<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE type=text/css>P {
MARGIN: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23487"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Ron and List</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I asked you a pointed and specific question below, which
you avoided answering. I repeat the question, so please answer it.:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>"# As
requested in our other exchange several times, but which you failed to do,
please show why Stove Development cannot "fly on its own." If you can't show
this, then you are doing the Stoves List a great disservice by introducing
diversionary "Believer Issues" at every opportunity . There is a place for
"Full Fuel Combustion Stoves, where the efficiency of utilization is important
to the Stove Owner. There is also a place for "Char Producing Stoves", when the
production of char is desired by the Stove Owner. It is perverted and dishonest
to attempt to manipulate Stove Testing Protocols through "Believer Concerns",
simply to promote Char Making stoves. Both stove systems should rise or fall on
their own honest merits."</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>## I
would like to expand the question as follows: </STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>1:
Assume the "Believer Concerns" are correct: How should Stove Development and
Testing be conducted? </STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>2:
Assume the "Believer Concerns" are irrelevant: How should Stove Development and
Testing be conducted?</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>Thank
you.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>Kevin</STRONG></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=rongretlarson@comcast.net
href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">rongretlarson@comcast.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=kchisholm@ca.inter.net
href="mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net">Kevin Chisholm</A> ; <A
title=crispinpigott@gmail.com href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:59
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Stoves] In praise of
kerosene</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">List:
cc Kevin and Crispin<BR><BR> 1. This needs
only a little reply - nothing from Kevin on the <U>content</U> of my
reply to Crispin - only on my introduction.<BR><BR>
2. Crispin had a medium, selective reply (nothing on any of my
cites, mostly repeats of some of his original), .sent only to me.
I have just asked if his reply could be
shared.<BR><BR> 3. Kevin says below:
<I>"<STRONG># I feel it is rather apparent that Crispin simply wants
to focus on topics relevant to the Stoves List. "Believer Issues" are not
relevant to the Stoves
List.</STRONG></I><BR> I had 6
responses below Crispin's - none of which used the word "stoves", nor had
anything overt (I think hidden, though) to do with stoves. The reason I
wrote is precisely because I found nothing (repeat nothing) on stoves (overt)
in Crispin's message of yesterday. I look forward to hearing the
"<I>rather apparent</I>" that I missed.<BR>
Yes, I admit to responding as a "believer" - but only when I am trying
to show how climate-nonsensical is almost everything I read from
climate-deniers. Talking about a sudden CO2 swing around 1940 up to 450
ppm and back in a decade or so is the most ludicrous one I have seen.
Where does that appear in print except Beck, Crispin, and
WUWT?<BR><BR> 4. Kevin: Below your
sign-off below, after the above in bold and four others, is your usual
phrase: <I>"# Inserts below.".. </I>I
don't find any such # inserts below it,<BR><BR>Ron<BR>
<HR id=zwchr>
<B>From: </B>"Kevin" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net><BR><B>To: </B>"Discussion
of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><BR><B>Sent:
</B>Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:15:22 PM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: [Stoves] In
praise of kerosene<BR><BR>
<STYLE>P {
MARGIN: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Ron</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=rongretlarson@comcast.net href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net"
target=_blank>rongretlarson@comcast.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target=_blank>Discussion of
biomass cooking stoves</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:46
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Stoves] In praise of
kerosene</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<STYLE>p { margin: 0; }</STYLE>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<STYLE>p { margin: 0; }</STYLE>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">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. </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>#
You are turning the Bioenergy Lists into a Bully Pulpit to promote your
"Controversial Believer Views". Your apology is meaningless unless you
mend your ways and confine your comments relating to "Believer Issues" to
"Believer Forums."</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> This
is my attempt to analyze why Crispin's email below (today) was
written.</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG># I
feel it is rather apparent that Crispin simply wants to focus on topics
relevant to the Stoves List. "Believer Issues" are not relevant to the
Stoves List.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
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.</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>#
If you are referring to our "exchange" on teh Biochar-Policy List, I see
many similarities to "the road you are going down."</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>Points I
have observed from our "exhange are:</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><EM>"Your
general approach, <FONT face=Arial>when responding to points that
conflict with your present views, </FONT>seems to be one or more of the
following: </EM>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><EM>* to ignore such points</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><EM>* to respond with Ad Hominum attacks and
insults</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><EM>* to evade the issue by introducing new
topics</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><EM>* to restate your opinion and present it as a fact
to show that you are correct.</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><EM>* to quote IPCC sources to support IPCC
positions."</EM></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <STRONG>This
"exchange" is shaping up the same way. I hope you will try to be more
professional in future "exchanges."</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> I
see no other place than "stoves" to offer this rebuttal of material </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>#
Please take your "Believer Discussions" to "Believer Forums." If "Stoves
List Members" have an interest in "Believer Issues" they can decide for
themselves if they want to go there. The Pope, as Head of the Catholic
Church, and the Queen of England, as Head of the Church of England, are
respectful of each other and neither attempts to crash the other's
gigs.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">which I
consider very dangerous for the stove community.</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>#
As requested in our other exchange several times, but which you failed to
do, please show why Stove Development cannot "fly on its own." If you can't
show this, then you are doing the Stoves List a great disservice by
introducing diversionary "Believer Issues" at every opportunity .
There is a place for "Full Fuel Combustion Stoves, where the efficiency of
utilization is important to the Stove Owner. There is also a place for "Char
Producing Stoves", when the production of char is desired by the Stove
Owner. It is perverted and dishonest to attempt to manipulate Stove Testing
Protocols through "Believer Concerns", simply to promote Char Making stoves.
Both stove systems should rise or fall on their own honest
merits.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><STRONG>Kevin</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">#
Inserts below.<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR id=zwchr>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><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></DIV>
<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 style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
class=WordSection1>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Dear
Friends</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></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><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><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><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><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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN></FONT></P><FONT
color=#330033><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN></FONT>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#330033><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#330033><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> <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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">
<BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#330033><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><B>
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html</B></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><B></B></SPAN></P><BR>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From
the LA Times article:</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Georgia','serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">“For
the previous 800,000 years, CO<SUB>2 </SUB>levels never exceeded 300 ppm,
and…”</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Georgia','serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><BR></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT color=#330033><SPAN
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT color=#330033><SPAN
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">
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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><BR></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT color=#330033><SPAN
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT color=#330033><SPAN
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">
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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">
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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></B></P><B><FONT
color=#330033><SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></B><B><FONT
color=#330033><SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><BR><BR></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Regards</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Crispin</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><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>
<P></P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<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></BLOCKQUOTE><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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>