[Stoves] more on ocean acidification

Fri Aug 9 06:22:14 CDT 2013

Dear Ron Et Al.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ronal W. Larson 
  To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves 
  Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 10:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification

  List:  

     1.   Apologies to Erin, but the conversation re ocean acidification has turned enough into stoves topics I feel a need to enter and also support Paul Olivier (who should have his hand slapped for bringing up the ocean and pH subjects).

  # No comment.

     2.   First about the supposed  outstanding talk by a young unemployed recent chem engineering graduate.

  # There you go again, with a passive-agressive ad hominum attack on the person, rather than what he says! Many of your defensive responses start off in that manner.

    I am pretty sure that his calculation (which I am not going to go through even I were competent to judge in detail) was calculating the average pH change in the ocean. 

  # He lays out his calculation methodology clearly. You, on the other hand, are making a wild guess. His approach is Scientific, while your approach is an undefended, unsupported, wild guess opinion. Science and calculations trump such unsupported opinions.

   The entire ocean community agrees that that change is small. 

  # What change, and what "ocean community" are you referring to?
   1:The change as calculated by Steve Burnett at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/ocean-acidi-what/ ? 
  2: The change claimed by the AGW Community?
  3: Others? 
  Sweeping unspecific statements do not stand up in True Science forums. 

   All the talk of an 0.1 change in pH  (same as 30% change when not in log units) refers to the near surface pH.

  # This is interesting!! It is the "AGW Ocean Community" that is claiming a "...30% change..." and yet you seem to be diminishing their claim by saying ".... the change is small..." when they are are trying to promote the message that "... the change is large..." Note also that the "AGW Ocean Community" seems to be promoting the general message that "... the ENTIRE Ocean water mass..." has experienced a 30% change in acidity. I don't recall in seeing, in the articles referenced by Paul Oliver, any statements that clearly state "... near surface pH..."  

    Calculating an average change is worse than ludicrous. 

  # That is a very strong statement. It deserves support. Are you saying that what happens at depth in the Ocean does not have an influence on what happens at the near surface? Are you saying that the Oceans of the World do not "roll over", mixing "top water with bottom water"? If so, how would you explain "The Ocean Engine Effect" and the changes at depth shown in http://www.pnas.org/content/106/30/12235.full at the same time of the claimed near surface effects?

   His picking on one of the world's most well respected ocean scientist (Lubchenko) displays further ignorance. 

  # Perhaps Dr. Lubchenco deserves to be picked on? In Civil Engineering, we say "You are only as good as your last bridge design.". She may be respected in other areas, but in the presentation, she certainly seems to have stretched points and used unrepresentative examples in her "30 second clip" experiments. Do you think that her experiments are fully reflective of what happens in the ocean?

    Why should anyone be surprised that the average ocean surface pH changes by 30% when the atmospheric level has changed a little bit more?

  # You are ASSUMING that the surface pH changes by 30%, simply because the AGW Ocean Scientists say that it has changed by 30%. You are GUESSING that Burnett's calculation is based on an "ocean average" rather than on "near surface water conditions." You dismiss his calculation of a pH change of .001 units out of hand, by employing opinion, rather than fact, or by disputing his calculations in a true science manner... (A pH change of .001 would be the equivalent of an acidification increase of 0.23%, and not about 30%.) You assume that the "Original Pre-Industrial pH was indeed 8.2. You ignore the difficulty of measuring small changes in pH accurately. 

    (there are huge fluxes each way every day)  

  # "Natural Fluxes" seem to be about 20 times as great as CO2 fluxes from Anthropogenic CO2.

  A great reference on all this is the PNAS paper given today (by mistake?) by Kevin. 

  # That is one of the cleverest back-handed compliments that I have received in a long time. :-)

   Check wiki.  Check a yesterday Skeptical Science article on this at http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Acidification-Eating-Away-at-Life-in-the-Southern-Ocean.html

  # Interesting!! Another questionable experiment. They take a pteropod, remove its "outer protective organic layer" and put it in acidic seawater, and show that the shell will dissolve. If we took a lab Rat, and removed its "outer protective organic layer", the skeleton would likely dissolve when placed in acidic sea water also. Why didn't they do the experiment with the "outer protective organic layer" left intact???

      I see no credentials (claimed or otherwise) for this young guy

  # Another passive-agressive Ad Hominum attack. "Good scientific Form" would be to attack his methodology and calculations, rather than simply demeaning the person. Mere age does not confer competence.

   knowing any biology, 

  # He is disputing the pH issue, and is not dealing with biology. 

  so his comments on reduced calcium carbonate in certain sea creatures should receive zero credence (especially in the Antarctic)  And one wouldn't expect anything like a peer review at WUWT.   I consider WUWT to be the antithesis of sound science.  In my circles, it is considered a joke.

  # It is very understandable that your circles would dismiss WUWT as a joke. The WUWT Site is based on Science, Truth, and Fact, discussed in an open manner. The WUWT site is not a "Consensus Science site."

    3.   About half or more of the list has an interest in char-making stoves.  So I have to ask why Crispin is out there by himself with the first pat of this following quote from him today.  The entire stove community from what I have seen disagrees with Crispin on this:

     It has so happened that in recent years the emergence of char making TLUD stoves has exacerbated the errors in the simple models used for decades and there are serious consequences for the stove section. Stoves that are really IWA tier 1 performers can get a tier 4 rating for something because of defects in the models. "

     My conclusion is this observation would be approved by the vast majority of WUWT followers. 

  # Yours is presently a baseless speculative conclusion. Why not submit it to WUWT, and see what the response actually is? 

   If something related to excess CO2 is proposed (such as char going in the ground), then the idea must be bogus, because climate scientists are liars, cheats, free-loaders etc.

  # You are making a strong sweeping and generalized statement. Can you support it?

    Well fortunately that is not the majority view around the world and stove models and performance ratings are doing perfectly fine, with Crispin fighting all the way. Glad to see Crispin bringing this up and hope we can continue this stove-related discussion.

  # Mere "Consensus by interested parties" is not Science. 

  4 .  The above two sentences were followed by these:
        "It is like that with the climate too. To date there are 73 well known, accessible climate models (GCM’s). Not one of them has predicted the current 200 month stasis in global temperature (indistinguishable from zero change). That means the models are invalidated. The implications are pretty serious.
       There is no reason at all to conclude that the models are in error and "invalidated" - and least of all for the relative flatness (for less than 200 months), given every other AGW indicator.  The oceans have continued to warm (and levels rise).  Arctic ice volume is about the same as last year's record low. Record temperature highs greatly exceeding record lows.    For decades the annual land temperature rise greatly exceeded the ocean temperature rise.  Why be surprised if it slows for awhile, to let the oceans catch up?  

  # Even if there is "... slowing to allow the oceans to catch up..." the models are wrong because they do not show this. They say one thing, but observed reality shows another.

  5.  I applaud Cecil's comments.  I didn't think Crispin defended well.  But not enough stove material there except Cecil's last on precaution.  Thanks Cecil.

  6. . Lastly,  three additions below in the latest Crispin message.  

  # Crispin can comment on the points from his message below.

  Best wishes,

  Kevin

  On Aug 8, 2013, at 12:21 PM, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:

    Dear Kevin

    I thought the young man addressed matters very directly and effectively. There is a comment below from a guy named Bob. Search for “Somewhere in my misspent youth I picked up 3 degrees in chemistry, postdoctoral research and a couple of decades in the chemical industry.”
          [RWL7.    Te the young man - yes he wrote well - but missed the main several points (stated above)    Nothing here on stoves.  I have searched for "Bob" and have no idea what that was about.

    I haven’t found a chemist yet who supports the ‘acid ocean’ theory. But as Steve asks, why are they so silent? The answer is intimidation or they are bored with such a stupid topic.
        [RWL8:  I have not above used the word "denier".  These exemplify denial.   I don't think I could find a published peer reviewed paper that didn't think ocean surface.  pH has been climbing steadily

    A topic that should follow this into the grave of silence is: ‘burying charcoal to help prevent the acidification of the oceans’. We do indeed have a long way to go.
       [RWL9:  I was going to stay out of this "stove" dialog until reading this.  Truly amazing to say this on a stove list where he insults at least half of the list!   And most of them are not about to become deniers if I can help it.   I think/hope Crispin indeed has a "long way to go."      Ron

    Chemically yours,
    Crispin

    Dear Crispin

    Thanks very much for the URL for the excellent article.

    It is amazing what can be deduced using real science. :-)

    It is scary that organizations like the UN, IPCC, and NOAA don't have competent people on staff to vet their "Ocean Acidification" statements. When a recent Chemical Engineering Graduate can point out the folly of "jumping on the Ocean Acidification Bandwagon", it should lead us to raise the question:
    "What else are the UN, NOAA, and the IPCC telling us about AGW that is wrong?"

    Best wishes,

    Kevin
    _______________________________________________
    Stoves mailing list

    to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
    stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org

    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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130809/1ff9ddd9/attachment.html>