http://www.physorg.com/news108882582.html
Only Europe?
Then the warming is not "Global"?
Wow? Could it have anything to do with the carbon soot from Diesels (Europeans drive more diesels) absorbing more sulight, therefore generating more heat?
Could it have nothing to do with CO2?
Nah, it's all those nuclear power plants in France that's the problem. If they'd use coal fired plants, there would be more soot going into the air to keep things cooled down (yeah, that's how you get atmospheric "cooling"). If it were not for the diesels (in abscence of volcanic activity & all the forests the dimwits have cut down), things would be even warmer than they are now.
Diesesl are a huge problem in terms of soot compared to a coal fire power plant.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001...iesel-1212.html
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001...iesel-1212.html
QUOTE
Diesel fuel powers almost all commercial trucks, buses and tractors worldwide and 33 percent of the passenger vehicles sold in Europe last year, Jacobson says. In 1997, tax laws in 14 European countries favored diesel over gasoline. Though only one American passenger vehicle in 1,000 runs on diesel, annual diesel emissions from all ground transportation sources in the United States are 75 to 80 percent of those in Europe.
Many people mistakenly believe that diesel vehicles are better for the environment because they travel 30 percent more miles per gallon than do gasoline-powered vehicles. But diesel vehicles emit about 18 percent more carbon per gallon than do gasoline vehicles. More important, soot is a much more efficient warming agent per unit mass than is the worst greenhouse gas.
Many people mistakenly believe that diesel vehicles are better for the environment because they travel 30 percent more miles per gallon than do gasoline-powered vehicles. But diesel vehicles emit about 18 percent more carbon per gallon than do gasoline vehicles. More important, soot is a much more efficient warming agent per unit mass than is the worst greenhouse gas.
QUOTE (NotParker+Sep 14 2007, 02:42 AM)
Diesesl are a huge problem in terms of soot compared to a coal fire power plant.
Yet another coyote pup is sharpening his teeth on the fat diesel a**.
All new diesel cars sold in Europe must comply at least to Euro 4 standard:
- particulate matter 0.025 g/km.
At the same time, an average European car will have 150 g CO2/km and an average US car >200 g CO2/km.
So, you have 6000 times more CO2 than soot by mass in Europe and 8000 times more in US.
Per unit mass or per unit crap?
Is there any diesel-biting article newer than this 2001 Jacobson report?
After all, what Jacobson asks is a reduction in diesel soot output. Well, Europe has done it. Since Jacobson started work on his report, Europe went from:
- EURO 2 - 0.1 g/km to
- EURO 3 - 0.05 g/km to
- EURO 4 - 0.025 g/km
and some new cars even have EURO 5 - 0.005 g/km.
Yet another coyote pup is sharpening his teeth on the fat diesel a**.
QUOTE
More important, soot is a much more efficient warming agent per unit mass than is the worst greenhouse gas.
All new diesel cars sold in Europe must comply at least to Euro 4 standard:
- particulate matter 0.025 g/km.
At the same time, an average European car will have 150 g CO2/km and an average US car >200 g CO2/km.
So, you have 6000 times more CO2 than soot by mass in Europe and 8000 times more in US.
Per unit mass or per unit crap?
Is there any diesel-biting article newer than this 2001 Jacobson report?
After all, what Jacobson asks is a reduction in diesel soot output. Well, Europe has done it. Since Jacobson started work on his report, Europe went from:
- EURO 2 - 0.1 g/km to
- EURO 3 - 0.05 g/km to
- EURO 4 - 0.025 g/km
and some new cars even have EURO 5 - 0.005 g/km.
QUOTE (Mircea+)
Yet another coyote pup is sharpening his teeth on the fat diesel a**.
Likes to sound authoritative though doesn't he (NotParker)?
Likes to sound authoritative though doesn't he (NotParker)?
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+Sep 14 2007, 03:29 AM)
After all, what Jacobson asks is a reduction in diesel soot output. Well, Europe has done it. Since Jacobson started work on his report, Europe went from:
- EURO 2 - 0.1 g/km to
- EURO 3 - 0.05 g/km to
- EURO 4 - 0.025 g/km
and some new cars even have EURO 5 - 0.005 g/km.
Well that's talking about NEW cars in NEW condition.
Alas, such is NOT what is on the road.
First there are a substantial number of trucks and buses that do not meet these levels
Second what is on the road is an AGING car fleet whose emissions rise with age.
Which is why despite the fact that new cars emit less CO2 and Soot, emissions from transportation in the EU keep rising.
Besides the aging EU car fleet, this is due to:
Increasing quantitiy of freight transport
Lack of effective traffic management
Increased absolute car mileage
Note that between 1995 and 2003, motorists in the EU-25 increased their annual mileage by 16.4%.
Worse, more people own more cars causing the ownership of cars to rise faster than the sales of newly produced cars. Thus the average age of cars in the EU-15 is 8 years and up to ~14 years in some of the newer EU Member States.
As far as the effect of Soot:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environme...rctic_soot.html
Also
Arthur
- EURO 2 - 0.1 g/km to
- EURO 3 - 0.05 g/km to
- EURO 4 - 0.025 g/km
and some new cars even have EURO 5 - 0.005 g/km.
Well that's talking about NEW cars in NEW condition.
Alas, such is NOT what is on the road.
First there are a substantial number of trucks and buses that do not meet these levels
Second what is on the road is an AGING car fleet whose emissions rise with age.
Which is why despite the fact that new cars emit less CO2 and Soot, emissions from transportation in the EU keep rising.
Besides the aging EU car fleet, this is due to:
Increasing quantitiy of freight transport
Lack of effective traffic management
Increased absolute car mileage
Note that between 1995 and 2003, motorists in the EU-25 increased their annual mileage by 16.4%.
Worse, more people own more cars causing the ownership of cars to rise faster than the sales of newly produced cars. Thus the average age of cars in the EU-15 is 8 years and up to ~14 years in some of the newer EU Member States.
As far as the effect of Soot:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environme...rctic_soot.html
Also
Arthur
The Law of Unintended Side Effects.
Switch to Diesel in Europe because of high fuel costs and blind adherence to Kyoto.
Consequence: Europe is warming because of soot.
As it turns out, record temperatures are not occuring in Africa or South America and it turns out the US records were set in the 1930's, not the 1990's.
Kyoto is causing the warming.
Switch to Diesel in Europe because of high fuel costs and blind adherence to Kyoto.
Consequence: Europe is warming because of soot.
As it turns out, record temperatures are not occuring in Africa or South America and it turns out the US records were set in the 1930's, not the 1990's.
Kyoto is causing the warming.
QUOTE (NotParker+Sep 14 2007, 04:22 PM)
The Law of Unintended Side Effects.
Switch to Diesel in Europe because of high fuel costs and blind adherence to Kyoto.
Consequence: Europe is warming because of soot.
As it turns out, record temperatures are not occuring in Africa or South America and it turns out the US records were set in the 1930's, not the 1990's.
Kyoto is causing the warming.
Funny how, when you say "there is global warming because of increased CO2 emissions", people correct you and tell you "there's not enough evidence to support it" or "the relationship is not that simple/straightforward", etc.
When diesel soot is the subject, hocus-pocus, it all becomes straightforward:
Switch to Diesel in Europe because of high fuel costs and blind adherence to Kyoto.
Consequence: Europe is warming because of soot.
As it turns out, record temperatures are not occuring in Africa or South America and it turns out the US records were set in the 1930's, not the 1990's.
Kyoto is causing the warming.
Funny how, when you say "there is global warming because of increased CO2 emissions", people correct you and tell you "there's not enough evidence to support it" or "the relationship is not that simple/straightforward", etc.
When diesel soot is the subject, hocus-pocus, it all becomes straightforward:
QUOTE
Consequence: Europe is warming because of soot.
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 14 2007, 02:41 PM)
Well that's talking about NEW cars in NEW condition.
Alas, such is NOT what is on the road.
First there are a substantial number of trucks and buses that do not meet these levels
Second what is on the road is an AGING car fleet whose emissions rise with age.
Which is why despite the fact that new cars emit less CO2 and Soot, emissions from transportation in the EU keep rising.
I rephrase it: "Well, Europe is working on it".
It is true not all diesel cars on the road are brand new Euro 4, but in 10 years 80% will be Euro 4 and Euro 5.
In theory, it does not matter how old one car gets, because every 2 years it has to pass a opacimeter test and comply to the same limits as at the time it was new. That means that it you have a 10-years old EURO 2 diesel, it still has to emit no more than 0.1 g soot/km. In practice, there is always corruption everywhere, US included.
The big difference between US CO2 and European soot is that the former has a residence time of up to 100 years in the atmosphere, while the second one vanishes in months. So the CO2 accumulates and the transition period may mean a lot.
If real science will prove that diesel soot indeed causes global warming, Europe can ban diesel cars, and in 10 years the problem will disappear, with the last cars.
If better science will prove that CO2 indeed is the big problem, we all will have to live with the post effects of the V6, V8, V12 engines for a century.
Alas, such is NOT what is on the road.
First there are a substantial number of trucks and buses that do not meet these levels
Second what is on the road is an AGING car fleet whose emissions rise with age.
Which is why despite the fact that new cars emit less CO2 and Soot, emissions from transportation in the EU keep rising.
I rephrase it: "Well, Europe is working on it".
It is true not all diesel cars on the road are brand new Euro 4, but in 10 years 80% will be Euro 4 and Euro 5.
In theory, it does not matter how old one car gets, because every 2 years it has to pass a opacimeter test and comply to the same limits as at the time it was new. That means that it you have a 10-years old EURO 2 diesel, it still has to emit no more than 0.1 g soot/km. In practice, there is always corruption everywhere, US included.
The big difference between US CO2 and European soot is that the former has a residence time of up to 100 years in the atmosphere, while the second one vanishes in months. So the CO2 accumulates and the transition period may mean a lot.
If real science will prove that diesel soot indeed causes global warming, Europe can ban diesel cars, and in 10 years the problem will disappear, with the last cars.
If better science will prove that CO2 indeed is the big problem, we all will have to live with the post effects of the V6, V8, V12 engines for a century.
CO2 has a very short residence time.
The rise in CO2 is much less than 1/2 the CO2 emitted annually, so its clear that most of what is released is absorbed by the environment in LESS THAN ONE YEAR.
In fact there is litle correlation between the annual amount of CO2 released and the annual Atmospheric increase.
Example:
1960 Released = 2.5 GT, increase = 1 ppm = 2 GT.
1970 Released = 3.75 GT, increase = 1 ppm = 2 GT
1975 Releaseed = 4.75 GT, increase = 1 ppm = 2 GT
1980 Released = 5.25 GT, increase = 1.25 ppm = 2.5 GT
1990 Released = 6.0 GT, increase = 1.25 ppm = 2.5 GT
2000 Released = 6.5 GT, increase = 1.25 ppm = 2.5 GT
2004 Released = 7.0 GT, increase = 1.75 ppm = 3.5 GT
The only thing that seems obvious is the increase in atmospheric CO2 is rising but not NEARLY by the same quantity that is being released.
Which implies the earth would quickly remove the excess if we started producing a bit less.
Arthur
The rise in CO2 is much less than 1/2 the CO2 emitted annually, so its clear that most of what is released is absorbed by the environment in LESS THAN ONE YEAR.
In fact there is litle correlation between the annual amount of CO2 released and the annual Atmospheric increase.
Example:
1960 Released = 2.5 GT, increase = 1 ppm = 2 GT.
1970 Released = 3.75 GT, increase = 1 ppm = 2 GT
1975 Releaseed = 4.75 GT, increase = 1 ppm = 2 GT
1980 Released = 5.25 GT, increase = 1.25 ppm = 2.5 GT
1990 Released = 6.0 GT, increase = 1.25 ppm = 2.5 GT
2000 Released = 6.5 GT, increase = 1.25 ppm = 2.5 GT
2004 Released = 7.0 GT, increase = 1.75 ppm = 3.5 GT
The only thing that seems obvious is the increase in atmospheric CO2 is rising but not NEARLY by the same quantity that is being released.
Which implies the earth would quickly remove the excess if we started producing a bit less.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 16 2007, 06:28 PM)
CO2 has a very short residence time.
The rise in CO2 is much less than 1/2 the CO2 emitted annually, so its clear that most of what is released is absorbed by the environment in LESS THAN ONE YEAR.
The only thing that seems obvious is the increase in atmospheric CO2 is rising but not NEARLY by the same quantity that is being released.
Which implies the earth would quickly remove the excess if we started producing a bit less.
This also looks much too STRAIGHTFORWARD to me.
Not only is it in HUGE disagreement with what the Gorians say, but I can continue your reasoning by saying:
Which implies that the earth would strip the atmosphere clean of half of today's CO2 within a century (to an ice-age level), if we stop producing CO2 completely.
As far as soot goes, you don't need no fancy calculus and certainly no climate models to forecast its removal rate from the air - all you need is one good RAIN.
The rise in CO2 is much less than 1/2 the CO2 emitted annually, so its clear that most of what is released is absorbed by the environment in LESS THAN ONE YEAR.
The only thing that seems obvious is the increase in atmospheric CO2 is rising but not NEARLY by the same quantity that is being released.
Which implies the earth would quickly remove the excess if we started producing a bit less.
This also looks much too STRAIGHTFORWARD to me.
Not only is it in HUGE disagreement with what the Gorians say, but I can continue your reasoning by saying:
Which implies that the earth would strip the atmosphere clean of half of today's CO2 within a century (to an ice-age level), if we stop producing CO2 completely.
As far as soot goes, you don't need no fancy calculus and certainly no climate models to forecast its removal rate from the air - all you need is one good RAIN.
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+Sep 17 2007, 04:48 AM)
This also looks much too STRAIGHTFORWARD to me.
Not only is it in HUGE disagreement with what the Gorians say, but I can continue your reasoning by saying:
Which implies that the earth would strip the atmosphere clean of half of today's CO2 within a century (to an ice-age level), if we stop producing CO2 completely.
As far as soot goes, you don't need no fancy calculus and certainly no climate models to forecast its removal rate from the air - all you need is one good RAIN.
Nope,
It would seem so, EXCEPT, that humans only contribute a TINY quantity of the overall CO2 exchanged in the biosphere each year each year.
The overall natural exchange is well OVER 200 Gigatons per year (not including sporadic large volcanic releases), while what man emits is a ROUNDING error of the many estimates that are used to come up with the natural exchange.
(While the amount man produces is fairly well known, the NATURAL cycle is only what we can account for, the actual number is likely higher)
There is also a Carbon Resevoir of well over 50,000 GT of carbon in the soil and oceans.
Which is why man's contribution is relatively minor in the scheme of things.
If you look at those numbers and consider the known increase of the planet's Net Primary Production of ~ 3% per decade, it seems clear that the planet's BIOMASS is LIMITED by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and as we add more, the planet's biomass increases, thus taking MOST of the additional CO2 out of circulation fairly rapidly.
If we were to lower our emissions, the increased biomass would slowly scrub the excess away and then start lowering the CO2. However, the lower CO2 levels would reverse the annual growth of Biomass thus slowing the scrubbing action until CO2 again stabalizes at a lower level, ultimately making the planet a tad cooler and a tad less green.
As far as soot goes, again NOPE, a significant amount reaches heights ABOVE any levels where rain is a factor and LINGERS a long time.
A significant amount ends up on the surface of snow were its effect lasts until the next snowfall, and then reasserts itself when the snow melts.
Arthur
Not only is it in HUGE disagreement with what the Gorians say, but I can continue your reasoning by saying:
Which implies that the earth would strip the atmosphere clean of half of today's CO2 within a century (to an ice-age level), if we stop producing CO2 completely.
As far as soot goes, you don't need no fancy calculus and certainly no climate models to forecast its removal rate from the air - all you need is one good RAIN.
Nope,
It would seem so, EXCEPT, that humans only contribute a TINY quantity of the overall CO2 exchanged in the biosphere each year each year.
The overall natural exchange is well OVER 200 Gigatons per year (not including sporadic large volcanic releases), while what man emits is a ROUNDING error of the many estimates that are used to come up with the natural exchange.
(While the amount man produces is fairly well known, the NATURAL cycle is only what we can account for, the actual number is likely higher)
There is also a Carbon Resevoir of well over 50,000 GT of carbon in the soil and oceans.
Which is why man's contribution is relatively minor in the scheme of things.
If you look at those numbers and consider the known increase of the planet's Net Primary Production of ~ 3% per decade, it seems clear that the planet's BIOMASS is LIMITED by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and as we add more, the planet's biomass increases, thus taking MOST of the additional CO2 out of circulation fairly rapidly.
If we were to lower our emissions, the increased biomass would slowly scrub the excess away and then start lowering the CO2. However, the lower CO2 levels would reverse the annual growth of Biomass thus slowing the scrubbing action until CO2 again stabalizes at a lower level, ultimately making the planet a tad cooler and a tad less green.
As far as soot goes, again NOPE, a significant amount reaches heights ABOVE any levels where rain is a factor and LINGERS a long time.
A significant amount ends up on the surface of snow were its effect lasts until the next snowfall, and then reasserts itself when the snow melts.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 17 2007, 10:26 PM)
As far as soot goes, again NOPE, a significant amount reaches heights ABOVE any levels where rain is a factor and LINGERS a long time.
A significant amount ends up on the surface of snow were its effect lasts until the next snowfall, and then reasserts itself when the snow melts.
Significant amount? Do you have any estimate, as percent:
- which is the contribution of diesel soot to total soot (domestic cooking + heating, power plants, agriculture, other industries, forest fires)?
- of all the soot produced, how much rises above clouds, so it cannot be washed by rain/snow?
- of all that high altitude soot, how much falls down on Arctic ice and how much elsewhere in the world?
I made some calculations myself, starting from the following
DATA:
-European car fleet 200M, diesel 30%, source http://www.acea.be/files/463.pdf page 28
and ASSUMPTIONS:
- average soot emission level Euro 2 - 0.1g/km;
- average 15000 km/year/car.
So, in 1 year, 60M diesel cars emit 90000 t of soot.
I cannot find any figures, but I strongly believe that this is a drop in the ocean compared to:
- the amount of industrial soot that used to be pumped by Europe and North America back in 1910, the year when the concentration of black carbon in Arctic ice peaked
or
- the amount of industrial soot pumped today by Asian countries;
or
- the amount of soot from forest fires.
If the current trend in Europe towards diesel cars continues and 10-15 years from now we will have 120M diesel cars with an average Euro 4 of 0.025 g soot/km, this double number of diesel cars will emit only 45000 t soot per year, half of what they do now.
STORM IN A GLASS OF WATER.
A significant amount ends up on the surface of snow were its effect lasts until the next snowfall, and then reasserts itself when the snow melts.
Significant amount? Do you have any estimate, as percent:
- which is the contribution of diesel soot to total soot (domestic cooking + heating, power plants, agriculture, other industries, forest fires)?
- of all the soot produced, how much rises above clouds, so it cannot be washed by rain/snow?
- of all that high altitude soot, how much falls down on Arctic ice and how much elsewhere in the world?
I made some calculations myself, starting from the following
DATA:
-European car fleet 200M, diesel 30%, source http://www.acea.be/files/463.pdf page 28
and ASSUMPTIONS:
- average soot emission level Euro 2 - 0.1g/km;
- average 15000 km/year/car.
So, in 1 year, 60M diesel cars emit 90000 t of soot.
I cannot find any figures, but I strongly believe that this is a drop in the ocean compared to:
- the amount of industrial soot that used to be pumped by Europe and North America back in 1910, the year when the concentration of black carbon in Arctic ice peaked
or
- the amount of industrial soot pumped today by Asian countries;
or
- the amount of soot from forest fires.
If the current trend in Europe towards diesel cars continues and 10-15 years from now we will have 120M diesel cars with an average Euro 4 of 0.025 g soot/km, this double number of diesel cars will emit only 45000 t soot per year, half of what they do now.
STORM IN A GLASS OF WATER.
FOUND DATA!!!
From:
http://chinadatacenter.org/chinageography/...asp?cid=2&sid=4
How on Earth could 90000 t of soot from European diesel passenger cars compare with the above?
QUOTE
In 2000, the total discharge of industrial gas wastes was 138145 billion cubic meters. ... Industrial soot discharge was 109.2 million tons, and decreased 7.1% from last year.
From:
http://chinadatacenter.org/chinageography/...asp?cid=2&sid=4
How on Earth could 90000 t of soot from European diesel passenger cars compare with the above?
Mircea,
You are after a Red Herring.
I did not say that diesel car soot BY ITSELF is the problem, but that SOOT in general is a problem.
Note my links are to SOOT, not specifically car diesel soot.
As you have shown, the amount of Soot released in the environment IS HUGE.
Diesel car soot though tends to be a bigger HEALTH problem since, while in absolute quantities its not nearly as much as industrial soot, its released at low levels and in proximity to where people live.
Which is why 60M diesel cars emitting 90,000 tons of soot per year in Europe IS a health issue.
Arthur
You are after a Red Herring.
I did not say that diesel car soot BY ITSELF is the problem, but that SOOT in general is a problem.
Note my links are to SOOT, not specifically car diesel soot.
As you have shown, the amount of Soot released in the environment IS HUGE.
Diesel car soot though tends to be a bigger HEALTH problem since, while in absolute quantities its not nearly as much as industrial soot, its released at low levels and in proximity to where people live.
Which is why 60M diesel cars emitting 90,000 tons of soot per year in Europe IS a health issue.
Arthur
QUOTE (pauldentler+Sep 13 2007, 02:23 PM)
Nah, it's all those nuclear power plants in France that's the problem. If they'd use coal fired plants, there would be more soot going into the air to keep things cooled down (yeah, that's how you get atmospheric "cooling"). If it were not for the diesels (in abscence of volcanic activity & all the forests the dimwits have cut down), things would be even warmer than they are now.
If "dimwits" didn't cut down forests, you wouldn't have paper, food, or a house.
If "dimwits" didn't cut down forests, you wouldn't have paper, food, or a house.
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 18 2007, 01:51 PM)
Mircea,
You are after a Red Herring.
I did not say that diesel car soot BY ITSELF is the problem, but that SOOT in general is a problem.
Note my links are to SOOT, not specifically car diesel soot.
No, I am after a biased misinterpretation of facts which was spread around by a guy called Jacobson back in 2001 and which is still quoted today.
And you DID provide links which are specifically directed to diesel soot.
Back in May 8 2007, on the thread Ethanol Why, when I was saying that diesel is better than ethanol and cheaper than hybrid, you replied to me:
And you gave this link:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/diesel_cars...n_gasoline_cars
It was, of course, about the work of the researcher Mark Z. Jacobson.
That piece of work angers me a lot, because, in order to deceive the reader, it says a lot of true things, only to arrive again and again to the same wrong and biased conclusion: diesel cars cause more global warming than gasoline cars.
If Mr. Jacobson is such a serious researcher, how come he didn't noticed that diesel cars in Europe emit 1000 times less soot than China's industry?
If 90.000 t of diesel soot from Europe are causing global warming, shouldn't 100 million tons of soot from China transform the Earth in a hot hell like Venus?
And than comes NotParker who doesn't like Kyoto, read about Jacobson's work and thinks he's got enough arguments to state:
And you gave this link:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/diesel_cars...n_gasoline_cars
It was, of course, about the work of the researcher Mark Z. Jacobson.
That piece of work angers me a lot, because, in order to deceive the reader, it says a lot of true things, only to arrive again and again to the same wrong and biased conclusion: diesel cars cause more global warming than gasoline cars.
If Mr. Jacobson is such a serious researcher, how come he didn't noticed that diesel cars in Europe emit 1000 times less soot than China's industry?
If 90.000 t of diesel soot from Europe are causing global warming, shouldn't 100 million tons of soot from China transform the Earth in a hot hell like Venus?
And than comes NotParker who doesn't like Kyoto, read about Jacobson's work and thinks he's got enough arguments to state:
Switch to Diesel in Europe because of high fuel costs and blind adherence to Kyoto.
Consequence: Europe is warming because of soot.
It is when you consider that we emit ~ 22 BILLION tons of CO2 per year or when you consider the natural cycle is over 600 Billion tons of CO2 per year.
Arthur
You are after a Red Herring.
I did not say that diesel car soot BY ITSELF is the problem, but that SOOT in general is a problem.
Note my links are to SOOT, not specifically car diesel soot.
No, I am after a biased misinterpretation of facts which was spread around by a guy called Jacobson back in 2001 and which is still quoted today.
And you DID provide links which are specifically directed to diesel soot.
Back in May 8 2007, on the thread Ethanol Why, when I was saying that diesel is better than ethanol and cheaper than hybrid, you replied to me:
QUOTE
Well then consider the impact of SOOT:
Laws that favor the use of diesel, rather than gasoline, engines in cars may actually encourage global warming, according to a new study.
Laws that favor the use of diesel, rather than gasoline, engines in cars may actually encourage global warming, according to a new study.
And you gave this link:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/diesel_cars...n_gasoline_cars
It was, of course, about the work of the researcher Mark Z. Jacobson.
That piece of work angers me a lot, because, in order to deceive the reader, it says a lot of true things, only to arrive again and again to the same wrong and biased conclusion: diesel cars cause more global warming than gasoline cars.
If Mr. Jacobson is such a serious researcher, how come he didn't noticed that diesel cars in Europe emit 1000 times less soot than China's industry?
If 90.000 t of diesel soot from Europe are causing global warming, shouldn't 100 million tons of soot from China transform the Earth in a hot hell like Venus?
And than comes NotParker who doesn't like Kyoto, read about Jacobson's work and thinks he's got enough arguments to state:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well then consider the impact of SOOT: Laws that favor the use of diesel, rather than gasoline, engines in cars may actually encourage global warming, according to a new study. |
And you gave this link:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/diesel_cars...n_gasoline_cars
It was, of course, about the work of the researcher Mark Z. Jacobson.
That piece of work angers me a lot, because, in order to deceive the reader, it says a lot of true things, only to arrive again and again to the same wrong and biased conclusion: diesel cars cause more global warming than gasoline cars.
If Mr. Jacobson is such a serious researcher, how come he didn't noticed that diesel cars in Europe emit 1000 times less soot than China's industry?
If 90.000 t of diesel soot from Europe are causing global warming, shouldn't 100 million tons of soot from China transform the Earth in a hot hell like Venus?
And than comes NotParker who doesn't like Kyoto, read about Jacobson's work and thinks he's got enough arguments to state:
Switch to Diesel in Europe because of high fuel costs and blind adherence to Kyoto.
Consequence: Europe is warming because of soot.
Mircea, you are taking his work out of context.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/diesel_cars...n_gasoline_cars
He didn't say that soot from Diesel was a MAJOR contributer to GW, he said that the SOOT played a larger role than the gain from the lower CO2 produced by diesel.
Now if you look at MOST of my links about Diesel Soot you will find that I'm predominately concerned with the HEALTH effects.
As to your amounts of Diesel soot in the EU.
You underestimate the percent of Diesel cars (passed 30% of sales in 2000) only include EU15, your milage calculation is based on miles, but that assumes that the cars are always moving. See Paris/London traffic for an example why using the average miles is not a rational way of estimating soot. You then leave out LCVs, Trucks, Buses and what is referred to as "off road" (farm/contsturction/local power generation) I think you will find the amount of Soot released is quite a bit higher when you account for all the sources.
Arthur
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/diesel_cars...n_gasoline_cars
He didn't say that soot from Diesel was a MAJOR contributer to GW, he said that the SOOT played a larger role than the gain from the lower CO2 produced by diesel.
Now if you look at MOST of my links about Diesel Soot you will find that I'm predominately concerned with the HEALTH effects.
As to your amounts of Diesel soot in the EU.
You underestimate the percent of Diesel cars (passed 30% of sales in 2000) only include EU15, your milage calculation is based on miles, but that assumes that the cars are always moving. See Paris/London traffic for an example why using the average miles is not a rational way of estimating soot. You then leave out LCVs, Trucks, Buses and what is referred to as "off road" (farm/contsturction/local power generation) I think you will find the amount of Soot released is quite a bit higher when you account for all the sources.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 19 2007, 01:21 PM)
Mircea, you are taking his work out of context.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/diesel_cars...n_gasoline_cars
He didn't say that soot from Diesel was a MAJOR contributer to GW, he said that the SOOT played a larger role than the gain from the lower CO2 produced by diesel.
His model is obviously OVER-OVERESTIMATING the global warming effect of soot.
I said earlier that European car diesel soot is 1000 times less than China industrial soot.
Suppose I was wrong by an order of magnitude and the correct figure is 100 times.
Even in this case, normal logic leads to 2 possibilities:
- if the global warming effect of the European car diesel soot is large enough to need our attention, than the effect of the Chinese industrial soot should be DEVASTATING - it is not the case;
- if the global warming effect of the Chinese soot is significant, but still no large scale tragedy, than the effect of the European diesel soot can only be NEGLIGIBLE.
I guess we can say that the effect of European car diesel soot is negligible. Than, the only way Jacobson can be right is if the gain from the lower CO2 produced by diesel is LESS THAN NEGLIGIBLE.
On average, an European diesel car saves 30 g CO2/km. (I can give plenty of examples).
Times 60 million cars times 15000 km/year/car, that means 27 million tones CO2 less per year.
This is a conservative figure and is constantly growing, as more and more diesel cars replace older gasoline cars.
I don't think this CO2 amount is LESS THAN NEGLIGIBLE.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/diesel_cars...n_gasoline_cars
He didn't say that soot from Diesel was a MAJOR contributer to GW, he said that the SOOT played a larger role than the gain from the lower CO2 produced by diesel.
His model is obviously OVER-OVERESTIMATING the global warming effect of soot.
I said earlier that European car diesel soot is 1000 times less than China industrial soot.
Suppose I was wrong by an order of magnitude and the correct figure is 100 times.
Even in this case, normal logic leads to 2 possibilities:
- if the global warming effect of the European car diesel soot is large enough to need our attention, than the effect of the Chinese industrial soot should be DEVASTATING - it is not the case;
- if the global warming effect of the Chinese soot is significant, but still no large scale tragedy, than the effect of the European diesel soot can only be NEGLIGIBLE.
I guess we can say that the effect of European car diesel soot is negligible. Than, the only way Jacobson can be right is if the gain from the lower CO2 produced by diesel is LESS THAN NEGLIGIBLE.
On average, an European diesel car saves 30 g CO2/km. (I can give plenty of examples).
Times 60 million cars times 15000 km/year/car, that means 27 million tones CO2 less per year.
This is a conservative figure and is constantly growing, as more and more diesel cars replace older gasoline cars.
I don't think this CO2 amount is LESS THAN NEGLIGIBLE.
QUOTE
I don't think this CO2 amount (27 million tones CO2 ) is LESS THAN NEGLIGIBLE.
It is when you consider that we emit ~ 22 BILLION tons of CO2 per year or when you consider the natural cycle is over 600 Billion tons of CO2 per year.
Arthur
According to my calculation, by promoting diesel, Europe is reducing its CO2 emmisions from personal vehicles by 5%. That is something.
If you look at the worlwide picture (22 bn tones CO2), the 27 M tones account only for 0.13%. This is kind of nothing.
So, the bottom line is: diesel or gasoline, Tundra or Prius, it doesn't make any difference.
If you look at the worlwide picture (22 bn tones CO2), the 27 M tones account only for 0.13%. This is kind of nothing.
So, the bottom line is: diesel or gasoline, Tundra or Prius, it doesn't make any difference.
Interesting, in the world of Diesel and Hybrid.
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/02/vw-unveiling-an.html
The Golf Hybrid will get almost 70 mpg while meeting Europe's stringent Euro V and America's Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions standards, making it green enough even for California. The car is said to emit just 89 g/km of CO2. (For comparison, the Prius emits 104 g/km and Honda Civic Hybrid emits 116.)
The hybrid Golf may be just the start.
According to Britain's Channel 4, VW is considering the hybrid drivetrain in a Jetta and Audi A3. DailyTech says it also could appear in the VW Tiguan and Audi Q5 crossover utility vehicles.
Auto Express says the Golf hybrid will be offered for sale in Europe by the end of next year. No word yet on when we might see it on this side of the pond.
Arthur
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/02/vw-unveiling-an.html
The Golf Hybrid will get almost 70 mpg while meeting Europe's stringent Euro V and America's Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions standards, making it green enough even for California. The car is said to emit just 89 g/km of CO2. (For comparison, the Prius emits 104 g/km and Honda Civic Hybrid emits 116.)
The hybrid Golf may be just the start.
According to Britain's Channel 4, VW is considering the hybrid drivetrain in a Jetta and Audi A3. DailyTech says it also could appear in the VW Tiguan and Audi Q5 crossover utility vehicles.
Auto Express says the Golf hybrid will be offered for sale in Europe by the end of next year. No word yet on when we might see it on this side of the pond.
Arthur
hydrogen energy may be better?
QUOTE (Bultrox+Mar 11 2008, 05:39 AM)
hydrogen energy may be better?
Depends on your source of hydrogen. Allow nuclear reactors to produce it and probably yes. Use natural gas or coal, and definitely not. All others somwhere in between.
Depends on your source of hydrogen. Allow nuclear reactors to produce it and probably yes. Use natural gas or coal, and definitely not. All others somwhere in between.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.