Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
blackbird

Alberta may cut off oil to BC

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

...Figures you'd double down on the same mistake.  Governments seem to be doing most of the begging. Not differentiating between governments and the governed so you can lump them all together and make everyone guilty by extension is typical of the mugs game you like to play. 

 

I don't care how you rationalize it....the complicity is obvious and inescapable.

Nothing special about British Columbia when it comes to economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Excuse me but Alberta's Firewall or Agenda which had a Canadian PM's signature on it no less, had the intent to stop unwanted intrusion from outside of Alberta, and specifically Canada. Alberta can go freeze along with the rest of the eastern bastards as far as we're concerned and for the very same reasonj.

Alberta has never skewed from its intent which is to get oil to tidewater. But now you are calling a Firewall and Agenda but have backed off from Separatism. You are really bouncing all over the place. 

27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm buying things made by other human beings, 

LMFAO.....ya....and Alberta is selling oil to other human beings. You are funny!

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 your man Trudeau might but not me. 

Now you are just trying to be rude or completely obtuse. Your province is the one who gave Trudeau a majority....not ours. And of course, Trudeau didn't start selling off Vancouver to the Chinese...you guys were glad to take that money long ago.

32 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Washington State, along with a lot of other Earthlings are against Trans Mountain too don't forget. 

Of course, Washington State is against it...they get a good portion of their oil from Alberta which they refine and sell back to BC. What do you think will happen to that discounted price once the TransCanada pipeline goes trough?? 

 

40 minutes ago, eyeball said:

  I'd say Alberta understands Confederation all to well  given how Canada lost Energy East because Ottawa is too afraid of ramming it thru 4 or 5 provinces.   Ganging up on one province instead is so very Canadian wouldn't you say? You should given Alberta's experience when it happened to you.  There's more than enough gall to go around in this alright.

You do know we lost Northern Gateway too...which was to save BC again. Right? 

Ganging up on one province? You mean like the fact that Alberta and Saskatchewan can't get its product to market because of a whiny mayor in Montreal and because of NIMBYs in BC? Yes Alberta certainly has been ganged up on in our recent past. But that's ok....I'm sitting back to see how this plays out especially when the taps are turned off and BC is paying four bucks a liter for gas. Maybe you can use wine to fuel your boat as there will be a surplus of that too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

Alberta has never skewed from its intent which is to get oil to tidewater. But now you are calling a Firewall and Agenda but have backed off from Separatism. You are really bouncing all over the place. 

I'm the one who is backing away? Really. You don't remember saying this a couple of hours ago "There has been talk of separation, just like there has been in every province..."  

Quote

And of course, Trudeau didn't start selling off Vancouver to the Chinese...you guys were glad to take that money long ago.

You guys? You must mean the guys in Victoria, who I have about as much use for as the guys in Ottawa.

Quote

Of course, Washington State is against it...they get a good portion of their oil from Alberta which they refine and sell back to BC. What do you think will happen to that discounted price once the TransCanada pipeline goes trough??

Nothing at all.

Quote

I'm sitting back to see how this plays out especially when the taps are turned off and BC is paying four bucks a liter for gas. Maybe you can use wine to fuel your boat as there will be a surplus of that too. 

Go ahead turn 'em off. I can't think of anything that would push BC even further towards Cascadia.  In any case I suspect the US would punish Alberta for turning of the taps to Washington

 

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm the one who is backing away? Really. You don't remember saying this a couple of hours ago "There has been talk of separation, just like there has been in every province..."  

I'm honestly amazed at your lack of comprehension:

1. I didn't say you were backing away, I said you were bouncing all over the place. 

2. I do remember saying that comment and it was very clearly stated to put into perspective that Alberta (like every other province) has had people who speak of separation however it has never been close to a majority of the people or even close to anything that would allow one to make the assertion that Alberta has cut itself off from the rest of the country. Yet...you still make that claim. 

 

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You guys? You must mean the guys in Victoria, who I have about as much use for as the guys in Ottawa.

I see...so you're one of those guys. Not part of any group which allows you to sling mud at everyone but never really be accountable to anything or anyone. Good for you. 

25 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Nothing at all.

I shouldn't have expected you to know something about economics. 

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Go ahead turn 'em off. I can't think of anything that would push BC even further towards Cascadia.  

And there you have it. All this time you are showing your faux outrage over Alberta wanting to separate but yet that is the only thing you care about. Well done sir. Your hypocrisy stands alone.

27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 In any case I suspect the US would punish Alberta for turning of the taps to Washington

 Who said we would turn their taps off. We would turn your taps off...you know the ones that feed your refineries. Maybe even better, we would just start shipping only dilbit through the TransMountain. Win win on our end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

I said you were bouncing all over the place. 

Right back at you pal, I'm gobsmacked how Albertans who whine about Ottawa's national energy program are so enthusiastic about Ottawa's national energy transportation program.

As I've often said and will continue doing so, I just wish Ottawa would treat Alberta's oil the way it treats BC's salmon.

Quote

I shouldn't have expected you to know something about economics.

Fair enough, why should I expect you to know anything about the environment? Do you agree or disagree with the statement; you can have an ecosystem without a human economy but you can't have it the other way around?

Quote

 

And there you have it. All this time you are showing your faux outrage over Alberta wanting to separate but yet that is the only thing you care about. Well done sir. Your hypocrisy stands alone

 

Nope, all I want is the same thing that Alberta has, control over its resources. OTOH I'd settle for Canadian control over Alberta''s oil.  The only hypocrisy here is the fact that Alberta's oil is Alberta's and by some stupid fluke of confederation so is BC's salmon.  

Quote

Who said we would turn their taps off. We would turn your taps off...you know the ones that feed your refineries. Maybe even better, we would just start shipping only dilbit through the TransMountain. Win win on our end.

Look there may be some people out here who buy the notion our gas prices have anything whatsoever to do with Albertan animosity towards BC but I'm not one of them.  Washingtonians have been impacted just as much by the usual refinery maintenance that takes place this time of year. Your use of this shtick simply underscores the desperate need for copious amounts of bullshit required to peddle Alberta's crap.

Speaking of which and besides what I think are very valid reasons for opposing more pipelines and tankers - there are still all the other environmental and economic reasons for leaving fossil fuels behind and the hypocrisy of Canada striving to be a leader for climate change action while also striving to be a fossil fuel super-power is ridiculous.   We, or should I say Alberta, blew that opportunity 50 years ago - seems a little silly to whine about not being one now in retrospect don't you think?  But but but  Ottawa...

Go tell it to the Norwegians.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PIK said:

Time for the government to tell all environmentalists to STFU and start building. I am tired of fringe/minority groups standing in the way of what this country needs.

Too bad the government didn't tell Alberta to STFU 50 years ago and start building Canada's oil program...of course and as always, if that had been me, I would have hired Norway to run it for us.

Quote

And BC needs to be punished in a way they will never forget.

Maybe you should send in the CIA, that's how the oil industry usually rolls when it runs into opposition.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Right back at you pal, I'm gobsmacked how Albertans who whine about Ottawa's national energy program are so enthusiastic about Ottawa's national energy transportation program.

We are following the constitution provided by the Confederation of this country. That constitution gives natural resources to provinces and transportation to the Feds. You make it sounds like we Albertan's invented it???!! If you don't like it then get 7 of the 10 provinces to change it or stop freaking whining about it so much.

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Fair enough, why should I expect you to know anything about the environment?

Oh the irony in this statement. Why you ask? Because I have a BSc in Environmental Science. I also have worked in the water and waste water treatment industry for the last 15 years dealing with municipal, industrial, pulp, mining, and various other water issues. Maybe that's why. 

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Do you agree or disagree with the statement; you can have an ecosystem without a human economy but you can't have it the other way around?

Sure. But do you always use strawmen arguments when you debate?

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Look there may be some people out here who buy the notion our gas prices have anything whatsoever to do with Albertan animosity towards BC but I'm not one of them.  Washingtonians have been impacted just as much by the usual refinery maintenance that takes place this time of year. Your use of this shtick simply underscores the desperate need for copious amounts of bullshit required to peddle Alberta's crap.

Are you now refuting the fact that BC doesn't get a large portion of its oil from Alberta?

 

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

We, or should I say Alberta, blew that opportunity 50 years ago - seems a little silly to whine about not being one now in retrospect don't you think?  But but but  Ottawa...

Go tell it to the Norwegians.

Here you go again with the Apples to Oranges comparison. You Sound just like my 5 year old nephew who answers Toronto when I ask what Province Ottawa is in. 

You keep whining about Norway.  A couple quick facts:

1. The people of Norway have always and continue to enjoy some of the worlds highest taxes. Compared to Alberta where the money stays in the peoples pockets where it belongs

2. Alberta does not get to control the natural resources as Norway would because our constitution does not allow it. I'll remind you once again that changing the constitution requires 7 out of 10 provinces...not just Alberta!

3. If you are simply looking at that trillion dollar trust fund that Norway has then maybe I can help ease your pain. There was a study done showing the federal revenues and expenditures received and given to each province by the federal government. Over those five years (2004-2008), Alberta on average gave back 15 billion more than it took from the Feds. The study doesn't extrapolate over the other years but it is key to note that those five years had moderate oil prices compared to other years where much higher numbers were seen (meaning that 15 billion per year could have been more like 20-30 billion). So if you even want to take 10 billion as the average over 50 years then quickly get to half a trillion that Alberta has paid to Canada. As I said, the other half a trillion is in the pockets of Albertans and many, many other people from Canada who have thrived from the industry.

Edited by Accountability Now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Too bad the government didn't tell Alberta to STFU 50 years ago and start building Canada's oil program...of course and as always, if that had been me, I would have hired Norway to run it for us.

Maybe you should send in the CIA, that's how the oil industry usually rolls when it runs into opposition.

British Columbia was responsible for almost 40 per cent of the sewage overflows across the country in 2016.

The risks to human health were highlighted this week by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. About 40 people have reported acute gastrointestinal illness after eating raw oysters since early March, and norovirus was confirmed in some of those cases. As a result, two oyster farms in B.C. have been closed.

https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/2018/04/11/untreated-sewage-pollutes-water-across-the-country.html

We can't sell our oil at a proper price ,but these so called environmentalists just shit straight into the water. Screw them.

Edited by PIK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was here for the last big spill...congealed pancakes of heavy oil up and down Long Beach - locals took one look at them and said roll them up with excavators, load them aboard dump trucks and haul them off the beach before they break up and became impossible to deal with.  We had a window of the finest stretch of winter weather and calm sea conditions in living memory and for ten days we watched the government fiddle and fuck the whole time away while it came up with a plan of its own.

By the time it did a storm blew in that lasted for days with waves that blasted every pancake to smithereens. They spent millions after that mobilizing volunteers to pick them up. You can still find gobs of it underneath logs and such 3 decades or more later.

I see little reason why I shouldn't believe that future spills won't be handled as competently and locals given as short a shrift as possible. 

 

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PIK said:

British Columbia was responsible for almost 40 per cent of the sewage overflows across the country in 2016.

The risks to human health were highlighted this week by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. About 40 people have reported acute gastrointestinal illness after eating raw oysters since early March, and norovirus was confirmed in some of those cases. As a result, two oyster farms in B.C. have been closed.

https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/2018/04/11/untreated-sewage-pollutes-water-across-the-country.html

We can't sell our oil at a proper price ,but these so called environmentalists just shit straight into the water. Screw them.

Yeah, it seems there's never a BSc in Environmental Science around when you really need one.  Funny how that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The election of the 3 Green MLAs and the NDP in BC was one of the worst things that portion of the voters did to BC.  The majority of people in BC support the Kinder Morgan pipeline but we will all pay the price for the disastrous decisions of the Green - NDP coalition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Yeah, it seems there's never a BSc in Environmental Science around when you really need one.  Funny how that works.

Don’t worry...B.C. has tons of surly, old fisherman that will get them through this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

Don’t worry...B.C. has tons of surly, old fisherman that will get them through this

Except that people rarely take local knowledge into account.  That's probably what makes us so surly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, blackbird said:

The election of the 3 Green MLAs and the NDP in BC was one of the worst things that portion of the voters did to BC.  The majority of people in BC support the Kinder Morgan pipeline but we will all pay the price for the disastrous decisions of the Green - NDP coalition.

The idiots are essentially brain dead.  It is not as if everyone is going to stop driving their cars, buying things made of plastic, flying airplanes, paving roads, etc.   So, the oil is going to be shipped, somewhere.   Instead of using pipelines with fantastic safety records, the oil will get tidewater in rail cars - a shipping method with a  horrible statistical safety record.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yeah, it seems there's never a BSc in Environmental Science around when you really need one.  Funny how that works.

So they scream oil is dirty and we don't want it, but  thier largest export is ..............................COAL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PIK said:

So they scream oil is dirty and we don't want it, but  thier largest export is ..............................COAL.

Biggest exporter of coal in North America, dug from the heartlands of BC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PIK said:

So they scream oil is dirty and we don't want it, but  thier largest export is ..............................COAL.

 

29 minutes ago, Argus said:

Biggest exporter of coal in North America, dug from the heartlands of BC. 

So what PIK and Argus are saying is that the people governments govern are no different than their governments...identical in viewpoint, hypocrisy, guilt - in total synchronized agreement with one another at every level.  Just automatons with no autonomy.    

Funnily enough that's pretty much what BC is being told it should be when it comes to 'our' oil and 'our' interests' - they/we are or SHOULD be one and the same and we should all just get with the program - or be punished.   That's really fucked up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2018 at 3:03 PM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Actually no, the planet seems to be warming and I believe mankind is contributing to it but I don't believe it's our carbon output as much as the shear heat we are releasing from all forms of energy derived from underground as well as from what we are absorbing and releasing into the lower atmosphere from the sun (heat that's normally reflected back into space).

 

Do the math. The impact of burning of fossil fuels & nuclear energy on global temperature is only ~0.01 C. It's small. The effect of greenhouse gases are much more important.

 

On 3/19/2018 at 3:03 PM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

There are thousands of stories in the past of extreme weather (Noah's ark for instance).

 

That is a fairy tale from a book of fairy tales.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Do the math. The impact of burning of fossil fuels & nuclear energy on global temperature is only ~0.01 C. It's small. The effect of greenhouse gases are much more important.

Really? They can't forecast weather a day in advance but they know exactly how much our heat output is contributing to global warming... If greenhouse gases are so influential why are they not restricting heat from the sun and causing global cooling? Or is it regional like our winter extending into spring farther than most can remember?

People don't realize the atmosphere is fluid, there are far more variables than we are able to monitor and calculate at this time.

Nobody is taking climate change seriously, everybody thinks globalization (definition; shipping huge amounts amounts of goods literally around in circles) and consumerism (definition; extracting vast amounts of raw materials from above and below the earth's surface to be converted to items purely for human entertainment) is going to save us and this planet. Our leaders claim "climate leadership" in the same sentence they state we need to produce more petroleum for export or increase shipping of materials around the world, it really is impossible to get more hypocritical and I think future generations are going to see this as a one of the biggest hoaxes in history. 

2 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

That is a fairy tale from a book of fairy tales.

Hey, it might be but it is said that myths or stories from the past are usually based on events that actually happened.

Anyway as I age I can remember climate events (and the claims of storms of the century etc.) from the seventies that were just as dramatic as they are today. I can remember in the mid seventies one hurricane after the other from August to November, more actual named hurricanes than the ten years after hurricane Katrina. To be honest I think global warming is actually making the weather calmer.

Remember, in the past the human population was far more sparse, communication was slow and unreliable, monitoring from outer space didn't exist and as a result many weather events were never recorded or missed populated areas all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few comments:

BC really is not a place where logic prevails.   It does things based on emotion, media influence, social attitudes and I guess out of profound respect for its drug culture.  It is, however, an accurate portrayal of what is wrong with Canada.   We tend to be Quebecers, maritimers, Albertans, etc.   If there's anything we should learn from the US it is how to be proud of our province, but far more proud of our country.   If we could only learn the basics - such as absolute prohibition of restrictions on interprovincial trade and business we would be on the track - and THAT is why the idea of a province intefering with transportation of a critical resource from another is simply wrong.   The science and technology -  as well as the regulatory regime concerning ships, loading terminals, pipeline and pumping station environmental protection is extremely high and able to manage the risks very well these days.  Now, to be fair: I do NOT support shipping dilbit in pipelines, rail cars, ships or whatever.   IMHO, for a dozen good reasons, we should limit transport and export to synthetic crude.

Saying we can't predict the weather from one minute to the next would be very unfair and untrue.   Yes, the atmosphere (and especially its interaction with both terrestial extra terrestial energy sources) is an extremely large and not yet well understood.   BUT: there is no reason not to continue to learn and develop the models - and that means we have to unfortunately give at least some credence to what I personally believe is way off track - and that is the magnitude of anthropomorphic contributions.  Our ability to at least give a reasonable level of forecast of surface weather has improved dramatically over the last half century.   Anyone who has depended upon aviation forecasting to stay alive in the cockpit can tell you as much.

The answer to almost every sustainability question IMHO always comes back to one primary problem - that we are NOT dealing with at all - population.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think there is any chance of an honest discussion in the media? If it was honest - it would focus on TWO terms - Climate Change and Global Warming. Global warming should be defined as the human contribution to Climate Change. Activists and a pliant, naive media have bastardized the term "Climate Change". To follow THEIR logic, if humans disappeared from the planet, the Climate would stop warming and never change - because THEY say that humans are responsible for 100% of the warming in the last century. That statement alone should give pause to any rational person that we are being duped - played for suckers.

Fun Fact 1: There have been NO "hottest temperature" records set in ANY US State since 1994 (two tied previous records). Most records were set in the 1930's.

Fun Fact 2: There are a fair number of "coldest temperature" records set in the 60's, 70's and 80's - remember the Global Cooling scare? 

Observation: Seems like it was hot, then cooled a bit, and it's getting a bit warmer now......unless of course, you look at the "adjusted" temperature graphs. It's enlightening to see source data and draw your own conclusions.......my opinion of course. 

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Really? They can't forecast weather a day in advance but they know exactly how much our heat output is contributing to global warming...

 

Climate is the statistical distribution of weather. Thus it is easier to predict than weather itself. Similarly, if you flipped a fair coin 1 million then we can expect with extremely high probability that roughly 50% of the coin flips would be heads. However, we would have no ability to predict an individual coin flip (weather).

 

11 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

If greenhouse gases are so influential why are they not restricting heat from the sun and causing global cooling?

 

Objects tend to emit electromagnetic radiation depending on how hot they are. I emit radiation, you emit radiation, the sun emits radiation, the earth emits radiation, etc. There are different types of electromagnetic radiation including x-rays, gamma rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared radiation, microwaves and radiowaves; what distinguishes these types of radiation is the frequency (i.e. colour) of the radiation. The hotter something is, the more electromagnetic radiation it will emit (unless we are dealing with radioactive materials, which is another issue) and also the higher the frequency (i.e. more blue/violet and less red) the radiation will be.

 

The Earth emits electromagnetic radiation, however because the Earth isn't very hot, this radiation is infrared and we can't see it. The sun, is much hotter than the Earth so it's radiation is primarily visible light, which we can see. Ever turn on an electric stove and notice that it starts to glow red as it gets hotter? This is the relevant effect.

 

Different types of gasses have different properties. Some gases might be completely transparent to some types of radiation, but opaque to others. By opaque, I mean that the gas will have a high chance of absorbing a photon of light if the light tries to pass through the gas. The reason for these properties is due to the properties of the individual molecules in the gas, but to explain these properties you have to go into quantum mechanics. Greenhouse gases for Earth are those gases that are transparent to visible light yet opaque to infrared radiation. CO2 is a good example, because if you look at the properties of CO2, it is very transparent to visible light.

 

atmospheric_transmission.png

 

CO2 tends to absorb infrared radiation around 15 μm very well. When you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, this will not really affect light traveling from the sun to the Earth, since that light tends to be visible; thus the light from the Sun will pass through the atmosphere and warm the surface. In order to cool-off from receiving all this energy from the Sun, the Earth must radiate energy out into space. The surface of the Earth emits infrared radiation which travels towards space. However, if we add more CO2, then there is a higher chance that this energy won't reach outer space and will instead be absorbed by the atmosphere. The atmosphere will then re-emit some of that absorbed energy back towards the Earth's surface. The net effect is that the Earth's surface warms.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

Climate is the statistical distribution of weather. Thus it is easier to predict than weather itself. Similarly, if you flipped a fair coin 1 million then we can expect with extremely high probability that roughly 50% of the coin flips would be heads. However, we would have no ability to predict an individual coin flip (weather).

Yes, but the cause of the trend is far harder to distinguish. I'm not questioning the fact observations show the surface of the earth is warming.

22 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

 

Objects tend to emit electromagnetic radiation depending on how hot they are. I emit radiation, you emit radiation, the sun emits radiation, the earth emits radiation, etc. There are different types of electromagnetic radiation including x-rays, gamma rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared radiation, microwaves and radiowaves; what distinguishes these types of radiation is the frequency (i.e. colour) of the radiation. The hotter something is, the more electromagnetic radiation it will emit (unless we are dealing with radioactive materials, which is another issue) and also the higher the frequency (i.e. more blue/violet and less red) the radiation will be.

 

The Earth emits electromagnetic radiation, however because the Earth isn't very hot, this radiation is infrared and we can't see it. The sun, is much hotter than the Earth so it's radiation is primarily visible light, which we can see. Ever turn on an electric stove and notice that it starts to glow red as it gets hotter? This is the relevant effect.

 

Different types of gasses have different properties. Some gases might be completely transparent to some types of radiation, but opaque to others. By opaque, I mean that the gas will have a high chance of absorbing a photon of light if the light tries to pass through the gas. The reason for these properties is due to the properties of the individual molecules in the gas, but to explain these properties you have to go into quantum mechanics. Greenhouse gases for Earth are those gases that are transparent to visible light yet opaque to infrared radiation. CO2 is a good example, because if you look at the properties of CO2, it is very transparent to visible light.

 

atmospheric_transmission.png

 

CO2 tends to absorb infrared radiation around 15 μm very well. When you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, this will not really affect light traveling from the sun to the Earth, since that light tends to be visible; thus the light from the Sun will pass through the atmosphere and warm the surface. In order to cool-off from receiving all this energy from the Sun, the Earth must radiate energy out into space. The surface of the Earth emits infrared radiation which travels towards space. However, if we add more CO2, then there is a higher chance that this energy won't reach outer space and will instead be absorbed by the atmosphere. The atmosphere will then re-emit some of that absorbed energy back towards the Earth's surface. The net effect is that the Earth's surface warms.

Very good thorough explanation and to be honest that might be part of the cause all right but I still stand behind my previous argument that if human heat output into the lower atmosphere is not curbed global warming will continue on the trend it's on. Eliminating carbon output tomorrow is not going to stop this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decades of dumping raw sewage is killing Victoria's ocean floor, diver claims

 

A commercial diver is claiming that decades of dumping raw sewage off Victoria's coast is slowly killing its surrounding ocean beds.

Allan Crow, a fisherman, commercial diver and member of the Victoria Sewage Treatment Alliance, has been diving in these waters for 35 years.

"I've observed over a long period of time ... subtle changes. It has escalated for sure in the last 10-15 years."

Crow claims these changes are a result of the decades-long practice of raw sewage from Victoria and the surrounding area being dumped directly into the ocean.

Proponents of the practice have said that treatment isn't necessary because ocean currents flush the sewage away.

But Crow says areas near the sewage discharge pipes are full of sick kelp, polluted scallops and layers of thick sediment — which he has filmed and documented.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ocean-floor-death-sewage-victoria-1.3762234

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...