Global Warming, Continued

I am extremely distressed by the profound ignorance and arrogance exhibited by the authors (from Marion, Ill., and Dedham, Mass.) of two letters published in the April 2010 edition of HPAC Engineering (Sounding Board, "Global Warming,").

The first of those authors states, "As professionals, our focus must be on factual information and bottom-line benefits to our clients." The author attacks the scientific basis for global warming as "fraudulent justification" for carbon taxes. The author also writes, "We know the latest warming cycle ended during the last decade," and that concepts such as "carbon saved" are "invented claims."

The second of the authors attacks David Sellers, PE, for his "perversion of the concept of pollution," which, he says, "is typical of the extremes to which enviro-activists can go." He then states with absolute certainty that, "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a harmful substance" because it "already is in the air" at concentrations of "about 0.035 percent." He then states with similar certainty that the effect of doubling or tripling the CO2 concentration "would be negligible" and perhaps cause "greater plant growth."

Unbelievable. I hope you published those letters to make the point that neither writer understands the science of global warming. It is tragic that so many skeptics who express such strong beliefs about climate change make statements that repeatedly demonstrate they have absolutely no understanding of the physical, chemical, or biological forces that control climate, let alone the nature and existence of life on this planet.

The earth's climate is driven by heat flow, but it is not a machine we understand well enough to control. We ignore the thermodynamics of climate at our own peril.

The letter from William Bishop, EIT, LEED AP, in the same issue is right on the money. But I do not share his optimism about the ability of our engineering peers to understand the science of climate chaos. It is painfully obvious that while some may understand a psychometric chart, they don't have a clue about applied physics, chemistry, and biology on a macro scale. The uncertainty associated with oceanographic and ecological science, not to mention climate science, is daunting.

There are very few absolute facts. What is tragic is that the "facts" stated by these writers and virtually every skeptic of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change data are irrelevant to the documented problem. Climate science is fraught with uncertainty; so is medical science, driving a car, and every other aspect of life. That is why prudent people buy life insurance, health insurance, and auto insurance. That is why engineers develop safety factors and best management practices.

The civilized response to greenhouse-gas emissions and concerns about climate change should be no different than our response to any other aspect of life fraught with uncertainty: prevent catastrophe with education, laws, codes, standards, regulations, and insurance.

Personally, I have infinite tolerance for immediate and collective action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions because I do not totally understand what is happening and why. But I do know something is happening. The evidence is overwhelming. If we do not reduce greenhouse pollution to levels at or below historic levels in a timely fashion, we are endangering the continued stability of our relatively hospitable climate.

We know humans are capable of using technology to exploit and eventually destroy resource bases that have sustained and nurtured many civilizations. It has happened many times. If concentrations in the upper atmosphere continue to increase at current rates, climate patterns as we know them could change not only drastically, but at a rate faster than our ability to adapt.

I do not think it is prudent to continue this experiment in climate modification simply because ignorant and arrogant skeptics choose to act on their beliefs and use irrelevant "facts" to support those beliefs.

It would be tragic if willful ignorance or thoughtless arrogance destroyed the resource base—our stable climate—supporting the 6 billion people alive today. If we continue to exploit land and water using available fossil-fuel resources, atmospheric levels of CO2 will soar.

A preponderance of scientific evidence suggests we have a serious problem.

What belief system gives any of us the right to object to measures that might mitigate, if not solve, the problem?

What belief system gives any human the right to place the lives of 6 billion other people at risk?
David E. Bruderly, PE
Bruderly Engineering Associates
Gainesville, Fla.

LEED Credentials

There are four types of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) credentials. You missed LEED Accredited Professional (AP) without specialty in your article (Engineering Green Buildings, "What’s New With LEED Professional Credentials," March 2010).

Kin (Mike) Wu, PE, LEED AP
U.S. Coast Guard, Civil Engineering Unit
Oakland, Calif.

Author's response:
LEED AP without specialty is a valid designation. However, the credential no longer is offered by the Green Building Certification Institute and has been replaced by the LEED AP with specialty and LEED Green Associate credentials. Those with the LEED AP without specialty designation will never lose their credential, but they will have the option to add a specialty by enrolling in testing or prescriptive credential maintenance. For more information, please visit www.gbci.org/CMP/Enrollment.
Erin Emery
U.S. Green Building Council Washington, D.C.

Pressurization Control

Editor's note: The February 2010 article "Pressurization Control in Large Commercial Buildings" by Dave Moser, PE, has generated a good deal of discussion via the Disqus comment system on HPAC.com. Following is a sampling.

"Jim" wrote:
"A way to address inconsistent DP (differential-pressure) readings is to install two DP sensors and average the results. Outdoor air could be sensed at two locations, if desired."

To which "papaD" replied:
"Multiple DP sensors only compound the errors. How do you average them? Are their positions reflective of the true average building pressure flow? Where do you place outside tap? How do you reduce the volatility of the DP output for control without losing the value of the data? How often do you have to zero and recalibrate the sensors? Is this done regularly in practice?

Acceptable Use Policy blog comments powered by Disqus