Yes the CO2 Levels have risen and fallen in sequence to that of climate changes. Does construction/human impact create climate change? Obviously no. Does construction/human impact affect climate change? I personally am on the side that it does. The image I found on NASA's website that is similar to Jack's (which references the same Voltok Ice Core research) shows up to the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere. For nearly 400,000 years the CO2 in the atmosphere didn't exceed 300 ppm while we are currently at 407ppm. Does the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere contribute to the earth's temperature? From what I've read/learned it does. Dennis, if you look closer at the figure Jack posted CO2 is consistently higher vs temperature and the findings are that the levels of CO2 are what initiates the temperature increase. It's not always this way as there are some point where the temperature spikes above the CO2 level.
Dennis, I don't think the chart that you posted is including commercial buildings. As in the discussion, the woman that wrote The Hidden Impact says our houses come after electronics and animals. Which doesn't sound like she was including commercial buildings. I could be wrong but it seems to me that she isn't. Depending on where you get all your materials for your building I'm pretty sure that the overall construction industry would usurp the top two spots.
Even if there is a small opportunity to minimize our impact on climate change, doesn't it make sense to pursue it? Yes, there are other things that may have more of an impact on the environment but that doesn't mean we shouldn't explore better technology to build smarter and more efficiently or use our industry to set the standard that others like electronics can take note from. Not doing that would be like saying that it's alright to steal a couple bags of groceries, because there is a lot of crime way worse out there.
Why don't we use asbestos or lead based paints anymore? They are great products, minus the small horrible hazardous nature they carry with themselves. Why didn't we just say suck it up and adapt? Why did everyone get so upset about the BP oil spill and just adapt? Who cares that it killed a bunch of animals and wrecked an ecosystem? In the US we slaughter over 50 Billion animals a year for food, per the USDA Livestock Slaughter Annual Summary, where the oil spill only killed a little over 100,000. I don't think that we need to wait until something happens before we are proactive. I do however like Dennis' comment, and Sam Kinison reference, in another post that asked if someone would get mad at the rain for a leak in their roof or fix the leak. However the scenario in relation to this topic as I see it is, you have an opportunity to fix a hole in your roof, you don't and it rains. Do you blame the rain, adapt and fix the hole, prepare for a future storm by getting buckets or get mad at yourself because you didn't fix the hole when you had the opportunity. Just fix the hole. Also when you sever a limb you stop the bleeding before you prepare for the future.
Are we killing or hurting the planet? Probably not. One of my favorite lines is from a George Carlin bit where he said "The Earth is going to be fine, the people are $#@#%" The Earth will be here for a long time even if we are wiped from its face. The Earth will live on and will heal itself. Architecture by itself ultimately solves the construction industries impact on climate change, but there are conscious choices that we can make that lowers our impact on nature now while preparing for the future.
------------------------------
Todd Brautigam, AIA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-29-2017 22:32
From: Dennis Wells
Subject: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?
Jack,
Sounds like you've pretty much got it figured out. What's the argument?
Will changing the purpose of architecture fix it?
------------------------------
Dennis Wells AIA
VP-Studio Director
Miles Associates Incorporated
Oklahoma City OK
Original Message:
Sent: 11-29-2017 20:06
From: Jack Romigh
Subject: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?
Did not really want to get involved in this discussion, but we do tend to pick parts of science and statistics to bolster our arguments. Better to be more holistic and see the complete picture, not just what suits your view.
Earth's climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice coredata, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.
Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.
This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.
A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:
- The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.
- This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.
- The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.
While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). Source.
Basic rebuttal written by dana1981
Jack A Romigh, AIA
DFW Office
Original Message------
Here's a little known scientific fact: Historically, the rise in global temperature (in all previous climate change up-cycles) preceded the rise in global CO2. Let that sink in. Temperature rises before CO2 does… sometimes by 400-800 years! The temperature increases first, then CO2 starts to increase hundreds of years later. It's happened many times. It happens every time. If you zoom into the detail-scale of Al Gore's hockey stick this becomes evident.
This fact would seem to inform the rational mind that CO2 does not cause global warming. Global warming causes the increase of CO2. 100% of scientists agree on this… not just 90%. Liberal scientists, as well as conservative scientists agree.
This is not the propaganda of an infidel. It's true. Take a deep breath, and try to disprove it.
But all is not lost. We still have something to cause alarm and dread! At some point, late in each global warming cycle, the CO2 increase gets ahead of the temperature increase and begins to exacerbate the temperature rise. This is where we are now. And yes, man-generated CO2 contributes to this exacerbation. (You can gnash teeth and rend garments again!) I do not deny that we can affect the trajectory. Up, or down.
But we don't cause climate change. Sorry for the bad news. If you're going to be an effective alarmist, you need to accept this inconvenient truth, and still be able to explain why capitalism must be throttled to save the planet. Or otherwise, lose all credibility in the eyes of independent thinkers.
------------------------------
Dennis Wells AIA
VP-Studio Director
Miles Associates Incorporated
Oklahoma City OK
------------------------------