ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

Justin Rowlatt.

as per your invitation, I re-post my question to Ed Miliband:

what is the approximate tonnage of CO2 emissions that would be saved by the UK if all UK participation in the Afghan conflict were to stop overnight?

Mr Miliband

Why do we talk about global warming when it is clearly cooling as shown in the following plot?

Mr Milliband,

Given CO2 is incapable of raising temperature significantly due to the logarithmic curve of absorption and almost saturation of the absorption bands, and climate sensitivity being low according to observational evidence in peer reviewed literature (the complete opposite to IPCC calculations), how can you justify the AGW hypothesis?

Please try to answer the question properly and not appeal to authority

Thank you

Mango

Mr Milliband

What do you think about this empirical evidence against AGW?

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

...

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 Β± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

Knorr, W., 2009. Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613

(Wolfgang Knorr a senior researcher in the Department of Earth Sciences at the U.K.’s University of Bristol)

What will be the outcome to total global emissions of a 'successful' outcome?

Then... where from? Up or down? Country by country, industry by industry. Plus cost impositions... or gains, as a consequence.

And of these what % will be tangible, practical, genuine enviROI+ reductions, and what % redistribution or redesignation?

How, with expanding populations encroaching or dependent on ever more territory and resources can the growing economy mantra from all governments to support these be satisfied without further increases in consumption and hence pollution vs. in the situation suggested, held and reduced?

There is no such thing as a free lunch. What, honestly, is going to have to give? In terms a worker in a factory making stuff to sell and be consumed can relate to job wise, to the lifestyle-centric mind of a student with an eye on the latest iPhone or LCD TV from John Lewis (non-list) can relate to. For good or ill.

In committing all efforts and funds to avoiding/mitigating the potential consequences of (A)GW, has any thought been given to the possibility that it is (now/already, as claimed by some in high office) unavoidable (whatever the cause) and contingencies made to support best practice coping mechanisms?

Or are all bets on 'man' being the sole cause, and hence all efforts by our race should be committed to reversing our impacts?

In case this proves incorrect, and/or the efforts made prove ineffective/insufficient, what will be the consequences to this country?

Mr Miliband,

All this money you're sending to the 3rd world. They have a poor track record of spending these kind of handouts - why will it be different this time ?

Regards,

Jack Hughes

Ed Miliband,

5 questions...

1. What if climate change does not abate after you and your friends have reduced our CO2 emissions?

2. What if global CO2 does not go down even through man-made CO2 does?

3. Are you really sure about how CO2 (total, and from each source), and global temperatures are measured to be able to tell?

4. Is there a system of actually finding out what the outcomes are, or will you be adopting the Alan Johnson technique of firing the messenger when the message they bring does not reaffirm your prejudices?

5. There is no scientific point in pursuing a scientific objective unless the outcome can be reasonably accurately measured - to do so otherwise, as there is abundant evidence that you are, suggests that you have either not thought it through, or are incapable of thinking it through, or you have an alternate agenda and it is just convenient to jump on the climate change bandwagon. Which of these three choices do you think best describes your position?

(I share the concerns expressed in #4 above.)

Appreciating that there are big fish to fry, but as you/he did offer, it's now week's end, and we are running out of time*, I was just wondering if there was an eta for any of those answers? Before the conference would be good, as I understand after would be too late*. *

Meanwhile, to add something to the pot to keep it bubbling:



It does occur to one that it might have helped to specify which war, fought by whom.

All things considered.

If I may add another as the team considers which of the preceding ones to respond to in what I am sure will be an informative and comprehensive manner when they are posted.

Accepting that this is a highly complex situation involving sophisticated politico/economic/climatic interactions on a global scale, I was wondering what measurements, checks and balances were in place to assess the efficacy of various proposed solutions?

Well tricky I'd imagine, as there is unlikely to be the luxury of running a control and testing each individually.

But it would be good surely to see what is generating the fastest, best result, for the least investment.

From deforestation to population controls, carbon reduction to intensive farming, as the money pours in, what is being done to tie the results back to the major causes so best practice 'cures' can be identified on an ongoing basis and efforts focussed?

Preferably tangible ones. For instance I remain unsure how me buying a short haul allocation to Benidorm off a Mekong fisherwoman, with a cut going to the city and the government, actually helps reduce GHGs.

Yet that seems to be the majority of what I am getting from 'The powers that be':

Of course, one does have to concede coming to the best future plans can be a route extremely hard to navigate whilst making progress:





Maybe we are subject to too much information? It gets awkward to claim, as some are prone to doing, the science is settled when along comes some other science that tends to suggest that that may be a selective claim at best?

Well, that's a week, which is a long time in politics. Frankly, it seems mere days are even longer in matters climatic (at least in negotiating and reporting upon it).



Still, at least there are some still trying:



Though, considering how important facts are in all this, the subsequent correction to one point might be worth highlighting, especially as it seems to not be included in the featured segment:



This likely being the report referred to:



Though it does occur to one that it might have helped to specify which war, fought by whom.

All things considered.

Especially when one reads such as this: Dr Fox suggested the UK make up the difference by installing around 100,000 artificial trees.

Which had some of us, on other blogs, wondering if not cutting down those we already have to make way for green/brown/concrete affordable housing might not be a greater priority.

As opined before, more detail on what is proposed, and what is 'in' vs. 'out', may be required before the public feels the pols and certain media are as interested in purely reducing emissions as claimed.

ps: 'some of us, on other blogs, wondering if not cutting down those we already have to make way for green/brown/concrete affordable housing might not be a greater priority.'



There is always 'robust' debate about population as an influence in the bigger (A)GW picture, and I tend to steer clear as passions are inevitably higher. However, on a purely factual basis, it seems credible to assume that there seem to be more demands on land area that seem unlikely to fulfil enviROI+ functions. In fact, less and less 'green' land to 'supply' more and more demands. Is this a direction likely to be reversed... or not?

pps: coincidentally (and noting a post on eating pets is currently 10x more input than questions on UK climate negotiation strategy - maybe one should have asked if Rover was on the Miliband menu?):

Britain cuts down forests to keep β€˜green’ power stations burning



Is this true as headlined (there may be renewable aspects that do lead to 'better' energy generation. Rather depends on the actual nature of this wood's creation and consumption)?

If so, was it part of the plan? If not, how?

It's just that, the science on this aspect, at least, doesn't seem that settled.

Justin Rowlatt.

"I'll post them as soon as they come in."

six days in and not a single reply?

@junkkmale -you bemoan the excessive interest in the "dog curry" article but surely it is "Ethical" man who has caused this distraction by introducing such an emotive/offensive subject, which was neither relevant nor helpful? Maybe it would have been better if Justin had restricted his suggestions for reducing carbon footprints to methods that are likely to be taken up by the majority of the British public? Just a thought.

15. At 9:08pm on 16 Nov 2009, betula

I guess I was bemoaning, sorry. But like so many things, there seems to certain facts of life one needs to accept, and work around. That is, presuming one has a goal in mind. Sometimes it's hard to discern what it might be for some of those in the political and media arenas. And guessing can be frustrating.

Your point on engaging with the British public in ways they might empathise and cooperate with is well taken (well, I guess I would write that, being that I am banging on about failures to communicate so often). So yes, at this time (or, indeed any), setting up a ratings-assured distraction that would serve only to either polarise, trivialise and or/alienate seems to have been... less than helpful, indeed. Other than as a distraction, for which it would appear to have been eminently successful. Interesting. But maybe not surprising as, sadly, there seem so very few of us here. Maybe all others are decided. One way or the other.

As you'll have gathered, like you I have again popped back to see if any answers have yet been forthcoming. Sadly not. Which is a pity, especially from those seeking the support of those still prepared to listen.

Is Mr Milliband delighted that global warming melted the polar ice caps about 10,000 years ago which allowed Europe and Britain to be colonised and developed?

And is he still rejoicing that human's innovated through technology to accomodate the still relatively colder climate in Britain compared to Africa where they came from? Just like they continue to innovate to accomodate changes in their climate; double glazing, AC, thermal insulation etc etc ...

Doesn't he find it a disgrace that there is not a single manufacturer in Britain that makes wind turbines for national scale power production despite Scotland being the windiest county in Europe?

If Labour is so determined to encourage alternative energy technology, does he think 20 million into wave technology is a demonstartion of commitment? That's barely enough to buy 2 premier club football players.

Hi, How much Co2 emmissions would be saved if instead of all going out on a jolly to Copenhagen this conference was conducted over video links from the representatives own country?

Why, to my knowledge, is there not legislation to pass through planning applications for new wind farms? So many potential wind farms seem to be stopped because of people complaining about the visual impact of them, when they don't live where they would be able to see them?

Ah well, the answers have arrived.

/blogs/ethicalman/2009/11/ed_miliband_replies.html

Interesting. And the sum... some of the questions that inspired them. Not many names I see there from the link quoted... which seems to be this one.

Rather this, which was during the show, and hence were more qualified one supposes by being rushed through to meet a deadline:

/blogs/ethicalman/2009/11/how_much_has_changed.html

Shame some others didn't make the cut, as it were.

But I think I now know all I need to know, at least about the politics of this issue, and the media coverage in support of it. At least in certain quarters.