<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Ron,<br><br></div>If you want to slap my hand for posting a link from the New York Times on ocean acidification, I probably deserve it. I am sorry if it took a lot of your time to offer such a magnificent rebuttal.<br>
<br></div>Check out this article that appeared about 12 hours ago:<br><a href="http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/08/08/ocean-acidification-center-another-example-of-state-leading-the-nation/">http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/08/08/ocean-acidification-center-another-example-of-state-leading-the-nation/</a><br>
</div>This article appeared on August 6:<br><a href="http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/environment/Unprecedented+ocean+acidification+from/8607447/story.html">http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/environment/Unprecedented+ocean+acidification+from/8607447/story.html</a><br>
</div><div>This one on August 3:<br><a href="http://www.kval.com/news/local/Federal-vessel-sets-sail-to-study-ocean-acidification-oysters-218148151.html">http://www.kval.com/news/local/Federal-vessel-sets-sail-to-study-ocean-acidification-oysters-218148151.html</a><br>
</div><div>This article on July 26:<br><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidferris/2013/07/26/baby-oysters-in-death-race-with-acidifying-oceans/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidferris/2013/07/26/baby-oysters-in-death-race-with-acidifying-oceans/</a><br>
</div>This article appeared on July 25:<br><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ocean-acidification-west-coast-20130725,0,2298023.story">http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ocean-acidification-west-coast-20130725,0,2298023.story</a><br>
</div>This article appeared on July 21:<br><a href="http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20130721-politifact-r.i.-on-the-surface-senator-whitehouse-right-about-ocean-acidification.ece">http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20130721-politifact-r.i.-on-the-surface-senator-whitehouse-right-about-ocean-acidification.ece</a><br>
</div>On July 16:<br><a href="http://www.livescience.com/38219-oceans-acidifying-with-rising-co2.html">http://www.livescience.com/38219-oceans-acidifying-with-rising-co2.html</a><br></div>This article on July 15:<br><div>
<a href="http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/15/south-africas-stance-on-ocean-acidification/">http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/15/south-africas-stance-on-ocean-acidification/</a><br><br></div><div>Ron, I could go on and on. To deny all of the above is truly hard to do. It's as if some of us do not live on the same planet.<br>
<br></div><div>But in my mind it all comes down to this: why do we design stoves the way we do? If global warming and ocean acidification are not real and are not caused by human activity, then why bother with biomass stoves as long as fossil fuels can be extracted from the earth at a reasonable price? I just returned last week from Malaysia in order to look into the gasification of palm kernal shells. This looks quite feasible, even without forming these shells into pellets. But bottled gas in relatively rich Malaysia is very cheap compared to relatively poor Vietnam, because the Malaysian government subsidizes bottled gas. At the same time, Singapore and large parts of Malaysia were recently subjected to dangerous levels of smoke from the large-scale burning of biomass in Sumatra over a period of several weeks. The entire city of Singapore was virtually shut down for a few weeks. Once again, why bother with biomass stoves as long as governments are willing to subsidize the price of bottled gas? After all, no biomass stove can match the safety (low CO and low PM), convenience (the simple twist of a knob) and turn-down ratio (1 to 99) of bottled gas. <br>
<br></div><div>I design biomass stoves the way I do primarily because I believe something should be done about global warming and ocean acidification. Here in Vietnam huge quantities of rice hulls, rice straw, coffee husks, pine forest debris and many other types of biomass are uselessly burned, while many people, especially in urban areas, burn coal and bottled gas to cook their food. So ridiculous. At the same time large portions of the Mekong (the center of food production in Vietnam) will soon be under water as sea levels continue to rise at their current rate.<br>
<br></div><div>But replacing bottled gas is not my only goal. Burying biochar is also critical in combating global warming and ocean acidification. Here CO2 is pulled from the air and locked in the soil for hundreds of years. At the same time, there are the many benefits of biochar that I have read about from scientists such as Ogawa (AM fungi), Lehmann and Joseph (a member of this stove list). Also in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, we have done more than 22 biochar studies with biochar from my gasifiers. These studies show remarkable numbers with regard to plant and animal growth. Then finally, in the city where I live, rice hull biochar is a hot commodity when incorporated into potting soils in greenhouses. Why burn biochar when it sells at such a good price, especially when it is worth far more than the biomass from which it was derived? So I cannot help but conclude that stoves that do not burn biochar, but make it, are incredibly important. Also, if I were to burn biochar within the reactor of my TLUD, this would be such an inefficient exercise, since the distance between the pot and the burning biochar would be so great.<br>
<br>No, it makes so much sense to keep the biochar. We can feed biochar to pigs, cows and chickens. We then take the solid waste from these animals and feed it to BSF larvae. We then take the residue of the larvae and feed it to red worms, and finally we take the vermi-compost loaded with biochar back to the soil. The biochar passes through the gut of three creatures before it gets incorporated into the soil. When we put biochar in a dry bedding for pigs and cows, listen carefully, there is no urine or ammonia smell. We have virtually odorless pig pens. The pigs play in the bedding and even eat it. More than 60 farmers in the area have now adopted this way of raising pigs. All of these farmer use biochar. Also there are no flies around these pig pens. Antibiotics are no longer used. Not a single piglet gets diarrhea.<br>
<br></div><div>The pig farmers make rice wine, and the mash gets fed to the pigs. I will start supplying gasifiers to these pig farmers for the distillation of their rice wine. The burning of low-grade biomass for rice wine distillation will stop. The farmers will then be able to make their own biochar to incorporate into pig bedding.<br>
<br></div><div>Ron, slap my hand, but not too hard. There are the big issues like global warming and ocean acidification, and I am proud to be able to play a very, very minute roll in helping to solve these problems. Then there are more mundane issues like showing a pig farmer how to use eliminate odor and disease through the use of biochar. All of these things figure into the way I design a stove.<br>
<br></div><div>Ron, thanks so much for speaking up in your last email. I value your contribution enormously.<br><br></div><div>Paul Olivier<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><br></div><div><div><div><div><div>
<br></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Ronal W. Larson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>List: </div><div><br></div><div> 1. Apologies to Erin, but the conversation re ocean acidification has turned enough into stoves topics I feel a need to enter and also support Paul Olivier (who should have his hand slapped for bringing up the ocean and pH subjects).</div>
<div><br></div><div> 2. First about the supposed outstanding talk by a young unemployed recent chem engineering graduate. I am pretty sure that his calculation (which I am not going to go through even I were competent to judge in detail) was calculating the <b><u>average </u></b>pH change in the ocean. The entire ocean community agrees that that change is small. All the talk of an 0.1 change in pH (same as 30% change when not in log units) refers to the near surface pH. Calculating an average change is worse than ludicrous. His picking on one of the world's most well respected ocean scientist (Lubchenko) displays further ignorance. Why should anyone be surprised that the average ocean <u><b>surface</b></u> pH changes by 30% when the atmospheric level has changed a little bit more? (there are huge fluxes each way every day) A great reference on all this is the PNAS paper given today (by mistake?) by Kevin. Check wiki. Check a yesterday Skeptical Science article on this at <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Acidification-Eating-Away-at-Life-in-the-Southern-Ocean.html" target="_blank">http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Acidification-Eating-Away-at-Life-in-the-Southern-Ocean.html</a></div>
<div> I see no credentials (claimed or otherwise) for this young guy knowing any biology, so his comments on reduced calcium carbonate in certain sea creatures should receive zero credence (especially in the Antarctic) And one wouldn't expect anything like a peer review at WUWT. I consider WUWT to be the antithesis of sound science. In my circles, it is considered a joke.</div>
<div><br></div><div> 3. About half or more of the list has an interest in char-making stoves. So I have to ask why Crispin is out there by himself with the first pat of this following quote from him today. The entire stove community from what I have seen disagrees with Crispin on this:</div>
<div><br></div><div><div class="im"><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> <i>It has so happened that in recent years the emergence of char making TLUD stoves has exacerbated the errors in the simple models used for decades and there are serious consequences for the stove section. Stoves that are really IWA tier 1 performers can get a tier 4 rating for something because of defects in the models. "</i></span></div>
<div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><br></span></div></div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt">
<font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif" size="4"> My </font><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:15px">conclusion</span></font><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif" size="4"> is this observation would be approved by the vast majority of WUWT followers. If something related to excess CO2 is proposed (such as char going in the ground), then the idea must be bogus, because climate scientists are liars, cheats, free-loaders etc. Well fortunately that is not the majority view around the world and stove models and performance ratings are doing perfectly fine, with Crispin fighting all the way. Glad to see Crispin bringing this up and hope we can continue this stove-related discussion.</font></div>
<div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><i><br></i></span></div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><i><br></i></span></div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><i>4 . </i>The above two sentences were followed by these:</span></div>
<div class="im"><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><i> "It is like that with the climate too. To date there are 73 well known, accessible climate models (GCM’s). Not one of them has predicted the current 200 month stasis in global temperature (indistinguishable from zero change). That means the models are invalidated. The implications are pretty serious.<u></u><u></u></i></span></div>
</div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt"><i style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </i><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif" size="4">There is no reason at all to conclude that the models are in </font><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:15px">error</span></font><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif" size="4"> and "<i>invalidated" - </i>and least of all for the relative flatness (for less than 200 months), given every other AGW indicator. The oceans have continued to warm (and levels rise). Arctic ice volume is about the same as last year's record low. Record temperature highs greatly exceeding record lows. For decades the annual land temperature rise greatly exceeded the ocean temperature rise. Why be surprised if it slows for awhile, to let the oceans catch up? </font></div>
</div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><br></span></div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">5. I applaud Cecil's comments. I didn't think Crispin defended well. But not enough stove material there except Cecil's last on precaution. Thanks Cecil.</span></div>
<div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><br></span></div><div>6. . Lastly, three additions below in the latest Crispin message. </div>
<br><div><div class="im"><div>On Aug 8, 2013, at 12:21 PM, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com" target="_blank">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" lang="EN-CA">
<div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Dear Kevin<u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">I thought the young man addressed matters very directly and effectively. There is a comment below from a guy named Bob. Search for “Somewhere in my misspent youth I picked up 3 degrees in chemistry, postdoctoral research and a couple of decades in the chemical industry.”</span></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div> <b>[RWL7. Te the young man - yes he wrote well - but missed the main several points (stated above) Nothing here on stoves. I have searched for "Bob" and have no idea what that was about.</b><div class="im">
<br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" lang="EN-CA">
<div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">I haven’t found a chemist yet who supports the ‘acid ocean’ theory. But as Steve asks, why are they so silent? The answer is intimidation or they are bored with such a stupid topic.</span></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div> <b>[RWL8: I have not above used the word "denier". These exemplify denial. I don't think I could find a published peer reviewed paper that didn't think ocean surface. pH has been climbing steadily</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px" lang="EN-CA"><div><div class="im"><div style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:12pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-weight:normal;margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:12pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-weight:normal;margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div><div style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-size:12pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-weight:normal;margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">A topic that should follow this into the grave of silence is: ‘burying charcoal to help prevent the acidification of the oceans’. We do indeed have a long way to go.<u></u><u></u></span></div>
</div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> <b>[RWL9: I was going to stay out of this "stove" dialog until reading this. Truly amazing to say this on a stove list where he insults a</b></span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><b>t least </b></span><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:15px"><b>half</b></span></font><b style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> of the list! And most of them are not about to become deniers if I can help it. I think/hope Crispin indeed has a "<i>long way to go."</i> Ron</b></div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" lang="EN-CA">
<div class="im"><div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Chemically yours,<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Crispin<u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
<span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Dear Crispin</span><u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"> <u></u><u></u></div></div><div>
<div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Thanks very much for the URL for the excellent article.</span><u></u><u></u></div>
</div><div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"> <u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
<span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">It is amazing what can be deduced using real science. :-)</span><u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
<u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">It is scary that organizations like the UN, IPCC, and NOAA don't have competent people on staff to vet their "Ocean Acidification" statements. When a recent Chemical Engineering Graduate can point out the folly of "jumping on the Ocean Acidification Bandwagon", it should lead us to raise the question:</span><u></u><u></u></div>
</div><div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">"What else are the UN, NOAA, and the IPCC telling us about AGW that is wrong?"</span><u></u><u></u></div>
</div><div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"> <u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
<span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Best wishes,</span><u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"> <u></u><u></u></div></div><div>
<div style="margin:0mm 0mm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Kevin</span><u></u><u></u></div></div></div></div><div class="im">_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br><br>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br><br>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br><br>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>
<a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>
<a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Paul A. Olivier PhD<br>26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong<br>Dalat<br>Vietnam<br>
<br>Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)<br>Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)<br>Skype address: Xpolivier<br><a href="http://www.esrla.com/" target="_blank">http://www.esrla.com/</a>
</div>