Discussion: View Thread

Subject: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

1.  CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 21 days ago
 Here's an image of the chart that has been under discussion. I found it quickly by Googling CO2 contribution and clicking on Images. It was the third one from the top, so it apparently is very popular.

But look at who posted it: heritage.org, which is The Heritage Foundation. Now since when is the Heritage Foundation a scientific research group with verified climate research credentials? As we well know, it is a politically conservative think tank.

So this may well be a great example of what is widely described as Fake News. It's indeed disturbing that it is so easy for even prestigious organizations to succumb to such immoral practices. It just make our job even harder.

Dave Ashley, AIA

David Ashley AIA
Syracuse NY

2.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 15 days ago
Consider the sender....and then go to a reliable science based source to get the truth.

RK Stewart FAIA
2007 AIA President
M: 415.250.4849

3.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 15 days ago
Wow, David...

Regardless of the particular chart or even issue being discussed, a few comments:

1. Both conservative and liberal groups regularly use a wide variety of "borrowed" graphics to make a point which may or may not be accurate. Do we automatically attribute bad intentions to someone who posts something we consider inaccurate or misleading? Is there a chance that they just believe it to be accurate?
2. In order for us to make any headway, regardless of our points of view, reasonable discourse is necessary - name calling is not really helpful. Have you interacted with Heritage to question the graphic? Have you offered specific objective data that demonstrates that the graphic is not accurate? More discourse and rational discussion would help us all to dig through the mudslinging and to better understand what is really going on. Passionately held "beliefs" on this issue take the discussion from rational to emotional and we then attribute evil motives - it may be that others start from different pre-suppositions than you do, and aren't necessarily convinced that what you may consider dire is quite so dire.
3. Does the fact that something is posted on a conservative website automatically brand it as something that is invalid (same would go for a liberal-view website)?
4. I would just encourage patient, reasoned dialog to help convince others, using well-grounded evidence and logical argument to help lead others to the conclusions that you have arrived at - lay it out for us, if you want to help win people over to your convictions...

Best Wishes, and hope that you have a good Thanksgiving...

Andrew Cronan, AIA

Andrew Cronan AIA
Senior Vice-president
Guernsey Tingle Architects
Williamsburg VA

4.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 13 days ago
Scientific American has an informative article that would give any of us a more detailed defense of the reality of climate change and the issues deniers raise. I recommend studying this article carefully and you could consider recommending it to stubborn deniers rather than trying to argue with them.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/7-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/?utm_source=promotion&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=specialedition-11212017&utm_content=art_SA-Active____OptinNo

David Ashley AIA
Syracuse NY

5.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 12 days ago
Based on my reading of scientific reports from credible research institutions, I am strongly convinced that our climate is changing and that part of the change is due to combustion of fossil fuels.  In my work and personal life, I try to make decisions that will reduce this impact.  At the same time, I acknowledge that there may be others who are not as convinced as I am regarding climate change.

This does not change the facts that burning fossil fuels contributes significant pollution to our environment and depletes limited resources that may not be there for future generations.

Can we all agree that we need to design buildings that will use as little energy as possible, whether or not we believe in human impact on climate change?

Margaretha Eckhardt AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP
Payette Associates, Inc.
Boston MA

6.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 12 days ago


Yes, I think we all agree that we need to design buildings that use as little energy as possible. 

In all the posts on this subject, I have not seen any comments that suggest our climate is not changing, or that part of the change isn't due to combustion of fossil fuels.  I agree that burning fossil fuels contributes significant pollution to our environment.

I think our profession should be knowledgeable, and accurate in responding to reality.  I've heard that even if all of humankind's CO2 emissions were stopped today, climate change would still progress.  That's why I believe it's wise to focus more on preparation and adaptation ("resiliency"), rather than prevention.

Architecture 2030 preaches that catastrophic doom will result if fossil fuel use isn't eliminated in 33 years.  Seeing as we have a few centuries of fossil fuel resources, I imagine future generations will have plenty.  Though I bet that some amazing discovery will occur that makes fossil fuels partially obsolete way before then… maybe before 2050!

Dennis Wells AIA
VP-Studio Director
Miles Associates Incorporated
Oklahoma City OK

7.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 15 days ago

This is totally fake news from a climate denier who has co-opted the thread.

The AIA community needs to become far more knowledgeable about these climate change issues, the leading proponent is Ed Mazria of Architecture 2030 in our profession.

About Us

Architecture2030 remove preview
About Us
For over a decade, in a concerted effort to combat the projected consequences of climate change, Architecture 2030 and collaborative colleagues have championed the cause of sustainable and carbon neutral planning and design in the built environment. These efforts have produced results.
View this on Architecture2030 >

The overview on the global perspective is here, and all the way through the blog.


Laurie Barlow AIA
L. Barlow & Company
South Pasadena CA

8.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 15 days ago
It is disheartening, isn't it? To be fair, we all need to be diligent when searching for our news online. We can all stand for some discovery in this area.

Janet Roche, MDS, CAPS, Allied ASID

9.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 13 days ago

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

10.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 13 days ago
Greetings All,
Since R.K. mentioned reliable sources, I post this again for reference.
I hope readers take the time, visit the site and use the document. 
The Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume 1 - The Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) was cleared through the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) on Friday November 3, 2017. 
Volume 2 is forthcoming in 2018 and will contain many chapters directly relevant and related to the architectural and engineering practice. 
Go to Chapter 2 Physical Drivers of Climate Change. 
Go to Key Finding 1 
Scroll down to Figure 2.6 Time Evolution of Forcings see graph of natural and anthropogenic contributions. 
Scroll to Figure 2.7 Sources and Sinks 
Read the other 2 key findings of this chapter as well if you feel led and visit the traceable accounts in the supporting evidence. 
Adapting together, 
A.R. Ann Kosmal FAIA

Ann Kosmal FAIA


11.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 12 days ago

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 trendleading 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.

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).

Shakun Fig 2a 

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

Virus-free. www.avast.com

12.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 12 days ago

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

13.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 11 days ago
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.

Historic CO2 Levels
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

14.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 10 days ago
Hi all -
so the thing about this particular discussion that is slightly disheartening is that (and I guess I am hereby guilty as charged) it is a good example of how the current toxic atmosphere (no pun intended) of the social and political conversation is distracting so many people from focusing on what ideally we'd all be focused on: building a better world. This applies especially to architects, although I am glad to see others on this thread also making the same point.
We all probably "agree" on some of the basic "facts" of climate change. But is it really worth OUR time to argue about what percentage of what gas in the atmosphere might or might not be caused by human activity and what impact that may or may not be having on climate change in this millennia versus, say, 70 million years ago? Ask T-Rex, if you really want to know.
Why not, instead, use this "knowledge net" to share some knowledge about how to make a built environment that connects people in a harmonious way with each other and with the natural world. Hopefully, that shared knowledge would have the eventual by-product of reduced carbon emissions, among other good benefits.
Here's a bit of a lesson learned that might be a good "bit of knowledge": yesterday toured a LEED Silver school designed in 2000, occupied in 2003. The architects designed the landscape around the school with South-facing terraces to manage the sloping site, but with an idea that it could be good for a school kitchen-garden. Nothing came of it as there was too much else on this community's agenda, and the idea  was forgotten. But of course, the South-facing terraces remained. Ten years on, a new principal, a new group of student interns from a nearby college, and a community suddenly interested in school gardens and now there is a thriving kitchen-garden occupying the terraces. So lesson learned, use will follow form, and program doesn't need to dictate form. Design can make a difference for the better in a number of ways, some not so obvious as energy-performance ratings.

James Carr AIA
James Carr, AIA architecture & design
Cambridge MA

15.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 11 days ago
Jack and colleagues,  

That's a pretty good summary of what we've heard from the latest reports from anybody credible, including the Fourth National Climate Assessment: Atmospheric carbon triggers global temperature and sea level rise; therefore rising temperature and sea level is what we're going to get. We rely on actuarial science to tell us what is most likely to happen and how bad it could get. And although there is argument about the source of various heat-trapping gasses, the best way to think about the widely-held conclusion that most of these GHGs are anthropogenic is "useful information." Regardless of initial cause, we will do a better job of mitigating cascading impacts across sectors if we regard this as a situation in which we have some control. 

Architects are all about innovative thinking and getting the job done, which makes us a natural group of professionals to take up the cause of implementing work we suspect could draw down atmospheric carbon. 

With that in mind, it doesn't matter if there are people who don't believe. Their opinions carry surprisingly little weight in the face of what those of us doing the work know and are gaining from experience. When the topic turns to solutions, the energy and brainpower in the room is tremendous. 

Therefore I urge COTE readers to share solutions, ideas and useful criticism fearlessly, but avoid responding to weak opinions and arguments grounded in logical fallacy. Deniers aren't worth anybody's time.

Simona Fischer, Designer, Sustainable Design Specialist
Minneapolis, MN

16.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 10 days ago


Jack's post supported my newsflash that historically, temperature rises before CO2.  He was agreeing with me!  I challenge you to review all my posts and tell me how I qualify to be called a "denier."  I am rattling some cages, but I haven't and don't deny climate change, or our ability to change its trajectory.  I think the truth is: many COTE readers can't handle a little challenge to their orthodoxy. 

(I bet that most people didn't know that the temperature rises first!)


The last chart I posted was intended to make fun of all the other charts… we can all find impeccable scientists to create bulletproof charts to support whatever the hell we want to promote.  I really don't disagree with most of what you're saying. 

I imagine that an outside observer would have trouble deciding which of all us posters wears a tinfoil hat…

Peace out.

Dennis Wells AIA
VP-Studio Director
Miles Associates Incorporated
Oklahoma City OK

17.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 7 days ago

I am NOT agreeing with you.  Actually, I am not sure what your point is.

The reality is that we have an historically high level of CO2 in the atmosphere, we now have the warmest Earth in eons, and humanity has contributed greatly to the rise in CO2 over the last three + centuries.  Sea levels are rising [apparently thanks in part to COspeeding the melting of glaciers world-wide plus both ice caps AND the water warming], so we are looking at trillions of dollars to build sea walls and move populations, world wide.
Obviously, the first thing we should do is bring COemissions to as low as possible; and hopefully science can improve the small steps being studied to remove some from the atmosphere.

      In the meantime, we should also do everything we can to reduce humanities' carbon footprint.

Hopefully, we can all agree to that simple, small step...weren't we were all taught in school?  The be efficient, be green, be environmentally conscious movement started well before the first Earth Day, over 40 years ago.  We can at least do that.

Jack Romigh AIA
Director/Program Manager
Knight Group Architects
Fort Worth TX

18.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 7 days ago



Although you may feel clever on noticing the temperature first pattern in the historic record, what you are ignoring is that prior to man, there has not been a mechanism that would cause a mass release of sequestered CO2  (and methane and Freon) prior to a temperature rise. Studying geology 37 years ago it was presented that no matter what initiated either ice ages, or warm periods, once the ball got rolling all sorts of mechanisms began to add in to the effect. Then the worry was that we were due for a period of glaciation, based on historic patterns. This time around CO2 rose first, the mechanism for this is man, we started this ball rolling. Now you are correct that now that it is rolling there will be a natural increase in CO2 caused by the warming, making the ball roll faster than it ever has. The danger is will it go so far as to cause a mass extinction (on top of the one caused by man) similar to when oxygen levels first rose too high in the early atmosphere (due to a proliferation of an algae creating oxygen) killing a great majority of life forms at the time and causing a reset of evolution with oxygen tolerant life. Since we are not a CO2 tolerant life form, ignoring (not putting the brakes on) its production, may be hitting an evolutionary reset button that our present form will not survive. The question is bigger than transportation or architecture. History only counts when all other factors remain the same, with man and CO2 this time is different.


Sincerely Chris






Christopher Blood, AIA, MArch.


c/o Architecture49 Inc.
Suite 152, 200 Tremblay Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3H5 Canada

T+1 613.690.3996  C+1 514.839.2221




NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise subject to restricted disclosure under applicable law. This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on, this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized or intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies. You are receiving this communication because you are listed as a current Architecture49 contact. Should you have any questions regarding Architecture49's electronic communications policy, please consult our Anti-Spam Commitment at www.architecture49.com/casl. For any concern or if you believe you should not be receiving this message, please forward this message to caslcompliance@wspgroup.com so that we can promptly address your request. Note that not all messages sent by architecture49 qualify as commercial electronic messages.

AVIS : Ce message, incluant tout fichier l'accompagnant (« le message »), peut contenir des renseignements ou de l'information privilégiés, confidentiels, propriétaires ou à divulgation restreinte en vertu de la loi. Ce message est destiné à l'usage exclusif du/des destinataire(s) voulu(s). Toute utilisation non permise, divulgation, lecture, reproduction, modification, diffusion ou distribution est interdite. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, ou que vous n'êtes pas un destinataire autorisé ou voulu, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur immédiatement et détruire le message et toute copie électronique ou imprimée. Vous recevez cette communication car vous faites partie des contacts de Architecture49. Si vous avez des questions concernant la politique de communications électroniques de Architecture49, veuillez consulter notre Engagement anti-pourriel au www.architecture49.com/casl. Pour toute question ou si vous croyez que vous ne devriez pas recevoir ce message, prière de le transférer au conformitelcap@wspgroup.com afin que nous puissions rapidement traiter votre demande. Notez que ce ne sont pas tous les messages transmis par architecture49 qui constituent des messages electroniques commerciaux.


19.  RE: CO2 Contribution or Fakke News?

Posted 5 days ago
Well said and thank you.

Jeff Thompson, AIA  Assistant Director
Construction Management Division
(O.) (954) 357-8460, (M.) (954) 214-7052

Broward County
115 S. Andrews Ave. Rm. A550
Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 33322

Under Florida law, most e-mail messages to or from Broward County employees or officials are public records, available to any person upon request, absent an exemption. Therefore, any e-mail message to or from the County, inclusive of e-mail addresses contained therein, may be subject to public disclosure.