| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Rival for most valuable company |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | Perhaps a shift to a more rational discussion--or perhaps not. Climate change has been going on, at a different pace, since the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago. Fast at first, and on-going at a fairly slow rate. Clear signals in sea level rise. But SLR has accelerated recently, and the theoretical relationship between CO2 levels and heat trapping are unarguable. But I get tired of people putting words in the mouth of the science, both about their work and about reasonable approaches. This appears to be the latest:
| Quote: | | give weight to those predictions based upon past accuracy |
This is nonsense. Scientists don't predict the future, they model scenarios--lots of them. Those scenarios represent different sets of assumptions--and they use assumptions because they don't know factors, yet. Calling this work predictions, and then using it to discredit scientific work as in this comment is disingenuous at best. |
You finally said something that I can agree with, and in the process, you just sharpened the double edge sword.
It goes both ways, but yet you will only recognize one side of your sword.
You admit to "lots of scenarios" but can only accept one.
Here, something that is not from the Climate Depot~
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | NW
As you are aware, your structural engineer does not decide out of thin air what the effects of the seismic event may be. These are defined by codes that are based on history and scientific research. An engineer may add addItional design parameters at his, and his client's, discretion. But, the minimums are code designated.
Same with my bridge. I have a standard that is the rule that is based on history. However, we have significant information available that climate change will likely increase the potential for greater stream flows. We do not know, yet to what extent, so there is no official design parameter. These need to be developed. These codes require research and funding. Not gonna happen without a consensus. |
No difference, we also don't know how strong the big one is going to be, so you over-engineer towards the worst possible scenario, nothing really new here, or there with your bridge.
Cooling can also increase the flow of the river with increased precipitation, it makes no sense to me to have to accept the notion of global warming to be able to design a safe bridge. Just design it to withstand a flash flood, a big bad earthquake, and call it good. Or you can go ahead and bog down the design process with politics, it's your choice.
BTW, consensus is not science, but engineering is, so get to work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I read that article that NW linked. I had never seen an extreme right site that made such a big point of being so biased.
You read this stuff often? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | NW
As you are aware, your structural engineer does not decide out of thin air what the effects of the seismic event may be. These are defined by codes that are based on history and scientific research. An engineer may add addItional design parameters at his, and his client's, discretion. But, the minimums are code designated.
Same with my bridge. I have a standard that is the rule that is based on history. However, we have significant information available that climate change will likely increase the potential for greater stream flows. We do not know, yet to what extent, so there is no official design parameter. These need to be developed. These codes require research and funding. Not gonna happen without a consensus. |
No difference, we also don't know how strong the big one is going to be, so you over-engineer towards the worst possible scenario, nothing really new here, or there with your bridge.
Cooling can also increase the flow of the river with increased precipitation, it makes no sense to me to have to accept the notion of global warming to be able to design a safe bridge. Just design it to withstand a flash flood, a big bad earthquake, and call it good. Or you can go ahead and bog down the design process with politics, it's your choice.
BTW, consensus is not science, but engineering is, so get to work. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | the public has been confused by the doubts cast by the skeptics ... |
That presumes, with no proof of veracity and plenty of proof to the contrary, that the alarmists are correct. A balanced, open-minded, truer statement would be, "The public is confused by the lack of agreement among scientists." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | we are told that these weren't predictions at all! Scientists don't predict the future.......they just run models. Someone should tell that to all the governments around the world who have relied on those non-predictions when making public policy. |
Not only are those models proven completely wrong every time they are compared to real data, but Gore and the IPCC choose to base their predictions on the most frightening, outlying models they can find. They attribute hoofbeats to butterflies wearing oversized steel-toed combat boots while dancing on hot tin roofs, and a complicit U.S. administration could doom our and thus the world's economy by acting on the IPCC's demands.
As far as what any individual contractor should do, aside from legal requirements, I see at least three options (I've chaired USAF contractor selection boards on high-tech programs running in the tens of millions in vital support of multi-billion-dollar programs): bid it both ways and try to persuade the customer to think green, bid it conservatively to get the contract, or bid it green and build a powerful case that only the green approach can ensure a 75 year life span. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="coboardhead"] | nw30 wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | NW
As you are aware, your structural engineer does not decide out of thin air what the effects of the seismic event may be. These are defined by codes that are based on history and scientific research. An engineer may add addItional design parameters at his, and his client's, discretion. But, the minimums are code designated.
Same with my bridge. I have a standard that is the rule that is based on history. However, we have significant information available that climate change will likely increase the potential for greater stream flows. We do not know, yet to what extent, so there is no official design parameter. These need to be developed. These codes require research and funding. Not gonna happen without a consensus. |
No difference, we also don't know how strong the big one is going to be, so you over-engineer towards the worst possible scenario, nothing really new here, or there with your bridge.
Cooling can also increase the flow of the river with increased precipitation, it makes no sense to me to have to accept the notion of global warming to be able to design a safe bridge. Just design it to withstand a flash flood, a big bad earthquake, and call it good. Or you can go ahead and bog down the design process with politics, it's your choice.
BTW, consensus is not science, but engineering is, so get to work. |
Engineering is applied science. "Bogging down" the design process is, quite frankly, what I am well known to NOT do. In this instance, it was not I who asked this question on this project. But, the issue remains. Climate models quite consistently indicate that extreme weather events are more likely with global warming.
If we cannot even agree that global warming is occurring, how can the design industry provide reasonable standards for mitigation of the effects? And, standards ARE required as you, as a design professional, well know. No Engineer will tell you he has designed a structure to withstand any "big one". Only that he has designed a structure as the code has required for an assumed design seismic event.
Engineers will, likely, be more comfortable with sticking with a current standard rather than take responsibility for designing for an event that is not defined by any code. We will continue to build structures with no consideration for effects of global warming.
We talk about unintended consequences of actions by government in one thread. There my well be unintended consequences for continuing to advocate doing nothing to prepare for the effects of climate change. This is what will happen unless POLITICAL consensus is reached that we need to take REASONABLE mitigating steps to reduce these potential effects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KC rightly asks NW:
| Quote: | | You read this stuff often? |
KC--he only reads this stuff. I had posted a very readable analysis of the cycles underlying the claim that there has been no warming for 15 years. NW brags about not reading such stuff. Then he posts garbage from Pierre L. Gosselin, an associate degree in civil engineering--not climate science, or physics, or anything that might give him credentials. Who pays Gosselin to run a denier site? I guarantee you, NW is not curious.
Pretty sad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Boggsy posted the dog rescue story--a crew of Crissy regulars found a dog between Treasure Island and the end of the old Berkeley pier. Do you think that the conservatives on the forum would insist that the dog remain in the water and take responsibility for its condition? Do you think they consider those who saved the dog to have made it more dependent on handouts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
