clean diesel

Yeah, the diesel is clean, but the nano sized smoke particles coming out of the exhaust causes cancer, which makes them more dangerous than the old smoke belching diesels.

joe

The clean diesels are actually very clean. You don't see any soot buildup near the tailpipe.

VW got busted on NOx emissions. That probably drives particulates down to nothing at the cost of the exhaust being corrosive.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alleged that Volkswagen used software in four-cylinder Volkswagen and Audi diesel cars from model years 2009 to 2015 to circumvent emissions testing of certain air pollutants.

"Put simply, these cars contained software that turns off emissions controls when driving normally and turns them on when the car is undergoing an emissions test," Cynthia Giles, an enforcement officer at the EPA, told reporters in a teleconference.

Personally, I don't see how it's any worse than telling people they could keep their health plan, or that they'd save $2,500 a year.

Cheers, James Arthur

That's not enough. As long as they emit nano sized particles that cause lung cancer they are not clean enough.

joe

Or that US health care is the best in the world, just the way it is.

James Arthur's grasp of reality is weakened by his choice of political viewpoint.

In order to reduce NOx, newish GM diesel trucks have a pee (sorry, urea DEF) receptacle that has to be filled regularly. It apparently also has a tendency to bugger up in cold weather (the fluid itself

--sp

ut

Interesting. You'd think it would be better to harvest the NOx and use it somehow, over burning fertilizer to destroy it. Fixing nitrogen is expensi ve. A shame to waste it.

Cheers, James Arthur

Den mandag den 21. september 2015 kl. 16.36.18 UTC+2 skrev Spehro Pefhany:

ut

yeh, the problem with diesels is that they run with excess oxygen so you can't use a three-way cat to reduce nox

-Lasse

Indeed. The visible soot is (relatively speaking) much healthier than the invisble soot.

It's impressive how long the diesel car makers have been violating legal limits.

It wasn't even the US EPA, or any government agency, that caught VW.

Pot, kettle? Hmmmmm ....

ssive how long the diesel car makers have been violating legal

I would like to know what exactly did they do. The ominous claim is that they inserted a 'defeat device' into their ECM firmware, which sounds like a nasty conspiracy by a dishonest business, but the actual legal definition of it in the Code of Federal Regulations is murky:

and I can imagine that the firmware was written in good faith but fell under the definition of a 'defeat device' by trying to squeeze performance at higher loads.

iewpoint.

Think about anthropogenic global warming. James Arthur is politically oblig ed to claim that it's a hoax, concocted by climate scientists to enable the m to get more research grants.

This isn't a particularly credible hypothesis.

He's got similar problems with Keynesian economics, preferring monetarism, which relies on the totally incredible - but mathematically tractable - per fect market.

I do have my own political agenda, but as far as I can tell it's evidence-b ased.

I like "The Spirit Level"

It's entirely evidence-based, put together by a couple of medical epidemiol ogists who can be presumed to know their statistics.

James Arthur doesn't like the message, and searched the web for negative re views. One of them claimed not to like the statistics, but James Arthur fai led to notice that he was a Scottish academic specialised in creative writi ng, whose opinion on the subject is less than authoritative.

The CEO of VW has admitted that it was a cheat.

On the contrary, it is. Climate data have constantly been manipulated and falsified. Temperature data have been increased until a hockey stick was the result. Any scientist who dares to oppose the climate climax hoax will be (documented) pushed out of his grants and, if possible, out of his or her job. It's a tyranny by some 'leading' climate 'scientist' who just happen to be well funded.

Keynes has nothing to do with this. You're descending again into using your well known ad hominem attacks, which are no more than a sign of failing arguments and are a failing logic in itself.

'Evidence-based' as in Al Gore? According to that climate 'scientist' (who also happened to claim to have invented the internet all by himself) we should all be standing with our feet in a few feet of water. And he is, together with John Blood from Goldman Sachs, one of the people who happen to profit enormously from the carbon certificates that he is lobbying for. So much for 'unbiased science'. No, all flags are red. This is a fraud.

Who cares what you like?

You're black mouthing again, terrible behaviour, a 'scientist' totally unworthy.

joe

The hockey stick was derived from temperature proxies - mostly tree ring da ta - which did get some stick.

Since then about half a dozen different studies, using different temperatur e proxies, have come up with much the same picture. Far from being falsifie d, Mann's hockey stick was independently replicated a number of times.

That's about as far from fraud as you can get.

There are several who haven't. Richard Lindzen eventually retired from his professorship at MIT, Spencer and Christie are still managing satellite dat a information.

Of the leading 300 climate scienstists, some ten are climate change sceptic s - those three are probably representative examples of the kind of nut who doesn't like to agree with the concensus.

There you go again. There's nothing ad hominem about pointing out areas of difference of opinion. Humans have opinions.

Al Gore is a politician. He does seem to have access to good advice, and se ems to listen to it most of time, but nobody but a complete idiot whould se e him as a primary source.

He's never claimed to be a climate scientist, any more than he claimed to h ave invented the internet - he did sponsor a bill that helped make it unive rsally accessible within the US, and his opponents managed to twist his leg itimate pride in that - minor - contribution into a claim that he thought t hat he had invented the internet. If you had a clue about what you were tal king about you'd know about that.

He's a politician, not a scientist. US politicians are always conscious of the possibility of profiting from their political interests.

If you think you've produced evidence, you are the fraud.

Keep reading ...

It was James Arthur's behaviour that was totally unworthy, as would yours b e if you understood enough to realise what a clown you were.

A question I have been pondering for a long time: does a modern engine get rid of the larger soot particles at the expense of an increased number of smaller ones?

If that is the case, older engines would be more environmentally sound than modern ones, because they would emit fewer nano-particles. The larger soot particles of older diesels would be easier to trap and burn-off in the exhaust system and it would be visibly obvious when the trap wasn't working.

My first hunch would be to say 'yes'. Newer engines indubitably have injectors that produce a finer mist and due to better oxygen mixing with the fuel more is properly burned, leaving smaller sooth. And I think they have catalyzers too, nowadays. Even further reducing the sooth, and with that the size of the remaining sooth.

How would you do that?

joe

Incorrect. The end part, with the spectacularly rising temperatures, was a result of manipulation of measured data.

What you call 'independently'... It's a small world, nobody is 'independent'. Especially not in the climate 'science' world where writing a paper 'confirming' the AGW theory can land you some funds, and 'falsifying' it can cost you some. Guess what all those 'scientists' with their wife, family and mortgage will write?

Look at that: According to Bill Sloman you are a nut if you don't agree with concensus. What a mouth full of bullshit! This is exactly the remark that makes it clear for once and for all that you are more an idiot than a scientist.

joe