<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'><style>p { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000">List, with ccs to Alex and Cecil<br><br> 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 <br> http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/2012/lam_est_2012.pdf<br><br> 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<br><br>Two sets of inserts below<br><br><hr id="zwchr"><b>From: </b>"Alex English" <english@kingston.net><br><b>To: </b>"Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br><b>Sent: </b>Sunday, March 3, 2013 8:00:49 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] Stoves Digest, Vol 31, Issue 1 Topic 2<br><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Cecil,<br>
In the absence of an official personal response,<br>
<br>
"Unless otherwise stated, numerical ranges given in square
brackets in this report indicate 90% uncertainty intervals (i.e.
there is an<br>
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<br>
range). Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric around
the best estimate"<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf</a><br>
<br>
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;<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.pnas.org/content/100/11/6319.full.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.pnas.org/content/100/11/6319.full.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Alex<br>
<br><br><b> [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.</b><br><br> <b> http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-01.shtml<br><br> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/pdf (careful - this is > 19 MB)<br><br> More by RWL in the Cecil Cook note below]<br>
<br></b>
On 03/03/2013 3:24 AM, Cecil Cook wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CA+1hLhazsthA-N28kVgS4uS7VNp+A_xO+GX8NsgZhM6qmf1aiA@mail.gmail.com">Dear stove scientists and climatologists,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I accessed this article in its pre-publication form at no
cost from the following URL </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><<span id="DWT645" style="color:rgb(0,153,51);font-family:arial,sans-serif;line-height:15px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><a href="http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/.../lam_est_2012.pd" target="_blank">ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/.../lam_est_2012.pd</a>.></span></div></blockquote> <b>[RWL2: see correction above]</b><br><blockquote cite="mid:CA+1hLhazsthA-N28kVgS4uS7VNp+A_xO+GX8NsgZhM6qmf1aiA@mail.gmail.com"><div><span style="color:rgb(0,153,51);font-family:arial,sans-serif;line-height:15px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"></span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(0,153,51);font-family:arial,sans-serif;line-height:15px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br>
</span></div>
<div>The article is hard going for me, let's say a bit opaque, as
a person who last studied physics in high school. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="DWT624">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. </div></blockquote> <b>[RWL3: At the ETHOS meeting, Dr. Bond emphasized that they had a terrible time figuring out the relationship between BC and cloud formation. Some evidence that some BC causes cooling under some circumstances. <br> What Alex had to say about 90% confidence regions especially applies here.<br> I only skimmed the Lam paper being discussed here - but don't think that this "cloud" aspect of BC was much discussed there.<br> 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.</b><br> <b>Most climate/stove scientists like Drs. Smith Bond and are for getting rd of all fossil fuels as soon as possible.]<br></b><blockquote cite="mid:CA+1hLhazsthA-N28kVgS4uS7VNp+A_xO+GX8NsgZhM6qmf1aiA@mail.gmail.com"><b>
</b><div><br>
</div>
<div id="DWT625">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. </div></blockquote> <b>[RWL4: I don't think "mad hatter" is an accurate description of the state of cloud modeling. ]</b><br><blockquote cite="mid:CA+1hLhazsthA-N28kVgS4uS7VNp+A_xO+GX8NsgZhM6qmf1aiA@mail.gmail.com"><div></div></blockquote><blockquote cite="mid:CA+1hLhazsthA-N28kVgS4uS7VNp+A_xO+GX8NsgZhM6qmf1aiA@mail.gmail.com"><div></div>
<div>
</div>
<div id="DWT640">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. </div></blockquote><b> [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? </b> ]<br><blockquote cite="mid:CA+1hLhazsthA-N28kVgS4uS7VNp+A_xO+GX8NsgZhM6qmf1aiA@mail.gmail.com"><div></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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? </div>
<div id="DWT641"> <b>[RWL6</b>: 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.<br></div></blockquote><blockquote cite="mid:CA+1hLhazsthA-N28kVgS4uS7VNp+A_xO+GX8NsgZhM6qmf1aiA@mail.gmail.com"><div>
</div>
<div id="DWT642">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? </div></blockquote> <b>[RWL7: Given that Alex has now explained the meaning of confidence 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 type. It has nothing to do 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.</b>]<br><blockquote cite="mid:CA+1hLhazsthA-N28kVgS4uS7VNp+A_xO+GX8NsgZhM6qmf1aiA@mail.gmail.com"><div></div></blockquote><blockquote cite="mid:CA+1hLhazsthA-N28kVgS4uS7VNp+A_xO+GX8NsgZhM6qmf1aiA@mail.gmail.com"><div id="DWT643">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. <br></div></blockquote><blockquote cite="mid:CA+1hLhazsthA-N28kVgS4uS7VNp+A_xO+GX8NsgZhM6qmf1aiA@mail.gmail.com"><div id="DWT644">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? </div></blockquote> <b>[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.
<br> Re both - I am afraid this sounds like a justification for continued use of
kerosene stoves and lanterns. <br> 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. </b><b><b>Is this because you don't believe in
AGW? Have you given up on clean solutions?</b><br><br>Ron]</b><br>
<div><br>
</div><blockquote cite="mid:CA+1hLhazsthA-N28kVgS4uS7VNp+A_xO+GX8NsgZhM6qmf1aiA@mail.gmail.com"><div>This is not my field so I am ignorant enough not to be
embarrassed by my ignorance.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In search of answers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cecil Cook</div>
<div>Sundance Farm</div>
<div>
South Africa</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Dean
Still <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deankstill@gmail.com" target="_blank">deankstill@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi Otto,<br></blockquote></div></div></blockquote> <snip a lot - some on kerosene, but not on the paper referenced by Cecil><br></div></div></body></html>