Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution.[...]
It was accepted by the scientists that other factors, such as the use of fossil fuels to produce fertiliser, have yet to be fully analysed for their impact on overall figures. But they concluded that the biofuels “can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2 O emissions than cooling by fossil-fuel savings”.
The research is published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, where it has been placed for open review. The research team was formed of scientists from Britain, the US and Germany, and included Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on ozone.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/6027
But everyone knows the science surrounding climate change - ALL the science, every bit of it - is settled, and that questioning it is the worst sort of crime against the future OF OUR CHILDREN!
Posted by: rick mcginnis at September 22, 2007 10:43 AMHollywierd cyprians should stick to personal vanity and leave global issues to people with more depth of intellect.
Love ya Daryl but thinking is not your strong point.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at September 22, 2007 11:10 AMPris thinks she is doing good. Many do-gooders think they are doing good. It is always the unintended consequences that catch up in the end.
However does she stay so svelte whilst driving around in a car that smells like a restaurant kitchen.
Regarding settled science ... the 'Science Setters' are actually 'Science Squatters' and they must be evicted.
Posted by: John West at September 22, 2007 11:30 AMA little off topic, but speaking of Kyoto, where did the FIVE BILLION DOLLARS go that the Cretin set aside to fund Kyoto initiatives when Stepanie D-Yawn was Environment Minister?
Posted by: Bruce Randall at September 22, 2007 12:09 PMI wouldn't expect this inconvenient fact to change her ranting one iota. The lefty approach seems to be, as Robert Fulton put it, "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the subject."
Posted by: DrD at September 22, 2007 12:12 PMmaize biodiesels??
Corn is mostly starch, it is used to make ethanol. not biodiesel. Biodiesel is most often made from oils pressed from seed. Like rapeseed, but it's likely that others like soybean and canola are more common.
If that is the quality of the synopsis then the rest of the report is not even worth the time to download it.
Posted by: Barcs at September 22, 2007 12:12 PMWho is Darryl Hannah?
SFrom teh photo and interview, she appears to be a dumb blonde.
Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at September 22, 2007 12:54 PMA way, way back, 1975, I ran a University experiment. A diesel engine fueled by canola oil.
The conclusion. The engine appeared to run well. However, it was quickly determined that it would take more fossil fuel energy to make the "bio-fuel" than it was worth.
The same parameters apply today. So what happened ??
Simple. In the media's drive to 'dumb-down' the news, who would be a better choice ?? Engineers, chemists, thermodynamics analyst or Albert Gore, David Suzuki, Stephane Dion.
Posted by: ron in kelowna at September 22, 2007 1:17 PMDear ron in kelowna:
Energy input vs energy output is too confusing and since we only want to save the world - go away.
Love
MSM/settled science
As Kate said, "Diversity everywhere, except in opinion."
I attended an engineering conference in the US last week as an observer. What I observed was a lot of smart people being respectful, speaking softly and going back-and-forth on issues of importance. No disrespect, no one upmanship, no political games.
It was refreshing.
Posted by: Paul at September 22, 2007 2:49 PMKate, that is an interesting choice in articles to post on your little blog site here. Is this an acknowledgement that that global warming exists and is in fact caused by humans?
By posting this article you seem to be showing a concern that biofuels are more damaging to the environment than fossil fuels.
Welcome to the word of the environmentalists.
Now that you've made the first step you know what's next don't you? www.greenpeace.org/international/about/volunteers
Don't worry, the Birkenstocks are optional.
Are the Conservatives
1. Purposely tying to and deceiving Canadians?
2. Incompetent or just plain stupid?
3. Lazy and not doing their homework, or
4. All of the above?
www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/21/climate-panel.html
The correct answer is 4.
But then again, once you get through the typo on #1 won that should say lying to and deceiving Canadians, that answer begins to move to the best correct answer category.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2007/2007-09-20-01.asp
""Initially the cuts were preceived as rumor," said Sandy Baumgartner, executive director of programs and communications for the 300,000 member Canadian Wildlife Federation. "But I have now had confirmation from individuals in the department who have been impacted by it. The cuts are affecting every section of the department."
The Conservative government must stop using funds targeted for key environmental programs to prop up their failing climate change strategy, said Liberal Environment Critic David McGuinty."
Posted by: albatros39a at September 22, 2007 3:26 PMComing soon to youtube......
Alby's salute to Chris Crocker and the planet,
"Leave Global Warming Alone!!!!!!"
Posted by: Robert in Calgary at September 22, 2007 4:08 PMA bit off topic but related...
Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290
Posted by: fritz at September 22, 2007 4:22 PM"fritz at September 22, 2007 4:22 PM"
Was his name on the paper? Is there anything in the paper that suggested global warming could become a problem?
In the link you supplied the article stated-
" Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger."
What a load of thawing Siberian mammoth dung. He has explained himself with his writings. He is not a politician.
I you read the document written by Rasool, his arguments of an approaching ice age were as valid then as global warming is today. Get your hands on the source document and see for yourself, rather than the second hand spin these moronic deniers put on it.
PM Harper's Environment minister is a smart man. John Baird must also be good at keeping a sraight face when surrounded by United Nations bozooes.
[OTTAWA, Sept 22 (Reuters) - A deal by 191 nations to eliminate ozone-depleting substances 10 years ahead of schedule is a "pivotal moment" in the fight against global warming, Canadian Environment Minister John Baird said on Saturday.
Delegates at a U.N. conference in Montreal struck the deal late on Friday. The agreement will phase out production and use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) for developed countries to 2020 from 2030 and to 2030 from 2040 for developing nations.] David Ljunggren, Reuters
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=7d8a86d8-8e82-4538-b095-612197cc8e06
Ah, well whatever makes the UN crowd happy;
[The international treaty to protect the ozone layer turns 20 this year. But is there really much reason to celebrate?
Environmentalists have made many apocalyptic predictions over the last several decades. Virtually none has come to pass. Yet each time, the greens and their political allies proclaim victory, arguing their preventive prescriptions averted disaster.
Such is the case with the 1987 Montreal Protocol On Substances That Deplete The Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol). The lurid predictions of ozone depletion-induced skin cancer epidemics, ecosystem destruction and others haven't come true, for which Montreal Protocol proponents congratulate themselves.
But in retrospect, the evidence shows ozone depletion was an exaggerated threat in the first place. As the treaty parties return to Montreal for their 20th anniversary meeting it should be cause for reflection, not celebration, especially for those who hope to repeat this "success story" in the context of global warming.]
Ozone: The hole truth
Ben Lieberman
September 19, 2007
Our own Canadian, Dr Tim Ball, knew this all a long time ago but was never allowed on The Nature Of Things program. Hence the misinformation continued.
[The major mistake in the original scare over ozone holes was to assume the sun's energy is constant. Ozone is create in a process called disassociation when ultraviolet radiation strikes free oxygen (O2) breaking them briefly into single oxygen molecules (O) that quickly merge in threes to create ozone (O3). Obviously if you assume the sun is constant then measure variations in ozone you are forced to assume it was caused by something from below. Ultraviolet radiation varies by up to 200% and the last IPCC report said solar variation was not a significant factor in temperature change but important in ozone variation. Scientists put CFCs in a chamber in a lab with ozone and assumed because the chlorine part of the CFC was destroying ozone this would happen in the ozone layer. Of course what they didn't tell you was that the ozone was varying to different degrees at different levels in the ozone layer which extends over several kilometers. There is a self correcting mechanism because as the ultraviolet penetrates further into the atmosphere it contacts more O2 and therefore more O is produced and more O3.] TB
http://www.geocities.com/zacherle_hoag/tball
Posted by: ron in kelowna at September 22, 2007 5:46 PMIGNORE THE TROLL.
Posted by: Doug at September 22, 2007 5:55 PMPoor alby. He's running out of cliches.
Go back to class, alby. I'm sure you can find a few new talking points in your third period Activism For The Aged class.
Posted by: Yukon Gold at September 22, 2007 9:55 PMHahahahaha.
The globe is warming. The globe is cooling.
The chickens are running around sqwaking: ‘the sky is falling, the sky is falling.'
Has there been a time in the history of the earth the climate HASN'T changed?
What is the optimum climate?
Today's? Yesterday's? A decade ago? A century ago? A millenium ago?
Morons!
Right on the money SYF. The only constant in this world is change.
Posted by: Bri C at September 23, 2007 11:14 AMWhat a load of thawing Siberian mammoth dung. He has explained himself with his writings. He is not a politician.
I you read the document written by Rasool, his arguments of an approaching ice age were as valid then as global warming is today. Get your hands on the source document and see for yourself, rather than the second hand spin these moronic deniers put on it.
Hahahahahahaha. Alby you have joined the deniers and you don't even know it. Putz. This is EXACTLY the crux of the entire argument. The ice age is coming, the ice age is coming. Oops, changed our mind. Global warming is coming, global warming is coming. Ooops, changed it again. What will be the next massive hysteria you may ask? Methinks the answer may well be; The ice age cometh yet again.
But you are most definitely on the money with one comment; "his argument of an approaching ice age were as valid then as global warming is today" . Yes they are alby, yes they are.
And how dare they try to hijack a feel good project like biodiesel with those pesky facts. Just when farmers were set to become the new OPEC? The dirty dogs. Not the farmers, the pesky realists.
Posted by: Sober2ndThought at September 23, 2007 11:18 AM[But you are most definitely on the money with one comment; "his argument of an approaching ice age were as valid then as global warming is today" . Yes they are alby, yes they are.]
THAT says it all !!!
So called Intellectuals, cloud-dwellers, do-gooders, hoax believers and some academia can convince themselves of anything ------ Believe in a scam. The "end" justifies the means. My work is productive even if no one is will to pay for it(baskets). This time it is different. Intellectuals know how to do things better than those actually doing the work. On and on.
Talk to the average person on the street ----- most know all this. So why does it continue ? Simple. The Intellectuals(misnommer) have the fear-mongering, controling media on their side.
Posted by: ron in kelowna at September 23, 2007 11:59 AMSober2ndThought at September 23, 2007 11:18 AM
You may want to read what Rasool wrote in 1971 to understand why he wrote what he did before you make yourself look like a complete idiot again. If one looks at his claims and the temperature record to that date then he may very well have been correct in predicting an approaching ice age. If you look at the very last sentence in the article, he makes a suggestion that man may actually change the path to an ice age though a change in technology. He knew what he was talking about.
BTW Hansen's name appears nowhere in the article itself and was not one of the authors. His name does appear in a footnote thanking him for some contributions to the calculations and a reference to his writing "Atmospheric Science" but that is all.
Why not propane,natural gas or turbines. Remember the Chrysler or Ford Turbine engines. They were low emmision.
Posted by: ok4ua at September 24, 2007 12:19 AMTwo Trolls back to back, off topic and way off the track back to reality. We will drop some bread crumbs for you, pay attention. Rasool was wrong, that is reality, accept it unless where you are living is under a mile of ice, if so please send pictures. Hansen is wrong, give it a few years, then you can accept it too.
Posted by: commsguy at September 24, 2007 6:11 PM"Rasool was wrong"
So what exactly did he say that is in your mind incorrect? Just because we are not in an ice age does not mean he was wrong.