BioDiesel TDi emissions vs comparable Gas Engines

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
So are you saying that you think we shouldn't have made the transition, and should still be driving around with leaded fuel?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my previous post. Far from it.
I'll post it again.

Autodiesel posted........
[ QUOTE ]
Far from any of that.
Leaded fuel should have been outlawed at once. There shouldn't have been any arguements that leaded fuel was needed for older cars, because it wasn't.
I was not infering that it should have been kept at all.
Just like I don't think we should keep crappy diesel around. It should be changed all at once and like you say it would cause some short term disruptions and raise costs for all. But the benefits out weigh the problems that will arrise by allowing 20% of the available diesel to be dirty until 2010. It should be changed all at once just like they did in Germany to <10ppm sulfur.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys just love twisting the facts.
And the facts are if this country would have cleaned up the fuel supplies (diesel and gas) long ago we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

We would have cleaner gassers and clean diesel technology right now. Which would be good for everyone.

Just I discuss scenarios that happen in real life doesn't mean I believe in them. But to deny the facts is just burying your head in the sand.

[ QUOTE ]
And when their catalyst system fails, THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR FIXING IT, since it would be a result of their misfueling. If I put gasoline in my TDI and kill my engine, I shouldn't expect VW to pay for fixing it. Same goes for someone putting high sulfur diesel in a 2007+ diesel.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are very correct.
But that is not how the auto industry works.
They are on the hook to make sure their vehicles stay clean for the duration of the emission requirements. 10yr/120k miles starting in 2004 and longer in the future.

Just like the up to 20million Euros VWAG has had to pay out for fuel injection equipement repairs in Europe. It was becoming a public relations nightmare for them so they gave in and paid out.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that is what happens and will happen in the future when the system supports multiple standards. The fuel supplies should be cleaned up NOW, not in the future when problems can arrise.

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
[ QUOTE ]
And when their catalyst system fails, THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR FIXING IT, since it would be a result of their misfueling. If I put gasoline in my TDI and kill my engine, I shouldn't expect VW to pay for fixing it. Same goes for someone putting high sulfur diesel in a 2007+ diesel.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are very correct.
But that is not how the auto industry works.
They are on the hook to make sure their vehicles stay clean for the duration of the emission requirements. 10yr/120k miles starting in 2004 and longer in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not when the failure is due to error on the part of the owner. If I go out to my car and rip off all of the emissions equipment, VW is not required to replace it. They're only responsible for making sure the emissions equipment work over that interval UNDER PROPER USE. If someone misfuels, it ceases to be the company's responsibility, just as much as if I removed my emissions equipment and shot it full of holes.

[ QUOTE ]
Just like the up to 20million Euros VWAG has had to pay out for fuel injection equipement repairs in Europe. It was becoming a public relations nightmare for them so they gave in and paid out.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because they CHOSE to, not because they HAD to. The difference was that the fault there lay more with the fuel companies selling poor quality biodiesel. VW SHOULD have stuck to their guns, and made the companies producing the biodiesel pay for fixing the cars. If someone misfuels their vehicle INTENTIONALLY, it is their fault. If the fuel is mislabelled, or of poor quality, it is the fuel company's fault. VW did not have to replace those injectors - if that happened in the US, consumers would be right in suing the fuel producer (whether it's mislabelled ULSD, or poor quality biodiesel) to fix their cars. Not VW.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that is what happens and will happen in the future when the system supports multiple standards. The fuel supplies should be cleaned up NOW, not in the future when problems can arrise.

[/ QUOTE ]
True, but that's not going to happen, because the oil company lobbyists are big and powerful. They lobbied for the 20% extension, and got it. It's not good, but that's the way it is, and we need to deal with it. As consumers, that means reading the label before fueling.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
Care to post any of these tests? I'd find it EXTREMELY unlikely that that has been shown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yee of little faith.

EPA Gets Input From Industry on Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel Regulations

Report from the pipeline
Two pipeline companies reported on tests they performed while shipping ULSD through their systems. Marathon Ashland Petroleum (MAP) and Colonial Pipeline were able to report that carrying product through the lines did not seem to cause contamination of the primary batch. However, the transfers to and from storage tanks could yield significant contamination and the sensitivity of the rule could double the amount of product lost or downgraded through the interface of pipeline batches. They pointed out that pipelines usually deal with a sulfur ration of 10:1 between fuel types; this rule will require handling a ratio of 500:1 (heating oil to ULSD).
The tests performed by the two companies produced very different results. MAP was able to perform a very sanitized test, draining all lines and tanks and transporting product without any intermediary stops, creating an "ideal condition." Their test, however, found that from the refinery into the pipeline itself, the product's sulfur content increased from 7 ppm to 10 ppm and then picked up a couple ppm at the end of the line.
Colonial reported that its test took the MAP batch and carried it on without conducting an "ideal condition" scenario. Colonial discovered several problems that must be corrected if distribution is to be effective. Colonial found through the first test that the sulfur level of the fuel at the end of the line was close to 30 ppm. A subsequent test yielded better results, but required a 30 percent cutout of product at transfer points to avoid contamination.
The end result of these tests showed that pipeline transportation itself does not significantly increase the sulfur content of the fuel, but that transfer points yield a considerable amount of contamination risk. The handling of fuel at these points, including the point at which pipelines cut product from the line and purge the transmix, will be critical to controlling contamination.

Product loss
Terminal operators are greatly concerned about the integrity of the product they receive. For example, if a batch coming via pipeline is not cut at the right time, or if there is a contamination problem for some other reason, an entire supply of ULSD could be lost. Such a situation could remove that terminal from the ULSD market until it has time to turn the tank and receive a new shipment.

The loss of product within the distribution system raises a concern for marketers. There is a provision within the rule that would allow up to 68 percent of the refinery-produced ULSD to be lost before it reaches the consumer. The rule allows for each entity that takes possession of the ULSD product to downgrade up to 20 percent on an annual average basis from 15 ppm to 500 ppm. For example, if a refinery produces 100 barrels of ULSD, it can downgrade 20 barrels to 500 ppm diesel. The pipeline can then downgrade 16 barrels of the 80 barrels it receives and so on for every entity that handles the product. The final product available at retail may yield only 32 barrels of ULSD from the original 100 produced.

------------------------------------------------------------

Colonial found through the first test that the sulfur level of the fuel at the end of the line was close to 30 ppm.

With these two tests the pipeline intself didn't cause much problems as in other reports. But the transfer points do.

Transfer points don't use pigs. So they will be no good in those situations. And don't expect all pipeline systems to clean out everthing before changing over to another product. That adds costs.

Proves my point. All diesel should be ULSD now and not in the future.

If you think they should start pumping biodiesel then go find out why they haven't.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
This increase in CO2 is not "natural" - it has never been nearly as high as it is now (at least not for many many millions of years. Back before the algaes and such that eventually turned into petroleum lived, the CO2 levels were much higher - and the planet was MUCH hotter. Those critters took CO2 out of the atmosphere, died, and gradually turned into oil, as the planet cooled due to the decrease in CO2 levels. We're now putting some of that carbon back into the atmosphere).

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to go back more than even a few million years to get the whole picture. The typical work being performed is very shorted sighted and is relying on very recent data and on modeling that is not very reliable. Go back farther and the true picture comes out.

Seashells Say Earth Temperatures Driven By Cosmic Rays, Not CO2

Dr. Jan Veizer, a geologist at the University of Ottawa, has reconstructed the earth's temperature record for the last 500 million years, using the fossilized remains of seashells. He was surprised to find a major global warming-cooling cycle every 135 million years, a time period that coincides with no early phenomenon.
Then Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the University of Toronto, told him that cosmic rays striking the earth cycle up and down over 135 million years as our solar system passes through one of the bright arms of the Milky Way. The Milky Way has intense levels of cosmic rays that tend to cool the earth, stimulating the formation of low-level clouds that reflect heat back into space. (High-level clouds tend to trap heat and warm the planet.)
In a unique, cross-disciplinary study recently published by the Geophysical Society of America, Veizer and Shaviv conclude that 75 percent of the earth's temperature variability in the past 500 million years is due to changes in our bombardment by cosmic rays as we pass in and out of galactic spiral arms. (They note that the sun continued to brighten during the 20th century. It may have accounted for about one-third of the observed warming since 1900.)
Veizer and Shaviv conclude that a doubling of today's CO2 levels would only increase global temperatures a modest 1.4 degree Fahrenheit. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in dramatic contrast, estimates two to seven times as much warming from such a CO2 increase (2.7 to 9.9F).
The two scientists warn that the billion-dollar Global Circulation computer models that predict dangerous global warming from CO2 increases are particularly weak at modeling changes in clouds that matter vitally to Earth's temperatures. Cosmic rays stimulate low-lying clouds, by electrically charging tiny particles (aerosols) so they collect more water droplets from the atmosphere. More low clouds mean a cooler planet.
Veizer and Shaviv found only modest linkage between the earth's temperatures and CO2 levels. In fact, CO2 levels have been as much as 18 times higher than today during the Veizer temperature record. The earth's CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today's during the frigid Ordovician glacial period about 440 million years ago. Human CO2 releases, moreover, make up only about 3 percent of the natural carbon cycle.
(bold mine)
Iceberg debris from the floor of the North Atlantic says we've had nine moderate global warmings and coolings over the last 12,000 years, in a 1500 year cycle that coincides exactly with a cycle in the magnetic activity of the sun. Veizer and Shaviv say three-fourths of the earth's temperature change is driven by cosmic rays from around the galaxy. Neither study finds much impact on the earth's temperatures from CO2 changes.
------------------------------------------------------------

How do you explain 10 times higher CO2 in a glacial period?!?!

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is this - we KNOW that dumping vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere increases the amount of heat retained by the atmosphere. Not open for debate - known fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh it is, is it?

IS THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT AT WORK?
There is evidence that average surface air temperature has increased worldwide by nearly 1 degree F (0.5 C) since 1850. Given the increase of about 25 percent in atmospheric CO2 between the early 1800s and the present, it might be concluded that the greenhouse effect is producing a global warming.

However, there has been little increase in the last 50 years, which raises questions about whether we really have experienced the effect of increasing CO2. The pattern of changing global temperatures suggests that there may be other factors influencing climate. There is also the possibility that the sensitivity to greenhouse gases is less than what most climate models indicate. Scientists feel an increase of 1degree F ( 0.5 degrees C) in 140 years is not necessarily outside the range of natural climate variability.
------------------------------------------------------------

What's wrong with U.N. climate science
*The earth's atmosphere has not warmed over the past 20 years.
*The last century is not the warmest in the last 1000 years.
*Man's use of fossil fuels has not had a perceptible effect on global climate.
*Even if the earth were to warm slightly, and atmospheric CO2 were to increase, the effects would be mostly beneficial.
*The only support for serious future warming comes from theoretical climate models - but they give only imperfect simulations of the real atmosphere, are not validated by actual observations, and are incapable of making valid predictions.
*The Kyoto Protocol to restrict energy use will cause serious economic harm, but will not alter global climate trends.
------------------------------------------------------------

Why CO2 Mandates Won't Work

The climate-change debate rages on with ever more twists and turns. Scientists with the Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics now find that the 20th century is neither the warmest nor that with the most extreme weather
of the last 1,000 years. Harvard scientists also report that the sun may dim in mid-century, producing cooler
temperatures.
------------------------------------------------------------

UN doomsday scenario unfounded, report's lead author asserts
WASHINGTON -- Chances are you've never heard of John Christy. That's somewhat amazing, because Christy, a director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, is one of the world's most respected climatology experts. More to the point, he also is the lead author on latest report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
That's the report that garnered all the prime-time publicity in mid-January with its cataclysmic predictions of melting polar icecaps, malaria epidemics, Midwestern droughts, submerged islands and flooded coast lines from Maine to Florida.
A small platoon of other Americans on the panel made the rounds of the nation's high-profile media. They issued dire warnings about the horrible consequences that global warming will wreak if the United States doesn't sign the Kyoto Protocol and agree to the draconian cutbacks in it energy use. Christy was conspicuously absent from the United Nations' propaganda blitz.
On the surface, there appears to be only one explanation. Christy, as it turns out, believes the United Nations is putting an intellectually dishonest spin on the report.
"The world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints," Christy told the British journalist, adding: "There were 245 different results in that report, and this was the worst-case scenario. It's the one that's not going to happen. It was the extreme case of all the different things that can make the world warm."
Misleading

Christy, 49, says most long-range forecasts are misleading and, in many cases, downright wrong. One reason is most of the world's weather stations, while they may initially have been placed in remote areas, now are affected by "urban heat zones."
Christy uses satellites to measure the temperature of the lower troposphere -- the first eight kilometres above the Earth. If global warming actually is occurring, then the troposphere should be heating up just as a rapidly as the surface of the Earth.

So much for theory. In reality, the troposphere is only marginally warmer than it was, confirming Christy's belief. Theoretically, if the Earth was heating up like the giant greenhouse of popular imagination, the temperature's Christy's satellites and weather balloons record would parallel those being recorded on land.

They don't, because their measurements don't suffer from urban warmth and other distortions. So why is the United Nations investing so much effort and money to tout the totally unrealistic worst-case scenario? The answer is simply money.
------------------------------------------------------------

"There were 245 different results in that report, and this was the worst-case scenario. It's the one that's not going to happen. It was the extreme case of all the different things that can make the world warm."

So the lead authur in the last IPCC assessment doesn't even beleive in the assessment.

Put some spin on that one, bubba!

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
Further, we KNOW for a fact how greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. Why do you insist that they do not?


[/ QUOTE ]

Reference
Rothman, D.H. 2002. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 4167-4171.

If the truth be told, however, a simple visual examination of the author's plot of CO2 and climate vs. time clearly indicates that the three most striking peaks in the atmospheric CO2 record occur either totally or partially within periods of time when earth's climate was relatively cool. Hence, not only is there no proof for the climate-alarmist contention that higher CO2 concentrations tend to warm the planet, there is evidence in this study to suggest that just the opposite may be true.
------------------------------------------------------------

Reference
Pearson, P.N. and Palmer, M.R. 2000. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years. Nature 406: 695-699.
What was done
The authors used boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past sixty million years, which they then used to reconstruct a history of atmospheric CO2 concentration over this period, which they finally compared with oxygen isotope ratios of deep sea benthic foraminifera that serve as proxies for temperature.
What was learned
Supposedly, good records of both atmospheric CO2 concentration and oxygen isotope values were obtained for the past 24 million years and for the period from 40 to 60 million years ago.
What it means
The authors state that "change in the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere is commonly regarded as a likely forcing mechanism on global climate over geological time because of its large and predictable effect on temperature," which "predictable effect" is that increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration cause higher temperatures to occur and that decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration cause lower temperatures to occur. Their data, however, clearly demonstrate that this incredibly common assumption is just plain false.

Starting 60 million years before present (BP), the authors have the atmosphere's CO2 concentration at approximately 3600 ppm and the oxygen isotope ratio at about 0.3 per mil. Thirteen million years later, however, the air's CO2 concentration has dropped all the way down to 500 ppm; but the oxygen isotope ratio has dropped (implying a rise in temperature) to zero, which is, of course, just the opposite of what one would expect from the "large and predictable effect" of CO2 on temperature that is commonly assumed.

Next comes a large spike in the air's CO2 content, all the way up to a value of 2400 ppm. And what does the oxygen isotope ratio do? It rises slightly (implying temperature falls slightly) to about 0.4 per mil, which is again just the opposite of what one would expect from the "large and predictable effect" of CO2 on temperature that is commonly assumed.

After the spike in CO2, of course, the air's CO2 concentration drops dramatically, declining to a minimum value of close to what it is today. And the oxygen isotope ratio? It barely changes at all, defying once again the common assumption of the "large and predictable effect" of CO2 on temperature.

Between this point and the break in the record at 40 million years BP, the air's CO2 concentration rises again to approximately 1000 ppm; and - need we say? - the oxygen isotope ratio rises slightly (implying a slight cooling) to 0.6 per mil. And once again, well, you get the picture: the common assumption fails miserably.

Picking up the record at 24 million years BP, there are but relatively tiny variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration up to the present; but, of course, there are large variations in oxygen isotope values, both up and down, again in clear contradiction of the "common assumption."

The most interesting of these last oxygen isotope changes is the dramatic increase (implying a dramatic cooling) over the most recent two million years, when, of course, the air's CO2 concentration has actually risen slightly.
------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Stephens, B.B. and Keeling, R.F. 2000. The influence of Antarctic sea ice on glacial-interglacial CO2 variations. Nature 404: 171-174.

What was done
In search of a better explanation than the two (oceanic productivity and alkalinity increases) that currently attempt to explain the strong coupling between atmospheric CO2 concentration and Antarctic air temperature that is evident over glacial-interglacial cycles, the authors come up with a mechanism that seems to satisfy all the criteria imposed by empirical observations of a number of related phenomena.
What was learned
Stephens and Keeling conclude that "by significantly limiting the sea-to-air CO2 flux in the primary region for deepwater ventilation, expanded Antarctic sea ice during glacial times may trap relatively more carbon in the deep ocean, thereby reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations."

What it means
The mechanism that is put forth in this paper to explain the observed synchrony between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration during glacial-interglacial transitions is clearly one where temperature is the independent variable that alters sea ice extent, which then alters the sea-to-air CO2 flux in the high-latitude region of the Southern Ocean and consequently changes the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Hence, in this best explanation yet for the impressive correlation of CO2 and air temperature over glacial-interglacial cycles, atmospheric CO2 variations are the result of temperature variations and not vice versa, it is changes in air temperature that drive changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and not the reverse phenomenon, which is what the ice core data also tell us about this phenomenon. Once again, therefore, we have another demonstration of the fact that it is changes in air temperature that drive changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and not the reverse phenomenon, which figures so highly in GCM predictions of continued global warming as a result of the rising CO2 content of earth's atmosphere.
------------------------------------------------------------


Do you want me to keep going.
There is much more.

It takes a lot more research than studying a few hundred years or even a few million years to even start to understand what is happening in nature.

 

[MITBeta]

[ QUOTE ]
Read my previous post. Far from it.
I'll post it again.

Far from any of that.
Unleaded fuel should have been outlawed at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't have switched to unleaded fuel.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
MITBeta said:
[ QUOTE ]
Read my previous post. Far from it.
I'll post it again.

Far from any of that.
Unleaded fuel should have been outlawed at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't have switched to unleaded fuel.

[/ QUOTE ]


See, I'm far from perfect.
Thank's for pointing out that typo.

I fixed those posts to say.....

[ QUOTE ]
Leaded fuel should have been outlawed at once. There shouldn't have been any arguements that leaded fuel was needed for older cars, because it wasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank's again. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
I love it when you post links that actually prove my argument. From that link:
Evidence has mounted that global warming began in the last century and that humans may be in part responsible. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US National Academy of Sciences concur. Computer models are being used to predict climate change under different scenarios of greenhouse forcing and the Kyoto Protocol advocates active measures to reduce CO² emissions which contribute to warming.

Maybe you should read all of the articles before posting them, so you don't post them that proves exactly what you're arguing against, heh heh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not worried about it if posts present both sides of a arguement. What does it say.....
"humans may be in part responsible".

May be in part? They don't sound to sure? /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
Especially when one of the lead authors doesn't even agree with it. Smacks of political agenda more than anything else.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, some places will get colder due to ocean current shutting down - that means the hot places will get even hotter, as the ocean currents no longer carry heat away from them. So, we can end up with many more deserts, and many more extremely cold places. Sound good? Great, keep burning petroleum.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is that the last ice age was caused by burning petroleum?

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
[ QUOTE ]
I wrote:
This increase in CO2 is not "natural" - it has never been nearly as high as it is now (at least not for many many millions of years. Back before the algaes and such that eventually turned into petroleum lived, the CO2 levels were much higher - and the planet was MUCH hotter. Those critters took CO2 out of the atmosphere, died, and gradually turned into oil, as the planet cooled due to the decrease in CO2 levels. We're now putting some of that carbon back into the atmosphere).

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to go back more than even a few million years to get the whole picture.

[/ QUOTE ]
How exactly did you translate "many many million" into "a few million"?

[ QUOTE ]
The typical work being performed is very shorted sighted and is relying on very recent data and on modeling that is not very reliable. Go back farther and the true picture comes out.

[/ QUOTE ]
LMAO. Recent data and modeling is FAR FAR more reliable than the long term "data" that goes back hundreds of millions of years. Look at the errors in the calculations of those data - they're enormous.

Still, there's a huge problem with most of this data reconstruction, and trying to infer from that the impact of greenhouse gases - never before has there been ARTIFICIAL (human induced) changes in the atmosphere. Many science-hacks look at the data and say "hey, it looks like the atmospheric carbons levels follow temperature, not the other way around". The answer to that is - well duh! If temperature rises, it affects many other factors that are involved in the carbon cycle, primarily the ocean (and its uptake/intake rates of carbon). Temperature rises, and the ocean will release more carbon than it intakes, proportional to before the temp rise. So yes, if temp goes up, atmospheric carbon levels could be expected to go up as well. The problem is, the reverse is also true.

Only ONCE in the earth's history (shouldn't have said "NEVER" a paragraph ago, as there was this one time) was there ever an artificially induced massive increase in greenhouse gases. That was a result of a massive release of methane gas due to plate tectonics, that suddenly increased the atmospheric carbon levels considerably. What happened? Temperatures rose.

It's silly how some people point at much of the carbon/temp data throughout earth's history and make this caim of "atmospheric carbon follows temperature, not the other way around". First, the errors in the times and concentrations are considerable - more than enough to swing which one follows which. Further, only once before was there ever an incident that would have had a sudden abnormal increase in atmospheric carbon levels similar to what we're doing now. And in that case, temperatures did rise considerably.

The oil-PACs in particular, but also many legitimate scientitsts who make the mistake of taking a very myopic view of the climate, make this same mistake. If you look at the silly co2science.org website, you'll see plenty of articles where they do this same thing over and over again - claiming that greenhouse gases have no impact since they clearly aren't the leading factor in the causing of most of earth's climate changes in the past (warming and cooling periods). Someone just needs to smack them and say "well, duh!". There was nothing that would have created a major shift in atmospheric carbon levels to give it any chance to be the initiating factor for global climate trends. Dinosaurs weren't driving around in giant SUVs. Atmospheric carbon levels were completely dependent on the carbon cycle until we came along (with the exception of that one massive methane release, which did result in warming). Why SHOULD geologic records show any instance in which changes in atmospheric carbon levels PRECEDED climate changes? There was nothing to initiate any drastic (non-carbon cycle related) atmospheric carbon change. Until us.

[ QUOTE ]
Seashells Say Earth Temperatures Driven By Cosmic Rays, Not CO2
(snip)
In a unique, cross-disciplinary study recently published by the Geophysical Society of America, Veizer and Shaviv conclude that 75 percent of the earth's temperature variability in the past 500 million years is due to changes in our bombardment by cosmic rays as we pass in and out of galactic spiral arms.

[/ QUOTE ]
75% is a high estimate, but it does have a significant impact.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, CO2 levels have been as much as 18 times higher than today during the Veizer temperature record. The earth's CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today's during the frigid Ordovician glacial period about 440 million years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
See, this is why all of the good climate research groups are extremely interdisciplinary, including space physicists, astrophysicists (there is a big difference), geologists, biologists, marine biologists, etc. etc.. Our sun was a LOT cooler back then, when the earth was young. They're essentially making this argument:

I measured the temperature in my car today with the windows down, and it was 90 degrees F. Yet several months ago, I measured the temperature in my car with all the windows all the way up, and it was only 45 degrees F. So clearly the windows (level of greenhouse gases) have no, or extremely little impact on the temperature in my car.

And ignoring the fact that several months ago it was winter, so there was far less energy from the sun hitting my car. Around 500 million years ago, the sun was putting out something like 25% less energy.

Additionally, the amount of landmass, the level of the sea, height of landmass, and many many other factors have a huge bearing on the temperature. Normally, in science, if you want to determine the impact of one factor, you keep all other factors constant, and only vary that one factor. This is the problem we run into in reconstructing the past of the earth to learn about the climate - essentially every factor changes, so you can't properly evalute the impact of one factor by just comparing two different data points and ignoring all other factors. Yet that's what most/all of the "there is no greenhouse effect" folk do.

Yup, at times in the past, there have been much higher levels of atmospheric carbon, and in some of those times, it was colder than it is now. The problem is, there was also less solar output, along with many other variables that impact the climate (including cosmic rays, and especially the water topography of the earth). If you notice it's colder in December in my car despite having the windows rolled up, will you conclude that the windows being up or down has no impact on the temperature in the car? If not, then why do you fall for the "scientists" who use that same logic when discussing the global climate?

[ QUOTE ]
Human CO2 releases, moreover, make up only about 3 percent of the natural carbon cycle.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yup. Each year, at this point. The earth's carbon cycle had gotten to the point of being nicely balanced. Carbon uptake and carbon release each year is huge, I think something on the order of 400 gigatons (can't remember exactly right now, but I think it's somewhere around there). But it's perfectly balanced. With our release, it no longer is. That completely throws things out of whack. 3% sounds small, but it has a HUGE impact on atmospheric carbon levels over time. At the present rate, we'll have doubled the "baseline" (pre-Industrial) levels in something like another 30-40 years.

The global carbon cycle is normally balanced, so that atmospheric carbon levels stay the same. That's one of the biggest factors that allowed life to develop on earth, while it couldn't on our neighboring planets (may have tried starting on one, but failed). One neighbor lost its atmosphere completely, in large part due to the intake of carbon being far greater than the release (no volcanic activity, etc.), while the other had no means of taking in carbon, so no cycle could start (and therefore it's atmosphere is primarily carbon dioxide).

Atmospheric carbon levels have varied considerably over the past half billion years, and largely in response to other factors (since there weren't humans around to initiate the change). But, other factors varied as well. Taking a geologic timescale look at the earth, and keeping an eye on the future, the planet is in somewhat of a quagmire. About as far back as our "data" goes, atmospheric carbon levels were much higher. But, solar output was much lower, and many other factors varied as well, keeping temperatures from being too high for life to continue flourishing. The sun has been, and will continue to get hotter. Fortunately, atmospheric carbon levels are lower, which should help the planet from retaining too much of that extra heat the sun puts out. The problem is, we're raising those atmospheric CO2 levels back up.

[ QUOTE ]
Iceberg debris from the floor of the North Atlantic says we've had nine moderate global warmings and coolings over the last 12,000 years, in a 1500 year cycle that coincides exactly with a cycle in the magnetic activity of the sun. Veizer and Shaviv say three-fourths of the earth's temperature change is driven by cosmic rays from around the galaxy. Neither study finds much impact on the earth's temperatures from CO2 changes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well duh! Let's see, there weren't dinosaurs or protozoa around causing massive changes in atmospheric CO2 levels, and we claim it's a big finding that changes in atmospheric CO2 weren't the leading factor in climatic changes in the past? Quick, publish those results! Someone might find them slightly meaningful! But probably no real scientists. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Here's some reading you should do:
http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml
http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/aric/eae/Climate_Change/Older/Palaeoclimate_Change.html

The big factor the "I like CO2" folk ignore is the fact that there was no possible way atmospheric carbon could have POSSIBLY been the initiating factor in climate change in earth's history, since there was nothing going around doing anything that would cause a sudden surge or drop in atmospheric carbon. So of course if you look at geologic records, it will indicate that atmospheric carbon was not the biggest factor. There's no way it could have been. The ONLY time it had the opportunity to be the initiator of climate change was the case I mentioned previously of the massive methane release (can't remember when it was offhand, somewhere in the 50-100 million years ago range if I remember correctly), which DID trigger a large temperature increase. Other than that, the only other case of an artificial (i.e. not induced by other climatological changes that preceded it) change in atmospheric carbon is the one we're causing now. But, we KNOW that atmospheric carbon (and other greenhouse gases) play a HUGE role in determining how much heat the earth (or any other planet) retains, after receiving it from its sun. We're now changing those levels artificially, and at the same time as the sun is INCREASING its output. (whereas when you look back in time, CO2 increased at times, but the sun was colder)

[ QUOTE ]
How do you explain 10 times higher CO2 in a glacial period?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]
Read above. Colder sun, and many other factors. How do you explain that the interior of your car can be colder at one time with the windows rolled all the way up, yet warmer at another time with the windows down?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is this - we KNOW that dumping vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere increases the amount of heat retained by the atmosphere. Not open for debate - known fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh it is, is it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
[ QUOTE ]
IS THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT AT WORK?
There is evidence that average surface air temperature has increased worldwide by nearly 1 degree F (0.5 C) since 1850. Given the increase of about 25 percent in atmospheric CO2 between the early 1800s and the present, it might be concluded that the greenhouse effect is producing a global warming.

However, there has been little increase in the last 50 years, which raises questions about whether we really have experienced the effect of increasing CO2. The pattern of changing global temperatures suggests that there may be other factors influencing climate.

[/ QUOTE ]
I love how you only quoted the part of their page that doesn't completely contradict what you're trying to claim. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif Here's something to note - that page was written in 1993. Since then, we've had 5 or 6 of the warmest years ever recorded (i.e. since humans started recording temperature).

Also, there was a period in I believe the early '80s when the solar output dropped considerably for a few years or more.

[ QUOTE ]
UN doomsday scenario unfounded, report's lead author asserts
"The world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints," Christy told the British journalist, adding: "There were 245 different results in that report, and this was the worst-case scenario. It's the one that's not going to happen. It was the extreme case of all the different things that can make the world warm."

So the lead authur in the last IPCC assessment doesn't even beleive in the assessment.

Put some spin on that one, bubba!

[/ QUOTE ]
You're the one putting spin on it - Christy rightly feels the UN took the worst case scenario as means of making the problem appear as bad as possible. However, Christy DOES feel the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will lead to warming - just not as much as the worst-case scenario the UN chose to focus on predicts. The worst-case scenario predicts almost a 6 degree Celsius increase in temperature through the 21st century - double what the previous report (which Christy DID agree with) predicted.

To claim that because he disagrees with the worst-case scenario that the UN focuses on means that the greenhouse effect isn't real would be a great spin job.

Regardless of whether you "believe" in the greenhouse effect or not, the biggest reason for using biodiesel should still be the economic and strategic reasons. I'm concerned about CO2 buildup, but it's never been my primary reason for using biodiesel.

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
[ QUOTE ]
Further, we KNOW for a fact how greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. Why do you insist that they do not?


[/ QUOTE ]

Reference
Rothman, D.H. 2002. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 4167-4171.

If the truth be told, however, a simple visual examination of the author's plot of CO2 and climate vs. time clearly indicates that the three most striking peaks in the atmospheric CO2 record occur either totally or partially within periods of time when earth's climate was relatively cool. Hence, not only is there no proof for the climate-alarmist contention that higher CO2 concentrations tend to warm the planet, there is evidence in this study to suggest that just the opposite may be true.
------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]
Hm, and I've noticed that I leave the windows in my car rolled all the way up far more often in the winter, while in the summer, when parked, I usually leave the windows rolled down some. Yet, almost without exception, the interior of the car is hotter when I return to it with the windows partially rolled down (which happens in the summer), and colder when they had been rolled all the way up. So clearly, my car would always stay cooler if I left the windows rolled all the way up, right?

I love when "scientists" only consider one of many variables, and treat it as if that is the only variable that has any impact. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The authors state that "change in the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere is commonly regarded as a likely forcing mechanism on global climate over geological time because of its large and predictable effect on temperature," which "predictable effect" is that increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration cause higher temperatures to occur and that decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration cause lower temperatures to occur. Their data, however, clearly demonstrate that this incredibly common assumption is just plain false.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaahaaa! *cough* *cough* *hack* *wheeze*

I am continually amazed at how many people who consider themselves good scientists make this SAME mistake over and over again. Read my previous post about this issue. There are two main reasons why his analysis is completely meaningless:

1. There was no POSSIBLE way that for most of earth's history, atmospheric CO2 could have ever been the initiator of climate change. Why? There was nothing that could artificially change (increase or decrease) atmospheric CO2 levels, until humans came along (again, there is that one exception I've mentioned). WHY do they then find it surprising that atmospheric CO2 was never the initiator? Do they think that the atmospheric CO2 changes over the past few hundred million years were sudden changes due to protozoa burning fossil fuels? Except for our now burning fossil fuels, and that one other exception I've mentioned, the only thing that could possibly make CO2 levels change in all of earth's history was climatic change itself. Yes, climate changes do impact atmospheric CO2 levels (and the reverse is also true - it just has only been allowed to happen twice). The variation in surface land mass, and a dozen to two dozen other factors can initiate weather changes, which can then also trigger CO2 changes. To claim that as a result of looking at that data, CO2 levels have no impact on the climate by itself is laughable.

[ QUOTE ]
Starting 60 million years before present (BP), the authors have the atmosphere's CO2 concentration at approximately 3600 ppm and the oxygen isotope ratio at about 0.3 per mil. Thirteen million years later, however, the air's CO2 concentration has dropped all the way down to 500 ppm; but the oxygen isotope ratio has dropped (implying a rise in temperature) to zero, which is, of course, just the opposite of what one would expect from the "large and predictable effect" of CO2 on temperature that is commonly assumed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, the beauty of only looking at one variable while several (dozens) of other variables that have an impact change. This is exactly the same as my car analogy. You may think the analogy is silly, but that is EXACTLY the same mistake these people all keep making. Only looking at atmospheric carbon levels and temperature, and then claiming that atmospheric carbon levels can't have any impact because the temperature doesn't perfectly follow the atmospheric carbon. No different than my analogy of claiming my windows being up or down doesn't impact the temperature in my car because it's colder in there in the winter despite the windows being up.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you want me to keep going.
There is much more.

[/ QUOTE ]
When you can find a legitimate scientists who DOESN'T make that same critical mistake, feel free to "keep going".

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
[ QUOTE ]
I love it when you post links that actually prove my argument. From that link:
Evidence has mounted that global warming began in the last century and that humans may be in part responsible. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US National Academy of Sciences concur. Computer models are being used to predict climate change under different scenarios of greenhouse forcing and the Kyoto Protocol advocates active measures to reduce CO² emissions which contribute to warming.

Maybe you should read all of the articles before posting them, so you don't post them that proves exactly what you're arguing against, heh heh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not worried about it if posts present both sides of a arguement. What does it say.....
"humans may be in part responsible".

May be in part? They don't sound to sure? /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
Especially when one of the lead authors doesn't even agree with it. Smacks of political agenda more than anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

The lead author agrees that humans are partially responsible (only partially because there are also other factors at play) - he just doesn't agree with the worst case scenario that the IPCC chose to focus on.

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, some places will get colder due to ocean current shutting down - that means the hot places will get even hotter, as the ocean currents no longer carry heat away from them. So, we can end up with many more deserts, and many more extremely cold places. Sound good? Great, keep burning petroleum.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is that the last ice age was caused by burning petroleum?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's what I said. /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif I see you do in fact use the same kind of logic as those "scientists" you keep quoting. So, I trust that you keep your car windows all the way up in the summer when parked, and all the way down in the winter?

 

[bean boy]

What, no mention of the effect on the athmosphere caused by meteor strikes?

Thats ok, once again Mike has managed to deflect the BS back from whence it has come..or gone..depending on how much the trolls have been fed.

The bottom line, for anyone still awake after reading this novel, it that biod has more on the plus side than the issue of emissions. Biodiesel helps the farm economy in this country. It means less risk environmental damage due to spills, less air pollution (except for Nox). It means more independance from foreign oil and a slowing down on the draining of the oil supply world wide.

If the projections on the increase in 3rd world use are true, things will get tighter in the near future. It would be great to develop production for biodiesel as a locally produced and demanded fuel world wide, not just here and in Europe.

The Sunfuel and hydrogen fuel cell hope are relying on Russian CNG for the immediate future, which is only trading one fossil fuel for another.

At the cost of fuel in Europe, it will be interesting to watch what happens to the sales of new cars if the dealers won't warrenty them for european biodiesel.

 

[indigoTDI]

A good friend of mine has been working on investigating past climate change.

This link is a good executive summary of his work. Dr. Jess Adkins

 

[AutoDiesel]

I'm not going to respond to any of your little rants.
I'll just keep posting the facts.

------------------------------------------------------------

The Cold Facts on Global Warming

By Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D.
Robert Wesson Fellow
Hoover Institution
Stanford University

We've been bombarded with information that a disaster awaits us. A television special was even done on the subject, full of parched, cracking farmlands, crying babies, and sweaty adults. Everywhere we turn, we hear: "The earth is melting and it's all because we are burning fossil fuels."

As a scientist, I like to examine the facts. On this issue, the scientific facts say we are overreacting.

CO2 Truths
Let's look at the facts. Burning coal and other fossil fuels does release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. CO2 is one of the "greenhouse gases" of which increases during the last 100 years are blamed for the 0.5°C rise in average global temperature.

Greenhouse gases, naturally present in the atmosphere, act like an insulating blanket over the earth and help warm the planet. Without them, the average temperature of the earth would be a chilly minus 18°C.

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning coal should contribute to the natural greenhouse effect and make the earth slightly warmer. Predicting how much warmer the earth might become is the heart of the climate change debate.

The predictions are based on elaborate mathematical models carried out on large computers, and they vary considerably based on who is doing the calculations. For example, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says if greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, in the next 50 years the temperature of the earth will rise between 1.5 and 4.5°C. The IPCC "best estimate" is a rise of 2.5°C. This forecast has led to serious discussions of the need for limiting CO2 emissions by taxes or mandates.

Such a major policy decision demands that we ask some basic questions: Are the computer forecasts accurate? Are they based on scientific facts? What do we risk by delaying CO2 emission restrictions while we wait for better information from climate experts?

The current computer forecasts, in fact, are dismally inaccurate. They fail in every respect when compared to what the earth's temperature actually did in response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in recent years.

Modern temperature records began in 1880 and show a warming of about 0.5°C to the present. As noted earlier, during that same period greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increased by the equivalent of a 50 percent increase in CO2. The forecasts predict a warming of 0.5 to 2°C for that increase in carbon dioxide. The IPCC reports says "the size of this [observed] warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models . . ."

But the timing of the temperature rise is completely inconsistent with the predictions. Nearly all the 0.5°C temperature rise occurred before 1940, but most of the CO2 entered the atmosphere after 1940. Increased greenhouse gases cannot be the cause of a temperature rise that occurred before the gases were added to the atmosphere.

There is more. From 1940 to 1970, CO2 built up rapidly in the atmosphere. According to the greenhouse calculation, the temperature of the earth should have risen rapidly; instead, the temperature actually fell.

Numerous Contradictions
Greenhouse gases cannot explain the rise in global temperature prior to 1940 and cannot explain the temperature drop between 1940 and 1970. The predictions of greenhouse theorists are contradicted by the temperature record to such a degree as to indicate the major buildup of greenhouse gases did not have anything like the predicted impact on global climate during the last century.

U.S. temperature records are another clear example of the inaccuracy of the forecasts. The forecasts say the United States should have warmed by at least 2°C during the last 50 years--faster than the rise in mean global temperatures because land warms; quicker than ocean. However, U.S. temperature records show no warming trend during that time.

The global temperature record for the last decade or two also contradicts the greenhouse forecasts. According to the forecasts, the buildup of greenhouse gases is now so enormous that a greenhouse-induced warming should have risen clearly out of the background of natural fluctuations in climate. This prediction can be checked by very precise readings of the earth's average temperature, available from NASA satellites for the past 15 years.

According to the computer forecasts, the buildup of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels during that period should have caused global temperatures to rise by about one-third of a degree, and U.S. temperatures to warm by about two-thirds of a degree. Instead, the satellite data show the average temperature of the earth has changed by less than one-tenth of a degree during the last 15 years. The satellites indicate the computer forecasts are exaggerating the size of the warming by at least a factor of five.

Some researchers argue satellites do not yield accurate temperatures at ground level. NASA's Dr. James Hansen told The Washington Post that if the satellite data don't agree with his computations, "there's something wrong with the data."

Unfortunately for this view, the temperatures measured at ground weather stations spread across the North American continent perfectly agree with the satellite data.

Temperatures in the Arctic are an even more sensitive test of the greenhouse forecasts, because a particularly large warming is predicted for those latitudes. The significant warming is predicted because water absorbs much more of the sun's heat than ice, which reflects most of it back to space. When the ice covering the Arctic Ocean is melted by the greenhouse effect, more water is exposed, the amount of heat absorbed from the sun goes up, and the region warms even more.

The computers say this amplifying effect should have caused nearly a degree of warming in the Arctic just in the last 15 years. But the satellites show no net warming in the Arctic during that period. Again the real world--which is the temperature readings--shows the computer forecasts are exaggerating global warming by a large factor.

Don't Blame Pollution
Greenhouse theory advocates explain these discrepancies in the United States as well as the Arctic by saying pollution has blocked sunlight and masked the warming. But air pollution has decreased substantially in the United States since the 1970s.

In the Arctic, pollution also has been decreasing, and is, in any case, too small to mask the enormous predicted warming. Pollution cannot explain these discrepancies.

I mentioned earlier that the evidence shows computer forecasts exaggerate the current greenhouse warming by at least a factor of five. Since future forecasts depend on the same equations and computer programs as current forecasts, the same level of exaggeration applies. If those forecasts are revised downward to agree with the current observations, they say the manmade greenhouse warming in the next century will be less than half a degree at most. Such a warming spread across half a century is inconsequential.

What If . . .
Suppose I am wrong, despite my reading of all the currently available scientific evidence. We could still delay imposing new limits on CO2 emissions for, say, five years, while scientists search for more evidence of the magnitude of the greenhouse warming. Even if the greenhouse effect is as large as the computer equations say (and we know that actually they are exaggerating the effect by a large factor), a delay of five years turns out to mean a penalty of an extra tenth of a degree temperature rise in the next fifty years, beyond what the rise would have been if we had not delayed action. Such an increase spread across a half century would have negligible practical consequences for agriculture and all other human activities.

A delay of five years before imposing carbon taxes or CO2 limits makes good sense. The computer forecasts of the earth's climate fail to meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method: a test of these computer forecasts against observations. The test has been made, and every prediction that has been tested has been proven wrong. The entire hypothesis of a disastrous manmade global warming is suspect.
------------------------------------------------------------

A summary from that article.

Are the computer forecasts accurate? Are they based on scientific facts? What do we risk by delaying CO2 emission restrictions while we wait for better information from climate experts?
The current computer forecasts, in fact, are dismally inaccurate. They fail in every respect when compared to what the earth's temperature actually did in response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in recent years.

------------------------------------------------------------

As for Dr. John R. Christy.
You said......
[ QUOTE ]
However, Christy DOES feel the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will lead to warming......

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why would he be saying this before the U.S. government.

------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. House Committee on Resources
Kyoto Global Warming Treaty’s Impact on Ohio’s Coal Dependent Communities
13 May 2003
John R. Christy, Verbal remarks
Thank you Chairman Pombo and congressman Ney. I am John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. I am also Alabama’s state climatologist, and recently served as a lead author of the 2001 report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I am pleased to speak to you today about the Kyoto Protocol.

First, there seems to be a misconception that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant. Life on Earth depends on three things: sunlight, water,and carbon dioxide. The plant world and all life that depends on it would end without CO2.

Millions of years ago in concentrations several times higher than today, CO2 promoted development of the biosphere which now surrounds us. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Based on output from climate models, the Kyoto Protocol assumes that increasing CO2 will cause dangerous climate change. Real data, however, suggest otherwise.

A common feature of climate model forecasts is that as CO2 increases, the global surface temperature should rise along with an even more rapid warming in the troposphere, the atmosphere up to about 30,000 feet. This additional atmospheric warming would further promote more warming of the surface if models are correct.

Over the past 24+ years various calculations of surface temperature do show a rise of about seven tenths of a degree Fahrenheit. This is roughly half of the total temperature change observed since the end of the 19th century.

In the troposphere, however, various data, including the satellite dataset that Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH and I produce, show much less warming, about three tenths of a degree or less than half of the warming observed at the surface. The models predict more warming in the atmosphere. The real world shows less.

A new version of the microwave satellite data has been produced, but not yet published, by Remote Sensing Systems or RSS of California. Ten days ago the results of a curious comparison of UAH against RSS data appeared in Science magazine's electronic edition. The article's authors observed that climate models agree more closely with the RSS dataset. The article's strong implication was that since the RSS data more closely matched the model output, it is likely more accurate than ours.

That same week OUR latest test of the satellite dataset appeared, with much less fanfare, in the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, (not exactly coffee table material). Instead of using forecasts and projections from mathematical models, we performed rigorous tests using real observations from balloon datasets created by independent organizations. Our satellite data and the balloon data corroborate each other with remarkable consistency, showing only a slow warming in the bulk of the atmosphere. Climate models that forecast significant warming in the troposphere apparently do not match the real world.

The IPCC’s 2001 conclusion that human-induced global warming is clearly evident was based partly on a depiction of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the last thousand years. This depiction showed little temperature change until about 1850, followed by a sharp upward rise, suggesting that recent warming was dramatic and linked to human effects.

Since 2001, however, two important research projects have shown something very different. Using a wider range of information from new sources these studies indicate large temperature swings have been common in the past 1,000 years, and that temperatures warmer than today’s were common in 50-year periods about 1,000 years ago. These studies suggest that the climate we see today isn’t unusual at all. Even so, some people still think something should be done about CO2 as soon as possible.

There have been many proposals to limit energy use. A fundamental point that our nation needs to understand is that if any of these proposals (including the Kyoto protocol) are implemented, they will have an effect on the climate so small that it cannot be detected. It is my business to monitor the climate with the highest precision possible, so I can say with confidence that none of these proposals will change what the climate is going to do enough to notice. Raising the cost of energy without any perceivable benefit is what Kyoto amounts to.

The U.S. is often criticized for producing 25 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2. We are rarely applauded for producing with that CO2 31 percent of what the world wants and needs; it’s food, technology, medical advances, the defense of freedom, and so on. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and the energy that comes from carbon-based fuels allows people to live better lives.

In the mid ‘70s I was a missionary in Africa. I lived with people who didn’t have access to energy. During the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s I saw clearly that the people affected most by rising energy costs were the poor, both around the world and in my own state.

In closing, let me note that at other hearings such as this I have been asked, “If you were a congressman for a day, what would you do on this issue?” Three things. First, I would do no harm. I wouldn’t artificially force up energy prices, thereby hurting the poor. I wouldn’t undo the good things that have been done to clean the air and water. I noted earlier that CO2 isn’t a pollutant. Other emissions, such as sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and mercury, are potentially harmful. The apparent absence of global warming shouldn’t be used as an excuse to overlook other types of pollution.

Second, I would help America do what the innovative people of this nation do best: I would help scientists and engineers discover new sources of low carbon energy. And thirdly, I would work to enhance our national infrastructure so it would be more resilient to floods, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes and other weather events that we know are going to continue whether the climate changes or not.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to answer any questions at the appropriate time.
------------------------------------------------------------

What does he say?


The IPCC’s 2001 conclusion that human-induced global warming is clearly evident was based partly on a depiction of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the last thousand years. This depiction showed little temperature change until about 1850, followed by a sharp upward rise, suggesting that recent warming was dramatic and linked to human effects.

Since 2001, however, two important research projects have shown something very different. Using a wider range of information from new sources these studies indicate large temperature swings have been common in the past 1,000 years, and that temperatures warmer than today’s were common in 50-year periods about 1,000 years ago. These studies suggest that the climate we see today isn’t unusual at all. Even so, some people still think something should be done about CO2 as soon as possible.


and........

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant....."


You can rant and rave all you want but the facts are Global Warming is not happening like you are your friends at the IPCC say it is. It is getting a little warmer, 0.5C. Big deal!
I supposed you are going to say the University of Alabama and Stanford University are under the thumb of big oil also?!? /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
indigoTDI said:
A good friend of mine has been working on investigating past climate change.

This link is a good executive summary of his work. Dr. Jess Adkins

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell him to keep up the good work.
Per the summary they realize that climate changes happen very fast and very large. Much larger than even the IPCC predicts.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
However, Christy DOES feel the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will lead to warming......

[/ QUOTE ]


If he does, why did he right a chapter in this book.....

Chapter 1. The Global Warming Fiasco - by Dr. John Christy
------------------------------------------------------------

 

[ikendu]

AutoDiesel said: ...[Article]: Greenhouse gases, naturally present in the atmosphere, act like an insulating blanket over the earth and help warm the planet. Without them, the average temperature of the earth would be a chilly minus 18°C.

So...we all agree that CO2 does warm the planet...yes?

AutoDiesel said: ...[Article]: The predictions are based on elaborate mathematical models carried out on large computers, and they vary considerably based on who is doing the calculations.

I gotta agree with that...when was the last time we ever constructed a computer model that didn't have inaccuracies? ...or vary based on the assumptions of the people that built the models.

Although, I'm not ready to rule out computer modeling as a means of predicting the future. The models we use for predicting the path of hurricanes are never "accurate". They are ALWAYS off by some amount. Sometimes a little...sometimes a lot. But, I don't think anyone living the path of a potential hurricane strike is sorry that we do the modeling and attempt to predict the future. After all...it's too late after the hurricane arrives at your door.

So here's a question...and my answer.

Are the computer models about climate change accurate?

NO.

Should we give up trying to understand the future and perhaps set policy to prevent a crisis.

NO.

None of these issues is ever going to be black and white when it comes to foreseeing the future. It will always come down to a matter of opinion.

(Ever see the science fiction movie "When worlds collide"? Some scientists predict an asteriod will strike the earth and destroy it. All of the other earth scientists loudly decry their "models" and protest that it is a bunch of bunk. Later...the earth is destroyed. Do you know that when the French built the Suez canal that scientists in France insisted that opening the canal would flood the mediteranean?)

Here's what I've decided:

Since we know that CO2 warms the planet (we agree on that, right?) and we know that burning fossil fuels adds CO2 faster than it can be re-absorbed... I choose to believe we should do less of that.

It is ONE of the reasons I use biodiesel. One of several.

Meanwhile...I am really interested in the actual topic of this thread "BioDiesel TDi emissions vs comparable Gas Engines". But...I've had a rough time weeding thru all the material presented here. Anyone got a link to a nice, cogent discussion of this topic?

 

[deerleg]

Quote: Thelongshot said:
Hey, most of us here are fans of the car. That's why we are here. It doesn't mean we can't argue things. (Tho we seem to go over the same territory over and over again...) Just remember, it is the vocal minority that is posting here. Most of the time, reading these threads is just for entertainment value for me. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Jason


[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gifDittos! I can’t remember laughing, being entertained and learning this much from such a passionate group. It would be pretty boring, and creativity would suffer if we thought we had it all figured out.

 

[bean boy]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..oh, time to wake up and feed the trolls

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to respond to any of your little rants. I'll just keep posting the facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

How typical for you to consider others as ranting but everything you post is supposed to be "the facts".

No wonder this happens
[ QUOTE ]
HOLY FRIGGIN CRAP . I go away for three days and all hell breaks loose. I have to say that I got a lot of usefull info out of this thread but at the same time there was a lot of total piss to sift through. Not that anybody cares (i mean i'm relatively new to the tdi scene) but can't you guys suck up your pride and come together on the cars? Just FYI if this is the way that TDIClub is (and so far its all i've seen) then I'm gone - I'm too busy to deal with so much trash - I get enought junk email as it is. One last piece of advice (*I'm leavin on a jet plane - don't know when I'll be back again*) Autodiesel: Contribute, don't start fights - they just hose the thread and the site - express your opinion but don't steal threads that clearly have nothing to do with your ego or personal agenda.

Thanx anyway everybody and adios

[/ QUOTE ]

You say you arn't trying to win any arguments, just present both sides. I agree it is good to present both sides, but what you end up doing is losing credibility just so you can get the last word in.

My vote for the best post on this thread goes to Rich C way back on page 1 [ QUOTE ]
My primary irritation with the 'nasty' debating, is that ordinary people reading the thread eventually decide to pick a side rather than embrace the 'many' developing alternatives. When the debate is friendlier, the recognized outcome is that there are several technologies and they all have merit over what we are currently using.

It would be helpful if the current debate thread recognize that both hybrids and biofuels would like to see more efficient use of resources, cleaner emissions and that a renewable fuel source is definitely better for our longterm needs.

If we look a the big picture and realize that many of today's 'larger' diesel will be in operation for many years to come ... then we need to continue our development of cleaner alternatives to run in these engines .... be they petroleum or biodiesel. Personal transportation may be a different story yet assume their is room for many developing alternatives.

[/ QUOTE ] /images/graemlins/cool.gif

nuf said. Goodnight

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
How typical for you to consider others as ranting but everything you post is supposed to be "the facts".

[/ QUOTE ]

When I start seeing some valid posts that justify and validate the doom and gloom of the global warming that has been proposed by the IPCC and its' proponents then I'll listen.
But so far everything they have proposed, other than the temps going up 0.5C (which is the smallest figure they proposed), has not happened!

The entire reason I continue is because of the continuing belief that biodiesel burning TDi's will save the planet instead of a current modern SULEV vehicle. Currently, not true. Now in the future when the best emission devises are installed on light-duty diesels and they meet SULEV status, you can say that if they let you use biodiesel. If you want to reduce petroleum consumption, support farmers, and help reduce pollutants, then great use it.

But the arguement that it is better just because of CO2 emissons doesn't work.

[ QUOTE ]
Since we know that CO2 warms the planet (we agree on that, right?)

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry ikendu. Your reasons for not emitting a "greenhouse" gas are great. Just don't think it having much a a effect.

Here is more from another auther from the IPCC report that does grant the fact that greenhouse gases will increase temperatures. But the effect of one, say CO2, or the primary greenhouse gas, water vapor, need further study. And even if the temps do go up, what would be the cost?

Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001.
* that CO2 levels have increased from about 280ppm to 360ppm over the past century, and, that combined with increases in other greenhouse gases, this brings us about half way to the radiative forcing associated with a doubling of CO2 without any evidence of enhanced human misery.
*that the increase in global mean temperature over the past century is about 1F which is smaller than the normal interannual variability for smaller regions like North America and Europe, and comparable to the interannual variability for the globe. Which is to say that temperature is always changing, which is why it has proven so difficult to demonstrate human agency.
* that doubling CO2 alone will only lead to about a 2F increase in global mean temperature.
Predictions of greater warming due to doubling CO2 are based on positive feedbacks from poorly handled water vapor and clouds (the atmosphere’s main greenhouse substances) in current computer models. Such positive feedbacks have neither empirical nor theoretical foundations. Their existence, however, suggests a poorly designed earth which responds to perturbations by making things worse.
*that the most important energy source for extratropical storms is the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles which is predicted by computer models to decrease with global warming. This also implies reduced mperature variation associated with weather since such variations result from air moving from one latitude to another. Consistent with this, even the IPCC Policymakers Summary notes that no significant trends have been identified in tropical or extratropical storm intensity and
frequence. Nor have trends been found in tornados, hail events or thunder days.
*that warming is likely to be concentrated in winters and at night. This is an empirical result based on data from the past century. It represents what is on the whole a beneficial pattern.
*that temperature increases observed thus far are less than what models have suggested should have occurred even if they were totally due to increasing greenhouse emissions.
The invocation of very uncertain (and unmeasured) aerosol effects is frequently used to disguise this. Such an invocation makes it impossible to check models. Rather, one is reduced to the claim that it is possible that models are correct.
*that claims that man has contributed any of the observed warming (ie attribution) are based on the assumption that models correctly predict natural variability. Such claims,
therefore, do not constitute independent verifications of models. Note that natural variability does not require any external forcing – natural or anthropogenic.
*that large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated limate for the past 700 thousand years, and the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous. Neither do they do well at accounting for shorter period and less dramatic phenomena like El Niños, quasi-biennial oscillations, or intraseasonal oscillations – all of which are well documented in the data.
*that major past climate changes were either uncorrelated with changes in CO2 or were characterized by temperature changes which preceded changes in CO2 by 100's to thousands of years.
------------------------------------------------------------

There's that "temperature changes which preceded changes in CO2" again.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the world's leading atmospheric scientists.

Believe what you want.
Just don't think it is going to save the world.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
You say you arn't trying to win any arguments, just present both sides. I agree it is good to present both sides, but what you end up doing is losing credibility just so you can get the last word in.

[/ QUOTE ]

"losing credibility"?
Well if that is what you believe. That's fine with me.
But remember it is only because I hold a different view that you or "others" here. You find that the facts posted don't meet with your beliefs so you choose to view them as not credible.
That is a normal response. Do as you choose.

OK, I give the last word to you or someone else.
There are many more facts to post, but if you and others feel I've gone on too long (admittedly I have) I will give in and quit. This will be my last post for this tread.

Just don't believe the doom and gloom prophecies.
Because they are not happening!

But do enjoy your TDi with whatever fuel you choose to burn in it! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
I'm not going to respond to any of your little rants.
I'll just keep posting the facts.


[/ QUOTE ]
LMAO. MY rants? You're the one who kept posting arguments based on the same ridiculous attempt at logic over and over again. At least this link is better, not containing that same fatal flaw.

[ QUOTE ]
The Cold Facts on Global Warming
Greenhouse gases, naturally present in the atmosphere, act like an insulating blanket over the earth and help warm the planet. Without them, the average temperature of the earth would be a chilly minus 18°C.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yup. More greenhouse gases = more "warmth" retained. Having the right amount of "insulation" is very important.

[ QUOTE ]
Such a major policy decision demands that we ask some basic questions: Are the computer forecasts accurate? Are they based on scientific facts? What do we risk by delaying CO2 emission restrictions while we wait for better information from climate experts?

[/ QUOTE ]
First, we risk going to war again and again to make sure we can get that oil. Second, let's say we do nothing for the next 5 years - over that time, more than half a trillion dollars will pour out of our economy to buy oil from companies that hate us. Sound good? And THIRD, is this issue of global warming. Five more years won't mean much here - and as I've said, it's never been my main reason for switching to biodiesel.

[ QUOTE ]
The current computer forecasts, in fact, are dismally inaccurate. They fail in every respect when compared to what the earth's temperature actually did in response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in recent years.

Modern temperature records began in 1880 and show a warming of about 0.5°C to the present.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure where some people keep coming up with this figure from, of 0.5 C. Look at the stuff you quoted from Christy - "Over the past 24+ years various calculations of surface temperature do show a rise of about seven tenths of a degree Fahrenheit. This is roughly half of the total temperature change observed since the end of the 19th century." 0.7C in the last ~24 years, roughly twice that since the end of the 19th century.

[ QUOTE ]
The forecasts predict a warming of 0.5 to 2°C for that increase in carbon dioxide. The IPCC reports says "the size of this [observed] warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models . . ."

[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, because the increase has been around 1.4 C, not 0.5 C.

[ QUOTE ]
There is more. From 1940 to 1970, CO2 built up rapidly in the atmosphere. According to the greenhouse calculation, the temperature of the earth should have risen rapidly; instead, the temperature actually fell.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I mentioned previously, there was a period around 1970 or so where the sun was putting out less heat, enough to account for this.

[ QUOTE ]
U.S. temperature records are another clear example of the inaccuracy of the forecasts. The forecasts say the United States should have warmed by at least 2°C during the last 50 years--faster than the rise in mean global temperatures because land warms; quicker than ocean. However, U.S. temperature records show no warming trend during that time.

[/ QUOTE ]
No warming trend? That's completely wrong. Ground based measurements (tossing out hot-spots) show an average increase of around 0.10 to 0.15 C per decade. Satellite measurements of the lower troposphere show no warming trend - ground based measurements, even throwing out all of the potential "hot spots", do. One of the big issues is why the lower troposphere readings aren't going up, and may even be going down, while ground based measurements are going up. Here's a hint - greenhouse gases work like insulation, absorbing infrared radiation, especially after it's reflected upwards from the earth. Higher levels of greenhouse gases means more heat will be "absorbed", and at lower levels. Now, tell me what that should mean for the upper levels of the atmosphere.

Look here: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/atmos_layers.htm

If MORE heat is being absorbed down low, what should that mean for the level above it?

[ QUOTE ]
The global temperature record for the last decade or two also contradicts the greenhouse forecasts. According to the forecasts, the buildup of greenhouse gases is now so enormous that a greenhouse-induced warming should have risen clearly out of the background of natural fluctuations in climate. This prediction can be checked by very precise readings of the earth's average temperature, available from NASA satellites for the past 15 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's the problem - the satellites measure the temperature in the lower troposphere. We live on the earth's surface, not a few miles up. Ground based measurements, tossing out hot-spots, show continual warming of around 0.10-0.15 C per decade. More reflected heat is absorbed near the surface, so less makes it higher up (which is one of the factors resulting in lower, or almost no change in satellite temperature readings). Satellite readings higher up also decrease due to depletion of the ozone layer.

[ QUOTE ]
Some researchers argue satellites do not yield accurate temperatures at ground level.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yup.

[ QUOTE ]
NASA's Dr. James Hansen told The Washington Post that if the satellite data don't agree with his computations, "there's something wrong with the data."

Unfortunately for this view, the temperatures measured at ground weather stations spread across the North American continent perfectly agree with the satellite data.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, they do not. They are going in opposite directions (although the cooling in the lower troposphere is VERY slight - it's closer to no change at all). Ms. Baliunas needs to recheck the data.

[ QUOTE ]
The computers say this amplifying effect should have caused nearly a degree of warming in the Arctic just in the last 15 years. But the satellites show no net warming in the Arctic during that period. Again the real world--which is the temperature readings--shows the computer forecasts are exaggerating global warming by a large factor.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can sum up the problem with her paper there with two things:
1. She views the satellite readings of the lower troposphere as the "real world" measurements. We live on the earth's surface - not a few miles up.
2. She apparently is looking at some other set of data from what NASA and everyone else has for the ground based temperature readings, which do in fact show a continual increase in temperature for the last century+, averaging around 0.10-0.15 C per decade (tossing out hot-spot measurements). She for some reason is claiming that ground based measurements agree with the satellite data - they don't.

[ QUOTE ]
As for Dr. John R. Christy.
You said......
[ QUOTE ]
However, Christy DOES feel the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will lead to warming......

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why would he be saying this before the U.S. government.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where does he say that he feels CO2 emissions WON'T lead to warming? He says there is still disagreement, and he personally feels that many people overestimate the warming. If he feels CO2 is fine and good, why does he say that if he had the power, "I would help scientists and engineers discover new sources of low carbon energy"? If he truly feels CO2 is not a pollutant, why would he say that?

Do you realize that John Christy was hand-picked by Exxon-Mobil to be appointed to take over the IPCC (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,782765,00.html )? Christy's comments are always now tilted somewhat towards that end, the claim of CO2 not being a pollutant. But he still feels (and clearly states) that we should be developing sources of energy that don't emit carbon dioxide.

 

[MITBeta]

One thing to keep in mind, is that most estimates I've seen for global warming predictions show between 1C and 6C of temperature change over the next 100 years. 1C will be troublesome, 6C will be downright catastrophic. Also, keep in mind that there are inherent delays in response to changes in the system. If we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere TODAY, it would take some time to show the consequences, perhaps decades. By the time the consequences do show up, it's too late to respond to them since a CO2 molecule spends 100 years in the atmosphere on average.

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
The entire reason I continue is because of the continuing belief that biodiesel burning TDi's will save the planet instead of a current modern SULEV vehicle.

[/ QUOTE ]
Also, sending $100+ billion out of our economy every year, and mostly into the economies that hate us, to power all those gasoline vehicles, won't do anything to hurt our economy, or fund terrorism, right? And we NEVER go to war to open up oil fields. After all, look at all of the WMDs we found in Iraq, and all the Al Quaeda people Bush dug up. Oh wait, they didn't show up until AFTER we took over..... hmmmm...

 

[testy_SOB]

AutoDiesel Submitted: [ QUOTE ]
The Cold Facts on Global Warming

By Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D.
Robert Wesson Fellow
Hoover Institution
Stanford University


[/ QUOTE ]

Just a few comments about this article. If my understanding is correct then this article is at least a decade old. Therefore, based on decade old info (Baliunas was a fellow in '93). Furthermore, if you have been implying that this is a Stanford position I would back away from that idea if I were you. Baliunas was a visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institute that is affiliated with Stanford. The Hoover Institute doesn't speak for the teaching and research faculty of Stanford or the school itself. This Institute is a conservative Think Tank with the following Mission "The principles of individual, economic, and political freedom; private enterprise; and representative government were fundamental to the vision of the Institution's founder. By collecting knowledge, generating ideas, and disseminating both, the Institution seeks to secure and safeguard peace, improve the human condition, and limit government intrusion into the lives of individuals {bold is added}." As the author of the Hoover essay said a 5 year delay would be worthwhile while more evidence comes in (parapharse). Well the 5 years ended in 1998-99 and more studies and models support CO2 being a contributer to Global Warming.

As to AutoDiesel's comments RE:

[ QUOTE ]
As for Dr. John R. Christy.
You said......

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, Christy DOES feel the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will lead to warming......


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then why would he be saying this before the U.S. government.


[/ QUOTE ]

As New Hampshire Mike correctly parapharsed; Christy doesn't agree with the more dire predictions but agrees that CO2 will/does have an effect on Global Warming From his testimony [ QUOTE ]
Our satellite data and the balloon data corroborate each other with remarkable consistency, showing only a slow warming in the bulk of the atmosphere. Climate models that forecast significant warming in the troposphere apparently do not match the real world.


[/ QUOTE ]

What should be taken from this (and the majority of other work around the world) is that there is agreement that CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) will and are warming the planet, the exact mechanism(s) are still being debated therefore the RATE of warming is being debated.

My take on all this is that if we can have the same quality of life and have basically the same toys by conserving wanton waste and using eco friendly tolls and processes then do it (screw the studies). I think we should be thinking many generations forward when we make collective dicisions on things like energy policy and use/misuse of resources. If it takes 50 years or 200 hundred to have an impact then I say lets take it on now and keep at it until we find the enrgy Rosetta stone that allows us to be more carefree with our energy sources.

 

[AutoDiesel]

I just couldn't help but come back with this.....

http://eces.org/ec/globalwarming/
Earth Crash
(05/22/2002) UN report by 1,100 scientists warns 70% of the natural world will be destroyed over the 30 years due to over-population, deforestation, pollution, global warming, spread of non-native species, and other human impacts, causing the mass extinction of species and the collapse of human society in many countries.
------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news070803-03
Kyoto Won't Stop Global Warming
Even if the Kyoto agreement is fully implemented, greenhouse gas emissions worldwide will still increase by 70%
------------------------------------------------------------


Everyone bought into the wonders of biodiesel is a little too late.! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

The World Is Coming To A End Anyway!

 

[testy_SOB]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I give the last word to you or someone else.
There are many more facts to post, but if you and others feel I've gone on too long (admittedly I have) I will give in and quit. This will be my last post for this tread.


[/ QUOTE ]

My last word (well words anyway) are:

From Merriam-Webster ...

Fact [ QUOTE ]
One entry found for fact.


Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date: 15th century
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth

[/ QUOTE ]

Opinion

[ QUOTE ]
Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
Date: 14th century
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that all of your "facts" are better described as "opinions"!

 

[bean boy]

Autodiesel said [ QUOTE ]
OK, I give the last word to you or someone else.
There are many more facts to post, but if you and others feel I've gone on too long (admittedly I have) I will give in and quit. This will be my last post for this tread.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why did I think that would never happen. Could it be, oh I don't know, you have to get the last word in.

[ QUOTE ]
The World Is Coming To A End Anyway!

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this one " life, no one gets out alive"

But that doesn't mean its ok to try to avoid fouling our own nest. Most animals are smart enough to avoid that, I guess some of us hold to that opinion, others apparently don't.