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
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.
But Newton (and the consensus behind him) wasn't wrong. It was just incomplete.
And that is the status of AGW too. There's enough science to know that the fundamental greenhouse effect from CO2 etc. is correct. And to know humans increase the CO2 in the atmosphere. But there's obviously plenty more to to be added to scientific understanding of the effect.
There's no right/wrong dichotomy. And the deniers are deluded if they think that one day something is going to be discovered that makes if all disappear in a flurry of "mea culpa!'
It's interesting you bring up Newton, because we still use Newtonian physics today for most purposes. Nobody is using quantum physics to model valvetrain dynamics, for example. We use simple molecular models even to figure out how the air will move through the valves. If you're trying to figure out where a bullet goes, you can ask Newton.
If you're trying to figure out how to reduce AGW, you can work on what you know you're doing wrong, and much of that is CO2 and soot emissions.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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."
Reading your comment made me think of Isaac Azimov's essay The Relativity of Wrong. To quote from it:
My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."