (J. Pongratz et al., 2009: "Effects of anthropogenic land cover change on the carbon cycle of the last millennium." Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 23, GB4001) and have included the analyses and their uncertainties. Exposure of bare earth by deforestation is one concern affecting heat absorption and re-radiation. In Chapter 8, section 8.3.5 of the IPCC report, "Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis" http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf, they note that "the albedo cooling effect dominates for high latitude whereas reduced evapotranspiration dominates in the tropics," producing opposite effects on temperature. 

A greater impact of deforestation may be the decreased CO2 absorption by vegetation. Furthermore, a significant anthropogenic generation of CO2 and of black carbon has been the clearing of land in the equatorial regions by burning vegetation. On a 100-year basis, biomass burning is equivalent to approximately 60% of CO2 generation from all of industry and 30% of that from energy generation (IPCC Fig 8.34).

Regarding urbanization, in Chapter 10, section 10.3.1.1.1 <http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf>, the estimation is that: "Urbanization is unlikely to have caused more than 10% of the measured centennial trend in land mean surface temperature, though it may have contributed substantially more to regional mean surface temperature trends in rapidly developing regions (Section 2.4.1.3)." That same section of the report examines the differences between Northern and Southern Hemispheres, attributing the differences to the analysis that "Rates of warming are generally higher over land areas compared to oceans."

Although a contribution of 10 percent is a relatively modest fraction of the total temperature rise, it is a significant anthropogenic source that is separate from greenhouse gas effects.

Thank you again for your post.



------------------------------
Thomas Rehm PE,CPSP,CSP
Principal
TERehm Consulting LLC
Humble TX
------------------------------



12.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 15 hours ago

Thomas,

Many thanks to you and Kurt for your comprehensive and well-referenced reply to my comments on the effects of deforestation and urbanization. I plan to rejoin the blog during the final two topics involving climate change mitigation policies. I hope that my commentary will be combined with commentary during the current blog from George Christensen on methane effects---and with any other commentary on causes of warming that differ from the dominant focus on CO2 from combustion. Full consideration of all causes will help AIChE develop and recommend mitigation policies that create a balance of high cost-effectiveness, low disruption to society and high probability of political acceptance.

Martin Javinsky

PhD, Chemical Engineering

University of Michigan (1967)

 



------------------------------
Martin Javinsky
Moraga CA
------------------------------



13.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 8 days ago

Hello again everyone.

As co-ambassador, one of my primary job functions for this project is to encourage open discussion on the charge questions/topics. Below for reference is the specific wording of the current topic that was originally posted on AIChE Engage.

"This first discussion is designed to allow initial focus on a few general approaches and project principles, including appropriate levels of scientific certainty, the status of popular opinion on climate change, and also the international context of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the Paris Accord (also known as the Paris Agreement)."

The posts to this point have been interesting and informative, but thus far none have touched on IPCC. I would like to encourage you to provide information on this topic, specifically whether you agree or disagree with the US reliance on IPCC. Remember (per the Rules of Engagement) to provide citable information and references to support your statements. 


Thanks again!


------------------------------
Kurt Rindfusz
Vice President, Senior Chemical Engineer
Eastern Research Group
Chantilly VA
(703) 633-1676
------------------------------



14.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 8 days ago
Thomas, Kurt, Monica, and everybody else,

Below is my submission to the discussion which is hopefully on topic and appropriately referenced.  If my citations are little awkward it's because I hate acronyms!

Re: Appropriate level of scientific certainty for climate change science.

I believe certainty levels higher than 90% are appropriate for climate change science which is being used to justify a form of geoengineering/climate engineering (anthropomorphic CO2 emission reduction).

The proposed modifications to global carbon dioxide emissions advocated by the climate change science community will necessarily require abandonment of existing energy sources and the expenditure of finite financial resources to replace them. In the short-term the effect will be to reduce energy supplies and or financial resources available to the existing global population negatively impacting their health and well-being (and potentially survival) without their informed consent in favor of a future population. (IPCC Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Chapter 3.6). In industrial terms the effort proposes to reach across a first world/third world fence line and negatively impact members of the poorest. In Layers of Protection Analyses used in the chemical industry (my experience base) this type of impact demands protective response levels of two orders of magnitude or more and would demand 99% certainty at a minimum.

Re: Do you have specific disagreements with the IPCC or the Paris Agreement, and if so, what are they and why?

Yes I have on big disagreement.  The IPCC Assessment Reports – most recently the Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – have consistently minimized the magnitude of the reports' own assessments of the magnitude of uncertainties of radiative forcing due to clouds. (Reported as bounded by -50 watt/square meter to +30 watts/square meter limits, Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Chapter 7.2.1.2, 2013). This finding is reduced to the following statement in this most recent report: (IPPC Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change D.1 Summary for Policy Makers: "Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, and their interactions, than at the time of the AR4, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of these processes in models. {7.3, 7.6, 9.4, 9.7}". Given that the current IPCC guidance is that radiative forcing caused by anthropomorphic factors totals to only 2.29 (1.13 to 3.33 confidence interval) watts/square meter (IPPC Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for Policy Makers, Figure SPM.5) a much bolder statement regarding the uncertainty of cloud interactions is required.
In fact the consistent minimization of this impact over the last three Assessment Reports threatens the integrity of the otherwise magisterial compilation of scholarly work.

Re: Do I agree or disagree with the US reliance on the IPCC?

The IPCC Working Group I addressing climate change science appears to be a reliable source of compiled global scientific information and I believe it can be trusted as a source of unbiased information. I do not agree that the other IPCC groups advocating policy changes reflect United States national interests in their recommendations and should not be adopted as regulatory law without congressional (legislative) concurrence. I do not agree with the Paris Accords as I do not accept the reliability of purported science underlying them as cloud dynamics are not appropriately addressed (see my previous response on the IPCC in this submission) but the Paris Accords do not bind the citizens of the United States as it is not a treaty and are therefore of only academic interest to me personally.

Ed Kronenberger

------------------------------
Edward Kronenberger MS
Missouri City TX
------------------------------



15.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 7 days ago

While I am not personally a climate scientist, I have a PhD in Chemical Engineering, I have been reading about this concern.  On a daily basis and on a seasonal basis, the temperature variation is much larger that the climate change effects.  Further, the increase in CO2 concentration is also small.  So this concern is about the effects of relatively small changes.  However, the potential costs are very large.

At the current time IPCC projects global temperature rise depending on a small number of carbon emission scenarios.  In AR5 of IPCC documents the following statement is made: "Expert judgement based on the available evidence therefore suggests that the TCRE (Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Carbon Emissions) is likely between 0.8°C to 2.5°C per 1000 GtC (giga tons Carbon/year), for cumulative CO2 emissions less than about 2000 PgC until the time at which temperature peaks." 1. The 2.4 °C per 1000 GtC that the IPCC recommended is near the upper limit of expert judgement. 

So the question is, what should the AIChE response be to this issue?  I, for one, would like to see a scientific "red team" approach to this problem.  The "red team" approach would have two scientific teams; one blue from the IPCC designates, and one red that would challenge individual tenants of the IPCC in a public forum debate where all of us could see that the issues were resolved.  The above referenced variation of the TRCE between 0.8 and 2.5 is only one is the main issues.  It is my understanding that land sink CO2 has also undergone recent revision and this has yet to be factored into the overall estimate.

  1. ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf, p. 1113 "Based on the assessment of TCRE (assuming a normal distribution with a ±1 standard deviation range of 0.8- 2.5°C per 1000 PgC), limiting the warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions alone"


------------------------------
Thomas Hinkebein
Albuquerque NM
------------------------------



16.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 7 days ago
Hello Thomas.

Thank you for the post. You bring up some interesting points pertaining to temperature variations and potential effects on climate change. We certainly would like to explore this in more detail and identify specific and citable information on this topic. However, I would like to request that you (and anyone considering responding to your post)  hold comments at the time being and revisit this subject during a future two-week period that is intended to discuss the, "Validity of Observed/Measured Data I:  temperatures, ice coverage, sea level rise, weather patterns, species." Those discussions are more suited for that topic, which is currently scheduled to begin on August 30.

Recall that our current discussion hopes to engage people on, "... appropriate levels of scientific certainty, the status of popular opinion on climate change, and also the international context of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the Paris Accord (also known as the Paris Agreement)."

Thanks again,

Kurt


------------------------------
Kurt Rindfusz
Vice President, Senior Chemical Engineer
Eastern Research Group
Chantilly VA
(703) 633-1676
------------------------------



17.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 7 days ago
Hello Kurt, and others interested in the best answers to this problem.

I am sorry for entering my comment before the proper time.  What certainty do I seek  for this problem?

The easiest answer is that I must believe that people are presenting an unbiased a point of view.  In this case neither IPCC nor the opposition are without bias.  Unfortunately, the process has been politicized and too many scientists and others are not playing straight.  I am really disheartened to find blatant bias in the IPCC documentation. I also believe that selective truths are being presented by the opposition.
As a consequence, I believe that 98% consensus should be required since probably only 2% of the scientific community has taken it upon themselves to really study the issues in depth.  As a organization, I believe that the AIChE has a duty to seek scientific truth.  At this point, I think that we are all making decisions with only part of the complete information set.

------------------------------
Thomas Hinkebein
Albuquerque NM
------------------------------



18.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 6 days ago
Edited by Neil Yeoman 6 days ago

Re August 15 postings by Thomas Hinkebein:

            We are chemical engineers, not climate professionals, so any decisions we make will be based on those limitations.  Fortunately, although weather and climate are very complex and require specialized training and experience to fully understand, the theory behind climate change, per se, is straight forward, unambiguous, and relatively simple.  I teach the basic science to people with little or no technical background and it takes me less than a half hour to get almost total qualitative understanding and no more than another half hour of Q&A to complete the basic understanding.  For the engineers we are (in my opinion) the best source of information on the subject is the publication of the (American) National Academy of Sciences and the (British) Royal Society found at the end of this link -http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

             If there are any open questions after reading this document that need to be answered to allow people to come to reasonable conclusions they should be asked. 

            Submitted 201708160106

            Neil Yeoman, PE, FAIChE



------------------------------
Neil Yeoman, PE, FAIChE
Merrick NY
------------------------------



19.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 6 days ago
Neil, though we are not trained as climatologists, we do have the necessary background.  About 4 years ago, one of the television stations in Houston, Channel 26 KRIV (Fox), was so proud of their new weather forecast computer program that they displayed the differential equations that the model used.  They were the differential equations in rectilinear coordinates that can be found in the appendixes of BSL, BSL2 and BSLK (i.e. Transport Phenomena).  Houston was probably the only viewer market that had a small audience that was capable of understanding those equations!  I relayed that story at R. Byron Bird's 90th birthday celebration in Madison, WI.

Though the underlying equations including flow, energy and mass transport are identical, no chemical engineer uses the equations to design piping systems, heat transfer or mass transfer equipment.  Rather, we simplify our designs using approximations.  And, that is why climatologists are important.  Just as we apply our expertise to different models of the unit operations, weather forecasters apply their knowledge to different models.  Typically, the different weather forecast models have variance.  For instance, look at hurricane path predictions.

The bottom line is that we cannot rely 100% on any give model prediction.  Rather, we must analyze the predictions using different assumptions and testing the sensitivity of a given model to see how much variance that model produces.

------------------------------
T. David Griffith, Ph.D.
Blessing (Bay City), TX
(361) 588-6907
------------------------------



20.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 5 days ago
Dr. Griffith

Thank you for your comments. However, the primary intent of this discussion is to address two focused questions:

  1. Do you have specific disagreements with the IPCC or the Paris Agreement, and if so, what are they and why?
  2. In your opinion, what is the appropriate level of scientific certainty for climate change science, that you consider necessary to warrant concerted mitigation actions?

I provide examples and guidance in a previous discussion post, reproduced here.

Please answer these questions. Your input is important.

Example:

I [fill in the blank:  do/do not/sometimes] support reliance on the IPCC for the following reasons:

[See ideas for ways to articulate reasons in EPA's discussion re reliance on IPCC at this link:  http://saveourepa.com/climatechange/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-clean-air-act-2.html, or here:  http://saveourepa.com/climatechange/epas-response-public-comments-volume-1-general-approach-science-and-other-technical.html#1-1-1, "Specific Comments on EPA's Use of IPCC Reports, or other sources]

Example:

I believe climate change science should be accepted when there is [fill in the blank: Very high confidence (At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct), High confidence    (About 8 out of 10 chance), Medium confidence (About 5 out of 10 chance), Low confidence ( About 2 out of 10 chance), Very low confidence (Less than a 1 out of 10 chance) or your own expression] for the following reasons:

[See EPA discussion re uncertainties at this link:  http://saveourepa.com/climatechange/epas-response-public-comments-volume-1-general-approach-science-and-other-technical.html#2 – "1.2 Level of Scientific Certainty," or in the discussion of the Endangerment Finding itself, page 30 of 52, or at page 66524 (74 Fed. Reg. at 66524),  http://saveourepa.com/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/federal_register-epa-hq-oar-2009-0171-dec.15-09.pdf, other sources]

 




------------------------------
Thomas Rehm PE,CPSP,CSP
Principal
TERehm Consulting LLC
Humble TX
------------------------------



21.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 5 days ago
Thomas: Sorry about straying off subject in my reply to Neil Yeomen's post.  In reply to your post:

1. I do believe that we are experiencing warmer than average temperatures compared to the last 130 years.

2. However, I do have serious concerns with regards to the climate modeling and the forecasts.  Since I have never seen a study of the sensitivity of the models to variation of the parameters, I cannot even estimate a confidence interval for my opinion.

Thank you for notifying my about my "faux pas" and I will strive to do better in the future..

------------------------------
T. David Griffith, Ph.D.
Blessing (Bay City), TX
(361) 588-6907
------------------------------



22.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 5 days ago

Dr. Griffith

I appreciate your input, but could you please answer the two questions posed by this discussion:

  1. In your opinion, what is the appropriate level of scientific certainty for climate change science, that you consider necessary to warrant concerted mitigation actions?
  2. Do you have specific disagreements with the IPCC or the Paris Agreement, and if so, what are they and why?

Please provide any sources that would help us understand your positions on these two questions.

Your input is important to our discussion!



------------------------------
Thomas Rehm PE,CPSP,CSP
Principal
TERehm Consulting LLC
Humble TX
------------------------------



23.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 4 days ago
  |   view attached

Re two recent postings by T. David Griffith:

David,

            We can use our ChE techniques to get a handle on the climate change modeling.  What I am suggesting may seem simplistic but it should give all of us enough insights to come to reasonable conclusions.  All we need to do is refer to HadCRUT4, the plot of average temperature of the Earth vs time from 1850 to 2013 (attached).  For the 60 year period from 1894 through 1953 the temperature rise was ~0.4 degrees C and for the 60 year period from 1954 through 2013 it was ~0.8 degrees C.  The plot shows the temperature rise accelerating so a temperature rise of 1.2 degrees for the 60 year period 2014 through 2073 (assuming no protective action is taken) would be optimistic - very optimistic given the rapidly rising CO2 content of the earth's atmosphere.  Past history has shown that a 2 degree change in temperature has a profound effect on humanity (the temperature during the Ice Age was only 4 to 5 degrees lower than "normal."), so, since we would be lucky to hold the temperature rise to 2.4 degrees by 2073, there can be no question that humanity would be in trouble by 2100 if no protective action is taken, and taken soon.

            Yes, what I just did was pretty crude, but it should be evident that anything better would most likely paint a scarier picture.

            Submitted 210708172149

            Neil Yeoman, PE, FAIChE



------------------------------
Neil Yeoman, PE, FAIChE
Merrick NY
------------------------------

Attachment(s)



24.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 4 days ago

Thanks, Neil.

This may seem a strange request since you have provided our discussions with considerable insight into climate science. Also, in one or more of your posts you probably indicated your opinions on these two questions, but could you be so kind as to answer them again?

  1. Do you have specific disagreements with the IPCC or the Paris Agreement, and if so, what are they and why?
  2. In your opinion, what is the appropriate level of scientific certainty for climate change science, that you consider necessary to warrant concerted mitigation actions?

And although you have provided several sources/links in posts thus far, if you could provide one or more sources to each response, that would help other readers of this discussion. Although I'm sure you don't need these examples, I am reproducing them here for reference, and for readers of this discussion.

Example:

I [fill in the blank:  do/do not/sometimes] support reliance on the IPCC for the following reasons:

[See ideas for ways to articulate reasons in EPA's discussion re reliance on IPCC at this link:  http://saveourepa.com/climatechange/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-clean-air-act-2.html, or here:  http://saveourepa.com/climatechange/epas-response-public-comments-volume-1-general-approach-science-and-other-technical.html#1-1-1, "Specific Comments on EPA's Use of IPCC Reports, or other sources]

Example:

I believe climate change science should be accepted when there is [fill in the blank: Very high confidence (At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct), High confidence    (About 8 out of 10 chance), Medium confidence (About 5 out of 10 chance), Low confidence ( About 2 out of 10 chance), Very low confidence (Less than a 1 out of 10 chance) or your own expression] for the following reasons:

[See EPA discussion re uncertainties at this link:  http://saveourepa.com/climatechange/epas-response-public-comments-volume-1-general-approach-science-and-other-technical.html#2 – "1.2 Level of Scientific Certainty," or in the discussion of the Endangerment Finding itself, page 30 of 52, or at page 66524 (74 Fed. Reg. at 66524),  http://saveourepa.com/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/federal_register-epa-hq-oar-2009-0171-dec.15-09.pdf, other sources]



------------------------------
Thomas Rehm PE,CPSP,CSP
Principal
TERehm Consulting LLC
Humble TX
------------------------------



25.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 2 days ago
Re postings addressed to Neil by Tom Rehm on August 17 & 18:
            That the Ice Age was only 4 to 5 degrees C cooler than "normal" was obtained from the report by the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society (of the UK) previously referenced.  It will take me a while to find the source of the information that the "Little Ice Age" of the Middle Ages was only 2 degrees C lower than normal.  I well understand the requirement that all claims be substantiated but the process for doing so is inconsistent with the timings of these discussions.  I have been discussing this subject in discussion communities run by three organizations, AIChE, the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), and Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Honor Society.  I have now been doing this for about a year, mostly in the NSPE discussion community.  Most of my posts there were parts of generally successful attempts to debunk false and/or misleading denier claims.  In the course of doing so I picked up a lot of information but made no attempt to record the source since I never thought there would be a need to do so.  I know that I got the information about the temperature history of the Earth in the Common Era from one of the contributors to the Sigma Xi discussions so I will ask that community to help me find it.  When I do find it, and I am sure that I will, because the Sigma Xi group seems to be extremely well informed, I will share it with those who read AIChE Engage, that is, if the thread hasn't already been closed.
            On the questions of the 17th, I cannot comment intelligently on the IPCC or the Paris Accord because I have not explored the details of either, and all I know is what I have read in the media and in the discussion communities.  I have no objections to either because I suspect that they are the best that can be done in this divided world in which we live.  The other question, asking for the level of scientific certainty that should be required for decisive action to be taken is, frankly, a useless question because there are more fundamental questions that need to be answered first.  The most fundamental question is "What level of effort is modern humanity willing to expend, and what level of inconvenience, disruption, and even pain is it willing to endure to assure the survival of our species, that is, how much quality of life are people now here willing to give up for people most of whom are strangers and/or not yet born and/or won't be born if appropriate action isn't taken?" 
            Submitted 201708191845
            Neil Yeoman, PE, FAIChE






26.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 4 days ago

Neil,

Myself and my co-ambassador Kurt Rindfusz have another comment on your post-reply to T. David Griffith.

It would be helpful to the readers of this discussion if you could provide specific citations for all data you have presented. Therefore, please provide a reference for the following statement:

  1. "Past history has shown that a 2 degree change in temperature has a profound effect on humanity (the temperature during the Ice Age was only 4 to 5 degrees lower than "normal.").

Note to everyone posting to this discussion that we ask you to provide similar citations for all data you provide.

Also, as a reminder to everyone, please recognize that a future specific topic of this overall effort is to discuss the validity of various parameters used in calculations and estimation techniques, including temperature. Therefore, please hold comments on this topic for the time being and revisit this subject during a future two-week period that is intended to discuss the, "Validity of Observed/Measured Data I:  temperatures, ice coverage, sea level rise, weather patterns, species." Those discussions are more suited for that topic, which is currently scheduled to begin on August 30.

And Neil, we do have others that are discussing temperature (and other future discussion topics, e.g., GHGs) within the context of climate science certainty/uncertainty in this discussion, so this is not a criticism of your post. We simply request that posters to this discussion try to defer a major discussion on temperature (and other) observed/measured data to the next discussion.

To reiterate (for all readers of this discussion), our current discussion hopes to engage people on, "... appropriate levels of scientific certainty, the status of popular opinion on climate change, and also the international context of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the Paris Accord (also known as the Paris Agreement)."

Thanks again for your continued participation in this discussion

------------------------------
Thomas Rehm PE,CPSP,CSP
Principal
TERehm Consulting LLC
Humble TX
------------------------------



27.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 2 days ago
Re August 18 posting by Tom Rehm:
    Subsequent to my submission of 201708191845 a friend alerted me to
https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/ which is not the source from which I first learned that the Little Ice Age was only 2 degrees C cooler than "normal," but it is a better source than any supplied by any denier.
    Submitted 201708192235
    Neil Yeoman, PE, FAIChE






28.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 5 days ago
Annette -

The energy balance I have seen is taken from the work of Milankovitch (the guy who proposed the precession/nutation impact on Earth's radiative balance giving us the 100,000 year and 22,000 and 44,000 year oscillations driving ice ages) and is presented in Wikipedia (of course) as a plot of irradiance at 65 deg N in watts/m2. It varies from 450 - 550 watts/m2 as compared to our human forcing discussion magnitudes of about 2 watts/m2. Remember that Milankovitch was calculating the effect on the non-uniform earth and hence focused on 65 deg N where the land masses and glaciers have been. And if the Earth had a uniform surface there would be (almost) no oscillation at all.

I haven't gone back to his original work (yet). My German isn't that good.

A summary energy balance statement of sorts was included in the IPCC Second Assessment Report, Chapter 1.2.1 "The Global Energy Balance" where the flux magnitudes from the poles to the equator range from -125 watts/m2 to 64 watts/m2. I cannot find an IPCC Assessment since that has an updated presentation.

Enjoy the discussion!

Ed Kronenberger

------------------------------
Edward Kronenberger MS
Missouri City TX
------------------------------



29.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 5 days ago

Hello everyone.

We would like to thank the two dozen or so that have participated in this first discussion in the PAIC Climate Task Force discussion series. However, as moderators, we feel the discussion has gotten off track. While many posts to this point have been thought-provoking, several have failed to meet the intent of this discussion, which is:

  1. In your opinion, what is the appropriate level of scientific certainty for climate change science, that you consider necessary to warrant concerted mitigation actions?
  2. Do you have specific disagreements with the IPCC or the Paris Agreement, and if so, what are they and why?

Moving forward, we will be more diligent in flagging (removing) posts that do not respond to these questions and do not contribute to this discussion.

For examples to help you prepare an acceptable post, search for topical-moderation within this PAIC Climate Task Force discussion #1 thread, and you will find guidance that I previously posted.

Posts to the PAIC Climate Task Force discussion threads must also meet these additional requirements:

  • Posts must pertain to the specific Climate Policy topic currently under discussion (for Discussion #1, see points 1 and 2 above)
  • Factual posts must be evidence-based and provide links to evidence, e.g., links to data, links to analysis of data, or citations of peer-reviewed literature whose authors conduct research in the topic under discussion as their profession
  • Factual posts must introduce any link they provide
  • A factual post must not be a repeat of a previous factual post

Posts that are declined can be edited to correct deficiencies and resubmitted.

We do realize that several previous posts fall into this category (thought-provoking, but off-topic). Because we feel many of you may be interested in these previously-submitted posts, and may be interested in responding to them, we have moved them to a new discussion entitled "Climate Change Open Discussion."



------------------------------
Thomas Rehm PE,CPSP,CSP
Principal
TERehm Consulting LLC
Humble TX
------------------------------



30.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted yesterday

I have spent considerable time searching for details concerning the "Paris Climate Accord" and have had only limited success.  Before commenting on the agreement it would be prudent to review the specifics of the agreement.  Can someone please supply information or links that summarize the details of the agreement, specifically:

1.       the amount of GHG reduction pledged by each individual country (on a consistent basis).

2.       The countries that are to contribute to the $100 billion per year transfer fund and their fractional contributions.

3.       The countries that will receive funds from the $100 billion per year transfer fund and their fractional distributions. 

Regards,  Steve






31.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted yesterday
Stephen

The amount of GHG reductions pledged can be found at these sites:

http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement
http://www4.unfccc.int/ndcregistry/Pages/All.aspx


Contributors to $100 billion fund

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, European Commission, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States.

The following MDBs (Multilateral Development Banks) also made significant climate finance pledges and announcements in 2015:

Asian Development Bank (ADB), African Development Bank (AFDB), European Investment Bank (EIB), European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDBG), and the World Bank Group (WBG). 

The complete current list can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Climate_Fund#Sources_of_finance

 

Getting projects is a complex process but the list of countries that have received funding can be found at http://www.greenclimate.fund/what-we-do/projects-programmes



------------------------------
Thomas Rehm PE,CPSP,CSP
Principal
TERehm Consulting LLC
Humble TX
------------------------------



32.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 3 hours ago

Thomas,  Thank you for the links, but I had already found them and they do not answer my questions.  The first two links concerning GHG reduction pledges just provide links to the third item, so the only link with real information is the third link.  This site just contains the "official pledges" from each individual country. 

 

These pledges are not on a consistent basis as requested.  For example, most countries use 2005 as the base year, however, the European Union uses 1990 and South Korea uses a "business as usual" 2030 projection as its basis for comparison.  The EU, US, Canada and Japan state absolute reductions while China and India state reductions in CO2/GDP.  China "expects" CO2 emissions to peak by 2030 (i.e. continuing CO2 emission increases until 2030) but has not made a pledge to do so.  India, like most of the developing nations, has made its pledged reductions contingent on funding from the developed countries.  Russia has not submitted a plan. 

 

The links you provided as contributors to the $100 billion fund only contain information on who has made pledges to date.  It does not define who is "expected" to pledge as a developed nation.  It also only contains information on pledges not on actual contributions.  The other link provides information on which countries have received funds, but does not provide information on which countries are eligible to receive funds.   

 

The link shows that the US so far has pledged 30% of the total $10.3 billion of pledges and has already transferred 1/3 of that amount to the fund.  While the site does not mention what fraction of the pledges has actually been collected from other countries, it does criticize the US for expecting that it will not fulfill its pledge.

 

The Paris accord should not be referred to as an "agreement."  The pledges for both contributions and GHG reductions are non-binding on any party and can be modified at any time.  In my opinion the Paris accord is wasted effort.  Countries that are committed to GHG reductions will continue their efforts, countries that are not will continue their lack of effort. 

 

Steve McGovern






33.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 4 days ago
Re August 14 posting by Hugh Kaiser:
Hugh,
    To relieve your concern about the use of computer output instead of observed data for the scientific development of the global warming position of the world's climate scientists I am attaching two plots, the first of which is HadCRUT4, the most widely accepted record of the average temperature of the Earth over the last century and a half.  You can also find it at https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf
If you have any questions about this I suggest that you "google" HadCRUT4.
    The other plot is the CO2 history of the Earth for the last 400,000 years, since before our species is believed to have come into existence.  It can also be found at https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
    If you visit the NASA site I suggest that you roam about the rest of it and you will find all the information you need to understand that the basis of concern about climate change that so many people have is rock solid.  You will also see that HadCRUT4 is only one of four sets of real data all of which show about the same thing.
    Submitted 201708171449
    Neil Yeoman, PE, FAIChE




Attachment(s)



34.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 4 days ago
​Perhaps the difficulty in answering the two posted questions is our very desire (dare I say "need") to seek "truth" and "certainty" and true fundamental "understanding" of the underlying subject and calculations before acting.  I am as obsessive/compulsive as the next engineer on this score, so I will try to take a step back using what I have learned over the last 30 years in industry.  I will even try to make my task easier by only trying to answer one of the two questions.

Before we had the computing power to model complex systems with such detail, we still had to make decisions and almost always without complete information.  Sometimes we make mistakes oversimplifying the problem, but we err on the side of avoiding the worst consequences and look skeptically at the results to see if we need to reverse course.

In your opinion, what is the appropriate level of scientific certainty for climate change science, that you consider necessary to warrant concerted mitigation actions?

A simple risk matrix view of climate change is that the consequences implied by many of the data analyses and models could be critical if not catastrophic - not just sea level rise directly, but also ocean acidification and the inability of fisheries and food growing regions to adapt quickly enough to dying coral and changing weather patterns to avoid famine and war over food and clean water resources.  The probability only has to be possible to constitute a high risk, or likely, not certain, to constitute an extreme risk and justify action.  I agree embarking on "concerted mitigation actions" proposed with the IPCC or the Paris Agreement, the certainty should be much higher.

The issue of "measuring" uncertainty in this case is perhaps too complicated and emotional for this thread to agree on a definition of an adequate metric.  If we could simplify it all down to a number, something in the range of 3 sigma as a defect rate (93.32% in agreement) to +/- 2 sigma in range on a control chart (95.44% of the data) certainty should tell us we need to act decisively.  I will beg the forgiveness of the SQC and 6-sigma experts for taking liberties, but as an order of magnitude, we should be able to agree that a 9/10 to 19/20 certainty is a pretty high bar for public action.  The majority opinion is frequently wrong, but we can't be frozen into inaction.

Engineers want to get it right the first time, but especially when the clock is ticking, we must look not only at the risk of action, but also the consequence of inaction and make a judgment and take action before the point becomes moot.


------------------------------
Eric Hopkins PE
Senior Chemical Process Engineer
SSOE Group
West Chester OH
------------------------------



35.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 4 days ago
Hi All:

I would like to share a few thoughts on the subject of uncertainty about global warming.  The point is that doing something about warming is very expensive, and we should be pretty sure that we get value for the money spent.

Uncertainty of the temperature growth.   I understand that global average temperature data from before 1950 are extrapolated from data for the US, southern Canada and Western Europe.  That is a rather heavy extrapolation.

On January 18, 2017, The Washington Post had a detailed article "U.S. scientists officially declare 2016 the hottest year on record. That makes three in a row."  In the article, NOAA is quoted for a temperature rise from 2015 to 2016 of 0.07 F = 0.04 C.  NASA is quoted for a rise of 0.22 F = 0.12 C.  The British Hadley Center is quoted for a rise of 0.01 C.  Those are very major differences.  The reason given is that the three organizations used different methodologies to compute the average temperature in the Arctic zone from the few actual measurements available.  And since the Arctic has the greatest temperature rise, it has much influence on the global average.  One would think that the scientists could get together and agree on a methodology.

Carbon dioxide is solely responsible for the warming.   A widely distributed curve from the Woods Hole Research Center shows temperature and carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere from 1880 to 2004.  Obviously, the vertical scales are set so that the curves overlap at the start and finish.  You can always set the vertical scales to make two curves match in two points.  The proof of correlation then becomes how intermediate points fit, and honestly, they don't.  I  included the effect of methane, and obtained a much better correlation.

At this point in time, there are 406 ppmv carbon dioxide and 1.82 ppmv of methane in the atmosphere.  Since the greenhouse effect of methane is 80 times that of carbon dioxide (see below), the relative current contributions of carbon dioxide and methane are 406 x 1 = 406 and 1.82 x 80 = 146, or about 2.8/1.  So the influence of methane is significant.  Let me add here that many sources quote lower numbers for methane, because it degenerates with time.  That is false logic.  What is important is how much methane there is in the atmosphere at a certain time, and the temperature at that time.  How old the methane molecules are doses not matter.  Various sources of methane have been suggested (gas facilities, cows, melting permafrost and garbage dumps), but I have not seen any serious investigation of their relative effect.  Since the greenhouse effect of methane is significant, it would appear important to get some numbers on where it comes from.

It was mentioned earlier in this discussion that nobody has come up with firm numbers for heat sources other than greenhouse gases.  That is because those other potential sources are difficult to detect and measure (and impossible for us to do anything about anyway).  Here are a few candidates:

1.  The sun heats the earth from absolute zero to ambient temperature, or by about 300 C.  To achieve a temperature rise of 1 C, the radiation from the sun needs to increase by 1/300 = 0.3 percent.  Do we have good data from since 1880 that this is not happening?

2.   The concentration of the warming in the Arctic, which is not paralleled in the Antarctic, is suspicious.  Is some hot molten mass moving around inside the earth, and getting closer to the surface under the Arctic?

3.  Is the solar system moving through some cloud or radiation field, which influences the surface temperature?


------------------------------
Georg Christensen
The Woodlands TX
------------------------------



36.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 4 days ago
Hi again:

I would like to share a few thoughts on the Paris agreement.

Shower of alarming data.   Undoubtedly, many of the participants in the meeting were under influence of the information presented by "97 percent of climate scientists".  Previous contributions to this discussion have dealt with that issue.

Personally, I am appalled by the flood of insignificant extreme data points being published, the flood of predictions of imminent catastrophe, no-return points and other alarming items.   Here are a few examples to the contrary:

1.  NOAA data show that the number of tornadoes, strong tornadoes, hurricanes and strong hurricanes hitting the US have not increased from about 1954 to about 2007.  Three graphs from NOAA are attached.  The fourth graph is a plot by me of the data from plot 3.


Sorry, I can't get the other two graphs in here.  Will send them separately.

2.  It used to be called global warming.  Now the term climate change is more popular.  That seems to be because some people also want to blame global warming for colder winters and draughts.  I have a hard time seeing the logical connection.

3.   For the last 25 years the sea level has increased by about 3 mm per year, or about 1 ft per 100 years (Hay et al, Nature, 2015).  Predictions being broadcast mention increases of up to 7 feet by year 2100.  That seems quite exaggerated.

4.  On the other hand, has anybody published some experimental data on at what pH level in the seas the plankton will be damaged, potentially causing catastrophe for the food chain in the seas?

US  participation    I calculate that as of 2012, burning of coal in the US produced 6% of the carbon dioxide produced worldwide from burning of fossil fuels.  Oil and its products burned in the US produced 5%.  Throw in an allowance for natural gas, and the US contributed about 13 percent of the worldwide generation of carbon dioxide.  That is a more modest fraction than many people seem to believe.  And it tells us how important - or how little importance - the US actually has.

The US already does its share of reducing carbon dioxide generation.  We do a lot of research.  The government pays heavy subsidies to those who install alternative energy generation.  They are called alternative energy tax credit and alternative energy production credit.  Read about them in IRS's publications.  And since 2012 we have switched a lot of power generation from coal to natural gas.  Natural gas generates only about half as much carbon dioxide per kWh.

Beyond that, the best we can do is to lean on the major carbon dioxide generators do their share also.  Starting now, not in some distant future.

What was promised in Paris?   China, by far the largest coal burner, promised to cap their carbon dioxide generation by 2030.  That is 13 years from now.  How many coal fired power plants will they build in the meantime?  India, who by now is the second largest carbon dioxide generator, stated that they will not accept any limitations.  They plan to double their coal consumption during a few years, and grow by 7%/year after that.  That is, their coal consumption will quadruple by 2030.  They said that they need the electricity.

That is a pretty bleak outlook.   The best we can do is to keep up the persuasive pressure.

------------------------------
Georg Christensen
The Woodlands TX
------------------------------



37.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 4 days ago
Here are the other two graphs I mentioned.  Hope they get through this way.








Did they?


------------------------------
Georg Christensen
The Woodlands TX
------------------------------



38.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 3 days ago
Edited by Thomas Rehm 3 days ago

Georg, we appreciate your comments!

After consultation with the PAIC Climate Task Force members, Kurt Rindfusz and I would like to add some additional information regarding two points that you raise and provide some specific references that you and others can go to for detailed information, namely the severity of weather events and sea level rise.

Regarding severe weather events:

NOAA provides a good summary at https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/.

The observations and the science (as expressed and described in current climate models) show that as we warm the planet we get both increases in heavy precipitation and droughts (IPCC AR5). The issue of severe storms is complicated; extrapolating current-day detectable changes to the future is admittedly problematic. However, all models and studies we are aware of support the idea that more severe weather will result as we put more energy into the system, and as we continue to warm the atmosphere. Summary points include:

  • It is premature to conclude that human activities have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
  • By the end of the 21st century, AGW will likely cause tropical cyclones globally
    • to be 2-11% more intense on average; and
    • to have 10-15% higher rainfall rates on average within about 100 km of the storm center.

Regarding sea level rise:

Please see this Climate.gov report, including data and references: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

Highlights: 

  • In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches (67 mm) above the 1993 average-the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present).
  • Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch (3.2 mm) per year.
  • In many locations along the U.S. coastline, nuisance flooding is now 300% to more than 900% more frequent than it was 50 years ago.
  • Scientists are very confident that the mean global sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter) but no more than 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) by 2100.

Thanks again for your thought-provoking posts, and please consider providing additional specific input (with citations).

Regards



------------------------------
Thomas Rehm PE,CPSP,CSP
Principal
TERehm Consulting LLC
Humble TX
------------------------------



39.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 2 days ago
The fundamental problem with 'Climate Policy' is the excessive focus on glacially slow processes at the expense of system and human safety.

The Architects refit of Grenfell towers in London was completely focussed on meeting Climate Policy goals.

There was almost zero concern with respect to fire safety or life safety.

---------------------------------
Nicholas James
Senior Process Engineer
Mexichem
La Place LA
---------------------------------





40.  RE: PAIC Climate Task Force: General Approaches

Posted 2 days ago
Nicholas

Thanks for your comments.

We would appreciate your response to two specific questions posed for this discussion. Topical-moderation rules for this discussion series were explained in the series Welcome Blog, with an emphases on focusing on the specific theme for each discussion. Therefore, please try to answer these two questions.


Example:

I [fill in the blank:  do/do not/sometimes] support reliance on the IPCC for the following reasons:

[See ideas for ways to articulate reasons in EPA's discussion re reliance on IPCC at this link:  http://saveourepa.com/climatechange/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-clean-air-act-2.html, or here:  http://saveourepa.com/climatechange/epas-response-public-comments-volume-1-general-approach-science-and-other-technical.html#1-1-1, "Specific Comments on EPA's Use of IPCC Reports, or other sources]

Example:

I believe climate change science should consider the relative uncertainties and be accepted when there is [fill in the blank: Very high confidence (At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct), High confidence    (About 8 out of 10 chance), Medium confidence (About 5 out of 10 chance), Low confidence ( About 2 out of 10 chance), Very low confidence (Less than a 1 out of 10 chance) or your own expression] for the following reasons:

[See EPA discussion re uncertainties at this link:  http://saveourepa.com/climatechange/epas-response-public-comments-volume-1-general-approach-science-and-other-technical.html#2 – "1.2 Level of Scientific Certainty," or in the discussion of the Endangerment Finding itself, page 30 of 52, or at page 66524 (74 Fed. Reg. at 66524),  http://saveourepa.com/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/federal_register-epa-hq-oar-2009-0171-dec.15-09.pdf, other sources]





------------------------------
Thomas Rehm PE,CPSP,CSP
Principal
TERehm Consulting LLC
Humble TX
------------------------------