Burning Wood Pellets

James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions

Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions

Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.

According to the IPCC record levels of both CO2 and methane are preventing the ozone layer from becoming further depleted. In my first post / thread "The Complexity of Climate Change" I posted both the quote and the link.


Jim

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: A priest of the Church of Global Warming TOLD you so.

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: A priest of the Church of Global Warming TOLD you so.

An excess 1 trillion+ tons of man-made(man-mad), non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing CO2 in our atmosphere PLUS lots of excess man-made CO2 dissolved in the oceans, & the Church of "badnight" bluffs that it has no effect on Earth bio-sphere.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions

Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.

According to the IPCC record levels of both CO2 and methane are preventing the ozone layer from becoming further depleted. In my first post / thread "The Complexity of Climate Change" I posted both the quote and the link.


Jim

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

And you BELIEVE everything NOAA tells you, don't you? A priest of the Church of Global Warming TOLD you so.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions

Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.

According to the IPCC record levels of both CO2 and methane are preventing the ozone layer from becoming further depleted. In my first post / thread "The Complexity of Climate Change" I posted both the quote and the link.


Jim

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

And you BELIEVE everything NOAA tells you, don't you? A priest of the Church of Global Warming TOLD you so.

Into the night,
I've known for years that we need co2, why I found NOAA quoting the IPCC. It is funny if you think about it. Most people who think co2 is causing climate change can't even read a graph. Why there are so many people being abusive when they post.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions

Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.

According to the IPCC record levels of both CO2 and methane are preventing the ozone layer from becoming further depleted. In my first post / thread "The Complexity of Climate Change" I posted both the quote and the link.


Jim

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions

Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.

According to the IPCC record levels of both CO2 and methane are preventing the ozone layer from becoming further depleted. In my first post / thread "The Complexity of Climate Change" I posted both the quote and the link.


Jim

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions

Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.

According to the IPCC record levels of both CO2 and methane are preventing the ozone layer from becoming further depleted. In my first post / thread "The Complexity of Climate Change" I posted both the quote and the link.


Jim

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

And you BELIEVE everything NOAA tells you, don't you? A priest of the Church of Global Warming TOLD you so.

Into the night,
I've known for years that we need co2, why I found NOAA quoting the IPCC. It is funny if you think about it. Most people who think co2 is causing climate change can't even read a graph. Why there are so many people being abusive when they post.

The abusiveness is religion inspired. The entire argument of Global Warming and greenhouse effect are circular arguments (in the case of greenhouse effect, it is actually an argument of the Stone).

Circular arguments use no predicate other than themselves to stand. The other name for a circular argument is 'faith'.

ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument. At least with Christianity, they admit their position is based on faith (at least most of them do). The trouble with the Church of Global Warming is that, like many other religions, anything other than it's own is considered to be the position of an agent of evil.

The Church of Global Warming is made up of those that are trying to 'save' the planet from you. Only they are the 'enlightened' ones that try to bring the message of their God to the world.

The Church of Global Warming worships the Great God Consensus and the Great Goddess Gaia. It uses carbon dioxide as the Holy Gas that reveals Man's sins. It has no problem with redefining words and rewriting history to meet it's goals. It routinely denies science, math, logic, or anything else that might threaten that religion.

It is part of that larger and more encompassing religion, the Church of Karl Marx. It seeks the same basic goals of using government to run your life instead of letting you run your life. It seeks to label any type of capitalism evil, and any kind of socialism as 'enlightened' even as they try to deny the history and misery of socialism.

Fortunately, people in the United States finally woke up. They are beginning to reject both Churches.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions

Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.

According to the IPCC record levels of both CO2 and methane are preventing the ozone layer from becoming further depleted. In my first post / thread "The Complexity of Climate Change" I posted both the quote and the link.


Jim

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

And you BELIEVE everything NOAA tells you, don't you? A priest of the Church of Global Warming TOLD you so.

Into the night,
I've known for years that we need co2, why I found NOAA quoting the IPCC. It is funny if you think about it. Most people who think co2 is causing climate change can't even read a graph. Why there are so many people being abusive when they post.

The abusiveness is religion inspired. The entire argument of Global Warming and greenhouse effect are circular arguments (in the case of greenhouse effect, it is actually an argument of the Stone).

Circular arguments use no predicate other than themselves to stand. The other name for a circular argument is 'faith'.

ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument. At least with Christianity, they admit their position is based on faith (at least most of them do). The trouble with the Church of Global Warming is that, like many other religions, anything other than it's own is considered to be the position of an agent of evil.

The Church of Global Warming is made up of those that are trying to 'save' the planet from you. Only they are the 'enlightened' ones that try to bring the message of their God to the world.

The Church of Global Warming worships the Great God Consensus and the Great Goddess Gaia. It uses carbon dioxide as the Holy Gas that reveals Man's sins. It has no problem with redefining words and rewriting history to meet it's goals. It routinely denies science, math, logic, or anything else that might threaten that religion.

It is part of that larger and more encompassing religion, the Church of Karl Marx. It seeks the same basic goals of using government to run your life instead of letting you run your life. It seeks to label any type of capitalism evil, and any kind of socialism as 'enlightened' even as they try to deny the history and misery of socialism.

Fortunately, people in the United States finally woke up. They are beginning to reject both Churches.

And as an even more mentally deranged part of their religion they are allowed to break all their own rules while others are not.

Wake wrote:
Al Gore flies around the country giving $100,000 speeches about how fossil fuel is evil, then boards his private jet and flies home to his 24 room mansion with full air conditioning.

Wake wrote:
Each of the "enlightened" buys a new car whenever they can afford one and puts in 35,000 miles a year in it with the heater or air conditioner full on.

Wake wrote:
They will deny all of the science and history that contradicts their religion and then call you a "denier" for pointing out discrepancies in their logic.

Wake wrote:
When they aren't saying "denier" they claim you are in the employ of the "fossil fuel industry" when these companies are all publicly owned and all of their goings on are a matter of public record.

Wake wrote:
So not only is this a religion but it is also a mental derangement.

...deleted numerous links to climate denier persecutions...

Wake wrote:
Look at our fellow posters here who are more than ready to deny ANY science. To misrepresent themselves and their supposed abilities and educations in order to support the Church of Global Warming as True Believers.

Wake wrote:
Ask yourself - how did this happen? How could free speech and science be completely forbidden even in the seat of the free speech movement?

Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
The heater in a car is essentially free use. The excess heat by the engine is going to have to be discharged either through the radiator or through the cabin. If you want heat in the cabin, feel free. It doesn't cost you gas mileage at all. Air conditioning, on the other hand (including when the defroster often uses the AC pump) is NOT free. It reduces mileage. Many of these idiots live in warmer climates, and so have the AC running much of the time.
[quote]

Many new cars' A/C contains the heater these day so that two separate systems aren't lugged around. So they do absorb energy.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
The heater in a car is essentially free use. The excess heat by the engine is going to have to be discharged either through the radiator or through the cabin. If you want heat in the cabin, feel free. It doesn't cost you gas mileage at all. Air conditioning, on the other hand (including when the defroster often uses the AC pump) is NOT free. It reduces mileage. Many of these idiots live in warmer climates, and so have the AC running much of the time.
[quote]

Many new cars' A/C contains the heater these day so that two separate systems aren't lugged around. So they do absorb energy.

Heated air is through the heater core. That's just plumbing off the cooling system in your car. It requires no power (other than the fan).

The AC only comes on for the defroster (you can override this on most cars) and when you want cooling. That system must be a separate system and remain so since the cooling medium used is so different between the engine and the AC.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Don't have time to look it up...never heard of this. In the past it's simply heated coolant through a core and fan. The coolant was hot anyway. Are new cars using some kind of electric heat? I don't get how this decreases weight as old systems total weight is about 2 lbs....including a plenum damper.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Don't have time to look it up...never heard of this. In the past it's simply heated coolant through a core and fan. The coolant was hot anyway. Are new cars using some kind of electric heat? I don't get how this decreases weight as old systems total weight is about 2 lbs....including a plenum damper.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
The heater in a car is essentially free use. The excess heat by the engine is going to have to be discharged either through the radiator or through the cabin. If you want heat in the cabin, feel free. It doesn't cost you gas mileage at all. Air conditioning, on the other hand (including when the defroster often uses the AC pump) is NOT free. It reduces mileage. Many of these idiots live in warmer climates, and so have the AC running much of the time.
[quote]

Many new cars' A/C contains the heater these day so that two separate systems aren't lugged around. So they do absorb energy.

Heated air is through the heater core. That's just plumbing off the cooling system in your car. It requires no power (other than the fan).

The AC only comes on for the defroster (you can override this on most cars) and when you want cooling. That system must be a separate system and remain so since the cooling medium used is so different between the engine and the AC.

Didn't you read my posting? Do you think that an A/C only cools? In order to improve gas mileage (mostly in town) you have to reduce the weight of the vehicle. One way is to not have two separate systems for heating and cooling. This not only removes the heater core but all of the plumbing and control mechanisms. New cars are doing this.

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Don't have time to look it up...never heard of this. In the past it's simply heated coolant through a core and fan. The coolant was hot anyway. Are new cars using some kind of electric heat? I don't get how this decreases weight as old systems total weight is about 2 lbs....including a plenum damper.

Here is what Tesla did since they have little waste heat. Since this time other cars are also following this example. It reduces weight and complexity. You do not have the modern problem of the owner not using anti-freeze but putting water in the cooling system which fills the heater radiator with sludge and the car heater failing at the most inappropriate times.

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Don't have time to look it up...never heard of this. In the past it's simply heated coolant through a core and fan. The coolant was hot anyway. Are new cars using some kind of electric heat? I don't get how this decreases weight as old systems total weight is about 2 lbs....including a plenum damper.

He's talking about a heat pump. Still not sure if the savings are significant. With hybrids and electric cars becoming more common increases the need to convert the same technology used at home for a number of years.
A heat pump is basically an air conditioner that can reverse flow.

https://energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-systems

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Don't have time to look it up...never heard of this. In the past it's simply heated coolant through a core and fan. The coolant was hot anyway. Are new cars using some kind of electric heat? I don't get how this decreases weight as old systems total weight is about 2 lbs....including a plenum damper.

He's talking about a heat pump. Still not sure if the savings are significant. With hybrids and electric cars becoming more common increases the need to convert the same technology used at home for a number of years.
A heat pump is basically an air conditioner that can reverse flow.

https://energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-systems