Talk:Black carbon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.


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[edit]

Stro 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[edit]

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. ( (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)


  • Gregory Carmichael - [1]
  • V. Ramanathan - [2]
  • Tami Bond - [3]
  • Charles Zender - [4]
  • Mark Jacobson - [5]
  • James Hansen - [6]

So what is it?[edit]

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 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Radiative Forcing Estimates[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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", (I don't have access to the scientific paper, so I'm afraid to update the wikipedia article just based upon the abstract.) (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


In footnote 44, the URL to the article is outdated. It should be replaced with: Can someone with more experience editing do this please? (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2011 (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.[edit]

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)


... 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 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.

Why was organic carbon wikilink rm?[edit]

Wikilink organic carbon. (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)


"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. (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[edit]

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

James Hansen[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the reference now. (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 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)