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!
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.
The overview on the global perspective is here, and all the way through the blog.
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.
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:
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'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…
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.
Christopher Blood, AIA, MArch. Sr.Designer
c/o Architecture49 Inc. Suite 152, 200 Tremblay Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3H5 Canada
T+1 613.690.3996 C+1 514.839.2221