600 gallons or 6 cords what pollutes more

[MishMouse]

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).

To add a little humor to this discussion:

So next time you step on that Roach, just think you may be stepping on your future ruler. :msp_lol:

 

[TreeClimber57]

To add a little humor to this discussion:

So next time you step on that Roach, just think you may be stepping on your future ruler. :msp_lol:

Well won't be mine

And we really don't see roaches up here..

 

[mga]

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.

so, when you decide to stop polluting the earth and stop burning wood, let me know if you are selling your saws, axes, splitters, etc real cheap.

i can watch the news and see a house burn, i can watch a building burn, or a forest fire, or a volcano erupt and each one billows black smoke for miles into the air, yet some people have the balls to complain about others burning wood?

seriously? people need to get a grip on real life.

and, if some one who burns wood is concerned about whether they are polluting or not, then i suggest they stop burning immediately instead of living a life of hypocrisy.

 

[TreeClimber57]

so, when you decide to stop polluting the earth and stop burning wood, let me know if you are selling your saws, axes, splitters, etc real cheap..

Sorry not too soon These saws put food on my table.. any wood for heat for me is only a residual benefit.

Regardless of which you use you are polluting to some degree. the question was which does more.. Even electricity pollutes.. as somewhere there is something making that power - unless it is water. (I don't personally consider solar or wind as viable alternatives at this point -- and there are lots of solid reasons why - in fact wind may never be)

i can watch the news and see a house burn, i can watch a building burn, or a forest fire, or a volcano erupt and each one billows black smoke for miles into the air, yet some people have the balls to complain about others burning wood?

Oh wood energy, if done right IMHO has minimal impact.. and is as good a choice for most as any other form of heat if done responsibly.

 

[mga]

Sorry not too soon These saws put food on my table.. any wood for heat for me is only a residual benefit.

Regardless of which you use you are polluting to some degree. the question was which does more.. Even electricity pollutes.. as somewhere there is something making that power - unless it is water. (I don't personally consider solar or wind as viable alternatives at this point -- and there are lots of solid reasons why - in fact wind may never be)



Oh wood energy, if done right IMHO has minimal impact.. and is as good a choice for most as any other form of heat if done responsibly.

i hear ya, bro....i just had to break your balls a little.

 

[TreeClimber57]

i hear ya, bro....i just had to break your balls a little.

No worries I was trying to answer in a somewhat unbiased approach.. hopefully it did not come across as anti-wood burning.

 

[CrappieKeith]

No worries I was trying to answer in a somewhat unbiased approach.. hopefully it did not come across as anti-wood burning.

I thought you were doing a good job...so much so that I left it alone....keep up the good posts!:yourock:

 

[pook]

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!

verily!

 

[turnkey4099]

Originally Posted by 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!

verily!

Amen to that! Mankind meets all the definitions of a parasite on this planet, all take and no give back, rape and pillage every resource we find. We even embalm our dead bodie with toxic chemicals so Ma Nature can't make use of _them_.

Harry K

 

[mga]

well, you all are going off the deep end over GW for nothing.

in 2036 an asteroid is hitting the earth, so, you might as well live it up like there's no tomorrow.

 

[Hedgerow]

well, you all are going off the deep end over GW for nothing.

in 2036 an asteroid is hitting the earth, so, you might as well live it up like there's no tomorrow.

Yup... Go buy another saw...
:msp_flapper:

 

[psu927]

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..

Well said, and I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say, I guess it would depend on what you mean as far as how bad man could mess up the planet (like you said, at least in part) before the rapture. I do believe we can really screw things up. (look at the oil spill) but I don't believe anything will happen that will threaten mankind as far as extinction. Not trying to push my belief or opinion on anyone, but don't believe everything scientist and the government tell you, do some checking, starting with how long the earth has been here and also global warming.

But like you said about soap box...

 

[pook]

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).

Insects will survive because the repopulate the fastest & mutations better adapted will survive & repopulate fast....its a math thing via Darwin

 

[logbutcher]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot:
This is the pack of Straw Dogs running wild. :alien2::alien2:

 

[bayard]

this dog

this dog has some legs.i was not trying to make any political points.just some points of view.and thank you for them.k

 

[bluestem]

It's just one if those hot button topics you know! Some one says one word and it splits everyone down the middle! No harm done, healthy debate!

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[4seasons]

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.

Good post and good information here. Glad to see someone read the original question and responded in a straight forward manner. I apologize to the original poster for taking this post into a political argument. When I started reading the first few responses about CO2 levels I had to derail the global warming train before it got a head of steam going. The hole CO2 is a pollutant idea is founded in global warming religion and the only point I was trying to make was that CO2 is not a toxic chemical nor pollutant. CO2 is only a byproduct of life and any living thing that breathes oxygen is going to produce CO2.

 

[GotTreesNowWhat]

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.)

Harry handled this one already, but check out this example of how current conditions in the Arctic can challenge a bear's excellent swimming ability:


http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-polar-ice.html

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.

If you were even skimming the statements climate scientists have been making for many, many years, you'd be aware that part of the overall GLOBAL warming pattern is sharp swings in LOCAL weather - meaning at certain points in time, in certain places, you are gonna get some hellacious cold, despite the OVERALL warming trend. Counterintuitive at first maybe, but it's entirely consistent. It means the trip up the temperature graph becomes more and more jagged, especially if you're graphing only the measurements in one area of the globe, as opposed to averages across the globe. (If you want to debate effectively, you gotta read up on both sides, not just greedily slurp the thin gruel served up by denialist websites.)

My evidence is from published sources.

Non peer reviewed, of course. And the recent well publicized breakdowns of the peer review process illustrate how absolutely essential peer review is for the reliability of the information published. Scientific journals suffer from a shortage of it. Rogue websites enjoy its complete absence, because it allows them to say ANYTHING and get away with it ALL of the time.

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.

Yes, I've read many of those. Lousy fiction, some of it even worse than the one about climatologists supposedly believing polar bears can't swim.

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.

You could apply this argument to ANY scientific research (again, this is why peer review is so important). So I suppose you also believe that Einstein and those who validated his predictions were frauds out to scam the system for more money? Please.

Government should not provide funding for such political movements.

Why are you under the illusion that GW research stems from a "political movement"?

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.

Yeah, what's up with that? Anyhow, that's why I'm back here posting as well...

 

[MishMouse]

My opinion on GW is this:

Yes, we are in a warming trend, but, we were just in a cooling trend?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Is GW caused by humans?
To some calculated point yes, us humans do contribute to changes.
But, only when we are attempting to do anything about it.
Aka: Cutting down a forest to plant corn, now if we cut down a corn field to plant a forest that would be something we could do to prevent GW as the more trees you have the cleaner the air.

If the whole world stopped driving their cars, operating factories, heating their homes, and stopped any activity that would produce CO2. Would that stop the warming trend? I would highly doubt it as we are now part of a warming cycle and any degree of warming that we are creating is small compared to what nature actually does. One big burp from a volcano and everything we would have done would be a wasted.

If we adopt the Al Gore Carbon Bank model and pay for every unit of carbon we put into the atmosphere would this stop GW? I would highly doubt it as this would push our economy into a depression while making the people in charge of the Carbon Bank richer and more powerful then you can imagine.

Should us as a people demand that the auto manufactures produce more efficient vehicles and products? Yes

Should we as a people demand government stop putting regulations out that though well intended cause inefficiency? Yes

Should we as a people hold corporations and the government officials responsible for their actions that cause pollution and waste? Yes

Should we as a people demand that government through regulations and taxes stop getting in the way of the people that try to create more effecient products? Yes

 

[turnkey4099]

My opinion on GW is this:

Yes, we are in a warming trend, but, we were just in a cooling trend?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Is GW caused by humans?
To some calculated point yes, us humans do contribute to changes.
But, only when we are attempting to do anything about it.
Aka: Cutting down a forest to plant corn, now if we cut down a corn field to plant a forest that would be something we could do to prevent GW as the more trees you have the cleaner the air.

If the whole world stopped driving their cars, operating factories, heating their homes, and stopped any activity that would produce CO2. Would that stop the warming trend? I would highly doubt it as we are now part of a warming cycle and any degree of warming that we are creating is small compared to what nature actually does. One big burp from a volcano and everything we would have done would be a wasted.

If we adopt the Al Gore Carbon Bank model and pay for every unit of carbon we put into the atmosphere would this stop GW? I would highly doubt it as this would push our economy into a depression while making the people in charge of the Carbon Bank richer and more powerful then you can imagine.

Should us as a people demand that the auto manufactures produce more efficient vehicles and products? Yes

Should we as a people demand government stop putting regulations out that though well intended cause inefficiency? Yes

Should we as a people hold corporations and the government officials responsible for their actions that cause pollution and waste? Yes

Should we as a people demand that government through regulations and taxes stop getting in the way of the people that try to create more effecient products? Yes

The contribution of mankind to GW is debatateble but...there are climate records going back over 100,000 years IIANM throug ice core and other methods. Nowhere in that period has there ever been such a rapid warming.

As for what to do about it? Not much we can. We can never go back, the best we could do would be not to increase what we are addiing and even that is impossible IMO if we want to keep modern technology. Slow down our contribution? Possible, yes but again IMO, not likely.

Bottom line to quote Pogo "we have met the enemy and he is us"

Harry K