Slashdot Mirror
Cars Emit More Black Carbon Than Previously Thought
First time accepted submitter LilaG writes "Gasoline-burning engines put out twice as much black carbon as was previously measured, according to new field methods tested in Toronto. The tiny particles known as black carbon pack a heavy punch when it comes to climate change, by trapping heat in the atmosphere and by alighting atop, and melting, Arctic ice. With an eye toward controlling these emissions, researchers have tracked black carbon production from fossil fuel combustion in gasoline-burning cars and diesel-burning trucks. Until this study was published [abstract of paywalled article], gas-burning vehicles had been thought to be relatively minor players."
Everybody put on your flame retardant suits in preparation for the inevitable flame war between global warming believers and deniers, which will almost certainly drown out discussion of the technical specifics of the referenced materials.
Write failed: Broken pipe
I think we all agree on that point, the real debate is if Earth can handle it or not....Personally I wish we would just stop debating the potential effects, and just look for a solution that works.
Does this mean that the massive polluters, such as airplanes and very large cargo boats are also giving out twice as much black carbon?
POWER PLANTS.
Why does this treat particulates as only a concern because they contribute to climate change? That's a potential problem, to be sure, but particulate emissions are a much more immediate environmental concern for those breathing them in. If the levels have been underestimated this much, that's a problem for people's health, especially along highways and in cities. Why does climate change have to be the be all and end all of all environmental impact discussions? Is it because it's so contentious and the ongoing feud drives page hits?
But remember kids, no matter how often the math is wrong, you're always right to panic. Oh, and elect people who will take your freedoms away in the name of the math du jour.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
We do more harm to the earth by damage to the filter(s) that should clean harmful substances from the air and water than all the cars on earth.
Feed lots on major rivers, that flow into salt water, that become "dead zones", no longer able to filter the air, or sustain sea life..
Clear cutting rain forests..
Ignoring the decertification of large areas of Africa and Asia.
You could strip the emission controls off of every car on earth and still not equal the harm done by the damage we are doing to the natural filtering mechanisms...
Cars are an easy, LAZY, target.. Almost everyone has one in their driveway, or can see one nearby.. Not everyone has a feedlot between their home and workplace.. Add to that that the industrial food complex seems to have much more lobbying money behind it than the auto industry...
I'm in no way denying global warming. I'm just saying we need to target the actual sources of continuing environmental damage, and not copy the "security theater" we see in our airports.. This is too important an issue to play politics with...
Okay, I know to RTFA is unheard of, but
So, no. My choice of engine is vindicated once again. Now if I can just get my 300SD back on the road I win. Wastegate's sticking.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When you quote a paywall article abstract you encourage those who run the paywall, potentially give them customers, and discourage open publication. Best to indicate that there is an article, but that it is behind a paywall, and if it's ever put out to OPEN peer review, the reference shall be so amended.
Just one more reason I turn my car off instead of idling gas away when I know I'll be stopped for more than 30 seconds--stopped at a red light, waiting for someone, etc. The break even point (idling vs. gas used when re-starting car and offsetting battery drain) is around 10 seconds, I'd previously heard up to 20 seconds.
This makes even more sense in several US cities I've visited, where some red lights last for 1-3 minutes!
If this is too pooh-pooh environmentalist BS for you, then approach it from a selfish point of view--you're wasting gas and therefore money. If you're idling for 5 minutes a day, after a year that's 10 gallons wasted gas a year if you have a small-engine car, or 20 gallons for a V8. Do the math with your area's current gas prices, and sure, $30-$100 over one year isn't THAT much, but it's not pocket change either.
Source, which also addresses old myths that say why we should idle.
This story will engender an enlightened discussion, the likes of which has never been seen before on slashdot. There will be rational discourse, calm weighing of all evidence given, and politeness from all parties involved towards others - especially those who might hold differing opinions. Why, even the likes of Socrates and Aristotle would be proud.
Hey, stop laughing! I'm being serious here!
If you're going to flame, at least quote something scientific and peer reviewed. I'm sick to death of these people citing The Economist and Newsweek and Time and, God forbid, The Register, when they go on tirades. There are a lot of facts in this world so there's no need to make up your own information.
Anyone who has ever rebuilt an automobile engine could have guessed this.
Global warming concerns aside, particulate matter, especially fine particulate matter is known to aggravate respiratory issues in humans causing deaths and hospitalizations.
Moving high concentrations of these pollutants away from population centers through electrification will improve the health of people living near roads.
Yes - power plants should have improved scrubbers installed as well to reduce their particulate emissions as well.
There is a video of that carbon being washed into the ocean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZXGbaYRYIw
Diesels, which until biodiesel came along, had giant clouds of smoke out the tail pipe until the heat plugs / engine warmed up-- mostly sulfur but still I'm sure there was a good chunk of carbon in there. Now I honestly can't even find non-biodiesel in my city (then again I haven't looked, diesel sedans are like non-existent in California) & the exhaust goes through what looks like a rube goldberg machine of exhaust filtration & (on biodiesel) often comes out cleaner than gasoline exhaust.
The problem I see is that someone gets labeled a "denialist" if they don't take everything, part and parcel. If they disagree with anything an advocate says they are a "denialist" and "ignoring science". Well no, because there are different levels to the whole thing. To run it down:
--First there's fact of global warming: That average surface temperature is increasing, outside of known cycles. This is a claim of fact, a claim of an observation about what is. Provided the measurements it is based on are accurate, it isn't up for debate. Only thing you can question is if the measurements are indeed correct.
--Then there's the theory to explain that fact: That the primary or exclusive cause of this warming is an increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere due to human emissions. This is the basic theory of global warming. It is a scientific theory, in that it proposes a logical explanation for the relation of the facts at hand. Like all theories, it can be argued. You can agree with all the facts underlying a theory, but disagree with the theory as the explanation because it is incomplete, because it can be falsified, etc.
Now if that's all there was, then ok. However we go on.
--Next there's the assumption/assertion that this change is a net bad thing for humanity. This is not a theory, this is a claim based on some theories and some hypothesis, often with flimsy or no evidence. This isn't a situation where you have a single theory you can evaluate. You have all kinds of claims being made, and also other claims being dismissed or ignored. It is an overall position that the many changes will be a net negative to humanity, even a catastrophe.
--Finally there's the policy/politics of what to do about it: That the only solution is to massively decrease CO2 output and to achieve this we use things like carbon credits and so on. This is not at all in the realm of science, this policy, or politics. There are other suggested solutions that could be debated for their merits, there is question if this solution would even be effective over all. However it is the one that many advocates seem to propose as the One True Way(tm).
So therein lies the problem. Anyone who dares disagree with any part of this is lumped in as a "denialist". Someone could say "I agree with the measurements, and I think they theory of warming is correct. However I disagree it will be a net negative, I think it will be a net positive," and they get labeled as a "denalist," and "anti-science." Someone could even say "I agree it is happening and is a net negative, however I don't think CO2 reduction will help, I think we need to instead spend money to be able to deal with the change, since even if it didn't happen, another non-man made change would anyhow and we need to survive them," and again with the "denialist" and "anti-science" claims.
Hence why people start talking about AGW proponents as being true believers and acting like religious folk. It is this position of "You have to accept and agree with EVERYTHING, otherwise you are a moron/against us/etc." Sorry but that isn't how science works. If you want to talk science you have to limit your debate to scientific theories and facts (remember facts are observations about what is, theories explain the relations of the facts). That doesn't mean you can't talk about what should be done, but you can't claim that the "science" only supports one answer. That's not how it works.
Or when you hit the limits of knowledge at the time. Good example would be Newton's laws as applied to planetary motion. Newton was able to work out a great deal about gravity on a universal scale, and how bodies worked in a two body system. However it broke down when he tried to apply it to the multi-body of the solar system. So he invokes god for the first and only time in the Principia "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
This remained the scientific consensus on the matter. Newton was more or less The Guy when it came to physics. In two books (Principia and Opticks) he did more to advance the understanding of physics than more or less anyone before or hence. So this remained what scientists though for many years. You could explain gravity in terms of a two body problem, but the complexity of the heavens? God did it.
Up until Laplace. He worked out a method for figuring it all out. He could explain the stability of the solar system without invoking god. When asked by Napoleon about why he didn't mention god he said "I had no need of that hypothesis." (for a great talk on all this watch Dr. Tyson's "The god of the gaps").
Now the point of all this is that just because there is a general consensus on something, doesn't mean it is right. Doesn't mean it is wrong either, but trying to say something like "only the crackpots would argue with consensus," is silly. There have been things that were the consensus that was believed, until a better theory was proposed and tested.
Feynman also gives a good example of the groupthink type of activity with regards to that Millikan's value for the charge of an electron. To quote:
"It's a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than
that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that."
Right there you can see the effects of a sort of scientific groupthink. "My result is too far off from the accepted value, something must be wrong."
Just keep in mind that science isn't about consensus. That there is a consensus doesn't mean it is right, or wrong. Also be wary when people appeal to consensus, that's what you see in advertisements, not science. When people talk about evolution, they talk about evidence, not consensus.
It's "Afro-American Carbon", please.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
i emit much more methane than normal - i expect to be billed for carbon credits by the Obama administration
researchers have tracked black carbon production from fossil fuel combustion in gasoline-burning cars and diesel-burning trucks
So that must mean my diesel-burning car does not emit black carbon. Gholly!
'The tiny particles known as black carbon pack a heavy punch when it comes to climate change, by trapping heat in the atmosphere and by alighting atop, and melting, Arctic ice.'
Oh well, at least the Antarctic and Glacial Ice arent effected.
There are more of them than there are of us. The impact of a given amount of pollution per capita in China or India will exceed that in North America or Western Europe simply because there are more capitas.
I burn a tyre in my garden every time I read about car carbon emission.
If anyone is unwilling to accept everything claimed, part and parcel, or even if they point out this fact (please note I never stated how I feel about any of this) they are a denier. This is precisely what I'm talking about, this is precisely the problem I'm talking about.
Also, I hate to break it to you, but if you want someone to buy in to a proposed solution to something, particularly one that is likely to be very costly, you DO have to go through all of it. You first have to show that the facts on which you base your theories are sound. Then you have to show your theories are correct. Then you have to show that your theories back up your over all assertions. Finally you have to show that your proposed solution is the best one.
You don't get to get mad because someone wants you to do all that. It isn't a situation of "I've found a fact about the world, now you have to do whatever I say is right."
So if you want people to accept that massive CO2 reductions and/or carbon offsets are the only way to fly you have to (in order):
1) Demonstrate the fact that the Earth is getting warmer on average.
2) Show that the theory that the primary cause is human CO2 emissions is probably correct, that no other theory explains it better or that it doesn't fail to account for any data.
3) Show that all the theories behind the assertion that it will be a bad thing are probably correct. Also show that the negatives will outweigh the positives.
4) Show that your proposed solution is likely to work, and that it is either cheaper or better or more likely to succeed than other proposed solutions (like geoengineering).
That means if someone questions something, you have to actually present evidence and arguments, not just say "You are a denier!!!!"
Now I'm not saying you personally are responsible for any of this, however if you want to go around hating on people who disagree, then you kinda are. It is not at all proper to demand someone share your views, but then shout down any questions. That is precisely what religious zealots do. They answer the questions they like, shout down the ones they don't. If your views are those of logic, not faith, then you need to act like it.
There are believers and deniers to you. There seems to be no room for anything else. You are either a true believer, or an evil denier.
I think you mistake what some people claim. They don't claim there will be a big event of "Oh we were all wrong about everything, nothing is getting warmer!" Rather, they think that time will show that the panic was for naught. They believe the theory of action is sound, the predicted results are not.
For example perhaps the warming is not as much as predicted. That is a valid position since it is all based on computer modeling (and remember models don't prove anything, they model and predict) and as the models have been revised, the estimates for the warming have gone down. Compare the official IPCC prediction from 1990 to the one from 2001. The predicted warming is much less. Neither match the actual temperature record for the past 10 years so perhaps further revision is required.
Or as another example, perhaps the warming is not problematic. If you read the reports you'll see there is far form a consensus on that. There are multiple scenarios, which are not assigned probabilities. Even among those who are part of the consensus (for lack of a better term) there is disagreement over what might happen and their scenarios are not exhaustive.
Those are examples of the arguments some people make. Not that it is all a bunch of made up bullshit (yes I'm aware some people make that argument too) that'll get exposed as such, but that it is being blown way out of proportion and we'll look back on it and say "Well that was much ado about nothing."
Just in time to try to "justify" higher gas prices we get this "finding". I can see the press conference now: "Sorry, we'd like to reduce prices but the impact on global warming of cars is just too severe. Let's everybody buy a Chevy Volt instead!" Color me skeptical.
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
OK, so a doubling means that a gasoline car emits ten percent as much black carbon as a diesel vehicle, instead of five percent.
/. will dismiss a couple of bullshit links? The horror!
The article does not indicate whether the researchers controlled for existing carbon thrown up into the air from vehicle motion on the roadway, and new carbon from tire dust.
Catalytic converters are supposed to oxidize the unburned hydrocarbons and convert them to carbon dioxide and water. If gas engines are putting out twice as much carbon as previously thought then the engineering and laboratory testing of the converters is called into question. Three way converters have been around for years and are a robust technology for which the patents have lapsed. Is it possible that someone is stirring up shit because they have a new patented emissions control technology? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zH22Qpe2GA gives a general overview of how a catalytic converter works.
Yet another alarmist article from the neo-pagan worshippers of Gaia.
Consensus in science is when most of the scientists in a field (except for the crackpots) quite arguing about something because they have nothing to argue about. They all agree on the particulars of a point.
Agree with me, and you are wise. Disagree, and you are a crackpot.
0839635440.txt
From: John Daly
To: n.nicholls@BoM.Gov.Au
Subject: Re: Climatic warming in Tasmania
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 1996 20:04:00 +1100
Cc: Ed Cook , NNU-NB@palais.natmus.min.dk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, Mike Barbetti , zetterberg@joyl.joensuu.fi, rjf@dar.csiro.au
Dear Neville,
You mentioned to me some time ago that in your view, the 11-year solar cycle did not influence temperature. There have been numerous attempts by
academics to establish a correlation, but each has been shot down on some ground or other. I remember Barrie Pittock was especially dismissive of
attempts to correlate solar cycle with temperature.
Have you tried this approach?
Load "Mathematica" into your PC and run the following set of instructions -
data = ReadList[ "c:\sydney.txt", Number]
dataElements = Length[data]
X = ListPlot[ data, PlotJoined-> True];
fourierTrans = Fourier[data];
ListPlot[Abs[fourierTrans], PlotJoined -> True];
fitfun1 = Fit[data,{1,x,x^2,x^3,Sin[11 2 Pi x/dataElements], Cos[11 2 Pi x/dataElements]},x];
fittable = Table[N[fitfun1], {x, dataElements}];
Y = ListPlot[fittable, PlotJoined -> True];
Show[X, Y]
The reference to "c:\sydney.txt" is a suggested pathname for the following set of data - which is Sydney's annual mean temperature.
16.8 16.5 16.8 17 17 16.7 17.1 17.4 17.9 17.4 17.2 17.1 16.9 17 17.2 17.2 17.4
17.6 17.6 17.6 16.7 17.1 16.8 17.4 16.8 17.3 17.8 17.5 17.1 17.2 17.6 17.3 17.1
16.9 16.9 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.6 17.5 17.4 17.2 17.1 17.3 17.2 17.2 16.9 17.5 17.4
17.2 17 17.5 17.4 17.5 17.7 18.3 17.8 17.4 17.2 17.4 18.3 17.3 18 18.1 18 17.5
17.3 18 17 18.2 17.4 17.6 17.5 17.4 17.1 17.4 17.3 17.5 17.7 18 17.8 18 17.4
17.8 16.8 17.5 17.4 17.6 17.6 17.2 17.4 17.9 17.9 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.7 17.6 17.8
18.3 18 17.6 17.8 17.8 17.8 18.1 17.9 17.5 17.8 18.3 18 17.7 17.3 17.5 18.5 17.4
17.8 17.7 17.8 17.7 18 18.5 18.2 17.8 18.1 17.5 17.8 17.8 18 18.6 18.1 18.1 18.6
So Far so good.
"Mathematica" first plots out the data itself (see Atachment 1)
The first part of the instruction set lets "mathematica" do a Fourier Transform on the data, ie. searching out the periodicities, if there are any. The result is shown on Attachment 2.
The transform result shows a sharp spike at the 11 year point (I wonder what is significant about 11 years?). The second part of the instructions
now acts upon this observed spike (the Cos 11 bit), to extract it's waveform from the rest of the noise. The result is shown as a waveform in attachment 3, the waves having an 11-year period, with the long-term Sydney warming easily evident.
Attachment 4 shows the original Sydney data overlaid against the 11-year periodicity.
It would appear that the solar cycle does indeed affect temperature.
(I tried the same run on the CRU global temperature set. Even though CRU must be highly smoothed by the time all the averages are worked out, the
11-year pulse is still there, albeit about half the size of Sydneys).
Stay cool.
John Daly http://www.vision.net.au/~daly
Attachment Converted: c:\eudora\attach\Sydney.gif
Attachment Converted: c:\eudora\attach\Fourier.gif
Attachment Converted: c:\eudora\attach\Solar1.gif
Attachment Converted: c:\eudora\attach\Solar2.gif
Or, science in the service of politics.
0876437553.txt
From: Joseph Alcamo
To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Rob.Swart@rivm.nl
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de
Mike, Rob,
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions --
Distribution for Endorsements --
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500 signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.
Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!
Timing -- I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions.
Conclusion -- I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17 November at the latest.
Mike -- I have no organized email list that could begin to compete with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still willing to send you what I have, if you wish.
Best wishes,
Joe Alcamo
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany
I call it. look at the fine particulates from the tailpipedownwind of a moving vehicle. Several problems. They may have measured "carbon" from the tailpipe, but have they removed the carbon scrapped off the tires, blowoff of the overpressure of the engines oil system, and all of the other sources of carbon black. If it was carbon white( of the sidewalls of a whitewall tire) would it thav been counted or not? And the study not done in the lab, or the engine test areas, of the universities, where they rebuild the engines of the future and the past, better control of the atmosphere's there.
Everything is a belief. Every side of an issue has people who believe based on their own agenda. To claim only one side is based on Facts and the other is on Faith is to deny any possibility of error in ones own understanding of what they see and evaluate which has been proven to be a dangerous road. In fact once you come to a conclusion based on what you believe to be the facts, most will consider the other side based on flawed science and faith. See the problem with global warming the same facts lead both sides to the opposite conclusion which ends up making them both point fingers claiming ridiculous faith in an agenda. The only thing we know for a fact is the earth has changed in the past, where you take it from there is about as tricky as predicting the stock market based on the past performance.
What is it with you and the only doing one thing at a time argument?
If it is the government's responsibility to invest in the country's energy security, the government has only so many things it can invest in at a time with a given amount of tax money.
So predictable.
The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Plan
1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
8) ????
9) Profit.
Which of the following would you cut to tackle global warming: A. Social Security; B. Medicare; C. defense?
That's a false trichotomy. Why have you only mentioned 3 selected things that the government spends money on? As if corporations and individuals aren't creating too much CO2.
Especially, why is Social Security there? Its not exactly the first think one comes to in the list of things that are creating CO2. Clearly your mind is on reducing government spending not the environment.
And finally it isn't a choice of cutting one thing. Every human activity needs to be made more efficient or reduced in terms of CO2 emissions and energy use.
Money spending is irrelevant. Money can be used to increase CO2 emissions and it can be used to reduce them, so it isn't even derivative of the important measure.
. Why have you only mentioned 3 selected things that the government spends money on?
Because those are the three things that make up the vast majority of the U.S. Government's budget.
Especially, why is Social Security there?
Because it is one of the biggest parts of the U.S. Government's budget, and the U.S. Government is in a severe deficit crisis. There's a term for governments that spend more than they bring in: Google "the next Greece".
Clearly your mind is on reducing government spending not the environment.
I'm trying to figure out how to reduce government spending enough so that that the government can afford to spend money on the environment. I want the Republican conventional wisdom's step 5 assertion that "it's not economically possible to tackle it" refuted so that we can get them into step 7 and a solution faster.
Every human activity needs to be made more efficient or reduced in terms of CO2 emissions and energy use.
And it takes money to figure out how to make things more efficient, money that some parts of the private sector have proven unwilling to spend.
they worked out a way to do what they told us to in the 70's to avert the coming ice age!