Global warming and burning firewood

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
a huge old Fisher...

Since I have been drug into this, I will ask this. Since the Fla. keys are
so close to sea level, have they had to move back from the ocean line?
I know most beaches have sand erosion problems, but what about the level.
If the arctic caps have melted that much in volume, then they would be the first to have problems.
I have not made my mind up about this issue, so I am open for discussion.
As far as fusion/fission chainsaws, my scientists at Fisher Labs., inc..
are still trying to hash out some minor issues. The main problem is cost.
Liquid nitrogen is expensive enough, but to get any decent amount of
plutonium is downright pricey. We can do it, but you girls ?????in about
$20 compression rings for a Stihl has us worried, that you might not want to pony up with some serious cash for our new chainsaw line.
A used fission Fisherized Eager Beaver only brings @ $10,000 on e-bay, and
that is with a good working Maglev bar/chain system.
For us to develop the newer technology, the money has to be there.
We can do it now, using the bar/chain system to help contain the reaction,
but it would be cost prohibitive, the market simply isn't there yet.
 
Global warming, peak oil, etc.

I admire your intentions but you should probably just get over it.

Even if the US stopped burning ALL carbon TODAY, China is expected to double its consumption of oil and coal within 20 years.

Bottom line: Even if Al Gore were the Supreme Chancellor Diktator Fieldmarshal, global warming would continue, no thanks to all his hot air and lisping prissiness. (Little Lord Fauntleroy.)

Best bet: Invest in real estate that's about 50' above sea level...maybe you can resell it as "waterfront" in your lifetime! :popcorn:

As for global warming and its effects, in my view I have to agree that it is too late to stop or resolve it, as there are already (sadly) some massive forces of nature in process that are accelerating the warming process. Even if we stoppped producing any more greenhouse gasses now, there is enough in the atmosphere already to melt the poles and permanently change climate. As for the specific cause, be it solar flare/spot activity or greenhouse gasses or some combination thereof (to this point, something stopped the last ice age and it was not human activity, and certainly the industrial revolution has greatly accelerated the warming process in the past 200 years). Buuuuuutttt....

China cannot just double their fossil fuel consumption. We (global population) are now at or very near the peak in global oil reserves and supply. We will (semingly) go after tar sands, coal and other dirtier fuel soon. But at this time we are on the peak of the Hubbert curve for oil production, and from here on out we (or China, or Japan, or EU) simply cannot just double their consumption of fossil fuel. There is just not enough supply to meet that kind of demand. We can no longer expand endlessly in an exponential growth model. As such there is a great decline coming in global economy. No avoiding it. The issue is not that we will run out of oil overnight. The issue is that we will soon peak in oil, NG, and coal as global demand meets global production. At that point prices will soar. Supply limitations will push prices higher, and the resulting pricing pressure will drive down demand, and drive recession cycles in the future economies.

As for energy alternatieves? Wood burning is a drop in the ocean. Total solar, wind, and other types of renewable alternatives make up less than 2% of US energy supply and consumption. Hydroelectric is about 5%. Wood burning is probably less than 1/10 of 1%. As others here have said, wood will decay into CO2 and water if you let it rot out there in the forest, or if you burn it. Carbon neutral. However, and a BIG HOWEVER, the energy that you displace by burning wood is carbon-positive though. We displace $250 a month in hydro electricity (at 8 cents a KWhr... cheap in OR) which is also carbon neutral, but that excess energy can be put on the grid and someplace that electricity will displace oil or coal or nuclear or whatever was used to produce electricty. In that regard, you are doing something good for the environment.

Also, here in the land of trees, we are growing more forest mass than there was before white man came to Oregon. Yes, there are far fewer old growth stands today than 100 years ago, but forest mass per acre here is a lot more than it was 100 years ago. More carbon is locked up in the stands than before, and there is more resource available than before, given the same amount of land area. Is is going to sustain the global demand for energy? No. Is it going to be beneficial for us to remain on the planet longer? Yes. Is it sustainable? It can be... if large corporate forest planting practices change.
Also, if we do not burn wood in a controlled manner by cutting trees and building with it or burning it, it will burn on its own. Funny thing about living in a highly commercial forest area; there have been no major forest fires in this area for many years. Down in the natioal forest areas south of here and in the Cascades, there are huge fire areas that have been burned in the past 10years. Thousands of acres went up in smoke, releasing all that carbon and unused energy into the atmosphere. To me that seems tobe a big waste, alll around. Forest fire management has to change along with commercial plating practices.

Anyway, to answer the question originally posted for this thread, I know that by burning wood to heat our water and house here in our OWB we are not only carbon neutral in using energy, but we are diverting carbon emitting energy production from the electrical grid that we would otherwise use, and in doing so we create a net overall positive carbon benefit (reducing overall carbon emissions into the atmosphere). Will it save the planet? No. Unless human population curbes are put into place, and the population peaks or declines, there is really no hope in anything that we do. We will be faced with a catostrophic future event that will devastate the future planet at some point, due to lack of food, energy, climate change, disease, war, famine, or whatever. The laws of nature are like the laws of economics; we either expand or contract. There is no leveling off at some point. There is no sustained level of existing. We grow to a point that the population cannot be sustained, and then we will decline. It is inevitable. It has happened before, and it will happen again.

There is no place to run to to avoid it. There is no plot of land that you can buy and save yourself from the future decline. We live on 105 acres of pasture and forest here. We can easilly survive here on this land in any economic decline and grow food and heat the house. But against a future starving human population, disease epidemic, global war or dramatic climate change? No one can stand up against them, no matter where you are and what resources you have. If the water does rise 50 ft worldwide, there will be so much infrastructure devastation, disease and poverty that what is left will be mauled by the throngs of refugees, or mired in economic collapse as a result of the floods. The future is playing out now in places like north Africa. Famine, drought, flood, war, genocide, all due to large populations and limitations in resources. Where can you live in place like Chad or the Sudan to avoid the chaos that is being unleashed there now? Ain't any place to hide there. And so... in our future of global warming and peak fossil fuel resources, we all sink or swim together. There is no place to hide here either.
 
The rules vary from forest to forest, but on the more liberal forests, you can fell any (non-cedar) snag that the top hasn't fallen out of, has no wildlife holes, and is in the open area, shown on maps distributed with firewood permits. The selectivity I mentioned earlier comes from the nature of wood-getters. Around here, only doug and lodgepole are cut for firewood, leaving the grand fir (that die en mass) and ponderosa. Now, even if every single dead tree along a road was cut out, it would not help much to make a firebreak. You know, I'm not sure what people envision when they think of a firebreak, but I'm thinking it's something like a road that a fire will run right up to and stop. Then the end credits roll, and everyone walks out of the theater. Fires cover the most ground by spotting, and they will spot a good 1/2 mile pretty easily in the right fuel type. So, to cross a 25 foot road isn't much. Given, a road is a pretty good place to burn out off of, but most roads need to be brushed out in addition to felling snags before you can put fire down safely, anyhow.

Well said...and thanks for pointing this out to the masses.
 
Yes....And it rained hydrochloric acid for a few hundred thousand years; that was completely natural too.

Certainly is a natural occurence. Its just become "bad" because humans decide to live in an area where it occurs.

Same thing with Hurricanes, flooding, monsoons...natural events that become mans problem when man wants to live peacefully where these events happen on a regular basis.
 
Certainly is a natural occurence. Its just become "bad" because humans decide to live in an area where it occurs.

Same thing with Hurricanes, flooding, monsoons...natural events that become mans problem when man wants to live peacefully where these events happen on a regular basis.

MEGA DITTO'S BROTHER!!!
 
O2 from firewood

The net carbon or CO2 from that tree is ZERO...The tree makes CO2 into oxygen the whole time it's alive. Coal,gas,and oil on the otherhand have theirs locked up for years and should stay that way. Leaving the tree to rot not only creates a fire hazard(look at California) but makes methane from the rot and the termites. Tarm makes a gasification boiler if you're a real eco-nut...They burn nearly as clean as propane or natural gas. Only smoke on start up ,highly efficient compared to other burning methods,and NO creosote problems. I hear there are some American wood stove/boiler coming online and would be worth a looking into. They burn dry woodchips and LOVE pine as it is high in oil content.
 
Last edited:
Holy Smokes, I'm glad I had to work today.. I'd have spent all day on the computer! What is nice about this discussion is that people care enough to post on this thread. All the details aside, I think the point really should be that with populations zooming, and developing nations becoming industrial heavywieghts, there are now bad choices and good ones. We can either be thoughtless or consider what we are doing everyday. No one is advocating scratching up a soccer Mom's SUV or flipping off a single person driving a big SUV. Hey, this is the United States.. where people actually have the right to do some pretty dumb stuff...its just a sad thing that so many folks choose to blunder through each day doing exactly that. Honestly, the only thing we can really do is have conversations like this and try to figure it out.

I honestly didn't think this would be such a s#%storm.... but I'm grateful that everybody weighed in.. there's some REALLY smart people here! One of the phenomenon I would like to avoid is having people get "entrenched" in their opinion and not be open to new ideas or the possibility of changing their minds. Its been a great thread and you have all been very polite to each other despite having diverging opinions. You guys rock!
 
EPA chainsaw regs...

Oh, does anyone else think it is insane that legislators waste their time regulating chainsaw emssions? I don't mean to say that they aren't stinky and don't pollute, but wouldn't the effort and resources spent doing so be MUCH better spent on somthing that accounted for more of the total? I burn more gas in my car going to work ONE DAY than I burn in a season of chainsaw use. What a waste of effort!

Considering the efficiency of chainsaws, and how little gas they actually use and pollution that they generate, as say... compared to CARS and TRUCKS (something like 60% of total US liquid petrol is burned on US motorways)....

EMPHATICALLY YES! These politicians are insane, and the EPA is pretty crazy to put these kinds of restrictions on the little tiny engines in chainsaws. But... they can control the industry, and so they do. Small industry to defend itself as compared to the HUGE lobby of the auto or trucking industry. They can all point at the small engine industry and say, "Look, we did something!" All while we are removing the stupid EPA muffers and modifying them to get better performance and efficiency.

I was thinking the other day that if cars were as efficient as chainsaws, there would not be nearly as big a problem with gas and pollution. Cars would get 100+ miles per gallon. The good news is that even at $10 a gallon or gas, chainsaws are still really good at working compared to the altenative (com'mon, we are not really ever going to go back to the axe, are we?). So even in the day to come of expensive oil, the really good gas engine tools like chainsaws will still be around. :rockn:
 
Two things:


(1) I'm not sure that your firewood helps prevent forest fires.

Around here, the fire front is driven nearly entirely by fuel a quarter inch or smaller. Lots of other stuff burns, but only after it has been lit by the small stuff. Crown fires are driven by surface fires.

If you're burning quarter inch logs, ignore everything I've said. If you're burning quarter inch logs, you must be the only guy on this site who wants a SMALLER saw. :^)


and


(2) The global warming thing. Yes, it's happening. If we all get together and change our lifestyles we can make a difference.

(There is absolutely zero freaking chance that the world is going to change enough, so we should focus on adapting to the new environment.)
 
Fire control

The rules vary from forest to forest, but on the more liberal forests, you can fell any (non-cedar) snag that the top hasn't fallen out of, has no wildlife holes, and is in the open area, shown on maps distributed with firewood permits. The selectivity I mentioned earlier comes from the nature of wood-getters. Around here, only doug and lodgepole are cut for firewood, leaving the grand fir (that die en mass) and ponderosa. Now, even if every single dead tree along a road was cut out, it would not help much to make a firebreak. You know, I'm not sure what people envision when they think of a firebreak, but I'm thinking it's something like a road that a fire will run right up to and stop. Then the end credits roll, and everyone walks out of the theater. Fires cover the most ground by spotting, and they will spot a good 1/2 mile pretty easily in the right fuel type. So, to cross a 25 foot road isn't much. Given, a road is a pretty good place to burn out off of, but most roads need to be brushed out in addition to felling snags before you can put fire down safely, anyhow.

Well, I have to say that here in the coastal areas of Oregon where commercial tree growing and harvesting is really high (ie., the Tillimook, Trask or Umpqua River basins) that there have been no major large fires in a long time. Compare that to the stands down in the national forests west of Grants Pass, or in Biscuit fire area in the Cascades (also national forest). Both of these areas have had massive fires in the past 6 years. From what I see doing a lot of off-roading here in the west US is that clear cutting has a major advantage in fire control as compared to leaving huge stands in place. I am not a fan of moonscape, but compraring the massive burn areas to the clear cut areas, they look about the same to me. And at least in clear cut areas they get the wood out of there for milling and hog fuel before it goes up in smoke. The quilted areas around here (patches of old stands, young stands, clear cut areas, and newly planted areas) seem to me to be far more fire-proof than the large old unharvested stands in some of the national parks (went to Yellowstone a few years ago, and it is still very bleak compared to what it was before).

Also I think that the state of Oregon is far ahead of national laws in forest management practices. Oregon has a cap of 120 acres max for slicking off; compared to basically UNLIMITED clear cutting in BLM areas, even in Oregon. Also the Tillimook area is a good example of Oregon vs US forest management. During the 1950s there were HUGE fires in the Tillimook forest area. That place was still charred when I was a kid living in Cannon Beach in the 1960s. No one wanted it. No commercial interest. No national interest for parkland. So the state took it over. Now? It is emerald green. I off-road there a lot. I see a well kept multi-use forest tract, and one that has not had a large burn in a long time. Millions of board feet are coming out of there every year. I have seen some of the best and most varied methods for clear cutting that I have seen in that area. And... er, I have not seen any fires there at all. I may be wrong, but I just do not see how a fire could move through there now like it did over and over in the 1950s.

As for firewood collection... I usually go after madrone, oak and doug fir. Also big leaf maple and alder. I only cut downed wood and unburned slash pile logs on commercial and BLM areas. I cut a lot of alder snags and grand fir on this property too. Grand fir dies in groups, and accounts for a lot of the windthrow here. Not so great for firewood, it is light and not a lot of heat for the volume. But it burns and I leave it in large rounds. I also have to do a lot of thinning here, and we burn pretty anything larger than 3 inches in diameter in the OWB. The rest gets burned up in slash piles, or I shread it for mulch with the Brush Bandit.

I also worry about fire control here. We are clearing the firs out from under our huge old California balck oaks and bigleaf maples to make them 'fire-proof'. They are so tall and have survived hundreds of years of burning by the native American Indians (this areas was choked with smoke every fall from anual Indian burning when David Douglas came here to do his biological surveys of the west). Actially the oak and maple stands here are only here because of that type of burning. Some of them are over 400 years old. This property had many 8+ ft DBH doug firs until they were all cut in the mid 1980s. They left all the old growth maples and oaks though.
 
I read that the instruments used to measure the temperature used to have a margin of error greater than the recorded ???? in temperatures (which have just been confirmed as .7 degrees).

A Congressional hearing concernning global warming was cancelled this week due to:

Snow and Ice storms! Yay!

Global warming is nothing more than liberal politics.[/QUOTaint that a fact----toooooo many do goooders need to look at the last 2000 yrs of hot and cold cycles---then again--most people dont want to hear the truth about this--as it doesnt fit their agenda---
 
I was thinking the other day that if cars were as efficient as chainsaws, there would not be nearly as big a problem with gas and pollution. Cars would get 100+ miles per gallon. The good news is that even at $10 a gallon or gas, chainsaws are still really good at working compared to the altenative (com'mon, we are not really ever going to go back to the axe, are we?). So even in the day to come of expensive oil, the really good gas engine tools like chainsaws will still be around. :rockn:


I don't know about the gas or pollution part but for my Expo to be as efficient as an MS660 it would need to make about 416 HP :eek: Now that would be nice. :blob2:
 
Holy Smokes, I'm glad I had to work today.. I'd have spent all day on the computer! What is nice about this discussion is that people care enough to post on this thread. All the details aside, I think the point really should be that with populations zooming, and developing nations becoming industrial heavywieghts, there are now bad choices and good ones. We can either be thoughtless or consider what we are doing everyday. No one is advocating scratching up a soccer Mom's SUV or flipping off a single person driving a big SUV. Hey, this is the United States.. where people actually have the right to do some pretty dumb stuff...its just a sad thing that so many folks choose to blunder through each day doing exactly that. Honestly, the only thing we can really do is have conversations like this and try to figure it out.

I honestly didn't think this would be such a s#%storm.... but I'm grateful that everybody weighed in.. there's some REALLY smart people here! One of the phenomenon I would like to avoid is having people get "entrenched" in their opinion and not be open to new ideas or the possibility of changing their minds. Its been a great thread and you have all been very polite to each other despite having diverging opinions. You guys rock!

andre, u started it!!!!!!!:blob2: :blob2: :blob2:

just wish i had
 
It seems to me that we live in a world of stuff, stuff, ... and more stuff. There is (at least in America) a cultural crusade to own lots and lots of stuff. When our stuff breaks, we throw that stuff out and buy new unbroken stuff. When new stuff comes out on the market with more bells and whistles, we get rid of the outdated stuff and buy the new stuff.

Are vehicle emissions and home heating fuels truly a bigger problem than all the resources being consumed to manufacture, ship, sell, and eventually dispose of all of our stuff? Or is it just a much easier target than trying to change the "heart" of the consumer which is also unfortunately the "heart" of our economy?
 
It seems to me that we live in a world of stuff, stuff, ... and more stuff. There is (at least in America) a cultural crusade to own lots and lots of stuff. When our stuff breaks, we throw that stuff out and buy new unbroken stuff. When new stuff comes out on the market with more bells and whistles, we get rid of the outdated stuff and buy the new stuff.

Are vehicle emissions and home heating fuels truly a bigger problem than all the resources being consumed to manufacture, ship, sell, and eventually dispose of all of our stuff? Or is it just a much easier target than trying to change the "heart" of the consumer which is also unfortunately the "heart" of our economy?

Excellent post

I for one would rather buy quality once and keep it forever. I don't like this new disposable way of life, people have come to expect things to be junk and just throw it away and buy another, which only promotes companys to make more junk. It's a wal-mart world???? :bang:
 
Wow...what a lot of excellent discussion and well thought out replies. Amost everything I thought of saying while reading through has already been covered. I do have to disagree on a small point:

...As far as whether there is a "global warming" issue, you'll never get THE definitive proof. You WILL be hard pressed to find a reputable study (and there are many) that doubts the phenomenon. There is now a huge wall of evidence. As regards Al Gore, he is admittedly easy to dislike and easy to criticize... in fact, he might be a big paunchy, glory-seeking gadfly with a Jesus complex, but he is also RIGHT. It is a grave mistake to disregard the message because you don't like the messenger.

You contend that Al Gore is RIGHT but you also said we'd never see THE definitive proof so what makes you say he's RIGHT? I submit for your consideration that people (myself included) tend to make up their minds about a topic early on in the debate then the supporting evidence we find for OUR view makes sense. Do not believe that I can't find just as many scientists to say the opposite of what Al and his followers believe; they are around. As has been said many times, good news doesn't sell papers. The planet does things to itself on scales we can't even fathom and keeps on doing just fine. I don't think we are in control as much as we would like to think.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top