<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"><style>p { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000">List cc Crispin<br><br> Apologies in advance. If you don't want to read about the relationship between climate denial and stoves, stop reading now. This is my attempt to analyze why Crispin's email below (today) was written. Crispin is in blue; I am in black and preceded by<b> bold [RWL....</b><br>This is substantially different from the last exchange I have had like this. I see no other place than "stoves" to offer this rebuttal of material which I consider very dangerous for the stove community.<br><br> Inserts below.<br><br><hr id="zwchr"><b>From: </b>"Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott@gmail.com><br><b>To: </b>"Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:29:52 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] In praise of kerosene<br><br><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--><div class="WordSection1"><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear Friends</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <b>RWL1: Aha! It took awhile, but I found at least one list culprit - Richard Stanley you better apologize. On Sunday, you said<br></b></p><pre><b><i> "....we just past the reported tipping point of 400 ppm co2 apparently."<br></i><br> Such inaccuracy cannot be tolerated on this list, which deals so extensively with scientific precision. <br> You were off by more than one part in 10 million. Anyone else who said the word "400" had better fess up, also.</b><i><br></i></pre><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a href="http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf</a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.</span></p><br><div align="left"> <b>[RWL2a</b>: 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 <u>will</u> 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:<br></div><b> </b>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/ :<br><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"></span></p><p><br></p><p><i>"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:</i></p><i>
</i><ul><li><i>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 CO<sub>2</sub>
production/absorption about ten times stronger than the entire global
industrial production of 2007 (putting aside for the moment additional
complications since such CO<sub>2</sub> levels had to be equilibrated at least partly with the ocean and the real CO<sub>2</sub> source must even be larger). </i></li><li><i>Such huge biospheric fluxes would leave an enormous <sup>13</sup>C signal in the atmosphere. Nothing remotely like that is observed in tree ring cellulose data.</i></li><li><i>Beck makes an association of some of the alleged huge CO<sub>2</sub> peaks with volcanic eruptions. The Mauna Loa CO<sub>2</sub>
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, CO<sub>2</sub> levels are heavily
influenced by volcanic and tectonic activity, but that is not important
on the interannual (or even centennial) timescale). </i></li><li><i>The paper suggests that the CO<sub>2</sub> 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…. ;) </i></li><li><i>And most importantly, we know from ice core analysis the CO<sub>2</sub>
concentration from the pre-industrial to modern times. The results of
three different Antarctic cores broadly confirm the picture of an
accelerating rise of CO<sub>2</sub> above levels of natural variability over the <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/" target="_blank">last 650.000 years</a></i></li></ul> <br><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <font color="#330033"><b>[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?</b><br><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"></span></font></p><font color="#330033"><br><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"></span></font><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#330033"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#330033"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"> <b> RWL 3b: </b></span><b>Maybe it can be associated with this gem associated also with Beck:</b></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#330033"><b> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/curve-manipulation-lesson-2/</b></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere rises and falls when the climate changes (see Figs 1 and 2 at the link immediately above)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> <br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#330033"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"><b> RWL4a : This was from an early version of the paper (saying "do not cite"). It was published later that year (with referees!)</b></span></font> <b> I found this site had good rebuttals of these 2 Beck figures:<br></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b> http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=E._G._Beck <br></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><br></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b> 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 <u>is</u> caused by fossil fuels (not what Beck (and apparently Crispin) are claiming) is this site</b><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <font color="#330033"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"><b> http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html</b></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><b></b></span></p><br><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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?)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/13/premature-400-ppm-fail-a-bration/#more-86162" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/13/premature-400-ppm-fail-a-bration/#more-86162</a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-carbon-dioxide-400-20130513,0,7196126.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-carbon-dioxide-400-20130513,0,7196126.story</a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">From the LA Times article:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black">“For the previous 800,000 years, CO<sub>2 </sub>levels never exceeded 300 ppm, and…”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></span></font></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">RWL5: Going though this long section - topic by topic:</span></font></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></span></font></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> 5a <span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";">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 <u>year</u> 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.<br></span></span></font></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"><br></span></span></font></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";">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<br></span></span></font></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"></span></span></font></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf</span></span></font></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"> <br></span></span></font></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";">
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)<br></span></span></font></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"></span></span></font></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";">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.<br></span></span></font></b></p><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></span></font></b><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">d. <span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";">Re the "Minoan" temperatures, see temperature plots for the holocene ( the Minoan period is about half way back) at</span></span></font></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum</span></span></font></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"> Maybe(?) the Mediterranean was a bit hotter (probably not 2 degrees) , but all the <u>global</u>
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<br></span></span></font></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></span></font></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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.<br><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"></span></span></font></b></p><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"></span></span></font></b><b><font color="#330033"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";">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.</span></span></font></b><br><span style="background-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font color="#330033"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"><br><br></span></font></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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 <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/14/multidecadal-variations-and-sea-surface-temperature-reconstructions/#more-86210" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/14/multidecadal-variations-and-sea-surface-temperature-reconstructions/#more-86210</a> for his most recent study (aimed at non-experts so it is quite appropriate).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#330033"><b> [RWL6a: see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/modeled-and-observed-ohc-is-there-a-discrepancy.html</b></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#330033"><b><br></b></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#330033"><b> 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.</b></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#330033"><b> </b></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#330033"><b> 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). <br></b></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#330033"><b><br></b></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#330033"><b> 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</b></font>]</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regards</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Crispin</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>Stoves mailing list<br><br>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<br><br>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<br><br>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<br><br></div></div></div></body></html>