Talk:Exhaust gas

Rewrite the page

It would be better to have page that gives the list of gasses emited by type of vehicule/by type of fuel. Rather than listing only a fraction of the "gasses" in exhaust. There are also more simple particules, like metal particles as lead etc..

--78.193.35.108 (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

might try to add this info later

California ARB releases three studies showing fine particle pollution a threat to cardiovascular health.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk)

Improper editorial comment in text

Just above the chart in Exhaust gas#Spark-ignition engines there has been, since this edit in November, 2012, an improper editorial comment criticizing the chart as being misleading. Anthony Appleyard tried to reduce the impact by making this emendation as the next following edit. Indeed, part of the chart is not supported by the cited source (specifically, several components which are lumped together into a single percentage or percentage range in the source, but which are broken out in the chart here). Finally, the source itself is, at best, only marginally reliable. I have no dog in this hunt, having only come onto this article looking for information as an ordinary user of the encyclopedia (though I am also an experienced user) but I'm inclined as a neutral party to say that we ought to remove the editorial comment and the emendation and also probably ought to remove the chart itself as unsourced or misleading if the consensus is that it is misleading without that comment. Any comments? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Table DOES NOT reflect data presented on page 6 of referenced document!

Table DOES NOT reflect data presented on page 6 of referenced document! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.204.181 (talk) 2012-11-25T14:10:56‎

Moved preceding comment out of the body of the text and into talk. --Mathieu ottawa (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

To bring table into conformity to source, changed water vapour from 12 to 13. --Mathieu ottawa (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Exhaust gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140705211720/http://nutramed.com/environment/carschemicals.htm to http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carschemicals.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051031101139/http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s069dies.pdf to http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s069dies.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414094408/http://www.losh.ucla.edu/catalog/factsheets/diesel_english.pdf to http://www.losh.ucla.edu/catalog/factsheets/diesel_english.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

August 2019

Of course, with all the scientific study based upon peer-reviewed validation, shouldn't we now determine the CO2 goal towards limiting negative climate change as a factor of parts per million (ppm)? Since plants must have a minimum 150ppm CO2 to live and grow and U.S. Navy submarines are allowed to operate at up to 8,000ppm under water for extended time periods, we really should ask ourselves what number is the achievable and desirable number regarding total CO2 in our atmosphere. The present ca. 411ppm seems to be a "tipping point" in the minds of some, however plants enjoy 1,000ppm in closed green houses and we really should not desire a level below 150ppm in the interest of our own existence. In essence, the present 411ppm level or even 500ppm would be a good compromise between humans and plants. Since the Danish Meteorological Institute has measured the aggregate surface mass gain of snow since to 2017 to be larger than the loss of ice water into the ocean from Greenland, it would follow that the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is in the general vicinity of being highly acceptable and even desirable.Worldneedsplastic (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Water Vapor must be added as the main greenhouse gas to make this article valid. Only indicating CO2 as a greenhouse gas is negligent! I attempted to make the justified changes but they were quickly erased! Please justify why water vapor is being ignored as a greenhouse gas. Indeed, water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas on this planet by far. Some say as much as 95%. Those scientists here who would desire to hide this fact are acting in highly alarming way and clearly ignoring the elephant in the room. To attempt to make something which makes up 95% of the pie disappear in the minds of readers coming here for knowledge is negligent to an unbelievable degree! Proper hydrogen powered cars only emit water vapor and carbon dioxide, the two main greenhouse gases. But all of the other really bad and even deadly gases like CO, HC, NOx, Soot, etc. would fall away. Should that not be part of the knowledge base under this topic?Worldneedsplastic (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The basic justification of water vapor as a greenhouse gas can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor which of course means that my desiring to add water vapor as a greenhouse gas to this article has been indeed validated. Why on earth would water vapor be excluded from this article as a greenhouse gas? Is there any justification for it?Worldneedsplastic (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your edits in bulk because of three problems: 1) You changed the English variation without discussing, 2) you broke the wikilink to Global warming, and 3) you added vague, poorly-phrased information ("Perhaps as much as 95%.") without a source. You are welcome to improve the article in the line of your comments above, providing you back your edits with high-quality sources. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)