Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Soot Is Warming the World — a Lot

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the but-a-suit-makes-you-cool dept.

Earth 251

sciencehabit writes "Soot is bad stuff all around, whether you're breathing it into your lungs or it's heating the atmosphere by absorbing more of the sun's energy. But a new 4-year, 232-page assessment (PDF) of soot's role in climate finds that the combustion product could be warming the world twice as much as previously thought. The study points policymakers toward the best targets for reducing climate-warming soot emissions while at the same time improving the health of billions of people."

cancel ×

251 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That's it!! I've had it!! (0)

Press2ToContinue (2424598) | about 2 years ago | (#42608717)

I'm canning my coal-powered clothes dryer! And my wood-burning stove!

Re:That's it!! I've had it!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608927)

That reminds me. I left my Little Inferno Entertainment Fireplace running!

Re:That's it!! I've had it!! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609087)

as long as coal powers the turbines that make the electricity, that's exactly what those things are.

Re:That's it!! I've had it!! (3, Informative)

Zorpheus (857617) | about 2 years ago | (#42610693)

Soot can be filtered from the fumes of coal power plants.
There is a German wikipedia article about flue gas cleaning (Translation [google.co.uk] ). I wonder why this is only in German and Swedish. These aren't the only countries doing this, are they?

Re:That's it!! I've had it!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609093)

I'm canning my coal-powered clothes dryer! And my wood-burning stove!

And all the diesel soot producing locomotives and trucks... etc etc etc

Re:That's it!! I've had it!! (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about 2 years ago | (#42609591)

natural gas is the future.. embrace it.

Re:That's it!! I've had it!! (2)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 2 years ago | (#42609897)

Nuclear is the future... Embrace it.

Re:That's it!! I've had it!! (4, Insightful)

Zalbik (308903) | about 2 years ago | (#42610819)

WTF does this stupid argument keep coming up?

Natural gas is the future...
Wind is the future...
Geothermal is the future
Solar is the future...
Nuclear (fission) is the future...
Nuclear (fusion) is the future...
Embrace all of the above.

This is a zombie problem, not a werewolf problem.

i.e. We need a shotgun approach, not a silver bullet.

Re:That's it!! I've had it!! (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#42610877)

WTF does this stupid argument keep coming up?

Natural gas is the future... Wind is the future... Geothermal is the future Solar is the future... Nuclear (fission) is the future... Nuclear (fusion) is the future... Embrace all of the above.

This is a zombie problem, not a werewolf problem.

i.e. We need a shotgun approach, not a silver bullet.

pssh... shotguns don't kill zombies unless you hit them in the head. A silver bullet would work just the same.

Re: That's it!! I've had it!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42610575)

Fine. Natural gas is the near future. Nuclear is a distant future.

Re:That's it!! I've had it!! (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#42610615)

The cheapest is the present. Embrace it.

Re:That's it!! I've had it!! (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#42610771)

Not really, it's only cheaper if we carefully ignore all of the external costs.

Re:That's it!! I've had it!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42610115)

So...yet another aspect of "settled science" that turns out not to be settled.

Smut (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608737)

Soot is warming the globe, and smut is keeping me warm at night. So what's the problem?

Reminds me of a cartoon (5, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 2 years ago | (#42608853)

This reminds me of a cartoon [about.com] . Caption: "What if global warming is a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"

The reason that occurred to me is, here's a case where it makes sense to reduce a pollutant (soot) for public health reasons, even setting the global warming issue aside.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (3, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#42608967)

What you present is the argument that neither side want's to hear. Trust me, I tried. The arguments for curing global warming are identical to cleaning up pollution. In the 70s, there was a huge push on cleaning up pollution. The "clean" campaigns were all silenced in favor of high profit for a select few.

While I agree with you, good luck getting anyone in current argument crowd discussing anything as logical as pollution.

Basically we have 2 fronts: Big Oil and Money people saying "We are not doing anything wrong", and the other half saying "Humans are a plague on the planet." Anyone else is ignored, ridiculed, or drown out in noise.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (1)

oic0 (1864384) | about 2 years ago | (#42609059)

If they support that notion they weaken the argument against their prime target, CO2, since it has no ill health effects until you have enough of it around you to displace the oxygen you need.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (1, Troll)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | about 2 years ago | (#42609477)

Using your logic dousing myself in lighter fluid every day would also be fine because it won't be the direct chemical effects of the fluid that will harm me.

CO2 increases the ability of the atmosphere to retain heat. A hotter planet is not good for human health.

The effect of restricting CO2 emissions will be to restrict its emissions to the most cost effective forms. Which will almost certainly see petrol cars replaced by electric ones, especially in the city. In addition to limiting warming this will have massive benefits to air quality, as well as reduce traffic noise which should lower stress in the population.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (1)

jbengt (874751) | about 2 years ago | (#42609695)

[CO2] has no ill health effects until you have enough of it around you to displace the oxygen you need.

No. If CO2 levels go up about 10 or 15 times what they are today, there would be a people feeling respiratory symptoms from it. If the levels went up about 100 to 120 times current concentrations, it would be considered an immediate threat to health and life, and if all of that added CO2 were to displace O2 in the air, the amount of oxygen per unit volume would go down only about 20%. That would be the same reduction in oxygen as going from sea level to about 6,000 or 7,000 ft elevation.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (4, Informative)

MarioMax (907837) | about 2 years ago | (#42610645)

If they support that notion they weaken the argument against their prime target, CO2, since it has no ill health effects until you have enough of it around you to displace the oxygen you need.

Actually, CO2 is toxic at concentrations above 1%, and can cause suffocation and blood poisoning when concentrations are around 10%, and not just because it displaces oxygen. That's exactly what happened on Apollo 13: Carbon dioxide concentrations were too high, despite Oxygen levels remaining normal.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609171)

What you present is the argument that neither side want's to hear. Trust me, I tried.

Consider using a valid argument next time.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42609437)

The argument is also identical to pre-emptive moves to prepare the world economy for the end of cheap oil. It's irrelevant to Big Oil's cheerleaders, and seemingly by the general public, who want to believe, no matter how foolish it is, that fossil fuels cause only limited (if any) climate change and are of infinite supply.

And you'll find that the actual climatology community doesn't have a lot of "humans are a plague" types. While there are some extreme green types out there, that everyone who accepts AGW is some crazed tree hugging lunatic is a pretty huge strawman.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#42609637)

"... to prepare the world economy for the end of cheap oil."

We saw the end of "cheap" oil years ago. I think you mean "necessary" oil.

It will still be necessary, of course, for lots of things. Just not powering automobiles.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (2, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#42609879)

Oil is priced the same as its 50 year average. Well, priced in non-inflating gold, that is.

Oil only seems expensive because governments around the world are destroying the value of their currencies.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#42610761)

"Oil only seems expensive because governments around the world are destroying the value of their currencies."

You have a point. But when you adjust for new sources, it still reflects unhealthy inflation due to scarcity. Despite government rhetoric to the contrary, in a healthy market, prices don't inflate, they go down. Look at electronics for example, and computers specifically.

History is chock full of examples of deflation in healthy markets. Despite what "mainstream" economists say, inflation is bad news. But oil is a limited resource, so the more used, the scarcer it gets.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#42609789)

On the surface, I agree. A bit further, I don't. When is the last time we hard how damaging Oil and Coal are to Humans or the environment? The simple answer is, that we don't. There are numerous studies that show how damaging frack mining is, yet you have to go out of your way to find information. So it's not just about the financial aspect (cheap vs. expensive). It's also that you won't hear how harmful the products and byproducts are. That information is getting buried as fast as it can be created.

Same with the other side. Al Gore and his type are played in media. Nothing else gets media attention or time.

To be clear, it's not that the majority of people actually believe humans are a plague but rather you get no air time if you have a more rational point of view.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (0)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#42609819)

When is the last time we hard how damaging Oil and Coal are...

Should be When is the last time we heard how damaging Oil and Coal are... Darn my engrish skillz at times.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42610589)

Consider that curbing the production of pollution comes at a real economic cost. It translates to fewer jobs, fewer offerings, and higher prices.

So, a less-polluted world isn't automatically a better world. If we clean up a lot of harmless pollution, we actually make the world worse for ourselves.

Nucular power! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609089)

Nuclear power is clean and quite safe. The historical disasters are presented without a sense of scale and have people frightened for no reason.

Reactors built according to modern standards, and properly maintained, are quite safe and produce power that is squeaky-clean compared to the alternatives.

Re:Nucular power! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609845)

And pretty much no one here cares. It's all about taxing, regulating and rationing.

Re:Nucular power! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42610673)

that reminds me of assault weapons hysteria

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (3, Insightful)

OakDragon (885217) | about 2 years ago | (#42609323)

"What if global warming is a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"

I'm thinking the real question is, "What if global warming is true (and it seems to be), but we spend trillions of dollars - presumably to the
detriment of other beneficial things - to obtain only a marginally better outcome?"

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#42609711)

"What if global warming is true ... but we spend trillions of dollars - presumably to the detriment of other beneficial things - to obtain only a marginally better outcome?"

I don't know if it's true (and I do have my doubts) but I think this is really the essential point.

Even if you dismiss economist Bjorn Lomborg as an "anti-warmist", nobody has really refuted his calculations: that the cost of reducing CO2 warming by 1 degree C over the course of 100 years is about the same that it would cost to completely end world hunger... and that's taking changed conditions and population into account.

Which is more important?

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 2 years ago | (#42609903)

Sell it this way:

If you want to keep your private island from sinking in the ocean, stop the planet from warming up.

It doesn't matter how the planet is warming up.
If we know we can prevent some or most of the damage by not use using dirty combustion methods,
Why wouldn't we?

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (1)

swillden (191260) | about 2 years ago | (#42610449)

If we know we can prevent some or most of the damage by not use using dirty combustion methods, Why wouldn't we?

That's an easy one. We wouldn't because the alternatives to those dirty combustion methods are more expensive. Note that "more expensive" doesn't mean "requires more money" because money isn't a real thing, it's just a placeholder. it means that the alternatives require more resources, whether they be raw materials, labor, etc., resources that could be applied to solving other problems like, perhaps, the aforementioned world hunger.

In fact, world hunger isn't a problem of insufficient production, it's a problem of transportation and distribution, and more expensive transportation will therefore (likely) directly result in more hunger.

It's all connected, and you can't push on one piece without moving some others. So it's never a question of "if we can just do this why don't we?". That's not to say that it might not be worth doing, but you can't simply ignore all of the other potential effects.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#42610879)

More like the alternatives have a greater up-front expense.

A number of them could work out much cheaper once in place.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (1, Insightful)

mbkennel (97636) | about 2 years ago | (#42610717)

"at the cost of reducing CO2 warming by 1 degree C over the course of 100 years is about the same that it would cost to completely end world hunger."
That's actually pretty small. The cost of not reducing CO2 will of course include substantial destruction of highly economically valuable coastal infrastructure which supplies jobs and creates wealth, as well as lowering agricultural productiivty and increasing food costs.

The error is computing the "cost of hunger" using today's data.

1 degree C is huge as a long-term global average (including all seasons, latitudes, and the 70% of the planet which is ocean, the common way to calculate it).
The problem with world hunger is lack of money in hungry people---since we aren't giving them money now we won't be doing so in the future.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#42610847)

"The error is computing the "cost of hunger" using today's data."

No, it's not, and it's not small, either.

Note that I stated he already took into account the changed conditions (like projected crop failures and desertification due to warming), and increased population. His calculations were based on the worst-case IPCC predictions of the time.

Of course, the upcoming IPCC report retracts many of those predictions, and discusses far less severe consequences than it had projected before.

And if you don't want to put up with "coastal destruction", don't live there. Even according to the worst projections from officialdom that we've seen, there are 100 years to prepare for changes of that magnitude.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#42609469)

Whether or not it is a hoax, or to what degree it is sensationalized, would impact the kinds of measures you were willing to take, however.

If for example you could create a compelling case that "unless we stop burning all coal by February 1, the world will implode", I imagine people would be willing to take pretty drastic measures, and it might even come down to armed conflict.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#42609709)

The problem is NOT a case of "creating a better world for nothing" as many of us that are currently against AGW would think that would be great, wonderful, all for it. the problem that many of us have against AGW is the current "solutions" are a scam [nakedcapitalism.com] set up by the same groups that gave us credit default swaps and all the other lovely scams in the real estate bubble which We, The People, are still being handed bills for.

Take Mr "inconvenient truth" Rev Al Gore, not only has he not said a word about tariffs on China who has said they won't play the carbon game (hint, he makes crazy money there), not only has he set himself up to make billions on the carbon scam [telegraph.co.uk] but he has the diamond plated balls to say puttering around in his Lear Jet and driving his SUV makes him "carbon neutral" because he pays HIMSELF carbon credits from his OWN COMPANY which then hands him the money back as capital gains which he doesn't have to pay taxes on! It would be like moving money from your left pocket to your right and getting a tax break for doing it!

So you want to make the world cleaner? All for it, add huge tariffs to Chinese goods, we can pick up their fricking pollution on the west coast so if you want cleaner air there is a good start, tell the NIMBYs to fuck off and start building new nuclear reactors, tell the DoD to fuck off and allow reprocessing to deal with the waste, and invest in a people's car that runs on diesel, gets at least 40MPG and costs less than 20K. Give tax breaks and a huge "cash for clunkers" to the poor to get rid of all the old used cars on the road...tada! Wow I just solved a good portion of the problems right there, aren't I a genius? Why isn't this being done? Answer is obvious, its because the scammers can't leech more money with a sensible system that actually makes things better which is why the ONLY "solution" you'll hear from the AGW is carbon credits.

Oh and FYI but what EXACTLY do you think will happen to what few American factories are left if they have zero penalty for moving to China? Duh, they'll just move where they don't pay for carbon crap and make more money! Of course Rev Al won't say shit about that, he and his buddies make mad monies on cheap Chinese labor don't cha know? What a fucking scam, and what saddens me is how many "greenies" are buying the bullshit. This will do about as much to clean up the place as throwing all your garbage in the closet. Sure you won't see it but its still there and it will get worse until it spills out all over the place.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (3, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#42609849)

It's not the same. When you drive up the costs of using fossil fuels, commodity agriculture products get more expensive, and people in the third world starve and riot, creating misery.

If the AGW people would focus their efforts on expanding use of nuclear energy, especially new, safe designs, then there wouldn't be a problem. But they don't want to do that. They want carbon taxes and increased government intervention on every front.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (1, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#42610023)

That's my favorite political cartoon, glad to see others spreading it. :)

As for TFA, twice the forcing from soot is within the previous error bars [wikipedia.org] . Studies like this don't really tell us anything new, but they are important if you want to shrink those pesky error bars. As can be seen from the graph, forcing from soot is still dwarfed by the forcing from CO2.

Re:Reminds me of a cartoon (2)

LordLucless (582312) | about 2 years ago | (#42610525)

This reminds me of a cartoon [about.com]. Caption: "What if global warming is a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"

The false assumption there is that the cost of "creating a better world" is zero. It also implies that, for some reason, a world with less CO2 emissions is a good thing, even if turns out CO2 emissions don't do anything bad. Looking at the measures countries are taking with AGW, it looks like the "better world" will consist of one where power producers are taxed more, and household power bills increase. Um, yay?

It's likely that, if global warming turns out to be a non-issue, the measures taken to combat it will have created a worse world due to the impacts they've had on economics, diplomacy, diverting resources away from other problems, etc. This case is actually an example - focus is so much on CO2 as a greenhouse gas (which, other than that, is largely harmless) that we're ignoring other pollutants that are not only also greenhouse gasses but impact human health as well.

It's just good clean soot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608867)

Take it with a spoon full of sugar

Global Dimming (5, Interesting)

paysonwelch (2505012) | about 2 years ago | (#42608873)

Everyone hears about global warming, but did you know there is also something called global dimming? Although there are many probable causes, soot falls into this category as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming [wikipedia.org]

Re:Global Dimming (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608933)

Global dimming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. There is no evidence of global dimming, man-made or otherwise.

The researchers studying global dimming fudge their results so they can keep obtaining more grant money, it's that simple.

Re:Global Dimming (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608975)

no different from the AGW researchers, then?

Re:Global Dimming (2, Funny)

fredrated (639554) | about 2 years ago | (#42609145)

Only to a complete, unmitigated moron.

Re:Global Dimming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609449)

This gets modded "Funny" and the parent modded "Troll"?

Mods are on fucking crack as usual...

Re:Global Dimming (1)

paysonwelch (2505012) | about 2 years ago | (#42609015)

Everyone says everyone fudges the results, how can you prove it?

Re:Global Dimming (1)

auLucifer (1371577) | about 2 years ago | (#42609047)

I think the AC was being sarcastic by saying the same that anti-warming people have said.

Re:Global Dimming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609217)

Yeah, and how will we know that the people who proved that the researched fudged their results didn't fudge THEIR results too?

Re:Global Dimming (1)

fbumg (632974) | about 2 years ago | (#42610895)

Because they were produced by Livestrong.

Re:Global Dimming (0)

Nickmh1 (2817201) | about 2 years ago | (#42609461)

There is absolutely no chance of the area of climate science to STOP GUESSING! and making decisions based on assumptions which include further assumptions is there?

Re:Global Dimming (3, Informative)

tranquillity (137776) | about 2 years ago | (#42609859)

Yes, look at Beijing these days. Not much sun rays coming down. No blue sky either.

And here I thought it was the cars (-1, Flamebait)

HexaByte (817350) | about 2 years ago | (#42608887)

So it's not the cars causing global warming? Or is this just a way to garner more research funds?

I'm confused. Oh wait, I'm not, it's the scientist who are.

They know nothing, they just guess, and then say they need more money to study it!

Re:And here I thought it was the cars (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 years ago | (#42608923)

The article just says that the contribution of soot to global warming is higher than previously thought. It doesn't say that soot is now the sole or even the main cause of global warming (the linked article ranks it #2, behind CO2).

Re:And here I thought it was the cars (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609279)

>(the linked article ranks it #2, behind CO2).

That's ridiculous, because water vapor is a tremendously more important greenhouse gas than 1/3000th of our atmosphere (CO2) that has a self-limiting (logarithmic) saturation effect in its ability to absorb certain frequencies of light.

Re:And here I thought it was the cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609935)

Wait. Is that science? Who let you in? Listen, I don't know who you think you are, but we don't allow actual science in our global warming discussions. Got it? Now, scram!

Re:And here I thought it was the cars (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#42609017)

So it's not the cars causing global warming?

Strawman - nowhere do the articles or summary make that statement.

I'm confused. Oh wait, I'm not, it's the scientist who are.

No, sorry, it's just you.

Seems you did it to yourself, even...

They know nothing, they just guess, and then say they need more money to study it!

Um... you do know the definition of "hypothesis" is "an educated guess," right? As in, all scientists "just guess," albeit with a much better understanding of the topic than you or I.

Also worth noting: the statement is "the combustion product could be warming the world twice as much as previously thought."

"could be" != "is"

Some Corrections (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#42609037)

So it's not the cars causing global warming? Or is this just a way to garner more research funds?

This is about the contributions soot has to global warming and the magnitude of those contributions. This is, by no means, an attempt to isolate global warming down to one factor. It is a complex situation and your logical fallacy is to prey upon that complexity in order to disprove any additional information people try to publish on it.

Also, the paper had a very helpful executive summary. Had you bothered to read even that small fraction of it, one of the opening sentences states:

Sources whose emissions are rich in black carbon (‘BC-rich’) can be grouped into a small number of categories, broadly described as diesel engines, industry, residential solid fuel and open burning.

So, yes, according to the paper in the Americas and Europe diesel engines are some of the biggest contributors whereas in Africa and Asia the biggest contributors are coal and biomass burning operations.

I'm confused.

I know -- it's quite evident. I'm here to help.

Re:Some Corrections (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42610035)

At least for cars in Europe diesel engines have soot filters.

Re:Some Corrections (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42610901)

This is a LIE !!!!
Can we not look at past evidence of large volcanic eruptions in the past and see the effect of massive soot releases caused....gasp...GLOBAL COOLING.
What a bunch of sheep. Can scientists please start using critical thinking, check existing facts, and stop jumping on political bandwagon bullshit.

How does it affect models? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608889)

I find it surprising that this study is so late to the global warming game. I wonder how this affects the existing climate models. For, if as the study says, the exisitng affects of soot have been understated by a factor of 100%, does that not mean that the existing warming models are overstating the effect of CO2?

Re:How does it affect models? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608961)

The models won't be affected: they will still be wrong.

They will still be unable to yield correct ex ante predictions.

Re:How does it affect models? (1, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 2 years ago | (#42609567)

Can i get a refund on my carbon credits then?

Re:How does it affect models? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#42609853)

I find it surprising that this study is so late to the global warming game.

It's actually really depressing how much we don't know about the climate system (or exciting, if you're the guy embarking into a new world to discover).

Re:How does it affect models? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42610379)

If true, it implies that the two dozen or so models, which have all already consistently overpredicted the amount of temperature rise due to CO2, are even more wrong and that the government's economically destructive CO2 mitigation attempts, costing billions of dollars are even more stupid.

Re:How does it affect models? (1)

evendiagram (2789803) | about 2 years ago | (#42610697)

There are still people actively working on studying how soot, dust, and debris affect CC but from the sounds of it, the models would be rough if particulate data was included at all.

"The distance particulates travel depends on their size, how long they can stay in the atmosphere – gravity comes into play here. For example, soot is a relatively small particulate; it can travel quite far. A fire in Canada can cause soot to travel to Greenland's ice sheet. Scientists suspect that changes to the amount and frequency of forest fires might be affecting how much soot is traveling to glaciers. [...] Similarly, with climate change, dryness is becoming more prevalent and as a result, there's more dust. One study documented increased dust transported to glaciers in the Swiss Alps, which in turn was increasing glacier melt rates." http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/glacier-debris.html [nasa.gov]

17 years of no warming (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608909)

And yet there has been no warming for many years. It sounds like even the UK Met Office and Dr. Hansen are ceding this.

The ozone hole and CO2 catastrophes didn't pan out, so it's time to turn to a new money-raising crisis.

Re:17 years of no warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609105)

Sure, There hasn't been any average warming for 16-17 years, but 2012 was the 10th hottest average on record. TENTH hottest! Be afraid!

Also 2012 was the record hottest for the United States and since USA is the world, we're all fucked. Just kill yourself now, Why suffer?

Re:17 years of no warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609157)

Did you not live through the summer? There were droughts everywhere. Its the warmest year on record, ever.

Re:17 years of no warming (1)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#42609947)

*In the US, which is only the entire world when convenient.

And... (3, Funny)

taz346 (2715665) | about 2 years ago | (#42608945)

Of course now we can all eagerly await the responses from the Heartland Institute and others touting the health and economic benefits of soot.

Wooh! Good times ahead! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608965)

Thank you, soot!

- From Frozen Hell (AKA. Finland) with love!

Soot == Carbon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609007)

Proof! Mind Blown!

QED

Re:Soot == Carbon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609067)

Also, Diamond == Carbon, so therefore Soot == Diamond. Release a couple of press statements and the problem should take care of itself.

Is anyone else sick of... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609071)

The rash of climate change crap on slashdot lately? Within the last year slashdot has gone downhill as far as keeping political stuff out...
Climate change is highly political still and an agenda is now being pushed on slashdot... who oversees getting these stories promoted? It seem when cmdrtaco did everything in the old days, I was assured to not have to be badgered with this stupid climate change politics...

Re:Is anyone else sick of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609533)

That's right.

Because global warming is NOT HAPPENING!

Climate researchers are well paid by government grants. Socialism is fascism. Freedom is slavery. Two plus two is five. Fox News tells the truth.

God bless the Republican Party! God bless the new truth!

Re:Is anyone else sick of... (1)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#42609977)

Fascism is socialism, but socialism is not necessarily fascism, FYI.

And yes, we have fascism, and it is failing as fascism always does (contrary to the myth that the Nazis "fixed" the German economy--they were just squished as they were collapsing under the weight of their own inefficiency). Look to the economy of Spain under Marco to see the long term effects of full-on fascism.

Socialism is the opposite of fascism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42610039)

Socialism is when government owns business. Fascism is when business controls government. They're quite different. But yes, in the U.S. we do have a lot of corporate control of government, and huge corporate propaganda outlets like Fox News. So you're right about that. But I don't know if it's failing.

Re:Is anyone else sick of... (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42609557)

Do you think the universe gives a flying fuck about politics? If the climate is changing (and just about every active researcher in the field says it is), then it does not matter what fucking little bit whether you find it political. Nature is not bound by any ideology, or by politics, or by your distaste for either.

Grow the fuck up. What are you, eight years old, that your reaction to this sort of thing is to shove your fingers in your ears and declare you don't want to hear about it?

Re:Is anyone else sick of... (2)

brkello (642429) | about 2 years ago | (#42610043)

It is only political in American where people love to be willfully ignorant of facts and science. This has been accepted everywhere else in the world. Time to grow up.

Really? (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#42609099)

Whenever I see or touch soot, it is ambient temperature. Not sure how inert particles in the air make the air warm

"/sarcasm"

http://khotothamraa.blogspot.com (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609211)

Online Watch Movies, Movies Online Watch, Online Movie, Watch Movie Online, Free Movies Online, Hindi, Hollywood Movie, Watch arabic movies online , watch free arabic movies online, free arabic movies online , watch free arabic Egyptian Movies online free

Re:http://khotothamraa.blogspot.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609553)

Watch Free Spammers-Getting-Flayed Movies online!

One of the reasons war warms the world (2)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | about 2 years ago | (#42609467)

War results in a great deal more soot than would be expected from either its expenditures, or its fuel use. In 2005, I pointed out the the data from World War II, and from Iraq, both pointed to a soot factor. Since large particulate matter falls out of the atmosphere more quickly than CO2, this effect would show a short term increase in warming, which would then tail off rapidly. Large particulate combustion products have a low CO2 equivalence over the long term, but in the short term produce the same amount of greenhouse forcing. This is also true of slash and burn agriculture, and other incomplete combustion processes. The linked to study is important because it confirms what was theoretically predicted.

Climate science wins again.

Now THERE's a reversal. (1)

Troyusrex (2446430) | about 2 years ago | (#42609535)

It was less that two years ago that they said that the reason warming is lower than forecasts is because of pollution in China Global warming lull down to China's coal growth [bbc.co.uk] . While I certainly believe the earth has warmed and humans have some blame I'm HIGHLY skeptical of the media's representation of Climate Change for reasons like this.

Re:Now THERE's a reversal. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609755)

As I mentioned above (and I subsequently was labelled Troll), there has been no warming for about 17 years.

In light of this, and in light of the dismal failed IPCC predictions, I think the CO2 CAGW hypothesis is finally starting to lose respect and the researchers are backpedaling to save face and cover their butts. They are also looking for new avenues of funding: solar influence (winds and spectral components e.g. EUV) and soot are two of the new frontiers. This trickle will turn into a stampede.

Hopefully this shift will result in more scientific discovery and less alarmism, advocacy, and government meddling. Time will tell.

Re:Now THERE's a reversal. (5, Funny)

BergZ (1680594) | about 2 years ago | (#42610233)

So here we have a dilemma.
An Anonymous Coward on Slashdot says the IPCC predictions are a dismal failure.
On the other hand David J. Frame & Dáithí A. Stone compared the IPCC model predictions against the observed temperatures and found the predictions to be accurate (source [nature.com] ).

So I guess the question is who am I going to believe:
The unsubstantiated claims of an Anonymous Coward on Slashdot -OR- the detailed research of scientists that has passed the peer-review process?
Tough call!

Re:Now THERE's a reversal. (1)

dthx1138 (833363) | about 2 years ago | (#42610631)

It was less that two years ago that they said that the reason warming is lower than forecasts is because of pollution in China

RTFA. Your point was directly addressed in the story:

"Diesel engines can spew mostly soot, but coal burning puts out both climate-warming soot and sulfur that goes on to cool the climate by reflecting solar energy back into space."

In other words, no reversal whatsoever. The researchers simply realized that the impact of soot is much larger than previously estimated, so much so that it outweighs the potential cooling impact of sulfur emissions.

Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42609713)

We should shut down China.

Diesel - bah (1)

tranquillity (137776) | about 2 years ago | (#42609815)

I am worrying about the rising number of diesel cars. Much more soot is coming of their exhaust, and about 20% more CO_2 compared to traditional engine.

Re:Diesel - bah (1)

iusty (104688) | about 2 years ago | (#42610517)

I am worrying about the rising number of diesel cars. Much more soot is coming of their exhaust, and about 20% more CO_2 compared to traditional engine.

Soot and NOx yes, but AFAIK diesel engines produce less CO_2 than gas/petrol.

Good. (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about 2 years ago | (#42610687)

Northeastern Ohio winter weather is often too damn cold anyway. If such a "global warming" tames winter weather and extends the growing season, then I'll be the last one to complain.

Notice how shit now becomes fact on /. (0)

G_REEPER (112154) | about 2 years ago | (#42610749)

The best piece from this story " could be" . The left wing idiots have taken over/. and that is from someone who was here at the beginning.

scientists are idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42610965)

The sky is falling, The sky is falling....dumazzes

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?