We've got almost 90 degrees her ein Cincinnati today. They said it hasn't been this warm here at this time of year since 1941. It's rained just about an inch at my house since the end of July.
Farmers must be very confused???
- Thread starter Michael6268
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
treeman08
New Member
The Global warming has not hit the Northwest yet... was 34 this morning with snow on the hills the last couple of nights.
The forcast is for snow in the Cascades down to 3000 feet tonight and through the weekend.
I don't remember snow this early since the last ice age, also known as the 70's.
Oh well the King is cranking out the heat.
The forcast is for snow in the Cascades down to 3000 feet tonight and through the weekend.
I don't remember snow this early since the last ice age, also known as the 70's.
Oh well the King is cranking out the heat.
I suppose I should be thankful for the warm weather, as each bag of pellets I don't have to burn is $5 saved. But this lack of rain is eating up all of that savings in water bills.
Nofossil
Moderator Emeritus
Can't let this one go by without sticking my nose into the fire...
From where I sit, I don't much care whether man-made global warming is real or not. It's pretty clear to me that even without man's influence, the natural fluctuations in global temperature are far too large for us to tolerate. In the long run, we need to find the 'thermostat' for the globe - we need to develop the techniques to deliberately adjust the planet's temperature. Not necessarily quickly, but certainly over the span of a few hundred years. Whatever your position on the issue, consider what the impact of another ice age would be. Northern countries won't likely sit quietly while they are destroyed by the ice pack.
This will certainly require the development of planetary-scale technology and engineering, backed up by hard science. All this is true regardless of the current global warming debate.
I suspect that a lot of the vocal global warming crowd would be horrified at the idea of such a program, which would support some of Goose's theory. Ice ages may be 'natural', but so is polio and freezing to death in a cave.
I'm interested in practical solutions that address real problems. Since fuel oil is valuable for many other things, I think that burning wood instead makes sense. The fact that it's renewable is a nice benefit. The fact that it's carbon-neutral might or might not be important.
From where I sit, I don't much care whether man-made global warming is real or not. It's pretty clear to me that even without man's influence, the natural fluctuations in global temperature are far too large for us to tolerate. In the long run, we need to find the 'thermostat' for the globe - we need to develop the techniques to deliberately adjust the planet's temperature. Not necessarily quickly, but certainly over the span of a few hundred years. Whatever your position on the issue, consider what the impact of another ice age would be. Northern countries won't likely sit quietly while they are destroyed by the ice pack.
This will certainly require the development of planetary-scale technology and engineering, backed up by hard science. All this is true regardless of the current global warming debate.
I suspect that a lot of the vocal global warming crowd would be horrified at the idea of such a program, which would support some of Goose's theory. Ice ages may be 'natural', but so is polio and freezing to death in a cave.
I'm interested in practical solutions that address real problems. Since fuel oil is valuable for many other things, I think that burning wood instead makes sense. The fact that it's renewable is a nice benefit. The fact that it's carbon-neutral might or might not be important.
Gooserider
Mod Emeritus
I've actually seen articles detailing possible ways of dealing with the question via technology, some of which would be doable today.
One article (I think it was in Reason magazine, but don't hold me to it) If I'm recalling it correctly, pointed out that there are large areas of ocean that are basically "deserts" in terms of life because they are missing only a few minerals - artificially seeding these areas with small amounts of the missing nutrients could cause large blooms of algae which would consume the surplus CO2, in addition to possibly leading to increased fish stocks (aka food) The numbers quoted sounded like they would work, and the approach would be relatively self limiting in that if one stopped supplying the nutrients the areas would slowly revert back to "normal"...
There were other approaches as well that looked viable, though I forget all the details.
Of course IMHO the long term ultimate solution is to get into space in a big way - See Jerry Pournelle's work, along with all the other space enthusiasts for discussion...
Gooserider
One article (I think it was in Reason magazine, but don't hold me to it) If I'm recalling it correctly, pointed out that there are large areas of ocean that are basically "deserts" in terms of life because they are missing only a few minerals - artificially seeding these areas with small amounts of the missing nutrients could cause large blooms of algae which would consume the surplus CO2, in addition to possibly leading to increased fish stocks (aka food) The numbers quoted sounded like they would work, and the approach would be relatively self limiting in that if one stopped supplying the nutrients the areas would slowly revert back to "normal"...
There were other approaches as well that looked viable, though I forget all the details.
Of course IMHO the long term ultimate solution is to get into space in a big way - See Jerry Pournelle's work, along with all the other space enthusiasts for discussion...
Gooserider
I've always been on the fence about the whole global warming thing and what to do about it... My wife is ultra right wing, and says that there's no such thing as GW. I'm more moderate, and cannot comprehend how all of the pollutants we put in the air can have no effect on the environment and GW. She rebutts with some data from somewhere that everytime a volcano blows, it puts more bad stuff in the air than the"we" all do... Oy. I sort of think that the earth could repair itself, and that there's always been these sort of swings or variances in the overall average temperatures. BUT, there has never been, until now, all of us putting garbage into the air.
I hadn't heard of that idea of seeding the ocean. That sound's pretty cool. I wonder, though, how feasible it would be, and what the drawbacks would be. There must be some, there always is. Like when you eat the low cholesterol potato chips, but it turns out they give you the scoots.
I hadn't heard of that idea of seeding the ocean. That sound's pretty cool. I wonder, though, how feasible it would be, and what the drawbacks would be. There must be some, there always is. Like when you eat the low cholesterol potato chips, but it turns out they give you the scoots.
You do know, we are still substanitally cooler than we were in recent history. The mini ice age occured between the 16 and mid 19th century. Many people think we are still coming out of it. That ice age is why we are a nation of beer drinkers instead of wine drinkers. Anyway, the English used to grow grapes for wine and did so well enough that the French put tarrifs on its importation. Then the ice age hit and the grapes died, so norther Europeans switched to grain drinks (beer). They are just now getting to where they can grow grapes in England again and that's with hybrid cold resistant grapes. So 150-400 years ago it was alot colder than now and 400+ years ago it was alot warmer than it is now.
Nofossil
Moderator Emeritus
They've actually done some experiments with the ocean algae bloom idea - it's iron that's missing. Very promising, but as always we need to understand the basic science as well as possible to anticipate unwanted side-effects. I'm all for keeping the emotion out of this and looking at facts. Read up on the global climactic effects from Krakatoa if you're worried about the pollutants that man puts into the atmosphere. Not to say we couldn't be affecting things, but we're pretty much pikers at this sort of thing compared with Mother Nature.
Nuclear issues are another area where emotion often overwhelms facts. I'm driving a car that was built in Hiroshima - it doesn't glow in the dark. Long term cancer rates for Hiroshima survivors are BETTER than their peers not exposed to the same radiation levels. Again, not to say that nuking cities is a good thing, but sometimes we can get a little crazy about risks.
Nuclear issues are another area where emotion often overwhelms facts. I'm driving a car that was built in Hiroshima - it doesn't glow in the dark. Long term cancer rates for Hiroshima survivors are BETTER than their peers not exposed to the same radiation levels. Again, not to say that nuking cities is a good thing, but sometimes we can get a little crazy about risks.
11 Bravo
New Member
There is not a thing we can do about any of it. It will happen. We have no influence over it. Humans are to insignificant. Oh sure, we can pollute a river so everything dies, or it catches fire some day, but in the big scheme of things....in comparison to everything, we are a blip. Human caused GW is ridiculous....
11 Bravo
New Member
I am more curious about this winter. They say there is a La Nina forming in the Pacific. Doesnt that typically bring a colder winter to the Great Lakes/New England ? Where's 'wxman' with the answers ?
11 Bravo said:
From Accuweather.
Many of us already know that the more active southern branch of the jet stream during an El Nino winter often floods the country with mild air, resulting in a warm winter overall in the United States. That means that some of us deduce, then, that a La Nina, with a more active northern branch of the jet stream, is likely to result in a cold winter overall in the United States. That is not correct.
Even though it's the northern branch of the jet stream that's more active during a La Nina winter, it still originates over the Pacific, and air originating over the ocean is mild. Granted, it may not be as mild as air that originates over the southern Pacific, but it's still mild air relative to normal, and this mild air often floods the United States in a similar way compared to an El Nino winter.
Even though this often means mild weather in general, since this northern branch of the jet stream could dive southward out of Canada at times, there is a greater potential of harsh winter cold during a La Nina winter. That cold typically doesn't last long, especially in the eastern part of the country, but it occasionally results in intense cold along the West Coast. Some of the all-time record cold outbreaks in California have occurred during La Nina winters.
So, to summarize, as far as temperatures are concerned, La Nina winters are often milder than normal on average but may include a harsh arctic outbreak, including along the West Coast. The Pacific Northwest, western Canada, and perhaps parts of the Northern Rockies tend to be cooler than normal, and the southern tier of the country tends to be warmer than normal.
jpl1nh
Minister of Fire
I've kinda wondered about ice age vs global warming, kind of like Godzilla vs King Kong. If I'm correct, we're about 12000 years into an interglacial period, that space between ice ages, and interglacial periods typically average about 10,000 years. In that scenario we would be really glad for global warming. This is a one time experiment folks. After we use up all of this round of fossil fuel, it will be several million years before it reforms.nofossil said:
:-S
KeithO
Minister of Fire
Whats to say that fossil fuels will ever reform ? Unless we make ourselves extinct, lack of fossil fuels will put enormous pressure on any biomass as a substitute and it is far more likely that we will end up with a world devoid of swamps, trees and pretty much anything that will not re-grow every year. WW2 already demonstrated how quickly any accessible part of the planet can be deforested, the future would just see all of the less accessible parts raided for their "gold". I think that in 200-300 years the only places you will find trees is in greenhouses, under lock and key. One only has to look at Africa and India and maybe Afganistan to see just how bad and widespread ecological damage can go.
Today Aids is decimating the populations of many of those countries and maybe if that continues nature wil have some time for recovery. But recovery is always possible only after the removal of mankind..
Today Aids is decimating the populations of many of those countries and maybe if that continues nature wil have some time for recovery. But recovery is always possible only after the removal of mankind..
jpl1nh said:
velvetfoot
Minister of Fire
Nofossil
Moderator Emeritus
KeithO said:
That may be a bit unduly pessimistic. Ill-advised or excessive use of any resource can cause damage, but humankind is not inherently a force for evil. I live in Vermont, which was 80% deforested 100 years ago due to logging and sheep farming. Despite a much larger population, it's now 80% forest again, with some spectacular 'virgin again' forest landscape. Deer, bobcat, bear, and wild turkey populations are as high or higher than they've ever been. Mastodons and dire wolves have yet to make a comeback, but there's always hope ;-) Properly managed, a woodlot can provide energy indefinitely. Fossil fuels are popular because they're convenient and concentrated, but they are not the only solution to our energy needs, as all of us wood-burners know. The trick is to find and develop the appropriate technologies - whether it's wood gasification, next-generation reactors, fuel cells, oceanic algae blooms, or whatever. I'm an optimist - just because some people have done stupid things in some cases does not mean we can't find better ways. To me, the excitement is in the search.
KeithO
Minister of Fire
Do the math on the number of cords of wood needed to replace all current fossil fuels just for North America. And by that I mean for transport, electricity, industry etc. We feel the pain when putting gas in our cars first, but shortages worldwide will spill over on all uses. Cars will go to propane and the "alternative fuels" to preserve whatever is available to keep the wheels of industry turning. Prices of fossil fuels will rise continuously and when it reaches a critical point, entrepeneurs will buy up all wooded land to cream off profits from this "alternative fuel". With that the cost of wood, for anyone who does not have a lifetime supply of wood, will track the cost of fossil fuels.
Until the economies of China and India kicked in, it was forseeable that things may not change that much for the US, which has historically been the biggest consumer in the world. But now this population has to compete with the uncomming chinese and indians and to some extent also the russians for the same resources. Its not going to be pretty. The time since the turn of the century has been the "de facto" age of cheap oil, which is what allowed those forests in Vermont to regrow. Cheap oils is not coming around again..
Folks, we tend to have a rather short "horizon" on our thinking. We only live 60-70 years. Look how much the world has changed in just the last generation. Begining of this century you still had samurais in Japan. Yet the vast majority of the worlds population is hardly even economically active. They have been scraping by, in many cases not living in robust houses, not owning any form of transport but their feet. In africa they have stripped the landscape (in walkable distance) of any trees. The now burn cowchips because there is nothing else. In many cases there were first cattle and when the land wouldn't support them there were goats and when the goats and sheep are done there is not even a blade of grass. Then the famine sets in and they die like flies.
China and India now have expanding industries and their own consumption is growing at a terrific rate. The world has never had a second consumer the size of the USA or ultimately (based on population size) several times larger. If we were finding new oil every few weeks, that might at least provide the resources to continue the expansion, but as oil reserves shrink it is going to have a dramatic effect on the way we go about our lives. We may have gas prices of $10/gal in the next 5-10 years and as we well know, it will take a long time to play catchup on the biofuels. Most of the rest of the world is already at the $6-8/gal price range.
Until the economies of China and India kicked in, it was forseeable that things may not change that much for the US, which has historically been the biggest consumer in the world. But now this population has to compete with the uncomming chinese and indians and to some extent also the russians for the same resources. Its not going to be pretty. The time since the turn of the century has been the "de facto" age of cheap oil, which is what allowed those forests in Vermont to regrow. Cheap oils is not coming around again..
Folks, we tend to have a rather short "horizon" on our thinking. We only live 60-70 years. Look how much the world has changed in just the last generation. Begining of this century you still had samurais in Japan. Yet the vast majority of the worlds population is hardly even economically active. They have been scraping by, in many cases not living in robust houses, not owning any form of transport but their feet. In africa they have stripped the landscape (in walkable distance) of any trees. The now burn cowchips because there is nothing else. In many cases there were first cattle and when the land wouldn't support them there were goats and when the goats and sheep are done there is not even a blade of grass. Then the famine sets in and they die like flies.
China and India now have expanding industries and their own consumption is growing at a terrific rate. The world has never had a second consumer the size of the USA or ultimately (based on population size) several times larger. If we were finding new oil every few weeks, that might at least provide the resources to continue the expansion, but as oil reserves shrink it is going to have a dramatic effect on the way we go about our lives. We may have gas prices of $10/gal in the next 5-10 years and as we well know, it will take a long time to play catchup on the biofuels. Most of the rest of the world is already at the $6-8/gal price range.
jpl1nh
Minister of Fire
Aarghh... :coolcheese: I don't know how to extract sections of someones post to quote off of, however Keith, I in my more gloomy moments share many of your perspectives. One point I always find interesting is references to nature recovering after mankind departs. Nature doesn't friggin care if it "recovers" or not. If this planet becomes barren of life, from Natures perspective, what is wrong with that? Earth just joins the millions (billions..infinite ?) number of barren planets already floatin around. That's fine! Also , please understand my reference to the next supply of fossil fuels in millions of years was tongue in cheek. I agree that biomass likely will come under heavy pressure unless we are able to utilze solar directly and efficiently ourselves. Building my stock piles of wood now case I live 50 more years :coolsmile:
KeithO
Minister of Fire
JP, just scroll to the post you want to quote from, then click the "quote" button. by default, all of the previous text will be in the quote. Now just delete the text you aren't interested in (leaving the "flags" at the start and end that identify the quoted material). Make sure that you type either before or after the quoted stuff so that your text is differentiated (the quoted text has a different background).
I don't think I'm being gloomy by any means. I just think most of us are in denial about how different things are going to be when the "black gold" is no longer around or no longer affordable. I've travelled a fair bit and I've seen what has become of the landscape in poorer countries who can't afford oil today. The future we are facing has arrived in India years ago. I saw entire lines of mountains totally devoid of vegetation (and not nearly high enough for it to be altitude induced). Namibia with large areas totally devoid of vegetation after a few generations of goat herding. Need I talk about Ethiopia ?
Right now I live in paradise. I have only a 1/3 acre lot, but I'm surounded by woods on 2 sides and my neighbors appreciate me taking care of trees that have died or are falling down. But I'm only 70 miles from Detroit. If energy costs continue to increase the way they have, or even pick up the pace a bit, we will quickly have steep competition for cordwood. Landowners around me may be temped to have their vacant lots logged to make a quick buck, and it would change the landscape around me completely and will not substantially recover for the rest of my natural life.
Its about the human perspective. What is there going to be for our grandchildren ? EPA stoves or not, there is no way that every american home can be heated with wood sustainably at present population growth rates. Just imagine what the air quality will be like when there are more than a million people, half of them burning unseasoned wood or coal within 70 miles ?
I don't think I'm being gloomy by any means. I just think most of us are in denial about how different things are going to be when the "black gold" is no longer around or no longer affordable. I've travelled a fair bit and I've seen what has become of the landscape in poorer countries who can't afford oil today. The future we are facing has arrived in India years ago. I saw entire lines of mountains totally devoid of vegetation (and not nearly high enough for it to be altitude induced). Namibia with large areas totally devoid of vegetation after a few generations of goat herding. Need I talk about Ethiopia ?
Right now I live in paradise. I have only a 1/3 acre lot, but I'm surounded by woods on 2 sides and my neighbors appreciate me taking care of trees that have died or are falling down. But I'm only 70 miles from Detroit. If energy costs continue to increase the way they have, or even pick up the pace a bit, we will quickly have steep competition for cordwood. Landowners around me may be temped to have their vacant lots logged to make a quick buck, and it would change the landscape around me completely and will not substantially recover for the rest of my natural life.
Its about the human perspective. What is there going to be for our grandchildren ? EPA stoves or not, there is no way that every american home can be heated with wood sustainably at present population growth rates. Just imagine what the air quality will be like when there are more than a million people, half of them burning unseasoned wood or coal within 70 miles ?
We all know that the matter is even worse due to Bush. By moving the Daylight savings time it is now light out longer and therefore warmer longer! Now see, all you have to do to eliminate global warming is to get rid of daylight saving time entirely, and just have standard time. Therefore making the daylight/warm hours shorter! 
jqgs214
Minister of Fire
karl said:
Karl,
As an FYI we are now officailly a nation of wine drinkers. Volume sales of wine passed beer for the first time ever in 2006!
Did it WXman. That's not good. I love wine and I don't the prices going up.
Also, The word is still out on the renewablility of fossil fuels. There are gas and oils wells in TX that were drilled almost a hundred years ago and the output of some of them is starting to rise again. One theory is that the stuff is just migrating from nearby. However, this theory is in the process of being shot down. At the turn of the century, the method of exploration was to perforate the ground all over with wells until one hit. So they have alot dry wells near the ones that are starting to produce more and those wells are still dry.
Also, The word is still out on the renewablility of fossil fuels. There are gas and oils wells in TX that were drilled almost a hundred years ago and the output of some of them is starting to rise again. One theory is that the stuff is just migrating from nearby. However, this theory is in the process of being shot down. At the turn of the century, the method of exploration was to perforate the ground all over with wells until one hit. So they have alot dry wells near the ones that are starting to produce more and those wells are still dry.
Nofossil
Moderator Emeritus
This whole thread probably belongs somewhere between the Green Room and the Ash Can at this point....
What will likely happen over time is that our mix of energy sources will change as economic and environmental factors make some sources more attractive than others. A good deal of the easily extractable crude oil is already gone. There's lots more that could be extracted economically at $100/bbl than there is at $20/bbl. If prices stay around $100, many other sources become competitive as well. Of course, subsidies mess up the tradeoffs, but high oil prices can only help make solar, wind, biomass, hydro, and other options more attractive.
In some cases, there are massive startup costs involved in developing a new energy source, but there are some interesting things out there. Methane clathrates might offer more energy that we ever got from oil, and it's worth reading up on the potential of fourth-generation nuclear fission, regardless of what your feelings are about nuclear power. In the US, the technology that we're using for nuclear power is OLD. The latest technology is orders of magnitude(!) more efficient, and virtually eliminates the long-lived high-level nuclear waste. Maybe as oil disappears, we'll get a little less hysterical about the risks associated with nuclear. If we're going to have electric cars, we gotta have electricity, and lots of it.
Finally, back-of-the-envelope calculations are always fun. According to one study I've read, a well-managed five acre woodlot can sustainably heat one average home in New England. The United States has about 750 million forested acres. If half of that were managed and used for heating, that would be enough fuel for about 75 million homes, or somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of American households. Of course, we'll never have that many homes heated by wood, but we could do so sustainably if we chose to. Of course, the typical home in Georgia probably doesn't require quite so much wood to heat it ;-)
What will likely happen over time is that our mix of energy sources will change as economic and environmental factors make some sources more attractive than others. A good deal of the easily extractable crude oil is already gone. There's lots more that could be extracted economically at $100/bbl than there is at $20/bbl. If prices stay around $100, many other sources become competitive as well. Of course, subsidies mess up the tradeoffs, but high oil prices can only help make solar, wind, biomass, hydro, and other options more attractive.
In some cases, there are massive startup costs involved in developing a new energy source, but there are some interesting things out there. Methane clathrates might offer more energy that we ever got from oil, and it's worth reading up on the potential of fourth-generation nuclear fission, regardless of what your feelings are about nuclear power. In the US, the technology that we're using for nuclear power is OLD. The latest technology is orders of magnitude(!) more efficient, and virtually eliminates the long-lived high-level nuclear waste. Maybe as oil disappears, we'll get a little less hysterical about the risks associated with nuclear. If we're going to have electric cars, we gotta have electricity, and lots of it.
Finally, back-of-the-envelope calculations are always fun. According to one study I've read, a well-managed five acre woodlot can sustainably heat one average home in New England. The United States has about 750 million forested acres. If half of that were managed and used for heating, that would be enough fuel for about 75 million homes, or somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of American households. Of course, we'll never have that many homes heated by wood, but we could do so sustainably if we chose to. Of course, the typical home in Georgia probably doesn't require quite so much wood to heat it ;-)
- Status
