4 ms·

I notice that once again one of the comments to the article raises the issue of glacier melt and automatically leaps to the conclusion it is caused by elevated

I notice that once again one of the comments to the article raises the issue of glacier melt and automatically leaps to the conclusion it is caused by elevated CO2, when much evidence indicates it is due to soot - ://www.scientificamerican.com/article/subcontinental-smut-himalayas/# The plague of humans is causing a lot of problems for the planet, but it is essential to use good science to understand the real cause of problems so appropriate efforts can be made to minimise impact and not waste even more resources. Most things are not as simple as they may seem in the case of such complex systems, so undounded dogma that prevents good questioning science isn't going to help.

eesmith 9y ago
The only mention of "melting" in the comments is "the rate of both polar and ice sheet melting is worse than predicted." This was in the context of giving an example of a prediction that Gore made. The comment says nothing about CO2 vs. soot. If anything, soot may be the reason for the increased rate. You pointed to a SciAm article from 2009 concerning the Himalayas. I'll respond with a 2014 Guardian piece titled "Climate impact of black carbon severely overestimated, says study" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/26/climate-impact-of-black-carbon-severely-overestimated-says-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/26/climate-... Or this 2016 piece from the Earth Institute, citing research from 2013 http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/the-damaging-effects-of-black-carbon/ http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/the-damaging-effects... > a 2013 study estimated black carbon’s effect to be 1.1 watts per square meter per year, second only to carbon dioxide, which is responsible for 1.56 watts per square meter. In other words, black carbon is the second largest contributor to climate change after CO2. But unlike CO2, which can stay in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, black carbon, because it is a particle, remains in the atmosphere only for days to weeks before it returns to earth with rain or snow. This appears to be a well-studied topic in climate research. It therefore makes no sense to point out a possible mistake or incomplete comment by a random someone from the internet as the basis for a call for "good scienc", nor does it justify accusations of "undounded [sic] dogma".
- airbreather 9y ago
  The Gaurdian, lol. I will take SciAm over them any day. Plus, it is not just soot, it is dark particulates in general and it is not causing global warming but very local warming nucleation sites on the ice that start the melt. I make my point again, the complexities are immense and can rarely be boiled down to an article written for general consumption by mass media.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    It's not like the Guardian article didn't link to the primary literature, which is www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140925/ncomms6065/abs/ncomms6065.html . All you're doing is making an ad hominem argument. You originally said there was "much evidence indicates it is due to soot". The SciAm article asks "Is Soot the Culprit Behind Melting Himalayan Glaciers?" Now you've changed your mind and said "dark particulates in general", but provided no references, nor explained how that is different than soot/black carbon. That's changing the goalposts. You wasted my time by making an argument you don't actually mean. Since you think it "can rarely be boiled down to an article written for general consumption by mass media", why did you reach to an outdated SciAm article as justification, and not something in the recent primary literature? It's even much less likely to be boiled down to an HN comment. In any case, you still incorrectly summarized the glacier melt comment.

eesmith 9y ago

The only mention of "melting" in the comments is "the rate of both polar and ice sheet melting is worse than predicted." This was in the context of giving an example of a prediction that Gore made. The comment says nothing about CO2 vs. soot. If anything, soot may be the reason for the increased rate. You pointed to a SciAm article from 2009 concerning the Himalayas. I'll respond with a 2014 Guardian piece titled "Climate impact of black carbon severely overestimated, says study" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/26/climate-impact-of-black-carbon-severely-overestimated-says-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/26/climate-... Or this 2016 piece from the Earth Institute, citing research from 2013 http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/the-damaging-effects-of-black-carbon/ http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/the-damaging-effects... > a 2013 study estimated black carbon’s effect to be 1.1 watts per square meter per year, second only to carbon dioxide, which is responsible for 1.56 watts per square meter. In other words, black carbon is the second largest contributor to climate change after CO2. But unlike CO2, which can stay in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, black carbon, because it is a particle, remains in the atmosphere only for days to weeks before it returns to earth with rain or snow. This appears to be a well-studied topic in climate research. It therefore makes no sense to point out a possible mistake or incomplete comment by a random someone from the internet as the basis for a call for "good scienc", nor does it justify accusations of "undounded [sic] dogma".

airbreather 9y ago
The Gaurdian, lol. I will take SciAm over them any day. Plus, it is not just soot, it is dark particulates in general and it is not causing global warming but very local warming nucleation sites on the ice that start the melt. I make my point again, the complexities are immense and can rarely be boiled down to an article written for general consumption by mass media.
- eesmith 9y ago
  It's not like the Guardian article didn't link to the primary literature, which is www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140925/ncomms6065/abs/ncomms6065.html . All you're doing is making an ad hominem argument. You originally said there was "much evidence indicates it is due to soot". The SciAm article asks "Is Soot the Culprit Behind Melting Himalayan Glaciers?" Now you've changed your mind and said "dark particulates in general", but provided no references, nor explained how that is different than soot/black carbon. That's changing the goalposts. You wasted my time by making an argument you don't actually mean. Since you think it "can rarely be boiled down to an article written for general consumption by mass media", why did you reach to an outdated SciAm article as justification, and not something in the recent primary literature? It's even much less likely to be boiled down to an HN comment. In any case, you still incorrectly summarized the glacier melt comment.