<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body lang="en-US" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: initial;">
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
On the contrary, Nikhil, I find your comments germane, thoughtful and well-informed. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
I owe you some replies going back a month but you take a long time to shape your presentations so I will reciprocate. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
>From your recent messages I am getting a clear position of the difference between a 'population characteristic' and an individual's risk. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
The big issue is of course the monetization of ADALY's and DALY's which are population measures by tying them to individual stoves. That is a curious behaviour.</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
When we have modeled exposure turning into modeled disease resulting in modeled disabilities then it is reasonable to ask to what end this is being done. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
The global burden of disease (GBD) is a complicated series of estimations applied to populations and the inclusion of smoke from domestic stoves is necessary in that. What is really odd is the ease with which 'shortened lives' are turned into 'deaths caused
by stove smoke. This error needs correction. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
A 'premature death' is not a death, it is a shortened life. In a recent article that appeared in an LPG industry newsletter, the oft-cited "4.3m premature deaths attributed to domestic stove smoke" was referred to as 4.3m deaths caused by stove smoke. That
is a heck of a difference. The first is a modeled population impact and the second is a long line of bodies with 'stove smoke' penned on the 'cause of death' line. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
So a cottage industry sprung up claiming to 'save lives' rather than 'extend lives'. A recent publication about Mozambique holds, in the fine print, that the life expectancy is 48 years and that it should be "86". The shortening of life expectancy is attributed
by models to various 'causes' one of which is stove smoke. Well, how valid is the apportionment of contributing factors? How valid was it over the past 48 years for the people who are dying prematurely now? How will the GBD change in future for the children
now two years old and standing next to a smokey fire?</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
I don't see how these sorts of things can be turned into funding per stove per g of reduced PM2.5. If you get my drift. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
Keep writing...</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
Crispin </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I don't believe I have written anything except in reaction to a prior post, and seems to me all my posts have been rejected.
<br>
<br>
Philip Lloyd posts were in response to Paul Anderson about fossil forecasts, likely consequences, and carbon sinks. If they were about stoves, so also is my reply below.<br>
<br>
Apologies for causing acrimony among people I don't know. <br>
<br>
Nikhil<br>
-------------<br>
<br>
<div>Nikhil Desai again in the same thread but in response to Philip Lloyd's two posts farther below. :
<br>
<br>
A. True, there is no GMST baseline for the future. That is the trickery of "climate actionistas". We are only shown "temperature anomalies", with the presumption that somehow a "pre-industrial" GMST is the "baseline". Baseline for what apart from temperature,
depends on how much data can be stuffed and manipulated in models. <br>
<br>
It is not just that the globe has been "warming for around 170 years" - whether or not we can tell the signal from the noise - but also that in at least the most recent 70 years since the end of WW II, the earth has sustained many more people, who have come
to acquire better shelter, better health, more secure livelihoods, greater mobility, and more refrigeration and air-conditioning or heating/hot water. By plain correlation, that is enough evidence that GMST increase is not a problem in and of itself. (So
the refugee crisis or Himalayan floods are governance failures, not impacts of anthropogenic climate change, scientists' proclamation notwithstanding.)
<br>
<br>
B. "Extreme events" are not some geophysical phenomena measured only in rainfall or wind speeds but also in terms of their impacts on people or local ecology. Over the last 100 years, humans have changed their local environments radically, with the natural
consequence that the interactions between that local environment - built structures, landscaped areas, changes in natural resource endowment status - and the weather events have also changed. <br>
<br>
Climate actionistas tell us, "reduce CO2 and all else will be back to God's plan". Only God knows God's plan. Rest is computers and media.
<br>
<br>
C. You say, "- the IEA gives an estimate of fuelwood use (which neither the World Bank nor the BP statistical survey gives), and I think is exceeds the forest sink by a significant margin, i.e. deforestation is real, and those whom we serve are partly responsible.
Fuel efficient stoves aren't completely idiotic!" <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) IEA estimates of fuelwood use are fictional, built on citations built on citations built on flaky data and assumptions. The plain fact is, there is no reliable inventory of biomass energy consumption by small users (households, commercial, institutional), or
of qualities, costs, prices. This is a singular deception writ large, now with extension into emissions, exposures, health damage, the New Testament of the Global Burden of Disease.
<br>
<br>
In any case, aggregate national data are worthless. There is no homogeneous "national forest", nor an integrated biofuel market. Yes, "deforestation is real" at local levels, but the question is not why forests are cut but rather why trees are not re-grown.
A forest is much like a garden, a living entity. Where it is, how dense, with what flora and fauna, distinguish it from another forest, and each forest plays a unique role in local and regional environments and economies. Local economics and politics rule.
<br>
<br>
2) I very much doubt fuelwood use "exceeds the forest sink by a significant margin" at the global level. I don't have IEA numbers handy - there are some FAO estimates as well - but I think woodfuel use for cooking and heating amounts to roughly 2 billion tons
dry wood-eq. per year (World Bioenergy a couple of years ago). Add what you will for charcoal and quibble about the sources, but nobody knows. On the other hand, "forest sink" you mean the terrestrial CO2 absorption via photosynthesis, general agreement seems
to be that the net terrestrial sink is expanding. See IPCC Special Report at <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=32" target="_blank">
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=32</a>. Subsequent analysis at
<a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch9s9-3.html" target="_blank">
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch9s9-3.html</a>; note the wide variations and error ranges. (Annual carbon flux in btCO2 ranging from +8 to -11. I haven't bothered with the AR5 yet.)<br>
<br>
I don't know what to make of your claim "those whom we serve are partly responsible." Responsible for what? It's THEIR wood, isn't it? Their land, water, labor, skills, money. They are not responsible for saving the rich people's climate, the rich experts'
fancies. We are here to serve them, not save the earth; of course, many of us think otherwise.
<br>
<br>
I love your "Fuel efficient stoves aren't completely idiotic!" Not completely. Not yet. Depends on how cooks use the stoves, not how the experts boil water (and bake their own juicy plum puddings in academic journal articles).
<br>
<br>
Nikhil<br>
<br>
<br clear="all">
</div>
<div class="x_gmail_extra">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif; font-size:12.8px"><br>
---------</span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif; font-size:12.8px">(India +91) 909 995 2080<font face="Arial" size="2"> </font></span> . <br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:32:44 +0200<br>
From: "Philip Lloyd" <<a href="mailto:plloyd@mweb.co.za" target="_blank">plloyd@mweb.co.za</a>><br>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"<br>
<<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] We're Actually Using More Fossil Fuels Than Ever<br>
Message-ID: <03be01d1e0ce$fbbe1bc0$f33a5340$@<a href="http://co.za/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">co.za</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Dear Mangolazi<br>
<br>
Actually it's not scary. We are repeatedly told that a warmer world will be a more vicious world, but if you go to the data you find two problems:<br>
1. You measure change from some baseline, but for most climate indicators there are no baselines - we don't really know what the "average" climate should be, not least because it's changing all the time, so the estimate of "average" has a large error associated
with it. How can you tell what is abnormal if you have no decent measure of what is normal?<br>
2. The recorded history of extreme events is rarely long enough to give you a decent estimate of their frequency (and by decent I mean a standard deviation of less than 10% per century) and totally inadequate to give you any idea if the rate is changing.<br>
<br>
There is some relief from the first problem. If you have lots of good data, sort of 30-40 years of good weekly average data, then you can detect a trend with some statistical reliability - I say some, not good! But I have searched in vain for any relief from
the second.<br>
<br>
The good news is that it has been warming for around 170 years, and if we still cannot reliably detect climate changes other than temperature, then the scariness gets much less.<br>
<br>
Yours in confidence - and I don't mean confidentially!<br>
<br>
Philip <br>
------------------------------ <br>
<br>
From: "Philip Lloyd" <<a href="mailto:plloyd@mweb.co.za" target="_blank">plloyd@mweb.co.za</a>><br>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"<br>
<<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] We're Actually Using More Fossil Fuels Than Ever<br>
Message-ID: <043501d1e10c$51d00720$f5701560$@<a href="http://co.za/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">co.za</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Thank you, Paul<br>
<br>
We have known we were facing a huge increase in CO2 for a long time. India represents the next big surge - if it takes off anything like China we will race through 450ppm. If Africa takes off, 500ppm will soon be there. Thank heavens the effect is logarithmic,
and the impacts will slow. <br>
<br>
For a few rays of hope, however, I commend the Bray/von Storch survey of climate scientists. Unlike the Cook et al survey, which did a (probably biased) survey of scientist's publications, Bray and van Storch used what I think is a very good, neutral set of
questions to ask the scientists directly. One of their first questions was" is the climate changing?" - 75% said no doubt. They then asked if human beings were responsible, and in the latest survey 49% said no doubt - 51% had reservations to varying degrees.<br>
The easiest access to the report is <a href="https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/bray-and-von-storch-5th-international-survey-climate-scientists-20152016" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/bray-and-von-storch-5th-internati<br>
onal-survey-climate-scientists-20152016</a>.<br>
<br>
There is an interesting problem of relevance to this list - the IEA gives an estimate of fuelwood use (which neither the World Bank nor the BP statistical survey gives), and I think is exceeds the forest sink by a significant margin, i.e. deforestation is real,
and those whom we serve are partly responsible. Fuel efficient stoves aren't completely idiotic!<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Kind regards<br>
<br>
<br>
Phi;ip.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="x_gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div class="x_gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif; font-size:12.8px"><br>
---------</span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif; font-size:12.8px">(India +91) 909 995 2080</span><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="x_gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Andrew Heggie <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:aj.heggie@gmail.com" target="_blank">aj.heggie@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="x_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left:1ex; border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204); border-left-width:1px; border-left-style:solid">
This thread and your recent contributions have drifted well off topic<br>
for [stoves] so please all if you want to discuss these subjects<br>
please do it elsewhere as we have seen in the past it leads to<br>
acrimony.<br>
<br>
AJH<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>