Talk:Black carbon

message: The structure of this article is not very good. I propose to revise with the following headers:
# Definition
# Measurement
# Emissions
# Climate Impact
# Mitigation Potential
# Control Technologies
# Policy Options
Mrminjares (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger with carbon black 

message: 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)
replies: text: Tags have (already) been removed - thank you for your contributions.--Astavats (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advocacy instead of information 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Radiative Forcing Estimates 

message: In footnote 44, the URL to the article is outdated. It should be replaced with: http://oversight-archive.waxman.house.gov/documents/20071018110734.pdf.  Can someone with more experience editing do this please? 128.138.217.85 (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
thread_title:  In Jan. 2012, cited Tami Bond testimony not found at cited location.  Here is a portion of the report of the committee on point.   

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay, I am stumped now. Sorry.--NHSavage (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism? 

message: Please see my suggestions at Talk:Carbon_black#Soot.2C_Black_Carbon.2C_Carbon_black. --NHSavage (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soot, Black Carbon, Carbon black 

message: 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)
thread_title:  James Hansen 

message: 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)
replies: text: Probably because in the latter case it is going into the stratosphere. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenhouse or anti-greenhouse?

message: 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)
replies: text: Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview section is OK

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)