Play with fire - save the planet.

[wg_bent]

Come on folks, no one has used my sig line. I'm feeling a little hurt. :long:

I'm about 1/2 way through Al's movie, and there are a couple debatable "facts" in there so far that I'd say are suspect, but also some interesting things he presents. Like the shrinking lake. He doesn't present any alternative explanations. I could do with out the "Woah is me for loosing the election... pooooooorrrr little Al"

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Heating with wood is a nice way to "be green", but it's also the cheapest way to heat the home.

Matt

 

[Vic99]

Bumper sticker idea . . .

"Woodstove Heat . . . so easy, even a caveman could do it"

 

[jqgs214]

True Patriot,

You hit on a # of good points in your albido affect post but I think you simplified it just a little to much. Ice and water are unfortunatley not the only players hear. As the earth warms more moisture is evaporated into the atmosphere creating more cloud cover. Clouds like ice have a very low albido relecting most the the heat back out into space, hence its usally colder on a cloudy day, but the models dont handle this well in global warming because clouds also hold heat in at night. To just say that the ice caps melts is gonna cause a runaway is just simplifiying the matter too much. I think we all agree (except griz) the earht as a whole is getting warmer. Why is the biggest unsolved answer, multiple factors are at play, humans overall affect is also questionable

 

[MrGriz]

Woah, I didn't say the earth may not be getting warmer. My point is that we are not responsible for, or able to stop the warming cycle that the earth is in.

I also think it's pretty suspect to quote temperature changes over the past 140 or so years to within a tenth of a degree. Were our measurements as accurate 100+ years ago? Were as detailed records kept 100+ years ago? If so, I am wrong on this point (and many others I'm sure; just ask Mrs. Griz).

 

[Andre B.]

Woah, I didn't say the earth may not be getting warmer. My point is that we are not responsible for, or able to stop the warming cycle that the earth is in.

All we have to do to cool things off is switch back to dirtier burning practices, and/or set off a volcano or two every year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

 

[jpl1nh]

I think a point very few of us dispute is that the earth is getting warmer. We also can, without question, show that warming correlates directly with a dramatic increase in CO2 which in turn corresponds to the use of fossil fuels. Griz, I agree with your point about using common sense and watching to see what happens. That is the basis of scientific method; hypothesis and observation. Our best efforts to predict what happens to our planet when we introduce increasing amounts of greenhouse gases such as CO2 to our atmosphere, predicts there will be a significant increase in temperature. Indeed that is what we happen to be observing. These greenhouse gasses may possibly not be the cause of our global warming because this planetary system is undeniably of a complexity none of us can claim to truly understand. Among other things, ice ages seem inevitably to come and go at relatively regular intervals, valcanoes provide their momentary disruptions to global systems, and as Wyxman points out, some theorize that increasing warmth causes more cloud cover and a corresponding albido effect that may mitigate other factors. We all necessarily must keep an open mind to the possibilities. Our passions for our strongly held beliefs can stop us from living Griz's wise advice about observation. For me though, for thousands of the world's foremost scientists steeped in the importance of common sense and observation, the CO2 - warming correlation is so striking, the observation so strongly matching the hypothesis, they, and I, cannot in good conscience walk away from the idea that this is indeed of our doing. Fossil fuel has revealed it's ugly side, it's hidden cost. Know thine enemy, for then you can defeat them. And that I believe we can do. So for sure you know my opinion. If I'm wrong, great... I don't really care, but I sure do care that we get this right as soon as possible so if necessary we still have a chance to do something. I must admit I do not burn wood only because of it's CO2 benefits. I happen to love the whole process; collecting, cutting, splitting, (not stacking though..) the smell, the excersise, and especially the art of knowing the wood, the weather, and my stove to burn cleanly and efficiently to produce comforatable heat. For me that's really what wood burning is all about. Fortunately for us, in our own small and enjoyable way, wood heat is also a part of the CO2 solution. But due to it's importance and urgency, I urge you all to continue this debate, to observe, to learn all you can. Our world may hang in the balance.

 

[Gooserider]

One of the things that is interesting to point out is that of that "thousands of scientists" the warming people keep pointing at, is the ommitted fact that very few of them are climatologists - IOW they may be scientists, but they don't have more specific expertise on the topic than any other reasonably informed layperson... Both of my GF's parents are Oxford PhD's in physics, both have retired from department head positions at their respective universitys (one was Yale) but they don't claim expertise in climatology.

Another is the fact that the way research gets funded in this day and age makes it very difficult for a researcher to get funding for topics that don't match the prevailing orthodoxy - a researcher that wants to get funding next year had better produce data that the funders want to hear this year... This sometimes leads to studies where the abstract doesn't closely match the actual research in the paper, but it's what's in the abstract that makes the headlines.

This doesn't mean that energy conservation is a bad thing, just that when it is being used as an excuse to implement gov't policies that take away freedoms and restrict choices, I start to wonder if that isn't a driving force behind the research funding... OTOH, you want me to cut back voluntarily, show me a personal BENEFIT! I don't burn wood to "save the planet" - I burn wood because it "saves my wallet!"

Gooserider

 

[TruePatriot]

Mr. Griz:

I spent a decent amount of time responding to this statement of yours:

The inconvenient truth about Al is that global warming is BS.

In fact, I wrote a page about "tipping points" and the "albido effect," i.e., the explanation of the thermal phenomenon whereby ice reflects approx. 90% of the sun's heat, and water absorbs roughly 90% of that heat. (This effect plays a large role in why huge portions of glaciers that have been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years are now melting.) And you failed to even acknowledge that you saw it. I was kind of hoping you'd even comment on what I wrote, like you did in response to what Craig wrote to you.

Know why? Because I find that, oftentimes, when I put up some facts that are "inconveniently" in contradiction of a person's stated position, they somehow seem to get missed. If I didn't know better, I'd think that such a person might just find those facts too "inconvenient," and might be deliberately ignoring them. I'm not saying that's you, because I too am tardy in responding to certain queries--for example, I'm still researching some info for the solar power discussion going elsewhere on these boards. So I'm not saying you deliberately ignored what I wrote.) But I am saying that it's been my experience, all too often, when trying to have a meaningful discussion with, for example, Bush supporters, that they'll just choose to pretend I haven't said something, when I've raised facts they found (inconveniently) at odds with their preferred perception of reality.

I'd also be interested in your response to this particular bit 'o news: (broken link removed to http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070515/sc_livescience/californiasizedareaoficemeltsinantarctica?)

Thanks,

Peter

 

[DavidV]

Junk Science.

 

[MrGriz]

TP,
Take a deep breath and count to ten. I did read your response. Thank you for taking the time to make those points. Unfortunately, this is a great topic for discussion and debate with no clear right answer or "winner". Let me try to explain what I mean by that and what I believe. I'm no expert (by coincidence I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) so these are just my beliefs and observations.

To start, the "science" behind each side of the global warming debate seems incomplete. There is not even agreement among the scientific community as to whether the earth is warming and if so to what degree (maybe to what extent is a better way to word it). There is also much disagreement as to the effects of the global climate change that may or may not be occurring. Each side picks their best talking points and most compelling argument and runs with it.

We've seen it in numerous areas, not just the global warming debate. Remember when real butter was no good for you and margarine was the answer. All of a sudden a natural product was better on your toast than a product that is a molecule away from being plastic. I also seem to remember that years ago there was a hole in the ozone layer that was going to wipe us all out in no time. Let's not forget that second hand smoke can escape your neighbor's basement and give you cancer overnight while you sleep. It's the scare tactic or alarmist crisis of the day.

I see your reference to the albido effect and the fact that this cycle is pushing us toward a tipping point. That does make some sense. What it fails to address is the root cause of the polar ice melting; the what started the ball rolling factor if you will. As wxman pointed out, there are multiple factors at work here. Some are undoubtedly under our control and some are well beyond it. I'm sure there are other factors we still have not identified. That leads us to what percentage each factor plays in the overall effect and to what extent we can control those factors.

Maybe I'm just a simple man, but what I tend to believe is what makes sense to me. Earth's climate has been cycling since the beginning of time (let's not go there). I am sure that at a localized level (how localized I'm not sure) our actions have a controllable effect on things. However, as the scale gets bigger and bigger our effect lessens. I'm just not convinced that we are the major contributor to global climate change or that we have the power to reverse it.

I also believe that we should be responsible with our use of this planet while we are here. After all, we did not inherit this land from our fathers, we are borrowing it from our children (I stole that quote, but I agree). We should look for ways to better conserve and manage our natural resources. There's nothing wrong with recycling, re-using and being responsible. Hell, we would all benefit from just being nicer to one another. We just need to keep things in perspective while we try to accomplish these things.

 

[jqgs214]

Griz


BRAVO!

 

[Todd]

Right on Griz!

 

[PAJerry]

MrGriz - you are a wise and patient man. A voice of reason, even. The only real thing we can do with the 'global warming' that may or may not be happening is learn to live with it. Be kind to the Earth, be kind to each other.

 

[VT-Woodburner]

I am one person that has taken a step back and looked at the global warming debate and has had a few questions that have never been answered.

First what caused the massive global cooling and subsequent warming which resulted in the forming and melting of the glaciers that were a mile thick right where I live here in Vermont? Not just once but three times? Was it Fred Flintstone's SUV? I really don't think so.

The earth has warmed and cooled numerous times in it's history.

What's wrong with global warming? What's wrong with a longer growing season to feed 6 Billion people? Experts are now saying the warmer temperatures are shearing the tops off hurricanes so they will be less destructive, not the other way around as previously thought.

What happened to the "land bridge" that many thought was the path people took from Asia to north America 10,000 years ago. It's still there, but it's underwater, Which means the oceans are higher today than at that time.

But my biggest question is this: How come NASA has discovered that not only is the Earth warming, but so is Mars and now indications are that Jupiter's moons are also warming. How is that America's fault???

The Earth IS warming. Nobody can dispute that. But I don't think it's the calamity that some with an agenda are claiming. And that agenda is to control people and limit freedom. These people want to tell us what kind of car to drive, how to heat our home, and what lifestyle we should live. And some are politicians who live in 28,000 square foot homes and tell US to conserve!

 

[MrGriz]

Those are great points VT-W. It seems to me that if the global climate change debate were less one sided, you would hear those points rebutted from the global warming proponents. Instead, they are not addressed at all in the main stream.

 

[elkimmeg]

VT I'll throw anothe log on for you. Maybe its not the gobal warning issue ,but rather as Mr griz said, we occupy this turf for a limited time.

Its about limited resourses and using them wisely That why MPGS should dictate the car you drive or the car I drive AI also believe it is our responsibility to make as little a foot print in the ecological balance as possible. That's being responsible ans sensitive and respectful But that my way of thinking many other thing it is their god given right to drive Hummers ect and don't give a chit about the foot print. There are too side to this you either give a chit or you don't. At this point I can't make you make the right or best decision ,that has to come from within.

You bet I recycle drive fuel effecient cars heat as much possible with wood setup my home to take advantage of passive solar radiation Insulateed the crap out of it having R 28 side walls

I'm not giving you lip service I walk the talk.m Unlike 28,000 sq ft home pols that will tell me how they conserve Make movies get all the credit and jetset around to be patted on the back

 

[begreen]

I am one person that has taken a step back and looked at the global warming debate and has had a few questions that have never been answered.

What's wrong with global warming? What's wrong with a longer growing season to feed 6 Billion people? Experts are now saying the warmer temperatures are shearing the tops off hurricanes so they will be less destructive, not the other way around as previously thought.

What happened to the "land bridge" that many thought was the path people took from Asia to north America 10,000 years ago. It's still there, but it's underwater, Which means the oceans are higher today than at that time.

But my biggest question is this: How come NASA has discovered that not only is the Earth warming, but so is Mars and now indications are that Jupiter's moons are also warming. How is that America's fault???

The Earth IS warming. Nobody can dispute that. But I don't think it's the calamity that some with an agenda are claiming. And that agenda is to control people and limit freedom. These people want to tell us what kind of car to drive, how to heat our home, and what lifestyle we should live. And some are politicians who live in 28,000 square foot homes and tell US to conserve!

Good questions VTW. I'm not a climatologist, but I'll give a stab at answering from what I know.

The first question is asked often. At issue are negative feedback systems. If we could gently and predictably raise the global temp a degree over a century and keep it there, then perhaps it might be an interesting experiment. But the rate of increase is now too quick for ecosystems to adapt. Most alarming is how quickly systems are reaching the saturation point. The southern oceans which have historically stored carbon dioxide are now at saturation point and starting to release it. That is bad, especially when combined with melting permafrost which is releasing a lot of methane. The big unknown at this point is where the threshold is that upsets the balance and rapidly accelerates the negative side of global warming. The south seas are considered a really important indicator. The increase in acidity of the seas and higher temps are responsible for some rapid declines in life. If we sterilize the seas, there will be a lot of people starving.

The land-bridge between Siberia and Alaska showed up when a large portion of the world's water was bound up as ice, thus lowering seas and exposing the shallows between the two continents.

The how come of NASA, et al "just" discovering is not really true. Scientists started warning about evidence of global warming over 2 decades ago. Other scientists pushed back and said 'prove your hypothesis'. Lots of data collection started as a result. This is expensive and time consuming, especially when one needs to design and then implement satellites to assist data collection. But as more evidence came in, the case kept growing stronger and it continues to. Remember, this is a first time effort. The world has never turned it's collective scientific observations towards the global effects of man. In the south seas example, no one was measuring CO2 concentrations there ten years ago. And unfortunately nations haven't funded this research until they suddenly wonder why something has run amok in their realm. Examples that finally got countries going would be coral reef die offs, massive glacier melts, insect born disease migration, permafrost melting, coastal storm damage, etc.

(broken link removed to http://www.beringia.com/02/02index.html)
(broken link removed to http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/index.html)
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/03/the_fate_of_the_ocean.html

 

[sully442]

"Split wood not Atoms"

 

[milner351]

I'm back in the fight with the smoke complaining neighbors and in search of a wood burning advocate bumper sticker -- did anyone have any of these printed up?

Thanks for the informative global warming debate - there are certainly many smart folks on this board. I tend to agree more with the cyclical theory - there were plenty of books written in the 70's about the threat of global cooling..... that wasn't that long ago - and those scientists were just as convinced about the cooling threat as today's folks are about the warming. Nearly everything in nature has a cycle - why not the climate.

Bottom line is wood is renewable, new stoves are quite clean burning, they reduce our dependency on foreign oil - while at the same time significantly reduce my heating bills, processing the wood is also a great work out in the fresh air -- for all these reasons I will continue to burn wood - regardless of how much my neighbor complains - this is a free country, and I am violating no laws - if she has breathing problems - she needs to put a make up air system in her house - and stop trying to control the actions of her neighbors over which she has no control - legally or otherwise.

 

[gibson]

I beleive that both the climate and the economy are cyclical. Temperatures have been recorded for the last 150 or so years. Not enough of a statistical sample size to be of any relevance to either side of the argument. Manmade global warming is a media creation to propagate fear. Just like the Avian Flu and SARS epidemic. Every time the nightly news leads with the environment, do they not show the same clip of the iceberg falling apart in the arctic circle in July? Fear sells ads on TV and in Newspapers. What I do believe is that we are in many ways a wasteful society. I believe that conservation and efficient use of resources is important. I do not like our reliance on foreign oil. I believe in protecting our rivers, lakes, and oceans for posterity. Having Al Gore as the face of environmentalism has done a great disservice to this cause. He is a fraud. A typical NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) liberal, who wants all of the little people to change their ways, although he has no intention of doing so himself. Do you think he has profited off of global warming? There are many, both liberal and conservative, who feel this way about Gore. My prediction is that global warming will be back on the front pages again when gas prices and the economy stabilize and the media has to dust off the clip of the icebergs to get the "fear factor" back up in the american population.

 

[milner351]

“One good thing about music. When it hits you feel no pain.” - Bob Marley

That's a great quote Gibson - I'd not seen that one before - Marley was spot on with that.

Your reply is full of what could have been my own words - Gore's utility bills are the only proof I needed to know he's a fraud and a horribly two faced politician.

Now - about those pro wood burning bumper stickers - I've searched the 'net and ebay - and come up with nothing like what's been discussed earlier in this thread
- only mundaine versions like "GOT WOOD?"

 

[Adios Pantalones]

Before printing: "A CONVENIANT truth - wood heat is GREEN heat.” ... get the spelling of "convenient" right. Not trying to be nit-picky- just trying to help out and save a little embarassment for you latah.

A good friend recently had a conversation with a knee-jerk greenie that was "enflamed" that he would burn trees. Even after explaining the logic of it to her, she only 'sort of' got it. An education campaign is a good idea- whether you believe in AGW or not- it may help with oil cost, reducing dependence, other pollution,etc. I don't need to explain it to anyone here.

 

[Adios Pantalones]

Any bumper sticker that starts out with "got" is so horribly cliche and crap that I swear when I see them it almost ticks me off. It's not clever. It's not original. It's lazy and will show up as a retro reference to our stupidity in a movie made 15 years from now.

"Got wood" is marginally better because of the double entendre, Gut Deer is almost acceptable.

Thus goeth my proclamation for the day. Go forth and spread the word.

 

[offroadaudio]

The earth has in the past been both much, much hotter and much, much cooler than it is now.
The "hockey stick" graph has been proven to be a complete farce, concocted of tainted data from temperature reading stations
world-wide - AFTER the collapse of the Soviet Union. It therefore does not contain as many as 10 stations that were online prior to the collapse.
These 10 temperature stations were in one of the coldest places on earth. So any comparison to mean temperature readings prior to them going off-line would show an erroneous spike in global temperature. (for anyone interested I can provide several sources for this information)
I love to hear talk about getting the earth back to "normal" temperature. What's that? The Ice Age(s) happened prior to us evil, mean humans being here - that must have been normal then. : )