[Stoves] more on ocean acidification

Fri Aug 9 21:59:20 CDT 2013

Tom,

Please explain a bit more why you raise the question of black carbon? Do
you do so mainly from the point of view of human health? Or do you have
other environmental considerations in mind? As you know, many scientists
maintain that black carbon warms the earth. Are you not going in the
direction of another contentious issue that some might consider to be
unrelated to stove design?

Many parts of China have both coal and biomass. In such areas should we try
to develop more efficient coal stoves? Or should we try to put a lot more
emphasis on biomass stoves? Would it not make sense to develop stoves that
are low in black carbon and at the same time do not create CO2 from
non-renewable sources such as coal? Does the GACC ask such broad questions?
Or does it operate out of sort of philosophical vacuum where issues like
black carbon, global warming and ocean acidification are unrelated to stove
design?

Let us imagine an area in China where there is no biomass at all: no rice
hulls, no rice straw, no agricultural or forestry residue of any kind. And
let us suppose that in this barren landscape there is nothing but coal.
Here I concede that it makes sense to focus attention on developing more
efficient coal stoves.

Many thanks.
Paul

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:

> Black Carbon (BC) is a another compelling and totally related reason for
> developing improved biomass and fossil fuel stoves. A study published
> yesterday estimates that more the 80% of black carbon from China is from
> fossil fuels. A significant portion of that is from coal burning stoves.
> They recommend developing more efficient coal stoves. These tasks are all
> relevant and identified as part of the strategic work plan of the Global
> Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC).****
>
> ** **
>
> Tom****
>
> ** **
>
> Source Forensics of Black Carbon Aerosols from China Bing Chen, August
> Andersson, Meehye Lee, Elena N. Kirillova, Qianfen Xiao, Martin Kruså,
> Meinan Shi, Ke Hu, Zifeng Lu, David G. Streets, Ke Du and Örjan Gustafsson
> Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP****
>
> ****
>
> DOI: 10.1021/es401599r****
>
> Publication Date (Web): August 08, 2013****
>
> Copyright © 2013, American Chemical Society
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401599r****
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 6:42 PM
>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification****
>
> ** **
>
> Dean,****
>
> Are you saying that topics relating to global warming, ocean acidification
> and the benefits of biochar do not influence how we go about designing
> stoves? Should they be biomass stoves or fossil fuel stoves? Do we place
> all on a equal footing as long as they are clean-burning? If we build
> biomass stoves, should these stove be burning or producing biochar? How can
> we design a stoves in a theoretical vacuum?****
>
> Thanks.****
>
> Paul Olivier****
>
> ** **
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com> wrote:*
> ***
>
> Dear All,****
>
> ** **
>
> I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that we
> return to the topic of stoves. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> ** **
>
> Dean****
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:****
>
> Dear Ron****
>
>  ****
>
> I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
> straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message. ****
>
>  ****
>
> The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the
> ‘Skeptical Science’ playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of AGW.
> It was a document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to
> the compliant as a way to communicate – a style, if you will – of how to
> handle people who were ‘off message’. ****
>
>  ****
>
> There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA
> which I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific
> instructions for example to always mention ‘climate disruption’ as it is
> harder to dispute and refute than ‘global warming’ now that there isn’t
> any. It suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who
> are presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side of
> AGW (can’t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human
> role in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date,
> undetectable. The instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as
> ‘denying’ *all* human influence on the planet then offers various
> pejorative comparisons that can be made so as to cause consternation for
> the skeptic or those listening to them.****
>
>  ****
>
> The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing the
> credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the skeptical
> correspondent as ‘alone’ in their understanding, always insert some mention
> of how settled things are with the ‘majority’ of ‘reputable’ scientists and
> so on and on. We have seen it all before.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
> address the fact that there is no such thing as ‘acidifying the ocean’ when
> the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation so
> it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ‘wears army boots’.
> Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have noticed
> by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.****
>
>  ****
>
> As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
> bailing out. ****
>
>  ****
>
> As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself): ****
>
>  ****
>
> “…hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed down
> the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in Europe was
> highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists and
> grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class ticket
> on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> about human influences on the climate.****
>
>  ****
>
> “A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated well
> by future historians.****
>
> Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> purchased. ****
>
>  ****
>
> “Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
> together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that currently
> disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the science
> funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous scientists
> that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten level
> research.”****
>
>  ****
>
> Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the past 6
> years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now. I am
> calling for the *peer review*, the *independent assessment* of stove test
> protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can be
> believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and not
> without consequence. ****
>
>  ****
>
> For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no errors in
> it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The April
> 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that the 2010
> version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.****
>
>  ****
>
> WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy and
> conceptual relevance.****
>
>  ****
>
> Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect of
> climate science information has been brought forward in articles that ‘were
> not peer reviewed’ even if they were true. How about giving up on trying to
> humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere – who knows) and
> put your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the
> Universities of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit
> their protocols to competent authorities for independent review?  Actually
> the WB has its project protocols reviewed…well, they should continue to do
> so.****
>
>  ****
>
> The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and money
> trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things overnight,
> but by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a major
> contribution to the field of domestic energy can be attained.****
>
>  ****
>
> It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the Arctic<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293>or photos of stack emissions are
> faked<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI>or SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law
> parody<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>or even if US winter temperatures continue to
> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>. *
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> I don’t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ‘it causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>’.
> I don’t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
>
>  ****
>
> Let’s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> planet of stoves. I know you’ll want to help. We all do.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks
> Crispin****
>
>  ****
>
> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ‘letters
> after your name’ signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
> ****
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/ ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>

-- 
Paul A. Olivier PhD
26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
Dalat
Vietnam

Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
Skype address: Xpolivier
http://www.esrla.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130810/cc7e1de1/attachment.html>