[Stoves] FW: ocean acidification - ON THE SIDE

[Paul Olivier]

See my comments below in response to an email from Crispin.


On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:

> No you did not say the oceans are acidic.
>
But at one point in this conversation, you claimed that I did.

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Your cited source upon which your message was based did.
>

None of the sources that I quoted said the oceans were acidic. The central
point they were all making was that the oceans were becoming more less
alkaline and therefore more acidic.


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> The ‘acidification of the oceans caused by human emissions of CO2’ is
> probably, arguably, the most ridiculous cliam even made with regard to the
> global warming biz.
>

No, not at all ridiculous.
If you disagree with someone, please so not use terms like "ridiculous" or
"worthy of ridicule".

****
>
> ** **
>
> It is absolutely intended to mislead the public into thinking that the
> ocean is going to turn acidic and eat the shells off the mollusks and many
> claims of exactly that consequence have been made. Tim Flannery is partial
> to such ridiculous claims.
>

No one here intends to mislead the public.
Again, please watch your language.


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> We have to be responsible enough in our communications to try to filter
> out the hundreds of bogus claims about global warming and potential
> impacts. We cannot just go on repeating any and everything that alarms and
> misleads.
>

Oceans are becoming more acidic, and this is a very serious situation.
Once again I ask you to read:
http://www.sightline.org/research/northwest-ocean-acidification/
http://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/02/OA-primer1.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

The people who wrote these articles are not saying anything that is
ridiculous or misleading.
They should be taken seriously.


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> One guy (this is most far end of the ridiculous scale) is saying
> individual storms can be traced to the emissions of specific big companies
> and they should be sued for extra damages caused by them. Can you believe
> that? It gives one and indication of just how stupid they think the public
> is.
>

There are a lot of people who say a lot of crazy things. But that does not
mean that we should dismiss and ridicule the entire body of science that
sees global warming, climate change and ocean acidification as real
problems.

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> What exactly does your referenced guy mean when he says the oceans have
> become 30% more acidic from CO2? This is technical nonsense – babbling
> number and words hoping it means something.
>
No, this is not nonsense or babble.
Again, why do you use such language to make your point?
Read the links that I have just given you, and this is clearly explained.

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> The pH of the oceans varies from 7.8 to 8.3 (a huge range). It has,
> arguably, moved from an ‘average’ of 8.3 to 8.2. It is very slightly less
> alkaline. The oceans have HUGE buffering capacity and multiple buffers that
> have not even kicked in yet because there is not nearly enough CO2 to feed
> them.  These things have been studied to death.
>

Does the average surface pH of the world's oceans vary from 7.8 to 8.3?
Are you sure about this?

*Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from
approximately 8.25 to
8.14,[4]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#cite_note-jacob05-4>representing
an increase of almost 30% in
H+ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydron_%28chemistry%29> ion concentration
in the world's oceans.[5]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#cite_note-pmid18536730-5>
[6] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#cite_note-scor-int-6>*
*Since the industrial
revolution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution>began,
it is estimated that surface ocean pH has dropped by slightly more
than 0.1 units on the logarithmic
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm>scale of pH, representing an
approximately 29% increase in
H+
, and it is estimated that it will drop by a further 0.3 to 0.5 pH units
(an additional doubling to tripling of today's
post-industrial<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-industrial_society>acid
concentrations) by 2100 as the oceans absorb more anthropogenic
CO
2, the impacts being most severe for coral reefs and the Southern
Ocean<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Ocean>
.[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#cite_note-cald03-1>[9
] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#cite_note-orr05-9>[21]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#cite_note-raven05-21>These
changes are predicted to continue rapidly as the oceans take up more
anthropogenic CO
2 from the atmosphere. *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> What exactly was your intention with the message to the stoves group? Did
> you think that stovers will accept that CO2 emitted by stoves is turning
> into carbonic acid (the obvious intention was they should think it mean all
> of it).
>
The CO2 emitted by fossil fuel stoves puts CO2 into the atmosphere, and
some of this CO2 ends up in the oceans and contributes to acidification. I
never said that all of it ends up in our oceans. Please do not infer things
that I have not said.

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> I do not want to embarrass you by pointing out the facts.
>
What are the facts that you are pointing to?
Do you mean to say that ocean acidification is not a real concern?


> You are doing interesting work and I have, as you well know, supported you
> for a long time, very directly. The stoves list is for stoves, they say. We
> are already getting enough carbon trading related message without trying to
> deal with the climate sciences.
>

How can we go about designing stoves if we do not take into account human
health as well as the health of our entire planet?

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> If I do not reply it is because I am on the road.****
>
> Thanks
> Crispin****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Paul Olivier [mailto:paul.olivier at esrla.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 04, 2013 7:23 PM
> *To:* Crispin P-P
> *Cc:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>
> *Subject:* Re: FW: [Stoves] ocean acidification - ON THE SIDE****
>
> ** **
>
> Crispin,****
>
> I never said that the oceans are acidic.****
>
> Please read carefully what I have written.****
>
> Better yet, read carefully the links I just sent you.****
>
> ** **
>
> Many thanks.****
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:****
>
> The oceans are not acidic. ****
>
> This is a material fact.
>
> No stove can reduce 'acidification of the oceans'. The oceans are
> alkaline. Learn ti deal with it.
>
> Your references show that many people are not investigating even the most
> simple facts related to the unending pseudo-scientific opinions emanating
> from even the Lettered.
>
> Get a pH strip and stick it in the ocean. Is it acidic?
>
> End of short, unbearably obtuse alarmist argument.
>
> Crispin****
>
> From BB9900****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com> ****
>
> *Date: *Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:12:27 +0700****
>
> *To: *Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<crispinpigott at gmail.com>****
>
> *Subject: *Re: FW: [Stoves] ocean acidification - ON THE SIDE****
>
> ** **
>
> Crispin,****
>
> Please do not label everything that you disagree with as rubbish,
> nonsense, or as worthy of ridicule.
> It is hard to conduct a debate when you use such language.
>
> I would like to draw your attention to the following:
> http://www.sightline.org/research/northwest-ocean-acidification/
>
> http://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/02/OA-primer1.pdf
> ****
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification****
>
> http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
> http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F****
>
> I would like to ask the members of this stove list: why do we go about
> designing stoves? Are we only concerned about poor people in developing
> countries who sit around dirty campfires? Or do we want to design stoves
> that at the same time address important issues such as climate change,
> global warming and ocean acidification? ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks.****
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:****
>
> Dear Paul****
>
>  ****
>
> That was the most outrageous set of nonsense on oceans and CO2 I have
> seem. What rubbish. ****
>
>  ****
>
> The oceans are not acidic.****
>
> CO2 absorbed by water turns about 1% into carbonic acid, a fragile
> composition with a short lifespan.****
>
> If the oceans were to absorb many many gigatons of CO2 it would become
> slightly less alkaline.****
>
> It seems that Bittman does not even know the most basic facts about oceans
> and just attributes everything he sees to ‘AGW’. His writings are not
> helping the reputation of science. His view are not informing the
> discussion. His conclusions are worthy of ridicule.****
>
> Fish and mollusk populations rise and fall with the food supply. When the
> PDO changed in 1976 there were also large population shifts. It has shifted
> again. The shift is 100% natural and has nothing to do with human fuel use.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Below is the Alaskan temperature chart showing the impact of the 1976 PDO
> shift – it warmed 1 deg C in a single year. It shifted again in about 2005.
> A few weeks ago, there were about 1000 low temperature records set in
> Alaska in 7 days. That is an effect of the PDO.****
>
>  ****
>
> Regards****
>
> Crispin****
>
>  ****
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2013 6:42 PM
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* [Stoves] ocean acidification****
>
>  ****
>
> T*hat CO2, of course, leads to global warming and climate change, as well
> as what’s called ocean acidification<http://na.oceana.org/en/blog/2010/12/ocean-acidification-the-untold-stories>,
> which might be thought of as oceanic global warming and is a greater
> catastrophe than any spill to date. The oceans absorb about 30 percent of
> the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, creating carbonic acid. Since the
> start of the industrial revolution we’ve added about 500 billion metric
> tons of carbon dioxide to the oceans, which are 30 percent more acidic than
> they were a couple of hundred years ago.*****
>
> *This acidification makes it difficult for calcifying organisms — coral,
> snails and oysters and other mollusks, and more — to build shells and
> skeletons sturdy enough for them to survive. Many of these are on the
> bottom of the food chain and, as they begin to die off (we’ve already seen massive
> oyster declines on the Pacific coast<http://www.commercial-fishing.org/seafood/ocean-acidification-linked-to-pacific-oyster-declines-a641.html>),
> the effects trickle up. Acidification has already wreaked havoc on coral
> reefs, on which about 25 percent of all marine life depends. By the end of
> this century, Safina says, the ocean will begin dissolving coral reefs —
> unless we make a big change in our fossil-fuel use.*****
>
> *
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/whats-worse-than-an-oil-spill/
> *****
>
> *http://oceana.org/en/blog/2010/12/ocean-acidification-the-untold-stories*
> ****
>
> We talk a lot about global warming and climate change, and there are some
> of us who go so far as to deny the role that humans play in making this
> happen. But a significant amount of the CO2 that humans pump into the
> atmosphere ends up in our oceans and is destroying them. The science here
> becomes much harder to deny.****
>
> As Bittman explains, we have to make a big change in our fossil fuel use.
> For many of us on this stove list this means that we should start designing
> and using stoves that replace fossil fuel gas with syngas. Every meal we
> cook, even in Europe and the USA, could be fueled with with syngas. And as
> we cook with syngas, we produce biochar, and the CO2 that is locked away in
> this biochar does not end up in our oceans.****
>
> It is easy to design stoves for poor people in Third World countries. It
> is a much bigger challenge to design them for use each day in our own
> kitchens.****
>
> Thanks.****
>
> Paul Olivier****
>
> --
> 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/ ****
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/ ****
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/ ****
>



-- 
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/20130705/d7a98026/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 31911 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130705/d7a98026/attachment.jpg>