BioDiesel TDi emissions vs comparable Gas Engines

[bean boy]

I wish I'd found this about 10 pages ago. I come from the Harvard Greencampus site.

Report on Fuel Types

August 13, 2001

Abstract: This report describes the current alternative fuel technologies and their impacts on global warming and urban air quality.

Authored by the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Program
Sponsored by HGCI, UOS, Ford Motor Company, and Harvard University

AFVP Phone: 617 384 7899
AFVP Website: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ dthonips/afv


1. Renewable vs. Non renewable Fuels

Fuels come from a variety of sources. Some fuels, like those that derive their energy from the sun, are called sustainable or renewable because the sun is guaranteed to shine for billions of years to come. Others, such as gasoline, depend on a limited supply of fossil fuel deposits that can be depleted and lost forever.

The chief non renewable fuels are so called fossil fuels. These include:
1. Gasoline
2. Diesel
3. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
4. Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)
5. Methanol
6. Electricity (produced from non renewable sources)

Another non renewable fuel is nuclear power which depends on a limited supply of radioactive materials within the earth.

The energy for all renewable fuels comes from two sources. The most well known of these is the sun which powers photovoltaic power cells (solar power), grows plants (biomass), whips up the wind (wind power) and powers the rivers (hydro power). The less well known source of renewable energy is geothermal. This uses the heat from the core of the earth to power electric power plants. This source is renewable in the sense that once the heat is depleted from one area under the ear&s surface, the earth's core will reheat that region making it available for future generations. A list of renewable fuels is as follows:
1. Biodiesel (from soybeans)
2. Ethanol (from com)
3. Electricity (from renewable sources)

Greenhouse gases (GHG), such as carbon dioxide, absorb very little visible light, but readily absorb infrared light. As the visible light rays from the sun travel towards earth, they travel unimpeded through the atmosphere. However, much of this light is converted into infrared light when it reflects off the surface of the earth. Instead of escaping back out into space, this infrared light is absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and turns into heat. Due to human activity, concentrations of atmospheric C02 have increased from a pre industrial value of 280 ppm to 367 ppm, about 60 ppm higher than the concentrations Of C02 have ever been over the past 400,000 years.

Renewable ftiels, if produced with only renewable energy, emit zero greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. This must be the final objective of all our energy gathering practices if we wish to avoid ftirther global warming.


11. Fuel Types

In the table below, we give the emission characteristics of various fuels as compared to diesel. The numbers in the table reflect the percent difference for a vehicle travelling for a mile on that fuel as compared to a comparable vehicle travelling for a mile on diesel. The emissions are calculated using the Argonne National Laboratory's GREET Model version 1.5a. This calculates the emissions of various gases for the entire fuel cycle. This includes the gathering of feedstock, fuel production, and tailpipe emissions. This type of complete analysis is often referred to as a well to wheel or fuel cycle analysis.

While a rough comparison of fuel types can be made, it is important to realize that these numbers can vary significantly from vehicle to vehicle. Therefore, any such numbers must be treated as a rough indication of a fuel's emissions. For this reason, all numbers have been rounded to the nearest 5%. The fuels are ranked in order of most to least greenhouse gas emissions the emissions that cause global warming. The electric category is for a battery powered vehicle running off of the New England power grid. The hybrid is a diesel/electric hybrid.

-------------------------------------------------
Please make me stop!!!!!!!!!!! /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[nh mike]

Just wanted to clarify an issue:

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
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).
(snip), now in Autodiesel's words:

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

Put some spin on that one, bubba!

[/ QUOTE ]

Later Autodiesel also quotes from Richard Lindzen. Now, it's important to realize who these people are, and how they are related to the IPCC. If you believe Autodiesel's words, based on the extremely slanted perspective of the articles he quotes, you'd get the impression that the guy in charge of the IPCC's research over the years doesn't agree with the reports of the group. That is simply not true.

John Christy had NOTHING to do with IPCC until late in 2002. He wasn't involved AT ALL with the years and years of research they had done, and most of the reports they had written. In 2002, the IPCC, then headed by Robert Watson, was publishing the results of their years of studying the climate. Their results clearly indicated that they felt CO2 emissions were already causing temperature increases, and would continue to do so.

Exxon-Mobil didn't like the sound of that. In early 2002, they told President Bush that they wanted Watson and some others in charge of the IPCC ousted, and replaced by some others that they hand-picked, who would argue against the CO2-global warming connection. Who did they recommend? None other than John Christy and Richard Lindzen. The memo to Bush from Exxon-Mobil effectively demanding that he oust Watson and replace him with either Christy or Lindzen is now available due to the Freedom of Information Act (wonder how long it will be before that's repealed).

Bush of course sided with Exxon, and replaced Watson with Christy. Christy has only been in charge of the IPCC for around a year - it's completely false to claim that "the lead author of the IPCC's reports" disagrees with their conclusions. Christy was not in charge (or connected at all) with the IPCC during most of their research (starting in 1989), and was only placed in charge by Bush at Exxon-Mobil's demanding when they got tired of all of the scientists saying things that could hurt their future sales.

Is Christy a legitimate scientist? Yes, and so is Lindzell. But, they are two of the very small group of scientists who think the impacts of massive CO2 emissions won't be disastrous in the long term. They have now been placed in positions of power (ahead of the IPCC, invited to speak to Congress, etc.) due to Exxon-Mobil demanding that Bush do so. They have never been responsible for most of the research of the IPCC, and were only stuck in charge of it after the fact, in an attempt to derail the findings of those who actually did the studies.

 

[nh mike]

Apparently my previous link to an article regarding the Exxon-Mobil - Bush - John Christy connection doesn't work. Try this one:
http://www.stopesso.com/coverage/00000026.php
It has an article from a UK paper on that page, that covers the issue pretty well. Note this is from April of 2002 - Watson was still in charge of the IPCC then, Bush had not yet ousted him and replaced him with Christy.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
John Christy had NOTHING to do with IPCC until late in 2002. He wasn't involved AT ALL with the years and years of research they had done, and most of the reports they had written.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trying to rewrite history?

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (IPCC)
Appendix III Contributors to the IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report

Chapter 2. Observed Climate Variability and Change
Co-ordinating Lead Authors
C.K. Folland Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office, UK
T.R. Karl NOAA National Climatic Data Center, USA
Lead Authors
J.R. Christy University of Alabama, USA
R.A. Clarke Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Canada
G.V. Gruza Institute for Global Climate and Ecology, Russia
------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Christy was listed in the 2001 report!
You are way off base!

from Dr. Christy's web site.......
Dr. John R. Christy

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
2001 Lead Author

1996 Key Contributor

1994 Contributor

1992 Contributor

Dr. Christy has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994 and 1996) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the satellite temperatures were included as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has or is serving on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional
committees.
------------------------------------------------------------

He's has had involvement as far back as 1992!

As for Watson replaced with Christy, you are wrong there also. /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif


[ QUOTE ]
Bush of course sided with Exxon, and replaced Watson with Christy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Climate scientist ousted

One of the most outspoken scientists on the issue of global warming has been ousted from his job.
Dr Robert Watson was voted out of the chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Friday and
will be replaced by one of the current vice-chairs, Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

"I believe Dr Pachauri does have integrity - I hope he has the integrity. He is an economist; he is a technologist. I thought co-chairing with Dr Pachauri was an appropriate solution but we have a democratic process and a majority of the countries in the world thought it was time for a change ."
------------------------------------------------------------

What? We have a democratic process?
And...... ...."a majority of the countries in the world thought it was time for a change."

Again, you may not like how it happened. But thems the rules.

Your description of the Bush administration to "oust" Dr. Watson is incorrect also. He wasn't ousted, he wasn't supported for reelection.
NRDC
Without formal announcement, the administration has decided to oppose Watson's appointment to a second term as IPCC chair, seriously damaging his prospects when representatives of more than 100 governments meet in Geneva April 17-20 to elect a new IPCC head.
------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, politics can be a bi%ch sometimes.

We may not agree on CO2 but please get your facts/truths straight.

I guess I'm going to have to stick around to make sure more un-truths aren't spred around! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
[ QUOTE ]
John Christy had NOTHING to do with IPCC until late in 2002. He wasn't involved AT ALL with the years and years of research they had done, and most of the reports they had written.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trying to rewrite history?

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (IPCC)
Appendix III Contributors to the IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report

Chapter 2. Observed Climate Variability and Change
Co-ordinating Lead Authors
C.K. Folland Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office, UK
T.R. Karl NOAA National Climatic Data Center, USA
Lead Authors
J.R. Christy University of Alabama, USA
R.A. Clarke Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Canada
G.V. Gruza Institute for Global Climate and Ecology, Russia
------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Christy was listed in the 2001 report!
You are way off base!

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, he made input on ONE of the chapters in ONE of the reports prior to 2002. Look at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.PDF
He's only cited once, for writing part of one of the chapters of the report. He's not listed as a member of the IPCC. I should have been clearer - he was not a member of the IPCC - he did have SOMETHING to do with their reports, as his work was cited in some of their documents, and for the 2001 report he wrote part of one chapter. He was not a member of the IPCC

[ QUOTE ]
from Dr. Christy's web site.......
Dr. John R. Christy

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
2001 Lead Author

1996 Key Contributor

1994 Contributor

1992 Contributor

[/ QUOTE ]
A "contributor" is someone whose work is cited. It does not mean he was a member of the IPCC. Christy is one of the scientists who collects satellite temperature data - so of course his work was cited. That doesn't make him a member of the IPCC.
[ QUOTE ]
He's has had involvement as far back as 1992!

[/ QUOTE ]
Having your work cited is not the same as being involved with the committee citing the work. I've been cited by numerous groups that I'm not a part of, and have nothing to do with.

[ QUOTE ]
As for Watson replaced with Christy, you are wrong there also. /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Bush of course sided with Exxon, and replaced Watson with Christy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Climate scientist ousted

One of the most outspoken scientists on the issue of global warming has been ousted from his job.
Dr Robert Watson was voted out of the chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Friday and
will be replaced by one of the current vice-chairs, Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah! I forgot that the Christy nomination thing fell through. All the press that the Bush-Exxon-Christy connection got at the time kept Bush from nominating Christy to become chair. Completely forgot about that, thanks for reminding me.

[ QUOTE ]
What? We have a democratic process?
And...... ...."a majority of the countries in the world thought it was time for a change."

[/ QUOTE ]
Sort of. The US holds huge sway over how the process goes. Watson became the chair essentially because Clinton nominated and backed him for the position. US support has been the dominant factor in who the chair is.

Pachauri is not the "skeptic" that Christy is, but it's interesting that when Bush fell back from supporting CHristy, the guy he chose to support (Pachauri) is not a scientist - he's an economist, and industrial engineer. Not someone who should be chairing a committee whose stated purpose is understanding the climate.

It's interesting how you leave out the parts of these reports that side more with what I'm saying. For instance, from the above,
Dr Watson's removal will spark a huge political row - environmentalists accuse the US Government of orchestrating a campaign to have the scientist sidelined.

They say Washington disliked Dr Watson's willingness to tell governments what he believes to be the unvarnished truth - that human activities are now contributing dangerously to climate change.

Just pretend that's not part of the article, eh?
and
Green groups believe Mr Bush is unduly influenced by the energy lobby in America, and point to a memo forwarded to the White House by ExxonMobil last year.

The document raised the question of whether Dr Watson could be replaced as the US representative on the IPCC. Environmentalists claimed the outcome of Friday's vote was proof of ExxonMobil's power behind the scenes in Washington.

[ QUOTE ]
Your description of the Bush administration to "oust" Dr. Watson is incorrect also. He wasn't ousted, he wasn't supported for reelection.
NRDC

[/ QUOTE ]
That's essentially the equivalent of ousting. US support has been the prime factor in who becomes chair. The person our President supports has essentially always become chair. That's the way it works.

[ QUOTE ]
Without formal announcement, the administration has decided to oppose Watson's appointment to a second term as IPCC chair, seriously damaging his prospects when representatives of more than 100 governments meet in Geneva April 17-20 to elect a new IPCC head.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hm, again, why did you leave out parts of the article such as this:
The Bush administration this week moved to oust a top scientific official targeted by ExxonMobil in a confidential memo to the White House. Bold language in the ExxonMobil papers released today by NRDC (the Natural Resources Defense Council) reflects a brazen, behind-the-scenes effort by the oil company and other energy giants to disrupt the principal international science assessment program on global warming.

Dr. Robert Watson, a highly respected atmospheric scientist, has been chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1996. Operating under United Nations auspices, the 2500-member expert panel provides policymakers around the world with rigorous, consensus-based assessments generally regarded as the most authoritative word on global warming and its causes.

Without formal announcement, the administration has decided to oppose Watson's appointment to a second term as IPCC chair, seriously damaging his prospects when representatives of more than 100 governments meet in Geneva April 17-20 to elect a new IPCC head.

The memorandum, obtained by NRDC from the White House Council on Environmental Quality under the Freedom of Information Act, shows that ExxonMobil began a secret campaign for Dr. Watson's removal in the first weeks of the Bush administration, and reveals ExxonMobil's intention to replace Watson and other key scientists with contrarians known for disagreeing with the prevailing consensus that man-made pollution is causing global warming.

In meetings this week with State Department officials, lobbyists for the coal industry, electric utilities, and automakers joined ExxonMobil's call to replace Watson.

"It's bad enough that ExxonMobil controls White House energy and climate policies," said Daniel Lashof, science director of the NRDC Climate Center. "Now they want to control the science too."

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, politics can be a bi%ch sometimes.

We may not agree on CO2 but please get your facts/truths straight.

I guess I'm going to have to stick around to make sure more un-truths aren't spred around! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, I was wrong about Christy getting the chairmanship. I had forgotten that Bush decided not to back him after the memo was released in which Exxon/Mobil asked him to "oust" Watson (by politically opposing him), and have him replaced with Christy or Lindzell. Bush didn't want to look like a complete puppet, so he supported someone else - someone who happens to be an economist and industrial engineer, rather than someone who studies the climate. My facts are right on everything except Christy getting the position. Exxon/Mobil and other large companies urged Bush to have Watson ousted, using political pressure. He did so. They asked him to nominate and support Christy or Lindzell, as they are two of the few legimiate scientists who don't fully agree with the majority of climate scientists on the issue of CO2 emissions. He backed off from supporting CHristy due to the memo being released, and instead supported Pachauri. Thanks for the correction.

Note though that your own links agree with the issue of Exxon/Mobil getting Bush to use political pressure to have Watson ousted.

As for Christy, my point remains - it is incorrect to portray it as your link did, that the most powerful person in the IPCC does not agree with the conclusions of the IPCC's reports. Christy has been an author of part of one of the chapters of one of their reports. His climate data from satellites has been cited in other reports. He has never been a dominant person in the IPCC.

 

[Light]

You two should just rent time at a boxing ring and settle this, what a peeing match if I've ever seen one. Autodiesel, some of us like biodiesel, and prefer real world testing to the nonsense you post. If you don't have anything nice to say about it...why dont you let sleeping dogs lie.. I dont see a herd of people here thanking you for saving their cars...

 

[Geordi]

Here Here! *applauds with standing ovation*

 

[Light]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
and prefer real world testing to the nonsense you post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Real world testing?
Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!

A few thousand TDier's using biodiesel in the U.S. hasn't proved anything.
What about the hundreds of thousands of users in Europe that have proved something? Because commercially available biodiesel hasn't been supplied as a consistent quality product the "major" automotive manufacturer is backing away from its' endorsement. Will this change in the future? Maybe and maybe not. Obviously that "major" manufacturer has their own reasons to think it won't. I'm not saying a quality product can't be made, it's just that inconsistent quality has screwed it for many people and they cannot afford to spending 20 million Euros here or there to keep the customers happy.

And if you want to bother to even read my posts I've have said over and over again that I use biodiesel for certain specific reasons.
Displacing petroleum diesel, supporting a home grown product, reducing local specific pollutants, make the engine run smoother -- and that's just with B20 or less!

I've said it over and over again, use biodiesl. It's great for what it does. Just don't think it is a panacea to cure the world ills. It will take more than biodiesel to do that.

 

[happydog]

Ok, we've heard the reports, and the endless discussion goes on and on... But where are the owners of these cars that had problems? I assume they read this site too. Where are they? How come they do not post? Anyway, it's the seal in the Bosch Fuel pump that is the suspect in all this. Some say that all their seals go bad with B100, but I have also heard that it depends on the manufacturing run and the supplier of the seal at the time (low bid?)... We need to find out how to tell if our Bosch pump was made with an inferior seal... It's not the engine, it's the pump. However, B20 is safe in any case!!, year round, in any climate, including Minnesota.... 100 vehicles running B20 is better all around than 20 vehicles running B100.

 

[ikendu]

AutoDiesel said: ...use biodiesl. It's great for what it does. Just don't think it is a panacea to cure the world ills. It will take more than biodiesel to do that.

I don't think it will be any one technology that gets us off of fossil fuels. I DO however, believe that we already have the technologies we need to do that:

1. Direct solar for on-house electric generation
(combined with close attention to conservation)
2. Solar hot water heat
3. Passive solar home heating
4. Biodiesel for vehicles (possibly for home heat too)
5. E85 for vehicles (though still is 15% petro)
6. Wind energy for large scale electric
7. Batteries for electric commuter cars

What we need is leadership in our gov't to get us off of petroleum...not new technologies.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting how you leave out the parts of these reports that side more with what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, you want me to stand up for what you are saying?

No, you are man enough to point out what you believe in and back it up. I'm not going to do it for you! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Note though that your own links agree with the issue of Exxon/Mobil getting Bush to use political pressure to have Watson ousted.

As for Christy, my point remains - it is incorrect to portray it as your link did, that the most powerful person in the IPCC does not agree with the conclusions of the IPCC's reports. Christy has been an author of part of one of the chapters of one of their reports. His climate data from satellites has been cited in other reports. He has never been a dominant person in the IPCC.


[/ QUOTE ]

What did I post?
I posted that he was a "lead author", he was, and he doesn't necessarily agree with everything the IPCC is putting out. I never said he was the most powerfull person there. I'm sure there are many more "authors" and contributors that hold the same view as he does.
And your attempt to belittle his contribution is very small minded.

If you look at the IPCC it is not a objective organization that is acting in our best interests. It is a UN organization that uses the work of deligates sent to it from world organizations. They are only interested in spreading "worse case" scenario's to further there own good.

Before the 2001 IPCC report was even published they were leaking propaganda to further their goals.

From a article in year 2000.....Poisoned Propaganda
LARRY WEITZMAN Democrat columnist

Two articles appeared on Oct. 26, one by H. Josef Hebert of the Associated Press and published in the Sacramento Bee with the headline "Report: Global Warming an even hotter problem" and a second written by Andrew C. Revkin entitled "Scientists Now Acknowledge Role of Humans in Climate Change," published in the New York Times. Both articles portray the imminent danger of global warming. The entire article was based on a leaked report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in which an "international panel of hundreds climate scientists have concluded that greenhouse gases as the result of the burning of fossil fuels have contributed substantially to the observed warming over the last 50 years."

According Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and the director of the Earth System Science Lab at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and one of the IPCC contributors, the IPCC report is not in its final form and all contributors agreed not to discuss or release anything from the report until its final form, which is months away. According to Christy, only the scientists themselves and certain government officials had the draft copies.

The New York Times said "A copy of the summary was obtained by the New York Times from someone who was eager to have the findings disseminated before the meetings in the Hague." Somebody is not playing by the rules, to the detriment of the public, in order to sway public policy by an unfinished document, which will be the third since 1990 to come from the IPCC, a UN sponsored group and document. Can you say presidential politics?

"There are about 500 contributors and each will get about two pages," said Dr. Christy. But Christy said the newspaper reported conclusions that are at opposite of his data and the balloon data that have been collected over at least the last 21 years.

In his latest monthly report, Christy data show virtually no change in average atmospheric temperatures over the last 21 years. As an example, over the last 29 months 14 of those months have been warmer than average and 15 of those months have been cooler than average. Overall the trend line is +.05 C per decade and falling, which is well within normal variability. But the data reveal a more important trend and that is a cooling or non-warming of the upper atmosphere. According to the theory of global warming, the upper atmosphere is supposed to warm before the surface. That has not happened.

But Christy had more to say about the leak, "The IPCC has not approved any report. This was a leak so they could get the biased story out before it was approved or changed. Whoever got the report, got a copy from a scientist or a government functionary who leaked it. This was not supposed to happen. It was not supposed to be public until approval by the entire panel."

We do know who is in charge of that branch of our government, the Clinton Administration. If it was from a government official, Bill Clinton should stand up and take the fall. If it was from a scientist, then that scientist's credibility is forever tarnished, as the political aims of that scientist far exceed the scientific aims of that individual.

But there are other problems with the IPCC. It has been alleged as to be the most authoritative scientific voice on this issue. At least those are the words of the Associated Press writer who wrote the story. Things are changing every day in science. Everyone wants to be an atmospheric scientist. It is getting lots of funding these days.

In the Revkin piece published in the New York Times, he cites Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Environmental Defense. Oppenheimer is not an atmospheric scientist and his "science" is governed by his politics. His formal training is in chemistry and he has published only three papers on the subject and only in conjunction with other people. But that hasn't stopped Oppenheimer from claiming to be something that he is not. As a result, guys like Oppenheimer are on the IPCC panel. That in of itself will denigrate the IPCC findings.

One of the scientists quoted in the New York Times was Dr. Kevin Trenberth who said that "There is increasing evidence from many sources that the signal from human influence on climate has emerged from natural variability, sometime around 1980." Trendberth, a leading researcher in the phenomenon of the North Atlantic Oscillation, has spent much of his time trying to disprove the data that Dr. Christy has developed from the satellites. His claim is that orbit decay makes the readings from the microwave sounding units inaccurate. Dr. Christy says that he not only corrects for orbit decay, but that his data conforms perfectly with radiosonde or balloon data The satellite data also show a lack of warming in the upper atmosphere. Heating in the upper atmosphere is one of the key components of the theory of global warming. The data do not support the theory. .

The satellite data also show a lack of warming in the upper atmosphere. Heating in the upper atmosphere is one of the key components of the theory of global warming. The data do not support the theory.

But perhaps the most distressing part of the New York Times piece are the quotes and inferences from Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, who was referred to as a climate expert from MIT. Dr. Lindzen is not just an expert, but holds the Alfred P. Sloan Chair in Meteorology at that institution and is considered one of the leading experts, if not the leading expert, on the subject of weather.

Dr. Lindzen was quoted out of context by Revkin as follows: "There has to be a human component to the change that's under way." Revkin wrote "Still, even Dr. Lindzen said that he felt that the human influence on the earth's climate is now established."

In an interview with Dr. Lindzen after the Revkin piece was published in the New York Times, Dr. Lindzen said his remarks were totally mischaracterized. "The IPCC uses the gimmick of using language that means different things to different people. Some part of climate change is due to man's activities. But that could be small and of no consequence. It still has an effect but the effect is inconsequential."

"If you boil and egg, it will have an effect on the climate, but the effect is so small as to mean nothing. The language in the IPCC has the same level of meaning," said Lindzen. "That phrase (the one regarding man's influence from the burning of fossil fuel) is taken by the public as a serious statement when it means nothing."

"How come the Christy data is so ignored? If you don't find it in the atmosphere but on the surface, it means nothing as to global warming," said Lindzen, "Scientists want to keep the pot boiling, so they get funding."

The bottom line is that the IPCC document will be a political document attempting to couch itself on science. It is not science for the sake of science. Human induced global warming of any significance is a belief that looks to be wrong. It is unfortunate, but the corruption of science is just another indication of the downhill slide of a free society.
------------------------------------------------------------

The groundwork of pushing their own agenda for their own gain one of the biggest problems of how the IPCC comes to a so called "consensus".

Global Whining

Do the scientists agree?
For example, "n 1995," says another administration brochure given out at the Reno event, "2,500 scientists signed a historic document… that noted the ‘balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.’" But that ambiguous but crucial statement — as noted earlier — did not come from the "2,500 scientists," virtually none of whom approved it before it was inserted by the UN political appointee who administer IPCC. Scientific questions, of course, are not resolved by majority vote. But even if they were, the "2,500" figure is largely eyewash .
Singer also notes that even the IPCC report only lists some 80 authors for its 11 chapters, and then points out that "only a handful actually wrote the Policy-makers’ Summary; most of the several hundred listed "contributors" are simply specialists who allowed their work to be cited, without necessarily endorsing the other chapters or the summary."
------------------------------------------------------------

Now you could use this as a excuse to belittle the "contributors" or even the individual authors contributions. But how in the hec can you even suggest the "a majority of scientists" have come to a conclusion when those same scientests where not even allowed to review the official policy decision? That ludicrous!

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
6. Wind energy for large scale electric

[/ QUOTE ]

I like that one the best and I take full avantage of it.
I get 100% of my electricity from these guys.......

 

[happydog]

Ok, this is getting out off hand... Heck with saving the planet by using BioDiesel... (I deserve to be flipping flamed for even thinking that....) However I use BioDiesel to save the economy! Here is the conclusions of a Minnesota Department of Agriculture on the economic impact of Soy Biodiesel in Minnesota (http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ams/biodiesel/ecoimpsoydiesel.pdf)

"Conclusion:
Soy diesel production and utilization in Minnesota will generate the following economic impacts:
• Increase the demand for Minnesotaís soybean crop by 3 percent to 7 percent annually.
• Increase in-state soybean processing capacity by 9 percent to 21 percent.
• Generate $212 million to $527 million in total statewide economic impacts.
• Provide 1,128 to 2,798 jobs.
• The "multiplier impact" will benefit various economic sectors, such as agriculture, manufacturing, construction, transportation, trade, services, finance, insurance, and real estate."

A sad fact is our society has no desire to curb our real or perceived degradation of the atmosphere.... The mere existance of SUVs is my case in point. To get BioDiesel into the mainstream we have to sell the positive economics of it! It is regional US, Canadian, or other farmers that make it, and the local economy benefits - Dino Diesel cannot claim to do that !

Oh, and the side benefit is the reduced CO2 emissions.... Save the Glaciers! Go B20!

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and the side benefit is the reduced CO2 emissions.... Save the Glaciers! Go B20!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hubbard Glacier, Alaska: Growing and Advancing in Spite of Global Climate Change and the 1986 and 2002 Russell Lake Outburst Floods
Calving Glaciers are Unresponsive to Climate

Norway's glaciers growing at record pace
GEN, Norway, May 24 (AFP) - Glaciers in western Norway are growing at record speeds, contrary to the current global trend, following heavy rain and snowfall in the 1980s and 1990s, Norwegian daily Bergens Tidende said on Sunday.

Melting glacier 'false alarm'
Pictures released by Greenpeace claiming to show how man-made global warming has caused Arctic glaciers to retreat are at best misleading and only illustrate a natural phenomenon, says a leading glaciologist.

A greenpeace activist compares the photo above with the Norwegian glacier at present.
The picture series, which compared the size of a glacier on Svalbard in 1918 with its size in 2002, was published across the world alongside a Greenpeace warning that global warming caused by man-made greenhouse gases was causing Arctic glaciers to melt.
"The blame can be put squarely on human activity," Greenpeace said. "Our addiction to fossil fuels releases millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this is what is causing temperatures to rise and our future to melt before our eyes."

But Prof Ole Humlum, a leading glaciologist in Svalbard, 500 miles north of Norway, said yesterday:
"That glacier had already disappeared in the early 1920s as a result of a perfectly natural rise in temperature that had nothing to do with man-made global warming."


Don't believe everything you read.
Especially if they have a political agenda like Greenpeace/IPCC/and others.
Along with the retreating glaciers, there are also the ones that are growing!

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
"There are about 500 contributors and each will get about two pages," said Dr. Christy. But Christy said the newspaper reported conclusions that are at opposite of his data and the balloon data that have been collected over at least the last 21 years.

In his latest monthly report, Christy data show virtually no change in average atmospheric temperatures over the last 21 years. As an example, over the last 29 months 14 of those months have been warmer than average and 15 of those months have been cooler than average. Overall the trend line is +.05 C per decade and falling, which is well within normal variability. But the data reveal a more important trend and that is a cooling or non-warming of the upper atmosphere. According to the theory of global warming, the upper atmosphere is supposed to warm before the surface. That has not happened.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've explained to you already why I (and many others) feel it's wrong to draw ANY conclusions from satellite and balloon data. Go back and read those posts. Christy collects satellite data of the temperatures in the troposphere. I (and many many others) feel his views on how those play into the CO2 debate are wrong. When I give an explanation of why I feel they are wrong, simply repeating Christy's statements is not a rebuttal. Look at the NASA page I linked, they discuss it. Ground temperatures (we live on the ground, not in balloons or on satellites) have been continually going up far more than the measurements in the troposphere. There is a reason for that (hint - I explained it already).

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
ikendu said:
AutoDiesel said: [ QUOTE ]
...use biodiesl. It's great for what it does. Just don't think it is a panacea to cure the world ills. It will take more than biodiesel to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it will be any one technology that gets us off of fossil fuels. I DO however, believe that we already have the technologies we need to do that:

1. Direct solar for on-house electric generation
(combined with close attention to conservation)
2. Solar hot water heat
3. Passive solar home heating
4. Biodiesel for vehicles (possibly for home heat too)
5. E85 for vehicles (though still is 15% petro)
6. Wind energy for large scale electric
7. Batteries for electric commuter cars

What we need is leadership in our gov't to get us off of petroleum...not new technologies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well said. I don't think anybody here has ever suggested that biodiesel will cure all the world's problems. It can play an important role - that's all. Petroleum currently (and for the last 50+ years) has been a huge problem for the entire world. Rudolf Diesel and Henry Ford recognized this a century ago - if all industrialized nations NEED a non-renewable resource that is primarily concentrated in a few parts of the globe, it spells the recipe for disaster. Should we just pretend it's coincidence that the most war-torn region over the past 50+ years has been the region with the highest oil concentration? Nah, gotta be because of their religion, right? Couldn't have anything to do with all the industrialized nations wanting to get to that oil (i.e. the USSR trying to work its way into the middle east through Afghanistan, etc. etc.).

Getting off of oil SHOULD be one of the primary goals of the industrialized world - not primarily because of pollution, but because of the horrible position being dependent on it puts all of us in. Biodiesel is an excellent option for getting off of oil - far better than "hydrogen" or any other current options (electric vehicles are the best choice for short-range urban transportation though).

It won't cure cancer, it won't make Palestinians love Israelis, or end the fighting in Ireland. But getting off of petroleum would be a huge help to the entire world (except for the executives of Exxon/Mobil, the Saudi Princes, etc. etc.).

 

[MITBeta]

[ QUOTE ]
What about the hundreds of thousands of users in Europe that have proved something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Back when Pons and Fleischman announced that they had performed "cold fusion" there was a joke that went around:

Q. How many dead scientists are there?
A. None.

Because the amount of energy they claimed to have released in their experiment would have vaporized the building (consequently killing all the scientists).

I'm reminded of this joke by all of the allusions you keep making to "hundreds of thousands" of ruined pumps.

So I ask:

Q. How many ruined pumps are there?

When you answer, please provide a reliable, verifyable link to a reference that supports your answer.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm reminded of this joke by all of the allusions you keep making to "hundreds of thousands" of ruined pumps.


[/ QUOTE ]

Umweltjournal
Hauptproblem is according to expert data the rubber seal in the injection pumps, which can lose the seal characteristic particularly with the change of bio Diesel on Diesels. "by the obvious material defect for the German drivers a total damage of up to 20 millions euro develops," annually said Dr. Norbert Allnoch, director/conductor of the international restaurant forum regenerativ energies (IWR) in cathedrals. The present situation is for the drivers, who refuel standard bio Diesel in the confidence on the vehicle release, completely inakzeptabel, like that Allnoch.

"by the obvious material defect a total damage of up to 20 millions euro develops for the German drivers annually,"


Taking into account for the cost of labor besides the pumps themselves, how many pumps can be replaced or repaired for 20 million Euros?

So there must have been a good reason for Bosch not warranting biodiesel use, eh?

Dont' worry, your biodiesel sensor is on the way! It won't be standard though. It will be a optional package requested by the customer. Plenty of talk "over there" about that too. All you have to do is go look.
One problem though. Will they allow it in the U.S.? Hummmmmmmmmmmm /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
I've explained to you already why I (and many others) feel it's wrong to draw ANY conclusions from satellite and balloon data. Go back and read those posts. Christy collects satellite data of the temperatures in the troposphere. I (and many many others) feel his views on how those play into the CO2 debate are wrong. When I give an explanation of why I feel they are wrong, simply repeating Christy's statements is not a rebuttal. Look at the NASA page I linked, they discuss it. Ground temperatures (we live on the ground, not in balloons or on satellites) have been continually going up far more than the measurements in the troposphere. There is a reason for that (hint - I explained it already).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, YOU did explain it. But do THEY not agree with YOU!

Seems they have a little more experience with climate interactions (Christy and Lindzen). Yes, they do believe there can be a effect, but so far nothing has proved there is to the degree that the climate models propose. You keep bringing up surface temperatures. Well, those are flawed. And the global warming proponents don't want to admit it. i.e. the famous hockey stick graph.....

What most proponets want you to see is the cleaned up graph that doesn't show the error bars. You know, that part of science that says "we really don't know". That's the part the IPCC doesn't want you to know about.
Real science admits that there are errors that have to be accounted for and show for all to see.

As for the differences between atmospheric and surface temps......

I guess you'd better go back to the primary climate modelists that proposed global warming, the IPCC. It is they and the other largest proponents of global warming that state that tropospheric warming will happen first and then be reflected in increased surface temperatures. That has not happened.

Climate History and The Sun

Summary and Conclusions
The climate record shows that the global warming of 1°F observed over the last 100 years is not unusual. Global temperature changes of this magnitude have occurred frequently in the past and are a result of natural factors in climate change.
But is it possible that the particular temperature increase observed in the last 100 years is the result of carbon dioxide produced by human activities? The scientific evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case.
All climate studies agree that if the one-degree global warming was produced by an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the additional CO2 first warms the atmosphere , and the warmed atmosphere, in turn, warms the earth’s surface. However, measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. This is just the period in which human made carbon dioxide has been pouring into the atmosphere and according to the climate studies, the resultant atmospheric warming should be clearly evident.
The absence of atmospheric warming proves that the warming of the earth’s surface observed in the last 100 years cannot be due to an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by human activities . The recent global warming must be the result of natural factors in climate change.
------------------------------------------------------------

I know, this totally disagrees with what you have been taught or even with what you believe in. That's fine. But there is always more to the story that what the political machines (the IPCC) want's you to believe.
The real problem is they leave out the importance of other studies and how there are many other influences other than CO2. For example........


The infuence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to climate-change policy beyond the radiative e® ect of greenhouse gases.
5. Conclusions
Atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns and their subsequent involvement within the planet’s climate are dynamic, variable and difficult to predict. This limits the ability to predict the impact of land-use change and landscape dynamics on climate patterns. As a result, manipulating land-surface conditions for the purpose of carbon sequestration under the Kyoto Protocol could have a variety of unanticipated impacts on global and regional climate. The Kyoto Protocol uses only the GWPs of the regulated greenhouse-gas molecules listed in its Annex A as its mitigation currency. A more complete indication of human contributions to climate change will require the climatic influences of land-surface conditions and other processes to be factored into climate-change-mitigation strategies. Many of these processes will have strong regional effects that are not represented in a globally averaged metric. The currency of global and regional human-caused changes in terms of a regional climate change potential could over a new metric useful for developing a more inclusive protocol. This concept would also implicitly provide a way to monitor potential local-scale environmental changes that could influence biodiversity.
------------------------------------------------------------


There's more to global climate variability that just regulating CO2. And how much it itself effects the environment is not written in stone.

 

[Light]

blah blah blah, thats all I hear from all the endless posts. Who cares about pumps in europe, we're not there /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif. I've run b100 for 25k with no problems..thats good enough for me. I can tell autodiesel is a last word freak though, so I think this is a losing battle. I guess the rationally minded folks like myself, geordi, mit, nh mike, etc, will continue to use biodiesel, and await the impending doom we're sure to face /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

 

[MITBeta]

[ QUOTE ]
"by the obvious material defect a total damage of up to 20 millions euro develops for the German drivers annually,"

[/ QUOTE ]

UP TO

Do you know what "UP TO" means? It means less than or equal to. That means that two pumps may have failed. Or it could mean that a million pumps have failed.

But in either case, your data doesn't show proof of a large, wide scale problem, it simply suggests that if ALL of the pumps failed, it would be quite costly. However, in actuality, VERY FEW pumps are failing, and those that do have likely been abused by very poor quality product.

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
[ QUOTE ]
I've explained to you already why I (and many others) feel it's wrong to draw ANY conclusions from satellite and balloon data. Go back and read those posts. Christy collects satellite data of the temperatures in the troposphere. I (and many many others) feel his views on how those play into the CO2 debate are wrong. When I give an explanation of why I feel they are wrong, simply repeating Christy's statements is not a rebuttal. Look at the NASA page I linked, they discuss it. Ground temperatures (we live on the ground, not in balloons or on satellites) have been continually going up far more than the measurements in the troposphere. There is a reason for that (hint - I explained it already).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, YOU did explain it. But do THEY not agree with YOU!

[/ QUOTE ]
The vast majority do. That's why almost all of your links come from the same handful of people, or from big-oil/big-corporation PACs (your latest one again is from a big PAC - the George Marshall Institute, who spent the '80s "lobbying" for Star Wars because they got a lot of money from defense contractors, and now is funded by other corporations who want them to focus on claiming the greenhouse effect is bunk.

[ QUOTE ]
You keep bringing up surface temperatures. Well, those are flawed. And the global warming proponents don't want to admit it. i.e. the famous hockey stick graph.....


[/ QUOTE ]
The "flaw" is the localized hot spot effect - which is why I've been continually focusing on tossing out those data points - and when they're tossed out, you still get considerable warming over the period of record.

[ QUOTE ]
What most proponets want you to see is the cleaned up graph that doesn't show the error bars. You know, that part of science that says "we really don't know". That's the part the IPCC doesn't want you to know about.
Real science admits that there are errors that have to be accounted for and show for all to see.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's funny. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I know, this totally disagrees with what you have been taught or even with what you believe in. That's fine. But there is always more to the story that what the political machines (the IPCC) want's you to believe.
The real problem is they leave out the importance of other studies and how there are many other influences other than CO2. For example........

[/ QUOTE ]
LMAO - the vast majority (probably 99.9999%) of global warming proponents readily claim that CO2 is but one factor that influences the climate. I've never seen ANY GW proponent claim CO2 was the only, or even the biggest factor. It's the opponents who continually claim that because they see a correlation between one thing (i.e. solar output) and temperatures, that nothing else matters.
[ QUOTE ]
The infuence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to climate-change policy beyond the radiative e® ect of greenhouse gases.

Atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns and their subsequent involvement within the planet’s climate are dynamic, variable and difficult to predict. This limits the ability to predict the impact of land-use change and landscape dynamics on climate patterns. As a result, manipulating land-surface conditions for the purpose of carbon sequestration under the Kyoto Protocol could have a variety of unanticipated impacts on global and regional climate. The Kyoto Protocol uses only the GWPs of the regulated greenhouse-gas molecules listed in its Annex A as its mitigation currency. A more complete indication of human contributions to climate change will require the climatic influences of land-surface conditions and other processes to be factored into climate-change-mitigation strategies. Many of these processes will have strong regional effects that are not represented in a globally averaged metric. The currency of global and regional human-caused changes in terms of a regional climate change potential could over a new metric useful for developing a more inclusive protocol. This concept would also implicitly provide a way to monitor potential local-scale environmental changes that could influence biodiversity.
------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, land-use can play a significant role in climatic conditions. Hot spots (cities) are a prime example. Have I ever claimed land use doesn't matter?

[ QUOTE ]
There's more to global climate variability that just regulating CO2. And how much it itself effects the environment is not written in stone.

[/ QUOTE ]
When have I claimed otherwise?

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
Yup, land-use can play a significant role in climatic conditions. Hot spots (cities) are a prime example. Have I ever claimed land use doesn't matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm glad you would take a more balanced approach at looking at the complete picture. We don't have to agree on the results but it's the ninnies at places like the IPCC that keep the end-of-the-world scenarios going that can go take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned.

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
[ QUOTE ]
Yup, land-use can play a significant role in climatic conditions. Hot spots (cities) are a prime example. Have I ever claimed land use doesn't matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm glad you would take a more balanced approach at looking at the complete picture. We don't have to agree on the results but it's the ninnies at places like the IPCC that keep the end-of-the-world scenarios going that can go take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned.


[/ QUOTE ]
Who at the IPCC has ever claimed that CO2 is the only thing that matters? Nobody. Claiming that CO2 has an impact is not the same as claiming nothing else does. That seems to be the biggest thing many of the "there is no greenhouse effect" people don't realize. See all my posts regarding those claiming that CO2 has no impact since solar output does, or cosmic rays do, etc..

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
Who at the IPCC has ever claimed that CO2 is the only thing that matters? Nobody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, come on NHMike.

Obviously it is otherwise they wouldn't be placing such heavy importance on CO2 in their worldwide mitigation plans.

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
[ QUOTE ]
Who at the IPCC has ever claimed that CO2 is the only thing that matters? Nobody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, come on NHMike.

Obviously it is otherwise they wouldn't be placing such heavy importance on CO2 in their worldwide mitigation plans.


[/ QUOTE ]
LMAO. No, the reason they place importance on it is because IT IS THE BIGGEST FACTOR THAT HUMANS CAN DIRECTLY IMPACT. We can't change the solar output of the sun, the cosmic ray levels, etc.. We can, and have made a big impact on the CO2 levels.

So, you're argument is essentially "they clearly think CO2 is all that matters since they aren't trying to regulate solar output or cosmic ray levels"? Heh heh.