An article about the effects of diesel on global warming.

Anyone know of any mechanisms to filter out exhaust soot???

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031223/ap_on_sc/soot_global_warming_6

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

Under the "Kyoto Protocols" I believe every MB Diesel owner has to plant a couple hundred acres of forest . . . or stop smoking unfiltered cigarettes, or something like that . . .

Global warming = B.S.

__________________
Regards

Warren

Currently 1965 220Sb, 2002 FORD Crown Vic Police Interceptor

Had 1965 220SEb, 1967 230S, 280SE 4.5, 300SE (W126), 420SEL

ENTER > = (HP RPN)

Not part of the in-crowd since 1952.

I think Dennis Miller said it best on his HBO special, something like the temp is up 1.6 degrees for global warming in 10 years. T'ain't that big a deal, if it does in fact exist, but i need not worry, i don drive a diesel.

This is certainly going around right now. Diesel or gas I can’t imagine anybody wanting to hang around an exhaust pipe very much. MPG seems like the best quick fix, and 30mpg in my big old 123 seems pretty good, but refresh my sense of history. Weren’t we all concerned in the 70’s – small cars – 55mph speed limits and all? What changed – I can’t remember – I hated 55mph as much as anybody, but why did we do away with that ?

__________________
89 300E
79 240D
72 Westy
63 Bug sunroof
85 Jeep CJ7
86 Chevy 6.2l diesel PU

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
Marcus Aurelius

And this is based on what science?

Spock, if you look there are also articles that say we never landed a man on the moon, bumble bees can't fly and that William Shatner is the greatest actor of all time.

As Spock alludes to the Earth has warmed and cooled over the history of its existence. We do not fully understand why how or when it does this so I find it alot of the concern over this topic to be premature. Certainly this topic is worthy of further research but for people to discuss the relationship between global warming and CO2 emmissions as fact is not "good science" in my opinion. At this point in our understanding, Global warming is a theory and no more.

Hmm, I shall check my resources since there were two foot high snow drifts at the summit of Mauna Kea yesterday!

Look at the record.

The globe warms and cools over various scales of time. The one certain prediction is that everything will change.

The current best-guess is that we are in some sort of rapid warming trend. This is not at all unprecedented. It has happened many, many times in geologic history. On average over geologic time (about 4.5 billion years), we are currently cooler than "normal". But then, the universe is cooling and it is more than reasonable to suppose that the Earth would cool right along withthe universe. This is an extremely slow rate--only detectible over millions of years.

But this cooling trend is insignificant compared to the somewhat cyclical glacial-interglacial changes that occur on the magnitude of hundreds of thousands of years or a thousandth of the time span of geologic cooling. This is a very slow rate barely detectible over tens of thousands of years. Changes are very gradual with lots of fluctuations in the trend.

There are even shorter term natural warming and heating events. These occur over tens of thousands of years. Thus, there have been several within the time-span of modern humanity from our earliest appearance. The time-change for these events is over decades or centuries. Thus, gradual in terms of bacteria nd fruitflies, but drastic if longer-lived.

There are even shorter-term events that we would term, "catastrophic". Things such as meteor impact or volcanic explosions are geologicall documented and even experienced through volcanism. (Not to be confused with a certain Vulcan, which we have also witnessed exploding, usually with just cause).

That which is the current source of considerable debate and controversy is a belief widely-held among the vast majority of climatologists and ecologists, that the Earth is currently experiencing one of those very quick climatic events--in this case a warming event. Scientists around the globe are struggling to cope with huge volumes of raw data from which it is likely we will gain considerable insight concerning the phenomenon. Many other scientists are creating intricate, detailed physical models of the terrestrial climate. These models, both deterministic and statistical are highly variable in their predictions but most agree that we are in a general short-term warming trend.

At issue to most of society is the degree to which the anthropogenic greenhouse gases (especially the carbon flux) contributes to this phenomenon. A majority (but NOT and overwhelming majority) of scientists believe that humans have contributed to the current trend.

Given that there is wide disagreement within the scientific community concerning the degree of influence humanity has had on the warming trend, many, many policymakers have been very reluctant to lead society in any significantly radical adventures in emissions management.

In contrast, many scientists, even many of those that have reservations, subscribe to what is called the "precautionary principle". In this case, most scientists think that the worst thing that could happen by embracing some measure of emissions controls would be considerable efficiency improvement in current technology and development of other, cleaner technology not currently economically viable. In contrast, in the worst-case scenario (runaway greenhouse positive feedback), failure to do anything could be catastrophic for life on Earth.

In summation, this whole thing defies simple explanation, unless you're an Earth First! member or a Limbaugh Letter subscriber. Then its all very simple.

Botnst

I took the article to be a furtive statement about pollution originating from diesel, wood burning fires et al. The use of global warming, was merely convenient and topical tool. There have been countless times in the past where huge swaths of almost every continent on the planet have been consumed by fires of monstrous proportions. Ironically, now we light billions of fires every day, all day.....

Anyway, given that soot from the stated sources of combustion falls copiously, I wondered if there were technologies to trap or filter the soot, Would cold air injection in the exhaust work? Would a trunk sized and heavily baffled settling chamber work?

Given that diesel engines are so much more efficient than their gas counter parts, it would be a coup to find a means of cheaply removing the soot. Or do we look, as Paul suggested, towards gravity enhancing technology to suck the soot from them exhaust pipe?

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

It certainly is a curious topic: air pollution. Diesel engines contribute nothing to greenhouse gases which are the major cause of global warming. 100% of diesel exhaust comes in the form of soot (Smog to city dwellers). Gasoline cars contribute to both smog and greenhouse gases (NX compounds). I think the article is specific to Arctic temps, non? The amount of soot created by a diesel car is trivial to the amount added by a truck based on engine displacement and time on the road. I'm taking my diesel out right now and drive like hell!

__________________
dtf
1994 E320 Wagon (Died @ 308,669 miles)
1995 E300 Diesel (228,000)
1999 E300 Turbodiesel ( died @ 255,000)
2006 Toyota Tundra SR5 AC 4X4 (115,000 miles) rusted frame - sold to chop shop
2011 Audi A4 Avant (165,000 miles) Seized engine - donated to Salvation Army
BMW 330 xi 6 speed manual (175,034 miles)
2014 E350 4Matic Wagon 128,000 miles
2018 Dodge Ram 21,000 miles

My dad runs 4 point C-Tane, does that make it cleaner or more sooty?

Not quite right. Whenever you oxidize a hydrocarbon you get carbon dioxide and water as the major products of the reaction. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, therefore....

Soot is a product of incomplete combustion, whether sparked or compressed. If you strain a diesel then you may get sooty rather than the normal clear exhaust. Is this because the compressor cannot aspirate sufficient oxygen or the sudden influx of cool air/fuel mix decreases cylinder temp sufficient to interfere with combustion?

Anybody?

Botnst

What is that???

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"