Talk:Black carbon

Structure
The structure of this article is not very good. I propose to revise with the following headers:


 * 1) Definition
 * 2) Measurement
 * 3) Emissions
 * 4) Climate Impact
 * 5) Mitigation Potential
 * 6) Control Technologies
 * 7) Policy Options

Mrminjares (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and re-structured headers using what was already present in an attempt to provide clarity but not change the content. I still think a definition and measurement section are necessary. And I also think a lot of work needs to be done to consolidate the material in each section for clarity. Mrminjares (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Merger with carbon black
Strohttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_headline.pngngly refuted on carbon balck talk page. The two are not equivalent. Catwhoorg 15:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yo, this page doesn't explain what Black Carbon IS (composed of) Ashwinr (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this page should be merged with the entry for Soot.

--Ilnyckyj (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Advocacy instead of information
Hm, this article looks very much like an advocacy of a specific approach to climate protection, i.e. reducing black carbon, instead of an impartial discussion on the state of science, the pros and cons. Could this be corrected?
 * Yes, definitely, I noticed this MASSIVE amount of pro-global warming myself. Wikipedia MUST retain neutrality and reliability. I will slap on a tag and continue to watch the page. Aside that I've made plenty of edits to attempt to regain neutrality.--Astavats (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intention to be have this page below the wiki standards of neutrality on the topic of global warming. I hope the changes I have made bring this page back up to Wiki standards. (Andreaphill (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

The page has been edited. If it is still not up to code please let me know how I can fix it. Otherwise, please remove the flag on this page. (68.51.72.29 (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Tags have (already) been removed - thank you for your contributions.--Astavats (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Contributors

 * Gregory Carmichael -
 * V. Ramanathan -
 * Tami Bond -
 * Charles Zender -
 * Mark Jacobson -
 * James Hansen -

So what is it?
So what is black carbon, chemically? Could someone give its chemical formula?--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's plain old soot. Just C. You should know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.0.50 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Radiative Forcing Estimates
The table of radiative forcing estimates far down on the page need to be brought up and merged with the first section on black carbon's contribution to global warming. In addition, warming is being incorrectly used in place of radiative forcing. They are not the same thing. Positive radiative forcing is what causes increases in temperature change, or warming.

I will be working to improve these pieces of the page and would appreciate help and comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrminjares (talk • contribs) 00:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ephodzen (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)== Regarding DOC technology reduction in Black Carbon ==

The article makes the statement that A Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) can reduce the black carbon emissions by "25% -50%", as applied to a diesel exhaust emissions. This is in error. The DOC has very little effect on black carbon emissions. The DOC is very effective at reducing Soluble Organic Fraction (SOF) content of the measure Particulate matter (PM).

The techniques used to measure PM, in testing of engine emission levels ( criteria pollutants) result in measurement of  the aggregate of  the SOF and the  Black carbon. The DOC can remove the SOF (only) leaving the black carbon essentially unreduced but the total PM reduced by 25 to 50 %.

I think that this mistake lies in confusing PM, as a regulated criteria pollutant, with Black carbon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephodzen (talk • contribs) 21:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The table of forcing estimates need to include the estimate from this article which is the most comprehensive to date: T. Bond et al., "Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment", http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/abstract (I don't have access to the scientific paper, so I'm afraid to update the wikipedia article just based upon the abstract.) 200.87.20.172 (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

In Jan. 2012, cited Tami Bond testimony not found at cited location. Here is a portion of the report of the committee on point.
Here is a portion of the report of the committee testified to by Ms. Bond, citing her unavailable testimony. (Staff Report, Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming)

http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/DOCS/SelectCommittee2010FinalReport.pdf --- ______________

... Of the approximately 8 million tons of black carbon released each year,169
 * 169 Ramanathan, V. and G. Carmichael, 2008. Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon. Nature Geosciences, Vol. 1.

about 58 percent is emitted through energy-related combustion and 42 percent is emitted through outdoor biomass burning.170,171
 * 170 Bond, T., et al., 2004. A technology-based global inventory of black and organic carbon emissions from combustion. Geophysical Research; Letters, Vol. 109.
 * 171 Bond, T. 2007. Testimony for the Hearing on Black Carbon and Climate Change, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Available at http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/documents/ 20071018110647.pdf

Residential emissions of black carbon are due largely to home heating and cooking (e.g., using wood, coal, crop residue, dung, and diesel fuel). Diesel fuel vehicles are the dominant source in the transportation sector. In the industrial sector, iron and steel production are major sources. Outdoor biomass burning is largely associated with deforestation activities and the burning of crop residue.172 Currently, global emissions of black carbon are dominated by Asia (59 percent), followed by Europe (12 percent), South America (10 percent), Africa (10 percent), and North America (9 percent).173 In developed countries such as the United States, energy- related combustion, primarily related to diesel fuel, is now the leading source of black carbon. Energy-related combustion also dominates emissions in Asia, though with a much larger contribution from residential sources. In contrast, outdoor burning of biomass is the leading cause of emissions in South America and Africa. In March of 2010, the Select Committee held a hearing to explore opportunities for reducing black carbon emissions in the United States and abroad.174 According to the expert testimony, there are substantial climate benefits associated with reducing black carbon emissions and the technologies to do so are already available. Residential emissions of black carbon may be reduced with cleaner cook stoves (e.g., improved- combustion, solar-powered, electric, and gas). Transportation sector emissions may be reduced through the phase out of two-stroke engines, upgrades to higher quality, low- sulfur fuels (e.g., ultra-low sulfur diesel or natural gas), improved engine technology, and engine retrofits for existing diesel vehicles. In the industrial sector, emissions may be reduced substantially by capturing particle pollution from coke ovens and blast furnaces used in steel and iron production. Changes in agricultural and forestry practices could yield large reductions from biomass burning.


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 22:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why was organic carbon wikilink rm?
Wikilink organic carbon. 99.181.143.14 (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Organic carbon" may be correct, but our redirect for it is on a different topic.. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
"For consistency, in this paper, we will use the term black carbon (BC) as a synonym for both the elemental and graphitic component of soot as suggested by Novakov" Is anyone else's plagiarism alarm going off? Am I wrong? Is this how a wikipedia article sounds? I figured it best not to edit, since I'm out of my depth here, but: if this ISN'T plagiarism, it sure SOUNDS like it. 65.31.117.101 (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree it sounds iffy. I think it may be copied from this blog, but I need to check dates and make sure.--NHSavage (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not from that blog - the reverse is true, that is a copy and paste of this page... This page is older and the blog even has the references note numbers but no actual footnotes. I will keep looking though.--NHSavage (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This bit came in on this edit by an anonymous editor. It looks like a copy and paste, but I can't currently locate the source.--NHSavage (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am stumped now. Sorry.--NHSavage (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Soot, Black Carbon, Carbon black
Please see my suggestions at Talk:Carbon_black. --NHSavage (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

James Hansen
Why was the link to James Hansen deleted again? I don't see anything wrong with it.--RolfSander (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong citation of source 25
I checked the quoted source number 25 'Schmidt, M.W.I.; Skjemstad, J.O.; Czimczik, C.I.; Glaser, B.; Prentice, K.M.; Gelinas, Y.; Kuhlbusch, T.A.J. (2001). "Comparative analysis of black carbon in soils". GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES 15: 163–167. Bibcode:2001GBioC..15..163S. doi:10.1029/2000gb001284' to verify the statement of the section 'Presence in soils': ' Up to 30% of the total carbon stored in soils is contributed by black carbon.' But i find it different in the paper (page 163ff, last sentence): '. Total organic carbon contents ranged between 15.8 and 143.0 g carbon per kg soil,[…]'. That would be 1.5 to 14.3 percent instead of 30, or am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.245.44.22 (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * means 30% of the TOC, not of the soil. It supports the original statement in the article. -- Paleorthid (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the reference now. 134.245.199.112 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I changed it to "citation needed", because it was undone again without explaining it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.245.98.147 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I added a different citation, Gonzalez-Perez (2004), which supports saying that up to 60% of soil TOC is black carbon. -- Paleorthid (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The quoted statement is correct, but the same source states that 1% to 6% of total soil organic carbon is the usual range. The 60% is the all-time high. Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of world records. I think the 1-6% should be stated next to the 60%.
 * Here is the paragraph from the source given: "As a whole, BC represents between 1 and 6% of the total soil organic carbon. It can reach 35% like in Terra Preta Oxisols (Brazilian Amazonia) (Glaser et al., 1998, 2000) up to 45 % in some chernozemic soils from Germany (Schmidt et al., 1999) and up to 60% in a black Chernozen from Canada (Saskatchewan) (Ponomarenko and Anderson, 1999)." 81.89.202.239 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Greenhouse or anti-greenhouse?
This article states that black carbon produces an greenhouse effect, but the Nuclear Winter article says it produces an anti-greenhouse effect. This appears to be a contradiction. Could someone please explain it? Pulu (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Probably because in the latter case it is going into the stratosphere. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Overview section is OK
It seems to me that the maintenance template at the beginning of the "Overview" section could be removed. It states "This section is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic." My impression of the section is that it is factual and not opinionated or essay-like. Of course Wikipedia editors have personal styles, we are not robots, so some personal flavour is inevitable or at least likely to exist in any contribution to Wikipedia; that is not objectionable as long as balance and accuracy are maintained. And to write well one has to understand the topic, which implies prior involvement with it; so a good writer is not, mentally, a "blank slate" or a person with no take or conception of the subject, of the relative importance of its various aspects, of its scope, etc. I would say the section falls within reasonable bounds in terms of objectivity and encyclopedia-style prose, so lets let's give its authors some respect, stop waving stupid, unwarranted warnings at readers, and get rid if the tag.

If some consensus develops here, somebody please go ahead and remove the tag as I may not check back here for a while.

I have no prior involvement with this article.

Yours with collegial respect, Communpedia Tribal (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black carbon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111022162835/http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_2.pdf to http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Aerosol Masking Effect
This topic needs addressed here. https://www.skepticalscience.com/Soot-and-global-warming.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.192.145 (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The link does not work from my location as explained in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Skeptical_Science#Insecure_website so I cannot see what you are talking about.


 * Please could you either request the site to be unblocked from here if you are the owner, or if not edit this article yourself. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)