Talk:Black carbon

Structure

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

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)

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

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. (68.51.72.29 (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)

Contributors

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

So what is it?

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

Radiative Forcing Estimates

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 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", http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/abstract (I don't have access to the scientific paper, so I'm afraid to update the wikipedia article just based upon the abstract.) 200.87.20.172 (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

References

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)

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

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)

Why was organic carbon wikilink rm?

Wikilink organic carbon. 99.181.143.14 (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)

Plagiarism?

"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)

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

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

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

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

Up to 30% of the total carbon means 30% of the TOC, not of the soil. It supports the original statement in the article. -- Paleorthid (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the reference now. 134.245.199.112 (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 134.245.98.147 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I added a different citation, Gonzalez-Perez (2004), which supports saying that up to 60% of soil TOC is black carbon. -- Paleorthid (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The quoted statement is correct, but the same source states that 1% to 6% of total soil organic carbon is the usual range. The 60% is the all-time high. Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of world records. I think the 1-6% should be stated next to the 60%.

Here is the paragraph from the source given: "As a whole, BC represents between 1 and 6% of the total soil organic carbon. It can reach 35% like in Terra Preta Oxisols (Brazilian Amazonia) (Glaser et al., 1998, 2000) up to 45 % in some chernozemic soils from Germany (Schmidt et al., 1999) and up to 60% in a black Chernozen from Canada (Saskatchewan) (Ponomarenko and Anderson, 1999)." 81.89.202.239 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Greenhouse or anti-greenhouse?

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)

Probably because in the latter case it is going into the stratosphere. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Overview section is OK

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)

Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Aerosol Masking Effect

This topic needs addressed here. https://www.skepticalscience.com/Soot-and-global-warming.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.192.145 (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The link does not work from my location as explained in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Skeptical_Science#Insecure_website so I cannot see what you are talking about.

Please could you either request the site to be unblocked from here if you are the owner, or if not edit this article yourself. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no concensus. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge soot into black carbon. I am not an expert but I understand that non-carbon components of soot are extremely minor, so soot is pretty much a kind of black carbon. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Like my buddy Dream always says, a merge is almost as bad as a deletion. Some find it even more insidious than other back door deletion methods like redirects or dratification.

My esteemed ARS colleague Paleorthid made good points on why a Soot > BC merge may be preferable to BC > soot, but in my view keeping both artilcles best serves the reader. While important, the term black carbon only emerged among climate scientists back in 1981. Whereas soot has been a central part of human experience for time immemorial, ever since Prometheus gifted us with fire. It's encyclopaedic notability is undeniable. As for non-carbon components of soot being extremely minor - were you thinking of carbon black? CB does indeed have < 3% non carbon components (at least when well made with the standard oil furnace method.). But soot & BC, while highly variable in composition compared to CB, commonly have > 30% non carbon constituents. Dont worry if this is confusing, the Article Rescue Squad will create a Terminology section for you, which I think you'll like. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable I was not thinking of carbon black and I think we should keep that out of this discussion to avoid confusion. Of course I agree that soot is notable, however having so much duplication between the soot and black carbon articles likely makes them harder to keep up to date. I expect that an awful lot of research is going on nowadays, some of which would be good to add. As you oppose merging perhaps you can suggest another solution to keeping the articles up to date - maybe excerpts? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

For example as we reduce ground-level sources by electrification (and hopefully better firefighting), emissions from aircraft and rockets will presumably become more important - so info like https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0046-4 and https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021EF002612 should be added I think Chidgk1 (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, my suggestion for encouraging updates is not to merge. When an article becomes over large due to excessive merging, it's more challenging to update. An editor can find themselves trapped between the Scylla of having to delete others work, and the Charybdis of adding to the issue of the article being too big for many to comfortably read. As an example, when I saw the Stechemesser paper come out in August, I knew it had to be added to Climate change mitigation as it's a total game changer. But it took a while to get ready to face the necessary trimming needed to create space. If not for good CKC adding it first I may have been stuck on that dilemma for weeks more. I think your suggestion about updating with the spacecraft source is far sighted. The world is changing so fast, one day it will be like boom and Musk's plans to take us to Mars will be all over WP:RS. A vastly more significant thing than what he's already done with the moon. But if we merge the article, there might not be room.

That said, just my opinion, your view is certainly valid too. Especially perhaps for editors who hate to see a possible WP:POVfork , I can see how such an editor might be less likely to update articles with overlapping scope. I'll give this some more thought, & anyway others may agree to the merge regardless. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Getting in new information doesn't mean old info needs to be deleted due to article length. If there is more worthwhile material on a subject than can fit in a single article, we create articles on specific subtopics and move details there. -- Beland (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Could not agree more. That's what I did with Hunger in the United States for example, an article started by you yourself. Sadly, it's not so easy if we're talking about an article under the purview of wiki project CC. They seem to be all about merging. There's been a number of times I've came across a systematic review of a particular topic and thought it would be nice to have an article on it, but then found it's already covered in a subsection of some huge 100k + article, with the CC folks saying they don't want it split off. BTW, thanks for posting several great WP:RS over on talk:soot- those were used to create a terminology section that I think makes an ok start at discussing the overlapping and contradictory definitions in play here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It may be that the objections were specific to the changes you were trying to make; usually if editors object to both adding material and spinning off a subarticle, it's because they don't feel the added material is appropriate to have in the encyclopedia at all. -- Beland (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• I agree soot would be a better merge target than black carbon, and also would not mind if the articles are kept separate. If kept separate, all three articles would need to more clearly explain the overlapping and contradictory definitions used for soot, black carbon, and carbon black. Though I will note humans discovered fire on their own, and did not receive it from any fictional gods. -- Beland (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for quick reply but let’s keep carbon black out of this discussion to avoid complication. So do you have a preference for merging or not merging? And if your preference is not to merge do you think excerpts should be used to more easily keep up to date? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would probably start by upgrading all three separate articles (I know you don't want to talk about carbon black, but I just removed a reference to it from soot that confused the definitions, so I think it needs to be done) to clarify the terminology, and see from there what's natural. For example, is there a single definition we can state which the climate change coverage in black carbon uses consistently? If not, does that overlap with a definition of "soot"? I see soot gives an IPCC definition of that term; does IPCC define "black carbon", and if so how are they related? Which are they reporting on? -- Beland (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  That soot definition is very old. IPCC AR6 glossary https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_AnnexVII.pdf does not have an entry for soot but says:

  Black carbon (BC) A relatively pure form of carbon, also known

  as soot, arising from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuel,

  and biomass. It only stays in the atmosphere for days or weeks. BC

  is a climate forcing agent with strong warming effect, both in the

  atmosphere and when deposited on snow or ice. See also Aerosol

  and Atmosphere.

  Goodnight Chidgk1 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe it would be good to just move all the climate change coverage to black carbon, then. -- Beland (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, and to answer your other question, I'm not sure excerpts would be a natural fit. I expect soot would be focusing on the different definitions of soot, and occasionally mention a black carbon definition that is related to a specific soot definition. And for black carbon would be going over the definitions of that term, and occasionally mention a specific definition of soot related to a specific definition of black carbon. But we won't know how it turns out until we do it. -- Beland (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Re fire I never knew before now that we have an article on Lightning in religion Chidgk1 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. A quick read of the article about soot makes it clear that the two terms are not synonymous. Black carbon is only one component of soot. If anything, merging the article about "black carbon" into "soot" would make more sense, since soot is a more recognizable term. "Carbon black" is a very recent term compared to "soot". Its use is a form of WP:RECENTISM. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Cameron Dewe I agree that the terms are not synonymous, however I did not know that before proposing to merge "black carbon" into "soot" and once I understood that I closed that discussion. Do you have a bit more time to consider this proposal? I am not an expert - what other components of soot are significant do you know?

  P.S. Everyone - if you want to say anything about carbon black please start your own talk page section otherwise I will get confused - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Chidgk1: This article gives a climatology definition for "black carbon" as being a particular particle size and found in the atmosphere. It also has a separate soil sciences definition. "Soot", on the other hand, is found in the flue or chimney of any fireplace where there is incomplete combustion of fuel, so it cannot have made its way into the atmosphere, or soil. The two terms are as different as steam and ice, although both are a form of Oxidane, which is the chemical name for Oxygen dihydride, they are different states of matter.. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  http://www.cas.manchester.ac.uk/restools/instruments/aerosol/sp2/background/#:~:text=Soot%20particles%20are%20important%20in,depth%20is%20much%20more%20significant. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Chidgk1: That article confines itself to "Atmospheric Soot Particles" and is talking about only the soot that is emitted into the atmosphere as smoke. Half the time the article talks about "soot particle(s)", and where it mentions "soot" without mentioning "particles", it is talking about to to measure the particle in the atmosphere or as aerosols. That article does not talk about the soot one needs to sweeps from a chimney before the winter heating season to avoid a chimney fire. Cameron Dewe (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Paleorthid: As you made some good points at Talk:Soot#Merge_proposal would you have time to comment here? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support merger. Soot is a small (in terms of mass) portion of all forms of black carbon in nature. Here's an article about black carbon from Nature: it does not talk about soot: Tranvik (2018) New light on black carbon. Nature Geoscience, 11(8), 547-548. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0181-x. I came into this discussion through the soil project. Soot is a component of soil, but most black carbon in soil is charcoal. Charcoal showed up in the geologic record, marking when oxygen rose to levels where plants could burn. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/earth-oldest-wildfire-430-million-years-ago-fossil-charcoal Soot seems like a pretty minor player in this planetary historical context. Folks who originally conflated soot with black carbon in the soil must eventually be brought up to speed. Merging the articles would serve this ongoing de-conflation effort better than if the articles were separate. Regardless of whether a merger happens, a concerted article improvement campaign is needed. -- Paleorthid (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First sentence is too technical - any ideas?

How about something like:

Black carbon is various carbon containing substances left over when burning biomass or a fossil fuel, such as charcoal from wood, or soot from diesel.

https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13021-024-00255-3 Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Something like that works. I am looking for black carbon cites to support expanding on that, adding the following somewhere later in the article:

Higher light absorbance distinguishes black carbon from the brown carbon left over from burning. High carbon content distinguishes black carbon from ash.

For improving the soot article, there is an opportunity to rely on this excerpt:

"Black carbon (BC) is the refractory and most strongly light-absorbing component of soot". Schwarz (2008). Coatings and their enhancement of black carbon light absorption in the tropical atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 113(D3). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009042

Note refractory means a high melting temperature, and resistant to deformation at high temperatures. That excerpt supports 1) there are other components of soot besides black carbon. 2) the non-black carbon components will be less refractory such as brown carbon and less light absorbing such as brown carbon and ash. Need a few more sources before can move forward on adding this to soot. Need assurance that perspective is accepted beyond a single journal article. Looking especially for a textbook cite, a more reliable source than a single journal article. -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merger. The article Soot seems to be independently notable. Kolano123 (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kolano123 Do you have any ideas about the first sentence? Perhaps you would like to put this in the right section before I close the merger discussion so your opinion can easily be seen in future years Chidgk1 (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)