IIRC NOx is also a strong greenhouse gas, stronger than CO2 by a good factor. Shorter halflife, but if it helps bump AGW to tipping points then halflives don't matter anymore. On 27 September 2015 18:44:00 IST, jim bell wrote:

From: Georgi Guninski http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/25/vw_pollution_just_the_tip_of_the_ice...

...

<quote> Volkswagen is being rightly condemned from all directions, as its methods were particularly cynical: its engine software would sense when the car was in a test environment and cut back NO_x output temporarily.

...

As soon as the car was no longer under test, the car would change mode and emit huge amounts of NO_x. This wasn't done for no reason – if a machine is allowed to generate NO_x freely, it can be very fuel-efficient – and thus, of course, its carbon emissions can be very low too.

I noticed that (at least!) one media report portrayed this as making VW's less "green".  But from another report, I saw that they had 10% greater gas mileage if they were allowed to cheat.  (In other words, less CO2 emissions per mile.)  Now, the above quote refers to "huge amounts" of NOx.  (nitrogen oxides, probably NO and NO2).  The question is, for those people who complain about CO2 being a greenhouse gas, what is the relative undesireability of extra CO2 versus extra NOx.  Relative harm, and all that.  Which is a concept that people who call themselves "environmentalists" seem to have a great deal of difficulty with. This also raises an idea:  I've never heard of this, but what would be wrong with allowing differences in emissions based on location?  Putting a GPS in a car is trivial today.  Producing less NOx inside a city would make sense; producing less NOx while on a cross-country road-trip less so.                    Jim Bell

-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

I gather it was discovered when a trade association was setting out to show off how awesome and clean modern diesels were, and did their own tests on actual road driving unlike the EPA. They discovered how shit the pollution really was and decided to report it. Which, if that's accurate, really reaffirms my faith in some of humanity, because it was actively against their interests to do so? On 28 September 2015 11:41:37 IST, Georgi Guninski wrote:

...

I noticed that (at least!) one media report portrayed this as making VW's less "green".  But from another report, I saw that they had 10% greater gas mileage if they were allowed to cheat.  (In other words, less CO2 emissions per mile.)  Now, the above quote refers to "huge amounts" of NOx.  (nitrogen oxides, probably NO and NO2).  The question is, for those people who complain about CO2 being a greenhouse gas, what is the relative undesireability of extra CO2 versus extra NOx.  Relative harm, and all that.  Which is a concept that people who call

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 05:44:00PM +0000, jim bell wrote: themselves "environmentalists" seem to have a great deal of difficulty with.

...

This also raises an idea:  I've never heard of this, but what would be wrong with allowing differences in emissions based on location?  Putting a GPS in a car is trivial today.  Producing less NOx inside a city would make sense; producing less NOx while on a cross-country road-trip less so.                    Jim Bell

I don't understand chemistry.

Something in this scandal stinks to me.

How did this was unnoticed for about 6? years?

Especially when the diesel consumption on the road is visibly less than in a test environment?

As suggested in news, likely competitors reversed engineered the cars to see how VW managed to do this.

-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Hi, in germany this is at least known since 2007: http://m.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/a-1054926.html (german source, sorry) and the auto industry is being covered by the german government(*). The government does even lobby in the EU against stronger norms in vafour of german auto industry since years. So, if you ask me, it is implausible that eh EPA found out about this only recently. IMHO they knew it all the time. Now there has been "that call" from D.C. ordering them to open the box. Why now? I don't know, but maybe looking east and south from germany may help... *) this means, at least in germany they didn't cheat. The government did in effect. - Tom PS: oh, and it's now VW only, it's all of them. On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 02:21:42PM +0300, Georgi Guninski wrote:

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:00:52PM +0100, Cathal (Phone) wrote:

...

I gather it was discovered when a trade association was setting out to show off how awesome and clean modern diesels were, and did their own tests on actual road driving unlike the EPA. They discovered how shit the pollution really was and decided to report it.

I don't follow this news actively. What is source for this?

I suppose the people who reported this were not FV (and likely not German).

But why they did the tests so lately?

Is EPA so corrupt to not see a trivial backdoor?

...

Which, if that's accurate, really reaffirms my faith in some of humanity, because it was actively against their interests to do so?

Well, I trust _some_ humanity, but as a whole modern society is quite untrustworthy IMHO.

...

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:53:38PM +0000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On 9/28/15, Tom wrote:

...

in germany this is at least known since 2007:

CIA never lets a good opportunity go to waste - keep such aces up sleeves for future threat and or retaliation 'opportunity'.

IMHO besides VW others outside Germany should be punished too. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volkswagen_emissions_violations&oldid=683264419 The U.S. test results confirmed the ICCT's findings in Europe.[37] The West Virginia scientists didn't identify the defeat device, but reported their findings in a study they presented directly to the EPA and CARB in May 2014.[41][42] And in 2013 there was warning about "defeat device".

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 06:13:08PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

There probably isn't any specific "defeat device".  These days, probably all fuel engines are controlled by complex computer programs, that take various inputs (ambient temperature, ambient air pressure, engine temperature, and perhaps others) and make complicated adjustments in inputs to the engine, in order to make the engine run better in various ways.  In other words, the "defeat device" is in the software, not the hardware.               Jim bell

I read it is known that the software detected via sensors that the car is in a lab (almost sure on a stand) and switched to "clean mode" (check wikipedia and their sources). According to local news Mercedes also cheated, but polluted less.

From: Georgi Guninski On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 05:44:00PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

I noticed that (at least!) one media report portrayed this as making VW's less "green".  But from another report, I saw that they had 10% greater gas mileage if they were allowed to cheat.  (In other words, less CO2 emissions per mile.)  Now, the above quote refers to "huge amounts" of NOx.  (nitrogen oxides, probably NO and NO2).  The question is, for those people who complain about CO2 being a greenhouse gas, what is the relative undesireability of extra CO2 versus extra NOx.  Relative harm, and all that.  Which is a concept that people who call themselves "environmentalists" seem to have a great deal of difficulty with. This also raises an idea:  I've never heard of this, but what would be wrong with allowing differences in emissions based on location?  Putting a GPS in a car is trivial today.  Producing less NOx inside a city would make sense; producing less NOx while on a cross-country road-trip less so.                    Jim Bell

I don't understand chemistry. Generally I do, having a degree in Chemistry.  However, automobile emissions is a sub-specialty to which I have never been exposed, except for reading occasional articles on the subject.  Mostly you don't need to know chemistry to understand the car-pollution situation, however.  CO2 is rather innocuous, except possibly for the issue of being a GHG (greenhouse gas; said to keep in heat to the Earth;  "Global Warming" or "Climate Change".)    NO and NO2 are poisonous, but are present in normal car exhaust in far smaller proportion than CO2.  When automobile engines run, presumably there is a tradeoff:  You can set the operating conditions of the car to "low CO2" (higher gas mileage) but at the same time NOx goes up.  Or, you can lower NOx, but at the price of "high CO2" (lower gas mileage). Something in this scandal stinks to me. As far as I can see, VW recognized that there was/is a tradeoff between the emission of CO2 and NOx.  (Where NOx is used as a shorthand for nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2; which when at high concentration dimerizes to N2O4, but this isn't really significant for auto-exhaust issues.)  "THE RULES" said they had to reduce NOx to some value, call it "Y".  But VW recognized that if it did that, gas mileage would go down a lot, perhaps it is 10%.  VW made the choice to cheat, to reduce the emission to "Y" but only when the car recognized that it was undergoing emissions testing.  

How did this was unnoticed for about 6? years? Maybe other car manufacturers were aware of it.  But they may have been cheating, too, greatly reducing their motivation to report VW.

Especially when the diesel consumption on the road is visibly less than in a test environment? That would have been a major clue.  But presumably the testers didn't have any way to know how much diesel fuel was actually being consumed on the road by VW's cars.

As suggested in news, likely competitors reversed engineered the cars to see how VW managed to do this. Quite possibly.  But I think the trade-off VW chose might actually be worthwhile.  At least when the car is not in a city.               Jim Bell