List, with ccs to Alex and Cecil 1. First thanks to Alex and Cecil for each sending a corrected URL. Cecil might have sent something that I received slightly garbled. The correct URL for the following is http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/2012/lam_est_2012.pdf
2. This topic came up at the last ETHOS meeting as the senior author of the above paper, Dr. Tami Bond, gave the principal Plenary - Tami was especially urging the replacement of kerosene lanterns because they are such a heavy producer of black carbon (BC) - as seen in Fig 2 of the Lam paper Two sets of inserts below ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex English" <[email protected]> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 8:00:49 AM Subject: Re: [Stoves] Stoves Digest, Vol 31, Issue 1 Topic 2 Cecil, In the absence of an official personal response, "Unless otherwise stated, numerical ranges given in square brackets in this report indicate 90% uncertainty intervals (i.e. there is an estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that range). Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric around the best estimate" http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf The pretty global maps, whether they are generated by satellite or model data seldom include error bars or high and low alternates. They are a picture worth a thousand words and we can't tell if any are misspelled. If you would like some more; http://www.pnas.org/content/100/11/6319.full.pdf Alex [RWL1: In addition, here are links to the recent massive Bond paper on BC (with some on kerosene lanterns). Bond is Lam's thesis advisor. http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-01.shtml http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/pdf (careful - this is > 19 MB) More by RWL in the Cecil Cook note below] On 03/03/2013 3:24 AM, Cecil Cook wrote: Dear stove scientists and climatologists, I accessed this article in its pre-publication form at no cost from the following URL < ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/.../lam_est_2012.pd .> [RWL2: see correction above] <blockquote> The article is hard going for me, let's say a bit opaque, as a person who last studied physics in high school. I am once again reminded of the risks of doing 'hard' science where there are so many unknowns and so many assumptions have to be made by researchers to construct a model about the relationship between the black carbon emitted by the wicks of illuminating lamps and something as gigantic as the average temperature balance of the planet. </blockquote> [RWL3: At the ETHOS meeting, Dr. Bond emphasized that they had a terrible time figuring ou t the relationship between BC and cloud formation. Some evidence that some BC causes cooling under some circumstances. What Alex had to say about 90% confidence regions especially appli es here. I only skimmed the Lam paper being discussed here - but don't think that this "cloud" aspect of BC was much discussed there . So here I agree with Cecil about the problems modelers face in including BC effects on clouds - but I think there is general agreement it would be best to minimize BC - especially from lanterns. Most climate/stove scientists like Drs. Smith Bond and are for getting rd of all fossil fuels as soon as possible.] <blockquote> Unlike the cultural and social sciences (I am an anthropologist), where informants can and eventually do talk back and rebuke researchers when they stray too far off course and begin making ridiculous claims about the culturally and socially constructed worlds that particular informants are reputed to inhabit, Black Carbon does not have its own consciousness and voice. Therefore BC cannot censure errant climatologists when they deviate too much from reality when they as researchers - who are honestly trying to understand the role of BC in the climate system - fall victim to their own mad hatter assumptions about a devilish complex planetary climate system. </blockquote> [RWL4: I don't think "mad hatter" is a n accurate descr iption of the state of cloud modeling. ] <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> Unfortunately, the climate system does not have the consciousness, agency and voice in spite of what Kirkpatrick Sale says about Gaia. The climate scientists presume to speaks for Gaia and when they succumbs to the temptation of playing science politics with the world climate system they run the risk of losing their way in the forest of his self created forest of symbolic representations of the how the planet's energy balances are maintained, and how such a 'fragile' system is possibly threatened by the careless actions of humans who create too much BC to light up the night. </blockquote> [RWL5: I have looked up Kirkpatrick Sale - and am not sure of what Cecil is attributing to him. Is he the "his" in the second (very long) sentence? I found nothing about Sale and "self created forests". Why is 'fragile' in quotes? ] <blockquote> We know what a world of trouble Michael Mann, Lord Stern and their colleagues have gotten themselves into by hyper-interpreting their climate data. In the end their assumptions overpowered their common sense and perhaps their honesty and they permitted the politics of science to determine the assumptions they made about man's role in destabilizing and forcing the climate of the planet toward a hotter equilibrium. Hotter than what? Hotter than the climate present we have known for the last hundred years? [RWL6 : Michael Mann (and his hockey stick metaphor) has been fully vindicated except on sites like WUWT . What does "hyper-interpreting" mean? "common sense" "honesty"? "politics of science"? "assumptions" "hundred years"? These are loaded words that I find only used in the denier community. I am very disappointed in this contribution in a discussion on something acknowledged to be as bad for the climate as a kerosene lantern. </blockquote> <blockquote> I see there are 90% uncertainty ranges for all of the figures used in this article. I do not feel very confident with such a big range of variation. How would climatologists like it if I said that if a particular stove using group is exposed to a particular improved or advanced cookstove that 50% of the households in this stove using group will buy that stove within the next 12 months with +/- 90% uncertainty. If there were 1 million household in this group,that statistic indicates that 500 000 households can be expected to buy the better stove on offer with a range of variation around predicted 500 000 households of a low of 50 000 households and and high of 950 000 households. Maybe I have misunderstood what 90% uncertainty bounds mean. Have I? I do not know the usefulness of numbers that vary from 50 000 households and 950 000 households. That is not much of a prediction in my part of the scientific enterprise. What is being measured? Whose uncertainty is at issue here? Is it a measure of the ambiguity of the researcher or the methods used for measuring BC and its forcing effects, or what? </blockquote> [RWL7: Given that Alex has now explained the mean ing of confi dence intervals , I hope that Cecil will now read or re-read the above articles. This topic has nothing to do with anyone predicting usage of a particular stove t ype. It has nothing to d o with the hypotheses of Cecl's last sentence. Some excellent science has been demonstrated by Tami and her student in this paper - given the paucity of experimental data. ] <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> Lastly, I would like a climatologist who is well informed about the role of BC to explain why there is not more BC over South Africa. Is it possible to differentiate the signals of BC from illuminating kerosene from the BC signals emitted from the much greater combustion of kerosene in 'Panda' stoves and space heaters which have round wicks that are about 30 cm in circumference and burn kerosene at a rate of 1 liter a a day for cooking and space heating during the cold months (or up to 30 liters a month at $1.20 a day or $36 a month). The use of these Panda heaters, although outlawed by the SA Bureau of Standards, is still prevalent because the stoves are so cheap (under $10) and they can space heat and cook at the same time. The collection of firewood has become a class indicator so women in most townships do not like being seen carrying head loads of firewood. </blockquote> <blockquote> I would estimate there are 10 to 15 million kerosene stoves in the townships and villages of SA each of which uses a minimum of 30 liters of kerosene a month during the winter and perhaps 15 liters a day during the summer months for cooking. Should not the burning of 30 litres a month x - being conservative let us say - 7 500 000 kerosene burning stoves in South Africa - or 225 000 000 litres a month of kerosene. Would not the burning of 225 million liters of kerosene a month in South Africa produce a significant Black Carbon signal in the atmosphere over our fair country? </blockquote> [RWL8: re upper para 1. One of the reasons is population density. Also the use of diesel trucks and field burning. I think you will find other explanations in the two papers (Dr. Bond's is the more inclusive. It is heavy reading - and makes a good case for AGW. Re both - I am afraid this sounds like a justification for continued use of kerosene stoves and lanterns. Cecil - I hope you will explain why you are expressing all this support for kerosene lanterns and stoves on a list about wood-burning stoves. Is this because you don't believe in AGW? Have you given up on clean s olutions? Ron ] <blockquote> This is not my field so I am ignorant enough not to be embarrassed by my ignorance. In search of answers, Cecil Cook Sundance Farm South Africa On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Dean Still < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> Hi Otto, </blockquote> </blockquote> <snip a lot - some on kerosene, but not on the paper referenced by Cecil>
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/
