Climate change predicted to transform Vancouver into San Diego, but at a heavy cost

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by rofina

I know what I hope it DOESNT bring; fires and smoke.

Of course it will...

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I hate to be a downer, but it most probably will, unless we enter a cold, rainy summer weather pattern, and I doubt that's likely.
https://thehill.com/policy/equilibri...e-wildfires-in

There's also this site (only shows US fires). It's scary how many fires there are.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Studies say that climate change also brings more random monsoons too... let's hope so.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I hate to be a downer, but it most probably will, unless we enter a cold, rainy summer weather pattern, and I doubt that's likely.
https://thehill.com/policy/equilibri...e-wildfires-in

Both fuel and ignition for fires are more likely to occur simultaneously as temperatures increase, he said, and historical records suggest a correlation between particularly warm and dry periods and total area burned.

I mean this analysis is pure genius..

[spacebjorn]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I can assure you my kids won't be living in a "San Diegoed" Vancouver, nor will even there grandkids. The report is littered by what ifs and assumptions. When a article like that is published it actually does more harm then good, as you see pushback which then leads to questioning of the well written reports. Heck just look of the comments on that article and see if you feel any good was done by publishing it. Its not bad to call out crap regardless of where your beliefs lie. Personally I think this is one of the most globally politicized topics of our time and when the dust settles in 10-15yrs and the data is presented unbiased we'll see just how overstated some predictions were.

This could not have aged more poorly.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by spacebjorn

This could not have aged more poorly.

You can only say that in 10-15 years.

[s211]

Originally Posted by spacebjorn

This could not have aged more poorly.

I'm not sure I understand you, unless you are confusing weather with climate change. It cuts both ways.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by s211

I'm not sure I understand you, unless you are confusing weather with climate change. It cuts both ways.

Keep talking! We'll revisit all of this in 3-4 years!

[Denscity]

Van Diego?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by s211

I'm not sure I understand you, unless you are confusing weather with climate change. It cuts both ways.

It doesn't really. "As humans emit more planet-warming greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, more energy is added to the climate system. The excess energy, according to Kristie Ebi, a climate and health researcher at the University of Washington, appears by way of extreme weather events.

"Heat waves have always occurred and will always occur, but we've got a very different pattern of heat waves now than we did a couple of decades ago," Ebi told CNN. "And it's not just the intensity, it's also the geographic extent."

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It doesn't really. "As humans emit more planet-warming greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, more energy is added to the climate system. The excess energy, according to Kristie Ebi, a climate and health researcher at the University of Washington, appears by way of extreme weather events.

"Heat waves have always occurred and will always occur, but we've got a very different pattern of heat waves now than we did a couple of decades ago," Ebi told CNN. "And it's not just the intensity, it's also the geographic extent."

We didn't even have a fire ban at al last year it was so mild the whole year.

Lets hold off on VanDiego because we had 4 days of above normal heat in the Summer.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by rofina

We didn't even have a fire ban at al last year it was so mild the whole year.

Lets hold off on VanDiego because we had 4 days of above normal heat in the Summer.

Yeah, "Washington B.C." might be a better metaphor - climate models say we're supposed to get wetter on average.

That said, those four days broke fifty-nine provincial records. Before that, we'd started getting monsoons and thunderstorms on a regular basis (when before they were blue moon events), and before that, most of our record highs are from '06 or later. At least a slight amount of panic is warranted.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by rofina

We didn't even have a fire ban at al last year it was so mild the whole year.

Lets hold off on VanDiego because we had 4 days of above normal heat in the Summer.

Minor understatement. We're breaking records everywhere, including ambulance calls and ER admissions.

Lytton broke the Canadian record going back 80+ years, then did it again the next day.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Minor understatement. We're breaking records everywhere, including ambulance calls and ER admissions.

Lytton broke the Canadian record going back 80+ years, then did it again the next day.

Fair point.

I'm biased because I love it. I was out and about biking around enjoying the heat. But its definitely not for everyone, and if it were to become a summer normal its clear a lot would have to change around here.

My point was that we just came off a very mild summer and year in 2020. Even if this Summer remains above average, lets see if a trend is established before we jump on the VanDiego bandwagon in earnest.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by rofina

Fair point.

I'm biased because I love it. I was out and about biking around enjoying the heat. But its definitely not for everyone, and if it were to become a summer normal its clear a lot would have to change around here.

My point was that we just came off a very mild summer and year in 2020. Even if this Summer remains above average, lets see if a trend is established before we jump on the VanDiego bandwagon in earnest.

Sure 2019 didn't have many fire issues either. Mezzanine bumped this thread from 2017. 2018 was a terrible wildfire season, and 2017 was nearly as bad - and that was the worst in 60 years. So we're seeing higher than normal temperatures and greater than average fire activity in two of the past four years - and this year's spring is the hottest on record. We'll be really lucky if we don't have another severe fire season. There are other severe effects of this heat too - dozens of people are dying unexpectely..

[Cypherus]

Deniers of climate change are no different than the anti-Maskers who believe the Cabal is behind all this. But in reality, if there is some criticism, is that while Canada can lower its carbon footprint, we have other countries, namely China and Russia, who have no concern about fossil fuels being burned and the effects encroaching our atmospheres. Just 2 years ago, a wildfire in Siberia blanketed the Pacific Northwest in Smoke. This is not a problem for domestic Virtue Signalers to get their thumbs up for the week; we need a sincere and earnest Globalized effort to solve Climate Change akin to the same levels of effort put for free trade.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yeah, the entire planet needs to get down to 5 tons per capita ASAP... aaand BC's already mostly there, so I'm not sure what else we can do.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, the entire planet needs to get down to 5 tons per capita ASAP... aaand BC's already mostly there, so I'm not sure what else we can do.

Not even close.

"In 2018, British Columbia's gross greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as reported in the Provincial Inventory, were 67.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e). This is an increase of 4.5 MtCO2e (7%) from 63.4 MtCO2e in 2007, the baseline year for our emission reduction targets." [Provincial Greenhouse Gas Inventory]

That's over 13 tons/capita. And in the past few years our emissions have been rising - not falling.
[source, BC Government]





Metro Vancouver per capita GHG emissions were 5.38 tonnes/person, but that's still way too high to limit global heating. We have to generate no net carbon by 2050 to avoid the worst impacts. (That's the plan; a carbon neutral region by 2050).

[Feathered Friend]

Understanding that Wikipedia is a terrible source, but at the same time, given the heat I don't feel like doing a deep dive either. Here's the per-capita numbers

CO2 emissions by country/region name (only fossil fuels and cement manufacture, metric tons per capita per year. 2018 Figures are from Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) and include all human activities leading to climate relevant emissions, except biomass/biofuel combustion (short-cycle carbon)[5]

2018

Canada 16.1

USA 16.1

Russia 12.1

China 8.0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ons_per_capita

[Migrant_Coconut]

And yet there's 4x as many Russians, so their total emissions are over twice as much as ours (to say nothing of China). If we're ditching fossil fuels, they better be right behind us.

Originally Posted by Changing City

Metro Vancouver per capita GHG emissions were 5.38 tonnes/person, but that's still way too high to limit global heating. We have to generate no net carbon by 2050 to avoid the worst impacts. (That's the plan; a carbon neutral region by 2050).

That's the one I appear to have been looking at. Net zero by 2050 is at least somewhat doable.

[rofina]

I appreciate the optimism in here. I think reality is a little different though.

We would have to reduce our consumption and use to levels last seen during March/April of 2020 when pictures of clear skies and rivers began to circulate from around the world. As I recall, that was just enough, or not quite enough of a CO2 reduction to meet targets.

Imagine the effort it would take to get the world to a place where the economy was on that level permanently.

We don't know how to stop, never have. I doubt this time will be different. Technocrats will always find a way to try and innovate out of this, not understanding the issue is our entire ideology of growth and consumption. I don't think innovation is a solution, the solution has always been fitting into the ecosystem, not trying to build one in our image.

This is the future (and ironically the past);