Canada is a bit player on climate change
The heat wave hanging over the west coast is unusual. Coastal areas do not install air conditioners in homes; they depend on pacific breezes to maintain livable temperatures with overnight cooling and moderate daytime mercury levels.
This year, local conditions created a dome that blocked off moderating breezes, and British Columbia turned into an uncomfortable fry pan. It is not all that unique. Temperature inversion (thermal inversion) has been with us for a long time and is usually marked by high temperatures and poor air quality as heat and smog cannot escape.
Our climate is changing, but what are the factors driving changes on the west coast? From 2010 to 2020, the population of British Columbia increased by 682,000 or 15.3%. The bulk of that increase would have settled on the mainland. That is a lot of added housing, businesses and heat generation. It may be that Vancouver and area have become a size where temperature inversion will become a recurring phenomenon.
I saw a TV news interview with a professor from the UBC Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences who opined that the current heatwave was due to climate change and could be expected to recur regularly. That may or may not be true; it is speculative.
Her following statement was the cause of this article. She emphatically stated that we had to reduce carbon emissions. For a well-schooled university professor, her lack of education is appalling.
Let’s start with who is “we?” There are over 200 entities listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Total world emissions were 37,077 megatons in 2017. Canada’s portion was 617 megatons or 1.66% of world totals. In comparison, international aviation was 1.47% and international shipping 1.83% of the world’s totals. The reality is that Canada has no control over 98.34% of carbon emissions.
The top five are China, the United States, the European Union, India and Russia, who account for 64.1% of emissions, and none of them will consider advice from Canada. The next highest 20 produce 28.9% of carbon emissions, and Canada is in seventh place in that lot with 5.76% of emissions for the group.
We are a bit player, not a leader on the climate change file. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.
Then we turn to “what?” Climate change, earlier known as global warming, is an unproven hypothesis (supposition) that carbon emissions generated by the industrial revolution triggered the warming of the earth. Investors with deep pockets asked universities to provide evidence that the IPCC hypothesis had some validity. Numerous universities responded as the multi-year grants for climate research included an administration fee for the university.
From that emerged Dr. Michael Mann from Pennsylvania State University and his famous hockey stick graphs of future global warming. Dr. Mann’s calculations and graphs have never been subjected to peer review and are thus still guesswork of increasingly dubious repute. Competent scientists welcome a peer review of their work so it can be validated or improved. Dr. Mann refuses to allow peer review of his calculations.
In the interview referred to above, the professor stated that the earth’s temperature was warmer than it was one hundred years ago, as if that was significant. Since 1880, the earth’s temperature has increased by about one degree Celsius. Two-thirds of that increase occurred since 1975 (a rate of about 0.15 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade). That is not consistent with the alarms the IPCC has continually sounded over the past thirty years.
Next, we consider “where?” The IPCC regularly gathers representatives from a couple of hundred nations to discuss climate change issues and issue new calls for more vigorous efforts to curb carbon emissions. The IPCC climate change conferences are proof that the climate change hysteria is fraudulent. Why would the IPCC gather representatives from 200 nations when 52 nations account for 92.9% of carbon emissions? (the European Union is listed in the top five emitters but is comprised of 27 countries.)
The last issue is “when?” Our professor claimed that it was imperative to reduce carbon emissions to stop climate change. We have no verifiable proof that carbon emissions are responsible for the earth’s slight warming during the past century. There is no reason to believe that future warming will exceed the 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade increase reflected since 1975.
It is improbable that the IPCC will be able to meet future carbon emission targets. Its history is dismal. No targets have ever been reached. Of course, none of the warming predictions have turned out to be true either.
We would be far better served to turn our attention to preparing to deal with changes in weather patterns as they develop. We have the technology to equip ourselves to deal with wildfires before they rage out of control. We can create firebreaks and engage in forest management, particularly in areas adjacent to towns and cities. Clearing under burden reduces the possibility of fires following a lightning strike.
We can build cooling stations and create supplies of necessities to combat heat exhaustion in our towns and cities. We forget that we can also suffer from extreme cold conditions. Weather patterns and climate change vary widely from year to year.
We have been blinded by global warming zealots and let our brains fall out instead of dealing with realities.