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

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by logan5

We are past the stage of predictions.

This very thread makes an alarmist and absurd prediction....

And it's just another in a long line of alarmist hyperbolic predictions that have turned out to be completely false. Remember these?

In the 70s climate change alarmists predicted a new ice age and worldwide starvation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...960s_and_1970s

Back in 1989 the UN Environment Programme warned of “coastal flooding and crop failures” that “would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees" by the year 2000. 17 years later and still hasn't happened...

A 2005 UNEP prediction claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be fleeing the coastal areas of the Pacific and Caribbean. Still hasn't happened.

15 years ago the IPCC predicted an end to snow storms. Still hasn't come true.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/w...ex.php?idp=569



As jlousa said, this is probably the most politicized issue of our times. In 25 or 30 years we'll be looking back and it will all seem extremely foolish.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% in favor of renewable and clean power, in favor of reducing our environmental footprint, of protecting forests and wetlands, and I think recycling and reducing waste is important. I just don't subscribe to the apocalyptic nonsense peddle by the climate change lobby.

[Sheba]

Wow this has gotten a lot of attention in 24 hours. I thought it was pretty alarmist too, and yes I know climate change is real. One of the definitions I've heard is that weather will get more extreme - hot areas will get hotter, cold areas colder, dry areas drier, etc.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by WaxItYourself

I'll continue later tonight perhaps as life calls now.

Wow! thanks for your work.

If you read the postmedia article, i think the article is reasonable in its predictions. The headline and lede unfortunately distract from the rest of the article.

The Metro Vancouver study predicts that day-time high summer temperatures in the region will increase 3.7 C by the 2050s and 6 C by the 2080s. Indian summers are virtually guaranteed to linger into fall.

The bottom line is that “Vancouver would be warmer than present-day San Diego by the 2050s.”

.....

Bigger and stronger umbrellas may be on the horizon as the region copes with more dramatic rainfall events.

Rainfall in autumn is expected to increase 11 per cent by 2050 and 20 per cent by 2080, posing a threat to pipe infrastructure and a potential risk to people.

Intense rain events may increase the risk of landslides in mountain areas, along with turbidity in drinking water reservoirs.
....
Our ability to purchase fresh local produce for much of the year will be a boon to consumers.

Farmers in the Fraser Valley will be able to grow crops virtually year-round under a warming climate. At lower elevations, 45 days will be added to the growing season by the 2050s and 56 days by the 2080s, the climate-change report for Metro Vancouver predicts.

Farmers may seize the opportunity to plant more valuable crops and can expect earlier harvests.

But those benefits will be countered by increased pests and plant diseases. And variations in temperature and precipitation may cause pollinators to emerge at the wrong time.

The report’s author is the division manager of utilities research and innovation for Metro Vancouver. You can guess what his dog in this race is, but i'd like to think it's for planning for guidelines and infrastructure that has lifespans of 50-100 years, like water and storm drainage needs, or looking at water management.

The body that produced the paper seems to be a collection of Uvic profs, civil servants in ministries of lands, agriculture, etc and bc hydro.

It highlights there would be benefits and drawbacks, but metro Vancouver would need to plan for potential change.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Wow this has gotten a lot of attention in 24 hours. I thought it was pretty alarmist too, and yes I know climate change is real. One of the definitions I've heard is that weather will get more extreme - hot areas will get hotter, cold areas colder, dry areas drier, etc.

That's what I've heard too. We've got global cooling going on at the same time as global warming - that's why we started calling it "climate change" instead.

[trofirhen]

Even if Vancouver's temps warmed up to those of San Diego, the latitude would remain the same. Thus, we'd still have short winter days with low-angle sun, and long summer days.
Secondly, we'd still be in the Westerly Wind zone. We wouldn't have the arid Mediterranean climate San Diego has. We'd still get a lot ofrain, resulting in a warm, damp climate.
This would be perfect for the propogation of invasive insect and plant species, as well as the possibility of new viruses.
San Diego itself would have a climate like an seaside Phoenix Arizona, or the Red Sea; dry and excruciatingly hot, with big no-man's zones in the USA due to killer heat.
Lastly, forn the climate to get that warm, enormous sea-ice melt would accomany it, and Richmond, Delta, much of Surrey, and all waterfront areas would be submerged.
I know Global Warming is an "in" topic right now, but the scenarios are grotesque and open to all kinds of variables. It might be a good time to put this thread to bed.
When it starts to happen, re-open it. As a harsh reminder, keep in mind this last winter you've been having!!! Is that anything like San Diego, or even Mendocino County? Haha!

[WarrenC12]

I believe in Climate Change (human caused), but I think those predictions are out of whack if the planet gets it's emissions under control. I think emissions are getting under control, thanks to a combination of government policy and market forces (wind/solar cost reductions, battery cost reductions, etc).

What I think should be on the forefront for us in Vancouver is potential sealevel rises. Our most valuable land and most fertile land are on the edge of sealevel today, not to mention huge pieces of important infrastructure (YVR).

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What I think should be on the forefront for us in Vancouver is potential sealevel rises. Our most valuable land and most fertile land are on the edge of sealevel today, not to mention huge pieces of important infrastructure (YVR).

Nothing Vancouver, British Colombia or Canada does unilaterally will make any meaningful change on sea level rises (if there will even be any noticeable rises in the next 100 years).

The only think Metro Vancouver could do is build dykes and other structures to keep water out (like the Dutch have) and/or raise land elevations in the most at-risk areas.

I think that funds would best be used to ensure less environmental damage from our actions, such as reducing particulates in the air, more recycling and better land use.

[WaxItYourself]

Jebby: The 1970s 'ice age' was not advanced much in the peer reviewed literature. Scientists did not predict another ice age. Your own link even pretty much states this. It states that anthropogenic warming dominated the peer reviewed literature even then. A possible 'ice age' was projected by 1 or 2 scientists and this was due to increases in aerosols via fossil fuel use. Specifically sulfate aerosols. It is the same reason why the planet drops in temperature for a couple years after large volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo. And it is also one of the reasons, along with increases in acid rain, why catalytic converters were placed in cars and scrubbers on coal fired power plants.

Coastal flooding is occurring due to increased storm surge intensities. At least in the Atlantic. Crop failures are also occurring. This is dependent on crop type though.

Homogeneous record of Atlantic hurricane surge threat since 1923 (Grinsted et al, 2012) - http://www.pnas.org/content/109/48/19601.full

Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980 (Lobell et al, 2011) - http://izt.ciens.ucv.ve/ecologia/Arc...0al%202011.pdf

Your link to the IPCC page states no such thing. The story you are stating, though, originated with an interview and dealt with a scientists stating that snow fall would become a thing of the past in specific portions of Europe. Nothing to do globally. And since then much more data and measurements have been done as well as a better understanding of our climate system.

As this is all based on proven physics and measurements it is highly doubtful that in 25 to 30 years we will look back on this as us being foolish. Actually as more people in the know become more knowledgeable on the subject a greater number of them are accepting it as a reality. I'm curious, where are you getting your information and statements from?

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by WaxItYourself

-

Thanks, I won't have time to read and think it through for a few days, but look forward to doing so. Thanks for the effort, its good to get things down at a higher level for a change.

[WaxItYourself]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Thanks, I won't have time to read and think it through for a few days, but look forward to doing so. Thanks for the effort, its good to get things down at a higher level for a change.

You're welcome. I don't pretend I know everything there is to know about climate change or it's effects of course. The more you learn the realize the more you don't know as I'm sure with everything else. There have been previous errors in the scientific literature of course but those are usually corrected by subsequent papers in the scientific literature. Take drought frequency as an example. It was previously thought that drought frequency had increased and was currently increasing. However it was based on the PDSI, a precipitation index, that didn't take into account certain variables. Now it is accepted that drought frequency, on a global scale, has not increased. Regional drought intensity, though, has. The reason drought frequency has not increased is because though evapotranspiration has increased the effects of increased precipitation has limited it's effects on droughts. There are papers that are not based on the PDSI that make the statements that drought frequency has not increased over the past 60 and 100 years. And it seems that Dai, the main contributor to the previous claims that both drought frequency and intensity had increased, has accepted it. That is how science is done. See errors and fix those errors all within the peer reviewed literature.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Jebby

As jlousa said, this is probably the most politicized issue of our times. In 25 or 30 years we'll be looking back and it will all seem extremely foolish.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% in favor of renewable and clean power, in favor of reducing our environmental footprint, of protecting forests and wetlands, and I think recycling and reducing waste is important. I just don't subscribe to the apocalyptic nonsense peddle by the climate change lobby.

At least most of them will be dead in 25 or 30 years. You have to endure 25 to 30 years being framed as some kind of flat earth nutcase.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

At least most of them will be dead in 25 or 30 years. You have to endure 25 to 30 years being framed as some kind of flat earth nutcase.

Well, didn't every scientist? Hegener, Semmelweis, Mendel, Boltzmann... even Galileo only got pardoned a few decades ago.

[WaxItYourself]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

At least most of them will be dead in 25 or 30 years. You have to endure 25 to 30 years being framed as some kind of flat earth nutcase.

You are aware that most of the people that do not accept man made global warming or it's consequences are mainly scientists that are old and retired right? Young scientists accept the underlying physics behind the greenhouse effect and man's contribution to it as well as the possible effects of it. Again, because one article makes an unsubstantiated claim that does not mean all claims are false. Hurricanes are becoming more intense though decreasing in frequency, storm surges are intensifying, drought is intensifying in certain areas of the world as is extreme precipitation, and more.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Nothing Vancouver, British Colombia or Canada does unilaterally will make any meaningful change on sea level rises (if there will even be any noticeable rises in the next 100 years).

The only think Metro Vancouver could do is build dykes and other structures to keep water out (like the Dutch have) and/or raise land elevations in the most at-risk areas.

I think that funds would best be used to ensure less environmental damage from our actions, such as reducing particulates in the air, more recycling and better land use.

Obviously individual action(s) (on carbon emission) alone will make little impact....the key thus is numerous (individual) actions (in concert) towards COLLECTIVE action that will ultimately make the difference.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Obviously individual action(s) (on carbon emission) alone will make little impact....the key thus is numerous (individual) actions (in concert) towards COLLECTIVE action that will ultimately make the difference.

In addition, many first movers in the technological solution space stand to gain economically in the medium to long term.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Nothing Vancouver, British Colombia or Canada does unilaterally will make any meaningful change on sea level rises (if there will even be any noticeable rises in the next 100 years).

The only think Metro Vancouver could do is build dykes and other structures to keep water out (like the Dutch have) and/or raise land elevations in the most at-risk areas.

I think that funds would best be used to ensure less environmental damage from our actions, such as reducing particulates in the air, more recycling and better land use.

That is ridiculously fatalistic.

First world countries should be leading the charge on this, especially rich ones like Canada. We've created a substantial portion of the atmosphere change regardless of any new emissions that get generated. The emissions rates don't matter, more the cumulative amounts that have been dumped into the air.

Its likely that countries like the India will never catch up in terms of Carbon emissions compared to the first world.

Shouldn't we be the ones morally burdened with providing the technology and solutions that can be rolled out into the rest of the world?

The easiest way to do that is to fix our shit first.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Obviously individual action(s) (on carbon emission) alone will make little impact....the key thus is numerous (individual) actions (in concert) towards COLLECTIVE action that will ultimately make the difference.

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.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Shouldn't we be the ones morally burdened with providing the technology and solutions that can be rolled out into the rest of the world?

The easiest way to do that is to fix our shit first.

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.

[Alex Mackinnon]

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.

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

His point is contrary to technological progress. Technological progress typically occurs in societies that can afford it, then the benefits spread down to ones that couldn't afford to develop it.

Just look at computers. Look at telecom. Look at nuclear power. Look at solar power or wind turbines. Look at the internet. Who paved the way for these technologies? Was it Zimbabwe, Somalia or Bolivia?

How many countries outside the G8 have nuclear fusion development programs?

Who do you think gets a jump start in capturing that value when it's created?

My problem with the conservative mindset is that it tends to towards zero sum thinking. By that measure we're already doomed.

[Vin]

What about the good building structures and viaducts we tear down to rebuild, only because there are restrictions on how tall or dense other areas can go in order to protect view corridors? Isn't that contrary to going green and trying to achieve carbon neutral as well? Also, what about allowing single family homes to exist in prime urban areas while sprawl continues to happen, resulting in more commute time with private passenger vehicles. We need to take all that into account. As of now, we are not green at all, even though we try to think that we are progressive in that arena.

Originally Posted by Jebby

Nothing Vancouver, British Colombia or Canada does unilaterally will make any meaningful change on sea level rises (if there will even be any noticeable rises in the next 100 years).

The only think Metro Vancouver could do is build dykes and other structures to keep water out (like the Dutch have) and/or raise land elevations in the most at-risk areas.

I think that funds would best be used to ensure less environmental damage from our actions, such as reducing particulates in the air, more recycling and better land use.

Agreed that what we do here don't contribute to sea level rises, but the steps we put in can let us enjoy the fresh clean air and water that we've always enjoyed, and allowing nature to flourish in the urban areas without having more low-density urban sprawl. I think Burnaby is doing pretty well in that regards.