It's all over but for the sweating?

[niky]

If possible, I'd rather not burn anything. Keep the CO2 sequestered in the wood. Bury it, leaving coal deposits for the bird people who will inhabit our planet millions of years after we're gone.

[suspectnumber961]

I think the SOOT from burning wood.....coal...diesel...bunker oil in the big ships is a factor in global warming due to the fact that it settles on ice and increases the melt...some probably stays airborne a good while.....not to mention it is a health problem? There are other pollutants related to poor combustion also?

As far as CO2 levels and global temps....looks like our GOOSE IS COOKED?

While the perpetually retarded among us.....

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It's not a question of coal or wood being dirty or clean - it how they affect the long term level of carbon dioxide in the air that matters.

The Arctic ice is not freezing nearly enough to make up for the melting. The volume of ice is decreasing exponentially and the area of ice is decreasing linearly over time. We are seeing feedback loops more quickly than even the most pessimistic models predicted. Greenland is already 5F warmer than it was. 125,000 years ago, after a change in the earth's orbit, Greenland gained 7F and HALF of its ice melted; raising the ocean level around the world by an average of TEN FEET. The current warming is just getting started - there is about a 40-50 year lag, so the carbon dioxide that was added to the air in the 1960's is causing today's warming. Warmer water cannot hold as much carbon dioxide, so we will begin to see and increase from this feedback loop, too.

[radioranger]

Ice harvesting is a good story to study , i read there were 30,000 men in Maine alone who harvested ice all winter and saved it until the next winter, even shipping it as far away as New Zealand of all places, read it in a book about gold finds , apparently a New Zealand man came to California to take part in the gold rush there around 1850 or so , going home he had learned what to look for and discovered gold there, they made so much money they retired and the book mentioned how they enjoyed iced tea with ice from Maine , brought over on ships, sailing of course. must have been pricey !

[suspectnumber961]

* note...this is not political...it is statistical and fact-based.......

The fact that Romney did as well as he did is a testament to the effectiveness of the corporate-owned media and the dumbed-down condition of the electorate...Romney represented the top 1-5%...whom as you might expect actually have only 1-5% (or more due to actually voting, etc) of the vote.


THIS is what the election was really all about?

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Excuse the digression into politics, but this is a self-serving distortion pushed by the folks who like to play racial/identity politics games. What lost Romney the election - and it was far more a matter of Romney losing than Obama winning - was the Republicans' policy of driving away everybody who doesn't fit into their nuclear family model of society.And standard of living?

[NeilBlanchard]

When the wood rots, it also releases the carbon. Decomposition is essentially slow burning - so there is no difference in carbon between rotting or burning. The point about black soot is well taken, and there may be the counterpoint that particle air pollution may shade out some sun in the (very) short term?

Look at the Mauna Loa chart to see the rise of carbon dioxide when the trees in the northern hemisphere dropping their leaves every fall, and then going back down (less than it rose) when the leaves grow starting in the spring.



Why does the northern hemisphere matter more than the south? Because most of the land masses are in the northern hemisphere.

Making biochar will sequester the carbon in the ground. So maybe burning wood, and then choking off the oxygen and creating unburned charcoal with part of the wood is a way to go? You would avoid burning oil or gas, and you could be sequestering some of the carbon as you go.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

My postage wasn't clear - more CO2 per unit of heat from wood vs Coal, the latter is more energy dense. Maybe it is better for houses but not for power stations ?

It's better for whatever use because it doesn't release fossil CO2 into the atmosphere. Now for home heating, if one lives in a sensible place - that is, not a (sub)urban conglomeration - it is better because it can be locally sourced. Most of my heat for the next few years will come from clearing out dead trees & trimming limbs on my own lot. If that runs low, I can get more from Forest Service thinning projects within a 10-20 mile radius.

...the "Survey of the British Population" (Gregory King, circa 1688) recorded an annual income for a labourer of between £2 and £4 a year for a labourer and farm worker. It (the wage for an unskilled labourer) rose after 1800 so that it was 50% higher by 1850 despite the population growing by 3 times.

I wonder if those numbers take account of the changing value of the pound. After all, the pound was at one time a literal pound of silver (240 silver pence), which today would be worth about £290 (or $480). Then there are changing prices: if you earn £2 and pay £2 for food & shelter, then go somewhere where you make £4 per year, but your food & shelter now costs £4 plus a couple of shillings... Well, you haven't actually progressed all that much, now have you?

The attractiveness of the city vs rural life can be seen all over the world - 19th century Britain, 19th and 20th century USA, 20th Century Japan and even 1980s on China.

What you see, and have seen throughout history, are people going to the cities in hopes of making their fortunes. You also see that the small fraction who actually do make their fortunes move right back out again.

Actually Bradford was a major city in the [industrial revolution...

Depends on your definition of "major". With a population of around 100K, it was much smaller than say London.

We didn't have the "grid" organisation that governments in Europe and the US liked (so they could march troops quickly in to deal with "trouble")...

Now what were you saying about "bordering on a conspiracy theory"? (And having visited a selection of European cities, I can't instantly recall one with a street grid.)

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by radioranger

If wood is so clean how come you can smell the fires all over the place,and it makes anybody with the slightest asthma cough.

It's a matter of concentration, like the difference between having a few cows in the pasture next door, and living next to a stockyard.

Gas is the only good answer...

Not unless you're getting the gas from something like sewage digestion. Otherwise it's still releasing that fossil CO2.

[NeilBlanchard]

It's where the carbon comes from that matters to the long term level in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) all add "old" carbon into the air, raising the long term level of carbon dioxide; while burning wood or other biofuels like methane from sewage or farm waste digesters does not.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

* note...this is not political...it is statistical and fact-based.......

Putting that up must have been painful for you.

So wood burning - it is causing a problem:

Smog hits Athens as cash-strapped residents choose fire over fuel | euronews, world news

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

...As far as CO2 levels and global temps....looks like our GOOSE IS COOKED?

No warming, 16 years. No evidence of catastrophic CO2 induced warming. Go read a book.

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

While the perpetually retarded among us.....

Happy new year to all. I shall leave you to compare stories of more and more impending disasters and how we are all doomed.



I'm off to finish the mince pies before they go off.

Bye.