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?
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.
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.
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."