# Wood vs fossil fuels bad for climate warming???



## Thomas Maxwell (Dec 28, 2020)

This researcher here in this opinion piece says burning wood is twice as bad as coal/fuel oil for the climate warming -attributed to increases in co2. Most of us wood burners understand that we can't burn and expect the same heat energy as equivalent fossil fuels- coal simply has more energy per mass. I think the professor doesn't give the wood burner enough credit. Left to the natural world, and given enough time,  all wood biodegrades and releases all the stored carbon as free co2. With wood burning, if two trees are planted for every tree burned- one to replace and continue the co2 storage of the original tree- and a second tree to replace the stored carbon that was burned, after a long time the tiny amount of charcoal created by wood burning would eventually  catch up and make wood burning carbon nuetral. Considering most of us burn a lot of wood that would otherwise biodegrade naturally, is the second tree really required?


----------



## semipro (Dec 28, 2020)

Apparently, some of the new legislation coming out of Washington, DC is defining wood burning as "carbon neutral" and this is causing controversy.  
As someone who likes the climate as it is, I've strived at home to minimize our carbon footprint.  Part of that strategy has been to efficiently burn wood that grows on our 5 acres.  
I've always done this under the assumption that it's better than consuming energy derived from coal-burning.  I thought I was harvesting carbon and sunshine to make biomass in a relative carbon-neutral way (minus the FF energy used to harvest it of course).  
According to the article linked above and below, I'm wrong. 
I'm curious what others here think?  









						Op-Ed: Is burning wood for power carbon-neutral? Not a chance
					

Using wood in power plants produces two to three times as much carbon per kilowatt hour as burning coal or natural gas.




					news.yahoo.com


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Dec 29, 2020)

This debate has been going on for quite some time.








						Wood-burning power plants: Misguided climate change solution?
					

By Steve Goreham Originally published in The Washington Times Is wood the best fuel to generate electricity? Despite wood’s low energy density and high cost, utilities in the US and abroad are swit…




					wattsupwiththat.com
				




I'm new here and not sure what constitutes "politics".
But I can read and have a fair understanding of the scientific process and statistical methods.
Politics is a different animal and in my opinion is more about being "politically correct".
I believe most scientific work has become political and gets spun to support an agenda.
The scientific hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for first global cooling, then global warming and now climate change is in my opinion not close to a proven fact and one day  the evidence will show that trillions were wasted and many lives lost trying to control the temperature of the earth by limiting our output of the life giving gas CO2.
Not looking to offend anyone.


----------



## SpaceBus (Dec 29, 2020)

PA Mountain Man said:


> This debate has been going on for quite some time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you saying that increased carbon output is not causing climate change? What is your evidence to support this claim?


----------



## SpaceBus (Dec 29, 2020)

Also, politics and science are inseparable.


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 29, 2020)

As Massachusetts learned with the flawed Manomet study on biomass for fuel the devil is in the details and details do not fit into headlines. The driver for that study a political way of shutting down forest residual power generation in Western Mass where the supply was there but the summer folks did not want to see "industrial operations" with the conclusion predetermined before the study started. Even the authors of the report subsequent admitted publically that their study was for a type of biomass power generation that was not done in New England and that they were prescribed some boundary conditions that optimized CO2 output of biomass. 

In my prior career, I worked on small  biomass power generating stations in New England (15 to 25 MW) and they were totally fueled by forest residuals.  Biomass plants can burn even the stuff that pellet mills do not want. The economics did not make sense to cut trees for biomass as most of the cost to the plant was the chipping and transportation with the actual value at the yard being down in  the $10 a ton range. In California there is large supply of agricultural wood and forest residuals and the state actually encouraged biomass power plants to be built for many years as the alternative was open burning by farmers or landfilling. 

I do agree that the British and to lesser extent German approach of importing wood pellets made from landscape level plantations grown specifically for biomass production is really a big game of NIMBYism on a continental scale. That the economics line up is strictly a function of a flawed carbon market that doesnt exist in the US yet. A carbon market only works as a worldwide market with every party following the same rules and then shipping pellets from plantation grown trees in the Southeast US will rapidly fail. 

I did convert a coal fired biomass plant to wood about 15 years ago in the middle Atlantic and it had plenty of residual fuel from forestry operations including decades of dumped railroad ties that were slow motion ground water polluters. The plant did pretty well for a few years until Duke Energy convinced the state that they would shut down grandfathered coal plants and build new gas fired plants as long as they were awarded subsidies equivalent to renewable fuel. 

No doubt the Collins amendment was a way of supporting a forest residual market in her state and surrounding states.  Maine and NH used to supply a lot of dispatched renewable power from biomass to southern New England but those markets have been effectively closed or diluted to drive up demand for far "sexier" renewable like "faux hydro" from Quebec via a very expensive powerline, high local incentives for local generation to keep the local voters happy or offshore wind which has a lot of big money behind it.


----------



## blades (Dec 29, 2020)

There you go in the last line -- Follow the Money.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 29, 2020)

PA Mountain Man said:


> The scientific hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for first global cooling, then global warming and now climate change is in my opinion not close to a proven fact and one day  the evidence will show that trillions were wasted and many lives lost trying to control the temperature of the earth by limiting our output of the life giving gas CO2.
> Not looking to offend anyone.



Aside from the science and the politics is history.

1.
As soon as scientists figured out the nature of heat and light, and developed instruments for measuring them (which was in late 1800s) they figured out that the amount of sunlight hitting and absorbed by the earth was not sufficient to account for its warm temperature.  If all the heat radiated to space through a transparent atmosphere, the average temperature of the earth would be about 30-35°C colder than it is, and the Earth would be frozen over completely.

Those same scientists in the 1800s figured it out, they measured the IR absorbance of the atmosphere, and found that it blocked just enough heat to account for the anomaly, to within some uncertainty.

In other words, the existence of the Greenhouse Effect, and its role in warming the earth by a rather large amount ~50°F has been scientifically accepted for more than a century.  The relevant calculations are given as homework problems in college-level  physics classes.

The math of the claim is simple.  CO2 is a major contributor to that +33°C warming of the Earth (its IR absorbance is easily measurable).  The estimate being about 25% of the total IR blocking, or about +8°C of the warming.  The amount of CO2 in the Earths Atmosphere has DOUBLED since the pre-industrial level (the level has been and is measured directly).  Combining these two facts, we could imagine that the effect of such doubling (already completed) would be an extra +8°C of warming!  But it is obvious that the effect of adding CO2 is **sub-linear**, increasing CO2 by x% increases the temp by a LOT less than x% of 8°C.  This is bc of diminishing returns.  When we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, much of the IR/heat was already blocked by the CO2 that was there before.  So, rather than a naïve 8°C warming, doubling CO2 only leads to about 1°C warming.  Estimates in the 1970's were 1.5-3°C.  Estimated in the 2000s were 1-1.5°C.  Current estimates are right around 1°C, which matches what is currently observed on global-decadal average, to within uncertainty.  There is no scientific case for the correct answer being +0°C.

Thats it.  This HUGE 8°C climate effect from CO2, even when CO2 is doubled, is a rather small 1°C, bc the Earths climate system is remarkably stable to perturbation.

2.
In the 1970s there was a minor prediction of an impending Ice Age (or global cooling) which was popularized by a cover article in Time magazine, during a period of unusually cold winters, in order to sell magazines.  Data from ice cores and computer models of the earths orbit and tilt (which drive periodic ice ages) were relatively new then, and some researchers were making their prediction based upon this new science.  It had nothing to do with global warming.  It was also never accepted by the scientific community.  Were it not for a single Time article, which was subsequently blown up by Climate Deniers to make climate science seem less certain than it it, this little 1970s hypothesis would be completely forgotten.

Ironically, the best of these model predict that we SHOULD be in an Ice Age now.  This is taken by Deniers as evidence that the models are flawed (despite capturing over 100,000 years of climate DATA from ice cores, up to a few thousand years ago).  The current hypothesis is that increased CO2 and methane in the atmosphere (which started a few thousand years ago) are the source of the difference.  These gases are attributed to human activity: deforestation of Europe for agriculture (CO2) and the mass cultivation of rice in Asia (methane).  IOW, humans have been warming the climate for millennia.

3. 
The change in language from 'Global Warming' to the more general (and ambiguous) 'Climate Change' was started as a euphemism by Climate Deniers.  Who then subsequently accused scientists of changing the terminology to cover the supposed fact that warming had not been observed.  In reality, warming matching modern models HAS been observed and scientists have been referring to the phenomenon as Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW for years.

4. 
It is now known that scientists at Exxon Research (the Bell Labs for polymer and chemical engineering) in the 1970s, building computer models determined that burning all the recoverable oil on the planet (as estimated at that time) would wreck the climate.  That is, that their parent companies' business model would eventually endanger life on a global scale.  The response by Exxon mgmt was to bury the result and hire the **exact same** legal firms and ad companies--who previously had argued that the science of tobacco causing cancer was not settled--to make similar arguments against climate science.  Complete with a small number of science shills who they could quote.  By the early 2000s, Multiple US congressmen were proffering this pseudo-science on the floor of the Capitol, blocking renewable energy and climate science.  All of these congressmen were heavily funded by Oil Companies.  By 2010 the Oil companies, faced with lawsuits and rebellion from their own share holders, and a raft of new climate science models and a clearly warming planet, threw in the towel and stopped funding Climate Denial campaigns and their paid congressmen.  

5.
In 2020 The Climate Denial movement is widely understood to be a massive, corporate paid disinformation campaign. The buying of congresspeople is seen as a disgraceful example of crony capitalism in US govt, on a par with Tobacco in the 1980s.  Surveys of people around the world show that Climate Denial ideas are only believed by a non-trivial fraction of people in a handful of countries....Russia, The Persian Gulf States and the US.  The fact that all of these countries are the biggest oil producers....probably a coincidence.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 29, 2020)

As for the original post....what seems obvious is not.  

Case 1: Obviously, if you could remove trees selectively (and sustainably) from a forest, while keeping the total biomass content of the tree, forest litter and topsoil the same, energy from burning those trees would be carbon neutral. 

Case 2: If you clear cut a forest for energy, an the forest doesn't grow back, and the litter decomposes, and the topsoil washes into the sea, then the carbon penalty is HUGE.

Case 3: If the forest was going to die from AGW 20 years from now, and burn in a forest fire, and the soil run into the sea, then clearcutting it NOW for energy is, sigh, carbon neutral.

Case 4: If President Greta Thurnberg ten years from now has us undertake a massive reforestation campaign cutting forests and replanting them with warmer climate adapted species, and the soil doesn't get washed into the see, then the energy harvested is carbon NEGATIVE.

In my humble opinion, the carbon impact of industrial wood burning in 2020 is unknown, bc it needs to be measured to an unknown future baseline.  Period.


----------



## SpaceBus (Dec 29, 2020)

woodgeek said:


> As for the original post....what seems obvious is not.
> 
> Case 1: Obviously, if you could remove trees selectively (and sustainably) from a forest, while keeping the total biomass content of the tree, forest litter and topsoil the same, energy from burning those trees would be carbon neutral.
> 
> ...



Case 4 seems nice.


----------



## Thomas Maxwell (Dec 29, 2020)

SpaceBus said:


> Case 4 seems nice.


I like Greta. The idea of reducing co2 emissions is great but so far governments haven't really attempted to reduce the amount of co2 already in the atmosphere; so far just limiting the increases to the concentration. Scientists say the amount already in the atmosphere and future fossil fuel additions will most likely tip the balance to an increasing warm planet.  I like the idea of plowing charcoal residue into the farm fields. The nation has millions of acres of marginal cropland that we subsidize for farmers to stay afloat financially. Carbon(charcoal) in the soils make for improved production. Burning wood in gasification plants to produce lots of charcoal. Why not dig that carbon into the ground in a big government program that subsidizes both the plant and the farmers who participate. Would that cost more than the billions we have given the oil companies?


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Dec 29, 2020)

WoodGeek, SpaceBus,  Thomas Maxwell and anyone else.
I'm willing to have a rational conversation about burning wood versus fossil fuels and the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.
I might learn something.
You should know that I fit into the "Climate Denier" category as defined by those who think CO2 is bad for the climate.
I have been outback all day skidding ash out of our ravine and its time for a Premium.
In the morning, I will respond to your comments above.
Hopefully we can have a rational conversation, avoid name calling and learn something.


----------



## semipro (Dec 29, 2020)

semipro said:


> Apparently, some of the new legislation coming out of Washington, DC is defining wood burning as "carbon neutral" and this is causing controversy.
> As someone who likes the climate as it is, I've strived at home to minimize our carbon footprint.  Part of that strategy has been to efficiently burn wood that grows on our 5 acres.
> I've always done this under the assumption that it's better than consuming energy derived from coal-burning.  I thought I was harvesting carbon and sunshine to make biomass in a relative carbon-neutral way (minus the FF energy used to harvest it of course).
> According to the article linked above and below, I'm wrong.
> ...


Just FYI for continuity:  I posted this as a new thread.  I did not post this in response to @Thomas Maxwell
One of the Mods must have combined similar posts into this one.


----------



## semipro (Dec 29, 2020)

woodgeek said:


> ...Case 1: Obviously, if you could remove trees selectively (and sustainably) from a forest, while keeping the total biomass content of the tree, forest litter and topsoil the same, energy from burning those trees would be carbon neutral...


Some maybe not so obvious considerations for this scenario:

Whether wood decomposes on the forest floor or in my woodstove it still releases heat.
My use of that wood to heat my house will produce the same amount of CO2 but the energy captured to heat my house offsets my use of other energy sources (e.g. FFs). However, that heat energy still leaks from my house into the environment so no gains with respect to overall environmental heating other than through life-cycle aspects.
When you look at the respective life-cycle costs of using different energy sources for heating a house these may have a significant impact on the carbon balances.
For FFs there are exploration, mining, material transport, electricity conveyance losses, heat-electricity conversions losses on both ends, etc.
For wood harvesting, there are losses for harvesting, transport, conversion to heat, etc.

That seems complicated enough but then you need to consider energy spent enabling the renewability of an energy supply. That's really not realistic with FFs given the geologic time frame involved. It is realistic with sustainably harvested wood.
Another complication is the consideration of the time for recovery of that carbon. If I cut down a tree and don't replant I'm removing the canopy and enabling the growth of upstarts. I can potentially accelerate the process by replanting seedlings. There is likely a difference in the carbon uptake rates of the tree I harvested, the upstarts, and those seedlings I might plant. There are also some lost carbon sequestration opportunity costs with some finite period of time to get back to where things were before I cut the tree down.
I guess my point is that this is complicated when life cycle costs are considered and maybe not so obvious. I'd go so far as to posit that when everything is taken into account the real differences in environmental impact lies within those associated lifecycle costs, not within the intrinsic carbon neutrality of whatever carbon-based energy supply you use.


----------



## semipro (Dec 29, 2020)

PA Mountain Man said:


> WoodGeek, SpaceBus,  Thomas Maxwell and anyone else.
> I'm willing to have a rational conversation about burning wood versus fossil fuels and the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.
> I might learn something.
> You should know that I fit into the "Climate Denier" category as defined by those who think CO2 is bad for the climate.
> ...


The Mods here are pretty good about not letting things devolve too much. 

I'd like to know your thoughts about the content of this timeline graphic when considering mankind's potential impact on our world. (I realize it's a bit difficult to view because it's so tall but I think you'll find it's worth the effort). 



			https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png


----------



## bholler (Dec 29, 2020)

Heating with wood is not carbon neautral.  You guys are assuming wood that rots releases the same amount of carbon as wood that is burnt.  But you are missing the fact that lots of wood decomposition is done by organisms bugs bacteria etc that consume the wood and the contained carbon.  Also much of the carbon is just transferred into the earth.  

Wood heat is pretty low net carbon output.  But absolutely not neautral


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Dec 30, 2020)

semipro said:


> The Mods here are pretty good about not letting things devolve too much.
> 
> I'd like to know your thoughts about the content of this timeline graphic when considering mankind's potential impact on our world. (I realize it's a bit difficult to view because it's so tall but I think you'll find it's worth the effort).
> 
> ...


I like the timeline and it puts into perspective what we know about the recent evolution of humans. 
The graph compares temperatures of the earth over a 22,000 year period with a recent 30 year average.
It would be interesting to see how the temperature graph was pieced together from the 5 different sources and what the accuracy was of the temperature reconstructions.
 Measuring "Earth's temperature" is a best quesstimate today using a combination of land and sea based thermometers, weather balloons and satellites.
Determining "Earth's Temperature" 22,000 years ago to within 1/10th degree Celsius with a high degree of accuracy seems unlikely to me.


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Dec 30, 2020)

SpaceBus said:


> Are you saying that increased carbon output is not causing climate change? What is your evidence to support this claim?


I'm saying the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, currently 415 ppm, does have an impact on the biosphere. Pre-industrial levels were around 280. That was getting close to the minimum needed for plants to work. The increase of CO2 has resulted in the greening of the land areas on earth and contributed to significantly increasing crop yields per acre. I don't know what the right number is for CO2 levels, but I doubt 400, 500, 600 ppm will impact earth's climate in a way we can accuately measure. CO2's effect on warming decreases exponentially as the ppm inceases.


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Dec 30, 2020)

SpaceBus said:


> Also, politics and science are inseparable.


I respectfully disagree. 
Science and the scientific method are used to provide a confirmation thru experiment or observation of a valid hypothesis.
This guy explains it better than I can.


Politics from wikipedia
Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The academic study of politics is referred to as political science.


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Dec 30, 2020)

woodgeek said:


> Aside from the science and the politics is history.
> 
> 1.
> As soon as scientists figured out the nature of heat and light, and developed instruments for measuring them (which was in late 1800s) they figured out that the amount of sunlight hitting and absorbed by the earth was not sufficient to account for its warm temperature.  If all the heat radiated to space through a transparent atmosphere, the average temperature of the earth would be about 30-35°C colder than it is, and the Earth would be frozen over completely.
> ...


I found this article intersting.








						Study suggests no more CO2 warming
					

Precision research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated. In …




					wattsupwiththat.com
				



I went to the study and my math is a little rusty, but it seems plausible that we are close to the maximum amount of warming from CO2 in the atmosphere.


----------



## Thomas Maxwell (Jan 1, 2021)

PA Mountain Man said:


> I found this article intersting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the CO2 hockey stick measured rise in CO2 concentration is good science. Some of the temperature measures, ocean and atmospheric, are trending to indicate a rapid change in temperature is occurring. 1 degree centigrade over a century is rapid warming. In the past, such an increase is only known to have occurred over thousands of years as shown in semipro's very tall graph. The two researchers  contending  that current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is "saturated" and no further warming is possible are wrong.

I burn wood. The whole idea of sustainable forests for energy production is appealing as the vast areas required would provide wilderness habitat, reduced population density, and a bettor environment for all.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2021)

I took a look at the preprint.  Happer is a retired physics prof down the road at Princeton, a member of the NAS and a JASON (an elite post-war science advisory panel).  I feel qualified to review the paper because I have a physics PhD, I was offered a job in that dept (which I declined), taught Optics at CalTech (yes, I'm Sheldon), have several older colleagues in the NAS who ask me to review their papers (a PITA) and did my undergrad research for a (different) JASON, who was a lovable, if cranky old bastage.  I've never met Happer (maybe he saw my job talk, LOL), but I'm getting a vibe about how he thinks about things.

Everything in the paper looks appropriately done.  The authors are looking at a 'one-dimensional' model of the earths atmosphere, with different altitudes exchanging energy with each other radiatively, and those layers of gas then warm up or cool off and expand or contract to reach thermal equilibrium.  When the gases expand, this raises their altitude, and allows them to radiate heat more easily.  This model is then repeated at different latitudes, and the results averaged.

While setting up such a model is non-trivial, it looks like a couple months work for a graduate student, tops.

There are several 'problem' assumptions with the model:

1. The model assumes that the atmosphere is 'well-mixed'.  In practice,  human created CO2 is mostly at lower altitudes, and will take decades or centuries to reach the mesosphere.  Only the lowest layer (the troposphere) is relatively well mixed, bc it undergoes unstable convection, creating clouds and weather and precipitation.  Above the tropopause, the stratosphere and mesosphere are stable, and have very little vertical mixing.  This is NOT a quibble, since a lot of the 'saturation' effect they discuss is due to radiative heating and swelling, not of the lower atmosphere, but of the atmosphere on the edge of space.  At best this means is that the model is a model for AGW at some far future date (centuries in the future?) where the emitted gases have made it way up there.  Does something similar happen when the gases are lower?  Happer doesn't compute that or tell us, but since energy flow in the troposphere is mostly non-radiative, it seems unlikely.

2. The model assumes the atmosphere is completely transparent...that is, there are NO clouds.  This is not bc it is a good assumption, it is bc there is no easy way to include the effects of cloud formation, evaporation and opacity in the model Happer has formulated.  Google seems to think that satellites say that cloud cover of the earth is 67% on a global average, vs Happer's 0% assumption.  Clouds would block a lot of the IR that is assumed to be transmitted to the mesosphere, swelling it.  I did not see any effort to account for this anywhere, like multiplying the radiative transfer by 0.33 somewhere as a fudge, etc.

These two points make the model hopelessly 'not serious'.  That is, this is the sort of model that a scientist would've made in the 1960s (and which could be run on 1960s computers), and which might've been publishable back then.  This is of course, Happer's heydey.  The actual science of global warming is MUCH more complex than the radiative and ideal gas law physics in this 2020 preprint.  It also includes a LOT of cloud physics and optics, and convective transport.  Similar 'one-dimensional' models like the preprint, but with some cloud physics included, were the standard 'climate model' popular back in the 1980s. One of my classmates worked on one (he ended up stealing and marrying my prettiest girlfriend), now he is a grey-beard working on climate models at NOAA (and has two very beautiful and smart children).

Those were the 1980s models (more sophisticated than Happer's) which predicted about 2X as much global warming as current models.  Improvements in computers (and modeling of cloud physics) have enabled climate models to become higher resolution and three dimensional, and the magnitude of the predicted effect, and I posted originally, has dropped by a bit less than half.

So yeah, bottom line, the preprint is 'not serious' because it literally leaves out all the HARD parts of climate models.  It only includes the radiative transfer parts, which have been know since the 1800s.  But it does those PERFECTLY.

If I were reviewing the paper, I would also flag several 'fishy' things they did.

3. The comparison to satellite data is qualitative.  I couldn't see what they wanted me to see.
4.  They describe the magnitude of the saturated global warming effect in very ambiguous ways.  They say it is 'four orders of magnitude smaller than the linear term'.  This is meaningless.  Everyone knows that the forcing is sub-linear in additional CO2.   If they are saying that the effect of a new CO2 molecule is 0.0001 relative to the FIRST CO2 molecule added to the atmosphere, that is a ridiculous comparison, and IMO intentionally misleading.  They also talk about the change in forcing from doubling CO2 being a 'few percent' of the total.  So ambiguous.  What does that mean?  The default I posted above says doubling CO2 changes the temp 1°C out of 35°C of total greenhouse effect.  That is 3%.  Is Happer saying he agrees with other climate models?  Or does he mean doubling from current levels (quadrupling historical levels) and thus is saying quadrupling CO2 would only give another 1°C warming?  Its unintelligible.  Why?
5.  Their model seems to predict that the saturation effect would be stronger over the poles, and that AGW would be weaker there.  Maybe I misread it, but this is contrary to all other (modern) models, which show (along with satellite data) much stronger warming over the poles.  He seems to throw this out there without discussing it.  This seems fishy....since it is contra actual well-known data that would undermine confidence in his model.

Taken together 1-5 make him look like a crank with an agenda, tbh.  Wake me up when the paper gets published in a peer-reviewed journal, rather than posted on a free database (with no peer review) and promulgated on 'wattsupwiththat'.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 1, 2021)

I feel lucky you deign to post on this forum!


----------



## ABMax24 (Jan 1, 2021)

We have a considerable number of biomass power plants in the area. All of them burn waste residues from forestry operations. Here in lies a crucial difference, these residues exist anyway as a by-product of lumber, OSB and pulp making processes. Instead of burning them or landfilling these residues it makes sense to create another product in the form of electricity, the leftover heat from electricity generation is then used in one case for the lumber kilns, another for steam in the pulping process, and another to heat the OSB presses and chip dryers.

Cutting trees specifically for energy is a foolish endeavor. I believe most of us here don't even cut healthy green trees for firewood, I know I cut already dead trees, or ones that have to come down for another reason, or birch that is cut and left for us firewood collectors by the loggers as the local mills can't process birch.

I don't think there is a logical comparison between fossil fuels and wood burning in these cases, cutting dead standing trees opens up the canopy and allows the next generation to grow faster, removing carbon from the atmosphere sooner. It also really depends on the areas trees are cut from, in some areas we have very sandy soils where no organic matter seems to last more than a few years, it rots quickly and is gone. We have other areas of Muskeg (peat bogs) where dozens of feet of organic matter can accumulate, where carbon from a fallen tree would be stored for hundreds but likely many thousands of years. For firewood collection it is much easier to collect from sandy soils, which doesn't store carbon as readily anyway, traversing the Muskeg areas is quite difficult. The exception being to loggers in winter while the muskeg is frozen, and even in these cases the roots are still left behind for their carbon to be stored long term.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2021)

Did a bit more googling....

My complaint 1 is not well founded...turns out that the stratosphere and mesosphere are mixed adequately by diffusion (which works better at lower pressure) and gravity waves.  There is a small gradient, but it is not centuries.  

BUT, I also realized that the fossil record makes it clear that the earth has been 5-10°C warmer on a global average basis than it is now, back in dinosaur times.  Think palm trees and alligators at the poles.  Since the solar output was the same then as now (or maybe slightly lower), if CO2 and H2O greenhouses 'saturate' at the current level of greenhouse effect (conveniently), how would such high global temps come about?


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2021)

SpaceBus said:


> I feel lucky you deign to post on this forum!



I'm just a townie from New England who likes to burn wood and be warm. I have learned so much here.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 1, 2021)

woodgeek said:


> I'm just a townie from New England who likes to burn wood and be warm. I have learned so much here.


Indeed, there is a wealth of knowledge here.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 1, 2021)

ABMax24 said:


> We have a considerable number of biomass power plants in the area. All of them burn waste residues from forestry operations. Here in lies a crucial difference, these residues exist anyway as a by-product of lumber, OSB and pulp making processes. Instead of burning them or landfilling these residues it makes sense to create another product in the form of electricity, the leftover heat from electricity generation is then used in one case for the lumber kilns, another for steam in the pulping process, and another to heat the OSB presses and chip dryers.
> 
> Cutting trees specifically for energy is a foolish endeavor. I believe most of us here don't even cut healthy green trees for firewood, I know I cut already dead trees, or ones that have to come down for another reason, or birch that is cut and left for us firewood collectors by the loggers as the local mills can't process birch.
> 
> I don't think there is a logical comparison between fossil fuels and wood burning in these cases, cutting dead standing trees opens up the canopy and allows the next generation to grow faster, removing carbon from the atmosphere sooner. It also really depends on the areas trees are cut from, in some areas we have very sandy soils where no organic matter seems to last more than a few years, it rots quickly and is gone. We have other areas of Muskeg (peat bogs) where dozens of feet of organic matter can accumulate, where carbon from a fallen tree would be stored for hundreds but likely many thousands of years. For firewood collection it is much easier to collect from sandy soils, which doesn't store carbon as readily anyway, traversing the Muskeg areas is quite difficult. The exception being to loggers in winter while the muskeg is frozen, and even in these cases the roots are still left behind for their carbon to be stored long term.



I rarely cut a living tree down, but it goes on the mill if I do. Elsewise we get plenty of firewood cleaning up dead and dying trees. Large dead trees are great on the mill if I get them before they rot. Why won't the local mill take birch logs? I've been curious about milling a few myself.


----------



## ABMax24 (Jan 1, 2021)

SpaceBus said:


> I rarely cut a living tree down, but it goes on the mill if I do. Elsewise we get plenty of firewood cleaning up dead and dying trees. Large dead trees are great on the mill if I get them before they rot. Why won't the local mill take birch logs? I've been curious about milling a few myself.



We don't have a whole lot of Birch around here, at least any that reaches a reasonable size, a 12" diameter Birch is very large for this area. Even if it does reach that size its often rotten on the inside, with staining that doesn't produce marketable wood.

We have 2 sawmills, both are setup for softwood, spruce and pine. Our pulp mill is also setup for softwood, it uses the chips from the 2 sawmills as well as from other mills within a 5 hour radius. We also have an OSB mill that uses poplar, mostly trembling aspen and some balsam poplar as feedstock, they can take some birch but have to limit its quantity.

All logging here is done on public (crown) lands. Both sawmills and the OSB mill have certain areas they have logging rights to (forest tenures), the pulp mill doesn't own any of these so buys chips/pulp logs from the others. Usually if one company cuts a species of timber another mill can use they arrange to have it shipped to that mill for use. In the case of Birch the softwood mills try to leave it standing, as its of no use to them and the OSB mill really doesn't want it either, in the event of it having to be cut it is usually just piled up so firewood gatherers can come get. Its not much waste, in a reasonable sized cutblock with a high fraction of birch there might be 10-20 cords of birch logs left behind. There is starting to become a market for the birch firewood here, as such some logging companies are hauling the birch out to split and sell as firewood, great for reducing waste, no so great for people like me that enjoy free easy firewood.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 1, 2021)

ABMax24 said:


> We don't have a whole lot of Birch around here, at least any that reaches a reasonable size, a 12" diameter Birch is very large for this area. Even if it does reach that size its often rotten on the inside, with staining that doesn't produce marketable wood.
> 
> We have 2 sawmills, both are setup for softwood, spruce and pine. Our pulp mill is also setup for softwood, it uses the chips from the 2 sawmills as well as from other mills within a 5 hour radius. We also have an OSB mill that uses poplar, mostly trembling aspen and some balsam poplar as feedstock, they can take some birch but have to limit its quantity.
> 
> All logging here is done on public (crown) lands. Both sawmills and the OSB mill have certain areas they have logging rights to (forest tenures), the pulp mill doesn't own any of these so buys chips/pulp logs from the others. Usually if one company cuts a species of timber another mill can use they arrange to have it shipped to that mill for use. In the case of Birch the softwood mills try to leave it standing, as its of no use to them and the OSB mill really doesn't want it either, in the event of it having to be cut it is usually just piled up so firewood gatherers can come get. Its not much waste, in a reasonable sized cutblock with a high fraction of birch there might be 10-20 cords of birch logs left behind. There is starting to become a market for the birch firewood here, as such some logging companies are hauling the birch out to split and sell as firewood, great for reducing waste, no so great for people like me that enjoy free easy firewood.



Our part of Maine is not so different from where you are and there are a ton of birch forests and now I know why. I personally love it as firewood, but you can't give it away here due to large quantities of maple available. Our property unfortunately has little in the way of birch or maple, but we do have a lot of really nice spruce and fir trees that produce excellent boards. I try to keep it under one cord an acre for these really nice 16-24" trees. Anything over that I leave in place since it's too big for my mill and I can't bring myself to cut one down. So far I haven't felled a single living deciduous tree. 

I don't think there are any operational mills left in our county, but there is a biomass chip plant just outside of town that is always on the verge of being operational.


----------



## ABMax24 (Jan 1, 2021)

SpaceBus said:


> Our part of Maine is not so different from where you are and there are a ton of birch forests and now I know why. I personally love it as firewood, but you can't give it away here due to large quantities of maple available. Our property unfortunately has little in the way of birch or maple, but we do have a lot of really nice spruce and fir trees that produce excellent boards. I try to keep it under one cord an acre for these really nice 16-24" trees. Anything over that I leave in place since it's too big for my mill and I can't bring myself to cut one down. So far I haven't felled a single living deciduous tree.
> 
> I don't think there are any operational mills left in our county, but there is a biomass chip plant just outside of town that is always on the verge of being operational.



Our climate is generally a bit colder. We don't have any maple around here. My brother lives in the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia, if your weather is similar it's definitely milder than we get.

It's part of the reason our forestry industry does well, the long harsh winters and long hot days in the summer produce long wood fibers in softwoods. Our kraft process pulp mill produces very strong and sought after pulp with long fibers. At one point a significant portion of its production was bought to produce to produce Bounty Paper Towels, our pulp is the reason for it's strength. But they need a lot of trees to operate, the mill uses 2000 tons of chips per day to make 1000 tons of pulp.


----------



## stoveliker (Jan 1, 2021)

woodgeek said:


> I took a look at the preprint.  Happer is a retired physics prof down the road at Princeton, a member of the NAS and a JASON (an elite post-war science advisory panel).  I feel qualified to review the paper because I have a physics PhD, I was offered a job in that dept (which I declined), taught Optics at CalTech (yes, I'm Sheldon), have several older colleagues in the NAS who ask me to review their papers (a PITA) and did my undergrad research for a (different) JASON, who was a lovable, if cranky old bastage.  I've never met Happer (maybe he saw my job talk, LOL), but I'm getting a vibe about how he thinks about things.
> 
> Everything in the paper looks appropriately done.  The authors are looking at a 'one-dimensional' model of the earths atmosphere, with different altitudes exchanging energy with each other radiatively, and those layers of gas then warm up or cool off and expand or contract to reach thermal equilibrium.  When the gases expand, this raises their altitude, and allows them to radiate heat more easily.  This model is then repeated at different latitudes, and the results averaged.
> 
> ...



Now that's an analysis of the preprint that I can agree with  - as a physics PhD as well.


----------



## semipro (Jan 4, 2021)

woodgeek said:


> Wake me up when the paper gets published in a peer-reviewed journal, rather than posted on a free database (with no peer review) and promulgated on 'wattsupwiththat'.


I'd add that even acceptance in a peer-reviewed journal does not necessarily indicate that the paper is 100% correct in its methods and findings. IMO, publishing means that it's good enough science to share with others while encouraging further scrutiny and ultimately enhancing the respective body of knowledge.

I get your point though.


----------



## Isaac Carlson (Jan 30, 2021)

Burn wood and stay warm.  Trees love co2.  The climate has changed drastically many times.  How many ice ages have we had???
Yeah, I think we're safe.  Stop clearing out the trees in the rainforests and monoculture farms and you will be able to absorb the co2 that has been released.  Politics have been claiming "the end is near"for way too long to live on that fragile branch any more.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 30, 2021)

Well, to be fair, things have changed many times over the history of the world. However, if you want to compare apples to apples, the climate has changed more in the time humans have been alive than any other time in history. The world might not be ending for you, but it is ending for the billions of people that live in costal communities worldwide. Imagine if every year you watched the static water line inch closer to your family's home. Then, one year, a big wave just comes through and levels your entire community. Wouldn't be imagining anything since you would be dead. Just because climate change hasn't had a big impact in the US doesn't mean it isn't a problem.


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Jan 30, 2021)

At a rate of 0.8 inches of rise per decade, I think coastal residents will figure out how to mitigate and/or relocate before they need hip waders.








						Sea Level Rise is Accelerating Dramatically
					

Coastal erosion – houses built on weak clay soil slide down to the sea and collapse near Odessa, Ukraine 123rf.com The arguments and claims for this being an issue of concern: Climate Change …




					everythingclimate.org
				




Of course the governments will be there to help.


----------



## sloeffle (Jan 30, 2021)

PA Mountain Man said:


> Sea Level Rise is Accelerating Dramatically
> 
> 
> Coastal erosion – houses built on weak clay soil slide down to the sea and collapse near Odessa, Ukraine 123rf.com The arguments and claims for this being an issue of concern: Climate Change …
> ...


Are you a spokesperson for that BS web site ? Every post you write has a link to it.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 30, 2021)

PA Mountain Man said:


> At a rate of 0.8 inches of rise per decade, I think coastal residents will figure out how to mitigate and/or relocate before they need hip waders.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



.8" doesn't sound like much, but every single year it becomes a serious issue very fast. The water will fill in low areas in valleys and deltas on coastlines. Miami is already flooding, as are other areas of FL. Several islands in the Pacific are being lost to the rising sea. There are over a billion human beings threatened by rising sea level right now. I linked a real published peer reviewed paper, some of it is available for free. 









						Sea-level rise and human migration - Nature Reviews Earth & Environment
					

Rising sea levels threaten to displace millions of people through direct inundation and increased exposure to related hazards. This Review highlights populations at risk from sea-level-rise-related migration and discusses individual and institutional factors that influence relocation decisions.




					www.nature.com


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 30, 2021)

Monsoons displaced millions of people in Bangladesh and other areas of SE Asia just last year!


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 30, 2021)

PAMM should send that link to the folks in Miami beach that are getting salt water flooding during King Tides.  And I am sure they have plenty of time to simply sell their properties at a fair market rate to a new person, and move inland.  No problemo.


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Jan 30, 2021)

Regarding Miami and King Tides









						Miami’s Vice
					

Guest Essay by Kip Hansen   Miami Beach has a vice – a bad one – a dangerous one. Miami’s vice is water, as in waterfront.  Everybody seems to want a house on the waterfront, a house on a cana…




					wattsupwiththat.com


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Jan 30, 2021)

Regarding Pacific Islands









						Study: Pacific Islands Will Survive Climate Change
					

A beach at Funafuti atoll, Tuvalu, on a sunny day. Author Stefan Lins, source Wikimedia Guest essay by Eric Worrall Who could have imagined that islands which survived rapid sea level rise at the e…




					wattsupwiththat.com


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 30, 2021)

You post the same source every time, it presents a pretty one sided argument. Try reading some peer reviewed and published articles. Usually scholarly literature is written by more than one scientist and that body of work is then reviewed by more scientists. I don't think the millions of people displaced by record high waters in Bangladesh would agree with the bodies of work you have shown. Businesses all over the world are shifting gears to try and prevent more sea level rise. Lenders stopped giving loans for almost all new coal and oil operations, and all before Biden was elected. The Trump administration deregulated a large region of north Alaska for oil drilling, but nobody went to drill. Even with the Trump administration trying to relax fuel efficiency and auto emissions standards GM still went all in for non fossil fuel powered vehicles. 

I'm just not sure how the data can be interpreted any other way.


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Jan 30, 2021)

SpaceBus said:


> You post the same source every time, it presents a pretty one sided argument. Try reading some peer reviewed and published articles. Usually scholarly literature is written by more than one scientist and that body of work is then reviewed by more scientists. I don't think the millions of people displaced by record high waters in Bangladesh would agree with the bodies of work you have shown. Businesses all over the world are shifting gears to try and prevent more sea level rise. Lenders stopped giving loans for almost all new coal and oil operations, and all before Biden was elected. The Trump administration deregulated a large region of north Alaska for oil drilling, but nobody went to drill. Even with the Trump administration trying to relax fuel efficiency and auto emissions standards GM still went all in for non fossil fuel powered vehicles.
> 
> I'm just not sure how the data can be interpreted any other way.


Well maybe if you read the article you would see the source is  "peer reviewed and published articles"
For instance 
Professor Paul Kench, formerly of the University of Auckland, now at Simon Fraser University in Canada, and Professor Gerd Masselink from the University of Plymouth were co-researchers in the study, published by the Geological Society of America in _Geology_.

Read more: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/sea-level-rise-may-not-spell-the-end-for-low-lying-pacific-atolls 

Or
Read more: https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gs...ponse-of-reef-islands?redirectedFrom=fulltext 

Or in the Miami article, it's an essay that explains how the flooding is due to building below high tide
Kip Hansen has some credentials. Google him or you can email him
Author’s Comment Policy:

I’ll be happy to answer your questions and give more references if anyone wants them.

My biggest fear for Miami Beach and many other similar areas along America’s eastern seaboard is a repeat of the 1900 Galveston, Texas disaster.

I have never lived in Miami Beach, but have lived in Cocoa Beach, Florida, which suffers similar problems, which had a near miss with Hurricane Matthew. We have friends there (on the Banana River side) who lost their entire riverside front yard in Matthew.  Their home is 2 feet above Mean High Tide.

There is a new-ish activist movement pushing King Tides which I will write about once I have a clear idea of who is paying for it.

You may contact me by email at my first name at the domain i4 decimal net if you wish.

This essay is not about climate change (under any name) – please restrict your comments to the issues discussed.  If your comment is specifically addressed to me, please indicate so by using Kip as the first word — like “Kip, please explain why you say…”

Or
Sea Level Rise
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating. 
One of my sisters is a Rocket Scientist at Goddard, Does that count for anything?


NOAA Tides and Currents, Station 8518750 The Battery, New Yorkhttps://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
Church, J.A. & White, N.J. Surv Geophys (2011) 32: 585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1
Church and White data update, 2013. CSIRO http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/GMSL_SG_2011_up.html
Decadal Trends in Sea Level Patterns: 1993–2004 Wunsch et. al., Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. (2007) DOI: 10.1175/2007JCLI1840.1 http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/11/sea-level-rise-slr-satellite-altimetry-fit-for-purpose/


----------



## stoveliker (Jan 30, 2021)

Can I suggest to talk to insurance companies? More money-driven capitalist businesses do not exist. They have no agenda, don't even care about any agenda. They care about the facts, the averages.

And the far, FAR majority (if not all) are changing the pricing of their policies because of changing flood risk, fire risk, etc etc.

And all will see - in their bottom line - that things are changing.

This is no proof that it's human caused (non-cherry picked data and papers already show that " beyond any reasonable doubt", i.e. a standard that allows us in this country to kill people by the state...), but those that have their business depend on the climate, will all tell you their payouts are indicating that the climate is changing, and that it behooves us to take measures to avoid further damages.


----------



## ABMax24 (Jan 30, 2021)

I think insurance rates are a very valid point. Our insurance rates locally have increased greatly due to large scale natural disasters not seen in previous decades. It's pretty hard to not argue something is changing if you follow these. In the past 10 years in the province of Alberta we've had 2 large forest fires moves through towns or cities and destroy large areas of these populated areas (Fort McMurray 2016 and Slave Lake 2011, the house I lived in as a child burnt in the Slave Lake fire). We had 2 significant flooding events (High River 2013, Fort McMurray 2020).  Numerous hailstorm events (Calgary alone had an event costing $1.2 billion in June 2020).

This isn't normal and it's getting worse. In both cases of wildfires moving into cities, both were caused by extremely dry spring weather making the forests a tinderbox. Ironically in both cases flooding occurred about a month later from extreme prolonged downpours in June, also not normal weather.

I hate to use extreme weather as an indication of climate change, because weather events can often be extreme outliers in otherwise average data, but of the 10 costliest disasters in Canada, 6 have been here in Alberta, and 5 of those 6 have been in the last 10 years.


----------



## stoveliker (Jan 30, 2021)

ABMax24 said:


> I think insurance rates are a very valid point. Our insurance rates locally have increased greatly due to large scale natural disasters not seen in previous decades. It's pretty hard to not argue something is changing if you follow these. In the past 10 years in the province of Alberta we've had 2 large forest fires moves through towns or cities and destroy large areas of these populated areas (Fort McMurray 2016 and Slave Lake 2011, the house I lived in as a child burnt in the Slave Lake fire). We had 2 significant flooding events (High River 2013, Fort McMurray 2020).  Numerous hailstorm events (Calgary alone had an event costing $1.2 billion in June 2020).
> 
> This isn't normal and it's getting worse. In both cases of wildfires moving into cities, both were caused by extremely dry spring weather making the forests a tinderbox. Ironically in both cases flooding occurred about a month later from extreme prolonged downpours in June, also not normal weather.
> 
> I hate to use extreme weather as an indication of climate change, because weather events can often be extreme outliers in otherwise average data, but of the 10 costliest disasters in Canada, 6 have been here in Alberta, and 5 of those 6 have been in the last 10 years.



The point is that insurance companies are about averages. So weather ("instances") is not the point, but the average "extreme event rate" is. And that rate is going up - and to keep their bottomline, they'll have to work this into their pricing.


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Feb 1, 2021)

stoveliker said:


> Can I suggest to talk to insurance companies? More money-driven capitalist businesses do not exist. They have no agenda, don't even care about any agenda. They care about the facts, the averages.
> 
> And the far, FAR majority (if not all) are changing the pricing of their policies because of changing flood risk, fire risk, etc etc.
> 
> ...


Found this on npr



"Everybody wants to know: 'Tell me the answer. You know, over the next five years, how many hurricanes will we have, what will they look like, how will much they cost. And when will the occur?' We don't do that," Keogh says.

The only thing we can do, insurers say, is build our buildings safer, and better prepare for what will eventually come.


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Feb 1, 2021)

ABMax24 said:


> I think insurance rates are a very valid point. Our insurance rates locally have increased greatly due to large scale natural disasters not seen in previous decades. It's pretty hard to not argue something is changing if you follow these. In the past 10 years in the province of Alberta we've had 2 large forest fires moves through towns or cities and destroy large areas of these populated areas (Fort McMurray 2016 and Slave Lake 2011, the house I lived in as a child burnt in the Slave Lake fire). We had 2 significant flooding events (High River 2013, Fort McMurray 2020).  Numerous hailstorm events (Calgary alone had an event costing $1.2 billion in June 2020).
> 
> This isn't normal and it's getting worse. In both cases of wildfires moving into cities, both were caused by extremely dry spring weather making the forests a tinderbox. Ironically in both cases flooding occurred about a month later from extreme prolonged downpours in June, also not normal weather.
> 
> I hate to use extreme weather as an indication of climate change, because weather events can often be extreme outliers in otherwise average data, but of the 10 costliest disasters in Canada, 6 have been here in Alberta, and 5 of those 6 have been in the last 10 years.


I found this on flood events.









						Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe
					

Concern over the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on flooding has led to a proliferation of studies examining past flood trends. Many …




					www.sciencedirect.com
				




*Highlights*

•
Trends in major-floods from 1204 sites in North America and Europe are assessed.
•
Trends based on counting exceedances of flood thresholds for groups of gauges.
•
The number of significant trends was about the number expected due to chance alone.
•
Changes in the frequency of major floods are dominated by multidecadal variability.


----------



## Isaac Carlson (Feb 2, 2021)

People have been building and rebuilding on coasts for thousands of years.  They know it is risky and pay the price every year when storms come through.  Who in their right mind builds a house below sea level???  Why should everyone be harassed because some of the population is throwing a fit about losing the home they built in a precarious position?  If you buy/build a home on a coast or in a low area, why should you be able to even get insurance on it?  Isn't that the definition of stupidity?  Can I get insurance on a house if it's on or next to a volcano?


----------



## SpaceBus (Feb 2, 2021)

Yeah! Screw those millions of people who lived on the coast for thousands of years, they are just poor brown folk anyway!


----------



## stoveliker (Feb 2, 2021)

Or for 200 plus years, as in, say, NYC...
Or Northwestern Europe.


----------



## peakbagger (Feb 2, 2021)

Isaac Carlson said:


> People have been building and rebuilding on coasts for thousands of years.  They know it is risky and pay the price every year when storms come through.  Who in their right mind builds a house below sea level???  Why should everyone be harassed because some of the population is throwing a fit about losing the home they built in a precarious position?  If you buy/build a home on a coast or in a low area, why should you be able to even get insurance on it?  Isn't that the definition of stupidity?  Can I get insurance on a house if it's on or next to a volcano?


The problem is that government steps in and creates self perpetuating programs that may start out as self funded risk pools but inevitably end up having the general tax paper subsidize stupidity. The National Flood insurance program started out as a shared risk pool but long ago it became subsidized by all the US taxpayers. When there are attempts to raise the rates for flood insurance to reflect losses voters in those risky areas raise heck with their politcians and the increases get delayed.

Take a look at the barrier islands in Florida. Basically one road in the middle with a lot on the Atlantic side and lot on the Intracoastal. Houses get wiped out when a hurricane comes by and developers rush right in an build "storm resistant" high end structures to replace

The politicians also have warped the intent of the program to encourage building and rebuilding in flood prone areas. The rational for buyers is they are willing to take the risk of a "big one" to live in paradise the rest of the time. Look at Key West Florida, it will get wiped out whenever a Hurricane hits yet people are lined up to move on down somehow even if they have to live in a trailer. Enforce tough laws and local politicians scream as empty lots do not vote.

BTW after Hurricane Andrew hit south Florida all the insurance companies were going to stop writing policies in the state. Florida had to step in provide big backstops on major losses to keep the firms in the state. They put in all sorts of major restrictions and deductibles on the policies. They also put in statewide enforcement of building codes. Previously the small towns just didn't enforce them especially for developers.  Insurance rates went way up but banks would still write mortgages so those with a short time horizon and more money than sense just kept buying. There are some big debates that banks at one point will just stop writing mortgages as when the bust starts after a couple of big hurricanes they don't want to be stuck holding paper on worthless property. 

It should be if the structure is in a 20 year flood plain, the owner gets a check and the lot is turned into buffer space never to be built on. The problem is in many areas a developer grabs the lot and builds a high rise with utility areas like parkign spaces under the first couple floors. Their building may survive but all the local infrastructure can not support it. Unless a community pulls a Galveston project and raises the entire city including the streets and infrastructure let it revert back to dunes and mangroves. 

In my area the town didnt have accurate flood plan maps. A state high way was moved years ago to avoid washout and flooding from spring flooding. The owner of the land started selling camp lots along the old road. The area is short on land for new homes so a bunch of folks built year round homes along the road. Every 10 years or so the road will flood during spring runoff and the bankings will washout along the river. The town usually gets FEMA funds to deal with the worst washouts but in few years the grass grows back on the banks  and the owner sells their home  to someone outside the area who doesnt know about the issue. No one wants to get holding the stick.


----------



## stoveliker (Feb 2, 2021)

peakbagger said:


> The problem is that government steps in and creates self perpetuating programs that may start out as self funded risk pools but inevitably end up having the general tax paper subsidize stupidity. The National Flood insurance program started out as a shared risk pool but long ago it became subsidized by all the US taxpayers. When there are attempts to raise the rates for flood insurance to reflect losses voters in those risky areas raise heck with their politcians and the increases get delayed.
> 
> Take a look at the barrier islands in Florida. Basically one road in the middle with a lot on the Atlantic side and lot on the Intracoastal. Houses get wiped out when a hurricane comes by and developers rush right in an build "storm resistant" high end structures to replace
> 
> ...



Well, that means that all folks in tornado alley are on their own. That means that the West coast (quakes and tsunami's) are on their own. That means that the gulf and Atlantic coasts (hurricanes) are on their own. That means that the forested areas in the West (forest fires, droughts) are on their own. 

Maybe we should only live in -- well, maybe we should stop living then altogether?

I agree that building in a floodplain is not smart. But then again, building in a bone dry pine forest in OR or CA? Building in Nebraska?

The point is that all of us in this country benefit from the economic and agricultural activity in these places. And hence it is okay (fair?) for all of us to contribute to mitigate the risks that the folks run while living and working in these places. 

This does not resolve the issue, but it is "the other side of the story" that I think is worth considering.


----------



## Isaac Carlson (Feb 2, 2021)

Proper planning of building sites, managemant of local resources, and elimination of incentives might help.  Greed drives a lot of people and government.  Municipalities want more tax dollars, more people.  Why? Stop being greedy and let people be.  It costs so damn much to live now that a lot of people choose poverty.


----------



## stoveliker (Feb 2, 2021)

PA Mountain Man said:


> Found this on npr
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Of course, when a trend of 30 yr averages goes up, but on top of that are seasonal (yearly) fluctuations, they can not predict how many, how much $ and when. 

This is THE fallacy about statistics. That they allow to predict what happens "tomorrow" - because the next 5 yrs us tomorrow in climate terms.


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Feb 2, 2021)

stoveliker said:


> Of course, when a trend of 30 yr averages goes up, but on top of that are seasonal (yearly) fluctuations, they can not predict how many, how much $ and when.
> 
> This is THE fallacy about statistics. That they allow to predict what happens "tomorrow" - because the next 5 yrs us tomorrow in climate terms.


I don't understand what you're saying. Do insurance companies rely on predictions to set rates?


----------



## stoveliker (Feb 2, 2021)

PA Mountain Man said:


> I don't understand what you're saying. Do insurance companies rely on predictions to set rates?



No, the interviewee in that npr piece said they are being asked "how many, when, how.muxh" for the next five years, and you latch on to "we can't do that". My point is that that is naturally not possible. As trends are understood, but 5  yr predictions are not possible because trends have statistical fluctuations superimposed on them.

The trends are clear. Climate is changing. But that doesn't allow to say what's going to happen two years from now.


----------



## ABMax24 (Feb 2, 2021)

At what point should people bear the cost of living where they do? I have zero access to public transit to get to my workplace, should other taxpayers pitch in for my vehicle or gas money because my taxes help to pay for a transit system I can't use?

We have areas here now where homes are uninsurable for flooding, homes have flooded multiple times and the last time the insurance company says "upon completion of the rebuild the flood portion of your policy will be nullified due to risk". It is then the homeowners choice to take that risk, or get out with the insurance money and buy elsewhere.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 3, 2021)

ABMax24 said:


> At what point should people bear the cost of living where they do? I have zero access to public transit to get to my workplace, should other taxpayers pitch in for my vehicle or gas money because my taxes help to pay for a transit system I can't use?



This is a deep and charged question of what in means to be part of a community.  In fact other taxpayers DID pitch in to your transportation system.... they paid for at least some of the roads you drive on.  Sure, rural folks can chip in to urban subway systems they will never use.  And urban people pay taxes to support building highways in rural areas that THEY will never use.

There is a lot of emotion around these issues, and both sides think THEY are paying more and getting less.  There doesn't need to be any arguing about it.  Its numbers. In the US (I don't know about Alberta), the numbers say that the states with large urban centers generally contribute more per capita to the fed budget than those states that lack such large urban centers.  But a lot of people in those rural states are telling themselves they are independent and self-reliant and 'their taxes are too high'.  Check the numbers sometime.

This sort of antagonism is due to a lack of relating between rural and urban people, and each having stereotypes about the other.  The reality is that they are both part of one community, and resources are being allocated ad transferred according to a mix of history, need, and political power.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 3, 2021)

ABMax24 said:


> We have areas here now where homes are uninsurable for flooding, homes have flooded multiple times and the last time the insurance company says "upon completion of the rebuild the flood portion of your policy will be nullified due to risk". It is then the homeowners choice to take that risk, or get out with the insurance money and buy elsewhere.



The point you miss here is one of opportunity.   I think most people would NOT choose to live on a floodplain.  Those that do are often renters who are looking for a cheap place to live.  Why is it cheap?  Bc the owners are (sensibly) refusing to update/upgrade the property, and would rather rent it than tear it down for a loss.  And there is a steady supply of poor people looking for a roof over their heads that they can afford.

And that is why climate and zoning are matters of social justice and equality.  I know I brought up the (rich) folks on Miami beach with their $$$ condos imperiled by King Tides.  That gets lots of press...but for every one person in that spot, there are hundreds of poor people living on floodplains, in low lying areas (not beachfront) subject to storm surges or immediately downwind from a chemical plant.  What those people have in common is that their properties are lower value, and their rents are lower.  And so they are poorer, and to tell them to move away misses the point.

For your example, the community should buy out those properties at a fair rate, and demolish them.  And make sure that there are alternate safe and affordable housing solutions for the displaced people.


----------



## SpaceBus (Feb 3, 2021)

This is hard to understand for Americans, but the rest of the world has already been developed with huge cities since before cities were planned. Almost the whole world population lives in Asia, also a place people have had cities in now flood prone areas for centuries.


ABMax24 said:


> At what point should people bear the cost of living where they do? I have zero access to public transit to get to my workplace, should other taxpayers pitch in for my vehicle or gas money because my taxes help to pay for a transit system I can't use?
> 
> We have areas here now where homes are uninsurable for flooding, homes have flooded multiple times and the last time the insurance company says "upon completion of the rebuild the flood portion of your policy will be nullified due to risk". It is then the homeowners choice to take that risk, or get out with the insurance money and buy elsewhere.


Your family hasn't lived in Canada for thousands of years. Bad example. The people that live in flood areas, outside of this country, have been there for thousands of years. This is a tough concept for North Americans to understand, but the world existed before you did, and yes, you should help those people. Most of the people trapped in these flood zones don't have insurance, can't afford to move, and don't have anywhere else to go. Especially when nations like Canada and America make it hard to immigrate or become a legal citizen.


----------



## begreen (Feb 3, 2021)

Almost a third of the US population lives in coastal areas.


----------



## peakbagger (Feb 3, 2021)

I would want a bit more definition on what constitutes a coastal zone. There are plenty of coastal zones that are not subject to significant flooding events. I think its important to flag a low to moderate risk zone from high risk zone. It used to be 20 year flood zone and 100 year flood zone but FEMA no longer uses the year title. On top of that is what is considered the Mean Coincident Storm Surge. On coastal headlands with a steep drop to water a home can be well above the low to moderate zone and even over the Mean Coincident Storm Surge and still have shore front while barrier islands and shore front may have high risk zones well inland. Those areas are also impact the most by storm surges.  With climate change its a double whammy as mean sea level is rising consistently over the long term and the oceans are warmer and this more energetic. That means bigger storms that can create higher elevation storm surges. In many areas coastal populations over centuries have filling in shallow areas to make more land, not only do the flood more often the fill can be variable due to soil liquefaction.


----------



## ABMax24 (Feb 3, 2021)

woodgeek said:


> The point you miss here is one of opportunity.   I think most people would NOT choose to live on a floodplain.  Those that do are often renters who are looking for a cheap place to live.  Why is it cheap?  Bc the owners are (sensibly) refusing to update/upgrade the property, and would rather rent it than tear it down for a loss.  And there is a steady supply of poor people looking for a roof over their heads that they can afford.
> 
> And that is why climate and zoning are matters of social justice and equality.  I know I brought up the (rich) folks on Miami beach with their $$$ condos imperiled by King Tides.  That gets lots of press...but for every one person in that spot, there are hundreds of poor people living on floodplains, in low lying areas (not beachfront) subject to storm surges or immediately downwind from a chemical plant.  What those people have in common is that their properties are lower value, and their rents are lower.  And so they are poorer, and to tell them to move away misses the point.
> 
> For your example, the community should buy out those properties at a fair rate, and demolish them.  And make sure that there are alternate safe and affordable housing solutions for the displaced people.



I guess you misunderstood my post without details of the conditions of my specific area.

The vast majority of this area has been developed in the last 100 years. Local floods and floodplains have been fairly well understood. We don't have oceanfront, but we do have lake and river front properties. These areas are desirable as a status symbol for those with the wealth to do so, and with few exceptions command higher purchase prices, I assure you people don't live there out of desperation. Why should my insurance rates go up because someone decides to build a multi-million dollar home on the edge of the river on a 1 in 10 or 20 year floodplain? Why should it then be the communities responsibility to buy them out? They chose to turn a piece of flood plain used as riverfront farmland into their home and lost.


----------



## ABMax24 (Feb 3, 2021)

SpaceBus said:


> Your family hasn't lived in Canada for thousands of years. Bad example. The people that live in flood areas, outside of this country, have been there for thousands of years. This is a tough concept for North Americans to understand, but the world existed before you did, and yes, you should help those people. Most of the people trapped in these flood zones don't have insurance, can't afford to move, and don't have anywhere else to go. Especially when nations like Canada and America make it hard to immigrate or become a legal citizen.



That's pretty bold to say. My family left Europe in the 1870's out of survival, after being chased around Europe due to religious persecution for most of the 200 years before, not for greed or otherwise. We know just a little about what it's like to have our family land stolen away, and all our family records burned and destroyed. Maybe I should call up Putin and see if he's ready to give our land in Crimea back?

I also feel for those that are forced out of their homes, but as I said above I don't feel bad for those who deliberately put themselves in harms way.


----------



## SpaceBus (Feb 4, 2021)

ABMax24 said:


> That's pretty bold to say. My family left Europe in the 1870's out of survival, after being chased around Europe due to religious persecution for most of the 200 years before, not for greed or otherwise. We know just a little about what it's like to have our family land stolen away, and all our family records burned and destroyed. Maybe I should call up Putin and see if he's ready to give our land in Crimea back?
> 
> I also feel for those that are forced out of their homes, but as I said above I don't feel bad for those who deliberately put themselves in harms way.



It's not like these millions of people decided that they would pick a 10=20 year floodplain, 99% of the people threatened are not there by choice. On the other side of the globe most of the areas at risk have been established for thousands of years, and the millions of inhabitants didn't exactly request to be born there. Many of the at risk regions may not even be that close to the coast. Rivers that connect to the oceans will flood with rising sea levels and cause damage miles inland. As a person of displaced diaspora you know that fleeing people rarely have a choice of housing. 

You could call up Putin, but I don't think he likes the native Crimeans or the Jewish minorities that fled at the end of the 19th century and later.


----------



## GENECOP (Feb 4, 2021)




----------



## woodgeek (Feb 4, 2021)

GENECOP said:


>




I love George.  But the man passed away 12 years ago, and it seems this clip is from 2007.  It's dated.

For the record, this Carlin video is frequently promoted by the AEI, a conservative and neoconservative think tank.

Moreover, AEI has both financial and leadership ties to ExxonMobil.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#Global_warming


----------



## GENECOP (Feb 4, 2021)

woodgeek said:


> I love George.  But the man passed away 12 years ago, and it seems this clip is from 2007.  It's dated.
> 
> For the record, this Carlin video is frequently promoted by the AEI, a conservative and neoconservative think tank.
> 
> Moreover, AEI has both financial and leadership ties to ExxonMobil.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#Global_warming



Nothing dated , Georges commentary is timeless, listen again, he even talks about the virus well before it’s time...


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 4, 2021)

GENECOP said:


> Nothing dated , Georges commentary is timeless, listen again, he even talks about the virus well before it’s time...



Yeah, no.  Agree to disagree. If I find a comedian in 1960 saying cigarettes aren't bad for you, its not funny in 1975.

The present rate of species extinction is 100X the figure he cited.


----------



## begreen (Feb 4, 2021)

ABMax24 said:


> At what point should people bear the cost of living where they do? I have zero access to public transit to get to my workplace, should other taxpayers pitch in for my vehicle or gas money because my taxes help to pay for a transit system I can't use?
> 
> We have areas here now where homes are uninsurable for flooding, homes have flooded multiple times and the last time the insurance company says "upon completion of the rebuild the flood portion of your policy will be nullified due to risk". It is then the homeowners choice to take that risk, or get out with the insurance money and buy elsewhere.


A question of the common good. Many folks don't have children but pay school taxes regularly. Those people are also paying taxes for the roads we use. I pay for the hefty cost of highway snow removal and wildfires in eastern WA even though I rarely go there. In turn, their taxes help pay for the ferry system which is an extension of the highway network. In Canada, you are paying for a national healthcare network even if you are hail and hearty. But it's there when you need it. 20 or 30 yrs from now you may move into an urban area as you get too old to manage remote living. Then you may need all of those services.


----------



## peakbagger (Feb 22, 2021)

There is recent study by a organization that predicts flood insurance rates that is raising some eyebrows. They are predicting that national flood insurance rates are going to go up significantly.

First Street Foundation Finds Over 4 Million Homes Face Annual Financial Losses From Flooding That Are 4.5 Times The Cost Of Their Estimated National Flood Insurance Premiums Today And Increase To 7.2 Times over the next 30 years (prnewswire.com)

NPR used that study and did a considerably expanded article on how much of the country  increased risk of floods could impact. 

Climate Driven Flood Damage Threatens Towns Across U.S. : NPR


----------

