600 gallons or 6 cords what pollutes more

[AKKAMAAN]

I would be irresponsible as a father, as an American, and as a human, to let this go unchallenged. Since this is not the right forum for a Climate Change debate, I'll try to be brief.

1. The self-absorbed politician Al Gore is not a scientist, nor is he the source of any valid data about climate change. (Just like most characters on the other side of the debate - Bjorn Lomborg the economist and other climate amateurs.) Climate scientists are the source, and it is their claims you should be addressing.
2. It's interesting that you're so convinced GW is a scam, you don't even bother to substantiate your claim. That's kind of bold, considering that the vast majority of climate scientists disagree with you. Surely you have some kind of climate science credentials to be taking on the entire scientific community? Maybe you've been up in the Arctic taking bore hole samples lately?
3. It's amusing that the MSM is often accused of "hyping up" GW, when they are also a major conduit for the junk science that tries to "expose" GW science as a "fraud".
4. Follow the money. GW research is done in a wide variety of institutions all over the world, and its funding comes from the same sources that fund other kinds of scientific research - most of which you wouldn't dream of challenging. Anti-GW propaganda is funded almost entirely by transnational businesses with huge and obvious conflicts of interest, such as the oil and coal industries. This is a no-brainer.
5. I strongly encourage you to engage with me on this OFF LIST PLEASE. This is in my view one of the most important debates the American public should be having, but instead it's usually dealt with using insults and obvious lies. Let's talk facts, there are lots of facts that we should be talking about.
   
   -- sorry, everyone, to add to the already off-topic content in this thread, but sometimes you gotta speak up.

Good post!
+1:msp_thumbsup:

Ps. Thanks for the Lomborg hint, I gotta study that guy...

 

[mga]

Maybe you should start a global warming thread over in the political forum. Those guys over there need to hear what you are saying.

sure we do....for the 10,000th time. the last thing i need to see is another 5,000 page dispute about global warming.

he's only repeating what the chicke littles have said many many times: "al gore is OK..he's just saying what scientists are claiming".

yet, they fail to mention what OTHER well respected scientists are saying too.

bottom line is you believe what you believe.

please do NOT make another GW post in the political section and save yourself embarrassment.

 

[CrappieKeith]

...and the GW debate continues...back to the OP's ?
If it's oil...#2 600 gallons makes 192,000,000,000 btu's
Whereas wood black locust for example makes 168,600,000

Not a fair comparison to start with.....and if the wood burner is not effcient then it negates what locust is capable of making.....

So it looks like the question is moot from the start.

 

[4seasons]

1. The self-absorbed politician Al Gore is not a scientist, nor is he the source of any valid data about climate change. (Just like most characters on the other side of the debate - Bjorn Lomborg the economist and other climate amateurs.) Climate scientists are the source, and it is their claims you should be addressing.

1. 
   I attack Al Gore as he is the face of global warming. His movie full of doctored photos and bold face lies is one of the reasons that some think that the polar bears are drowning. (I case you don't know polar bears are excellent swimmers and have been known to play on floating ice then jump in the ocean and swim over a mile back to land.) Just last week Al Gore went on TV to claim that the high amounts of snow we are having now are due to global warming when only a few years ago global warming experts were claiming that snow was a thing of the past.
   

   [*]It's interesting that you're so convinced GW is a scam, you don't even bother to substantiate your claim. That's kind of bold, considering that the vast majority of climate scientists disagree with you. Surely you have some kind of climate science credentials to be taking on the entire scientific community? Maybe you've been up in the Arctic taking bore hole samples lately?

   My evidence is from published sources. The information is out there and can be quickly found by googleing global warming scam and lots of information such as this The Global Warming Scam will pop up. For every report out there of higher temperatures or less ice caps in the arctic there is another report pointing out the misinformation, flaws in the study or illogical assumptions to come to the conclusions.
   
   

   [*]Follow the money. GW research is done in a wide variety of institutions all over the world, and its funding comes from the same sources that fund other kinds of scientific research - most of which you wouldn't dream of challenging. Anti-GW propaganda is funded almost entirely by transnational businesses with huge and obvious conflicts of interest, such as the oil and coal industries. This is a no-brainer.

   If you were doing research to prove global warming and you reached a conclusion that went against global warming don't you think your funding would be cut off? Therefore you would fudge the figures to favor get more funding. I had a college professor that loved to use the phrase "Figures don't lie but liars can figure." Government should not provide funding for such political movements. Of course big oil is going to fight back when someone comes out with a study saying that they are destroying the planet.
   
   

   [*]I strongly encourage you to engage with me on this OFF LIST PLEASE. This is in my view one of the most important debates the American public should be having, but instead it's usually dealt with using insults and obvious lies. Let's talk facts, there are lots of facts that we should be talking about.
   
   -- sorry, everyone, to add to the already off-topic content in this thread, but sometimes you gotta speak up.

I agree that this is a political issue however the political forum is password protected and I don't have the password. But since the discussion was started here I felt the response should be here too. Although so much of our day to day lives and activities are politicized there is almost nothing that could not be called political issues.

 

[myzamboni]

Of course there is climate change (not just global warming) . . . we are still coming out of the last ice age.

 

[turnkey4099]

<snip>

I attack Al Gore as he is the face of global warming. His movie full of doctored photos and bold face lies is one of the reasons that some think that the polar bears are drowning. (I case you don't know polar bears are excellent swimmers and have been known to play on floating ice then jump in the ocean and swim over a mile back to land.)

<snip>
.

In case you don't know, the polar bear bit is not about their ability to swim. They are known to be excellent swimmers. They do not catch their food by swimming after it. The catch seals. The seals need ice. The bears catch seals on and in the ice. Ice goes (and it is...rapidly), the seals go, then the bears go. all that will be left are the garbage bears.

That _swimming_ thing is one of the stupidest denialist arguments out there.

Harry K

 

[mga]

there should be a rule here:

no one is allowed to bring up global warming in any thread.

 

[John D]

Of course there is climate change (not just global warming) . . . we are still coming out of the last ice age.

Exactly....this is where the issue lies,temp changes have been occuring naturally for millions of years,we havent been around and tracking long enough to make an educated decision on what the temps have been all along and try to find out what exact extent our use of carbon fuels,and releasing CO2 is having on the naturally occuring temperature changes.Scientists "think" they can tell what the temps were back then by using carbon dating,and ancient tree rings,but its all a guessing game,there is no way to prove they are correct,about as accurate as the weatherman,IMO.Speculation,estimation and predictions all equal worthless.If scientists were as up on things,we wouldnt have disasters such as Katrina affecting so many....they would have still occured,but more people would have gotten out of the way.

 

[bayard]

wild

things getting a little wild here!i was looking at the btu numbers.a big difference in heat value. based on btu numbers.wood looks a lot more efficient..k

 

[pook]

The original question was about more toxic chemicals. Carbon Dioxide is not a toxic chemical no matter how stupid Al Gore is. While you can't survive in a room with only carbon dioxide it is the lack of oxygen that will kill you. Our bodies produce carbon dioxide as a side effect of breathing. The whole global warming/ CO2/ carbon footprint scam has been exposed. To have a discussion on what produces more CO2 as a pollutant is a discussion in stupidity.

Now if someone has a list of chemicals given off by a wood fire vs oil fire vs propane fire then we can examine the toxic chemicals and make an informed decision.

dioxins?

 

[pook]

In case you don't know, the polar bear bit is not about their ability to swim. They are known to be excellent swimmers. They do not catch their food by swimming after it. The catch seals. The seals need ice. The bears catch seals on and in the ice. Ice goes (and it is...rapidly), the seals go, then the bears go. all that will be left are the garbage bears.

That _swimming_ thing is one of the stupidest denialist arguments out there.

Harry K

swim takes energy, no sealfeed=no energy?

 

[Hedgerow]

there should be a rule here:

no one is allowed to bring up global warming in any thread.

+1... Thank you MGA... I'm just trying to stay warm this winter... :msp_thumbup:

 

[sesmith]

A cord of ash has 21.6 MBtu available in it so 6 cords =129,600,000 BTU in it. If you're burning it in a 60% efficient stove that makes 77,760,000 Btu of heat.

There's 140,000 BTU in a gal of fuel oil, so 600 gal = 84,000,000 BTU. If the oil furnace is 79% efficient, that's 66,360,000 BTU of heat. If the furnace is a forced air furnace, the actual efficiency is less that that, so I'm guessing that a little more than 600 gal is equivalent to 6 cords of wood. Anyhow...they're pretty comparable, so what about the pollution.

Here's a link to something Washington State put out on wood smoke pollution:

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/92046.pdf

As can be seen from their chart, wood smoke there accounts for 10% of air pollution there. There is no mention of oil and gas furnaces as a separate category on the chart, so I can only assume that wood smoke is more polluting. There are also a lot of nasties in wood smoke.

That's only part of the picture, though. How about all the energy used to make oil available for use? How about the environmental damage caused by oil drilling? How about the greenhouse gas emissions and industrial waste caused by getting the oil from the ground in Saudi Arabia and into a home's oil tank in the US, and in burning fossil fuels?

Wood burning is more or less carbon neutral. It is a local source of heat and contributes to the local economy where it is used. Wood harvesting for firewood can be used as a tool for local forest stand improvement.

But there is the pollution thing, and it is a very legitimate concern. As wood burners, we will have to get used to the arguments against wood burning, take them seriously, and make changes to the way many of us burn wood (me included). Here's a link to what the EPA would like to see:

Changeout Guide | Burn Wise | US EPA

Here are some examples of how various localities have regulated wood burning.

Ordinances and Regulations | Burn Wise | US EPA

Such programs may be coming to a town near you. These types of programs are not necessarily bad...we will all have healthier air because of them.

 

[CTYank]

The original question was about more toxic chemicals. Carbon Dioxide is not a toxic chemical no matter how stupid Al Gore is. While you can't survive in a room with only carbon dioxide it is the lack of oxygen that will kill you. Our bodies produce carbon dioxide as a side effect of breathing. The whole global warming/ CO2/ carbon footprint scam has been exposed. To have a discussion on what produces more CO2 as a pollutant is a discussion in stupidity.
o
Now if someone has a list of chemicals given off by a wood fire vs oil fire vs propane fire then we can examine the toxic chemicals and make an informed decision.

You're entitled to your opinion, but please do not assume that anyone should tag along with you in your hates/fears. What you label "stupid" or "stupidity" are not so, IMHO. Did you even know that people have been killed by CO2? DAGS on Lakes Kivu, Monoun, and Nyos.

Much better we have intelligent discussions, treating others, even opponents, with respect. And be prepared to learn something.

 

[psu927]

I didn't read all of the post just because I didn't have time, but if you believe the Bible, and if you believe in God, you can't believe in global warming. The whole premise of global warming and climate change is that the world will end, at least as we know it, if we don't make a change. which scripturally will not happen until the rapture of the believers. I know you shouldn't turn arguments into religious arguments, but it's true, and what I believe. God is in 100% control of this universe. I do believe in not being wasteful, and taking care of what we have. But we are doing it the wrong way, with the wrong motives. a wood cutting farmers opinion. :msp_cool:

 

[4seasons]

You're entitled to your opinion, but please do not assume that anyone should tag along with you in your hates/fears. What you label "stupid" or "stupidity" are not so, IMHO. Did you even know that people have been killed by CO2? DAGS on Lakes Kivu, Monoun, and Nyos.

Much better we have intelligent discussions, treating others, even opponents, with respect. And be prepared to learn something.

Al Gore is the only person that I labeled as stupid. And I let the evidence speak for itself to prove my point. Al Gore made a movie full of lies to try to pass the fraud of global warming over as a fact. Al Gore doesn't live in a tiny house, drive a tiny car, or do any of the other things that he tries to tell us we should do under the idea of saving the planet. Al Gore is hypocritical. Now he says that increased snow fall is due to global warming and that scientist have been warning of it for years. But years ago scientist were saying that snow was going to be obsolete due to global warming. The real fact is that the earth's global temperature has not risen in 10 years. That is why the global warming scammers have changed the term to climate change. But Al Gore is still out there crying about global warming. If it snows it is global warming, if it rains it is global warming, if it is hot it is global warming, if it is cold it is global warming, if it is dry it is global warming. So I stand by my statement that Al Gore is stupid. At the very least he thinks that all his followers are stupid by his ever changing lies to continue passing the fraud of global warming.

 

[TreeClimber57]

so, what i'm reading is some of you feel wood burning is poluting just as bad as using oil for heat?

maybe you should write your senators and ask them to impose harsher EPA laws on wood burners too.

that will solve the problem.

First.. I love wood stove.. the smell, the heat, etc..

But since you asked:

Well, couple of items here - are we comparing apples with apples?

you mentioned 600 gallons of oil vs 6 cords of wood. so how much heat potential is there to begin with?
600 gallons of oil would have 84 million btu's
6 cords of wood (will use oak as example) is 154 million btu's - so if oak would take 1,100 gallons of fuel oil to equal the same btu potential - now recognizing we do not all burn oak!! Lets look at an average comparison.

The Smithers method assumes one cord of average dry hardwood equals:
150 gallon No. 2 fuel oil
230 gallon LP gas
21,000 cubic feet natural gas
6,158 kwh electricity

So.. according to that method 6 cords of wood should equal approximately 900 gallons of fuel oil.. this being raw btu potential.

First observation.. the wood in this example is burning a lot less efficiently than the oil.. so the extra is going somewhere..

So.. looking at wood and oil burning devices.. most oil burning devices are rated as more efficient.

But.. there are several very clean wood burning stoves out there and some fairly efficient models.

Now assuming you do not have a great wood burning stove, then the main issues that wood can potentially contribute are:

•Particulate Matter: This is the term for solid or liquid particles found in the air. They can be very small and can travel deep into your lungs, causing respiratory and heart problems.
•Carbon Monoxide: This is a colorless, odorless gas that is poisonous at high levels. It can interfere with the delivery of oxygen in the blood to the rest of your body.
•Volatile Organic Compounds: These are a wide range of compounds that usually have no color, taste or smell. Some cause direct health effects, while others contribute to smog.
•Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: These compounds are a health concern because of their potential to cause cancer.


Does oil pollute, sure it can.. but it again depends upon the stove or furnace.
Generally speaking there are likely more clean oil stoves or furnaces than wood, likely due to cost or age of unit.

To a large degree it depends upon:
stove used - age - efficiency - epa rating - how well maintained - etc
type of wood burned - how dry wood is - if starting cold or from hot coals - etc
same for oil - age of stove or furnace - how well maintained - etc

I might venture that the best wood stove burning the best dry wood may well out perform some of the oil stoves or furances installed very easily. But looking at the average installed units of each type.. the oil likely wins.

 

[TreeClimber57]

I didn't read all of the post just because I didn't have time, but if you believe the Bible, and if you believe in God, you can't believe in global warming. The whole premise of global warming and climate change is that the world will end, at least as we know it, if we don't make a change. which scripturally will not happen until the rapture of the believers. I know you shouldn't turn arguments into religious arguments, but it's true, and what I believe. God is in 100% control of this universe. I do believe in not being wasteful, and taking care of what we have. But we are doing it the wrong way, with the wrong motives. a wood cutting farmers opinion. :msp_cool:

Now I can not agree with this statement.

If you believe the Bible, then you know after the fall man and essentially everything else started a downward spiral. Man has the potential to destroy most anything he touches.. and there is nothing to say that man can not at least in part destroy the planet prior the rapture. Yes the global warming theory states we will destroy the planet.. but even if we are warming the planet.. then you would believe that God has already worked that into his plan..and that he has determined when the rapture will occur.. with all of this being considered.

So.. I would not use the basis of the Bible to state that global warming is NOT possible.

There are a lot of other arguments either way out there.. but I can not accept this one.

God is in control, but has given man the ability to make decisions and up to a point to control his own destiny (at least while alive). That is part of what makes man different.

Getting off soap box..

 

[bluestem]

I don't think man or Global warming will destroy the planet, humanity itself maybe, not the planet. Insects will be king of Earth long after humans are gone!

 

[TreeClimber57]

I don't think man or Global warming will destroy the planet, humanity itself maybe, not the planet. Insects will be king of Earth long after humans are gone!

Given that scenario, likely all mammals would also be gone. As well as likely all bird life, or most of it and possibly much of the life in waters as well. Not sure what scenario this might be, but something as devastating to kill all human life would have serious impact on a lot of other lifeforms on the planet (including many insects - but not all).