Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] In praise of kerosene
List cc Crispin
Apologies in advance. If you don't want to read about the relationship
between climate denial and stoves, stop reading now.
# You are turning the Bioenergy Lists into a Bully Pulpit to promote your
"Controversial Believer Views". Your apology is meaningless unless you mend
your ways and confine your comments relating to "Believer Issues" to "Believer
Forums."
This is my attempt to analyze why Crispin's email below (today) was written.
# I feel it is rather apparent that Crispin simply wants to focus on topics
relevant to the Stoves List. "Believer Issues" are not relevant to the Stoves
List.
Crispin is in blue; I am in black and preceded by bold [RWL....
This is substantially different from the last exchange I have had like this.
# If you are referring to our "exchange" on teh Biochar-Policy List, I see
many similarities to "the road you are going down."
Points I have observed from our "exhange are:
"Your general approach, when responding to points that conflict with your
present views, seems to be one or more of the following:
* to ignore such points
* to respond with Ad Hominum attacks and insults
* to evade the issue by introducing new topics
* to restate your opinion and present it as a fact to show that you are
correct.
* to quote IPCC sources to support IPCC positions."
This "exchange" is shaping up the same way. I hope you will try to be more
professional in future "exchanges."
I see no other place than "stoves" to offer this rebuttal of material
# Please take your "Believer Discussions" to "Believer Forums." If "Stoves
List Members" have an interest in "Believer Issues" they can decide for
themselves if they want to go there. The Pope, as Head of the Catholic Church,
and the Queen of England, as Head of the Church of England, are respectful of
each other and neither attempts to crash the other's gigs.
which I consider very dangerous for the stove community.
# As requested in our other exchange several times, but which you failed to
do, please show why Stove Development cannot "fly on its own." If you can't
show this, then you are doing the Stoves List a great disservice by introducing
diversionary "Believer Issues" at every opportunity . There is a place for
"Full Fuel Combustion Stoves, where the efficiency of utilization is important
to the Stove Owner. There is also a place for "Char Producing Stoves", when the
production of char is desired by the Stove Owner. It is perverted and dishonest
to attempt to manipulate Stove Testing Protocols through "Believer Concerns",
simply to promote Char Making stoves. Both stove systems should rise or fall on
their own honest merits.
Kevin
# Inserts below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <[email protected]>
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:29:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] In praise of kerosene
Dear Friends
There were a couple of inaccurate statements made in the past few days about
the recording (since the 1950’s) of CO2, its level now and its level over the
period of time during which measurements have been made.
RWL1: Aha! It took awhile, but I found at least one list culprit -
Richard Stanley you better apologize. On Sunday, you said
"....we just past the reported tipping point of 400 ppm co2 apparently."
Such inaccuracy cannot be tolerated on this list, which deals so extensively
with scientific precision. You were off by more than one part in 10 million.
Anyone else who said the word "400" had better fess up, also.
CO2 has been measured for 185 years first using a chemical process (some 10’s
of thousands of measurements made at many locations). The precision ranges
from extremely good (better than 1 part in 1000) to 1 part in 30.
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
This work has been ignored by the IPCC which for some reason claims the level
was constant and less than 300 ppm, ignoring actual measurements.
[RWL2a: There is no evidence that the IPCC has ignored this paper.
Beck's publication in 2007 was a year after the deadline for inclusion in IPCC
AR4. Maybe it will be discussed be in AR5. I hope they discuss and knock it
down The reason is In what I found in the material in italics about this paper
at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/ :
"The list of arguments against such variability in the carbon cycle is too
long even for a post on RC but here are a few of the main ones:
a.. The fluxes necessary to produce such variations are just unbelievably
huge. Modern fossil fuel emissions are about 7.5GT (Giga Tons) Carbon per year
which would correspond to about 3.5ppm increase per year (except that about
half is absorbed by natural sinks in the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere).
Beck’s supposed 150ppm source/sink in a decade corresponds therefore to a CO2
production/absorption about ten times stronger than the entire global
industrial production of 2007 (putting aside for the moment additional
complications since such CO2 levels had to be equilibrated at least partly with
the ocean and the real CO2 source must even be larger).
b.. Such huge biospheric fluxes would leave an enormous 13C signal in the
atmosphere. Nothing remotely like that is observed in tree ring cellulose data.
c.. Beck makes an association of some of the alleged huge CO2 peaks with
volcanic eruptions. The Mauna Loa CO2 record started by Charles Keeling 1955
(http://cdiac.ornl.gov/,
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo145e_thrudc04.pdf ) however
doesn’t show much variability associated with the big eruptions of El Chichon,
Agung or Pinatubo. (Readers should know however that on much longer, geologic,
timescales, CO2 levels are heavily influenced by volcanic and tectonic
activity, but that is not important on the interannual (or even centennial)
timescale).
d.. The paper suggests that the CO2 peak in the 1940 is forced by the first
temperature rise in the 20th century. That would make 150ppm due to a
temperature shift of 0.4°C. What happened then with the next rise from the
1970s to today? The observed about 0.5°C rise corresponded to “only” 70ppm
always assuming that fossil fuel combustion does not leave any remains in the
atmosphere…. ;)
e.. And most importantly, we know from ice core analysis the CO2
concentration from the pre-industrial to modern times. The results of three
different Antarctic cores broadly confirm the picture of an accelerating rise
of CO2 above levels of natural variability over the last 650.000 years
CO2 has been measured in Hawaii since the late 1950’s using a different
method. After a while it was upgraded. It shows a clear annual variation that
coincides with northern hemisphere Spring and the melting of a huge amount of
continental and Arctic ice and snow creating fresh water which absorbs a great
deal of CO2 – about 1125 ppm, drawing down the concentration by about 6 ppm
until the re-freezing starts again.
[RWL3a: Hmm. I understand the "6 ppm" part (maybe 10 at Moana Loa?
Gets near zero in Antarctica) but 1125 ppm? Sounds like a total CO2 number
being used about 50 Million years ago. Can this number be explained by
someone? Also why is this topic being highlighted on this list?
RWL 3b: Maybe it can be associated with this gem associated also with
Beck:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/curve-manipulation-lesson-2/
The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere rises and falls when the climate
changes (see Figs 1 and 2 at the link immediately above)
RWL4a : This was from an early version of the paper (saying "do not
cite"). It was published later that year (with referees!) I found this
site had good rebuttals of these 2 Beck figures:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=E._G._Beck
RWL4b: Among other rebuttals of Beck at this site, an exceptionally
good one (based on many different types of measurements) on why the rise in CO2
is caused by fossil fuels (not what Beck (and apparently Crispin) are claiming)
is this site
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
Correction to the other post: The current CO2 concentration has not risen
above 400 ppm – a correction was issued by NOAA (you heard about the correction
in the media, right?)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/13/premature-400-ppm-fail-a-bration/#more-86162
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-carbon-dioxide-400-20130513,0,7196126.story
From the LA Times article:
“For the previous 800,000 years, CO2 levels never exceeded 300 ppm, and…”
This comment is erroneous and is contradicted by multiple sources. As ice
cores show, the CO2 level lags temperature rises by about 800 years. As it was
significantly (about 2 Deg C) warmer during the Minoan Climate optimum than it
is now, it is highly likely that the CO2 level responded as normal during those
millennia which means it rose. As there exist thousands of CO2 measurements
made during a period long enough to experience significant climate cycles the
idea that the temperature and the CO2 level were constant cannot be supported.
Temperature, most importantly ocean temperature, has a significant though
delayed effect on the CO2 concentration. How much has been contributed by
burning fossil fuels is not clear as studies (based on isotopes) are not in
agreement.
RWL5: Going though this long section - topic by topic:
5a An interesting snide remark about barely not making 400 ppm.
Actually we are very close to the annual peak, so there is a chance NOAA (not
IPCC) will be a year off. Not mentioned is that we are darn close to a full 3
ppm rise in the past year. As a "believer", I have to admit for NOAA's sake
that I am pulling for that last 0.11 ppm. Admission: I was a post-Doc at
NOAA- Boulder. I found it to be a good group.
b. On the contrary, the LA Times article seems perfectly accurate to me.
It seems probable, we didn't see 400 ppm for up to 35 million (not thousand)
years. My source is Figure 5 in
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf
What counter source on 400 offered by Crispin? It is not in any cite on this
page. Crispin is apparently arguing here that 400 ppm is common (certainly
that is in the Beck material - but that has been discredited above). The ice
core data, which I can find only going back 800 k years always is always below
300 ppm (not 400 ppm)
c. The whole lead-lag argument is denier bogus. This is a denial by denier
Crispin that we have anything to worry about. There is a huge data base on ths
issue and its relevance to the year 2013. This argument about what leads what
is straight out of WUWT.
d. Re the "Minoan" temperatures, see temperature plots for the holocene (
the Minoan period is about half way back) at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Maybe(?) the Mediterranean was a bit hotter (probably not 2 degrees) , but
all the global data shows only tiny wiggles back for almost 10,000 years. The
attempt here is apparently to say 2 degrees is fine - lets look forward to it.
A denier argument - and dangerous. And out of place on a stoves list unless
you are trying to kill something being discussed
e The "thousands of measurements" sentence is harking back to the
discredited (above) arguments of Herr Beck - with my reminding you that Beck
himself was a climate denier. See above.
f. Re isotopes: See above very strong rebuttal of the "not-fossil"
argument by Engelbeen (based in part on isotopes). I ask Crispin for the
source/cite of his denial on fossil fuel causation.
Ocean heat content, the main determinant of atmospheric temperatures, is a
relatively new field of study and has been brilliantly captured by Bob Tisdale
in his book on the subject. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/14/multidecadal-variations-and-sea-surface-temperature-reconstructions/#more-86210
for his most recent study (aimed at non-experts so it is quite appropriate).
[RWL6a: see:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/modeled-and-observed-ohc-is-there-a-discrepancy.html
6b. Is Tisdale a denier? I think his endorsement by WUWT probably
merits that title, but I have just learned of this regular blogger at WUWT. I
have skimmed through his very recent material (and the comments) which seems to
revolve around placement of the origin of relatively small differences in T vs
t plots. But I again ask why Crispin has brought it to our attention on this
list? It would seem to support the reason why temperatures have appeared to be
leveling off.
6c. In further reading, I now believe this is all about the proper
numerical value for climate sensitivity. Deniers want the number to be small.
The range is somewhere between 1 and 8 (degrees C rise for a doubling of
CO2). This is maybe the biggest problem for making predictions of the future.
The IPCC says between 2 and 4.5. Jim Hansen is still at 3, I believe.
I, who know very little on this topic, think Hansen is being intentionally
(maybe dangerously) conservative. (I really admired an extensive analysis
(By a Brit I will have trouble finding) proving 8 - all because of positive
feed-backs like arctic methane (not in IPCC modeling).
6d. Arguments about ocean temperatures are at the heart of this
sensitivity dialog/argument. Which has no place on a list about stoves unless
you want to downplay a type of stove that can be part of reversing ocean
warming. Talking about unknowns on ocean energy content and time changes does
explain why a stove-oriented denier might like to bring it up. Anyone have a
better explanation for this whole message? Ron]
Regards
Crispin
_______________________________________________
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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
_______________________________________________
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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
