MAY 2008 Issue
READERS’ FORUM
Which Climate Change Debate Should APEGGA Support?
A recent survey of APEGGA members indicates strong support for informed debate regarding climate change, although it is ambiguous about what this actually means. We need to remember that there are actually two debates — one conducted within the scientific establishment and one within various media.
Documents produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summarize the scientific debate. These reports, based on refereed articles within respected scientific journals, are
exhaustively scrutinized both within the atmospheric science community and by various eminent scientific institutions, for instance the Royal Society of Canada, the Royal Society in the U.K, and the
National Academy of Sciences in the U.S.
IPCC documents are perhaps the most carefully scrutinized scientific documents ever produced and as such represent a consensus among researchers within the field.
The other debate is not bound by the extremely high standards of verification and logical consistency required within the scientific debate. Rather than being directed at experts within the field, this debate is directed at the general public and policy-makers.
The aim of this second debate is not to influence the science (few of these authors publish in refereed articles). Rather, it is to influence the political debate regarding the appropriate responses to climate change. By casting doubt upon the science of climate change, the authors hope to inhibit political action.
To quote the Royal Society, from the Daily Oil Bulletin of July 11, 2007: “At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the cause of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day.” The statements of these detractors are not scientific claims. They are political statements (a form of propa-ganda, really) masquerading as science.
The debate within The PEGG belongs to the latter camp. For those interested in the scientific debate, highly detailed documents can be found on the IPCC website. In addition, the Royal Society site has an excellent summary of the arguments regarding climate change.
By not accepting the findings of the IPCC, APEGGA and its membership discredit the whole scientific enterprise. APEGGA exists because of the specialized knowledge that its members have, which allows us to be a self-governing body.
Similarly, scientific organizations are responsible for the integrity of scientific enterprises within their compass. We can contribute to the scientific debate by publishing research articles within reputable scientific journals.
It is the prerogative of individual members to decide their position on climate change, but the opinions of our membership have little relevance to the scientific debate which has, for all intents and purposes, ended.
J. Edward Mathison, P.Geol.
Calgary
Warming Appears
To Have Ended
The Kyoto Protocol has been around for just over a decade. In this time annual global emissions of carbon dioxide have risen from just under 25 gigatonnes in 1997 to over 31 gigatonnes today. That’s 30 per cent above the target of 1990 emissions levels.
In spite of this, the global temperature record has shown absolutely no warming in the last six years and 2008 appears to be following this trend.
On Feb. 2, 2007, the IPCC 2007 Summary for Policy Makers for the Fourth Assessment Report stated explicitly that the world was still warming and that there was a 90 per cent certainty this was being caused by human CO2 emissions. The date of this release coincides with dropping global temperatures and rising CO2 levels, trends which contradict both assertions of the IPCC.
Since the IPCC is the sole reference for the political action taken on this issue, it is critical for governments to address this misrepresentation of fact before continuing on the current course of action.
Norm Kalmanovitch, P.Geoph.
Calgary
Here’s to a Little
Refreshing Humility
Re: Many Sources Build Stance on Climate Change, by David J. Parker, P.Eng., Readers’ Forum, The PEGG, April 2008.
Mr. Parker is to be congratulated on a very comprehensive and articulate presentation of climate change arguments and evidence. It is this information that has persuaded a large majority of the world’s peer-reviewed climate scientists, as well as scientists in many linked fields, that humans are, indeed, one of the most significant causative agents of the current climate change and need to take action.
I find it refreshing that even though he is obviously extremely well informed, he doesn’t claim to be an expert himself or claim to invoke so-called common sense to discredit work performed over many years by specialists in fields whose expertise he doesn’t share.
It seems ironic to me that some members of an organization like APEGGA, which exists to protect the public from the application of earth science or engineering by those not qualified to do so, are so quick to attack the work of qualified and peer-reviewed scientists in fields of research that they themselves may lack the credentials to review.
I’m no expert either, but I have friends in several of the fields contributing to our knowledge of climate, including glaciology and particularly astronomy. Discussions with these friends, as well as reasonably broad reading of a variety of literature, both pro and con, convince me that we should, in fact, proceed as if we do influence climate. We need to begin to institute broad changes in our attitudes towards resources (particularly carbon) and their use.
As Mr. Parker points out, if we’re wrong about the climate, we will have made some positive changes in our use of resources and reduced our impact on the Earth. If we’re right, however, we may lessen the effects of what will surely be a truly stressful time for humans.
Let’s have more responses like the well-reasoned one from Mr. Parker.
David C. Henley, P.Geoph.
Calgary
A New Voice in Climate Change
Editor’s Note: The following letter is from a student who took part in the Calgary Youth Science Fair in March.
Thank you APEGGA for giving me the earth sciences award for elementary school students. I really appreciated it. It means a lot to me that I received this award. It is the first award I have received.
Here’s a short summary of my project, A Solution for Global Warming? Global Dimming. I was trying to find a way to reduce global warming and cool down the Earth. From my research, I discovered that the ocean is absorbing most of the sun’s heat.
If we can reduce the amount of heat getting to the ocean, then maybe we can reduce global warming. My question was, “Does light absorption and light reflection decrease the amount of heat getting to a body of water?”
I tested a model of light absorption using a solar panel and light reflection using a Styrofoam panel. I used a full-spectrum light hanging above 10 litres of water and looked for differences in the temperature of the water, depending on which panel was used.
I concluded that light absorption was the best at reducing the amount of heat getting to a body of water.
My findings suggest we can help decrease global warming if we put islands on the ocean that would absorb or reflect the sun’s light rays back to space. This idea is actually being developed by a Swiss company!
Thank you again for giving me this award.
Zachary Hall
Grade 6, Calgary Jewish Academy
R.P.T. Proves the Other Side
Re: R.P.T.s Earn Professional Privileges, by Douglas J. Shapansky, R.P.T.(Eng.), Readers’ Forum, The PEGG, April 2008.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Shapansky did not write a letter expressing his opinion of the relative attributes of a P.Eng. and an R.P.T. during the discussion period about whether to establish the R.P.T. designation, as I feel his message would have had an impact on the decision.
Mr. Shapansky states that unless he said so, a professional engineer would not know he wasn’t one as well. He said he is “highly educated” and has been “mentoring and working with” engineers-in-training.
The important fact that Mr. Shapansky omits is that from the perspective of formal education, which I believe is still one of the requirements to become a practicing professional engineer, he took a significantly shorter, easier and less expensive route. Yet he seems to feel he has arrived at the same destination.
Mr. Shapansky’s statements go a long way towards proving the points made by the original letter writer, Horace R. Gopeesingh, P.Eng., in his March 2008 letter questioning the R.P.T. designation.
Karl Miller, P.Eng.
Calgary