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

[Migrant_Coconut]

Agreed, except for this one bit here.

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

64 million tonnes per year CO2e in BC. That's certainly not nothing. More per capita than most countries on the planet.

Not disputing the numbers - just noting that that's 64,000 kT out of Canada's 565,000 kT per year.

Compare that to India (2,300,000 kT), Europe (3,400,000 kT), America (5,300,000 kT) and China (10,500,000 kT).

We should always keep trying to reduce our impact on the planet. All I'm saying is that it's easy to lead the rest of the world, and insist that the world follow our lead, when we've only got a population the size of Tokyo and relatively low emissions already.

[WarrenC12]

^^^^

Our per capita emissions are among the highest in the world.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Then do it with your own time and money. If it's such a great idea you shouldn't need the threat of government violence to achieve your desired outcomes.

As usual I hear the selfish/individualistic ring of (right-wing?) "capitalism" in your statement above. The unforgiving reality though is that "no man is an island". We (humans) are social animals/beings. We live our lives thus, communally (via collective reciprocity).

Further,...why would you need to insert the caveat of governmental violence to achieve any social good (as with controlling excessive carbon emissions)? I guess such stance/(threatening use of violence) represents the desperate realities of fascism and Stalinist communism

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Agreed, except for this one bit here.



Not disputing the numbers - just noting that that's 64,000 kT out of Canada's 565,000 kT per year.

Compare that to India (2,300,000 kT), Europe (3,400,000 kT), America (5,300,000 kT) and China (10,500,000 kT).

We should always keep trying to reduce our impact on the planet. All I'm saying is that it's easy to lead the rest of the world, and insist that the world follow our lead, when we've only got a population the size of Tokyo and relatively low emissions already.

Find me a chart that says that.

If Alberta were a country, it's per Capita emissions would be more than any other country. If BC were a country we'd still still be just ahead of Russia in terms of emissions.

[Skygazer]

The comparison to San Diego is really misleading.

It's only the daytime summer temperatures that will be warmer than San Diego's, the rest of the year will not be. And San Diego has pretty mild daytime highs, peaking at a mere 24.7C in August, so only a couple degrees warmer than Vancouver right now (which peaks at 22.2C). Cities like Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, etc. all have hotter summer highs than San Diego, so it's not really that impressive.

It'll be a big change for the city for sure but it's not at all the same thing as having San Diego's climate year-round, which the article is clearly implying will happen.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Find me a chart that says that.

If Alberta were a country, it's per Capita emissions would be more than any other country. If BC were a country we'd still still be just ahead of Russia in terms of emissions.

Well, that's the problem; if you're using a "per capita per country" graph, then of course we're going to be at the top. A "per country" graph tells the real story.

Here's both, side by side. Four years out of date, but you get the idea.

So yes, in the graph on the left, Canadians do produce a lot of carbon per person... but there's only 30 million of us, so the bar on the right is tiny. Reducing every Canadian's emissions by, let's say half, that's a commendable goal - but that's only going to knock a sliver off the already tiny "per country" bar.

By contrast, the average Russian citizen uses less than a Canadian citizen, but there's 143 million Russians. That stacks up.

Yes, we need to do our part in reducing our CO2 output. And yes, we can set an example by reducing our high individual footprints and encouraging others to lead less wasteful lives. But unless we can get China, India, Russia and the States on board too (and fortunately, most of them are), that means nothing.

So let's drop the talk about "leading" the world. Beijing, for example, has 10x Vancouver's population and looks like Victorian London on a bad day. Somehow, I doubt they'll appreciate our dear mayor flying in and suggesting "more bike lanes."

[Cypherus]

First it was Global Warming, then when stats were released to show otherwise, the reference was changed to Climate Change (see RSS Global Mean Temperature Change). Since the 1990s there has been no change. In Summer of 2015, the arctic sea ice has been the thickest it's been in almost 10 years. Nasa admits polar ice caps are actually not melting. So you get either buy into the alarmist movements ready to open your wallet to stop climate change (formerly Global warming before it was changed to Climate change since the globe wasn't actually warming), or you actually search the facts. No one is saying the Earth is not warming in the long term, only the correlation between human interaction on the surface of the Earth and the Earth temperature is not yet established.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

First it was Global Warming, then when stats were released to show otherwise, the reference was changed to Climate Change (see RSS Global Mean Temperature Change). Since the 1990s there has been no change. In Summer of 2015, the arctic sea ice has been the thickest it's been in almost 10 years. Nasa admits polar ice caps are actually not melting. So you get either buy into the alarmist movements ready to open your wallet to stop climate change (formerly Global warming before it was changed to Climate change since the globe wasn't actually warming), or you actually search the facts. No one is saying the Earth is not warming in the long term, only the correlation between human interaction on the surface of the Earth and the Earth temperature is not yet established.

This might interest you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Regardless, he's got a point. It's easy for Vancouver and BC to become carbon neutral - and to lecture other, larger cities/nations about doing the same - when we never produced that much carbon to begin with.

It won't be "easy". Gregor's proposed green building code that bans fossil fuels has been estimated to add 20% to home building costs in an already expensive city.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It won't be "easy". Gregor's proposed green building code that bans fossil fuels has been estimated to add 20% to home building costs in an already expensive city.

Where did you see that it would add 20%? The estimated additional cost is $3.50 per sq ft, which is less than 2% of the cheapest wood-frame build.

Balanced against the modest up-front costs, the estimated additional savings from operating the more energy efficient space are $9 a month for an average condo.

[mezzanine]

FWIW i see a lot of similarities with CO2/climate change initiatives and acid rain issues in the 1980s and 1990s. difficulties in trying to measure external costs, a decision made to do something about it and reaching national and trans-national agreements.

negotiated by conservative and republican governments, back in the day.

In 1983, as a first step in controlling the effects of acid rain on surface waters, Canada adopted a target load of 20 kg of wet sulphate per hectare per year. It was estimated that a reduction of deposition rates to this value would protect moderately sensitive lake ecosystems and could be achieved by reducing North American SO2 emissions by about 50 percent. The eastern Canadian provinces and the federal government signed several federal-provincial agreements in 1987 aiming to reduce emissions by 50 percent by 1994. Since 1990, Canada has used a more precise standard called the "critical load." The critical load is the highest amount of pollutants an ecosystem can tolerate without exhibiting negative ecosystem effects. For lakes located on the Canadian Shield, the critical load is almost always less than the 1983 target load, and it varies spatially depending on the acid sensitivity of the surrounding terrain.

About one-half of the sulphate deposition in eastern Canada comes from SO2 sources in the US. Therefore, control action in the US was needed for Canada to achieve its target loading goal. After years of pressure from Canada, in November 1990 the United States government passed a new Clean Air Act promising to reduce SO2 emissions by 50 percent by 2000. The following year, the two nations signed the Canada-US Air Quality Agreement, which further codified the reductions in S02 and N0x emissions.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...cle/acid-rain/

[jlousa]

If I'm not mistaken the conservative figure of an additional $3.5/psf is for the new green building codeand the monthly energy savings are related to that. (all for it as it pays for itself day one) But....unless I've misread the council reports that isn't taking into account the proposed switch away from natural gas heating to electric heating/hot water which would increase monthly costs much more then that offset.

I think the Acid rain and the Ozone hole situations were a little different in that the science was undeniably clear by the time action was taken and it shows that humans can act together to overcome seemingly impossible obstacles. If we get to the same stage regarding CO2 levels we will see the same occur. No need to be alarmist about it, we can take a bit of time to prove the levels are a real problem. I don't doubt man's ability to overcome this issue.

[cornholio]

Its not the councils mandate to deal with co2 emissions and what not. They should be running a city. It is the provincial and federal responsibility from above to set these policies, nation/province wide.

As for me put me in the boat of tired of how overblown this has become. This whole planet will burn up one day one way or another, economic growth and expansion of knowledge should be priorities. With it we can overcome everything, and if not then who the heck cares. Earth is not permanent, nor is life on earth, unless we get it of this rock permanently. Climate change has never destroyed the earth and it wont do it this time, life adapts, it does not matter if you vaporize the surface of the earth, life on earth will not be eliminated. Its a incredible machine and is designed to overcome and adapt to allot, especially minor climate fluctuations. We can adapt, time moves on. I would be more concerned with overpopulation in countries with dysfunctional societies/cultures that bring little to the table. (today).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I think the Acid rain and the Ozone hole situations were a little different in that the science was undeniably clear by the time action was taken and it shows that humans can act together to overcome seemingly impossible obstacles. If we get to the same stage regarding CO2 levels we will see the same occur. No need to be alarmist about it, we can take a bit of time to prove the levels are a real problem. I don't doubt man's ability to overcome this issue.

The ability is there today, it's the willpower that is missing.

The thing about acid rain and ozone is that they fix/rebuild relatively quickly. CO2 emissions are more like a snowball that keeps getting bigger, and we will pass a point of no return somewhere down the line.

[WaxItYourself]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

First it was Global Warming, then when stats were released to show otherwise, the reference was changed to Climate Change (see RSS Global Mean Temperature Change). Since the 1990s there has been no change. In Summer of 2015, the arctic sea ice has been the thickest it's been in almost 10 years. Nasa admits polar ice caps are actually not melting. So you get either buy into the alarmist movements ready to open your wallet to stop climate change (formerly Global warming before it was changed to Climate change since the globe wasn't actually warming), or you actually search the facts. No one is saying the Earth is not warming in the long term, only the correlation between human interaction on the surface of the Earth and the Earth temperature is not yet established.

Global warming and climate change are different thing. Global warming refers to an increase in global temperatures. Climate change refers to the changes in climate due to those changes in temperature. This includes things like changes to weather patterns, changes to the water cycle, and so on.

Your statement about the 1990s I can only assume refers to satellite temperatures. The most intense El Nino on record occurred in 1997/98. Most people that argue this use 1998 as a base period. A single year does not make a trend. In order to see the trend you need to detrend the effects of the ENSO cycle. That being said, let's play your game.

Since 1998 there has been an increase of 0.142 ±0.178 °C/decade in the UAH satellite data. Though this is not statistically significant, statistical significance can be attained for time period of about 30 years. The RSS satellite data shows a temperature increase of 0.125 ±0.180 °C/decade over the same time period. What you are doing is looking at the peak of 1998 and looking after that year and coming to your conclusion while ignoring the underlying trends. This is not how it is done. Comparing the above to surface temperature data we get 0.175 ±0.110 °C/decade for GISTemp and 0.171 ±0.114 °C/decade for HadCRUT. Here are links to the data.

UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
RSS: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
GISTemp: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/t...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
HadCRUT: https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/t...adCRUT4-gl.dat

And as you can see, actually, 1998 has been surpassed by 2016. So even with your usage of 1998 as a baseline there is still warming.

NASA didn't state anything about the ice caps not decreasing in ice mass. Here is both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent as displayed by NASA.

https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234

You can see 2016 is the lowest extent in both regions since 2006. Looking at a longer picture we can go to NSIDC.

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

The Arctic has been losing ice at a rate of -3.0 ±0.5% in March. The Antarctic has been gaining ice in the long term 3.0 ±3.8%. However it is currently at it's lowest extent on record and it's long term gains are related to ocean oscillations as well as freshening of upper ocean waters. The numbers given above are just for March. Other months of the year have the Arctic losing ice at a significantly faster rate while the Antarctic gaining ice at a much slower rate. Now lets look at ice mass.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/resear...olume-anomaly/

You can see that the long term trend of ice mass is downward in the Arctic and continues to fall. There was an increase in 2015 but that has since disappeared. There is no data set for the Antarctic that I know of regarding ice mass but there are studies. A recent study that came out from none other than NASA, which I am sure is what you are referring to, indicates that the West Antarctic ice sheet may be declining at a rate slower than the gains of the East Antarctic ice sheet indicating an overall ice mass gain. It was stated that this is due to snowfall that fell on the continent beginning 10,000 years ago. This paper is opposite of what GRACE satellite measurements show. I'll list papers dealing with both possibilities below.

Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses (Zwally et al, 2015) - https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...tica-study.pdf
Accelerated West Antarctic ice mass loss continues to outpace East Antarctic gains (Harig et al, 2015) - http://www.princeton.edu/geosciences...EPSL-2015a.pdf

Zwally stated, however, that if trends of gains and losses continued losses would overtake gains in a couple decades. There have also been a couple comments in the scientific literature regarding Zwally's paper.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/servi...22143016000605
https://www.cambridge.org/core/servi...22143016000599

and a reply

https://www.cambridge.org/core/servi...22143016000927

My stance is to wait and see where future papers take us regarding this topic of Antarctic ice mass as it is uncertain. You state that no one claims the planet is not warming except you just did in the first portion of your post. And the reality of anthropogenic global warming is not determined by looking at trends. It is determined by looking at fingerprints.

[isaidso]

Does this mean that places like Prince George might end up with a climate like Sacramento and Prince Rupert one like San Francisco?

[mezzanine]

Apropos of the june-uary weather we are having, this needs a bump. This was a post from 4 years ago, and for some reason it stuck in my mind, for all the wrong reasons.

I'll try to dust it off in another 4 years.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Does this mean that places like Prince George might end up with a climate like Sacramento and Prince Rupert one like San Francisco?

I don't think so. If climate warming keeps up on a sustained and measurable basis, I think PR could become like western Scotland (where palm trees will grow in some gardens)
and PG will still have a continental climate, only with somewhat shorter winters, and longer, hotter summers.

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Apropos of the june-uary weather we are having, this needs a bump. This was a post from 3 years ago, and for some reason it stuck in my mind, for all the wrong reasons.
I'll try to dust it off in another 3 years.

June is often a relatively cool, damp month in Vancouver and the Western USA in general. (June gloom they call it in Southern California)
That said, summer is off to a fine start with temperatures in Vancouver forecast to be in the low 30s over the upcoming weekend, and places like Ashcroft and Osoyoos in the low 40s.
And that's just at the outset of summer. What will July - August bring, I wonder.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I don't think so. If climate warming keeps up on a sustained and measurable basis, I think PR could become like western Scotland (where palm trees will grow in some gardens)
and PG will still have a continental climate, only with somewhat shorter winters, and longer, hotter summers.


June is often a relatively cool, damp month in Vancouver and the Western USA in general. (June gloom they call it in Southern California)
That said, summer is off to a fine start with temperatures in Vancouver forecast to be in the low 30s over the upcoming weekend, and places like Ashcroft and Osoyoos in the low 40s.
And that's just at the outset of summer. What will July - August bring, I wonder.

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

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by rofina

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

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