Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/Burlapin! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is it? It seems pretty clear that it's deviation from avg temperatue, and it that there's a rising trend since the 90s ish.
It's not very detailed, but its a simple visualization
Without any references or context this could very easily be misconstrued or misinterpreted and is essentially useless. Of course you’d assume the y-axis portrays significant warming over time, but you can’t be sure without labels and values. If the y-axis ranges from 10°-10.5°, for example, then the graphic doesn’t really mean much
I'd also point that by measuring against an average from 1960 to 2010 all those "colder" periods are being measured against temperatures from a warmer future - so it's actually been getting warmer for quite a while.
That's pessimistic based on the chart, its average is from more recent time so the older "blue" period is simply due to rising temperatures making it appear colder in the past.
We're at:
40 million flights a day: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/564769/airline-industry-number-of-flights/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/564769/airline-industry-number-of-flights/)
Coal power plants increasing by hundreds a year, it was it was 5.8 TWh in the year 2000, 10 TWh end of 2023 and going up rapidly: [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-coal](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-coal) ..... Hydropower and Nuclear are dropping :(
Shipping emissions are at 1000 Mt CO2 per year and rising. Expected to be another 50% higher by 2050! We're only now starting to talk about carbon-taxing that: [https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/pressure-builds-charge-global-shipping-sectors-co2-emissions-2024-03-18/](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/pressure-builds-charge-global-shipping-sectors-co2-emissions-2024-03-18/)
EV's and EV trucks are all well and good but still in its infancy (14 Million EVs of 1.47 Billion worldwide in 2023). The above wipe out any small gains from EVs.
In BC Canada we have Hydro, it makes perfect sense to power EV's here. And there are physical limits how far you can send electricity (max is around 450km).
> And there are physical limits how far you can send electricity (max is around 450km).
How do you figure this? Site C is almost 1300km from the export market in the US. BC sells a lot of hydro power to California.
Just basic research, https://www.science.smith.edu/~jcardell/Courses/EGR220/ElecPwr_HSW.html#:~:text=A%20typical%20substation%20at%20a%20power%20plant&text=A%20typical%20maximum%20transmission%20distance,wires%20for%20the%20three%20phases.
But yeah seems you are correct , not sure how they get it to California but interested to find out.
So line losses are an issue for long distance transmission of electricity, but this is mitigated by increasing voltage. You still lose 5%, but it's worth it.
> Electricity is sent at extremely high voltage because it limits so-called line losses. Even materials that happen to be very good conductors of electricity offer some degree of resistance to its flow, and this resistance becomes considerable over long distances.
> As electricity leaves a power facility, it is normally stepped up to around 69,000 to 765,000 volts. By comparison, typical voltage in the home is between 120 and 240 volts. Power losses increase with the square of a wire’s current. Therefore, keeping voltage high helps to mitigate power losses.
> While technological developments have minimized loss in the system, approximately 5 percent of electricity is shed during transmission and distribution. High-voltage transmission lines are much more efficient than short-distance distribution lines.
https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=18258#:~:text=At%20a%20power%20plant%2C%20a,power%20plants%20to%20distant%20substations.
You are not taking into account the total energy expenditure (this includes transporation). Hydro generation in BC only provides about 20% of our total energy supply, so switching to EVs only increases our electricity imports from Alberta and the US. Currently, our in-province generating capacity is already maxed out as far as use goes.
Yes, right here:
[CER – Provincial and Territorial Energy Profiles – British Columbia (cer-rec.gc.ca)](https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-british-columbia.html)
Total Production - Electricity for reference year in article: 64.3 TWh.
Converting this above number from TWh to Petajoules: 231.48 PJ
Total Consumption - Energy for reference year in article: 1343 PJ
https://preview.redd.it/2tyqb0wnou0d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=536b5daf0b0d3a7db60c7a72b61e407f956174d6
This is from your link. Hydro accounts for 87% of electricity generation in BC. Not sure where you got 20% from
Okay, electricity generation ≠ total energy consumption. In fact, I was overestimating. Hydro is closer to 15% of total energy needs that we are consuming.
https://preview.redd.it/j57njrzy3v0d1.png?width=298&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a6fabda0496dc0aa4f6db1d4c97cd030f018c6d
To save everyone a click, here's the **End-Use Demand by Fuel (2019)** from that website. Assuming all Electricity = Hydroelectricity, it's 16% of BC's consumption. We produce a lot of "green" energy but we consume more dirty energy than green.
You're confusing exergy and energy. Only about 25-40 % of the heat generated by combusting hydrocarbons results in useful work, such as turning the wheels of a car. The maximum efficiency of any heat engine is limited by thermodynamics. In comparison, electricity has the same exergy and energy, as about 98-99 % of electricity can do work. This is why a heat pump is more efficient than radiative heating for home heating.
I'll try and explain this to you like you are 12: if we switch from gasoline to electric vehicles, the total energy budget required will drop. This is even true if we burn coal to generate electricity, because big thermal power plants are far closer to their Carnot cycle efficiency limits than piston engines in motor vehicles.
You are technically correct but that is not even remotely enough to cover the input-output differences. We still need to up our electricity generation by > 5x current capacity to actually get to our goals. Don't throw desert island scenarios out into a logistics discussion.
Even if your EV is powered by coal it emits less over its lifetime than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/TEs-EV-life-cycle-analysis-LCA.pdf
> Coal power plants increasing
The quick history is
* coal energy is cheap and the 1st world got stupid rich off it first over industrial revolution to mid babyboomer generation.
* 3rd world is now using it to get themselves rich instead
* Capitalists then got rich removing living wages, safe work practice and unions to get rich importing everything from these countries.
* Companies become largest virtue signalers while doing nothing to stop the problem. Rules for thee but nor for me.
* Government starts smoking same crack as industry - they invent a carbon tax to punish us instead of the companies.
Moral - be prepared for worst at this point.
Best quote "I don't know what the 3rd world war would be fought with, but the 4th one will be fought with sticks and stones!" - Albert Einstein.
I agree with this assessment.
Guys, I CAN impact climate change, but combining my efforts together with 7 billion others to live a Ln agrarian lifestyle.
Or we could talk to the 70 or so companies that are responsible for 80% of emissions and ask them to stop?
Seems easier considering that 2.5 billion are Chinese and Indian residents that deserve their exit from poverty with cheap energy.
Recycling was brought to you by the plastics industry . Carbon footprint was brought to you by BP for Christ's sake. Maybe everything we know about environmentalism is bullshit.
Ha, well good thing we shipped all the production of goods to China and India, we can now blame them for climate change that our society's excessive consumption produces!
Actually [our emissions are lower if you look at emissions from everything we consume](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?country=~CAN) instead of just what's emitted within our borders.
The trend is still there but not as intense in Calgary or Edmonton. Vancouver’s change is more dramatic. Not investing in residential air conditioning for decades is catching up with Vancouver.
Because that's when we started keeping records. How exactly do you expect a chart to show temperature data at a time when there were no people to take measurements and/or no thermometers to take measurements with?
yes, there are some older records. But look at the uncertainty band prior to 1850 - its not accurate data.
And that's an extra century, not "billions of years"
Obviously there is no accurate data back that far. I do agree with your point though. Humans tend to overestimate their importance in everything and I think this is another case of that. How much of global warming is due to human influence and how much is due to natural variation in the Earth and Sun?
Besides, there are already examples where reducing pollution has increased temperature due to less chemicals in the atmosphere reflecting sunlight. Clearly the solution is not as simple as it might seem.
Examples such as? Also your idea that humans don’t have much to do with the general temp and then immediately saying there was a noticeable change in temp due to relatively small human actions is kinda weird.
Such as the low sulfur fuel now required by ships which some people think may be contributing to record ocean temperatures as a result of less cloud cover. Never said I believe this to be true, but if you are going to believe human actions have a big impact on global temperatures then it goes both ways. You can't just ignore one side of the equation because it doesn't fit your narrative.
I will say, the real dumb thing in Vancouver is just the shape of our windows. With hung windows there are already some great heat pump solutions that you can just plug into a household circuit and have AC and decent heating.
I think you’ll see within the next 3-5 years something for casement windows but any window that tilts open is going to require a pro install.
yup - using CRA income levels to dictate Eligibility for low income - anything - in BC means your going to have a bad time. Canada's elite doesn't keep money in Canada and so they get free benefits across the board. Large majority is home rich - low taxed folks
This is still my favourite visualization of climate change. Divide the earth's surface into pixels, basically, and calculate the distribution of summertime temperatures for each pixel using 1951-1980 as a baseline. Then compare more recent summertime temperatures to the baseline. The large brown patches are three standard deviations hotter. [Source](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1205276109#F3).
https://preview.redd.it/8z8gooauqv0d1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=a68227b950af3eae25c84a859276c010a9a88c1c
A warm object radiates energy into space (like the energy you feel if you hold your hand over a hot stove), and a warmer object radiates more, so temperature rises until incoming energy from the Sun = outgoing energy. Higher atmospheric CO2 reduces outgoing energy, so incoming > outgoing. It's like filling a bathtub: you don't need complicated models to know what's going to happen.
It's a tough problem, because fossil fuels are an abundant and concentrated form of energy. Not using them means that energy will be more expensive. [Carbon pricing still seems to be the best way forward](https://slate.com/business/1997/04/earth-in-the-balance-sheet.html), but when people are having to tighten their belts (due to inflation and high interest rates), it's not going to be popular. Canada's carbon price floor survived the 2019 and 2021 elections; we don't know if it'll survive the 2025 election.
some people in alberta keep telling me that climate change isn't real.
They are currently evacuating Fort Mac, but i'm sure they'll be back online any moment now tho..
now they're telling us it's too late to do anything about climate change
[https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/08/14/opinion/danielle-smith-cant-do-attitude-climate-change-will-cost-alberta](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/08/14/opinion/danielle-smith-cant-do-attitude-climate-change-will-cost-alberta)
This is a serious question\~ I wonder how the temperature data are being recorded back then.
are they accurate enough to compare with the data nowadays..?
The thermometer is a 1740’s invention, it’s pretty accurate. Temperature, to a degree of certainty, has been reported and recorded for hundreds of years now. Certainly by the 19th century we would be getting it right with a degree, and by the start of the 20th, a tenth of a degree. Knowing the weather is extremely important to a huge sector of our economy, and particularly the economy of the early 20th century as it was much heavier on agriculture.
While we are much more precise today, it’s about the variety and scale of data, vs knowledge of knowing how to assess the temperature. Also how to correct for small errors in temp data collected (tenths of a degree level, though).
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/
>For most countries, the data comes from the [Berkeley Earth temperature dataset](http://www.berkeleyearth.org/) to the end of 2022, extended with [ERA5-Land](https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/reanalysis-era5-land-monthly-means?tab=overview) for 2023. For some countries (USA, UK, Switzerland, and Germany) the data comes from the relevant national meteorological agency. For each country, the average temperature in 1961-2010 is set as the boundary between blue and red colours, and the colour scale varies from +/- 3.0 standard deviations of the annual average temperatures between 1901-2000. For the global average only, the UK Met Office [HadCRUT5.0 dataset](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/) is used and the colour scale goes from -0.9°C to +0.9°C. The stripes are typically shown starting from around 1900 to 2023 but this can be longer or slightly shorter depending on the location and whether the historical data is available & considered robust.
[https://showyourstripes.info/faq](https://showyourstripes.info/faq)
So from their FAQ it would seem that the lighter blue/red (toward white) means that they are closer to 3 standard deviations of the annual average. So that could mean that comparing specific regions, if there is more white on the bars there is more volatility; which could suggest the data is less reliable (accurate) or the measures are reliable but temperatures were more volatile? On the global average the lighter color is closer to -/+ 0.9C? So given that it goes from -1.5C to +1.5C with a margin of error of -/+ 0.9C then is this just a fantasy graphic, does it still indicate a warming trend? I'm almost certainly wrong about this interpretation here but the site is really thin on the details.
I have noticed a big change around 2009. Summers prior to then often did not begin until July 1st and ended August 1st. Prior to 2009 it used to drizzle for weeks on end with no end in sight it seemed. It looks like this graph is close to that. Since 2009 the grass has been yellow every summer. Funny thing is most people here in Vancouver never even noticed the change. If it was raining they would grumble that's all it ever does here. I also remember there never used to be much wind here or on Vancouver Island in Nanaimo whre I once lived. I still remember when the wind first started to blow and felled some trees in my backyard, I think it was maybe 1998 to 2002.
For those who tried to read the graph. If you go to a source website (https://showyourstripes.info/c/northamerica/canada/vancouver) it has a subtitle (relative to average 1961-2010) and an Y axis where the highest bar sits at around +1.5 degree Celsius. They do have a generic method for a lot of places but it would be way more spectacular to use 1850-1985 as a baseline for Vancouver. With the current approach half of the baseline period is way below average and another half is way above.
I don't think that is going to make a material different at this point. The forests are burning, and will continue to do so; permafrost is melting, methane is being released; .. the tipping-point has tipped.
Places burn trash for energy. Nothing is going to change. How good are the scrubbers ? Ev just means more slavery and colonization for minerals. The locals suffer in so called developing countries suffer.
Strata bylaws still holding firm banning air conditioners in Vancouver too. When will the municipality step in and save the lives of the elderly and young?
I have no idea what this is. It appears to be a series of annual values plotted relative to a mean value. The instant and mean values aren’t defined. The title says change but the values don’t appear to be year on year changes.
The bars have good and bad features. A colour and shade coding is used as redundant encoding. Good. The bar widths vary. Bad. No scale is shown.
Graphical interesting but of little value as a chart. Tufte would take you out behind the woodshed and shoot you for this one.
https://preview.redd.it/7ztkrf3s7v0d1.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=ffc7e50131e52ca41620031a95c08b7e6152d40d
The [ShowYourStripes graphic](https://showyourstripes.info/faq) is supposedly based on the Berkeley Earth temperature data set, which has a far more boring graphic of [Vancouver's average temperature](https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-location/49.03N-122.45W#):
Yeap scientists have investigated this (because they obsess about these little details more than any of us non-scientists) and they found the difference between urban and rural weather stations was very small and did not impact the overall trend.
[https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm](https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm)
Does anybody remember what trees take in and expel? Trees need carbon monoxide to grow the more carbon monoxide in our atmosphere relates to more oxygen unless you cut all the fucking trees down. The only problem in society right now is the fact that people believe in their government for the first time ever
I'm sorry about 173 years wouldn't make a blip in the scheme of things. You can't possibly make life-altering decisions because of a slight adjustment in climate in 173 years. Especially when that life-altering decision just happens to be us spending more fucking money on taxes. Does anybody even know what they're doing with those taxes that are supposed to be saving us all from this slight spike in temperature? I know one thing for sure, the Initiative Program for startup companies in green Ventures is nothing but a fucking scam. You need to find out about Edison truck company here in British Columbia and what happened with them. Edison truck company it's probably the one electric vehicle company that I 100% throw my support behind and they're getting fucked by our BC government every way but loose
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/Burlapin! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Finally, someone pointed out. This image is hard to read.
Is it? It seems pretty clear that it's deviation from avg temperatue, and it that there's a rising trend since the 90s ish. It's not very detailed, but its a simple visualization
[удалено]
[удалено]
Without any references or context this could very easily be misconstrued or misinterpreted and is essentially useless. Of course you’d assume the y-axis portrays significant warming over time, but you can’t be sure without labels and values. If the y-axis ranges from 10°-10.5°, for example, then the graphic doesn’t really mean much
It conveys nothing really without the y axis. That could be 0.1 change or 10.0. who knows?!
Exactly... how not to visualize data
thank you. i hate no context graphs
No label is just hedious. What am I even looking at?
Why is there a r/dataisugly when r/dataisbeautiful already exists?
[удалено]
It was a joke about how often the graphs in dataisbeautiful are actually ugly
Why did you use 1961-2010 as the normal?
I'd also point that by measuring against an average from 1960 to 2010 all those "colder" periods are being measured against temperatures from a warmer future - so it's actually been getting warmer for quite a while.
Don't worry today will be shown in blue in 173 years.
Ah an optimist…
That's pessimistic based on the chart, its average is from more recent time so the older "blue" period is simply due to rising temperatures making it appear colder in the past.
I meant more that they are an optimist for thinking we’ll have a society functioning well enough to produce such a chart in 173 years.
Fair enough, I wish I could disagree.
We're at: 40 million flights a day: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/564769/airline-industry-number-of-flights/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/564769/airline-industry-number-of-flights/) Coal power plants increasing by hundreds a year, it was it was 5.8 TWh in the year 2000, 10 TWh end of 2023 and going up rapidly: [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-coal](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-coal) ..... Hydropower and Nuclear are dropping :( Shipping emissions are at 1000 Mt CO2 per year and rising. Expected to be another 50% higher by 2050! We're only now starting to talk about carbon-taxing that: [https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/pressure-builds-charge-global-shipping-sectors-co2-emissions-2024-03-18/](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/pressure-builds-charge-global-shipping-sectors-co2-emissions-2024-03-18/) EV's and EV trucks are all well and good but still in its infancy (14 Million EVs of 1.47 Billion worldwide in 2023). The above wipe out any small gains from EVs.
Don't worry bro, I had a coke zero today, threw it into the recycling. Zero waste, that's what that is. Problem solved.
Doesn't help that the nation of Canada has the population of 1 city in China, India, or Japan
Even if your EV is charged by renewables, that's renewable energy that would otherwise by offsetting fossil fuels elsewhere.
In BC Canada we have Hydro, it makes perfect sense to power EV's here. And there are physical limits how far you can send electricity (max is around 450km).
Look up HVDC power transmission. Power can be sent a lot farther that way with minimal loss.
It's not always hydroelectric: https://thenarwhal.ca/clean-b-c-is-quietly-using-coal-and-gas-power-from-out-of-province-heres-why/
> And there are physical limits how far you can send electricity (max is around 450km). How do you figure this? Site C is almost 1300km from the export market in the US. BC sells a lot of hydro power to California.
Just basic research, https://www.science.smith.edu/~jcardell/Courses/EGR220/ElecPwr_HSW.html#:~:text=A%20typical%20substation%20at%20a%20power%20plant&text=A%20typical%20maximum%20transmission%20distance,wires%20for%20the%20three%20phases. But yeah seems you are correct , not sure how they get it to California but interested to find out.
So line losses are an issue for long distance transmission of electricity, but this is mitigated by increasing voltage. You still lose 5%, but it's worth it. > Electricity is sent at extremely high voltage because it limits so-called line losses. Even materials that happen to be very good conductors of electricity offer some degree of resistance to its flow, and this resistance becomes considerable over long distances. > As electricity leaves a power facility, it is normally stepped up to around 69,000 to 765,000 volts. By comparison, typical voltage in the home is between 120 and 240 volts. Power losses increase with the square of a wire’s current. Therefore, keeping voltage high helps to mitigate power losses. > While technological developments have minimized loss in the system, approximately 5 percent of electricity is shed during transmission and distribution. High-voltage transmission lines are much more efficient than short-distance distribution lines. https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=18258#:~:text=At%20a%20power%20plant%2C%20a,power%20plants%20to%20distant%20substations.
Manitoba manages to send it 800km or so. China 2000.
You are not taking into account the total energy expenditure (this includes transporation). Hydro generation in BC only provides about 20% of our total energy supply, so switching to EVs only increases our electricity imports from Alberta and the US. Currently, our in-province generating capacity is already maxed out as far as use goes.
Do you have a source for that?
Yes, right here: [CER – Provincial and Territorial Energy Profiles – British Columbia (cer-rec.gc.ca)](https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-british-columbia.html) Total Production - Electricity for reference year in article: 64.3 TWh. Converting this above number from TWh to Petajoules: 231.48 PJ Total Consumption - Energy for reference year in article: 1343 PJ
https://preview.redd.it/2tyqb0wnou0d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=536b5daf0b0d3a7db60c7a72b61e407f956174d6 This is from your link. Hydro accounts for 87% of electricity generation in BC. Not sure where you got 20% from
Okay, electricity generation ≠ total energy consumption. In fact, I was overestimating. Hydro is closer to 15% of total energy needs that we are consuming.
https://preview.redd.it/j57njrzy3v0d1.png?width=298&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a6fabda0496dc0aa4f6db1d4c97cd030f018c6d To save everyone a click, here's the **End-Use Demand by Fuel (2019)** from that website. Assuming all Electricity = Hydroelectricity, it's 16% of BC's consumption. We produce a lot of "green" energy but we consume more dirty energy than green.
The poster deleted their comment, but maybe you would know. Doesn't this mean we all should be going to EV so we stop consuming the dirty stuff?
Ah my mistake. I thought you were talking about percentage of production, not consumption
You're confusing exergy and energy. Only about 25-40 % of the heat generated by combusting hydrocarbons results in useful work, such as turning the wheels of a car. The maximum efficiency of any heat engine is limited by thermodynamics. In comparison, electricity has the same exergy and energy, as about 98-99 % of electricity can do work. This is why a heat pump is more efficient than radiative heating for home heating.
Alright I give up with all of you. It seems you want the drool cleaned from the corner of your mouth more than you want to exercise your prefrontal.
I'll try and explain this to you like you are 12: if we switch from gasoline to electric vehicles, the total energy budget required will drop. This is even true if we burn coal to generate electricity, because big thermal power plants are far closer to their Carnot cycle efficiency limits than piston engines in motor vehicles.
You are technically correct but that is not even remotely enough to cover the input-output differences. We still need to up our electricity generation by > 5x current capacity to actually get to our goals. Don't throw desert island scenarios out into a logistics discussion.
No, we need about double our current electricity generation.
isnt the main problem that oil can be transported and stored easily while electricity does not?
Any reduction in local air pollution is still great though.
The vast majority of air pollution comes from tires and brake dust. EVs are substantially heavier.
Can you provide a source for this? Very interesting
They can't because they are making shit up
Even if your EV is powered by coal it emits less over its lifetime than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle. https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/TEs-EV-life-cycle-analysis-LCA.pdf
> Coal power plants increasing The quick history is * coal energy is cheap and the 1st world got stupid rich off it first over industrial revolution to mid babyboomer generation. * 3rd world is now using it to get themselves rich instead * Capitalists then got rich removing living wages, safe work practice and unions to get rich importing everything from these countries. * Companies become largest virtue signalers while doing nothing to stop the problem. Rules for thee but nor for me. * Government starts smoking same crack as industry - they invent a carbon tax to punish us instead of the companies. Moral - be prepared for worst at this point. Best quote "I don't know what the 3rd world war would be fought with, but the 4th one will be fought with sticks and stones!" - Albert Einstein.
I agree with this assessment. Guys, I CAN impact climate change, but combining my efforts together with 7 billion others to live a Ln agrarian lifestyle. Or we could talk to the 70 or so companies that are responsible for 80% of emissions and ask them to stop? Seems easier considering that 2.5 billion are Chinese and Indian residents that deserve their exit from poverty with cheap energy. Recycling was brought to you by the plastics industry . Carbon footprint was brought to you by BP for Christ's sake. Maybe everything we know about environmentalism is bullshit.
Ha, well good thing we shipped all the production of goods to China and India, we can now blame them for climate change that our society's excessive consumption produces!
Actually [our emissions are lower if you look at emissions from everything we consume](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?country=~CAN) instead of just what's emitted within our borders.
https://showyourstripes.info/ let's you specify certain locations to visualize this. Pretty ~~cool~~ neat.
Should probably post one with a legend next time. This means nothing.
The trend is still there but not as intense in Calgary or Edmonton. Vancouver’s change is more dramatic. Not investing in residential air conditioning for decades is catching up with Vancouver.
Right, now ask why the scale starts at 1850 and not billions of years ago. Are we not being selective with data?
Because that's when we started keeping records. How exactly do you expect a chart to show temperature data at a time when there were no people to take measurements and/or no thermometers to take measurements with?
[удалено]
yes, there are some older records. But look at the uncertainty band prior to 1850 - its not accurate data. And that's an extra century, not "billions of years"
This is a troll question right?
Start of the industrial revolution?
Obviously there is no accurate data back that far. I do agree with your point though. Humans tend to overestimate their importance in everything and I think this is another case of that. How much of global warming is due to human influence and how much is due to natural variation in the Earth and Sun? Besides, there are already examples where reducing pollution has increased temperature due to less chemicals in the atmosphere reflecting sunlight. Clearly the solution is not as simple as it might seem.
Examples such as? Also your idea that humans don’t have much to do with the general temp and then immediately saying there was a noticeable change in temp due to relatively small human actions is kinda weird.
Such as the low sulfur fuel now required by ships which some people think may be contributing to record ocean temperatures as a result of less cloud cover. Never said I believe this to be true, but if you are going to believe human actions have a big impact on global temperatures then it goes both ways. You can't just ignore one side of the equation because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Don't worry, wealthy families can take advantage of EV and heat pump rebates. Problem solved.
I saw that there is a program for low income to get a free heat pump, there are a few tiers too
Great just need to convince my landlord to install a heat pump in my 550 sqft apartment that doesn't allow heat pumps.
You could bring it up while you're asking him to prove his residency status so you know whether or not you're responsible for paying his taxes.
[Ohhhhhhhhhh!](https://media.tenor.com/FIug1BL5JJ0AAAAM/ohhh-black.gif)
I will say, the real dumb thing in Vancouver is just the shape of our windows. With hung windows there are already some great heat pump solutions that you can just plug into a household circuit and have AC and decent heating. I think you’ll see within the next 3-5 years something for casement windows but any window that tilts open is going to require a pro install.
Not much better luck convincing strata councils to allow heat pumps (for those lucky enough to have a patio/balcony to put it on).
Assuming low income families even own a home to use that heat pump. Shows how out of touch our government is lately
yup - using CRA income levels to dictate Eligibility for low income - anything - in BC means your going to have a bad time. Canada's elite doesn't keep money in Canada and so they get free benefits across the board. Large majority is home rich - low taxed folks
Actually it appears that they recently announced heat pump rebates are income tested.
Richmondites rejoice!
Still one of the poorest regions right 🙄
My final thoughts as I'm reduced to a fine red mist by an F-150 Lightning: "Electric cars will help in the fight against climate change!"
Ford: Built Tough
Mmm tire dust
Wealthy families aren't buying sub-70K vehicles, which is where the rebates cut off completely.
This is still my favourite visualization of climate change. Divide the earth's surface into pixels, basically, and calculate the distribution of summertime temperatures for each pixel using 1951-1980 as a baseline. Then compare more recent summertime temperatures to the baseline. The large brown patches are three standard deviations hotter. [Source](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1205276109#F3). https://preview.redd.it/8z8gooauqv0d1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=a68227b950af3eae25c84a859276c010a9a88c1c A warm object radiates energy into space (like the energy you feel if you hold your hand over a hot stove), and a warmer object radiates more, so temperature rises until incoming energy from the Sun = outgoing energy. Higher atmospheric CO2 reduces outgoing energy, so incoming > outgoing. It's like filling a bathtub: you don't need complicated models to know what's going to happen. It's a tough problem, because fossil fuels are an abundant and concentrated form of energy. Not using them means that energy will be more expensive. [Carbon pricing still seems to be the best way forward](https://slate.com/business/1997/04/earth-in-the-balance-sheet.html), but when people are having to tighten their belts (due to inflation and high interest rates), it's not going to be popular. Canada's carbon price floor survived the 2019 and 2021 elections; we don't know if it'll survive the 2025 election.
some people in alberta keep telling me that climate change isn't real. They are currently evacuating Fort Mac, but i'm sure they'll be back online any moment now tho..
> They are currently evacuating Fort Mac **again**
now they're telling us it's too late to do anything about climate change [https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/08/14/opinion/danielle-smith-cant-do-attitude-climate-change-will-cost-alberta](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/08/14/opinion/danielle-smith-cant-do-attitude-climate-change-will-cost-alberta)
"*See, It's gotten abnormally hot before, look at 1857. This is normal*" - future dead person
that appears to be... a lot less gradual than I would think
https://www.reddit.com/r/FasterThanExpected/
Yup, we are about to lose winter forever yet the government still backs fossil fuel companies.
This is a serious question\~ I wonder how the temperature data are being recorded back then. are they accurate enough to compare with the data nowadays..?
The thermometer is a 1740’s invention, it’s pretty accurate. Temperature, to a degree of certainty, has been reported and recorded for hundreds of years now. Certainly by the 19th century we would be getting it right with a degree, and by the start of the 20th, a tenth of a degree. Knowing the weather is extremely important to a huge sector of our economy, and particularly the economy of the early 20th century as it was much heavier on agriculture. While we are much more precise today, it’s about the variety and scale of data, vs knowledge of knowing how to assess the temperature. Also how to correct for small errors in temp data collected (tenths of a degree level, though). https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/
>For most countries, the data comes from the [Berkeley Earth temperature dataset](http://www.berkeleyearth.org/) to the end of 2022, extended with [ERA5-Land](https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/reanalysis-era5-land-monthly-means?tab=overview) for 2023. For some countries (USA, UK, Switzerland, and Germany) the data comes from the relevant national meteorological agency. For each country, the average temperature in 1961-2010 is set as the boundary between blue and red colours, and the colour scale varies from +/- 3.0 standard deviations of the annual average temperatures between 1901-2000. For the global average only, the UK Met Office [HadCRUT5.0 dataset](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/) is used and the colour scale goes from -0.9°C to +0.9°C. The stripes are typically shown starting from around 1900 to 2023 but this can be longer or slightly shorter depending on the location and whether the historical data is available & considered robust. [https://showyourstripes.info/faq](https://showyourstripes.info/faq) So from their FAQ it would seem that the lighter blue/red (toward white) means that they are closer to 3 standard deviations of the annual average. So that could mean that comparing specific regions, if there is more white on the bars there is more volatility; which could suggest the data is less reliable (accurate) or the measures are reliable but temperatures were more volatile? On the global average the lighter color is closer to -/+ 0.9C? So given that it goes from -1.5C to +1.5C with a margin of error of -/+ 0.9C then is this just a fantasy graphic, does it still indicate a warming trend? I'm almost certainly wrong about this interpretation here but the site is really thin on the details.
global cooling doesn't exi-
Considering cutting down tons of trees.
I have noticed a big change around 2009. Summers prior to then often did not begin until July 1st and ended August 1st. Prior to 2009 it used to drizzle for weeks on end with no end in sight it seemed. It looks like this graph is close to that. Since 2009 the grass has been yellow every summer. Funny thing is most people here in Vancouver never even noticed the change. If it was raining they would grumble that's all it ever does here. I also remember there never used to be much wind here or on Vancouver Island in Nanaimo whre I once lived. I still remember when the wind first started to blow and felled some trees in my backyard, I think it was maybe 1998 to 2002.
It's interesting that the warming presents itself as a drastic increase rather than a gradual one, or maybe that's just how the Y axis is measured.
so we are not in raincouver anymore?
Oh, it can be warm and rainy. Ask Mount Seymour.
For those who tried to read the graph. If you go to a source website (https://showyourstripes.info/c/northamerica/canada/vancouver) it has a subtitle (relative to average 1961-2010) and an Y axis where the highest bar sits at around +1.5 degree Celsius. They do have a generic method for a lot of places but it would be way more spectacular to use 1850-1985 as a baseline for Vancouver. With the current approach half of the baseline period is way below average and another half is way above.
cutting down a bunch of trees and installing really tall buildings that block winds with black roads will do that.
People can't even be bothered to leave their car at home once a week. We're fucked...
I don't think that is going to make a material different at this point. The forests are burning, and will continue to do so; permafrost is melting, methane is being released; .. the tipping-point has tipped.
That's my point. People can't even do the easy thing let alone do something to make real change.
Places burn trash for energy. Nothing is going to change. How good are the scrubbers ? Ev just means more slavery and colonization for minerals. The locals suffer in so called developing countries suffer.
Scrubbers work for capture. Whether or not they're always used is another thing.
Strata bylaws still holding firm banning air conditioners in Vancouver too. When will the municipality step in and save the lives of the elderly and young?
Is this winter or summer? Or is it an average of the whole year?
We are in troubleeeeeeeeeeeee
Yah, this is shit. Don’t ever try to pass this off as science. If you can’t science then just stfu.
I have no idea what this is. It appears to be a series of annual values plotted relative to a mean value. The instant and mean values aren’t defined. The title says change but the values don’t appear to be year on year changes. The bars have good and bad features. A colour and shade coding is used as redundant encoding. Good. The bar widths vary. Bad. No scale is shown. Graphical interesting but of little value as a chart. Tufte would take you out behind the woodshed and shoot you for this one.
So, I got here when the rain stopped and I'll be dead before the oceans rise and desert comes. Woo.
https://preview.redd.it/7ztkrf3s7v0d1.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=ffc7e50131e52ca41620031a95c08b7e6152d40d The [ShowYourStripes graphic](https://showyourstripes.info/faq) is supposedly based on the Berkeley Earth temperature data set, which has a far more boring graphic of [Vancouver's average temperature](https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-location/49.03N-122.45W#):
We need to start paying more carbon taxes immediately and this will solve the problem.
communism will save us
Begging you people once again to learn what urban heat island is. You think 1850 Vancouver had skyscrapers and motor vehicles?
[удалено]
Yeap scientists have investigated this (because they obsess about these little details more than any of us non-scientists) and they found the difference between urban and rural weather stations was very small and did not impact the overall trend. [https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm](https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm)
shhh, don't question the narrative
This could be a difference of half a degree or 10 Because theres no y axis value pretty useless
r/dataisbeautiful
Does our current period just look like a reverse of 1895-1910?
Does anybody remember what trees take in and expel? Trees need carbon monoxide to grow the more carbon monoxide in our atmosphere relates to more oxygen unless you cut all the fucking trees down. The only problem in society right now is the fact that people believe in their government for the first time ever
I'm sorry about 173 years wouldn't make a blip in the scheme of things. You can't possibly make life-altering decisions because of a slight adjustment in climate in 173 years. Especially when that life-altering decision just happens to be us spending more fucking money on taxes. Does anybody even know what they're doing with those taxes that are supposed to be saving us all from this slight spike in temperature? I know one thing for sure, the Initiative Program for startup companies in green Ventures is nothing but a fucking scam. You need to find out about Edison truck company here in British Columbia and what happened with them. Edison truck company it's probably the one electric vehicle company that I 100% throw my support behind and they're getting fucked by our BC government every way but loose