Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 9th May 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Cutting CO2 emissions



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

In your editorial (25 March), you recognise that transport is responsible for a quarter of the UK's total emissions derived from the combustion of fossil fuels. On this basis, you evidently support the production of biofuels, and the observance of the European Union's Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO).
Scotland has no national representation within the EU and such a policy as this is as relevant to the energy policy we need as the proposal to meddle with our preparation of mince (your report, same day).

How the combustion of biofuels which produce as much carbon dioxide as their energy equivalent of fossil fuels can make any contribution to reducing emissions is a great mystery.

The only possible approach to addressing this crisis on a global basis, is to plan for the progressive abandonment of combustion of carbon-containing fuels for energy production. Such a policy would necessarily include biofuels wherever they are grown.

(DR) DAVID PURVES, Strathalmond Road, Edinburgh





The full article contains 162 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 March 2008 8:34 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Isonomia,

Lenzie 28/03/2008 00:48:50
There is no crisis of global warming, because global warming stopped in 1998. Even the met office's own statistics prove with a confidence of more than 99% that the global warming is a scam (or at least forecasting models based on an assumption of warming are always wrong to such an extent that it is virtually statistically impossible for the models to always forecast so high when the temperature always comes out cooler).

As for burning bio-fuels causing more CO2 ... Oh heaven help us if that is the standard of environmentalists these days. The biofuel liberates as much CO2 as it stores during its growth thereby creating a net zero emission (apart from all the energy used in farm fertilisers, pesticides, agricultural machinery, transportation of the bio-fuel, and manufacture of the car engines to use the bio-fuel).

2

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 28/03/2008 08:34:31
#1 Isonomia

Continually repeating the untruth that "global warming stopped in 1998" won't make it true.

I asked you previously to explain your statement about the Met Office, ie. "a confidence of more than 99% that the global warming is a scam"

Give us the calculation, rather than a bald assertion.

So far, you have provided no information concerning the above particularly nonsensical assertion.

Whilst you are at it, could you explain the "Met Office Predicted" and "Confidence Temp Higher" columns in your/Mike's Lenzie article in here:

http://www.lenzie.org.uk/scam.php

3

fred bear,

Cheshire 28/03/2008 09:28:27
#1 Insomnia To add to your biofuel points, for the UK to meet the RTFO would require about the same amount of arable land as there already is in production. Even with the ending of set-aside, these tracts of land are simply not available. Also, one of the most dangerous (to the workers) sectors of employment is agriculture. No doubt some health and safety professional out there will be able to advise on the likely effect on death and injury statistics.
4

Isonomia,

Lenzie 28/03/2008 10:45:25
Fred beard, when I did the calculations I discovered that if we were to supply all our transport fuel from bio-crops then we would need an order of magnitude more farming land just growing fuel without any farmland for food.

The simpletons who think that reducing oil consumption is an option which we may or may not decide to do depending on whether we do/do not want to save a few frogs in the Amazon, and that all we need do is plant a few trees in high profile "green" areas in a few remote places and think it will "save" us .... must be on drugs, have a mental IQ of a 2 year old or are desperately trying to get more money for their research proving that whilst global temperatures are falling "the greatest threat we all face is global warming".

I wish I had such a childish mind. The fact is you can't burn fossil fuel that isn't there, you can't grow bio-fuels on farmland that is needed to feed our ever growing population, and you can't feed a population if you don't have the fuel to power agricultural machinery of transport those goods around the country.

To put it bluntly the greatest threat we face is global warming, not because the world is warming or even that if it started warming again the warming would do us any harm, it is because whilst we are preoccupied with the 20th century problem of too much oil and: "deciding how many trees to plant to offset our carbon footprint", we are ignoring the meglasaurus in the room : the 21st century problem with carbon fuels isn't too much, it is too little!
5

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 11:03:57
Funnily enough i agree with this bit of your rant:

"The simpletons who think that reducing oil consumption is an option which we may or may not decide to do depending on whether we do/do not want to save a few frogs in the Amazon, and that all we need do is plant a few trees in high profile "green" areas in a few remote places and think it will "save" us .... must be on drugs, have a mental IQ of a 2 year old"

As for peak oil, been there, read up on it, agree with it. The fact that a large number of people in power couldn't care less does not bode well for the future. The politicians have consistently failed to put forwards any proposals which will take us into the decline of oil, even although it is staring them in the face.
6

Isonomia,

Lenzie 28/03/2008 11:15:41
MET OFFICE PROVES WARMING FALSE (for Slioch)

The met office have been forecasting the next years global temperature since 2000. The forecasts are in the form: there is a 75% probability that the temperatures will be above T75, a 50% probability the temperatures are greater than T50, and a 25% probability that the temperatures will be above T25.

If the forecasting model is correct then on average we would expect around 50% of the forecasts to be higher than T50, and 50% less. We would also expect 75% to be higher that T74 and 25% less (all over the long term).

The chance of being higher/lower than the T50 is the same statistically as tossing a coin and getting a heads/tails. The fact is that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE MET OFFICE FORECASTS HAVE BEEN HIGHER THAN THE T50 temperature. Whilst there have only been 8 forecasts, the probability of that happening is the same as tossing a coin 8 times and getting heads every time which is .5^8 = 0.4%

Whilst the average error between forecast and actual global temperature may only be 0.06C, this error is very significant because the Met Office's modelling (which assume global warming) gives a fairly narrow range of temperatures and 0.06C is outside this range on 75% of years.

The conclusions you have to reach is that model contains a bias which leads to an average overestimation of the temperature by 0.06C. If you remove this "global warming assumption", the result is that the model is actually very good and does much better than e.g. forecasting "next year will be the same as this year".

Slioch, I don't know if you understand statistics, but when the IPCC claim that there is a 60% chance there is a link between CO2 and warming that is understood as a tenuous link. If they realistically claimed a 90% certainty, every scientist would sit up, at 95%, 99% scientists would describe this as certain, at more than 99.6% every scientist would say that the model has been disproven beyond reasonable doubt.

THE MODEL OF
7

Isonomia,

Lenzie 28/03/2008 11:27:12
Guthrie: "As for peak oil, been there, read up on it, agree with it. The fact that a large number of people in power couldn't care less does not bode well for the future. The politicians have consistently failed to put forwards any proposals which will take us into the decline of oil, even although it is staring them in the face."

Must get on with work, but had to answer that. I really have to stop me when I start talking about the doomsday of oil starvation, because just as we have been fooled on global warming, we may well be fooled on peak oil. There may be plenty of oil in the ground, on the other hand there may be much less than we think (there are many rumours of huge over reporting of oil reserves).

I personally think as a nation our most urgent priority is to do a stock-take of our (aka the world's) fossil fuel reserves and start trimming our cloth to match the available reserves not our politicians desire to give us ever more verbose election promises.

Capitalism may be the greatest thing since sliced bread when it comes to finding and exploiting new oil reserves, but it sucks when it comes to conserving those reserves for the long term, and you can hardly blame the politicians for being such idiots when they are being kept in the dark and being fed the horse manure of global warming.
8

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 11:36:53
If you'd stop and think about it, Isonomia, cutting our greenhouse gas emissions involves using less oil anyway....

9

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 11:48:30
Oh my god. Here we go with another academic who pontificates without understanding the basic facts. Even if CO2 in the atmosphere was causing problems with the earth's climate---which it is not, but let us assume for a moment that it is---the burning of bio fuels is not going to have the same effect on the net level of CO2 in the air as burning fossil fuels will have.

Why? Because fossil fuels were created millions of years ago, the organic matter adsorbing CO2 that was in the air millions of years ago. This adds to the net CO2 content of the air today. Bio fuels on the other hand, were probably produced last year, so the CO2 adsorbed by the organic matter last year is being released again this year, resulting in an overall net change over the period of zero.

The bottom line issue here is nothing to do with CO2 levels (which are less than 0.04% anyway), global warming, rising sea levels, climate change, carbon footprints or whatever. It is to do with the basic, inescapable fact that if we continue to consume fossil fuels, they WILL RUN OUT. There IS no bottom line issue other than this.

Why the hell can't the best brains in the world just concentrate on this simple, straightforward fact and address the issues it raises? Why do they have to get themselves involved in all this daft fiction and by doing so, put themselves in fairy-tale land and achieve nothing. According to legend, King Canute sat on the beach and commanded the tide not to come in. Up until then, he was well respected and highly thought of.

Well, Canute did not have any control over the gravitational effect of the sun and moon. The tide still came in and Canute lost face. Exactly the same is going to happen to the "climate change" brigade and their like. Hopefully it will not be too late.
10

fred bear,

Cheshire 28/03/2008 12:04:26
#4 Insomnia. I made an error, my 'back of the envelope' calcs suggest that to get biofuel use up to the RTFO obligation which, last I heard, is 10%, would require approximately twice the amount of arable land that is currently in production. This is consistent with your calcs which suggest an order of magnitude greater to supply 100%.

#9 I have several times tried to re-focus the discussion along these lines, ie, let's make a scarce resource last as long as possible; it is immaterial whether CO2 causes GW, or whether human activity has caused it. I have been unsuccesfull; I wish you better luck!
11

Upbeat,

28/03/2008 12:33:10
There is only one thought that matters here.

At present western , and developed societies depend on Large oil powered vehicles to move large quantities of essentials from one location to another. There is no alternative with the growing world population.

Yet we all want to drive around in our cars using up the finite supplies of oil for less essential journeys.

Does anyone know what motive power will be available ..used to power large lorries when oil becomes even more scarse.

No ? ...I thought not .

This single factor will signal the return to the " dark ages"
12

Neil,

Glasgow 28/03/2008 12:36:49
Catastrophic global warming is a lie told by alarmists who have been proven over & over to have been engaged in deliberatle fraud.

Debates about how much we need to sacrifice to stop carbon release are therefore about as pointles as debating about how many little old ladies we need to burn to prevent them magically producing bad weather, though obviously the eco-fascists have killed far more people than the witchfinders ever did.
13

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 12:37:39
The Scottish Government have just announced figures for Scottish electricity generation for 2006 and they show that CO2 producing production (Oil,coal and gas) increased by 35% between 2005 and 2006 producing 23,174 gwhs in 2005 and 31,122gws in 2006. As a total they increased from 47% of production to 58%.
14

truthsleuth,

28/03/2008 12:53:20
If you consume more carbon based fuel you produce more CO2.
Accelerated Climate Change is with us
Get your Heads out of the sandyour A#### are showing or should it be the other way around.
15

Upbeat,

28/03/2008 12:53:20
Denial of Global climate change on these boards is a failing engaged in by ill informed people who have proved themselves unable, over and over again, to understand or study the whole issue on a global scale. When these individuals pop up repeatedly on these comment forums this erves to remind readers that even in this age of the information super highway there are still some people who lack the time or imagination to study properly.

While they are unable to accept things outside their narrow understanding and experience, they seek reassurance that they are not alone.
16

MoragfraeEdinburgh,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 13:27:37
15# New Scientist this week has evidence that what the deniers have been saying for years, in that rising CO2 levels is caused by increased global temperatures, is in fact the case.

Of course they put a spin on it that this is even more reason we have to reduce CO2 levels but they would wouldn't they.

From what Margaret says above Scotland might as well give up as we have lost the game before it is started.
17

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 13:29:33
11. Upbeat asks:

'Does anyone know what motive power will be available ..used to power large lorries when oil becomes even more scarse.'

That's an easy one to answer:

Electric Vehicles - they can be charged overnight; preferably from a renewable source.

Electric powered trucks are already being manufactured in the UK:

http://www.smithelectricvehicles.com/products.asp?p=n&itemid=148

18

Upbeat,

28/03/2008 13:34:42
16 Morag,

This is interesting, thank you.

Increase in temperatures is already known to alter so many ecological cycles, killing some organisms, and destroying trees and other ground cover in marginal areas, that the comfirmation in the New Scientist article you mention should come as no surprise.

But this does not mean that reducing dependence on fossil fuels is wrong.
19

Upbeat,

28/03/2008 13:41:31
Fred.

Don't expect so.

The reason is that the motive power would have to be stored in batteries, unless we install trolley bus style power lines along every motorway and major road in every country. ( which would be a huge waste of scarse resources.)

It is already the case that in cars powered by battery systems, half the running weight is made up of batteries. They have limited endurance, and those vehicles powered in this way have not much capacity left for carraige of heavy loads.

Remember the electric milk float ? To power LGV's electrical technology will have to advance by some quantum leap, within the next two decades.

Better by far to start conserving the Oil for vital Transport now.

20

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 13:51:57
17 & 19:

A better link with a photo of the electric trucks:

http://www.smithelectricvehicles.com/index.asp

And they are already on the roads:

'The Edison van provides a top speed of up to 50mph, a payload of up to 1338kg and a range on one battery charge of up to 150 miles. A GVW of less than 3.5t means that your drivers do not require a Class C licence.'

As battery technology improves the range and load carrying will improve.

21

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 14:00:10
16. If rising temperatures are causing rising CO2, what is causing rising temperatures?
22

Upbeat,

28/03/2008 14:28:06
Fred.

I suspect we are talking at cross purposes.

In my post at #11 I was refering to Large goods vehicles.ie HGV's

You are speaking about LGV's . This is misleading as I find that depending on context this LGV designation is now used , confusingly, both for Large Goods Vehicles ,and for Light Goods vehicles.

No one disputes that for short distances around twon a battery powered truck may be practical, alsthough ineffient in terms of payload capacity.

But considering the original question refered to Large Goods vehicles, and it is impossible to visualise any current technology being adapted within the foreseeable future, to power HGV's by electrical means, the question still remains.

If we squander oil on inessential and luxury transport today, how is society to power the essential transport 30 years down the line .?

23

Upbeat,

28/03/2008 14:40:20
Fred,

Rising temperatures have been partly caused by the activities of mankind,the burning of fossil fuel stuffs that were laid down deep under the planet's surface, over hundreds of millions of years. This activity and the consequent release of heat has altered the composition of the atmosphere. Heat, that previously escaped to space, is now increasingly being identified as trapped within a polluted atmosphere.

The fact that CO2 release is now increasing from natural processes and habitat decay as well, due to this alteration in global temperature, signals an unbalancing of any natural equilibrium that was reached over past millenia.

This is the "hockey stick" line on the graph of probability, the one that most worries the scientists who are studying and extrapolating the present Global climate trends.
24

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 14:59:49
#16 Morag- that is a gross misrepresentation of the actual facts of the case, but understandable given the spin put on said article by the author, whom I have sure I have seen being silly about global warming somewhere before. More information to follow when I get home and can check the New scientist.

25

Neil,

Glasgow 28/03/2008 15:12:00
It is still a deliberate lie.

There is not a single statement in Upbeat's post 23 which is remotely truthful. Such is symptomatic of these eco-fascist alarmists.
26

Upbeat,

28/03/2008 15:21:18
25 Neil.

If you spent more time exploring the science of Global climate change properly and thoroughly instead of coming here each day to tell us that you cannot believe understand or accept anything that anybody says about thi huge topic, you would A) save us a lot of time , and B) you would appear more intelligent than you now do.
27

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 17:21:08
Ok upbeat, What do you make of my conjecture that the real issue is that of the finite nature of fossil fuels and that if we don't do something about that, we are going to be in trouble in the future?
28

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 17:38:01
It is unecessary to postulate an either or situation. Both global warming and peak oil will cause problems.
29

Upbeat,

28/03/2008 17:55:31
27 AHOFH

Post 11 refers.

28 Guthrie.

It is not necessary to "postulate" ...as you so dsimissively put it. Surely what is needed is the vison to plan alternative methods so those activities that we have to do, can be done. .... Public Transport systems, and other mass distribution systems. Less essential luxuries eg cheap fuel for private cars will have to be forfeit as a clear consequence of Peak Oil. The sensible necessity is to postpone having a series problem with those things that we are unable to find an alternative for. eg Tractors etc. for agriculture, and Heavy Lorries for distribution of foodstuffs etc.
30

Upbeat,

28/03/2008 17:57:27
Sorry unusually serious typo.in #29 " ....postpone having a serious problem with ...."
31

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 19:58:13
#16- well, I cannot find where I got the idea from the Fred Pierce had sometimes been a denialist- he seems instead to belong to what many of you would call the Alarmist camp.
But his piece in New scientist was badly phrased- we know that in the past CO2 levels rose after temperature rose because of the pick up of the cabron cycle, in coming out of ice ages. The language he used suggested that denialists had been correct about something specific, when in fact all the denialists I have seen claim that because the CO2 rose after the temperature in coming out of an ice age, this is what is happening now.

In fact, the abstract of the paper in question can be found here:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025044.shtml

--------
There is good evidence that higher global temperatures will promote a rise of greenhouse gas levels, implying a positive feedback which will increase the effect of anthropogenic emissions on global temperatures. However, the magnitude of this effect predicted by the available models remains highly uncertain, due to the accumulation of uncertainties in the processes thought to be involved. Here we present an alternative way of estimating the magnitude of the feedback effect based on reconstructed past changes. Linking this information with the mid-range Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimation of the greenhouse gas effect on temperature we suggest that the feedback of global temperature on atmospheric CO2 will promote warming by an extra 15–78% on a century-scale. This estimate may be conservative as we did not account for synergistic effects of likely temperature moderated increase in other greenhouse gases. Our semi-empirical approach independently supports process based simulations suggesting that feedback may cause a considerable boost in warming.
------------
32

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 19:59:14
#29- that is correct. I was aiming at petrolhead.
33

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 28/03/2008 20:25:17
#6 Isonomia

I'm just back.

To recapitulate:

I asked you in #2 to explain your statement with respect to the Met Office's recent predictions for global temperatures, that there was "a confidence of more than 99% that the global warming is a scam".

You answered in #6, in summary: "The chance of being higher/lower than the T50 is the same statistically as tossing a coin and getting a heads/tails. The fact is that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE MET OFFICE FORECASTS HAVE BEEN HIGHER THAN THE T50 temperature. Whilst there have only been 8 forecasts, the probability of that happening is the same as tossing a coin 8 times and getting heads every time which is .5^8 = 0.4%"

Yes, I thought some such nonsense was what you were on about. Firstly, you are correct (and justified in pointing it out) that the MET Office forecasts of annual global temperatures over those eight years has been high for each of those eight years. Where you are incorrect is in your attempt to derive some meaningful figure (your 99.6% ie (100-1/256*100)% that represents the accuracy of the forecast. Where you become completely nonsensical is your repeated claim that the 99.6% figure shows that "global warming is a scam".

In order to understand that your figure provides NO information concerning the accuracy of the forecast (let alone whether global warming is a scam), consider the following two hypothetical scenarios:

Scenario 1. Each of the eight MET forecasts were exactly 0.001C higher than the actual temperature (using T50).

Scenario 2. Each of the eight MET forecasts were higher than the actual temperature (using T50), but very variably so, some forecast temperatures on some years being out by several degrees, others being closer, with no consistance in the figures except that the forecasts were all high.

Obviously, Scenario 1. would result from a very consistent and accurate model, with a minute and constant error each year. Whereas Scenario 2. would be almost useless.

What
34

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 28/03/2008 20:26:14
Contd.

What figure would we get, using your method to assess these two radically different scenarios? Obviously, and undeniably, they would both give your 99.6% figure.

When an assessment method gives the same result on two radically different scenarios, you know that the method is valueless and your statements based upon it ("global warming is a scam" etc) is meaningless nonsense.
35

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 21:50:22
Ok Upbeat, so you realize what the real issue is. Why then are you supporting these rediculous theories about climate change then?

Clearly the solution to this problem lies in research and development, not restrictions and knee-jerking?
36

Upbeat,

28/03/2008 22:05:40
35 AHOFH,

I support no " ridiculous theories" about anything.

There is no Knee jerking under the table here, I have checked, and everything appears quite normal.;-) I can assure you.

If you had travelled the world and had seen as much, you would also have had the chance to appreciate first hand that things all around the world are changing very fast now.The lsit of cahnges is not just the population , the use of cars, the building boom , or the adbvaces in argiculutural mono culture. But it also includes the weather season by season , and ,yes the climate. To have this perspective you might also have to be of a 'certain age' ,and in recalling how things once were you would not want to suffer from a " dodgy memory " :-)

People like me can share the understanding they have gained as a result of their unusual life experience. Whether others wish to accept the account is entirely up to them.

The trouble with so much of the denial that goes on is that it is based on a very short lifetime perspective. Is it not the case that Things that happened even just 15 years ago for a 30 year old are ancient history ?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.