CO2 Does anyone care anymore?

[panda]

Ok, What VW did regarding NOX was very, very bad but has anyone done a back of envelope calculation on the amount of CO2 not released into the atmosphere by driving a car tuned for mpg?

The number of cars, years and resulting distances traveled is staggering. The amount of diesel fuel NOT burned and the amount of CO2 NOT released would be an interesting talking point.

I've always felt people should be made to buy their fuel in 1 gallon containers, carry them to their vehicle and add them by hand with a funnel. It would give a new perspective of what really happens during and after that 25 gallon fill up. I have a 1 ton dump that gets infinite mpg (most of the time) because I have a hard time justifying moving it when it gets 8 mpg on a good day. It's not a diesel by the way. I know most people don't care about their overall petroleum usage now that pump prices are in free fall but efficiency should still matter.

I originally posted this in the mega thread but the traffic over there is over the top. Don't know if there is a rule against asking the same question in two threads but will willingly delete the original post.

 

[Amissa]

Interesting point. The EPA's website has indicates that 31% of the US Carbon Dioxide Emissions is from transportation, whereas only 5% of the US Nitrous Oxide Emissions is from transportation. This isn't to say that NO2 isn't bad, but reducing the 74% contributor to NO2 emissions (agricultural soil management) seems to offer a greater return on investment.

 

[nwdiver]

Interesting point. The EPA's website has indicates that 31% of the US Carbon Dioxide Emissions is from transportation, whereas only 5% of the US Nitrous Oxide Emissions is from transportation. This isn't to say that NO2 isn't bad, but reducing the 74% contributor to NO2 emissions (agricultural soil management) seems to offer a greater return on investment.

N2O comes from agriculture and is what they give you at the dentist... NO2 comes from high temperature combustion and lightning.

 

[JM Popaleetus]

NOx and NO2 are different from N2O and CO2.

Don't argue for/against VW if you don't even know the basic concepts at play.

 

[TNguy]

CO2 is NOT a pollutant and CO2 poses NO health ...effect whatsoever. There is no CO2 in smog. People have tried to conjoin smog and CO2 by calling it 'carbon.' It's not harmful to health at all. In fact, it's beneficial to the planet. Without it plants would die. WE would die.

 

[nwdiver]

CO2 is NOT a pollutant and CO2 poses NO health ...effect whatsoever. There is no CO2 in smog. People have tried to conjoin smog and CO2 by calling it 'carbon.' It's not harmful to health at all. In fact, it's beneficial to the planet. Without it plants would die. WE would die.

LOL... there's one in every forum. I dub that Hansons Law.

Which fact to you think is untrue? 1) CO2 levels have risen ~40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started 2) The burning of Fossil Fuels has emitted twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise 3) Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in temperature of >3C. The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years... How can all 3 be true but Global Warming false?

NOx and NO2 are different.

Don't argue for/against VW if you don't even know the basic concepts at play.

You've got that backwards... NOx and N2O are different... although N2O is a Nitrogen Oxide... NOx generally refers to NO2 and NO. Not N2O.

 

[wrc777]

NOx and NO2 are different.

Don't argue for/against VW if you don't even know the basic concepts at play.

Actually NOx is a catch all for NO2 and NO. Diesel exhaust has both. N2O is different.

 

[wrc777]

LOL... there's one in every forum. I dub that Hansons Law.
Which fact to you think is untrue? 1) CO2 levels have risen ~40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started 2) The burning of Fossil Fuels has emitted twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise 3) Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in temperature of >3C. The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years... How can all 3 be true but Global Warming false?

Sorry the "scientists", and I use that word loosely, that have perpetuated the man made global warming hoax have been caught multiple times editing the temperature data to show current temperatures higher and older temps lower. They also have no explanation for the lack of warming in the last 15 years. CO2 is a pitiful greenhouse gas. Even doubling the amount is a small change in the overall atmospheric composition. It is also not that effective at trapping heat. Water vapor and Methane are the main contributors to the greenhouse effect. Ice core data shows higher temperatures in the past and higher CO2. I am pretty sure there was not a lot of fossil fuel being burned thousands of years ago. Further the entire premise of warming is based on what, 150 years of temperature records?

Fact: higher CO2 makes today's higher crop yields possible. This is part of the reason 6 billion people are not starving.

Do you know what happens to a climatology researcher's project funding if you measure temperatures and show cooling or no change? You don't get new funding and you don't have a job. Do you think that might explain the global warming hysteria?

Global warming is the latest excuse for governments to take more control over people.

 

[TNguy]

LOL... there's one in every forum. I dub that Hansons Law.

Which fact to you think is untrue? 1) CO2 levels have risen ~40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started 2) The burning of Fossil Fuels has emitted twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise 3) Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in temperature of >3C. The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years... How can all 3 be true but Global Warming false?

Oh no, not one of them

If you want to start a global warming debate, either PM or email me. This forum is not the place for it.

 

[TNguy]

Sorry the "scientists", and I use that word loosely, that have perpetuated the man made global warming hoax have been caught multiple times editing the temperature data to show current temperatures higher and older temps lower. They also have no explanation for the lack of warming in the last 15 years. CO2 is a pitiful greenhouse gas. Even doubling the amount is a small change in the overall atmospheric composition. It is also not that effective at trapping heat. Water vapor and Methane are the main contributors to the greenhouse effect. Ice core data shows higher temperatures in the past and higher CO2. I am pretty sure there was not a lot of fossil fuel being burned thousands of years ago. Further the entire premise of warming is based on what, 150 years of temperature records?

Fact: higher CO2 makes today's higher crop yields possible. This is part of the reason 6 billion people are not starving.

Do you know what happens to a climatology researcher's project funding if you measure temperatures and show cooling or no change? You don't get new funding and you don't have a job. Do you think that might explain the global warming hysteria?

Global warming is the latest excuse for governments to take more control over people.

I applaud you sir

I recently read that the ice has increased by 30% since 2013.

 

[nwdiver]

Sorry the "scientists", and I use that word loosely, that have perpetuated the man made global warming hoax have been caught multiple times editing the temperature data to show current temperatures higher and older temps lower. They also have no explanation for the lack of warming in the last 15 years. CO2 is a pitiful greenhouse gas. Even doubling the amount is a small change in the overall atmospheric composition. It is also not that effective at trapping heat. Water vapor and Methane are the main contributors to the greenhouse effect. Ice core data shows higher temperatures in the past and higher CO2. I am pretty sure there was not a lot of fossil fuel being burned thousands of years ago. Further the entire premise of warming is based on what, 150 years of temperature records?
Um... no.... not even close... it's based on the properties of CO2.
Fact: higher CO2 makes today's higher crop yields possible. This is part of the reason 6 billion people are not starving.
Plants also need water... they don't like drowning either. Crops yields are DOWN. Production will fall ~6% for every 1C rise in temperature.
The Syrian Civil war and the resulting refugee crisis were triggered by a drought.
Do you know what happens to a climatology researcher's project funding if you measure temperatures and show cooling or no change? You don't get new funding and you don't have a job. Do you think that might explain the global warming hysteria?
OK... so why did Exxons scientists find the same thing?
Global warming is the latest excuse for governments to take more control over people.

There has been no pause... the extra heat has simply gone into the oceans.

 

[TNguy]

I suggest you read this. And watch the movie

http://aninconsistenttruth.com/resources

 

[nwdiver]

I suggest you read this. And watch the movie

http://aninconsistenttruth.com/resources

Summarize the salient points for me...

Which fact to you think is untrue? 1) CO2 levels have risen ~40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started 2) The burning of Fossil Fuels has emitted twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise 3) Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in temperature of >3C. The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years... How can all 3 be true but Global Warming false?

If CO2 is a weak GHG... it's still a GHG... adding enough of it WILL cause enough warming to cause problems. How much? 10B tons/yr? 20Bton? How much. Many people have used 'Math' and 'Science' to find an answer. They've mostly arrived at the same one. ~350ppm CO2.

IR properties of CO2.

 

[VeeDubTDI]

Just a warning, since many people are incapable of having a civilized discussion on the long-term effects of emissions on the climate, "global warming" is a banned subject on TDIClub. If this conversation degrades into a crapstorm, corrective action will be taken.

Carry on.

 

[JM Popaleetus]

URL="http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/"]You've got that backwards... NOx and N2O are different... although N2O is a Nitrogen Oxide... NOx generally refers to NO2 and NO. Not N2O.[/URL]

I understand that. But the distinction is very important, and everyone should be aware. N2O is whipped cream propellant and laughing gas.

NOx is NO and NO2, but mainly NO2 as NO is readily converted.

My (admittedly) poorly worded point was that a lot of members here don't understand the difference between smog and laughing gas and/or equate the nitrous oxides to to CO2.

 

[UFO]

Looks like panda dropped a bomb and left to watch the fireworks.

 

[nwdiver]

Just a warning, since many people are incapable of having a civilized discussion on the long-term effects of emissions on the climate, "global warming" is a banned subject on TDIClub. If this conversation degrades into a crapstorm, corrective action will be taken.

Carry on.

People just need to split the science and the policy; You can no more claim that 40B tons/yr of CO2 isn't going to cause climate problems than you can claim that Uranium has 43 protons. Those wouldn't be opinions... you would simply be wrong. What we do about it is another issue.

 

[panda]

Looks like panda dropped a bomb and left to watch the fireworks.

Jez, I'm sorry I brought it up. I just want it known I'm not a government agent trying to flush out CO2 lovers.

 

[UFO]

Jez, I'm sorry I brought it up. I just want it known I'm not a government agent trying to flush out CO2 lovers.

It looks like you hit a nerve. I think it's pretty ridiculous how the EPA is all about the NOx ppm emissions when it's perfectly obvious (to me) that most vehicles have far worse fuel economy and are thus producing more pollutants total. VW diesel NOx is not low hanging fruit in other words.

 

[panda]

It looks like you hit a nerve. I think it's pretty ridiculous how the EPA is all about the NOx ppm emissions when it's perfectly obvious (to me) that most vehicles have far worse fuel economy and are thus producing more pollutants total. VW diesel NOx is not low hanging fruit in other words.

VW and diesel autos are receiving a tremendous amount of negative PR these days with no recognition of the reduction in CO2 due to their very high fuel economy. Regardless of what you think of global warming and Al Gore these cars have emitted significantly less carbon into the atmosphere than would have been released if they were gasoline vehicles. My original question was, does anyone care and it appears the answer is nope. Forevermore, in many otherwise reasonable peoples judgement (diesel == polluter). I just think the reality is a little more complicated.

 

[VeeDubTDI]

VW and diesel autos are receiving a tremendous amount of negative PR these days with no recognition of the reduction in CO2 due to their very high fuel economy. Regardless of what you think of global warming and Al Gore these cars have emitted significantly less carbon into the atmosphere than would have been released if they were gasoline vehicles. My original question was, does anyone care and it appears the answer is nope. Forevermore, in many otherwise reasonable peoples judgement (diesel == polluter). I just think the reality is a little more complicated.

You are absolutely correct with regard to CO2, and I think that's important. Outside of cities and populated areas, the NOx isn't a very big issue. That said, I think the NOx business with VW is only getting so much press because the cheating was so blatant and for so many years. If the cheating had been on some other emissions compound, I'm sure it would be getting just as much attention.

 

[panda]

You are absolutely correct with regard to CO2, and I think that's important. Outside of cities and populated areas, the NOx isn't a very big issue. That said, I think the NOx business with VW is only getting so much press because the cheating was so blatant and for so many years. If the cheating had been on some other emissions compound, I'm sure it would be getting just as much attention.

I agree, in the fullness of time the VW cheating story is going to make a great book/movie. I can't wait to see how the facts unfold.

For some reason I really like diesel engines but if they can't be made as "clean" as the obvious alternative they won't and shouldn't survive. The stakes are too high.

 

[UFO]

The reason I like diesel engines is for their better thermal efficiency and ease of using renewable fuel. Still can't stand the stink of diesel exhaust - I'm all about catalysts, that makes a huge difference.

 

[Serra]

There has been no pause... the extra heat has simply gone into the oceans.

And there you have the huge flaw in the global warming argument. "Extra heat", how can there extra heat?

 

[panda]

Since the idea of a "green house gas" is unsettled science on this forum maybe we should talk up the advantages of vehicles that last a long, long time. A good "green" argument can be made that cars which last contribute to a sustainable economy by reducing the pollution of both manufacture and recycling. Of course this assumes that "sustainable" is a worthy goal.

 

[UFO]

Since the idea of a "green house gas" is unsettled science on this forum maybe we should talk up the advantages of vehicles that last a long, long time. A good "green" argument can be made that cars which last contribute to a sustainable economy by reducing the pollution of both manufacture and recycling. Of course this assumes that "sustainable" is a worthy goal.

Absolutely. It would be nice to find common ground, and I think all we really need is already here as we unanimously agree the little diesels are worth driving and maintaining. That's enough for me to stay and contribute to the discussions.

 

[wrc777]

Since the idea of a "green house gas" is unsettled science on this forum maybe we should talk up the advantages of vehicles that last a long, long time. A good "green" argument can be made that cars which last contribute to a sustainable economy by reducing the pollution of both manufacture and recycling. Of course this assumes that "sustainable" is a worthy goal.

This could be a benefit to aluminum bodied cars. They should take longer to rust out.

EPA may not be regulating CO2 out the tail pipe but the CAFE standards do since they set minimum fuel economy limits.

The other thing people sometimes forget is that the consumer always pays the cost of reduced emissions whether in higher purchase price of the vehicle, lowered reliability, and/or lower fuel economy.

 

[nwdiver]

And there you have the huge flaw in the global warming argument. "Extra heat", how can there extra heat?

'Extra heat', 'Additional thermal energy', 'Thermal imbalance', 'Radiative Forcing'

.... what ever you want to call it... it's measurable and undeniable. The Earth is retaining ~1.5w/m² that's the radiative forcing effect of ~400ppm vs 280ppm CO2. That's energy that would have been radiated into space but is being retained by the additional CO2.

This concept might be unsettled in this forum but it's been a well known fact of physics for over a century.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk

 

[rwolff]

This could be a benefit to aluminum bodied cars. They should take longer to rust out.

On the other hand, unlike steel, aluminum has no fatigue limit. This means that no matter how small the deflection of the body due to stresses (e.g. bumps in the road), it will eventually fail through fatigue. With steel, if the deflection is below a certain value, it can withstand an infinite number of cycles without failing through fatigue.

 

[donallen]

CO2 is NOT a pollutant and CO2 poses NO health ...effect whatsoever. There is no CO2 in smog. People have tried to conjoin smog and CO2 by calling it 'carbon.' It's not harmful to health at all. In fact, it's beneficial to the planet. Without it plants would die. WE would die.

Water is not a pollutant either. Without it, plants would die. WE would die. But if you drank a gallon of water in 10 minutes, it would kill you, dead.

It's not the substance; it's the AMOUNTS. We are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere that is moving us beyond safe levels and that can be VERY hazardous to everyone's health. The climate scientists know what they are talking about. You do not.