4 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt'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it "can rarely be boiled down to an article written for general consumption by mass media", why did you reach to an outdated SciAm article as justification, and not something in the recent primary literature?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.