iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

CO2 and climate change-Really ?¿

Started by jim king, February 25, 2007, 02:37:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jim king

I just ran across this web page while researching carbon sequestation and was taken back a bit as to how history which we can be surer of than the future differs so drasticly from what we are being told everyday about climate change and logging.  It seems to verify my long held suspicions that we are really as insignificant to the world as I have always thought.  It is quite a long read but very interesting.  Here is just a teaser.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.



If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!


DanG

Jim, I too have my doubts about how much effect man's activities are having on our climates.  But the bottom line is, we just don't know.  Even the most accomplished scientists don't really know how delicate the balance is.  Could it be that the 3% we are causing is enough to knock things out of kilter?  Maybe so, maybe no.  This "global warming" issue is not a new one.  There was a concern about it as much as 30 or more years ago.  Back then, the concensus was that the stripping and burning of the South American Rain Forests was causing the change that they noticed.  They still don't know how much impact that action had, but it seems to have been significant.  The Rain Forests were considered to be a major source of the Earth's breathable oxygen, and not only was that resource lost, but trillions of tons of formerly retained carbon was released into the atmosphere by the burning.  That action alone could possibly have been enough to trigger a slight, self-feeding change in oceanic temperatures that we are beginning to feel the effects of. 

It may well be too late for us to avoid more damage, assuming there was damage in the first place, but we would be foolish to not try.  Besides, though the warming trend will not have significant impact in our lifetime, the same efforts that fight global warming also makes for a cleaner and healthier environment, in the short term.  I don't think that logging is a major player in the percieved problem, as most of the carbon is being retained as lumber and other forest products.
"I don't feel like an old man.  I feel like a young man who has something wrong with him."  Dick Cavett
"Beat not thy sword into a plowshare, rather beat the sword of thine enemy into a plowshare."

sharp edge

DanG
Great reply again, Thank you. 40 million barrels a day might be doing something to the little blue marble.
SE
The stroke of a pen is mighter than the stroke of a sword, but we like pictures.
91' escort powered A-14 belsaw, JD 350-c cat with jamer and dray, 12" powermatic planer

jim king

I agree , the US being the worst polluter in the world really has to step up to the plate and make an example of how to be ecologicly better.  The global warming and ice ages as stated in the mentioned article have been coming and going for millions of years but for health purposes a good clean up would be benificial.

This is another informative site.

http://www.omsolar.net/en/omsolar1/co2_emissions.html

Texas Ranger

Worse polluter in the world?  You may want to look at India, or just the fires burning from India to east Asia.  You have been listening to Al Gore, right?
The Ranger, home of Texas Forestry

thurlow

TR..........I wanted to reply to the above post, but I get into enough trouble without discussing the controversial issues.  Glad you did............
Here's to us and those like us; DanG few of us left!

jim king

You guys get to serious up there.  I was so proud of Al getting his award last night for warning us that the world is going to overheat.  It was to bad that the global warming took all those power lines down and froze up your TV´s so many of you couldnt see it.

Now I am waiting for someone to tell George because I think he has missed everything so far.  Glad to here someone say that all the smoke comes from Malaysia to take the heat off us here in the Amazon.

Have a cold one.

Texas Ranger

Just read an article (and I have no idea where it is, but will look for it) that commented that back in the '60's and '70's you guys down south were responsible for global warming because of the rainforest being cleared and burned.  No one can tell that man alone is resonsible (other than Al Gore, who says man is "totally responsible".  This from the man that "invented the internet") for global warming, and most ignore that knawing fact that we are moving into the middle of an interglaciation.  I.E., the earth has been warming for some 15 to 30,000 years, depending on who you listen too, on any one particular day.

If nothing else, global warming has created an immense pool of funding for any and all so called scientists that want to prove their theory.
The Ranger, home of Texas Forestry

PineNut

That "global warming" is a major problem is a fact. Just ask Al Gore. He is working as hard as he can to MAKE it a problem. Just wait and see what comes down from the misinformed politicians. And unfortunately Al Gore is not the only problem.

Also don't forge that scientist who don't agree with the global warming misfits are subject to find themselves without a job or funding.


mike smith

According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory, Co2 levels in the atmosphere were relatively stable at 228 ppm up until the mid eighteen hundreds and are currently 367 ppm, and the rate of increase has gone from less than one percent a year to about 2.5% a year in the last few years.

mike s.


scsmith42

A really great book to read on this topic is "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton.  It really helps to explain more dimensions regarding global warming than you will learn from the mainstream media.

Although the book is a novel, the scientific data and voluminous references presented by Dr. Crichton are factual.
Peterson 10" WPF with 65' of track
Smith - Gallagher dedicated slabber
Tom's 3638D Baker band mill
and a mix of log handling heavy equipment.

Gary_C

One of the sad things about this debate is the discrediting of all our scientific community by the environmentalists use of staff scientists to make unsubstantiated claims that most times are later proven to be not true. We now have the term "junk science" which threatens the entire scientific community and leaves the public not knowing who to believe.

There have been attempts to require all scientific facts to be "peer reviewed" but that has failed for the most part. The peer review process can be absolutely brutal on any scientist that does not have all the i's dotted and t's crossed, yet these non-reviewed findings many times have been the deciding facts in many important court cases.

The result of this is that even a well read and informed public does not know what nor who to believe. If we cannot trust our scientists, who can we trust? Certainly not our government and most clearly not Al Gore.
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Ron Wenrich

But the beauty of junk science is that you can take whatever position you want and you can support whatever position you want.  Or the interpretation of the science or statistics by politicos will have a skewed meaning.

Example:  Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and the ilk like to note that there are more trees now than when the pilgrims landed.  They use that fact to support their notion that clearcutting does no harm and we should do more.  It also discredits any environmentalists.

The opposing view can't dismiss the statement, since it is true.  But, it sounds like there is more forested area than when the pilgrims landed, and that is not true.

As pros, we know that the conclusion for clearcutting can't be supported by the original statement.  We know it has its place and that is can do damage.
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

beenthere

Gary_C
You sure hit that nail squarely on the head.....and Ron mentioned how the statisticians can turn anything into a skewed fact.  My opinion, anyhow.
south central Wisconsin
It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

Greg

Interesting link.

The main point about water vapor vs. CO2 concentrations is kinda overblown in my opinion. There are very good reasons why water vapor is not a underlying driving force in greenhouse effect, like CO2 does, even at much lower levels. Also the figure stated, that 95% of warming effect is due to water vapor, is dubious. Its closer to 70. Don't believe me, google is your friend.

Given the stakes, I think there is more than enough evidence to start changing our behaviors, just maybe not in ways the mainstream media focuses on.

One thing virtually never discussed is how large a factor soils play in the carbon cycle. Even today, the world's often depleted soils contain more carbon than does all vegetation and the atmosphere combined. Over the past two hundred years, mechanized farming and poor soil conservation worldwide has resulted in billions and billions of tons of carbon released into the atmosphere. Yet we never hear much about farming practices, only the tailpipe/smokestack part of the equation. Soil science is too boring for CNN I guess.

To some degree, perception is reality, and many of the world's nations and major corporations have concluded that CO2 emissions *are* contributing to warming and that the status quo is simply not acceptable. Whether or not that is 100% undisputable or not is pretty irrelevant to me. The global warming problem could be an absolute boon to our economy and natural resource industries if we embrace it instead of burying our heads in the sand, insisting there is nothing that can be done, or wishing some grand conspiracy was afoot. Once more if some distant corporation wants to pay me for storing CO2 in my trees I am growing anyways (via carbon credits) then hey I'm the first in line.

Greg

jim king

I feel that without question there is a lot of "junk science" a lot of "ideal motivated " science
and a whole lot of science that is done with the best of intentions.  The biggest problem being is that while the earth is billions of years old and appears to have gone these cooling and warming cycles many times we as the current custodians of the planet are very new to the scene and simply dont know much.   I think a lot of the junk science is nothing more than science which has been discovered to be wrong by better methods and capabilities and not intended to be misleading.  

I know that in my little world of tree identification we are in an international mess and I am sure this applies to all types of science.   Many years ago the world was quite confident in the scientific names of trees.  Then came the internet and destroyed all confidence.  It became apparant that with the huge exchange of information on the net that many trees had been "dicovered" many times by many people in many places whos work was not available to others who kept discovering the same trees and putting on more scientific names .  This is where we stand today where one tree can have 20 or 30 scientific names and we got there because everyone meant well and not do to bad intent.  

Looks to me like we are going thru this in every phase of science and discovery and the sad part is that there are always vultures ready and circeling waiting to take advantage of the spoils.

Cedarman

Last weeks "Farm World" weekly magazine had a front page article about using woody material as a carbon source and hydrogen produced by electrolysis of H2O using wind, solar and hydroelectic sources to make liquid fuels.  They state it would make possible the dawning of a "hydrogen-carbon economy".  This is detailed in a research paper appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

This research is being done by Purdue chemical engineers. They believe this process could produce all the fuels needed for our entire transportation sector.  If this is true, then we are  in for a fantastic change in world economy.  The middle east will become irrelevant.  We will not be adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere.

Purdue is one of the top engineering schools in the US. Being a graduate, I am unbiased. :D :D  This could affect our business directly using cleared cedar.  The central and west central US is being overrun with woody vegetation since fires have been suppressed.

I am surprized this has not made headline news.
I am in the pink when sawing cedar.

crtreedude

Cedarman,

This is the kind of stuff I like to read - instead of the debate of our current CO2 situation, I would much more prefer to talk about whether we need to start thinking differently about our approach to living on this planet of ours.

In the past there were always available resources just for the harvesting. There were frontiers where as long as you were willing to chance being eaten by a bear, you could carve out space. This really isn't the case anymore except in isolated locations.

We are really feeling this in Costa Rica - 40 years ago most of the country was forest - go out and cut down a forest (they often burned it.  :o ) and you had a farm. Now we are down to only 27% or less of forest which is effecting the water supply. Believe or not, we actually have to ration water at times - IN THE RAINFOREST!

My point is this - we can't take anymore from the earth without putting back. We can no longer think of the world as an unlimited bank of resources. With more than 6 billion people all dipping in, the bank is running low.

I am much less upset about C02 and global warming than I am over the idea of burning a resource like oil just to power machinery. Oil is used for a lot more stuff than just moving vehicles - it is a shame to just burn it.

Sort of like how I would feel to see a wonderful slab of curly wood chopped up to throw on a fire.  :o

So, what do you think?
So, how did I end up here anyway?

Greg

Quote from: Cedarman on March 30, 2007, 06:30:09 AM
Last weeks "Farm World" weekly magazine had a front page article about using woody material as a carbon source and hydrogen produced by electrolysis of H2O using wind, solar and hydroelectic sources to make liquid fuels.  They state it would make possible the dawning of a "hydrogen-carbon economy".  This is detailed in a research paper appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

This research is being done by Purdue chemical engineers. They believe this process could produce all the fuels needed for our entire transportation sector.  If this is true, then we are  in for a fantastic change in world economy.  The middle east will become irrelevant.  We will not be adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere.

Purdue is one of the top engineering schools in the US. Being a graduate, I am unbiased. :D :D  This could affect our business directly using cleared cedar.  The central and west central US is being overrun with woody vegetation since fires have been suppressed.

I am surprized this has not made headline news.

Cedarman,

I have heard about this as well. The Purdue scientists have named this process H2CAR. Remember that acronym. There are two major unsolved problems with making it commerically feasible at this time, but if those major issues can be solved, this technology could be HUGE. Here's the news release from Purdue.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070314AgrawalBiomass.html

A litte off topic now, but another one to keep an eye on is thermal depolymerization process, or TDP. This process could revolutionize solid waste disposal AND produce healthy amount of liquid fuel. TDP is much further commercially along than H2CAR, with a working plant in Carthage, MO - it uses turkey guts as its feedstock.

Bottom line, getting back to CO2 and climate change, some people in the natural resources processing world are going to get VERY rich trying to solve this problem, and the associated problems of reliance on middle eastern petroleum. H2CAR or TDP may not end up not being "the big one", but there are lots of other potential "second generation" biomass to liquid fuel efforts being pursued..

Its pretty obvious to me, you can either ignore climate change/dig in your heels and argue till your blue in the face as to whether its man made/real or not, or get on board as an entrepeneur and take advantage of a monstrous opportunity.

Sadly for the future US economy, our country has basically taken the first approach. From what I've seen, most of the best and commerically advanced technology and investments in these areas are happening in Europe and elsewhere.

Greg

OneWithWood

Cedarman,
I too found the article on the Purdue research enlightening and hopeful.  My only misgiving is that they were still considering nuclear as a 'clean' fuel.  It won't be clean until the waste problem is solved - but that is another issue.  Other than that I think they are on a good track.
Greg, I could not agree with you more.  :)
One With Wood
LT40HDG25, Woodmizer DH4000 Kiln

Tom

QuoteMy point is this - we can't take anymore from the earth without putting back.
.........the bank is running low.

I think that too.  I spread the thought to a wider subject though.
Education=lots of money and many sharp minds are lost in the economics.
Politics= those trusted to govern learn to pad their own pockets first. It's a world of elders and no fresh blood coming up the ranks.  If we were smart, we would be training another batch of governors, not looking somewhere else for one.
Management=protection of one's job and surviving in an intimidating atmosphere.  Corporate organization ruins free thinking and creativeness. Rather than the muckity mucks controlling everything with a tight fist, the aim should be to train from within.  The best workers and managers come from an organization that trains them to operate the way the company wants the work done and gives them the latitude to experiment.  Organizations are amiss in providing longitude too.  Threats of short careers based on the philosophy that "there is someone out there on the street, better and cheaper, that wants your job", makes trusted and loyal employees withdraw into a shell of self-preservation.  It is a fallacy that one can judge another's needs or happiness by our own.

I think the complaints and loss of our natural resources is moaning about a symptom not a disease.  Education comes from more intimate situations than universities. We, as a people, are remiss in not guiding our youth toward knowing that they can make a difference and giving them the road-map that will show them the way.

Who, when you were growing up, (rhetorical) sat you down and explained the importance of honesty, sex, relationships, politics, money, pecking orders, leadership and caring. I don't mean told you one time.  I mean that they told you over and over until you were tired of hearing it.  That they challenged you with projects that taught the lesson. That they didn't demean you, but rather made you think.

Who is encouraging the youth to run for public office and why?  You don't point them out the door and say "Sell!".  You take them by the hand show other's failures and how they can succeed by doing differently.  You don't tell them that they can be President one day if they want.  You take them to City Hall and show them the papers that they must sign to become a city councilman. You put together the machine that will get them elected Governor.  But, first, you make sure that they understand that they are in it for the people, not themselves. Then you make sure they understand that they must pass the baton.

Complacency is what is ruining this world, regardless of who we try to blame.

I know, I got off track, but it's a sore point.

crtreedude

Actually Tom, I beg to differ with you - are are RIGHT on track!  ;)

We have to have the mindset of not raping and pillaging, but building up things - that includes people. If I may use an example, when we started with Hector and Chris, they had nothing and I do mean nothing. We poured time, money and ideas into them, really mentored them. Now, they have a beautiful home, a very nice vehicle, and a very nice nest egg. And this was after 5 years.

Should I complain? Of course not, we made twice what they did in the same time period (we owned 2/3 of the company).

We need to have a attitude of nurture. If you have land - make it better every year, more fertile, more productive - instead of taking what you can and wondering why you are poorer every year.

I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to make all our workers make more - that is right, how I can give them more because they are more productive. Am I stupid? I don't think so, since I keep building strong, healthy companies - and I sleep very well every night (okay, if I would stop getting new ideas I would sleep well...)

It is a bit strange to me because people thing I am being such a good person - honestly, I think I am just being wise. Take care of people and they take care of you. You do have to weed people out who don't want to produce of course.

Okay - now I think I wandered off topic...  ::)
So, how did I end up here anyway?

Tom

Fred,
Your philanthropy will be measured, not just by your success, but, by the success of those that you pass on to the world and their acknowledgment of you as a mentor.  Will they become complacent or train another?  Our own successes are due to our education. (or luck) The successes of those we train are our real measurements. That they live in a good house is nice.  That they learned how to make the world a better place and teach it to someone else, is the true test.

That we get the credit for the desert is immaterial, it's the pudding that's important.  :)

OneWithWood

I would add that one of the more important things a person can glean from whatever source is the ability to look objectively at a situation, weigh the possibilities, acknowledge the risks and downsides and make an informed decision that is  their own.  Too many prefer to let others make decisions for them and just follow blindly where they are led.  Unfortunately the greater percentage of people fit the latter group.
One With Wood
LT40HDG25, Woodmizer DH4000 Kiln

crtreedude

Absolutely correct Tom, if others repeat the idea - then it is really a success.

Not sure I think I am philanthropic - just a bit better at looking at the big picture.
So, how did I end up here anyway?

Thank You Sponsors!