Great News for V8s and ICE Vehicles in General

[DarkMatterGrey]

There is no way car makers will make cars producing worse emissions than now no matter what the current US government does simply because the rest of the world is going the opposite way and US politics change far too often for car makers to change course. Ford will be planning their 2030 cars at the moment so anything in the next 2 or 3 years has already missed the boat.

I don't disagree as I think the target was more MPG than Emissions, but I don't know for sure as I haven't had time to digest the specifics (I was hoping that was what this thread was about). I think this is going after the future "regulation" from the executive branch Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the USA vs. "legislation" which is a different branch of government (Congress). There's current EPA Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that apply to all vehicles sell in the USA. So if a manufacturer sells gas guzzling V8 cars like my Mustang (I had to actually pay a gas $1000 guzzler tax, because it's a Job 1 build with no start stop), the manufacturer has to sell other cars that have better MPG, including EV's to calculate their average fuel economy and get penalized for going over that (my guess is I had to pay that penalty). One of the ways the manufacturers were able to meet this is through start/stop, thinner oils, MDS. The change in the future to up this average over all the cars sold I believe has been rolled back. As well as not having states, such as California, dictate even tougher standards

Sponsored

 

[DarkMatterGrey]

Al Gore means nothing outside the US but it is still warming everywhere else.

Don't confuse US politics (or even use US politics) to argue on a global issue

Oh a huge amount more Methane flames off from oil drilling than ever came out of Dobbins arse! Of course the other valid point is that Dobbins Methane came from what Dobbin ate last week which grew in Dobbins field over the last few weeks by carbon capture so is in effect just a cycling of that Carbon, unlike the stuff coming out of the ground with the oil that has been locked up for millions of years until we release it

See above about how we know where the carbon has come from.

I was actually replying to someone else about Al Gore's position in the US as a climate change mass extinction huckster. When in reality (and a lot of people even here in the US don't know this) he's an investment banker and literally put his money where his mouth is and made a lot along the way for him and his firm. That's pretty flippen (I really wanted to swear) far from just arguing US politics as you stated.

 

[DarkMatterGrey]

How long does it take to gut the cat, to drop the def? removing parts aint as difficult as adding. I mean they already do it but are prevented by regulation, drop the regulation and do they need to retool or simply bypass? When we remove the stuff the car still works, if they could they would, it aint like they aint sitting on stuff they are just itching to implement. As long as it’s ‘clean’ who cares? I mean how dirty is it really when asthma inhalers are found in the same measurements?

DEF. One of the reasons I won't buy a new Diesel. At least the US government is allowed to buy DEF free Diesels. Not sure if that'll be an option for the rest of us with this regulatory roll back. In the mean time my son has been searching for pre-def like Ford 7.3 and older Dodge/RAM Cummins. Prices are high for good ones.

 

[D/\rK•650]

I am assuming he is referring to the impacts of climate change and unless ICE vehicle become VERY niche products he is right. We are dangerously close to disasterous outcomes for the climate. Children born today could face crop failures, fresh water shortages and beyond if they see a 3 degree (C) warmer planet and we are on track for worse. This is not a political statement. It is a scientific certainty supported by data.

 

[Upacurb]

s550 forums - 10 pages on what the best headers are for your car
s650 forums - 10 pages on climate change

 

[smurfslayer]

At least you agree the earth is warming and from the graph you posted that the rate of change is indeed very significant as we know - the rest of the evidence is there if you look for it but of course if you don't look you will not find it. As a medical professional and scientist I know exactly where and how to look for evidence and how to weed out opinion and bias.

Funny how 'repeatedly crying wolf' is in fact repeatedly providing evidence. Scientists always look back at predictions and establish validity and here is one such paper looking at climate modelling from the 1970's to early 2000's and how it compares to what actually happened.

Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections - Hausfather - 2020 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

There are many papers like this and they confirm that the modelling has been very good based on verification statistics. Not surprisingly this sort of modelling verification is used elsewhere, weather forecasting would be a very good example where forecasts have improved hugely since the 1970's because of improved models and feedback verification. It is critical with all of this that you avoid dumbed down opinion pieces and media and get to the primary sources of data. You don't want to read what Fred said about John's work, you want to hear it from John himself.

On the subject of whether the CO2 is a result of human activity again this is all available for you to read - example:

Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society
Scientists have examined greenhouse gases in the context of the past. Analysis of air trapped inside ice that has been accumulating over time in Antarctica shows that the CO2 concentration began to increase significantly in the 19th century [Figure B3], after staying in the range of 260 to 280 ppm for the previous 10,000 years. Ice core records extending back 800,000 years show that during that time, CO2 concentrations remained within the range of 170 to 300 ppm throughout many “ice age” cycles - learn about the ice ages - and no concentration above 300 ppm is seen in ice core records until the past 200 years.

Measurements of the forms (isotopes) of carbon in the modern atmosphere show a clear fingerprint of the addition of “old” carbon (depleted in natural radioactive 14C) coming from the combustion of fossil fuels (as opposed to “newer” carbon coming from living systems). In addition, it is known that human activities (excluding land use changes) currently emit an estimated 10 billion tonnes of carbon each year, mostly by burning fossil fuels, which is more than enough to explain the observed increase in concentration. These and other lines of evidence point conclusively to the fact that the elevated CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is the result of human activities.

if you are in the medical & scientific community, then you wholeheartedly understand skepticism, and why people don’t believe you. I’m sure it’s frustrating for things you know and accept, that others scoff at.

Like I mentioned before, more than once, nothing you present from the existing body of climate research can or should be trusted. Everything needs to be reviewed critically, because they simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
if their research cant withstand a careful, critical review, then what’s being hidden?

if that critical review bears out the research, great, we know the study and researchers are trustworthy and if it not, we know to disregard it and the researchers involved.

We’ve proven several times that we have time, so before we try to enforce policy on the word population, let’s pause to take a hard look at what’s accurate in the current body of research. History tells us some of it will be found wrong.

 

[Gregs24]

if you are in the medical & scientific community, then you wholeheartedly understand skepticism, and why people don’t believe you. I’m sure it’s frustrating for things you know and accept, that others scoff at.

Like I mentioned before, more than once, nothing you present from the existing body of climate research can or should be trusted. Everything needs to be reviewed critically, because they simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
if their research cant withstand a careful, critical review, then what’s being hidden?

if that critical review bears out the research, great, we know the study and researchers are trustworthy and if it not, we know to disregard it and the researchers involved.

We’ve proven several times that we have time, so before we try to enforce policy on the word population, let’s pause to take a hard look at what’s accurate in the current body of research. History tells us some of it will be found wrong.

It has been over and over.

I posted the paper reviewing modelling predictions and then the actual data - is this not exactly what you are asking for? Yes or No?

I posted a review that links to papers on identifying the sources of CO2 - is this not the evidence you need? Yes or No?

Scepticism is fine but wilful ignorance is completely different

 

[Gregs24]

s550 forums - 10 pages on what the best headers are for your car
s650 forums - 10 pages on climate change

I think you will find far worse over on S550

 

[Gregs24]

I was actually replying to someone else about Al Gore's position in the US as a climate change mass extinction huckster. When in reality (and a lot of people even here in the US don't know this) he's an investment banker and literally put his money where his mouth is and made a lot along the way for him and his firm. That's pretty flippen (I really wanted to swear) far from just arguing US politics as you stated.

Good for him - again is a nobody outside the US and no relevance

 

[Gregs24]

I don't disagree as I think the target was more MPG than Emissions, but I don't know for sure as I haven't had time to digest the specifics (I was hoping that was what this thread was about). I think this is going after the future "regulation" from the executive branch Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the USA vs. "legislation" which is a different branch of government (Congress). There's current EPA Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that apply to all vehicles sell in the USA. So if a manufacturer sells gas guzzling V8 cars like my Mustang (I had to actually pay a gas $1000 guzzler tax, because it's a Job 1 build with no start stop), the manufacturer has to sell other cars that have better MPG, including EV's to calculate their average fuel economy and get penalized for going over that (my guess is I had to pay that penalty). One of the ways the manufacturers were able to meet this is through start/stop, thinner oils, MDS. The change in the future to up this average over all the cars sold I believe has been rolled back. As well as not having states, such as California, dictate even tougher standards

Pretty much the same - those emissions come from the burning of the fuel. lower fuel use equals lower emissions.

 

[Gregs24]

just for fun:

Volcanoes Spew 3X More CO2 Than Thought & 19,000 New Undersea Volcanoes Found: Is Human-Driven Climate Narrative Crumbling?
“Folks, hold onto your hats—two groundbreaking studies dropped this past month, and they’re shaking up everything we thought we knew about carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere. The first, from The University of Manchester, reveals that volcanic CO2 emissions could be three times higher than previously estimated. The second, from the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST), uncovers a staggering 19,325 previously unknown undersea volcanoes. Together, these findings throw a massive wrench into the narrative that human activity is the sole driver of rising atmospheric CO2. Let’s dive in.” …

https://iowaclimate.org/2025/05/19/...-is-human-driven-climate-narrative-crumbling/

From the paper you posted!

Try to at least read the articles you post

“However, it’s also important to realise that despite our findings that CO2 emissions could be around three times higher than we expected for volcanoes capped by hydrothermal systems, volcanoes still contribute less than 5% of global CO2 emissions, far less than human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.”

 

[Gregs24]

Here is someone who could care less what we do. And,right now, they have more power in the marketplace worldwide than we do.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/a69644249/china-auto-market-nevs-top-50-percent-sales/?source=nl&utm_source=nl_aut&utm_medium=email&date=120525&utm_campaign=nl01_120525_AUT42897631&oo=&user_email=ed8c053c690b41d6e6ed99bc9c5d63000b285039b68b372c2f18ae26b22d79b1&GID=ed8c053c690b41d6e6ed99bc9c5d63000b285039b68b372c2f18ae26b22d79b1&utm_term=Daily Drive Sending Audience

Indeed - ignore them at your peril

 

[Zig]

From the paper you posted!

Try to at least read the articles you post

“However, it’s also important to realise that despite our findings that CO2 emissions could be around three times higher than we expected for volcanoes capped by hydrothermal systems, volcanoes still contribute less than 5% of global CO2 emissions, far less than human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.”

Same article:

“Here’s where it gets spicy. The climate establishment loves to pin the rise in atmospheric CO2—now around 420 ppm—squarely on human emissions. But these two studies, released within weeks of each other, expose massive gaps in our understanding of natural CO2 sources. If volcanic emissions on land are triple what we thought, and we’ve just found 19,000+ new undersea volcanoes, the natural contribution to atmospheric CO2 is likely far higher than the “less than 5%” figure tossed around.”

…”
But if Manchester’s findings apply broadly, that 0.26 could be closer to 0.78 gigatons or more. Add in unknown contributions from tens of thousands of undersea volcanoes, and the natural CO2 flux starts looking like a serious player. We’re not saying humans don’t contribute—fossil fuels are a big factor—but the certainty of attribution just took a major hit.

“These discoveries don’t just challenge climate models; they demand a rethink of how we monitor and predict CO2 trends. Manchester’s sensor tech could revolutionize…”

“The climate debate thrives on certainty, but science thrives on doubt. These studies remind us that nature is full of surprises, and our grasp of Earth’s complex systems is shakier than we’d like to admit. It’s time to dial back the dogma and invest in better data—because if we’re underestimating volcanic CO2 by this much, what else are we missing?”

 

[Zig]

DEF. One of the reasons I won't buy a new Diesel. At least the US government is allowed to buy DEF free Diesels. Not sure if that'll be an option for the rest of us with this regulatory roll back. In the mean time my son has been searching for pre-def like Ford 7.3 and older Dodge/RAM Cummins. Prices are high for good ones.

That’s a checkbox i’d liked to have had as an option. Our ‘24 f350 hasn’t been too bad in regards to def usage.

 

[Zig]

It has been over and over.

I posted the paper reviewing modelling predictions and then the actual data - is this not exactly what you are asking for? Yes or No?

I posted a review that links to papers on identifying the sources of CO2 - is this not the evidence you need? Yes or No?

Scepticism is fine but wilful ignorance is completely different

Modeling predictions. Back in the ‘80’s and when the national enquirer was popular they called them psychics. I remember reading way back then the stories of the dire predictions saying new york florida and the whole eastern united states coast would be underwater.

Sponsored