Statistics Canada Reports II

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by svlt

That would mean we've increased 1M in well under 12 months. We could see 50M by 2030 if trends hold in that case (I sort of doubt they would)

We could hit 75 million if climate change experts are right. Most of the Southwest US (much of Arizona, Nevada, and parts of California) will become uninhabitable.

A catastrophic climate event could see a population shift not witnessed since World War 2, and never in the New World.

[Justanothermember]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

We could hit 75 million if climate change experts are right. Most of the Southwest US (much of Arizona, Nevada, and parts of California) will become uninhabitable.

A catastrophic climate event could see a population shift not witnessed since World War 2, and never in the New World.

And if this happens, the entire world is f'ed no matter where you live. I simply can't being myself to cheer on the destruction of the planet just to gain a few extra tax-paying citizens.

Hopefully I'm long gone by the time the heavy impacts of climate change rear their ugly faces.

[TownGuy]

I know little on the topic but how exactly would climate change make the southwest US uninhabitable? Before air conditioning came along it already was that way, AC isn't going anywhere. If we're talking water, desalination can be built. Costly as fuck, but versus a mass exodus of states I'm sure the will would be there.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by TownGuy

I know little on the topic but how exactly would climate change make the southwest US uninhabitable? Before air conditioning came along it already was that way, AC isn't going anywhere. If we're talking water, desalination can be built. Costly as fuck, but versus a mass exodus of states I'm sure the will would be there.

yep. Dubai is still growing like crazy, as are many other places that regularly hit 45C+ temperatures. It is the places without reliable electricity (thus AC) that will be "uninhabitable" should they have wet-bulb temperatures of 32C and above.

Even heat-adapted people cannot carry out normal outdoor activities past a wet-bulb temperature of 32 °C (90 °F), equivalent to a heat index of 55 °C (131 °F). A reading of 35 °C (95 °F) – equivalent to a heat index of 71 °C (160 °F) – is considered the theoretical human survivability limit for up to six hours of exposure.

Water can evaporate only if the air around it can absorb more water. This is measured by comparing how much water is in the air to the maximum that could be in the air—the relative humidity. 0% means the air is completely dry, and 100% means the air contains all the water it can hold in the present circumstances and it cannot absorb any more water (from any source).

This is part of the cause of apparent temperature in humans. The drier the air, the more moisture it can take up beyond what is already in it, and the easier it is for extra water to evaporate. The result is that sweat evaporates more quickly in drier air, cooling down the skin faster. If the relative humidity is 100%, no water can evaporate, and cooling by sweating or evaporation is not possible.

[Innsertnamehere]

wet-bulb temps have more to do with humidity levels than air temps.

Places like Arizona are dead-dry with near-0 humidity so it matters less. Same with Dubai.

Wet-bulb temps are more of a concern in areas with high humidity like Florida.. but even then, humans have survived for centuries in tropical countries which are far warmer than Florida is already.

Climate-change immigration will occur due to destruction of habitable land from increased floodplains and sea level rise, as well as access to fresh water, more than from increased temperatures.

Florida is already having problems on this front through insurance, with many insurers leaving the state as the rate of natural destruction has become too high.

Even fresh water is largely "fixable" through the use of desalination plants. My understanding is that Dubai already mostly runs off of desalination.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by TownGuy

I know little on the topic but how exactly would climate change make the southwest US uninhabitable? Before air conditioning came along it already was that way, AC isn't going anywhere. If we're talking water, desalination can be built. Costly as fuck, but versus a mass exodus of states I'm sure the will would be there.

Who knows how expensive desalination will be in the future but it's already used at scale in Israel and prices are likely to fall. In general I think resilience is going to outpace negative effects of climate change, but either way discussion is about resilience/adaptation vs. change and not just climate mechanistically leading to deaths.

Sea level rise is a real thing but lately it's been in the 3 mm per year ballpark. It's something that's much easier to adapt to when it happens gradually. In coastal areas you can build your building on a 1 m platform and more than compensate for a century of sea level rise.

I don't think the idea of climate change forcing millions of refugees onto Canada is that well-supported by evidence. Why would Arizonans move to Canada instead of some other part of the USA? It sounds like a bad movie plot.

[1overcosc]

Desalination is effective but it's expensive so it's only really a solution for developed countries. You see this at play in the Middle East - the Gulf countries & Israel have plentiful water from desalination and advanced recycling while countries like Jordan and Yemen are on the brink of a major freshwater availability crisis.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Desalination is effective but it's expensive so it's only really a solution for developed countries. You see this at play in the Middle East - the Gulf countries & Israel have plentiful water from desalination and advanced recycling while countries like Jordan and Yemen are on the brink of a major freshwater availability crisis.

It's hard to say what this will look like in 2050 or 2100 though. And it depends on what the water is used for. Yemen already imports 83% of its food according to Google.

Jordan and Yemen have had massive population growth. The Middle East was Malthusian until the modern era when food aid allowed for unbounded growth. I don't have a solution but climate change is only a part of what's going on and curbing GHG emissions in first world countries (with Tesla rebates and the like) to save Yemen is spectacularly inefficient. Perhaps these things are worth doing for other reasons.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think the idea of climate change forcing millions of refugees onto Canada is that well-supported by evidence. Why would Arizonans move to Canada instead of some other part of the USA? It sounds like a bad movie plot.

Atrocious movie plot/premise:

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by TownGuy

I know little on the topic but how exactly would climate change make the southwest US uninhabitable? Before air conditioning came along it already was that way, AC isn't going anywhere. If we're talking water, desalination can be built. Costly as fuck, but versus a mass exodus of states I'm sure the will would be there.

You are in complete denial, my friend.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think the idea of climate change forcing millions of refugees onto Canada is that well-supported by evidence. Why would Arizonans move to Canada instead of some other part of the USA? It sounds like a bad movie plot.

It's somewhat common sense. Much of the southwest United States is going to be without adequate drinking water in 20 years. America already has 8.5x the population of Canada. Canada has an abundance of natural resources.

While it's true that we are f##ked no matter where we go, people are definitely going to be coming to Canada in droves by 2040.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

It's somewhat common sense. Much of the southwest United States is going to be without adequate drinking water in 20 years. America already has 8.5x the population of Canada. Canada has an abundance of natural resources.

This may feel intuitively correct but it's wrong. Drinking water accounts for a miniscule amount of total consumption for example. Most water consumption in Arizona is agricultural and their per capita consumption has gone down over time. The southwest USA could probably improve the situation a lot by tweaking how water is priced. They have crazy water management policies because the situation there isn't actually that serious.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by someone123

Most water consumption in Arizona is agricultural and their per capita consumption has gone down over time.

This is complete nonsense.

The southwest USA could probably improve the situation a lot by tweaking how water is priced. They have crazy water management policies because the situation there isn't actually that serious.

lol @ isn't that serious.

49.6 C in British Columbia isn't "serious."

The forest fires of 2023 weren't "serious."


Climate change is in our heads. It's not real.

[svlt]

As a human-to-human I'm significantly more concerned about the swaths of Subsaharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent than southern USA. Like I don't believe those hugely loftly population growth projections because of climate change, because of their very poor socioeconomic status these places are going to be all kinds of f-d by the late century and there is little evidence of them turning it around into the standards of living that the middle east or Texas enjoys to mitigate the warming climate.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

This is complete nonsense.





lol @ isn't that serious.

49.6 C in British Columbia isn't "serious."

The forest fires of 2023 weren't "serious."


Climate change is in our heads. It's not real.

A very quick google search shows that he’s right.
https://www.arizonafuture.org/progre...ces/water-use/

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

This is complete nonsense.





lol @ isn't that serious.

49.6 C in British Columbia isn't "serious."

The forest fires of 2023 weren't "serious."


Climate change is in our heads. It's not real.

The forest fires in BC were largely the result of a century of strict forest fire prevention.

Naturally a given location of grassland / scrub should burn once every 5 years, or Ponderosa Pine / Douglas Fir forests its once every 10. most of these areas have missed their last 10 to 20 cycles, creating a massive crown fire bomb when they do hit.

We still have a few more massive years of correction left, so it aint over!

Fromm now on we should do many more off season controlled burns and bush clearing / removing excess saplings / old dying trees until we can allow the natural fires to resume, which were far less intense because there was so much less fuel to burn at a given time.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

It's somewhat common sense. Much of the southwest United States is going to be without adequate drinking water in 20 years. America already has 8.5x the population of Canada. Canada has an abundance of natural resources.

While it's true that we are f##ked no matter where we go, people are definitely going to be coming to Canada in droves by 2040.

But in what scenario is it cheaper to abandon trillions worth of infrastructure than build a pipeline? People live in all sorts of places that are not habitable without significant technological intervention (the Netherlands, the Gulf States, the Southwest, Singapore, almost all of Canada).

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The forest fires in BC were largely the result of a century of strict forest fire prevention.

You do realise that the vast majority of forest fires in Canada last year were outside BC?

Fromm now on we should do many more off season controlled burns and bush clearing / removing excess saplings / old dying trees until we can allow the natural fires to resume, which were far less intense because there was so much less fuel to burn at a given time.

Controlled burns?

How is that possible, when literally 90% of the fires that were out of control were in remote areas, that were relatively inaccessible, with little infrastructure?

What you are suggesting is simply not possible in most areas of the country.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

You do realise that the vast majority of forest fires in Canada last year were outside BC?




Controlled burns?

How is that possible, when literally 90% of the fires that were out of control were in remote areas, that were relatively inaccessible, with little infrastructure?

What you are suggesting is simply not possible in most areas of the country.

True, I can only speak with authority on western (Cordillera) forest ecology since that was my focus in university.

The controlled burns are done in the off season (Nov to May) and are best for areas near and around inhabited areas, such as the Okanagan / Thompson / Nicola / etc…

As for the super rural / middle of nowhere areas, the best course of action there is to just let it burn, especially if the cause is a natural lighting strike, at this point.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

This is complete nonsense.





lol @ isn't that serious.

49.6 C in British Columbia isn't "serious."

The forest fires of 2023 weren't "serious."


Climate change is in our heads. It's not real.

Your alarmism isn't remotely real. The worst case scenario for Arizona has it nowhere near the climate of somewhere like Dubai that by the way is completely thriving. Drinking water is easily made if needed in anywhere with access to salt water but regardless it is growing things like almonds that uses up the water resources not drinking water.


What do you imagine the climate of North American cities look like in 2060 in the worst case scenario. You'd be surprised by projections as they are not that dramatic at all.