***WARMING BAD***
***anthropogenic
--general
Humans are main cause of warming--- answers their authors --positive feedbacks means it will accelerate
Nuccitelli, 14 --- master’s degree in physics, an environmental scientist and risk assessor
(1/9/14, Dana, “Global warming is being caused by humans, not the sun, and is highly sensitive
to carbon, new research shows”, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climateconsensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/09/global-warming-humans-not-sun, RE)
Over the past few weeks, several important new papers related to human vs. natural climate
change have been published. These papers add clarity to the causes of climate change, and how
much global warming we can expect in the future. First, a paper published in the Journal of
Climate by Jara Imbers, Ana Lopez, Chris Huntingford, and Myles Allen examines the recent IPCC statement that
expressed with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global
warming. One of the main challenges in attributing the causes of global warming lies in the representation of the natural internal
variability of the Earth's climate. The study used two very different representations of natural variability. The first model assumed
that the present climate has a short and finite memory, and is mostly determined by the recent past. The second model assumed that
the climate's internal variability has long memory and the present climate is influenced by all the previous years. The authors then
incorporated each of these representations of natural variability with a statistical approach to estimate the individual contributions
of the various factors (e.g. the sun, volcanoes, greenhouse gases) to the increase in average global surface temperature. In each case,
the study found that the greenhouse gas-global warming signal was statistically significant, supporting
the robustness of
the IPCC statement on human-caused global warming. As lead author Jara Imbers told me, "...we
investigate two extreme cases of the plausible temporal structures of the internal variability, and we find that the anthropogenic
signal is robust and significant." Second,
a paper published in Nature Geoscience by Andrew Schurer,
Simon Tett, and Gabriele Hegerl investigates the sun's influence on global climate changes over
the past 1,000 years. Although we know the sun can't be causing the current global warming because solar activity has
declined slightly over the past 50 years, "it's the sun" nevertheless remains one of the most popular climate contrarian arguments.
However, in recent years, research has pointed in the direction of a relatively small solar impact
on the Earth's climate changes. It's important to realize that while the Earth is bombarded by a lot of heat from the sun,
the amount of solar energy reaching the planet is relatively stable. According to the best recent estimates, it's only increased by about
0.1 percent over the past 300 years, causing a global energy imbalance less than 10 percent as large as that caused by humans over
the same period. In this study, the authors tested reconstructions that incorporated relatively large and small changes in solar
activity, and compared them to northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions over the past millennium. The reconstruction
using a stronger solar influence (green) was a worse fit to the temperature data (blue) than the reconstruction with the weaker solar
influence (red), especially around the 12th century. As in the Imbers paper, this study used a statistical approach to determine the
contribution of each factor in the measured temperature changes. The authors conclude, "Volcanic and GHG [greenhouse gas]
forcings seem to contribute most to pre-twentieth-century climate variability, whereas the contribution by solar forcing is modest,
The study finds that the sun is unlikely to have caused
more than 0.15°C of the observed approximately 1°C warming over the past 300 years . The
authors find a detectable greenhouse gas influence on the climate before the 20th century, and
consistent with the IPCC and Imbers, they conclude that humans are the dominant cause of
recent global warming. "Over the twentieth century, anthropogenic forcings dominate with
GHGs the largest forcing, offset by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols and land use changes"
However, the authors note that while the sun has little impact on average hemispheric and global
temperatures, it does have a significant influence on regional temperatures, for example in Europe. Finally, a paper published
in Nature by Steven Sherwood, Sandrine Bony, and Jean-Louis Dufresne examines the role that clouds will play in the
sensitivity of the global climate to the increased greenhouse effect. To this point, cloud
responses to global warming have remained a key uncertainty. We know that a doubling of the
agreeing with the simulations with low solar forcing."
amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a bit more than 1°C global surface
warming by itself, and we know that there are several feedbacks that will amplify that warming .
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere – another greenhouse gas – increases as the
planet warms, amplifying that warming. This is the single largest feedback, and is increasing as
climate scientists expect. We also know that melting ice makes the planet less reflective, causing it to
absorb more sunlight, also amplifying global warming. And carbon released from various
sources like beneath melting permafrost and from burning peatlands will also increase the
greenhouse effect as another positive feedback in a warming world. However, we know of few
significant negative feedbacks that will offset these effects and dampen global warming. The
reckless contrarian approach is dependent upon the climate being relatively insensitive to the
increased greenhouse effect, which requires that something offset all of these warming feedbacks. Clouds, whose
responses in a warming world have been difficult to pin down, were the contrarians' last and best hope. An increase in cloud
cover in response to global warming would reflect more sunlight back out to space, thereby
cooling the Earth and offsetting some of those positive warming feedbacks. The authors of the Nature
study examined cloud change simulations in relatively low and high sensitivity climate models. As summarized by Rob Painting,
they found that the
less sensitive models were incorrectly simulating water vapor being drawn up to
higher levels of the atmosphere to form clouds in a warmer world. In reality (based on observations)
warming of the lower atmosphere pulls water vapor away from those higher cloud-forming levels of the atmosphere and the amount
of cloud formation there actually decreases, resulting in another amplifying global warming feedback . Lead
author Steven Sherwood describes the study in the video below. These results are consistent with Fasullo & Trenberth (2012), who
found that only the higher sensitivity climate models correctly simulated drying in key cloud-forming regions of the atmosphere.
Likewise, preliminary results by scientists at the California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory presented at the 2013
AGU meeting showed that higher sensitivity models do the best job simulating observed cloud changes. These results are also
consistent with Lauer et al. (2010) and Clement et al. (2009), which looked at cloud changes in the Pacific, finding the observations
summarize, the evidence that humans are the dominant cause
of the current global warming is overwhelming (which is the reason behind the 97 percent
expert consensus), and continues to grow. And while the media has lately tended to focus on the few papers that
consistent with a positive cloud feedback. To
suggest climate sensitivity is relatively low, there is a growing body of evidence based on cloud observations that it's actually on the
high end, above 3°C warming in response to doubled CO2, which under business as usual would lead to more than 4°C warming by
2100 – a potentially catastrophic scenario.
In short – it's us, it's bad, and if we don't change course, it's a
potential catastrophe.
Warming is anthropogenic – the most comprehensive data-sets are conclusive
Green 13 – Professor of Chemistry @ Michigan Tech
*John Cook – Fellow @ Global Change Institute, produced climate communication resources
adopted by organisations such as NOAA and the U.S. Navy
**Dana Nuccitelli – MA in Physics @ UC-Davis
***Mark Richardson – PhD Candidate in Meteorology, et al.,
(“Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,”
Environmental Research Letters, 8.2)//BB
An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al
2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people's acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening
(Lewandowsky et al 2012). Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists
disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012). In
the most
comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed
climate papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global
CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that
human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).¶
Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst
publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists
found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is
reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of
recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007).¶ The peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level
assessment of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of abstracts published from 1993–2003 matching
the search 'global climate change' found that none of 928 papers disagreed with the consensus position on AGW (Oreskes 2004).
This is consistent with an analysis of citation networks that found a consensus on AGW forming in the early 1990s (Shwed and
Bearman 2010).¶ Despite these independent indicators of a scientific consensus, the perception of the US public is that the scientific
community still disagrees over the fundamental cause of GW. From 1997 to 2007, public opinion polls have indicated around 60% of
the US public believes there is significant disagreement among scientists about whether GW was happening (Nisbet and Myers
2007). Similarly, 57% of the US public either disagreed or were unaware that scientists agree that the earth is very likely warming
due to human activity (Pew 2012).¶ Through analysis of climate-related papers published from 1991 to 2011, this
study
provides the most comprehensive analysis of its kind to date in order to quantify and evaluate
the level and evolution of consensus over the last two decades.¶ 2. Methodology¶ This letter was conceived as
a 'citizen science' is not provided. Schulte estimated a higher percentage of endorsements and rejections, possibly because the strict
methodology we adopted led to a greater number of 'No Position' abstracts. Schulte also found a significantly greater number of
rejection papers, including 6 explicit rejections compared to our 0 explicit rejections. See the supplementary information (available
at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024/mmedia) for a tabulated comparison of results. Among 58 self-rated papers, only one (1.7%)
rejected AGW in this sample. Over the period of January 2004 to February 2007, among
'global climate change'
papers that state a position on AGW, we found 97% endorsements .¶ 5. Conclusion¶ The public perception
of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a
significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either
disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to
human activity (Pew 2012).¶ Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse
the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association
conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved
constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is
exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention
has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation
has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from
2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).¶ The
narrative presented by some dissenters is that the
scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is
growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature
provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW
is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over
time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on
self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
Warming is not natural --- statistics prove
Astrobiology,14 ---Science magazine citing report by physics professor Shaun Lovejoy
(4/20/14, “New Study Shows Global Warming is Not Natural”,
http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/climate/new-study-shows-global-warmingis-not-natural/, RE)
Odds that global warming is due to natural factors: slim to none Statistical analysis rules out
natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99 percent certainty An analysis of temperature data since
1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural
fluctuation in the earth’s climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics
professor Shaun Lovejoy. The study, published online April 6 in the journal Climate Dynamics, represents a new approach
to the question of whether global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by manmade emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Rather than using complex computer models to estimate the
effects of greenhouse-gas emissions, Lovejoy examines historical data to assess the competing hypothesis:
that warming over the past century is due to natural long-term variations in temperature. " This
study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers ," Lovejoy says. "Their two most
convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are
wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it ." Lovejoy’s
study applies statistical methodology to determine the probability that global warming since
1880 is due to natural variability. His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled
out "with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%." To assess the natural
variability before much human interference, the new study uses "multi-proxy climate reconstructions"
developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as
fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics. The climate reconstructions take into
account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuationanalysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales. For the
industrial era, Lovejoy’s analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy
for all man-made climate influences – a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic
activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says. " This allows the new approach to
implicitly include the cooling effects of particulate pollution that are still poorly quantified in
computer models," he adds. While his new study makes no use of the huge computer models
commonly used by scientists to estimate the magnitude of future climate change, Lovejoy’s
findings effectively complement those of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he
says. His study predicts, with 95% confidence, that a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere
would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius. That range is more precise than
– but in line with — the IPCC’s prediction that temperatures would rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 concentrations double.
"We’ve
had a fluctuation in average temperature that’s just huge since 1880 – on the order of
about 0.9 degrees Celsius," Lovejoy says. "This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural
fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand.
"While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can’t generally be used to conclude the truth of
any specific alternative, in many cases – including this one – the rejection of one greatly
enhances the credibility of the other."
--framing
Err on the side of consensus – we don’t need to prove warming exists – they need
to prove it doesn’t
Kampen 11 – Visiting Professor in Department of Engineering at the University of Antwerp
(Jarl, “A methodological note on the making of causal statements in the debate on
anthropogenic global warming”, Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 2011, Vol. 104, Issue 3,
pgs. 423–427, SpringerLink, RSpec)
The fact that a true experiment (one including control groups) is not feasible in the case of studying causality
relating to warming on Planet Earth does not mean that the weaknesses of correlational research do not apply in
climate research. A well-known weakness of such research designs refers to fact that absence of proof (of spurious
relationships) does not imply proof of absence (of spurious relationships). In order to scientifically
corroborate the AGW hypothesis, the present focus on verification of the AGW hypothesis
should shift towards a focus on its falsification. A potential falsifier is when empirical data fail to show that
maxima (minima) of the cause (e.g., human produced CO2) produce, at a specified time lag, maxima (minima) of the effect variable
(e.g., global temperature). The latter requirement necessitates the availability of time spans of data that are large enough to display
changes in the gradients of both cause and effect variables, and the application of models that allow for inference on derivatives.
--good epistemology
Studies on warming are epistemologically sound, but attempts to interrogate the
scholarship of warming perpetuates conventional epistemologies of nationalism
and irrational skepticism
Coplan 12 (Karl S. Coplan¶ Pace University School of Law "Climate Change, Political Truth, and
the Marketplace of Ideas" 2012 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1858&context=lawfaculty,
RLA)
When it comes to global climate change, however, the scientific consensus—¶ that catastrophic
global warming is likely as long as current patterns of energy ¶ production and consumption
continue—has not achieved popular acceptance.30 ¶ Scientific consensus holds that immediate global action to
reduce fossil fuel ¶ consumption is necessary to avert this catastrophe.31 Assuming that the scientific ¶ consensus
represents “truth,” or at least a sufficiently close approximation to truth, ¶ the planet does not
have time for this truth to overcome the incorrect political ¶ consensus in the long run. If First
Amendment marketplace-of-ideas principles and ¶ self-governance principles demand that the United States forgo painful measures
to ¶ reduce fossil fuel consumption until it is too late, does this indicate that our system ¶ of self-government is not up to the task of
The polity’s refusal thus far to accept the
scientific consensus about the threat ¶ of global climate change is certainly not the first time that
the marketplace of ideas ¶ has failed to reach “truth” in a timely fashion. Other examples come
readily to ¶ mind. Most recently, the United States’ invasion of Iraq was based on ¶
demonstrably false popular ideas that (1) Saddam Hussein was implicated in the ¶ September 11
attacks on the United States, and (2) Iraq either possessed or was ¶ close to developing weapons
of mass destruction.32 Indeed, the idea that Saddam ¶ Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction persisted in popular
responding to a slow-motion global ¶ catastrophe like climate change?
¶
mythology ¶ long after the United States’ invasion and a comprehensive search for such ¶ weapons concluded they did not exist.33
The Scopes trial and the continuing ¶ historical refusal of many states to accept the scientifically
established theory of ¶ evolution provide another vivid example of the polity rejecting scientific
truth.34 ¶ Other examples of majoritarian policy at odds with scientific consensus include the ¶ 1984 amendments to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which imposed a ban on land disposal of specified hazardous wastes35 despite the ¶
scientific consensus that such disposal generally poses relatively small public ¶ health risks.36 Popular opposition to free trade
policies, which occasionally makes ¶ its way into legislation,37 is similarly contrary to consensus among economists that ¶ free trade
The United States’ national commitment to
the marketplace of ideas as the ¶ ideal model for determining those political and policy truths
worth acting upon ¶ persists despite these demonstrable failures of the political marketplace to
reach ¶ and act upon objective truth. This commitment to the marketplace of ideas as the ¶ ultimate arbiter of policy
truths faces a new challenge when it comes to addressing ¶ the threats posed by anthropogenic climate change. The
international scientific ¶ consensus demands an immediate policy response to these threats, but
our system ¶ of self-government and our commitment to the political marketplace of ideas ¶ demands that policy
responses be deferred until and unless the scientific consensus becomes a political consensus as
well.
policies increase GDP and employment rather than decreasing it.38
¶
--critical defense of science
Science is good
Miller 12 – Research Assistant Professor of Geology at Kansas State University, Ph.D. Geology
(Keith, “The nature of science and the public debate over anthropogenic global warming”,
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 64.4, Dec. 2012: p. 220, AcademicOneFile, RSpec)
A common public misconception is that science is a search for unchanging scientific "facts."
However, if "fact" means an objective statement of the true nature of the physical universe, there are very few "facts" in
science. The closest thing to "facts" in science are the observations upon which our understanding of the
natural world is built. However, our observations are themselves subject to bias and error. More importantly, our
observations are always limited. Our descriptions cannot be exhaustive--we must choose what to observe.
Observations are driven by the questions being asked, and are made in a particular context. They
are also dependent on expectations and the available tools. The limits of individual observation explain why science demands
repeated and independent confirmation of observational results (whether direct or experimental). This also
explains why the diversity of the scientific community-across disciplines, cultures, and worldviews--is critical to its success.
Science is not the encyclopedic accumulation of "facts." Observations (data) by themselves have little meaning
or utility. Meaning and explanation require the recognition of the consistent patterns in our
observations. We can understand our natural world only to the extent that it behaves in regular,
predictable ways. Much of the doing of science involves discovering these patterns. It is these
regularities in the natural world that suggest underlying consistent causes, and constructing
causal explanations for patterns of observations is generating a scientific theory. Scientists and
nonscientists typically use the word "theory" in very different ways and in different contexts. In common parlance, "theory" often
means an unsubstantiated guess. However, scientific
"theories" are not guesses, but are natural cause-and-effect
explanations for the regularities we observe in the natural world around us. Theories integrate
diverse independent observations by recognizing patterns and trends within the data that give
those observations meaning. The construction of theories is the essence of science, and its power as a
methodology . (2)
--at: data/urban heat islands
Urban heat islands don’t affect data
Cook 10 – Postdoctoral Fellow at the Global Change Institute (John, “Does Urban Heat Island
effect exaggerate global warming trends?”, 2010, http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heatisland-effect-intermediate.htm, RSpec)
When compiling temperature records, NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible
influence from Urban Heat Island Effect. They compare urban long term trends to nearby rural
trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The process is described in detail
on the NASA website (Hansen 2001). They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within
uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country
surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). The point is they're aware of
UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analysing temperature records. This confirms a peer
review study by the NCDC (Peterson 2003) that did statis tical analysis of urban and rural
temperature anomalies and concluded "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no
statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual
temperatures ... Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological
observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions." Another more recent study (Parker
2006) plotted 50 year records of temperatures observed on calm nights, the other on windy nights. He concluded
"temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that
the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development".
--at: irreversible
Warming is irreversible and is coming now
Cohen, 3/22 – a columnist for the Observer and New Statesman. He writes occasional pieces
for many other publications, including the London Evening Standard and New Humanist. Cruel
Britannia, a collection of his journalism, was published by Verso in 1999, and Pretty Straight
Guys, a history of Britain under Tony Blair, was published by Faber in 1999. Our Friends on the
Left, an examination of agonies, idiocies and compromises of mainstream liberal thought will be
published by 4th Estate in 2006 (Nick, “The climate change deniers have won,” The Observer,
2014, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/22/climate-change-deniershave-won-global-warming)//VIVIENNE
The American Association for the Advancement of Science came as close as such a respectable institution can to screaming an alarm
last week.
"As scientists, it is not our role to tell people what they should do," it said as it began one of those
sentences that you know will build to a "but". "But human-caused climate risks abrupt, unpredictable and
potentially irreversible changes." In other words, the most distinguished scientists from the country
with the world's pre-eminent educational institutions were trying to shake humanity out of its
complacency. Why weren't their warnings leading the news? In one sense, the association's appeal was not new. The Royal
Society, the Royal Institution, Nasa, the US National Academy of Sciences, the US Geological Survey, the IPCC and the
national science bodies of 30 or so other countries have said that man-made climate change is
on the march. A survey of 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in the last
20 years found that 97% said that humans were causing it. When the glib talk about the
"scientific debate on global warming", they either don't know or will not accept that there is no
scientific debate. The suggestion first made by Eugene F Stoermer that the planet has moved from the Holocene, which began
at the end of the last ice age, to the manmade Anthropocene, in which we now live, is everywhere gaining support.
Man-made global warming and the man-made mass extinction of species define this hot, bloody
and (let us hope) brief epoch in the world's history. If global warming is not new, it is urgent: a
subject that should never be far from our thoughts. Yet within 24 hours of the American association's warning the
British government's budget confirmed that it no longer wanted to fight it.
The plan is try or die – it’s irreversible
Skuce, 4/19 – retired geophysical consultant, BSc in geology from Sheffield University, MSc in
geophysics from the University of Leeds. (Andrew, “Global Warming: Not Reversible, But
Stoppable,” Skeptical Science, 2014, http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-notreversible-but-stoppable.html)//VIVIENNE
Global warming is not reversible but it is stoppable . Many people incorrectly assume that once
we stop making greenhouse gas emissions, the CO2 will be drawn out of the air, the old
equilibrium will be re-established and the climate of the planet will go back to the way it used to be; just like the way the
acid rain problem was solved once scrubbers were put on smoke stacks, or the way lead pollution disappeared once we changed to
unleaded gasoline. This
misinterpretation can lead to complacency about the need to act now. In fact,
global warming is, on human timescales, here forever. The truth is that the damage we have done—and
continue to do—to the climate system cannot be undone. The second question reveals a different kind of
misunderstanding: many mistakenly believe that the climate system is going to send more
warming our way no matter what we choose to do. Taken to an extreme, that viewpoint can lead to a fatalistic
approach, in which efforts to mitigate climate change by cutting emissions are seen as futile: we should instead begin
planning for adaptation or, worse, start deliberately intervening through geoengineering. But this is wrong. The inertia is
not in the physics of the climate system, but rather in the human economy. This is explained in a recent paper in Science Magazine
(2013, paywalled but freely accessible here, scroll down to "Publications, 2013") by Damon Matthews and Susan Solomon:
Irreversible Does Not Mean Unavoidable. Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2
from our burning of fossil fuels has
been building up in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 is now approaching 400 parts
per million (ppm), up from 280 ppm prior to 1800. If we were to stop all emissions immediately, the CO2
concentration would also start to decline immediately, with some of the gas continuing to be absorbed into the oceans and smaller
amounts being taken up by carbon sinks on land. According
to the models of the carbon cycle, the level of CO2
(the red line in Figure 1A) would have dropped to about 340 ppm by 2300, approximately the same level as it was
in 1980. In the next 300 years, therefore, nature will have recouped the last 30 years of our emissions. So, does this mean that some
of the climate change we have experienced so far would go into reverse, allowing, for example, the Arctic sea ice to freeze over again?
Unfortunately, no. Today, because
of the greenhouse gas build-up, there is more solar energy being
trapped, which is warming the oceans, atmosphere, land and ice, a process that has been
referred to as the Earth's energy imbalance. The energy flow will continue to be out of balance
until the Earth warms up enough so that the amount of energy leaving the Earth matches the
amount coming in. It takes time for the Earth to heat up, particularly the oceans, where approximately 90% of the thermal
energy ends up. It just so happens that the delayed heating from this thermal inertia balances almost exactly with the drop in CO2
concentrations, meaning the temperature of the Earth would stay approximately constant from the minute we stopped adding more
CO2, as shown in Figure 1C. There is bad news and good news in this. The bad news is that, once we have caused some warming, we
can’t go back, at least not without huge and probably unaffordable efforts to put the CO2 back into the ground, or by making risky
interventions by scattering tons of sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere, to shade us from the Sun. The good news is that,
once we stop emissions, further warming will immediately cease; we are not on an unstoppable path to oblivion. The
not out of our hands. Global warming is stoppable, even if it is not reversible.
future is
--at: cooling
This is a sign that warming is about to increase rapidly
Romm 4/22/14 – Ph.D. Physics (Joe, “Does El Niño Plus Global Warming Equal Global
Temperature Records In 2014 And 2015?”,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/22/3429380/el-nino-global-warming-temperaturerecord/, RSpec
Recent research finds that one reason the rate of surface warming has the slowed down is that
trade winds have sped up in an unprecedented fashion, mixing more heat deeper into the oceans , while
bringing cooler water up to the surface. Remember, more than 90 percent of human-induced planetary
warming goes into the oceans, while only 2 percent goes into the atmosphere, so small changes in ocean
uptake can have huge impact on surface temperatures . The lead author of this study explained
when that process ends “as it inevitably will –- our research suggests heat will quickly accumulate in
the atmosphere . So global temperatures look set to rise rapidly .”
Most recent and advanced analysis shows that anthropogenic warming is still
happening
Zhou and Tung 13 (*Jiansong – Scientist at NASA, and *Ka-Kit – Professor of Applied
Mathematics and Adjunct Professor in Atmospheric Science at Washington University, Ph.D.
Applied Mathematics, “Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using
Multiple Regression Analysis”, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 70.1, January, 2013: 3-8,
ProQuest, RSpec)
It is pointed out that the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation , a likely natural and recurrent phenomenon, has not
been taken into account in any multiple linear regression analysis of the global warming trends
using observational data in published literature. Yet, over any multidecadal period, the AMO is the most important
factor affecting the deduced ''anthropogenic trend,'' since other, shorter-term internal variability, such
as ENSO or volcano aerosols, usually do not contain any multidecadal trend, and solar forcing's secular trend is small.
When the AMO is included, in addition to the other explanatory variables such as ENSO, volcano, and solar influences
commonly included in the multiple linear regression analysis, the recent 50- and 32-yr anthropogenic warming trends
are reduced by a factor of at least 2. There is no statistical evidence of a recent
slowdown of global warming , nor is there evidence of accelerated warming since the mid-twentieth century. The
anomalous early twentieth-century warming is also explained as being caused by the AMO's upswing on top of the same
anthropogenic warming trend. This deduced time behavior of anthropogenic warming is different from that previously constructed
by GISS and used by Lean and Rind (2008) in deducing the latitudinal structure of anthropogenic warming. Tung et al. (2008) had
previously suggested that the transient climate sensitivity to increasing greenhouse gases should be higher than in most CMIP3
models. The lower net anthropogenic warming rate found here does not necessarily contradict that result, since the
observationally determined net warming includes tropospheric aerosol cooling , which is uncertain but
could be quite significant in the past decades from industrial pollution.
--at: sun
Solar cycles don’t match temperature records
Miller 12 – Research Assistant Professor of Geology at Kansas State University, Ph.D. Geology
(Keith, “The nature of science and the public debate over anthropogenic global warming”,
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 64.4, Dec. 2012: p. 220, AcademicOneFile, RSpec)
The decade-long interval mentioned above is part of a century-long trend of increasing global
temperatures. The long-term trend is a consequence of a multitude of driving forces and feedback processes, each acting at
different time scales. Any multidecadal trend is going to be "noisy." Short-term trends will not necessarily reflect long-term ones.
Furthermore, the
years in question represent a time of declining solar irradiance occurring as part
of a cyclical change in solar activity. Despite low solar irradiance, nine of those eleven years
were still among the ten warmest years in the modern instrumental record up to that time (see fig.
1). That long-term trend has continued in subsequent years with nine of the ten warmest years
occurring since 2001. (6)
--at: history proves
We agree – climate change has happened before – that doesn’t refute the fact that
this period of warming is anthropogenic
Farley 8 – Professor of Physics at University of Nevada (John, “The Scientific Case for Modern
Anthropogenic Global Warming”, Monthly Review, 60.3, July/August, 2008: 68-90, ProQuest,
RSpec)
Climate is controlled by a number of factors , including changes in the earth's orbit, possibly solar variability,
possibly volcanoes, and the greenhouse effect . All but the last factor are entirely natural. Human activities are not the only
contribution to the greenhouse effect. Until the last two centuries, humanity had a negligible effect on climate, and all climate
change was naturally occurring. Some
climate changes in the distant past have been very large (e.g., ice ages)
and were not caused by humans. None of these statements refute the proposition that human
activities (particularly burning fossil fuels) are an important contribution to the global
warming that is occurring right now.
--at: natural factors
Statistics prove that humans outweigh nature
Nuccitelli 1/9/14 – Master’s Degree in Physics, Bachelor’s Degree in Astrophysics,
Environmental Consultant (Dana, “Global warming is being caused by humans, not the sun, and
is highly sensitive to carbon, new research show”, The Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-percent/2014/jan/09/global-warming-humans-not-sun, RSpec)
The study used two very different representations of natural variability . The first model assumed that the
present climate has a short and finite memory, and is mostly determined by the recent past. The second model assumed that the
climate's internal variability has long memory and the present climate is influenced by all the previous years. The
authors then
incorporated each of these representations of natural variability with a statistical approach to
estimate the individual contributions of the various factors (e.g. the sun, volcanoes, greenhouse gases) to
the increase in average global surface temperature . In each case, the study found that the greenhouse
gas-global warming signal was statistically significant, supporting the robustness
of the IPCC statement on human-caused global warming . As lead author Jara Imbers told me, "...we investigate
two extreme cases of the plausible temporal structures of the internal variability, and we find that the anthropogenic signal
is robust and significant ."
--at: el nino
El Nino doesn’t disprove the warming trend – they cherry-pick data
Romm 3/26/14 – Ph.D. Physics (Joe, “Is A Super El Niño Coming That Will Shatter Extreme
Weather And Global Temperature Records?”,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/26/3417812/el-nino-extreme-weather-globaltemperature/, RSpec)
Because 1998 was an unusually strong “super El Niño,” and because we haven’t had an El Niño
since 2010, it can appear as if global warming has slowed — if you cherry-pick a relatively
recent start year. But in fact several recent studies have confirmed that planetary warming
continues apace everywhere you look . Remember that 2010, a moderate El Niño, is the
hottest year on record so far. And 2010 saw a stunning 20 countries set all-time record highs,
including “Asia’s hottest reliably measured temperature of all-time, the remarkable 128.3°F
(53.5°C) in Pakistan in May 2010.” Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters said 2010 was “the planet’s most extraordinary year for extreme
weather since reliable global upper-air data began in the late 1940s.”
--at: temperatures precede co2
Just because temperatures preceded c02 rise thousands of years ago doesn’t mean
that this is the case now – within the last hundred years, c02 has preceded
temperature rise
Farley 8 – Professor of Physics at University of Nevada (John, “The Scientific Case for Modern
Anthropogenic Global Warming”, Monthly Review, 60.3, July/August, 2008: 68-90, ProQuest,
RSpec)
Cockburn lays great stress on the timing issue: 10,000 years ago, the rise in temperature preceded the rise in
CO2 levels. This proves (and I agree) that CO2 didn't cause the beginning of deglaciation (the end of the
ice age). But in the last two centuries, the rise in CO2 preceded the rise in temperature . This strongly
suggests that the rise in CO2 caused the rise in temperature. The CO2 in the atmosphere has risen
since 1800 and especially since 1950, while it was steady for centuries until about 1800. In the
modern era, the rise in CO2 came first, then the rise in temperature.
--at: cfcs
CFC theory is unproven and premised on flawed studies
Nuccitelli 4/14/14 – Master’s Degree in Physics, Bachelor’s Degree in Astrophysics,
Environmental Consultant (Dana, “It’s CFCs”, http://www.skepticalscience.com/CFCs-globalwarming-advanced.htm, RSpec)
Lu faced the conundrum of having to explain how the increased greenhouse effect from CFCs
can cause global warming while the much larger increased greenhouse effect from rising CO2
can't. To accomplish this, he used what the climate scientists at RealClimate have described as the saturated gassy
argument – claiming that increased CO2 can't cause more warming because there is already so much in the atmosphere that its
greenhouse effect has become saturated. However, as the climate scientists at RealClimate (and we at Skeptical Science) have
explained, that argument is quite clearly wrong – disproven by observational data . Perhaps worse, Lu
claimed that a paper by Anderson et al. (2004) supported his saturated gassy argument, claiming the CO2 absorption band is
missing from the observed spectrum data. On the contrary, Anderson et al. concluded, "The spectra in Fig. 8a are the result of a
superposition of two different effects. First, there is an increase of greenhouse gases from 1970 to 1996 that gives rise to recognizable
bands in the observed spectrum..." And once again, Lu tried
to demonstrate that CFCs can account for the
recent global surface warming through unphysical curve fitting, multiplying the CFC forcing by
whatever value allowed the CFC data to best fit the temperature data. When using physical
constraints, CFCs (included in "halocarbons" in Figure 2) can account for only about 20% as much warming
as CO2.
--at: nuclear testing
Nuclear testing isn’t an alt cause to warming
Curtis 12(Tom Curtis, writer for Skeptical Science,
"How Much Has Nuclear Testing Contributed to Global Warming?"
August 24, 2012 http://www.skepticalscience.com/nuclear.html, RLA)
A reasonable estimate indicates that the total energy released by nuclear explosions in the
twentieth century amounts to six hundred megatons TNT equivalent of energy, or 2.5 billion,
billion Joules (2.5 x 1018 J). That estimate is larger than the five hundred and thirty megatons TNT equivalent estimated by
UNSCEAR (also), so it can be considered a conservative estimate. Divided over the five hundred and ten million, million square
meters of the Earth's surface (510 x 1012 m^2), and over the two decades of peak testing, that represents eight millionth of a Watt
per square meter (8 x 10-6 W m-2) of power. For
comparison, the 1.8 Watts per square meter (1.8 W m-2) of
CO2 radiative forcing as of 2011 generates approximately twenty nine billion, trillion Joules of
energy (29 x 1021 J) over the Earth's surface in a single year, or more than ten thousand times as
much energy in a year that the entire combined nuclear weapons program of the world has
generated. That is not the whole story. Many nuclear tests kick up a lot of dust, which reflects
sunlight, thereby cooling the Earth. Indeed, according to Turco et al, 1983, that is the dominant
effect of nuclear explosions on climate. The result is that nuclear testing is likely to have
reflected more energy from the Sun than they generated. That is, nuclear testing is likely to have
been a net cooling factor.¶ Let us ignore that possibility, and the large proportion of energy
released to space as radiation. In that case, during the period of maximum nuclear testing it may
have contributed 0.62 millionth of a degree Centigrade (0.62 x 10-6 C) to temperature increase,
a contribution too small to notice, and likely to have entirely dissipated since the reduction in
nuclear testing in the 1990s. The peak contribution was in 1962, when nuclear testing may have contributed as much as
one hundred and seventy megatons TNT equivalent of energy in 1962. Averaged over the year and the Earth's surface, that
for a warming contribution, ignoring dust effects,
of around thirty-five millionths of a degree Centigrade (35 * 10-6 C), still too small to notice.
represents forty-four millionths of a Watt (44 x 10-6 W m-2),
***uniqueness
*tipping point
--invisible threshold
Yes, we can’t give you an exact year when the tipping point will be reached – but
there are many tipping points that will be triggered sometime this century – err on
the side of caution because warming will be abrupt and irreversible
Lenton and Ciscar 13 (Timothy – Chair in and Professor of Climate Change/Earth Systems
Science at University of Exeter, Ph.D. Oceanic/Atmospheric Studies, and Juan-Carlos – Ph.D.
Economics, “Integrating tipping points into climate impact assessments”, pg. 587, SpringerLink,
Climatic Changel 2013 117:585–597, RSpec)
Several ‘tipping elements’ in the climate system have been identified that could pass a tipping
point this century , leading to a qualitative change in their future state (Lenton et al. 2008; Schellnhuber 2009).
Leading candidates are: abrupt loss of Arctic summer sea-ice, irreversible meltdown of the
Greenland ice sheet (GIS), disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS), reorganisation
of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC), increased amplitude of the El Niño Southern
Oscillation (ENSO), disruption of the Indian summer monsoon (ISM), collapse of the West African
monsoon (WAM), dieback of the Amazon rainforest, and dieback of boreal forests. Abrupt
changes in Antarctic bottom water formation, tundra, permafrost, marine methane hydrates,
ocean anoxia and Arctic ozone have also been considered, but either lacked evidence for a large-scale
threshold or were deemed to have a threshold that is inaccessible this century (Lenton et al. 2008). Subsequent work has identified
the Yedoma region of permafrost and the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre as potential tipping elements, and has considered several
other candidates, including aridification of southwest North America (Lenton 2012; Lenton et al. 2009; Levermann et al. 2012). A
new class of tipping point dependent only on the rate of climate change has also been suggested,
with the example of self-sustaining breakdown of soils rich in carbon (Wieczorek et al. 2011). The
existence of a threshold is uncertain for some of these systems (see Supplementary Information), but the
salient point here is not whether all of these systems exhibit tipping points—but rather that the list of potential
tipping points is a long one ! Even if further research eliminates some of the candidates, it seems unlikely that the
list will reduce to a single large-scale discontinuity. Thus, we should consider the possibility of multiple tipping
points in the climate system, which are unlikely to all occur at the same time or level of e.g. global
temperature rise.
--permafrost
The tipping point is now – permafrost is starting to melt – only emissions
reductions can stave off extinction
The Queensland Times 13 (“We are now at tipping point of global warming”, 2/27/13,
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1312443314?pq-origsite=summon,
ProQuest, RSpec)
For climate change sceptics, there have been two recent developments to note. One is that the Bureau of Meteorology
recently reported that, on an Australia-wide basis, January 2013 was the hottest month recorded . The
other is a report by the United Nations which notes that the Arctic summer sea ice expanse in 2012 was 18%
lower than the previous recorded minimum in 2007 and only 50% of the average extent of the
1980s and 1990s. As alarming as this is, what we have experienced to date is only a tiny fraction of the
environmental impact that may occur if we don't get global warming under control quickly . The
critical element to understand is that climate warming starts slowly but will continuously accelerate after
we pass the "tipping point" which causes the spiral to become self-perpetuating . Many scientists
believe we are at that tipping point now and that the "starting slowly" phase of the climate change spiral is
nearing its end. The tipping point is the melting of the permafrost in the northern hemisphere.
There is a massive amount of carbon in the permafrost which is extensive across Siberia, northern
Europe, Canada, Alaska and Greenland and can be up to 80 metres deep. Most concerning is that permafrost typically melts to
form muddy lakes which, because of their anaerobic nature, release their carbon as methane rather than carbon dioxide.
Methane is 23 times more potent in causing atmospheric warming than carbon
dioxide. You can see how the spiral forms. Climate change caused by human use of fossil fuels is initially slow and gradual but as
it melts the permafrost, the environmental impacts and changes will progressively become more dramatic. The permafrost
has already started melting because of our use of fossil fuels. Buildings constructed on the permafrost a century ago
have started listing at precarious angles because the underlying earth is thawing, while scientists have filmed large methane releases
bubbling out of the lakes formed from the permafrost melting. This is why
global warming is the greatest
threat the world has experienced in its 100,000 years of human history.
If we pass 2015, we have no chance
Dickey, 13 – Foreign Editor for The Daily Beast. He is the author of six books, including
Summer of Deliverance and, most recently and a reporter for Newsweek (Christopher, “Could
the Global-Warming Tipping Point Happen in 2015?” July 31, Newsweek,
http://www.newsweek.com/2013/07/31/could-global-warming-tipping-point-happen-2015237798.html)//VIVIENNE
Don’t panic ... yet. But the
great methane menace may be upon us sooner than most scientists thought.
the planet warms, the permanently
frozen seabed under the Arctic ice—the permafrost—will thaw. And when that happens, Mother Earth
will, so to speak, expel gas, after which nothing will ever be quite the same again: the planet will get hotter faster,
and disastrous weather will grow more catastrophic, exacting a huge cost on humankind. Some
scientists think that process will be very slow, over multiple millennia. But if Prof. Peter Wadhams is right, the time to
Perhaps you weren’t worried about this to begin with, but at some point, as
prepare is now . He argues in the scientific journal Nature that the tipping point could come as early as 2015,
when Arctic sea ice disappears during the month of September. By 2035 , according to studies he and his
colleagues have conducted off the coast of Siberia, the ice could be gone six months a year. “The loss of sea ice
leads to seabed warming, which leads to offshore permafrost melt, which leads to methane
release, which leads to enhanced warming,” Wadhams explained to The Guardian. The rest will be history.
--4 degrees
Even if some warming is inevitable, keeping it below 4 degrees avoids the worst
impacts
Kim 12 – PhD in Anthropology @ Harvard, former president of Dartmouth, Now President of
the World Bank
(Jim Yong, “Turn Down the Heat,” p. ix)//BB
The 4°C scenarios are devastating: the inundation of coastal cities; increasing risks for food production
potentially leading to higher malnutrition rates; many dry regions becoming dryer, wet regions wet- ter;
unprecedented heat waves in many regions, especially in the tropics; substantially exacerbated water
scarcity in many regions; increased frequency of high-intensity tropical cyclones; and irreversible loss of
biodiversity , including coral reef systems.¶ And most importantly, a 4°C world is so different from
the current one that it comes with high uncertainty and new risks that threaten our ability to
anticipate and plan for future adaptation needs.¶ The lack of action on climate change not only risks putting
prosperity out of reach of millions of people in the developing world, it threatens to roll back decades of sustainable development.¶ It
The science is unequivocal that humans
are the cause of global warming, and major changes are already being observed: global mean warming
is clear that we already know a great deal about the threat before us.
is 0.8°C above pre industrial levels; oceans have warmed by 0.09°C since the 1950s and are acidi- fying; sea levels rose by about 20
cm since pre-industrial times and are now rising at 3.2 cm per decade; an exceptional number of extreme heat waves occurred in the
last decade; major food crop growing areas are increasingly affected by drought.¶ Despite the global community’s best intentions to
keep global warming below a 2°C increase above pre-industrial climate, higher
levels of warming are increasingly
likely. Scientists agree that countries’ current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change emission
pledges and commitments would most likely result in 3.5 to 4°C warming. And the longer those
pledges remain unmet, the more likely a 4°C world becomes.¶ Data and evidence drive the work of the World
Bank Group. Science reports, including those produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, informed our decision
to ramp up work on these issues, leading to, a World Development Report on climate change designed to improve our understanding
of the implications of a warming planet; a Strategic Framework on Development and Climate Change, and a report on Inclusive
Green Growth. The World Bank is a leading advocate for ambitious action on climate change, not only because it is a moral
imperative, but because it makes good economic sense.¶ But what if we fail to ramp up efforts on mitigation? What
are the
implications of a 4°C world? We commissioned this report from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and
Climate Analytics to help us understand the state of the science and the potential impact on development in such a world.¶ It
would be so dramatically different from today’s world that it is hard to describe accurately;
much relies on complex projections and interpretations.¶ We are well aware of the uncertainty
that surrounds these scenarios and we know that different scholars and studies sometimes disagree on the degree of risk. But the
fact that such scenarios cannot be discarded is sufficient to justify strengthening current climate change policies. Finding ways to
avoid that scenario is vital for the health and welfare of communities around the world. While every
region of the world
will be affected, the poor and most vulnerable would be hit hardest.¶ A 4°C world can, and
must, be avoided .¶ The World Bank Group will continue to be a strong advocate for international and regional
agreements and increasing climate financing. We will redouble our efforts to support fast growing
national initiatives to mitigate carbon emissions and build adaptive capacity as well as support inclusive green growth
and climate smart development. Our work on inclusive green growth has shown that—through more efficiency and smarter use of
energy and natural resources—many opportunities exist to drastically reduce the climate impact of development, without slowing
down poverty alleviation and economic growth.¶ This report is a stark reminder that climate change affects everything.
The solutions don’t lie only in climate finance or climate projects. The solutions lie in effective risk management and ensuring all our
work, all our thinking, is designed with the threat of a 4°C degree world in mind. The World Bank Group will step up to the
challenge.
--now is key
Action now can reverse warming
Peters 12 - Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (Peer Reviewed
Journal, Glen, “The challenge to keep global warming below 2 [deg]C, Glen P. Peters, Robbie M.
Andrew, Tom Boden, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Corinne Le Quéré, Nature Climate
Change, http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/full/nclimate1783.html)
On-going climate negotiations have recognized a “significant gap” between the current trajectory of global greenhouse-gas emissions and the “likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature
below 2 °C or 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels”1. Here we compare recent trends in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, cement production and gas flaring with the primary emission
scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Carbon dioxide emissions are the largest contributor to long-term climate change and thus provide a good baseline to assess progress
delay in global mitigation makes
it increasingly difficult to stay below 2 °C. Long-term emissions scenarios are designed to represent a range of plausible emission trajectories as input for climate
and examine consequences. We find that current emission trends continue to track scenarios that lead to the highest temperature increases. Further
change research2, 3. The IPCC process has resulted in four generations of emissions scenarios2: Scientific Assessment 1990 (SA90)4, IPCC Scenarios 1992 (IS92)5, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)6,
and the evolving Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)7 to be used in the upcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. The RCPs were developed by the research community as a new, parallel process of
scenario development, whereby climate models are run using the RCPs while simultaneously socioeconomic and emission scenarios are developed that span the range of the RCPs and beyond2. It is important to
In the past, decadal trends in CO2 emissions have
responded slowly to changes in the underlying emission drivers because of inertia and path dependence in technical, social and political systems9. Inertia and path
dependence are unlikely to be affected by short-term fluctuations2, 3, 9 — such as financial crises10 — and it is probable that emissions will continue to rise for
a period even after global mitigation has started11. Thermal inertia and vertical mixing in the ocean, also delay the temperature response to CO2 emissions12.
regularly re-assess the relevance of emissions scenarios in light of changing global circumstances3, 8.
Because of inertia, path dependence and changing global circumstances, there is value in comparing observed decadal emission trends with emission scenarios to help inform the prospect of different futures being
realized, explore the feasibility of desired changes in the current emission trajectory and help to identify whether new scenarios may be needed.
Global CO2 emissions have
increased from 6.1±0.3 Pg C in 1990 to 9.5±0.5 Pg C in 2011 (3% over 2010), with average annual growth rates of 1.9% per year in the 1980s, 1.0% per year in the 1990s, and 3.1% per year since 2000.
We estimate that emissions in 2012 will be 9.7±0.5 Pg C or 2.6% above 2011 (range of 1.9–3.5%) and 58% greater than 1990 (Supplementary Information and ref. 13). The observed growth rates are at the top end
of all four generations of emissions scenarios (Figs 1 and 2). Of the previous illustrative IPCC scenarios, only IS92-E, IS92-F and SRES A1B exceed the observed emissions (Fig. 1) or their rates of growth (Fig. 2),
with RCP8.5 lower but within uncertainty bounds of observed emissions. Figure 1: Estimated CO2 emissions over the past three decades compared with the IS92, SRES and the RCPs. The SA90 data are not
shown, but the most relevant (SA90-A) is similar to IS92-A and IS92-F. The uncertainty in historical emissions is ±5% (one standard deviation). Scenario data is generally reported at decadal intervals and we use
linear interpolation for intermediate years. Full size image (386 KB) Figures index Next Figure 2: Growth rates of historical and scenario CO2 emissions. The average annual growth rates of the historical
emission estimates (black crosses) and the emission scenarios for the time periods of overlaps (shown on the horizontal axis). The growth rates are more comparable for the longer time intervals considered (in
order: SA90, 27 years; IS92, 22 years; SRES, 12 years; and RCPs, 7 years). The short-term growth rates of the scenarios do not necessarily reflect the long-term emission pathway (for example, A1B has a high
initial growth rate compared with its long-term behaviour and RCP3PD has a higher growth rate until 2010 compared with RCP4.5 and RCP6). For the SRES, we represent the illustrative scenario for each family
(filled circles) and each of the contributing model scenarios (open circles). The scenarios generally report emissions at intervals of 10 years or more and we interpolated linearly to 2012; a sensitivity analysis shows
a linear interpolation is robust (Supplementary Fig. S14). Full size image (112 KB) Previous Figures index Observed emission trends are in line with SA90-A, IS92-E and IS92-F, SRES A1FI, A1B and A2, and
RCP8.5 (Fig. 2). The SRES scenarios A1FI and A2 and RCP8.5 lead to the highest temperature projections among the scenarios, with a mean temperature increase of 4.2–5.0 °C in 2100 (range of 3.5–6.2 °C)14,
whereas the SRES A1B scenario has decreasing emissions after 2050 leading to a lower temperature increase of 3.5 °C (range 2.9–4.4°C)14. Earlier research has noted that observed emissions have tracked the
upper SRES scenarios15, 16 and Fig. 1 confirms this for all four scenario generations. This indicates that the space of possible pathways could be extended above the top-end scenarios to accommodate the
possibility of even higher emission rates in the future. The new RCPs are particularly relevant because, in contrast to the earlier scenarios, mitigation efforts consistent with long-term policy objectives are
included among the pathways2. RCP3-PD (peak and decline in concentration) leads to a mean temperature increase of 1.5 °C in 2100 (range of 1.3–1.9 °C)14. RCP3–PD requires net negative emissions (for
example, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) from 2070, but some scenarios suggest it is possible to stay below 2 °C without negative emissions17, 18, 19. RCP4.5 and RCP6 — which lie between RCP3–PD
and RCP8.5 in the longer term — lead to a mean temperature increase of 2.4 °C (range of 1.0–3.0 °C) and 3.0 °C (range of 2.6–3.7 °C) in 2100, respectively14. For RCP4.5, RCP6 and RCP8.5, temperatures will
continue to increase after 2100 due to on-going emissions14 and inertia in the climate system12. Current emissions are tracking slightly above RCP8.5, and given the growing gap between the other RCPs (Fig. 1),
significant emission reductions are needed by 2020 to keep 2 °C as a feasible goal18, 19, 20. To follow an emission trend that can keep the temperature increase below 2 °C (RCP3-PD) requires sustained global
CO2 mitigation rates of around 3% per year, if global emissions peak before 202011, 19. A delay in starting mitigation activities will lead to higher mitigation rates11, higher costs21, 22, and the target of remaining
below 2 °C may become unfeasible18, 20. If participation is low, then higher rates of mitigation are needed in individual countries, and this may even increase mitigation costs for all countries22. Many of these
rates assume that negative emissions will be possible and affordable later this century11, 17, 18, 20. Reliance on negative emissions has high risks because of potential delays or failure in the development and largescale deployment of emerging technologies such as carbon capture and storage, particularly those connected to bioenergy17, 18. Although current emissions are tracking the higher scenarios, it is still possible to
The historical record shows that some countries have
reduced CO2 emissions over 10-year periods, through a combination of (non-climate) policy intervention and economic
transition towards pathways consistent with keeping temperatures below 2 °C (refs 17,19,20).
adjustments to changing resource availability. The oil crisis of 1973 led to new policies on energy supply and energy savings, which produced a decrease in the share of fossil fuels (oil shifted to nuclear) in the
energy supply of Belgium, France and Sweden, with emission reductions of 4–5% per year sustained over 10 or more years (Supplementary Figs S17–19).A continuous shift to natural gas — partially substituting
coal and oil — led to sustained mitigation rates of 1–2% per year in the UK in the 1970s and again in the 2000s, 2% per year in Denmark in the 1990–2000s, and 1.4% per year since 2005 in the USA
These examples highlight the practical feasibility of emission reductions through fuel
emission reduction can help initiate a
transition towards trajectories consistent with keeping temperatures below 2 °C, but further mitigation measures are
needed to complete and sustain the reductions. Similar energy transitions could be encouraged and co-ordinated across countries in the next 10 years using available technologies19, but welltargeted technological innovations24 are required to sustain the mitigation rates for longer
periods17. To move below the RCP8.5 scenario — avoiding the worst climate impacts — requires early action17, 18, 21 and
sustained mitigation from the largest emitters22 such as China, the U nited S tates, the European Union and India. These four regions together account for over half of global CO2
(Supplementary Figs S10–12).
substitution and efficiency improvements, but additional factors such as carbon leakage23 need to be considered. These types of
emissions, and have strong and centralized governing bodies capable of co-ordinating such actions. If similar energy transitions are repeated over many decades in a broader range of developed and emerging
economies,
the current emission trend could be pulled down to make RCP3-PD, RCP4.5 and RCP6 all feasible futures. A shift to a pathway with the
highest likelihood to remain below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels (for example, RCP3-PD), requires high levels of technological, social and political innovations, and an increasing need to rely on net negative
timing of mitigation efforts needs to account for delayed responses in both CO2
emissions9 (because of inertia in technical, social and political systems) and also in global temperature12 (because of inertia in the climate system).
emissions in the future11, 17, 18. The
Unless large and concerted global mitigation efforts are initiated soon, the goal of remaining below 2 °C will
very soon become unachievable.
*positive feedbacks
--rainforest
Warming destroys the rainforests which are huge carbon sinks – causes runaway
warming
Randerson 13 – Professor of Earth System Science at University of California Irvine, Ph.D.
Biological Sciences at Stanford (James, “Global warming and tropical carbon”, Nature,
494.7437, Feb 21, 2013: 319-320, ProQuest, RSpec)
Tropical forests and savannahs are responsible for most of the annual exchange of carbon
dioxide between the atmosphere and the land surface. Long growing seasons and high rainfall create extremely
productive tropical ecosystems1 that store a considerable amount of the world's above-ground
biomass2. The fate of this carbon pool could influence future atmospheric carbon levels and
thus our ability to stabilize greenhouse gases at levels that do not dangerously interfere with the
climate system3. On page 341 of this issue, Cox et al.4 report findings that will enable the development of more realistic future
scenarios of climate-carbon interactions in tropical ecosystems*. Over the past decade, tremendous progress has been made towards
integrating the carbon cycle into global climate models known as Earth-system models. Simulations using such models have shown
that carbon stocks in tropical forests will become increasingly vulnerable to climate change during the twenty-first century, given
future 'business as usual' scenarios of fossil-fuel emissions. In one model, for example, climate
warming and elevated
levels of CO2 reduced precipitation across the Amazon, which led to a die-offof forests and thus
further warming5 . In several other models, increases in drought stress in forests across the tropics
decreased plant growth (net primary production), and so accelerated carbon losses from these
ecosystems6.
--water vapor
Warming causes a massive water vapor effect which evaporates the oceans –
causes extinction
Goldblatt et al. 13 (*Colin Goldblatt – Assistant Professor of Earth System Evolution at the
University of Victoria, Ph.D. Environmental Sciences, and *Tyler Robinson – Ph.D. Astronomy
and Astrobiology, and *Kevin Zahnle – Ph.D. Atmospheric Science and Astronomy, Research
Scientist at NASA, and *David Crisp – Ph.D. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Senior Research
Scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, “Low simulated radiation limit for runaway
greenhouse climates”, Nature Geoscience 6, 661–667, 2013, RSpec)
Warming an Earth-like planet would make the atmosphere moist and hence optically thick across
the thermal region, even in the water vapour window. Then, only the upper troposphere (not the surface or lower
troposphere) would be able emit radiation directly to space. As sunlight penetrates the atmosphere better than
thermal infrared radiation, the upper troposphere is heated from below and its thermal structure is
determined by moist convection. The water vapour mixing ratio increases with temperature,
causing the moist adiabatic lapse rate to tend towards the saturation vapour pressure curve and the tropopause to acquire a
fixed temperature–pressure structure. Thus, the level from which effective thermal emission occurs tends to a fixed temperature and
the flux a fixed value. This maximum in outgoing radiation—or radiation limit—means that surface
warming no longer
leads to more thermal emission. If the net absorption of solar radiation exceeds this limit, then surface
temperatures will increase in a runaway greenhouse, evaporating the entire ocean and
sterilizing the planet en route.
Venus proves
Hansen et al. 13 (*James Hansen – Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University,
Ph.D. Physics and M.S. Astronomy at University of Iowa, *Makiko Sato – Ph.D. and M.A. both
in Physics at Yeshiva University, works at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the
Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University, *Gary Russell – Ph.D.
Mathematics, *Pushker Kharecha – Ph.D., Geosciences and Astrobiology, “Climate sensitivity,
sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide”, Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. Oct 28, 2013,
PubMed, RSpec)
Climate sensitivity at the other extreme, as the Earth becomes hotter, is also driven mainly by an H2O feedback. As climate
forcing and temperature increase, the amount of water vapour in the air increases and clouds
may change. Increased water vapour makes the atmosphere more opaque in the infrared region
that radiates the Earth's heat to space, causing the radiation to emerge from higher colder
layers, thus reducing the energy emitted to space. This amplifying feedback has been known for
centuries and was described remarkably well by Tyndall [104]. Ingersoll [105] discussed the role of water vapours in the
‘runaway greenhouse effect’ that caused the surface of Venus to eventually become so hot that
carbon was ‘baked’ from the planet's crust, creating a hothouse climate with almost 100 bars of CO2 in the air and a
surface temperature of about 450°C, a stable state from which there is no escape. Arrival at this terminal state
required passing through a ‘moist greenhouse’ state in which surface water evaporates, water
vapour becomes a major constituent of the atmosphere and H2O is dissociated in the upper atmosphere with
the hydrogen slowly escaping to space [106]. That Venus had a primordial ocean, with most of the water subsequently lost to space,
is confirmed by the present enrichment of deuterium over ordinary hydrogen by a factor of 100 [107], the heavier deuterium being
less efficient in escaping gravity to space.
Water Vapor is a positive feedback
CIRES, 13 ---joint institute of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the University of Colorado Boulder (“Water vapor in the upper atmosphere
amplifies global warming, says new
study”,http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/watervapor.html, RE)
A new study shows that water vapor high in the sky and the temperature at the Earth‘s surface
are linked in a “feedback loop” that further warms our climate . Published today, this study gives the
first estimate of the size of the feedback‘s effect, which may help researchers improve modeling
to better understand climate change. “Water vapor in the stratosphere increases in tandem with
increases in the Earth‘s surface temperature,” said coauthor Sean Davis, a scientist with the
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado Boulder, who
works at the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. “Because water vapor is a greenhouse
gas, this generates additional warming. We show that this feedback loop could be about 10% of
the climate warming from all greenhouse gases.” The new study, published online on September 30 in the
prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, quantifies the magnitude of the stratospheric
water vapor feedback for the first time, making use of satellite observations and a climate model.
“While it‘s not really surprising that this process is going on, we were surprised at how important
the process is for our climate system,” said Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric sciences professor at Texas A&M
University who was lead author of the paper. Dessler was a CIRES Visiting Fellow this year, working with Davis and other colleagues
on this paper. For well over 100 years it has been known that increased
emissions of greenhouse gases such as
carbon dioxide will warm the planet. As the lowest layer of the atmosphere, called the troposphere (surface
to ~7 miles), is warmed, the air becomes more humid because warmer air holds more water
vapor. This “tropospheric water vapor feedback” approximately doubles the initial warming
caused by carbon dioxide. The new study shows that in addition to the well-understood tropospheric water vapor feedback
on climate change, there is also a significant amplifying feedback associated with water vapor in the
stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere that extends to ~30 miles above
Earth‘s surface. This “stratospheric water vapor feedback,” although hypothesized by previous studies, has remained elusive to
quantification. The new results suggest that the stratospheric water vapor feedback may be an
important component of our climate system. The researchers estimated that at a minimum this feedback adds
another ~5-10% to the climate warming from the addition of greenhouse gases, and is possibly substantially
more than this amount. Most climate models contain a representation of stratospheric water vapor, so this feedback is
already operating in the models to some extent. Thus, this new finding does not necessarily mean that models
have underestimated future global warming. However, since the importance of this feedback has
not been previously recognized, it is possible that the stratospheric water vapor feedback may help
to explain some of the spread among future projections of climate change from different models. Indeed, of the ~20 models
participating in the 5th Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the authors found substantial
differences among the models‘ future simulation of stratospheric water vapor. Though
the study has moved
understanding an important step forward, many questions remain about the role of
stratospheric water vapor in climate. “The stratospheric water vapor feedback effect could be
even larger than the 5-10% we found in our study,” said Davis. “Our analysis suggests that the
pathways for water vapor to reach the stratosphere are not completely understood, so we view
our numbers as a minimum estimate of the effect of this feedback.”
--clouds
Greenhouse gasses destroy the albedo effect of clouds – destabilizes the climate
Leconte et al. 13 (*Jérémy Leconte – Ph.D. Astronomy and Astrophysics, Postdoc at the
Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, *Francois Forget – Ph.D. Physics, M.S.
Oceanography and Meteorology, Senior Research Scientist at the National Center for Sceintific
Research [France], *Benjamin Charnay – Ph.D. Planetary Science, M.Sc. Fundamental Physics
and Atmospheric Science, Postdoc at the Virtual Planetary Laboratory, *Robin Wordsworth –
D.Phil. Physics at Oxford, and *Alizée Pottier, “Increased insolation threshold for runaway
greenhouse processes on Earth-like planets”, Nature 504, 268–271 December 12, 2013, RSpec)
*Radiative forcing – ability of clouds to affect energy balance
This runaway greenhouse insolation threshold is greater than those recently found by previous 1D studies6, 7 and confirmed by our
1D model (Extended Data Fig. 1). To understand the mechanisms that increase this threshold in practice, we first analyse the
radiative effect of clouds. Although 1D simulations cannot properly capture spatial variations in cloud distribution, it
has been
suggested that clouds should have a feedback effect that stabilizes the climate against the runaway
greenhouse effect4, 5, 6. This tentative conclusion was based on the fact that the present net cloud
radiative forcing on the Earth is negative, meaning that the albedo increase due to low-level clouds exceeds the
greenhouse effect of high-level clouds15. Because of the increased evaporation resulting from the warming, cloud thickness might
therefore increase and enhance the stabilizing effect of clouds4, 5, 6. Our simulations of the evolution of radiative cloud forcing
with insolation suggest
the opposite (Fig. 2c). This is due to a displacement of the cloud formation
region towards higher altitudes (Fig. 3). As a result, the temperature at the mean cloud emission level
increases much less with insolation than does the surface temperature. Even though the cloud optical depth
increases, the greenhouse feedback of the clouds exceeds their albedo effect . At higher
fluxes, clouds become thinner, which reduces both long-wave and short-wave radiative cloud
forcing . For the reason described above, however, the greenhouse effect of clouds prevails and the net
radiative forcing tends to vanish. There are several reasons for the vertical displacement of clouds. First, moist
convection and Hadley circulation become more intense as the insolation increases, extending the
troposphere. Second, to form and persist, clouds need to be able to lose the latent heat released
during condensation. Because of the infrared opacity increase of the atmosphere, the altitude at
which clouds can efficiently cool radiatively rises . This may explain both the progressive disappearance of lowlevel clouds and the small change in cloud-deck temperature seen in Fig. 3. Although the tendencies described above should be
robust, the precise value of the cloud radiative forcing does depend on the assumptions made about the cloud microphysics. In our
baseline model, for instance, we assume that the number density of cloud condensation nuclei, that is, the number of cloud particles
per unit mass of air, remains fixed at a value that is representative of the modern Earth. As is expected, a larger mass mixing ratio of
condensed water thus entails bigger cloud particles, which precipitate more easily and have a smaller radiative effect. To explore,
and put limits on, the possible behaviour of clouds, we conducted a set of simulations in which the radii of cloud particles were kept
constant. This assumption results in smaller radii, and thus overestimates cloud optical depths and both short- and long-wave cloud
forcing. As can be seen in Extended Data Fig. 2, long-wave and short-wave forcing indeed increase continuously with insolation.
However, for the reasons mentioned above, the greenhouse effect of clouds eventually overcomes the albedo effect. Therefore, the
cloud feedback has a destabilizing effect under extreme insolation seems a robust conclusion,
and one that supports results obtained in the context of anthropogenic global warming16 .
fact that the
***impacts
--extinction
Warming causes extinction – reductions in CO2 are key
Allison et al., 3/17 – American Wind Wildlife Institute AND Stanford University AND Union
of Concerned Scientists (Taber D., Terry L. Root, Peter C. Frumhoff, “Thinking globally and
siting locally – renewable energy and biodiversity in a rapidly warming world”, Springer,
http://dl2af5jf3e.scholar.serialssolutions.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/?sid=google&auinit=TD&au
last=Allison&atitle=Thinking+globally+and+siting+locally%E2%80%93renewable+energy+and
+biodiversity+in+a+rapidly+warming+world&id=doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1127-y)//VIVIENNE
Even if we stabilized atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases at today’s levels through
immediate and deep reductions in emissions, surface temperatures would continue to rise for
decades as excess heat now contained in the deep ocean is released to the atmosphere. Adapting to
further climate change is unavoidable, but the risks of potentially catastrophic warming can be reduced through
deep and sustained cuts in emissions. The U.S. and other nations agreed to take actions to limit warming below a 2 °C
increase in global average surface temperature above pre-industrial levels (Copenhagen Accord 2009), but actions and pledges
by major emitters have fallen far short of what is needed to achieve this goal (World Bank 2012). Future warming
most likely will exceed the 2 °C target (Sanford et al. 2014). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
reports that a “large fraction” of species around the globe “face increased extinction risk under
projected climate change during and beyond the 21st Century” particularly when the synergistic
effects of climate change with other anthropogenic impacts such as habitat loss and
fragmentation and invasive species are taken into account. (Scholes et al. 2014). According to the IPCC, the
risk of extinction owing to climate change is projected to increase regardless of the scenario used
to project future climate change, but the fraction of species at risk will be greater as the
magnitude of temperature change increases. For example, most of the world’s biodiversity is
concentrated in the tropics. Under medium to high magnitude warming, tropical species (characteristically, with quite
limited physiological tolerance to changes in climate) will experience monthly average temperatures that
exceed historic bounds before 2100 (Mora et al. 2013).
Irreversible climate change risks extinction and ecosystem collapse
Kirschbaum, 3/20 –PhD Environmental Biology in the Australian Nation in 1986, BSc
Agriculture, Researcher at Landcare Research (Miko, “Climate-change impact potentials as an
alternative to global warming potentials,” 2014, IOP Science, Miko U F Kirschbaum 2014
Environ. Res. Lett. 9 034014)//VIVIENNE
2.1.2. Rate-of-warming impacts The
rate of warming is a concern because higher temperatures may not be inherently
worse than cooler conditions, but change itself will cause problems for both natural and socio-economic
systems. A slow rate of change will allow time for migration or other adjustments, but faster rates of
change may give insufficient time for such adjustments (e.g. Peck and Teisberg 1994). For example, the natural
distribution of most species is restricted to narrow temperature ranges (e.g. Hughes et al 1996). As climate change makes their
it poses serious and massive
extinction risks (e.g. Thomas et al 2004). The rate of warming will strongly influence whether species
current habitats climatically unsuitable for many species (Parmesan and Yohe 2003),
can migrate to newly suitable habitats, or whether they will be driven to extinction in their old
habitats. 2.1.3. Cumulative-warming impacts The third kind of impact includes impacts such as sea-level
rise (Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009) which is quantified by cumulative warming, as sea-level rise is
related to both the magnitude of warming and the length of time over which oceans and glaciers
are exposed to increased temperatures. Lenton et al (2008) listed some possible tipping points in the global climate
system, including shut-off of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation and Arctic sea-ice melting. If the world passes these
thresholds, the global climate could shift into a different mode, with possibly serious and irreversible
consequences. Their likely occurrence is often linked to cumulative warming. Cumulative warming
is similar to the calculation of GWPs except that GWPs integrate only radiative forcing without
considering the time lag between radiative forcing and resultant effects on global temperatures.
The difference between GWPs and integrated warming are, however, only small over a 100-year time horizon and diminish even
further over longer time horizons (Peters et al 2011a). 2.2. The relative importance of different kinds of impacts For devising optimal
climate-change mitigation strategies, it
is also necessary to quantify the importance of different kinds of
impacts relative to each other. Without any formal assessment of their relative importance being available in the
literature, they were therefore assigned here the same relative weighting. However, the different kinds of impacts change differently
over time so that the importance of one kind of impact also changes over time relative to the importance of the others. The notion of
assigning them equal importance can therefore be implemented mathematically only under a specified emission pathway and at a
defined point in time. This was done by expressing each impact relative to the most severe impact over the next 100 years under the
'representative concentration pathway' (RCP) with radiative forcing of 6 W m−2 (RCP6; van Vuuren et al 2011). 2.3. Cumulative
damages or most severe damages? Any
focus on maximum temperature increases, such as the '2° target', explicitly
targets the most extreme impacts. However, that ignores the lesser, but still important, impacts that occur before and
after the most extreme impacts are experienced. Hence, the damage function used here sums all impacts over the next
100 years. Summing impacts is different from summing temperatures to derive initial impacts. For example, the damage from
tropical cyclones is linked to sea-surface temperatures in a given year (Webster et al 2005). Total damages to society, however, are
the sum of cyclone damages in all years over the defined assessment horizon. 2.4. Impact severity Climate-change
impacts
clearly increase with increases in the underlying climate perturbation, but how strongly? By
2012, global temperatures had increased by nearly 1 °C above pre-industrial temperatures (Jones
et al 2012), equivalent to about 0.01 °C yr−1, with about 20 cm sea-level rise (Church and White 2011), and there are
increasing numbers of unusual weather events that have been attributed to climate change (e.g.
Schneider et al 2007, Trenberth and Fasullo 2012). By the time temperature increases reach 2°, or sea-level rise reaches 40 cm,
would impacts be twice as bad or increase more sharply? If impacts
increase sharply with increasing
perturbations, then overall damages would be largely determined by impacts at the times of
highest perturbations, whereas with a less steep impact response function, impacts at times with
lesser perturbations would contribute more to overall damages. Schneider et al (2007) comprehensively
reviewed and discussed the quantification of climate-change impacts and their relationship to underlying climate perturbations but
concluded that a formal quantification of impacts was not yet possible. This was due to remaining scientific uncertainty, and the
intertwining of scientific assessments of the likelihood of the occurrence of certain events and value judgements as to their
significance. For example, Thomas
et al (2004) quantified the likelihood of species extinction under
climate change and concluded that by 2050, 18% of species would be 'committed to extinction'
under a low-emission scenario, which approximately doubled to 35% under a high-emission
scenario. Given the functional redundancy of species in natural ecosystems, their impact on ecosystem function, and their
perceived value for society, doubling the loss of species would presumably more than double the perceived impact of the
loss of those species. The scientifically derived estimate of species loss therefore does not automatically translate into a usable
damage response function. It requires additional value judgements, such as an assessment of the importance of the survival of
species, including those without economic value. It is also difficult to quantify the impact related to the low probability of crossing
key thresholds (Lenton et al 2008). It may
be possible to agree on the importance of crossing some
irreversible thresholds, but it is difficult to confidently derive probabilities of crossing them. But
despite these uncertainties, some kind of damage response function must be used to quantify the marginal impact of extra emission
units. As it is difficult, if not impossible, to employ purely objective means of generating impact response functions, we have to resort
to what Stern called a 'subjective probability approach. It is a pragmatic response to the fact that many of the true uncertainties
around climate-change policy cannot themselves be observed and quantified precisely' (Stern 2006). Different workers have used
some semi-quantitative approaches, such as polling of expert opinion (e.g. Nordhaus 1994), or the generation of complex
uncertainty distributions from a limited range of existing studies (Tol 2012), but none of these overcomes the essentially subjective
nature of devising impact response functions. Figure 1 shows some possible response functions that relate an underlying climate
perturbation to its resultant impact. This is quantified relative to maximum impacts anticipated over the next 100 years for
perturbations such as temperature. The current temperature increase of about 1 °C is approximately 1/3 of the temperature increase
expected under RCP6 over the next 100 years, giving a relative perturbation of 0.33. For the quantification of CCIPs, impacts had to
be expressed as functions of relative climate perturbations to enable equal quantitative treatment of all three kinds of climatic
impacts. Economic analyses tend to employ quadratic or cubic responses function (e.g. Nordhaus 1994, Hammitt et al 1996,
Roughgarden and Schneider 1999, Tol 2012), but there is concern that these functions that are based only on readily quantifiable
impacts may give insufficient weight to the small probability of extremely severe impacts (e.g. Weitzman 2012, 2013, Lemoine and
McJeon 2013). A response function that includes these extreme impacts would increase much more sharply than quadratic or cubic
response functions (e.g. Weitzman 2012). The relationship used here uses an exponential increase in impacts with increasing
perturbations to capture the sharply increasing damages with larger temperature increases (as shown by Hammitt et al 1996 and
Weitzman 2012). Warming by 3/4 of the expected maximum warming, for example, would have about 10 times the impact as
warming by only 1/4 of maximum warming. The graph also shows the often-used power relationships (e.g. Hammitt et al 1996,
Boucher 2012), shown here with powers of 2 (quadratic) and 3 (cubic), and a more extreme impacts function (hockey-stick function)
presented by Hammitt et al (1996). Compared to the power functions, the exponential relationship calculates relatively modest
impacts for moderate climate perturbations that increase more sharply for more extreme climate perturbations. It is thus very
similar to the 'hockey-stick' relationship of Hammitt et al (1996).
--mazo
Catastrophic warming risks extinction
Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
(Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and
Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate
Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 122)//BB
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the
low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C.
Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial
Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate
change in the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security
of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the
strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on
security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned
as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an
existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human
experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case
adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.
levels by the end of the century."
--co2 = ocean acidification
Independently, emissions cause ocean acidification – extinction
Romm 12 – physicist and climate expert, Fellow of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress
(Joseph J., “Science: Ocean Acidifying so fast that it threatens humanity’s ability to feed itself”,
3/2/12; http://earthlawcenter.org/news/headline/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-itthreatens-humanitys-ability-to-feed-itself/)
The world’s oceans may be turning acidic faster today from human carbon emissions than they
did during four major extinctions in the last 300 million years, when natural pulses of carbon
sent global temperatures soaring, says a new study in Science. The study is the first of its kind to survey the geologic
record for evidence of ocean acidification over this vast time period. “What we’re doing today really stands out,” said lead author
Bärbel Hönisch, a paleoceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “We know that life during past
ocean acidification events was not wiped out—new species evolved to replace those that died off. But if
industrial carbon
emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care about—coral reefs,
oysters, salmon.” James Zachos, a paleoceanographer at University of California, Santa Cruz, with a core of sediment from
some 56 million years ago, when the oceans underwent acidification that could be an analog to ocean changes today. That’s the news
release from a major 21-author Science paper, “The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification” (subs. req’d). We knew from a 2010
Nature Geoscience study that the oceans
are now acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years
ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred. But this study looked back over 300 million and found
that “the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place” has put marine life at risk
in a frighteningly unique way: … the current rate of (mainly fossil fuel) CO2 release stands out as
capable of driving a combination and magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially
unparalleled in at least the last ~300 My of Earth history, raising the possibility that we are
entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change. That is to say, it’s not just that acidifying oceans
spell marine biological meltdown “by end of century” as a 2010 Geological Society study put it. We are also warming the ocean and
That is a recipe for mass extinction. A 2009 Nature Geoscience
study found that ocean dead zones “devoid of fish and seafood” are poised to expand and
“remain for thousands of years.“ And remember, we just learned from a 2012 new Nature Climate Change study that
decreasing dissolved oxygen concentration.
carbon dioxide is “driving fish crazy” and threatening their survival. Here’s more on the new study: The oceans act like a sponge to
draw down excess carbon dioxide from the air; the gas reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, which over time is neutralized by
fossil carbonate shells on the seafloor. But if CO2 goes into the oceans too quickly, it can deplete the carbonate ions that corals,
mollusks and some plankton need for reef and shell-building. That is what is happening now. In a review of hundreds of
paleoceanographic studies, a team of researchers from five countries found evidence for only one period in the last 300 million years
when the oceans changed even remotely as fast as today: the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, some 56 million years
ago. In the early 1990s, scientists extracting sediments from the seafloor off Antarctica found a layer of mud from this period wedged
between thick deposits of white plankton fossils. In a span of about 5,000 years, they estimated, a mysterious surge of carbon
doubled atmospheric concentrations, pushed average global temperatures up by about 6 degrees C, and dramatically changed the
ecological landscape. The result: carbonate plankton shells littering the seafloor dissolved, leaving the brown layer of mud. As many
as half of all species of benthic foraminifers, a group of single-celled organisms that live at the ocean bottom, went extinct,
suggesting that organisms higher in the food chain may have also disappeared, said study co-author Ellen Thomas, a
paleoceanographer at Yale University who was on that pivotal Antarctic cruise. “It’s really unusual that you lose more than 5 to 10
percent of species over less than 20,000 years,” she said. “It’s usually on the order of a few percent over a million years.” During this
time, scientists estimate, ocean pH—a measure of acidity–may have fallen as much as 0.45 units. (As pH falls, acidity rises.) In the
last hundred years, atmospheric CO2 has risen about 30 percent, to 393 parts per million, and ocean pH has fallen by 0.1 unit, to
8.1–an acidification rate at least 10 times faster than 56 million years ago, says Hönisch. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change predicts that pH may fall another 0.3 units by the end of the century,to 7.8, raising the possibility that we may soon see
ocean changes similar to those observed during the PETM. More
catastrophic events have shaken earth before,
but perhaps not as quickly. The study finds two other times of potential ocean acidification: the
extinctions triggered by massive volcanism at the end of the Permian and Triassic eras, about
252 million and 201 million years ago respectively. But the authors caution that the timing and chemical changes
of these events is less certain. Because most ocean sediments older than 180 million years have been recycled back into the deep
earth, scientists have fewer records to work with. During the end of the Permian, about 252 million years ago, massive volcanic
eruptions in present-day Russia led to a rise in atmospheric carbon, and the extinction of 96 percent of marine life. Scientists have
found evidence for ocean dead zones and the survival of organisms able to withstand carbonate-poor seawater and high bloodcarbon levels, but so far they have been unable to reconstruct changes in ocean pH or carbonate. At the end of the Triassic, about 201
million years ago, a second burst of mass volcanism doubled atmospheric carbon. Coral reefs collapsed and many sea creatures
vanished. Noting that tropical species fared the worst, some scientists question if global warming rather than ocean acidification was
the main killer at this time. The effects of ocean acidification today are overshadowed for now by other problems, ranging from
sewage pollution and hotter summer temperatures that threaten corals with disease and bleaching. However, scientists trying to
isolate the effects of acidic water in the lab have shown that lower pH levels can harm a range of marine life, from reef and shellbuilding organisms to the tiny snails favored by salmon. In a recent study, scientists from Stony Brook University found that the
larvae of bay scallops and hard clams grow best at pre-industrial pH levels, while their shells corrode at the levels projected for 2100.
Off the U.S. Pacific Northwest, the death of oyster larvae has recently been linked to the upwelling of acidic water there. In parts of
the ocean acidified by underwater volcanoes venting carbon dioxide, scientists have seen alarming signs of what the oceans could be
like by 2100. In a 2011 study of coral reefs off Papua New Guinea, scientists writing in the journal Nature Climate Change found that
when pH dropped to 7.8, reef diversity declined by as much as 40 percent. Other studies have found that clownfish larvae raised in
the lab lose their ability to sniff out predators and find their way home when pH drops below 7.8. “It’s not a problem that can be
quickly reversed,” said Christopher Langdon, a biological oceanographer at the University of Miami who co-authored the study on
Papua New Guinea reefs. “Once
game.”
a species goes extinct it’s gone forever. We’re playing a very dangerous
--biodiversity
Warming makes biodiversity conservation impossible
Tingley et al., 13 – Morgan W. Tingley and Lyndon D. Estes are at the Woodrow Wilson
School, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA. David S. Wilcove is at the
Woodrow Wilson School and at the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at
Princeton University (Morgan W., Lyndon D. Estes, and David S. Wilcove, “Ecosystems: Climate
change must not blow conservation off course,” August 14, Nature 500, 271–272 (15 August
2013) doi:10.1038/500271a)//VIVIENNE
In March this year, the United States released its national strategy for conservation planning in the face of climate change. The first
goal of the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy is to “conserve habitat to support healthy fish, wildlife,
and plant populations and ecosystem functions in a changing climate”.
It warns that by prioritizing certain species
and areas over others, there will be winners and losers. Elsewhere in the conservation
community, there is increasing acceptance of abandoning protection for many of the species,
populations and ecosystems that are most at risk of extinction from climate change1. Although
climate change seems likely to wreak havoc on biodiversity, as is already happening in some
places, its precise effects are difficult to predict. In the meantime, numerous threats that are better
understood and more immediate — notably, the direct destruction of habitats — continue to drive species
towards extinction. The best conservation response to global warming is not to beat an orderly
retreat while saving the strongest, but to consider climate change as one of a suite of maladies,
all of which must be addressed to protect biodiversity. In some cases climate change may be the most urgent
threat; in most cases it is not2. Mountain bias In the growing literature on conservation and climate change, the golden word is
'resilience'. Conservationists hope to take actions that help organisms and ecosystems to survive in a warmer and more volatile
world. Because
the resilience of individual species to climate change is difficult to predict,
researchers have suggested prioritizing regions that are expected to be climatically stable for at
least the next 100 years3. In the past five years, scientists have undertaken global and regional
mapping of climate-change velocity to identify these 'refugia'4. Climate-change velocity
indicates how fast (for instance, in kilometres per year) and in what direction temperatures are shifting
across a landscape. Velocity calculations suggest that in a changing climate, topographically diverse areas such as mountain
chains will be more climatically stable than less-complex terrain such as flatlands. In mountainous areas, a wide range of
temperatures occurs in a relatively small area. Thus, the distance an organism must migrate to remain at a constant temperature in a
changing climate is much shorter in rugged country than in flat terrain. Our concern is that using metrics such as climate velocity to
guide conservation prioritization may well prove ineffective, or even harmful, given the enormous uncertainty over how species will
actually respond to climate change. Meta-reviews
assessing the impact of global warming on hundreds of
species around the world can give the impression that organisms are uniformly marching uphill
or to higher latitudes in step with changes in mean temperature5. But averaging behaviour across
diverse species to find overall trends may be of little use in predicting what will actually happen
in any one location. In fact, the closer scientists look at species' ongoing responses to our warming planet, the more surprises
they uncover6. For instance, the ranges of only 51% of the bird species in California's Sierra Nevada mountains moved to higher
elevations between 1911 and 2009, despite a 1–2 °C mean temperature increase over that period6. The remaining species either
shifted to lower elevations or did not move. Basing conservation priorities on an area's expected resilience to global warming, and
thus biasing protection towards mountainous landscapes, risks potentially losing the diversity of flatlands. On the whole, flatter
ecosystems tend to be in greater need of protection than rougher terrain; national parks, for example, more commonly exist in
mountainous areas because such regions are less suited to cultivation and pasturing7. Prioritizing conservation according to an
area's expected resilience at a national or continental scale could mean favouring the Rocky Mountains, the high Andes or Mount
Kenya over Florida's fabled Everglades, the cerrado of Brazil or Africa's savannahs. Although
topographically diverse
areas may contain larger numbers of species per unit area than flatlands, many areas of flat
terrain are just as important for endemic species. The Brazilian cerrado, for example, comprises
more than 2 million square kilometres and has one of the richest endemic floras in the world.
Yet only around 2% of it is currently protected, and around half the total area has already been
cleared for agriculture8, 9. Threat by threat To move forward, conservationists should consider all threats to biodiversity
when deciding which species, habitats or areas to protect, and should not assume that some threats are more important than others.
For example, for any conservation area, each potential threat should be evaluated and weighted by the risk it poses, with full
consideration of its severity, reversibility, imminence, pace and certainty. Finding ways to combine these factors into a meaningful
metric remains a formidable challenge. Various methods exist to help conservationists to factor climate-change uncertainties into
their priority-setting, but as yet there is no consensus on how the future threat of climate change should be compared to ongoing and
more certain threats, such as land-use change. Creating
a consistent approach for prioritization should be a
primary goal. The International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species could be a good model,
because it simultaneously evaluates the risk of multiple threats, from pollution to invasive species. In the meantime, there are
several ways for conservation planners to guard against overcompensating for climate threats.
When it is possible to assess the uncertainty associated with a particular threat — a 20% reduction in
rainfall by 2050, say — this uncertainty can be factored into prioritization schemes. In other situations,
models predicting an optimal prioritization scheme can be run several times, with and without
different threats incorporated. Basing prioritization on results obtained from a range of models,
each with different parameters, is more likely to result in smart conservation. Given the sobering
picture that has long been emerging from studies and reports such as those produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, it is not surprising that conservationists feel the need to alter course to deal with the threat of climate change. Indeed,
some may argue that there is little point in trying to save species from immediate threats when
their long-term survival is in question. But if conservation planners don't use resources efficiently to maximize the
protection of biodiversity and habitats from today's threats, there may be little left to protect from the effects of global warming 50 to
100 years from now.
--econ
Global warming causes economic collapse
Lin 14 (Chun-Yuan Lin, Assistant Professor, Department of Financial and Economic Law, Chung-Yuan Christian University,
Taiwan, Preliminary Draft Paper for IACL Congress 2014 Workshop on Social rights and the challenges of economic crisis 1 Beyond
Social Rights -- Changing Constitutionalism in the Face of Economic Crisis and Climate Change
http://www.jus.uio.no/english/research/news-and-events/events/conferences/2014/wccl-cmdc/wccl/papers/ws4/w4-lin.pdf,
RLA)
Unlike traditional idea of human right infringement, damages under two crises ¶ usually lack a behavior by a particular violator.
These damages may be seen as a result of ¶ natural disaster or unfortunate failure of economic system .
People may perceive
their ¶ injurious experience, but do not generate grievance and attribute the injuries to the fault
¶ of another person or social entity.2 Whether people can transform their injurious ¶ experience to human right
claim determines sequent legal actions and the development ¶ of constitutional adjudication.¶ 3 Recently, more and more
commentators believe ¶ damages caused by climate change and economic crisis as “human right” problem. ¶
One immediate
impact of climate change is the infringement of right to food and ¶ right to water. Due to the
shrinking arable land, shorter growing seasons and unstable ¶ water supply, food and water
shortage has raised the concern of right to food protected ¶ by the article 11, ICESCR, as well
right to water protected in various international human ¶ right law.4 Climate change also leads
to the infringement of right to health and right to ¶ house.5 Increasing floods and droughts may
lead to malnutrition, more cases of diarrhea ¶ and cholera, and cause the spread of some
infectious diseases. Food shortage also deters ¶ growth and development prospects for millions
of children. The right to adequate ¶ housing will be damaged because of sea level rising, flooding, and destroy of natural ¶
environment. 6 ¶ All these human right problems threaten the right to life, a right “basic to all humanrights” and nonderogable.7
Stern review suggests that climate change will affect the ¶ basic elements of life for people
around the world, as hundreds of millions of persons ¶ suffer from hunger, water shortages, heat
stresses, disease burdens, and permanent ¶ displacement on account of climate change.¶ 8 ¶
Similarly, unemployment and poverty caused by economic crisis may impact ¶ various right in today’s capital world. At the 10th
special session of the Human Rights ¶ Council, UN Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty ¶
Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona made the following statement: “the current financial ¶ crisis has exasperated the extremely difficult
situation of the poor in developing ¶ countries... and it is forcing even more people into a life of poverty. Those people who ¶ were
already lacking access to basic rights, such as the right to food, housing and health, ¶ are now faced with a situation where they are
struggling to survive.”9Economic crisis ¶ less directly lead to death or property damage, but its impact on conditions for realizing ¶
Unemployment and ¶ poverty deters people
from access to basic right, such as the right to food, housing and ¶ health. Some of them are
struggling to survive. Radhika Balakrishnan and James Heintz ¶ argued that the effects of the recent global economic crisis
rights in capital society is no less than what climate change does.
are “not different from ¶ violations of human rights in Darfur or Burma, for its collateral damage is stupendous.”10
Warming risks hurting our economy
Kirby, 13 – reporter for Climate News Network (Alex, “World Bank: climate change hurting
global economy,” February 19, Responding to Climate Change,
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/02/18/world-bank-climate-change-hurting-globaleconomy/)//VIVIENNE
The president of the World Bank says global warming is a real risk to the planet and is already affecting the
world’s economy. Speaking to the G20 finance ministers at their meeting in Moscow the president, Dr Jim Yong
Kim, urged governments to “tackle the serious challenges presented by climate change. These are
not just risks. They represent real consequences.” Dr Kim said failing to tackle these challenges risked “serious
consequences for the economic outlook… Damages and losses from natural disasters have more
than tripled over the past 30 years,” he said. “Years of development efforts are often wiped out in
days or even minutes,” and climate change was “a very real and present danger”. Dr Kim said issues
around climate change “do not typically come before finance ministers and central bank
governors. This, I firmly believe, is a mistake. And to underscore my point, we need to look no farther than what is happening in
our host country. “This winter, for instance, Moscow has had record snowfalls. Climate scientists tell us that as the Earth warms up
we will have more and more bursts of precipitation and other periods of extreme weather. “Just two-and-a-half years ago, an
extreme heat wave in Russia led to 55,000 deaths. So the people of Russia have experienced two once-in-a-lifetime extreme weather
events in the last few years, one hot, one cold. We’re not talking about a risk that is 50 years away. We’re talking about risks that are
here today. “No country – rich or poor – is immune from the impacts of climate-related disasters. In
Thailand, for example, the 2011 floods resulted in losses of approximately $45 billion, or about 13% of GDP. “At the World Bank
Group we are stepping up our mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk management work. I would welcome more attention from the
G20 on what we need to do to face climate change…” Call
for action Dr Kim’s words will be welcomed by many
people concerned at the mounting evidence of climate change to which he refers. Last November a
Bank report said that the world was “on track to a 4˚C temperature increase by 2100, marked by extreme heat waves and lifethreatening sea-level rise”.
“A 4˚C warmer world can, and must be, avoided – we need to hold warming
below 2˚C,” said Dr Kim at the time. “Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our
children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today.” But the Bank is
criticised for failing to match its words with action. The website of the UK development charity Christian Aid, for
example, says: “The World Bank was set up to tackle global poverty. “Yet, in the last five years, its funding for fossil-fuel power
stations has risen 40-fold, heightening the threat of climate change that is already derailing development.” A Christian Aid
spokeswoman told the Climate News Network: “We’re
pleased to hear the Bank acknowledge the risk that
global warming poses, but we remain troubled by what it spends on fossil fuel power. We would
like it to reflect its concern about climate change in the types of infrastructure it lends to.” The
Bank Information Center is an NGO which works in developing countries and those with economies in transition to influence the
World Bank and other international financial institutions to promote social and economic justice and ecological sustainability. Last
month it expressed its “concern” that the Bank was considering providing US$58 million in support for a new 600- megawatt lignite
coal-based power plant in Kosovo and expanding open-cast coal mining there.
--south asia war
Climate change increases state hostility triggering South Asian war
Mohan 14(Vishwa Mohan is Senior Assistant Editor with The Times of India. He writes on issues relating to environment,
climate change, agriculture, water resources, "South Asia Needs to Unite on Climate Change" April 22, 2014
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/South-Asia-needs-to-unite-on-climatechange/articleshow/33097177.cms, RLA)
NEW DELHI: A day after a UN panel predicted gloomy future for South Asia where climate change may even push nations to war
due to pressure on natural resources, its chairman R K Pachauri on Tuesday admitted that the situation is indeed bad and it would
be worse if the countries do not act together to face this common challenge.¶ "The
world has all kinds of drivers of
stress and drivers of conflict. With the climate change, these are likely to get accentuated
further," said Pachauri in an interview to TOI. ¶ Pachauri - chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) which released its report in Yokohama, Japan on Monday - was responding to the kind of messages one can get from this
much-awaited document. Asked how this problem could be tacked unless countries in South Asia join hands, he said, "Under
SAARC, for instance, we have a programme to deal with environmental protection and climate change. But I am afraid that is not
being implemented effectively." ¶ Pachauri gave an example of massive floods in Pakistan in 2009 which he could see himself while
"I
later went to meet the then President Zardari and told him that there is no political conflict on
these issues and that the two countries should work together because all we are vulnerable. So, it
would make a lot of sense that countries of South Asia should coordinate their policies and
action to fight the common threat," he said. ¶ Asked about Zardari's response, Pachauri - who is
also a member of the Prime Minister's advisory council on climate change in India - said, "The
response was positive. But, it's a question of who's going to bell the cat." ¶ His remark assumes significance in view
of the predictions made by the IPCC not only for the Asia but the also for whole world where the
threat of climate change must be handled through joint action. ¶ Referring to the report, even UN climate
change secretariat in Bonn had on Monday highlighted those points. In a statement, it said, "The IPCC report makes clear
that people around the world are already suffering from climate change, as it directly affects
their livelihoods, reducing crops, destroying homes and raising food prices, and that this will
accelerate if climate change is left unchecked. It provides a detailed assessment of regional
aspects, which give a much clearer understanding of climate impacts in different regions."
Touching the human conflict aspects, the secretariat said, "Among other things, the report warns that climate
change increases the risk of armed conflict around the world because it worsens poverty and
economic shocks. Therefore, climate change is already becoming a determining factor in the
national security policies of states."
flying over the country. He had later conveyed his concerns to then Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari, when he met him.
¶
--food security
Food security is unsustainable post climate change
Oxfam International 13(Oxfam International, an international confederation of 17 organizations working
together in more than 90 countries, OXFAM ISSUE BRIEFING SEPTEMBER 2013 GROWING DISRUPTION Climate change, food,
and the fight against hungerhttp://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/ib-growing-disruption-climate-change-230913en.pdf, RLA)
The world faces a real and imminent risk of major setbacks in efforts to ¶ combat hunger
because of climate change. That risk is not a remote future ¶ threat. It is emerging today and will intensify over the coming
decades. ¶ Using the accepted four pillars of food security – availability, access, ¶ utilisation, and stability – this issue brief
draws on research and on Oxfam‟ s ¶ programme experience around the world to assess how
climate change is ¶ likely to disrupt each of these four elements.¶ 1¶ The paper sets out how climatic ¶
instability in the form of more extreme and volatile weather is already ¶ undermining food
security. It also shows how in the absence of urgent action, ¶ it will load far more significant challenges onto already stressed
food ¶ systems. Food security is achieved ‘when all people, at all times, have physical and ¶ economic
access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their ¶ dietary needs and food
preferences for an active and healthy life’.2¶ Availability: Both more extreme weather and slow-onset changes in the
¶ climate (increasing temperatures and changing rainfall) will hit food production ¶ and food distribution systems, reducing the
amount, type, and quality of food ¶ available for consumption. ¶ Access: By increasing food prices and at the same time undermining
people‟ s ¶ means of making a living, climate change threatens people‟ s access to the ¶ required type, quality, and quantity of food.
¶ Utilisation:
By affecting human health and jeopardising the quality, variety, and ¶ even safety of
food produced, climate change affects people‟ s ability to benefit ¶ nutritionally from consumed
food. ¶ Stability: By increasing shocks, stresses, and uncertainty around access to, ¶ availability, and utilisation of food (as stated
above), climate change threatens ¶ people‟ s ability to have access to adequate food at all times. Those attending the World Food
Summit in 1996, which came after nearly 30 ¶ years of progress in the fight against hunger, believed that food security was ¶
attainable.¶ 11¶ For Oxfam and others, eradicating hunger is an achievable goal, ¶ and one that must be underpinned by an
assessment that hunger occurs not ¶ because of the scarcity of food but because of inequalities and injustices in ¶ the way that food is
climate change is transforming the nature of the hunger challenge ¶ and,
potentially, our ability to deal with it – and, alarmingly, it is happening at ¶ the same time as
global demand for food is increasing. ¶ Without urgent action to reduce emissions and build
resilience, climate ¶ change will challenge the safety and security of the global food system and ¶
with it the prospect of ensuring that everyone‟ s basic human right to food can ¶ be met. Our food
distributed. ¶ However,
system cannot cope with unmitigated climate change, ¶ which could lead to a permanent increase in yield variability, excessive food
¶ price volatility, and perpetual disruption to livelihoods that could leave many ¶ poor countries and communities with potentially
insuperable food security ¶ challenges. Adequate food availability is a precondition for sustained food security. As set ¶ out in the
sections below, climate change threatens food availability in two ¶ main ways. First,
production is being hit by
increasing temperatures and ¶ shifting rainfall patterns, which are expected to increasingly
depress ¶ agricultural yields in most countries.¶ 12¶ Production losses will also occur due ¶ to a
projected increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather ¶ events, such as heatwaves,
droughts, and floods. In addition, extreme ¶ weather events are also likely to damage or destroy vital distribution and ¶ transport
infrastructure, with severe consequences for food supply chains ¶ and availability of food at markets.
--navy
Climate change will devastate United States naval capabilities
Davenport 14(Coral Davenport is the energy and environment correspondent for National Journal. Prior to joining
National Journal in 2010, Davenport covered energy and environment for Politico, and before that, for Congressional Quarterly. She
writes about everything from global climate change policy to offshore drilling to the economics of renewable energy. "Climate
Change Deemed Growing Security Threat by Military Researchers" May 13, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/climate-change-deemed-growing-security-threat-by-militaryresearchers.html?_r=0, RLA)
The accelerating rate of climate change poses a severe risk to national security and
acts as a catalyst for global political conflict, a report published Tuesday by a leading
government-funded military research organization concluded.¶ The CNA Corporation Military Advisory
WASHINGTON —
Board found that climate change-induced drought in the Middle East and Africa is leading to conflicts over food and water and
escalating longstanding regional and ethnic tensions into violent clashes.
The report also found that rising sea levels
are putting people and food supplies in vulnerable coastal regions like eastern India, Bangladesh
and the Mekong Delta in Vietnam at risk and could lead to a new wave of refugees.¶ In addition, the
report predicted that an increase in catastrophic weather events around the world will create more
demand for American troops, even as flooding and extreme weather events at home could
damage naval ports and military bases .¶ In an interview, Secretary of State John Kerry signaled that the report’s
findings would influence American foreign policy.¶ “Tribes are killing each other over water today,” Mr. Kerry said. “Think of what
happens if you have massive dislocation, or the drying up of the waters of the Nile, of the major rivers in China and India. The
intelligence community takes it seriously, and it’s translated into action.”¶ Mr. Kerry, who plans to deliver a major speech this
summer on the links between climate change and national security, said his remarks would also be aimed at building political
support for President Obama’s climate change agenda, including a new regulation to cut pollution from coal-fired power plants that
the administration will introduce in June.¶ “We’re going to try to lay out to people legitimate options for action that are not bankbreaking or negative,” Mr. Kerry said.¶ Pentagon officials said the report would affect military policy. “The department certainly
agrees that climate change is having an impact on national security, whether by increasing global instability, by opening the Arctic or
by increasing sea level and storm surge near our coastal installations,” John Conger, the Pentagon’s deputy under secretary of
defense for installations and environment, said in a statement. “We are actively integrating climate considerations across the full
spectrum of our activities to ensure a ready and resilient force.Ӧ The report on Tuesday follows a recent string of scientific studies
that warn that the effects of climate change are already occurring and that flooding, droughts, extreme storms, food and water
shortages and damage to infrastructure will occur in the near future.¶ In March,
the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense
Review, the agency’s main public document describing the current doctrine of the United States
military, drew a direct link between the effects of global warming — like rising sea levels and
extreme weather patterns — and terrorism.¶ “These effects are threat multipliers that will
aggravate stressors abroad, such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability and
social tensions — conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence,” the review said.¶ Continue reading
the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story¶ Tuesday’s report is an update of a report by the
center’s Military Advisory Board in 2007, the first major study to draw the link between climate change and national security. The
report’s authors said the biggest change in the seven years between the two studies was the increase in scientific certainty about
global warming, and of the link between global warming and security disruptions.¶ The
2007 report also described
climate change as a “threat multiplier” or a problem that could enhance or contribute to already
existing causes of global disruption. The 2014 report updates that language, calling climate
change a “catalyst for conflict” — a phrase intentionally chosen, the report’s authors said, to
signal that climate change is an active, driving force in starting conflict.¶ “In the past, the thinking was
that climate change multiplied the significance of a situation,” said Gen. Charles F. Wald, who contributed to both reports and is
retired from the Air Force. “Now we’re saying it’s going to be a direct cause of instability.”¶ Continue reading the main story¶
RECENT COMMENTS¶ Ben 14 May 2014¶ One hopes we will begin to get responsible environmental coverage with the change of
report. The military
has a great capacity for leading in global warming gas emissions. E.g. Navy should not build
any...¶ Mark Goldes 14 May 2014¶ This National Security Threat can be addressed much faster than can be readily
editors. Things have recently taken a turn for the...¶ James Jordan 14 May 2014¶ Ms. Davenport, good
believed.Atmospheric heat a huge untapped source of solar...¶ SEE ALL COMMENTS¶ The most recent scientific reports on climate
change warn that increasing drought in Africa is now turning arable land to desert. The national security report’s authors conclude
that the slow but steady expansion of the Sahara through Mali, which is killing crops and leaving farmers starving, may have been a
contributing force in the jihadist uprising in that African country in 2012. Since then, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has seized
The report warns that rising sea levels
in the United States imperil many of the Navy’s coastal installations. Last week, the White
House released a National Climate Assessment report citing Norfolk, Va., as one of the cities
most vulnerable to damage by rising sea levels. Norfolk is home to the world’s largest naval base
as well as a nuclear submarine construction yard — all of which are vulnerable to destruction by
rising sea levels, found in Tuesday’s report.¶ “Norfolk is so big, it’s so important to the Navy, it’s
important to Virginia for jobs, and it would go,” General Wald said.¶ A scientific report released this week found
control of northern Mali and remains in conflict with the Malian government.¶
that global warming has contributed to the melting of a large section of a West Antarctica ice sheet, which could lead to a rise in sea
level of 10 feet or more.¶ Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee
and a vocal skeptic of the established science that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming, scoffed at the idea that
climate change is linked to national security threats.¶ “There
is no one in more pursuit of publicity than a
retired military officer,” he said of the report’s authors. “I look back wistfully at the days of the
Cold War. Now you have people who are mentally imbalanced, with the ability to deploy a
nuclear weapon. For anyone to say that any type of global warming is anywhere close to the
threat that we have with crazy people running around with nuclear weapons, it shows how
desperate they are to get the public to buy this.Ӧ Rear Adm. David Titley, a co-author of the report and a
meteorologist who is retired from the Navy, said political opposition would not extinguish what he called the indisputable data in the
report.¶ “The ice doesn’t care about politics or who’s caucusing with whom, or Democrats or Republicans,” said Admiral Titley, who
now directs the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at Pennsylvania State University
--heg
Negligence to solve warming decimates United States hegemony
Roberts 11(J. Timmons Roberts, Center for Environmental Studies, Brown University, 135 Angell St., Providence, RI 02912
USAMultipolarity and the new world (dis)order: US hegemonic decline and the fragmentation of the global climate regimes, 2011
http://www.bu.edu/sph/files/2012/12/Roberts_2011_Multipolarity_and_the_new_world_disorder__US_hegemonic_decline_and_the_fragmentation_of_the_global_climate_regime.pdf, RLA)
So we have seen over the past few years a sharply increasing¶ fragmentation of international alignments in response to climate¶
First, there was the UNFCCC’s
vague¶ but solidaristic statements in 1992, based on per capita justice and¶ preventing dangerous
climate change. Then the incrementalist and¶ realist 1997 Kyoto regime reflected hegemonic
struggle between¶ the US and the EU (Paterson, 2009), and ended up being based on¶ the
grandfathering of past emissions, emissions trading, and the¶ eventual withdrawal of the world’s
most powerful nation – its¶ hegemon, the US.8 Then in the 2009/2010 Copenhagen-Cancun¶ Round world we see
change. Looking longer term, we see an even more extreme¶ increase in defined positions.
a weakening in European leadership (as that¶ bloc expanded from 17 relatively wealthy to 27 much more diverse¶ nations), and the
fragmentation of the G-77 into an even more¶ fractious set of ad hoc negotiating groups just described.¶ The US was something of a
foot-dragger in the 1992 Earth Summit,¶ with President George H.W. Bush traveling to Rio and signing the¶ UNFCCC only
In the¶
negotiations leading up to the 1997 Kyoto pact, the Clinton/Gore¶ administration played a role
of demanding binding limits also on¶ China, India and some other developing nations, a move
resisted by¶ the G77, EU, and most environmentalists (Masood, 1997a,b). The US¶ played a role of resisting efforts to include it in
hesitatingly and under pressure, and agreeing to the¶ treaty because there were no binding limits placed on the US.
Kyoto, to the point that¶ the country was nearly completely marginalized during George W.¶ Bush’s administration. Then President
Barack Obama negotiated the¶ 2009 Copenhagen Accord with the BASIC countries on the last¶ negotiation day, but as we briefly
reviewed in Section 2, the Accord¶ was not a step in the direction of climate justice.¶ A framework I find useful to understand the
shift in the¶ dynamics of climate negotiations is to consider the massive¶ upheaval in the global political economic system over these
twenty¶ years. Giovanni Arrighi and Beverly Silver have written a series of¶ pieces, including their 2001 article, ‘‘Capitalism and
piece¶ describes transitions over five centuries in
global hegemony: from¶ Genoese, Dutch, British and now American cycles of rise and¶ decline.
In each cycle, the rise of financial capital plays a key role,¶ creating flexibility of accumulation for
the hegemonic power’s¶ elites, and diversifying income of these elites as different types of¶
activities in certain locations become more and then less¶ profitable. In the US hegemonic cycle, the
World¶ (dis)Order’’, in the Review of International Studies.9 The
profitability of manufacturing in the core nations dropped sharply in the late¶ 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, as job-heavy production
shifted to cheap¶ labor zones such as Mexico and China. The fiscal crisis was deferred¶ as it was in previous hegemonic cycles, as
financial power¶ sustained each hegemon beyond its time.
Each hegemon, at the¶ end of its cycle of dominance,
experienced a final boom and¶ ‘‘pursues their national interest without regard for system-level¶
problems that require system-level solutions’’ (p. 271).¶ Arrighi and Silver argue that such global orders are very¶
unstable. ‘‘[T]he power of the hegemonic state experiences a¶ deflation, and a hegemonic crisis sets
in. . .. Hegemonic crises have¶ been characterized by three distinct but closely related processes:¶
the intensification of interstate and inter-enterprise competition;¶ the escalation of social
conflicts; and the interstitial emergence of¶ new configurations of power.‘‘(270–271). They argue that the
final¶ stages arecomplete hegemonic breakdown and ‘systemic chaos’. . . a¶ situation of severe and seemingly irremediable systemic¶
As competition and conflicts escalate beyond¶ the regulatory capacity of existing
structures, new structures¶ emerge interstitially and destabilize further the dominant¶
configuration of power. Disorder tends to become selfreinforcing,¶ threatening to provoke or actually provoking the¶
disorganization.
complete breakdown in the system’s organization. (Arrighi and¶ Silver, 2001, p. 271)¶ To bring this back to interstate climate politics,
the
US retreated from the world¶ stage and ‘‘US strategies of power came to be characterized by a
basic¶ neglect of world governmental functions.10 It was as if the ruling¶ groups within the US had decided that,
since the world could no¶ longer be governed by them, it should be left to govern itself’’(301).¶ Arrighi argues that, in this
vacuum, oil-producing states organized an¶ effective way to gain huge rents from petroleum (the
in his landmark¶ book, The Long Twentieth Century, Arrighi describes how, in the face of¶ military and financial crisis in 1973,
1973 and 1978¶ OPEC embargos, and carefully attempting to modulate production at¶ other
times to keep prices up) (Arrighi, 1994: 322).¶ Two things happened with that money. First, Arab oil producers¶ gave
foreign assistance of at least $100 billion accumulated since¶ that period (Shuhan et al., 2010).11 We do not know whether one of¶
the goals of Arab aid has been to secure support for their position in¶ other negotiations, such as to keep key recipients from
dissenting¶ from OPEC views in G-77 negotiations during climate change¶ negotiations. If Arab donors did use aid that way they
would not be¶ alone: anecdotal information suggests Japan has secretly used aid¶ in this way for votes on the International Whaling
Commission,¶ and (among other cases), and the US in 2010 publically made¶ payments from the Copenhagen funding (most
publicly, to¶ Ecuador) provisional on the signing of the Copenhagen Accord.¶ Second, the oil boom money from OPEC governments
was often¶ loaned (through Western banks) to other developing countries¶ with adjustable rates, and these rates skyrocketed when
the¶ Reagan administration in the US adopted a tight fiscal policy to¶ regain control (Arrighi, 2001). This created a debt crisis that
set¶ back many developing countries for a decade. This failure of¶ development to measure up to expectations has certainly¶
strengthened the G-77’s cohesiveness in the climate negotiations,¶ even as their interests diverged (see Roberts and Parks, 2007).¶
China’s economy (and energy use/carbon emissions)¶ has risen exponentially since
2001, threatening US global¶ hegemony, at least in some market segments. India also has the¶
ability to undermine US labor competitiveness in a large number of¶ job categories long thought
to be securely unexportable. Arrighi¶ and Silver argue that the rich countries cannot compete
with the¶ ascendant nations in East Asia because of profoundly different¶ developmental paths
(especially wage rates), and they cannot berestructured ‘‘without causing social strains so
unbearable that¶ they would result in chaos rather than ‘competitiveness’’’ (2001, p.¶ 278).
Arrighi and Silver end with the ominous warning that ‘‘If the¶ system eventually breaks down, it
will be primarily because of US¶ resistance to adjustment and accommodation. And conversely, US¶
Meanwhile,
adjustment and accommodation to the rising economic power of the East Asian region is an essential condition for a
noncatastrophic¶ transition to a new world order.’’ (p. 279).¶ In his 2009 ‘‘Post-Hegemonic Climate Politics?’’ piece, Matthew¶
Paterson argues that Europe has taken the lead in the area of global¶ climate policy, surpassing the US. However in Copenhagen, we
saw¶ the rise of BASIC, especially China, as the real challenger to US¶ hegemonic power.12 As Arrighi and Silver say,
the
hegemon is¶ typically the only power with the ability to lead the world in¶ protecting ‘‘global
public goods.’’ This suggests that the US, as¶ declining hegemon, is leaving its climate mess for
the rising¶ economic hegemon (seemingly China) to clean up. As Arrighi and¶ Silver put it about economic issues: ‘‘An
equally essential condition¶ is the emergence of a new global leadership from the main centres of¶ the East Asian economic
expansion. This leadership must be willing¶ and able to rise up to the task of providing system-level solutions to¶ the system-level
problems left behind by US hegemony’’(p. 279).¶ Whether China will be the next global hegemonic power is¶ uncertain. And though
China has the ability to mobilize extraordinary¶ economic resources and it has invested heavily in renewable¶ energy sources, its
leadership’s overall emphasis on addressing¶ climate change remains uncertain because it has economic growth¶ as its top priority
(see also Mol, 2011). Whether China, another¶ nation, or a regional bloc becomes the next global hegemon, Arrighi¶ and Silver’s work
supports the idea that they will inherit a climate¶ mess requiring someone to take the lead in cleaning up.
--trade
Failure to solve warming collapses trade
Antholis and Talbott 09(William Antholis is managing director of the Brookings Institution. He has worked on
¶ foreign security and economic policy at the National Security Council and the State ¶ Department, and was director of studies at
the German Marshall Fund of the United ¶ States. ¶ ¶ Strobe Talbott is president of the Brookings Institution. Talbott, whose career
spans ¶ journalism, government service, and academe, is an expert on U.S. foreign policy, with ¶ specialties on Europe, Russia,
South Asia, and nuclear arms control. As deputy ¶ secretary of state in the Clinton administration, Talbott was deeply involved in
both the ¶ conduct of U.S. policy abroad and the management of executive branch relations with ¶ Congress."Tackling Trade and
Climate Change Leadership on the Home Front of Foreign Policy"
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2007/2/trade%20antholis%20opp08/pb_tradeandclimate_antholis_ta
lbott.pdf, RLA)
Progress on trade and climate change is blocked internationally as well, partly because ¶ the
governments of all major industrial democracies have to contend with skeptical or ¶ hostile
domestic forces. ¶ A formidable obstacle to moving forward on global trade is the dispute among
the ¶ United States, Europe, and Japan over how much to cut farm supports and tariffs and ¶
how much trade liberalization to expect from the larger and more advanced developing ¶
countries. Among industrial powers, the United States had been a leader in ¶ eliminating protectionism in farm trade, but the
return of subsidies in 2002 hurt ¶ America’s position. Europe has made some progress, but France continues to veto changes to the
current system.
Poorer nations will block any agreement unless ¶ egregious protections are
eliminated on commodity crops, such as cotton and sugar.10 ¶ As tension among its members mounts, the
WTO itself has come under attack. Many ¶ who oppose trade liberalization argue that the WTO is starting
to monopolize issues ¶ that should be handled by other international organizations, such as the
International ¶ Labor Organization. They also fear that the WTO’s dispute settlement process
will be ¶ biased in favor of lowering trade barriers and will undercut national laws intended to ¶
protect labor rights and the environment. ¶ Similar disputes hobble climate negotiations. The Kyoto Protocol took
years to ¶ negotiate, with the United States, the European Union, Japan, Russia, and other ¶ industrial countries sparring for years
over the correct structure of a global climate ¶ regime. The Kyoto Protocol was, in effect, a compromise on how to get that regime ¶
started. But while the EU and others ratified and implemented Kyoto, the United ¶ States did not only failed to do so, but has even
walked away from the process moving ¶ forward.11 ¶ Even
if the United States can be brought back to the table,
a critical battle is shaping up between industrial nations and developing nations. Developing
nations have long ¶ demanded that rich countries cut emissions first, based on their historically
larger ¶ contribution to the problem. They were given a pass at Kyoto. China already is ¶ second
only to the United States in emissions and will be in first place early in the next ¶ President’s first
term. India, with its economy expanding rapidly, is well on its way to ¶ being a major producer of
greenhouse gases. Whatever the successor to the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012, it will have to bring these two
Asian giants (and ¶ several others) into the climate-control regime.12For both trade and climate change, unlocking the domestic and
international impasses ¶ not only can happen simultaneously, but it should do so. Progress on trade talks can ¶ happen only if the
new President works for a new domestic consensus on trade ¶ liberalization that involves bipartisan support for the structure of the
the new President must foster a ¶ domestic
consensus on how to reduce emissions, as well as an international consensus ¶ on the global
framework, including the roles and responsibilities of industrial and ¶ developing countries. The
next President should therefore make the most of the ¶ natural linkages and common features
between these two global challenges. ¶ First, the future of both these issues requires bipartisan political approaches
international ¶ trading regime. Likewise, on climate change,
capable of ¶ generating legislative majorities while conducting extensive negotiations with other ¶ countries. In the past, the United
States often negotiated international treaties first, ¶ and then tried to develop a domestic consensus. Switching the order of these ¶
activities empowers negotiators, because it shows that America is willing to lead. ¶ Investment in biofuels has promise for addressing
both trade and climate concerns. ¶ The
resources needed for these investments could come by reducing
less productive ¶ agricultural subsidies. Moreover, investment in retiree health and pension
benefits ¶ could help address the concerns of organized labor around both issues. These are ¶
obviously large policy undertakings, but some immediate attention to them could help persuade American farmers and workers that
their leaders are not sacrificing them at ¶ the altar of global leadership.
--war
Climate change breeds the atmosphere for war – we have the support of the
Pentagon
McGarrity 14(Joh McGarrity, Freelance journalist covering climate and energy policy, but will also be tweeting about
other issues. Former correspondent with Point Carbon and Reuters, March 6, 2014 “US military says climate change could increase
wars” conflict - See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/03/06/us-military-says-climate-change-could-increase-warsconflict/#sthash.yIyIQMK1.dpuf, RLA)
US military chiefs have warned climate change is becoming an increasing risk to global security,
providing further pause for thought among the Washington political establishment sharply
divided on how to tackle global warming.¶ In a report published every four years that outlines future threats to the
US military’s interests and potential global flashpoints, the Pentagon said climate change is a “threat
multiplier” and would be a major area of future defence strategy.¶ “The pressures caused by climate
change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies,
societies, and governance institutions around the world,” said the report, which was published
earlier this week.¶ The US Department of Defense added that climate change could worsen
poverty, environmental pollution, political instability, and social tensions, “conditions that can
enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence.Ӧ This analysis from the normally conservative US military
echoes a view of the IPCC, the UN’s scientific panel, that a changing climate could make wars and regional conflicts more likely.¶
Another UN agency warned earlier this year that increasing conflict and land disputes in the arid
Sahel region of north-west Africa had been driven partly by shortages of food and crops in
region caused by a changing climate. The Pentagon report said the Sahel is one of the areas
where the US is carrying out missions to thwart Islamist militias that have become a growing
threat to security in the region.¶ Last year France had to send troops and munitions to Mali in order to stave off a
potential takeover by northern militants, and the prospect that water and food resources will become more scarce because of climate
change could destablise the region still further, aid agencies have warned.¶ Although the US military didn’t identify specific regions
as making water wars more likely,
previous studies have identified central and southern Asia could
become increasingly unstable because of potential for water shortages in northern India and
Pakistan and competition among former Soviet Republics.¶ Even in the US itself, tempers flared
last year between states on who should have access to water supplies amid high summer
temperatures and a sustained drought, a reminder that even in rich countries access to world’s most basic
commodities can become increasingly fraught.¶ However the US military’s report did pinpoint the Arctic
where increased co-operation would be necessary as the world’s climate changes, referring to
last year’s Pentagon study of the region that highlighted increased risks of disputes about
territory, oil and gas reserves and shipping routes as ice caps melt. Besides warning of the
geopolitical risks of climate change that could suck up more of the US’ military resources, the
Pentagon’s climate study also highlighted the operational risks that water scarcity, rising sea
levels and extreme weather could have on day-to-day operations and its bases.¶ Officially, the US has
major installations in around 30 countries worldwide, but unofficially is active in many more countries besides, including arid areas
of the Middle East and Africa.¶ The Pentagon’s warnings won’t necessarily get a warm reception from the military’s strongest
supporters on Capitol Hill, as Republicans are divided on the causes of climate change and what to do about it.¶ And some security
experts say the relationship between changes to climate and conflict is highly complex and have cautioned against an oversimplified
link between the two, pointing out that there are many other causes of wars and regional dispute than climate and resources.
War is inevitable in the status quo—the only way to prevent it is to solve warming
Landau, 7/1 – CNN reporter for health and science (Elizabeth, “Climate change may increase
violence, study shows,” August 1, 2013, http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/climate-change-
violence/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+
rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29)//VIVIENNE
(CNN) -- It's a hot day; sweat soaks your forehead, and you just want to get back to your air-conditioned home, so of course you're
going to be angry if the car in front of you doesn't move when the traffic light turns green. Honk! Honk! When
the
temperature rises, so does aggression -- and that can lead to large-scale consequences,
considering that climate change is turning up the heat over the entire planet. A new study in the
journal Science shows that shifts in climate historically have been associated with violent
conflicts, among both individuals and groups, and that current warming patterns could
significantly increase the abundance of human conflict by midcentury. Researchers' meta-analysis of 60 studies
suggest that, consistent with links between conflict and climate shifts in the past, the risk of intergroup conflict around much of the
planet would be amplified by 50% in 2050. "It
does change how we think about the value of avoiding climate
change," said Solomon Hsiang, lead study author and researcher at the University of California, Berkeley. "It makes us
think that avoiding climate change is actually something we should be willing to invest more in."
Future populations will hopefully also be able to figure out ways to adapt to these climate events, such that the predicted increase in
violence will become less likely. Large-scale changes in technologies or political institutions may also alter the risk of violence in the
future, Hsiang said. A brief history of climate change and violence Research on the topic of climate
change and violence
has been exploding onto the scene in recent years, study authors noted, with 78% of the studies included in this analysis
having been published since 2009. Hsiang and colleagues incorporated research on civilizations dating back as far as 10,000 B.C.
and across all major world regions. Studies
both in laboratory settings and of "natural" human situations
have found a connection between heat and violence (PDF), the study said. Higher temperatures have
been linked to both innocuous hostile behaviors, such as horn-honking while driving, and more serious behaviors
such as domestic violence within households, assault and rape. Police officers are also more likely to use force at higher
temperatures, studies have found. Conflict
is also associated with extreme rainfall, particularly in
societies dependent on agriculture. Higher rates of personal violence are found in low-income
settings, where agriculture income suffers from extremely wet or dry conditions. The Mayan
civilization appears to have collapsed during long periods of drought, Hsiang said. The same global climate event seems to have
brought down the Tang dynasty in China -- in fact, according to Hsiang, most Chinese dynasties collapsed during dry spells. The
climate conditions that contributed to the decline of civilizations in both Central America and
China look like an El Nino event, Hsiang said. That directly relates to Hsiang's 2011 study in the journal Nature
suggesting that the El Nino Southern Oscillation played a role in 21% of civil conflicts from 1950 to 2004. Evidence points to poorer
countries of the tropics, such as Sudan and Rwanda, as being most affected in this way, whereas Australia did not have El Ninorelated conflicts. That's not to say that El Nino, a large movement of water in the Pacific Ocean that occurs about every four to five
years, can be said to cause any given civil conflict. In fact, it's impossible to prove that
any particular war or act of
violence is the direct result of climate change. There are certainly other factors that cause and insight violence of
all kinds. But Hsiang's new study reinforces the idea that dramatic climate shifts increase the odds of violent
conflict, as if loading a deck of cards in favor of this gruesome outcome. Similarly, no individual hurricane
or hot day in our time is definitively "caused" by human-induced climate change, but it does make extreme events such as last year's
Superstorm Sandy more likely, said J. Marshall Shepherd, president of the American Meteorological Society and professor at the
University of Georgia.
--water wars
Warming causes water wars
The Independent 06 (The Independent, "Water Wars: Climate change may spark conflict" 2006
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/water-wars-climate-change-may-spark-conflict-467957.html, RLA)
-Five per cent of the world's population survives on 1 per cent of its water in the Middle East and
this contributed to the 1967 Arab -Israeli war. It could fuel further military crises as global
warming continues. Israel, the Palestinian Territories and Jordan rely on the River Jordan but
Israel controls it and has cut supplies during times of scarcity. Palestinian consumption is
severely restricted by Israel.¶ Turkey and Syria¶ Turkish plans to build dams on the Euphrates River brought the country
to the brink of war with Syria in 1998. Damascus accused Ankara of deliberately meddling with their water
supply as the country lies downstream of Turkey, who accused Syria of sheltering key Kurdish
separatist leaders. Water shortages driven by global warming will pile on the pressure in this
volatile region.¶ China and India¶ The Brahmaputra River has caused tension between India and China and could be a
flashpoint for two of the world's biggest armies. In 2000, India accused China of not sharing information of the river's status in the
run up to landslides in Tibet which caused floods in northeastern India and Bangladesh.
Chinese proposals to divert
theriver have concerned Delhi.¶ Angola and Namibia¶ Tensions have flared between Botswana,
Namibia and Angola around the vast Okavango basin. And droughts have seen Namibia revive
plans for a 250-mile water pipeline to supply the capital. Draining the delta would be lethal for
locals and tourism. Without the annual flood from the north, the swamps will shrink and water
will bleed way into the Kalahari Desert¶ Ethiopia and Egypt¶ Population growth in Egypt, Sudan
and Ethiopia is threatening conflict along the world's longest river, The Nile. Ethiopia is pressing for a
greater share of the Blue Nile's water but that would leave downstream Egypt as a loser. Egypt is worried the White Nile
running through Uganda and Sudan, could be depleted as well before it reaches the parched
Sinai desert.¶ Bangladesh and India¶ Floods in the Ganges caused by melting glaciers in the
Himalayas are wreaking havoc in Bangladesh leading to a rise in illegal migration to India. This
has prompted India to build an immense border fence in attempt to block newcomers. Some 6,000 people illegally cross the border
to India every day.
--systemic
Warming is systemic – we must act quickly to minimize the damage
Gillis 14 (Justin Gillis, writer for the New York Times, "U.S. Climate Has Already Changed,
Study Finds, Citing Heat and Floods" 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/science/earth/climate-changereport.html?_r=0, RLA)
The effects of human-induced climate change are being felt in every corner of the United States,
scientists reported Tuesday, with water growing scarcer in dry regions, torrential rains
increasing in wet regions, heat waves becoming more common and more severe, wildfires
growing worse, and forests dying under assault from heat-loving insects.¶ Such sweeping changes have
been caused by an average warming of less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit over most land areas of the country in the past century, the
If greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane continue to
escalate at a rapid pace, they said, the warming could conceivably exceed 10 degrees by
the end of this century.¶ “Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,”
scientists found.
the scientists declared in a major new report assessing the situation in the United States.¶ Continue reading the main story¶
RELATED COVERAGE¶ Pulse of the People: Americans Are Outliers in Views on Climate ChangeMAY 6, 2014¶ Using
Weathercasters to Deliver a Climate Change MessageMAY 6, 2014¶ The campus of Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. The
decision by trustees to get rid of stock in coal-mining companies was a victory for a rapidly growing student-led divestment
movement.Stanford to Purge $18 Billion Endowment of Coal StockMAY 6, 2014¶ “Summers are longer and hotter, and extended
periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced,” the report continued. “Winters are generally
shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours. People are seeing changes in the length and severity of seasonal allergies,
the plant varieties that thrive in their gardens, and the kinds of birds they see in any particular month in their neighborhoods.” The
report is the latest in a series of dire warnings about how the effects of global warming that had been long foreseen by climate
scientists are already affecting the planet. Its region-by-region documentation of changes occurring in the United States, and of
future risks, makes clear that few places will be unscathed — and some, like northerly areas, are feeling the effects at a swifter pace
than had been expected.¶ Alaska in particular is hard hit. Glaciers
and frozen ground in that state are melting,
storms are eating away at fragile coastlines no longer protected by winter sea ice, and entire
communities are having to flee inland — a precursor of the large-scale changes the report
foresees for the rest of the United States.¶ The study, known as the National Climate Assessment, was prepared by a
large scientific panel overseen by the government and received final approval at a meeting Tuesday.¶ The White House, which
released the report, wants to maximize its impact to drum up a sense of urgency among Americans about climate change — and thus
to build political support for a contentious new climate change regulation that President Obama plans to issue in June.¶ But instead
of giving a Rose Garden speech, President Obama spent Tuesday giving interviews to local and national weather broadcasters on
climate change and extreme weather. The goal was to help Americans connect the vast planetary problem of global warming caused
by carbon emissions from cars and coal plants to the changing conditions in their own backyards. It was a strategic decision that
senior White House staff members had been planning for months.¶ Continue reading the main story¶ FEATURED COMMENT¶ A
Guy Lower Manhattan¶ Regardless of your scientific views, shouldn't we be striving for a safer, more efficient, renewable energy
system?¶ 1761 COMMENTS¶ Speaking to Al Roker of NBC News, in an interview scheduled to be shown Wednesday morning on the
This is a problem that is affecting
Americans right now. Whether it means increased flooding, greater vulnerability to drought,
more severe wildfires — all these things are having an impact on Americans as we speak.” In the
“Today” show, Mr. Obama said “This is not some distant problem of the future.
Northeast, the report found a big increase in torrential rains and risks from a rising sea that could lead to a repeat of the kind of
flooding seen in Hurricane Sandy. In the Southwest, the water shortages seen to date are likely just a foretaste of the changes to
come, the report found. In that region, the report warned, “severe
and sustained drought will stress water
sources, already overutilized in many areas, forcing increasing competition among farmers,
energy producers, urban dwellers and plant and animal life for the region’s most precious
resource.Ӧ The report did find some benefits from climate change in the short run, particularly for the Midwest, such as a
longer growing season for crops and a longer shipping season on the Great Lakes. But it warned
that these were likely to be countered in the long run by escalating damages, particularly to
agriculture.¶ “Yes, climate change is already here,” said Richard B. Alley, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State
University who was not involved in writing the report. “But the costs so far are still on the low side compared to what will be coming
under business as usual by late in this century.Ӧ The report was supervised and approved by a large committee representing a cross
section of American society, including representatives of two oil companies. It is the third national report in 14 years, and by far the
most urgent in tone, leaving little doubt that the scientists consider climate change an incipient crisis. It is also the most slickly
produced, with an elaborate package of interactive graphics on the Internet.¶ One of the report’s most striking findings concerned
Scientists have expected this effect for decades because more water
is evaporating from a warming ocean surface, and the warmer atmosphere is able to hold the
excess vapor, which then falls as rain or snow. But even the leading experts have been surprised
by the scope of the change.¶ The report found that the eastern half of the country is receiving more
the rising frequency of torrential rains.
precipitation in general. And over the past half-century, the proportion of precipitation that is falling
in very heavy rain events has jumped by 71 percent in the Northeast, by 37 percent in the Midwest and
by 27 percent in the South, the report found. “It’s a big change,” said Radley M. Horton, a climate
scientist at Columbia University in New York who helped write the report. He added that scientists
do not fully understand the regional variations.¶ In recent years, sudden intense rains have caused
extensive damage.¶ For instance, large parts of Nashville were devastated by floods in 2010 after
nearly 20 inches of rain fell in two days. Last year, parts of Colorado flooded after getting as much
rain in a week as normally falls in a year. Just last week, widespread devastation occurred in the
Florida Panhandle from rains that may have exceeded two feet in 24 hours. ¶ The new report
emphasized that people should not expect global warming to happen at a steady pace, nor at the
same rate throughout the country. Bitterly cold winters will continue to occur, the report said,
even as they become somewhat less likely. Warming, too, will vary. While most of the country
has warmed sharply over the past century, the Southeast has barely warmed at all, and a section
of southern Alabama has even cooled slightly.¶ Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main
storyContinue reading the main story¶ The report cited the likely role of climate change in causing an outbreak of mountain pine
beetles that has devastated millions of acres of pine forest across the American West and the Canadian province of British Columbia;
warmer winters and longer summers have let more of the beetles survive and reproduce at an exponential rate. And the report
warned of severe, long-lasting heat waves. For instance, it cited research saying the type of record-breaking heat that scorched Texas
and Oklahoma in 2011 had become substantially more likely because of the human release of greenhouse gases.¶ On rising sea levels,
the new report went beyond warnings issued in September by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
which said that by the end of the century, sea levels could rise by as much as three feet globally if emissions continue at a rapid pace.
The American scientists said the rise could be anywhere from one to four feet, and added that six feet could not be ruled out. Along
much of the East Coast, the situation will be worse than the global average because the land there is sinking, the scientists said.¶
Historically, the United States was responsible for more emissions than any other country. Lately, China has become the largest
emitter over all, though its emissions per person are still far below those of the United States.¶ The
report pointed out that
while the country as a whole still had no comprehensive climate legislation, many states and
cities had begun to take steps to limit emissions and to adapt to climatic changes that can no
longer be avoided. But the report found that these efforts were inadequate.¶ “There is mounting
evidence that harm to the nation will increase substantially in the future unless global emissions
of heat-trapping gases are greatly reduced,” the report warned.
***indicts
--consensus
We have the consensus – all of their evidence is founded on lies
Powell, 2/25 – science author who has been a college and museum president and was a
member of the National Science Board for 12 years, appointed first by President Reagan and
then by President George H. W. Bush (Jim, “Consensus: 99.84% of Peer-Reviewed Articles
Support the Idea of Global Warming,” http://thecontributor.com/why-climate-deniers-haveno-scientific-credibility-one-pie-chart)//VIVIENNE
Polls show that many members of the public believe scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The
gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on
opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature. I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed
scientific articles published between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or
"global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See my methodology. I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts,
and entire articles necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article
had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process
better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason
for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and
effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana
Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; Cook provided invaluable technical expertise. This work follows that of
Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase “global climate
change.” She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her
criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up. Some articles on
global warming may use other keywords, for example, “climate change” without the "global" prefix. But there is no reason to think
that the proportion rejecting global warming would be any higher. By my definition, out
of 13,950 peer-reviewed articles
published on global warming since 1991, only 23, or 0.16 percent , clearly reject global warming or endorse a
cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 23
articles have been cited a total of 112 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations
each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the
rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17. Of one thing we can be
certain: had
any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global
warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of
science. The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The top 10 countries represented, in order, are USA, England,
China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. (The chart shows results through November 9, 2012.)
Global warming
deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed
journals. But 23 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global
warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have
earned little support or notice, even from other deniers. A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews,
Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously
rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have
no evidence that
falsifies global warming. Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. Another reviewer would likely have slightly
different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion,
for only one conclusion is possible: Within
science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its
influence is instead on a misguided media , politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible
public. Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate
science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that
continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These
are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.
Scientific consensus flips aff – its anthropogenic
Cook et al., 13 – Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia, Skeptical
Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, School of Psychology, University of Western Australia,
Australia AND Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia and Tetra Tech,
Incorporated, McClellan, CA, USA, AND Department of Chemistry, Michigan Technological
University, USA, AND Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, UK AND Skeptical
Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia AND Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia, AND Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada AND
Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, USA AND Salt
Spring Consulting Ltd, Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada(John, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green,
Mark Richardson, Barbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce,
“Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” IOP
PUBLISHING ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, http://iopscience.iop.org/17489326/8/2/024024/media)//VIVIENNE
An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support
for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people’s
acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012). Despite numerous indicators of a
consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental
cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012). In the most comprehensive analysis performed to date,
we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large
sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus
that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW). Surveys
of
climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing
climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that
scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected
in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007). The peer-reviewed
scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment of the degree of consensus among
publishing scientists. An analysis of abstracts published from 1993–2003 matching the search ‘global climate change’ found
that none of 928 papers disagreed with the consensus position on AGW (Oreskes 2004). This is consistent with an
analysis of citation networks that found a consensus on AGW forming in the early 1990s (Shwed
and Bearman 2010). Despite these independent indicators of a scientific consensus, the perception of the US public is
that the scientific community still disagrees over the fundamental cause of GW. From 1997 to 2007,
public opinion polls have indicated around 60% of the US public believes there is significant disagreement among scientists about
whether GW was happening (Nisbet and Myers 2007). Similarly, 57% of the US public either disagreed or were unaware that
scientists agree that the earth is very likely warming due to human activity (Pew 2012). Through analysis of climate-related papers
published from 1991 to 2011, this study provides the most comprehensive analysis of its kind to date in order to quantify and
evaluate the level and evolution of consensus over the last two decades.
--prefer consensus
Prefer consensus – the fact that one exists speaks volumes
Miller 12 – Research Assistant Professor of Geology at Kansas State University, Ph.D. Geology
(Keith, “The nature of science and the public debate over anthropogenic global warming”,
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 64.4, Dec. 2012: p. 220, AcademicOneFile, RSpec)
Because the scientific community is very diverse, consensus conclusions carry a lot of weight.
Consensus views, while never unanimous, represent the conclusions of scientists based on the
overwhelming congruence of evidence from multiple independent sources . Such consensus
conclusions are not easily obtained , and they are also not easily overturned -and they should not be.
Science is inherently conservative and resistant to change. Otherwise, there would be no
theoretically stable foundation from which to work. Thus, when a new consensus is reached, it represents the
result of the accumulation of a very large and persuasive body of evidence.
--at: bast and spencer
Consensus goes aff - Bast and Spencer are flat-out wrong
Nuccitelli, 14 --- an environmental scientist and risk assessor (5/28/14, Dana, “The Wall
Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming”,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-percent/2014/may/28/wall-street-journal-denies-global-warming-consensus, RE)
Rupert Murdoch’s The Wall Street Journal editorial page has long published op-eds denying
basic climate science. This week, they published an editorial denying the 97% expert scientific
consensus that humans are causing global warming. The editorial may have been published as a
damage control effort in the wake of John Oliver’s brilliant and hilarious global warming debate viral video, which has now
surpassed 3 million views. After all, fossil fuel interests and Republican political strategists have been waging a campaign to obscure
public awareness of the expert consensus global warming for nearly three decades. The
Wall Street Journal editorial
was written by Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute political advocacy group of
Unabomber billboard infamy, and Roy Spencer of “global warming Nazis” infamy. Spencer previously
claimed in testimony to US Congress to be part of the 97% consensus, although his research actually falls within the less than 3%
fringe minority of papers that minimize or reject the human influence on global warming. Spencer’s
claim to the contrary
was a result of failing to understand the consensus research he referenced. In The Wall Street Journal
this week, Spencer and Bast continued that tradition of misunderstanding and misrepresenting the
scientific literature on the expert global warming consensus. For example, in order to reject the findings of
the paper my colleagues and I published last year finding a 97% consensus on human-caused
global warming in the peer-reviewed literature, Bast and Spencer referenced a critical comment
subsequently published by David Legates et al. in an obscure off-topic journal called Science and Education. That paper
was based on a blog post written by Christopher Monckton, who's infamous for calling
environmental activists “Hitler Youth.” Monckton's blog post and paper tried to deny the
consensus by ignoring 98% of the papers that endorse it. He compared only papers that explicitly
quantified the human contribution to global warming to the full sample of all peer-reviewed
papers that mention the phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” By that standard,
there’s less than a 1% expert consensus on evolution, germ theory, and heliocentric theory,
because there are hardly any papers in those scientific fields that bother to say something so
obvious as, for example, “the Earth revolves around the sun.” The same is true of human-caused
global warming. That Bast and Spencer refer to Monckton and Legates’ fundamentally wrong paper in an obscure off-topic
journal as “more reliable research” reveals their bias in only considering denial “reliable.” Bast and Spencer didn’t just
limit their misrepresentations to our paper; they spread the wealth to all of the big global
warming consensus studies. The first was done by Naomi Oreskes and published in Science in 2004, finding that in a
sample of 928 peer-reviewed climate research abstracts, none rejected human-caused global warming. Bast and Spencer claimed,
“scores of articles by prominent [contrarian] scientists … who question the consensus, were excluded.” This
is inaccurate;
their ‘skeptical’ papers simply weren’t represented in Oreskes’ sample of 928 papers, which isn’t
surprising since these contrarian papers account for less than 3% of the peer-reviewed global warming research. Oreskes’ sample
also didn’t capture tens of thousands of other climate papers that are consistent with the 97% consensus. That’s why it’s called a
sample. Bast
and Spencer also argued that abstracts don’t necessarily accurately reflect the content
of a complete scientific paper, which could be a weakness in Oreskes’ study, given that she only
considered the abstracts. However, our study last year included ratings of over 2,000 full papers
by the scientist authors themselves. The result? Once again, a 97% consensus on human-caused
global warming. Next came a survey of Earth scientists by Doran & Zimmerman in 2009, and a survey of public statements
made by climate researchers by Anderegg and colleagues in 2010, both again finding a 97% consensus on human-caused global
warming among climate experts. In their opinion article, Bast and Spencer tried to reject these studies as having relatively small
sample sizes. However, their results were consistent with those in our study, which had a much larger sample size. We found 10,356
scientists whose published climate research has stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among those 10,356 scientists,
98.4% endorsed the consensus. In addition to these consensus studies, at least 80 National Academies of Science and dozens of
scientific organizations from around the world agree with the consensus; none oppose it. Instead
of accepting these
consistent results that have been published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals like Science, the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Environmental Research Letters, Spencer and Bast choose to
believe some less robust data that they find more convenient. The first source they cite is a
survey of members of the American Meteorological Society, in which only 13% of participants
described climate science as their area of expertise. Worse yet, Bast and Spencer also referenced
the Oregon Petition, which can be signed by anyone with just about any college science degree,
and which has included “signatures” from fictional characters and Spice Girls. After complaining about
the relatively small sample sizes of climate experts in previous surveys, Bast and Spencer instead put their trust in two documents
that mostly include non-climate experts. Bast
and Spencer also tried to downplay the expert consensus,
arguing that climate scientists don’t specify that global warming is “dangerous.” What we each consider
dangerous is subjective and not scientific – some people think that driving 100 miles per hour in a rain storm isn’t dangerous.
However, if the 97% expert consensus is right, it means we’re in for several more degrees of
global warming if we continue on a business-as-usual path. Climate Science Watch lists some key climate
reports that summarize the “disruptive” and “highly damaging” threats we face from the impacts of further global warming.
According to the IPCC, over 40% of global species will face increasing risk of extinction in a business-as-usual scenario. Glacier
retreats will threaten water supplies in Central Asia and South America. Global sea level will rise in excess of 1 meter. We’re probably
currently experiencing global warming at a rate unprecedented for the past 11,000 years. Scientists tend to shy away from making
subjective assessments about what’s “dangerous,” but those are the types of threats climate scientists tell us we face from continued
global warming. Bottom
line – the 97% expert scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
is real. It presents a strong litmus test; those who deny this reality aren’t interested in good faith
discussions about climate change. They’re simply in denial. We’re well past the point where we need to
stop “debating” established facts like human-caused global warming and the 97% expert
consensus. If Murdoch’s The Wall Street Journal keeps publishing editorials that flat-out deny reality, especially
from people who compare those they disagree with to terrorists and Nazis, it will lose credibility
and fall by the wayside as the rest of the world moves on to debate how to best solve the
problem.
--conservative bias
Studies show the media suffers from a “false balance”—expert consensus isn’t
reflected in news reports
Nuccitelli 13, Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental
consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics
from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the
University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and
solutions since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010. He also
blogs for The Guardian (Dana, “Conservative media outlets found guilty of biased global
warming coverage” The Guardian, 10/11/13,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-percent/2013/oct/11/climate-change-political-media-ipcc-coverage)//ADravid
New studies show conservative and politically neutral media outlets are creating false balance in
climate change reporting. There's a 97 percent consensus on human-caused global warming in
the peer-reviewed climate science literature and among climate experts. There's a 96 percent consensus in the
climate research that humans are responsible for most of the current global warming. The 2013 IPCC report agrees with this position
with 95 percent confidence, and states that humans are most likely responsible for 100 percent of the global warming since 1951. Yet a new study
conducted by Media Matters for America shows that in stories about the 2013 IPCC report,
rather than accurately reflect this expert consensus, certain media outlets have created a false
perception of discord amongst climate scientists. IPCC media coverage vs. the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global
warming IPCC media coverage vs. the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming, courtesy of Media Matters. Conservative News Outlet False Balance and
politically conservative news outlets like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and the Wall Street Journal were
responsible for the lion's share of the false balance, disproportionately representing climate
contrarians in their stories about the IPCC report. Disproportionate climate contrarian coverage on Fox News as compared to the 97 percent expert consensus on
Fake Experts Specifically,
human-caused global warming Disproportionate climate contrarian coverage on Fox News as compared to the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming,
The Media Matters study focused on American news outlets, but similar patterns
have been observed in other international media markets. Mat Hope at Carbon Brief reviewed UK media coverage of the IPCC
report. Based on the IPCC story headlines he compiled, the politically conservative Times, Daily Mail, and Telegraph gave
climate contrarian views disproportionate coverage, unlike The Guardian, Observer, and
Independent. Rupert Murdoch's The Australian also heavily featured climate contrarians in its
climate stories leading up to the 2013 IPCC report. Because there are so few climate scientist
contrarians to choose from, most of the guests casting doubt on human-caused global warming
and the IPCC report were not climate scientists. It's important to remember that the scientific evidence has no political bias, which
courtesy of Media Matters.
suggests that the disproportionate representation of climate contrarians is a result of the political biases in the media outlets themselves. Disproportionate climate contrarian
coverage on Fox News as compared to the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming Background of guests who accept and reject human-caused global
warming in IPCC media stories, courtesy of Media Matters. The 19 percent of guests classified as 'climate scientists' in the above graphic is also very generous to the conservative
American media outlets. The 19 percent is comprised of Judith Curry, Willie Soon (who has received $1m from coal and oil industry interests since 2001), and Anthony Tsonis
This practice is
known as "false balance," where the 3 percent of climate contrarians are given a
disproportionate amount of media coverage, creating the perception that there is a significant
divide amongst climate experts. In their purported efforts to be "fair and balanced" and represent "both sides," these media outlets
are actually creating an unbalanced perception of reality. The reality is that 97 percent of climate experts and evidence support
(whose research on ocean cycles is entirely consistent with human-caused global warming, but whose views Fox News portrayed inaccurately).
human-caused global warming. The findings in the IPCC report are consistent with that expert consensus, as we would expect, since the IPCC report is simply a summary of the
Unfortunately this practice of false balance appears to be
spreading to politically neutral media outlets. The BBC has been heavily criticized for its interviews of climate contrarians leading up to the
body of scientific research. Bias Seeping into the BBC
publication of the IPCC report. BBC editor Ehsan Masood attempted to defend the network's false balance coverage this week, arguing that there is a difference between climate
contrarians and skeptics, and that it's important to cover the latter to avoid "shutting out dissenting voices." There certainly is a difference between biased contrarians and openminded skeptics. The problem is that the BBC can't seem to tell the difference. For example, they granted an extensive interview to Bob Carter, a marine geologist with minimal
experience in climate science, who works for numerous conservative think tanks including the Global Warming Policy Foundation. In fact, the interview largely centered on the
right-wing think tank response to the IPCC report, the NIPCC report, which is neither a legitimate scientific document, nor skeptical. Rather it is the epitome of cherry picking
and myth regurgitation. If the BBC wants to give airtime to "dissenting voices" in climate, it should invite them to debate policy solutions. Amplifying the voices of climate
contrarians who reject fundamental aspects of climate science is not constructive. As Masood admitted, "Very few journalists (at least in the developed world) would give space
to those claiming HIV doesn't cause Aids, to flat-Earthers, or those who believe that vaccines make us ill." Will the BBC begin following every Attenborough program by giving
It amplifies the
voices of the 3 percent minority and creates the false impression of a division amongst climate
experts. As a result, only 45 percent of Americans are aware of the 97 percent expert consensus
on human-caused global warming. Media false balance as illustrated in the IPCC reporting by outlets like the BBC, Wall Street Journal, and Fox
Creationists airtime? Giving space to those like Bob Carter that reject the expert consensus on human-caused climate change is no different.
News is largely to blame for this "consensus gap." This practice of false balance misinforms the public and does us all a disservice.
--peer review good
Peer review is the foundation of credible science – prefer it
Kennedy 5/16/14 – Master’s Degree Physical Geography and Environmental Systems,
(Jessica, The Energy Collective, http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/381526/97watch-john-oliver-s-hilarious-statistically-representative-climate-change-debat, RSpec)
Peer reviewed articles are what matter . Credible researchers submit their work for
review. "Scientists" who know their research has severe flaws will not, for obvious reasons. The 97%
statistic comes primarily from work of scientists (real ones) that scanned peer reviewed research for articles rejecting climate
Peer
review is not a liberal agenda. It is a legitimate part of the scientific process, and a necessary
step to ensure that no seriously flawed or biased papers are published in well-respected
journals.
change. Now, let me be extremely clear on this (and it is not my personal opinion, but it is how the review process works).
Peer review is the only way to assess validity
Hoegh-Guldberg 11 – Ph.D., Director of Global Change Institute and Professor of Marine
Studies at University of Queensland (Ove, “Who’s your expert? The difference between peer
review and rhetoric”, 6/11/11, http://theconversation.com/whos-your-expert-the-differencebetween-peer-review-and-rhetoric-1550, RSpec)
Peer review is the basis of modern scientific endeavour. It underpins research and
validates findings, theories and data. Submitting scientists' claims to peer review is a
straightforward way to assess their credibility. The Climate Commission was established by the Australian
government to help build consensus around climate change. Chief Commissioner Professor Tim Flannery handed the first major
report, The Critical Decade to Julia Gillard on May 23. Peer-reviewed by internationally respected scientists, the report summarises
key evidence and conclusions regarding climate change for Australia and the world. Rising temperatures, changing rainfall, threats
to human health and agriculture, and deteriorating ecosystems are carefully documented from the scientific literature. The report
makes compelling reading and a solid case for rapid action on greenhouse gases such as CO2. But are all experts really in agreement
with the Climate Commission’s report? Enter an alternative group of experts. Writing in Quadrant Online Bob Carter, David Evans,
Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth stated, “The scientific advice contained within The Critical Decade is an inadequate, flawed and
misleading basis on which to set national policy.” Carter and his colleagues dispute the major findings and assert that “independent
scientists are confident overall that there is no evidence of global warming” or unusual “sea-level rise”. According to them “there is
nothing unusual about the behaviour of mountain glaciers, Arctic sea ice or the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets.” You would
be forgiven for concluding that firm action on carbon dioxide might not be warranted if the experts can’t agree. But is there really so
much scientific dispute over the facts of climate change? One way to resolve this is to ask a simple question.
If Carter and
company hold different views to those expressed in the majority of the peer-reviewed, scientific
literature, then have they submitted their ideas to independent and objective peer-review? This
is a critical process that sorts opinion and rhetoric from scientific knowledge and consensus . If
the answer is “yes”, there are legitimate grounds for concern over the report’s conclusion. If the answer is “no”, the arguments
against the Climate Commission’s report fall away as unsubstantiated opinion. The Web of Science is maintained by Thomson
Reuters and covers 10,000 journals across the sciences, social sciences, arts and humanities. You can search this database for papers
by different authors within reputable, peer-reviewed journals. I used the Web of Science to see if Carter, Evans, Franks and
Kininmonth were legitimate experts in the areas in which they claim superior knowledge. Given
such strong opinions,
you would expect that the four individuals would have published extensively in the peer-reviewed,
scientific literature on subjects like climate change, oceanography, and atmospheric physics. After all,
if they have such strong opinions, then surely these ideas have been treated like all other valid scientific ideas? The Climate
Commission and its scientific advisory panel survive this type of scrutiny extremely well. For example, Climate Commissioner
Professor Lesley Hughes has at least 39 peer-reviewed publications since 2000. Many of these articles focus on the terrestrial
ecosystems on climate change, an area for which Professor Hughes is internationally recognised. Similar conclusions can be made
for Professors Will Steffen, Matt England, David Karoly, Andrew Pitman and the others associated with the Climate Commission.
Searching for peer-reviewed articles by “R. M. Carter”, however, revealed plenty of peer-reviewed
articles on unrelated topics within geology . Only one paper turns up that could be remotely related to climate
change. This paper, however, was found to be seriously flawed by an internationally recognised group of Earth scientists.
This brings us back to zero for the number of credible papers published by Carter on climate change
in the Web of Science. Searching for articles by David Evans and William Kininmonth revealed no peer-reviewed scientific literature
that tests their claim that climate change is not happening. Lastly, searching for peer-reviewed papers from Stewart Franks yielded a
number of articles (>50) on hydrology and climate variability since 2000. None of these peer-reviewed articles presented data or
tested the idea that climate change is or is not happening, or any of the other “errors” that Carter and his co-authors claim are
associated with the conclusions of the Climate Commission. The number of articles by Franks since 2000 that involve peer review of
his claims that climate change is not happening is also zero. So the number of peer-reviewed papers that adequately expose the ideas
of Carter and co-authors to the scientific peer-review system on the climate change issue is 0, 0, 0 and 0. We are left, then, with the
observation that the Climate Commission’s report, peer-reviewed and assessed by scientists with appropriate expertise, is being
challenged by four individuals who refer to websites and blogs and who have not had their core claims about climate change tested
in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Don’t get me wrong, discussion
is important, but on serious matter such
as climate change, let us hope we listen carefully to the experts and not the unsubstantiated
opinions of those that are not.
--heartland institute
Heartland Institute is paid off by special interest groups and doesn’t represent
science
Plait, 12 – Ph.D from UVA, former NASA associate at Goddard Space Flight Center, former
assistant at Sonoma State University (Philip, “Breaking news: A look behind the curtain of the
Heartland Institute’s climate change spin,” Discover Magazine Bad Astronomy, 2/15/12,
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/15/breaking-news-a-look-behindthe-curtain-of-the-heartland-institutes-climate-change-spin/)//VIVIENNE
The Heartland Institute — a self-described “think tank” that actually serves in part as a way for climate change
denialism to get funded — has a potentially embarrassing situation on their hands . Someonegoing by the handle
“Heartland Insider” has anonymously released quite a few of what are claimed to be internal documents from Heartland,
revealing the Institute’s strategies, funds, and much more. [UPDATE: Heartland has confirmed that some of
the documents are real, but claims the strategy document, which I quote below about teaching strategy, is faked. This claim has not yet been
confirmed or refuted. DeSmogBlog has more info.] These documents are available over at DeSmogBlog. Several people are going over them, and so far
they appear legit. You can read some relevant discussions at DeSmogBlog, Deep Climate, Planet 3, Greg Laden, ClimateCrocks, Shawn Otto, and Think
Progress. John Mashey at DeSmogBlog has more info that also corroborates the leaked documents, and to
call it blistering is to severely
underestimate it. One thing I want to point out right away which is very illuminating, if highly disturbing, about what Heartland
allegedly wants to do: they are considering developing a curriculum for teachers to use in the classroom to sow
confusion aboutclimate change. I know, it sounds like I’m making that up, but I’m not. In this document they say: [Dr.
Wojick's] effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is
controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective atdissuading teachers from teaching
science. That seems clear enough, doesn’t it? From that, it sure sounds like they want to dissuade teachers from teaching
science. I imagine there will be a lot of spin about how this quote is out of context, or a typo, or something alone those lines. Perhaps. But I
remember all the hammering real scientists took when they used jargon in their emails to each other, jargon which was gleefully misinterpreted to
make it seem as if these scientists were faking data. Interesting how this is pointing right back at them. Just as I said it does. When it comes to all this,
the comparison to “Climategate” springs to mind, but there’s one enormous difference: Climategate was
manufactured, a made-up controversy (what I call a manufactroversy) that had no real teeth — as was its failed sequel. The
emails released weren’t damning at all, and didn’t show scientists tinkering with or faking data. As much as the media made of it, as much as climate
change denial blogs played them up, it has been shown again and again that Climategate was all sound and fury, signifying nothing. These
new
documents, though, look different, especially given that quote above. The next few days should be very interesting as people start digging
into them, especially if they prove to be authentic. And how ironic! It was the Heartland Institute themselves who played up Climategate quite a bit.
Back in 2009 when they were trumpeting Climategate, Heartland said: The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics,
politicians, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position. The experts they
trusted and quoted in the past have been caught red-handed plotting to conceal data, hide temperature trends that contradict their predictions, and
keep critics from appearing in peer-reviewed journals. This is new and real evidence that they should examine and then comment on publicly. That
claim from them is nonsense, but it will be interesting to see how happy they are when the tables are turned, and “reporters, academics, politicians, and
others” look into their documents. And around that same time they also said: For anyone who doubts the power of the Internet to shine light on
darkness, the news of the month is how digital technology helped uncover a secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze others out of the
debate, and flouted freedom-of-information laws. Again, none of that is true. But that claim about freezing out others sticks out, especially in light of
another of these leaked Heartland internal memos which says, Efforts at places such as Forbes are
especially important now thatthey have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as [Peter] Gleick) to
post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is
important to keep opposing voices out. Emphasis mine. Yes, that sounds like a group interested in promoting “sound science”. Wow. Just, wow.
--idsos
The Idsos are paid off and should be rejected
Harkinson 9 – Staff Reporter at Mother Jones (“No. 8: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change (A.K.A. The Idso Family), 12/4/09,
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial-11idso-family%20%20, RSpec)
The Idso clan is the von Trapp family of climate change denial. In 1980, paterfamilias Sherwood Idso, a
self-described "bio-climatologist," published a paper in Science concluding that doubling the world's carbon dioxide concentration
wouldn't change the planet's temperature all that much. In years that followed, Idso and
his colleagues at Arizona State
University's Office of Climatology received more than $1 million in research funding from oil, coal, and
utility interests . In 1990, he coauthored a paper funded by a coal mining company, titled "Greenhouse Cooling." In 1998,
Idso's son Craig founded the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and began
publishing CO2 Science, an online digest of climate change skepticism. He subsequently earned his PhD in geography
from ASU under the tutelage of climate skeptic Robert Balling , then the director of its climatology program. In the
early 2000s, Idso was director of environmental science at Peabody Energy, the world's largest
privately owned coal company . After Peabody laid him off, he began aggressively fundraising for the center, whose
budget increased from just north of $30,000 in 2004 to more than $1 million last year. Since 2006, the center has mounted a
spirited defense of carbon dioxide using everything from ancient tree-ring data to elementary-school science experiments. "[S]cience
tells us that putting more CO2 in the air would actually be good for the planet," its website says. "Therefore, in invoking the
precautionary principle one last time, our advice to policy makers who may be tempted to embrace Kyoto-type programs is simply
this: Don't mess with success!" Like his dad, Craig Idso has become a preeminent "scientific" climate change naysayer. In lieu of
his father, who refuses to travel in airplanes, in June the younger Idso jetted
off to the Heartland Institute's climate
change conference . There he released "Climate Change Reconsidered," a 20-page report that suggested that
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists had tweaked their findings in hopes of being invited to conferences involving
"hotel accommodations at exotic locations." More recently, the Idsos have marketed the report as a timely expose of "Climategate
Culture." In 1998, Keith Idso, vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and a school teacher, did
an
experiment with his fifth-grade science class . The lesson, which demonstrates that plants need CO2
to thrive, has been taught in other classrooms across Arizona. Sherwood Idso has praised his son's experiment
for showing that cutting carbon emissions would reduce "the future benefits we could have in terms of agricultural productivity." In
1999, the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives appointed Keith Idso to serve on the state's Advisory Council on
Environmental Education. Sherwood Idso says the coal and oil interests that have supported the Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide have been backing off. Fundraising is "so poor that I'm not earning anything," he says. "Everything has to go to my son
[Craig] to help him maintain himself and the five kids that he has now, and so we're just scraping by." But the center's 2008 tax
filing shows that it entered 2009 with $445,000 in cash on hand. Last year, it paid Sherwood Idso $50,000, Craig Idso $79,000, and
Craig Idso's wife, M. Anne Idso, $52,000. The center also made a $58,000 "scientific research" grant to a group called CO2 Science.
Tax records reveal that CO2 Science's $75,000 budget that year mostly went toward paying Craig Idso a $45,000 salary, bringing his
and his wife's total take from the family business to $182,000.
***at: co2 ag
--slayer
CO2 kills plants – weeds, nutrition, and pests – this card will win us the debate
Peeples 5/09/14 – Huffington Post, citing Harvard University study, Lewis Ziska – Ph.D.,
Crop Systems and Global Change Laboratory, and David Wolfe – Professor of Horticulture at
Cornell (Lynne, “Climate Change Will Strengthen Pests, Weaken Crops, Studies Say”,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/09/climate-change-crops-agriculture-publichealth_n_5289109.html, RSpec)
Count weeds and insect pests among the beneficiaries of climate change . Meanwhile, the crops we
need will have fewer nutrients that make them beneficial, scientists revealed this week. At the root of the
problem: Rising carbon dioxide levels , warming temperatures and more frequent extreme weather
events do not treat all plants, insects and soil nutrients equally, according to a new federal climate report
and a Harvard University study. " Weeds are going to be winners under any climate change scenario that we
anticipate," said Lewis Ziska, a plant physiologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's crop systems and global change program,
Crop-devouring insects, too , are
predicted to win. Ultimately, the biggest losers may be us . April was the first month in human history when
and co-author of the National Climate Assessment released Tuesday.
carbon dioxide levels averaged greater than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. It's an arbitrary but ominous milestone,
according to experts, who forecast concentrations of the greenhouse gas will surpass 550 parts per million within the next 40 years.
weedy nemeses thrive on carbon dioxide. It's the core ingredient of photosynthesis, the process by
which a plant coverts energy from the sun into sugar to grow. Yet some plants turn the gas into a competitive edge
more efficiently than others. "A lot of our worst weeds benefit the most from high carbon dioxide," said
Both food crops and their
David Wolfe, an expert in climate change and plant physiology at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. What's more, many
weeds are incredibly adaptive to environmental changes -- warmer temperatures, or extreme events such as
droughts or floods -- which may help them further choke out critical crops , experts noted. Still, Ziska
said he sees a "silver lining" in weeds' resiliency. "Many of these adaptive weeds are cousins to crops," he said. "So, we're trying to
Insect pests , even
thrive in warmer temperatures , which can increase the speed at which the
menaces grow and reproduce, and the chances that their progeny will survive to continue
feeding on and infecting crops with harmful bacteria, viruses and fungi . Some of the pests are already
identify their beneficial characteristics and then transfer them into crops such as wheat, oats, barley or rice."
more than weeds,
expanding into territories -- such as the Northeast -- that were once too cold to host them, Wolfe said.
--nutrition
Rising CO2 alters plant chemistry so that a tradeoff occurs with growth and
nutrition
Peeples 5/09/14 – Huffington Post, citing Harvard University study, Lewis Ziska – Ph.D.,
Crop Systems and Global Change Laboratory, and David Wolfe – Professor of Horticulture at
Cornell (Lynne, “Climate Change Will Strengthen Pests, Weaken Crops, Studies Say”,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/09/climate-change-crops-agriculture-publichealth_n_5289109.html, RSpec)
A DROP IN QUALITY A study published in the journal Nature on Wednesday warns of yet another public health threat
from rising carbon dioxide: Fewer nutrients in important food crops, including wheat, rice and soybeans.
In other words, it's not just quantity, but also quality that is at stake. Researchers simulated conditions expected by midcentury and found significant reductions in zinc, iron and protein . "The nutritional impacts of these
large environmental perturbations is one of the biggest public health challenges we face," said Dr. Samuel Myers, an environmental
health expert at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author on the paper. Nearly 2 billion of the world's people receive the
majority of their zinc and iron from food crops. The minerals are critical for a healthy, functioning body -- everything from the
immune system to the brain. A lack of protein is also dangerous, and can lead to stunted growth and losses in muscle mass,
including a weakened heart. "We
can now produce more calories than we need to feed every person on
the planet, but what we really have a problem with is malnutrition ," added Cornell's Wolfe. "A higher
carbon dioxide world is going to work against us." Carbon dioxide may help a plant
produce more sugars, starches and other high-energy carbohydrates. A resulting low -level swap
of protein for carbohydrates may increase risks of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic diseases in
both the developed and developing worlds, Myers said.
CO2 decreases plant protein and nutrition – that forces insects to eat more than
usual
Yin et al. 4/1/14 (Jin Yin, Yucheng Sun, and Feng Ge – State Key Laboratory of Integrated
Management of Pest Insects and Rodents, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
“Reduced plant nutrition under elevated CO2 depresses the immunocompetence of cotton
bollworm against its endoparasite”, Science Reports 4, 4/1/14, RSpec)
Elevated CO2 alters the chemical composition of plant tissue23. In response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment,
most plants decrease the N and protein concentration of their larger foliage in order to
sequester carbon, which, in turn, changes the syntheses of nutrients and secondary metabolites in
the plant. N is the most important limiting resource for herbivorous insects24, and a
decrease in the foliar N of host plants could limit insect growth and development, decrease the survival rates of
phytophagous insects, and further depress the defense capability of herbivore insects against their natural enemies25, 26. European
grape berry moths, Eupoecilia ambiguella, were reared on five semi-artificial diets, and changes in the concentration of hemocytes
and prophenoloxidase (PPO) activity were measured after a bacterial immune challenge. The result showed that the nutritional
quality of diets significantly affected the immune defenses of the larvae26.
CO2 is bad for crops--- kills nutrition
Berwyn, 14--- reporter at boulder weekly citing peerreviewed report (5/14/14, Bob, “Rising
CO2 levels to cut key nutrients in global crops”, http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-12866rising-co2-levels-to-cut-key-nutrients-in-global-crops.html,RE)
New research studying 41 strains of six different crops on three continents that was published
May 7 in the scientific journal, Nature, shows that as concentrations of atmospheric carbon
dioxide increase, the nutritional content of key food crops will drop , exacerbating hunger woes
for millions of people worldwide . In some crops, concentrations of nutrients could drop by as much
as 10 percent when CO2 levels rise to 500 parts per million by mid-century. Harvard University
public health researcher Samuel Myers says that the new research once and for all resolves
questions about the impacts of CO2 on major food crops. “Already, two billion people are suffering from zinc
and iron deficiencies. That equals 63 million life years lost,” Myers says, explaining that the grains most affected by
increased greenhouse gas emissions are exactly the ones that provide those nutrients. “This is a huge
public health problem today ... These are grains and legumes that people rely on for nutrition,” he says. “Humanity is
conducting a global experiment by rapidly altering the environmental conditions on the only
habitable planet we know. As this experiment unfolds, there will undoubtedly be many
surprises. Finding out that rising CO2 threatens human nutrition is one such surprise ,” he says.
“There’s no debate about what’s happening to CO2 — it will continue to rise up to 550 ppm sometime in the
next 40 years. Whether you believe in the greenhouse effect or not, this is the reality of what’s
going to happen,” he says, urging food policy experts to calculate the findings into their equations for trying to feed the world.
Previous studies had shown similar effects, but were partly dismissed because they were conducted in greenhouses rather than in the
open air. The new study used breakthrough technology that enables crops to be grown outdoors under simulated high CO2
conditions in 10- to 15-foot diameter circles, ringed by carbon dioxide emitting jets and wind and CO2 sensor in the center. After
studying a wide variety of crops around the world and in different growing seasons, Myers says there is little doubt about the results,
calling on agricultural researchers to try and develop crop strains that can thrive under conditions expected mid-century. Combined
with other expected impacts, including reduced yields overall, food impacts could outweigh many other effects of global warming
says Howard
Frumkin, dean of the University of Washington School of Health. Frumkin was not
involved directly with the new CO2 study, but authored the health section of the National
Climate Assessment released last week. “In the big picture, looking at all the health impacts of climate change, the
food impacts will be one of the biggest over time,” Frumkin says. “There has been a lot of focus on heatwaves and wildfires,” he
continues, acknowledging that those events can affect thousands or even tens of thousands of people. “But
food issues could
potentially be threatening millions and tens of millions. The biggest problem is the reduction in
productivity,” he says. “Whole areas of the world will be much less able to produce food. Similarly,
increasing CO2 in the world’s oceans will change marine cycles and affect people who depend on
subsistence fishing.” The climate assessment explains there may be some short-term changes wrought by climate change
that could benefit some agricultural sectors, but that, by mid-century, nearly all the subsequent impacts are expected to be negative.
In terms of agriculture, at least, there is reason to hope that humanity can adjust. “We’re pretty good at adapting,” Frumkin says,
explaining that farmers have long been manipulating crops to maximize production and optimize crops for local and regional
conditions. Myers
says wheat and rice were most affected by increasing CO2 levels. Zinc, iron and
protein concentrations in wheat grains grown at sites with increased CO2 were reduced by 9.3
percent, 5.1 percent and 6.3 percent respectively, compared with wheat grown at ambient CO2. Zinc and iron were also
significantly reduced in legumes; protein was not. The finding that so-called C3 grains and legumes (wheat,
rice, soybeans and peas, for example) lost iron and zinc at elevated CO2 is significant . Myers and his
colleagues estimate that two to three billion people around the world receive 70 percent or more of
their dietary zinc and/or iron from C3 crops, particularly in the developing world, where zinc and iron deficiency is
already a major health concern. The researchers were surprised to find that zinc and iron varied substantially across cultivars of
rice. That finding suggests that there could be an opportunity to breed reduced sensitivity to the
effect of elevated CO2 into crop cultivars in the future. Over time, climate change is expected to
increase the annual variation in crop and livestock production because of its effects on weather
patterns and because of increases in some types of extreme weather events. Overall implications
for production are for increased uncertainty in production totals, which affects both domestic and
international markets and food prices. Recent analysis suggests that climate change has an outsized influence on
year-to-year swings in corn prices in the United States. Increased heat waves and the potential
for other extreme weather events also has the potential to disrupt animal production. For cattle
that breed during spring and summer, exposure to high temperatures reduces conception rates.
Livestock and dairy production are more affected by the number of days of extreme heat than by
increases in average temperature. Elevated humidity exacerbates the impact of high
temperatures on animal health and performance.
The newest studies prove elevated CO2 decrease food quality—warming inhibits
the conversion of nitrate into protein
University of California—Davis 14, UC Davis is a global community of individuals
united to better humanity and our natural world while seeking solutions to some of our most
pressing challenges. Located near the California state capital, UC Davis has more than 34,000
students, and the full-time equivalent of 4,100 faculty and other academics and 17,400 staff. The
campus has an annual research budget of over $750 million, a comprehensive health system and
about two dozen specialized research centers. The university offers interdisciplinary graduate
study and 99 undergraduate majors in four colleges and six professional schools (UC Davis,
“Field study shows why food quality will suffer with rising CO2,” 4/7/14,
http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10886)//ADravid
For the first time, a field test has demonstrated that elevated levels of carbon dioxide inhibit plants’
assimilation of nitrate into proteins, indicating that the nutritional quality of food crops is at
risk as climate change intensifies. Findings from this wheat field-test study, led by a University
of California, Davis, plant scientist, are reported online in the journal Nature Climate Change. “Food quality is
declining under the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide that we are experiencing,” said lead
author Arnold Bloom, a professor in the Department of Plant Sciences. “Several explanations for this decline have been put
forward, but this is the first study to demonstrate that elevated carbon dioxide inhibits the
conversion of nitrate into protein in a field-grown crop,” he said. The assimilation, or processing, of
nitrogen plays a key role in the plant’s growth and productivity. In food crops, it is especially important because plants
use nitrogen to produce the proteins that are vital for human nutrition. Wheat, in particular,
provides nearly one-fourth of all protein in the global human diet. Many previous laboratory studies had demonstrated
that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide inhibited nitrate assimilation in the leaves of grain and non-legume plants; however there had been no verification of this
To observe the response of wheat to different levels of atmospheric
carbon dioxide, the researchers examined samples of wheat that had been grown in 1996 and
1997 in the Maricopa Agricultural Center near Phoenix, Ariz. At that time, carbon dioxide-enriched air was released in
the fields, creating an elevated level of atmospheric carbon at the test plots, similar to what is now expected to be
present in the next few decades. Control plantings of wheat were also grown in the ambient, untreated level of
carbon dioxide. Leaf material harvested from the various wheat tests plots was immediately placed on ice, and then was oven dried and stored in vacuum-sealed
relationship in field-grown plants. Wheat field study
containers to minimize changes over time in various nitrogen compounds. A fast-forward through more than a decade found Bloom and the current research team able to
the researchers
documented that three different measures of nitrate assimilation affirmed that the elevated level
of atmospheric carbon dioxide had inhibited nitrate assimilation into protein in the field-grown
wheat. “These field results are consistent with findings from previous laboratory studies, which showed that there are several physiological mechanisms responsible for
conduct chemical analyses that were not available at the time the experimental wheat plants were harvested. In the recent study,
carbon dioxide’s inhibition of nitrate assimilation in leaves,” Bloom said. 3 percent protein decline expected Bloom noted that other studies also have shown that protein
concentrations in the grain of wheat, rice and barley — as well as in potato tubers — decline, on average, by approximately 8 percent under elevated levels of atmospheric carbon
“When this decline is factored into the respective portion of dietary protein that humans
derive from these various crops, it becomes clear that the overall amount of protein available for
human consumption may drop by about 3 percent as atmospheric carbon dioxide reaches the levels anticipated to occur during the next few decades,”
dioxide.
Bloom said. While heavy nitrogen fertilization could partially compensate for this decline in food quality, it would also have negative consequences including higher costs, more
nitrate leaching into groundwater and increased emissions of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide, he said. In addition to Bloom, the research team on this study included Martin
Burger, currently in UC Davis’ Department of Land, Air and Water Resources; and Bruce A. Kimball and Paul J. Pinter, both of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s U.S. AridLand Agricultural Research Center in Maricopa, Ariz. Funding for the study was provided by the National Science Foundation and the National Research Initiative competitive
grants program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture
.
--pests
Pests comparatively outweigh
Johnson and Riegler 13 (Scott Johnson and Markus Riegler, “Root Damage by Insects
Reverses the Effects of Elevated Atmospheric CO2 on Eucalypt Seedlings”, 11/18/13, PLOS, peer
reviewed, RSpec)
This study has illustrated the potential for soil-dwelling insect herbivores to arrest or reverse the effects of
eCO2 on plant physiology and biomass accumulation. Our results suggest that root damage by these
insects (arising through herbivory and mechanical attrition) impaired water uptake which may have curtailed
photosynthesis activity and limited the plant’s capacity for biomass accumulation at eCO2. The
recent revelation that the majority of root herbivores reduce plant photosynthesis rates (by an average of 12%), whereas defoliators
do the opposite [19], suggests that belowground
herbivores might have more scope for modifying plant
responses to eCO2 than aboveground herbivores. The present study provides some empirical basis for developing and testing
hypotheses about how root damage by soil-dwelling insects may moderate plant responses to eCO2.
--weeds
CO2 increases weeds --- kills plants
Runyon, 14 --- reporter for NPR (3/25/14, Luke, “In Ranchers Vs. Weeds, Climate Change
Gives Weeds An Edge”, http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/03/25/294351697/ranchersbrace-for-weed-invasion-as-climate-change-takes-hold, RE)
Most climate models paint a bleak picture of the Great Plains a century from now as a hot region
besieged by heavy rainstorms and flooding. And new studies suggest that climate change may
bring farmers another headache: more invasive plants. Ask most Midwestern and Rocky Mountain ranchers
about the weeds they pull their hair out over and be prepared for a long list. There's cheat grass in
Nebraska, red brome in Utah and yellow star thistle in California. And they can't count on cattle to gobble them up. Depending on
the plant, most cattle either don't want to eat it or could get sick if they do. "You kinda have to teach them about a new plant," says
Ellen Nelson, a rancher in north-central Colorado who has a weed problem. "I've gotten some of them to eat some, but in general,
that's a hard one." As
climate change takes hold, it's likely to only get worse, not just for Nelson, but
for ranchers across the country. In 2005, U.S. Department of Agriculture research ecologist Dana
Blumenthal set out to find out just how it will get worse. Specifically, he wanted to know what effect
climate change will have on a noxious weed called Dalmatian toadflax that's encroached on
grasslands in 32 U.S. states. For about eight years Blumenthal and his team simulated one
possible future climate in the Wyoming grassland. They used a heating apparatus to keep test
plots warmer than normal, and pumped carbon dioxide into the air surrounding the toadflax.
The warming and CO2 weren't set at doomsday levels, but rather conservative levels Blumenthal says
the Plains could see within a century. Under those conditions, Dalmatian toadflax flourished, growing in
size 13-fold and producing more seeds. "The simplest reason that invasive species are likely to do
well under future conditions is that they are pretty much by definition good at dealing with
change," Blumenthal said. That's why Dalmatian toadflax could be emblematic of an even larger problem. Invasive
species are invasive because they can adapt quickly. Similar field studies across the country have shown other
nasty weeds do well in warmer, more CO2-heavy conditions. Blumenthal's results were
published in the journal New Phytologist late last year. He says there is a trend toward global climate
change increasing invasion, but scientists need more data to make solid predictions. "There are
going to be cases of invasive species, some of which we care a lot about, becoming much more
problematic, and there are going to be cases of invasive species retreating from where they now exist," Blumenthal said. "We
don't know enough to say how common this is going to be yet."
--invasive species
Elevated CO2 promotes invasive species – collapses biodiversity
Blumenthal et al. 13 (Dana Blumenthal – Ph.D., Research Ecologist at the USDA, Vıctor
Resco – Ph.D. Rangeland Ecology, M.S. Forest Engineering, , Jack Morgan – Plant Physiologist
at the USDA, David Williams – Professor of Plant Isotope Ecology at University of Wyoming, ,
Daniel LeCain – Plant Physiologist at the USDA, Erik Hardy, Elise Pendall, and Emma Bladyka
“Invasive forb benefits from water savings by native plants and carbon fertilization under
elevated CO2 and warming”, New Phytologist, 2013, 200: 1156–1165, Wiley Online Library,
RSpec)
Global change and biological invasion , which individually threaten biodiversity and economic
productivity, are also likely to interact (Dukes & Mooney, 1999; Richardson et al., 2000; Vila et al., 2007). While these
interactions will vary widely with the type of global change, invasive species, and ecosystem, global change may more often
promote than inhibit plant invasion . Invasive plants have successfully colonized novel
environments, and may therefore have traits that confer success in novel environments created by
global change (Dukes & Mooney, 1999). Invasive plants also tend to respond more positively than
noninvasive plants to changes that increase resource availability, such as elevated atmospheric
CO2, increased nitrogen (N) deposition, and disturbances associated with land-use change
(Davis et al., 2000; Daehler, 2003; Blumenthal et al., 2009; Bradley et al., 2010; Gonzalez et al., 2010; van Kleunen et al., 2010).
Studies prove – increase CO2 will crowd-out native plants
Blumenthal et al. 13 (Dana Blumenthal – Ph.D., Research Ecologist at the USDA, Vıctor
Resco – Ph.D. Rangeland Ecology, M.S. Forest Engineering, , Jack Morgan – Plant Physiologist
at the USDA, David Williams – Professor of Plant Isotope Ecology at University of Wyoming, ,
Daniel LeCain – Plant Physiologist at the USDA, Erik Hardy, Elise Pendall, and Emma Bladyka
“Invasive forb benefits from water savings by native plants and carbon fertilization under
elevated CO2 and warming”, New Phytologist, 2013, 200: 1156–1165, Wiley Online Library,
RSpec)
Among global changes, increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration and climate warming are the most global and predictable
(Solomon et al., 2007). Although both elevated CO2 and warming can influence plant invasion, it remains difficult to predict the
direction and magnitude of their effects, particularly their combined effects (Walther et al., 2009; Bradley et al., 2010;Sorte et al.,
2013). Elevated CO2 commonly increases photosynthesis and growth of invasive plants
(Ziska, 2003; Song et al., 2009; Manea & Leishman, 2011). Whether or not elevated CO2 favors invasive species over native species
Meta-analyses have found either similar CO2 responses in invasive and noninvasive species (Dukes, 2000) or
trends toward stronger CO2 responses in invasive than co-occurring native species (Sorte et al.,
2013). Of the few field studies conducted under competitive conditions , several (Smith et al., 2000; H€attenschwiler &
K€orner, 2003; Dukes et al., 2011), but not all (Williams et al., 2007), have found elevated CO2 to favor invasive over
native species . For example, in the Mojave Desert, elevated CO2 more than doubled above-ground
biomass and tripled seed production of the invasive grass Bromus madritensis, but had only minor
effects on native annuals (Smith et al., 2000). It is not clear why some invasive species are so responsive to elevated CO2.
Several potential mechanisms involve intrinsically high growth rates, which may allow invasive
species to maintain strong carbon (C) sinks, high photosynthetic rates, and/or low construction
costs under elevated CO2 (Nagel et al., 2004; Song et al., 2009, 2010; K€orner, 2011; Manea & Leishman, 2011). Fastis less clear.
growing species tend to respond strongly to elevated CO2, but this advantage is less apparent incompetitive environments (Hunt et
al., 1993; Poorter & Navas, 2003; Manea & Leishman, 2011).
--at: soybeans
Increased CO2 kills soybeans and causes starvation – none of your defense about
climate change applies
Mozes 14(Alan Mozes, HealthDay Reporter, "Could Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Strip Foods of Some Nutrients?" May 7,
2014 http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=178366, RLA)
WEDNESDAY, May 7, 2014 (HealthDay News) -- As carbon dioxide levels continue to rise
around the globe, a new food investigation contends that many of the world's crops will lose vital
nutrients.¶ The new analysis looks at how nutrients found in staple foods, such as wheat, rice,
maize, sorghum, soybeans and field peas, hold up when exposed to the amount of carbon
dioxide (CO2) that's expected to be in the atmosphere by the year 2050.¶ "The bottom-line is that our work shows that by
2050 a big chunk of the world's caloric intake will have lost a significant amount of nutrients
like zinc and iron that are very important for human nutrition," said lead author Dr. Samuel Myers, a
research scientist and instructor in medicine at the Harvard School of Public Health.¶ "Why this matters is because large
vitamin and mineral deficiencies already exist today in about 2 billion people," Myers added.
"And the burden of disease associated with these deficiencies is already enormous, particularly
in developing countries. "It's also the case that about 1.9 billion people now receive at least 70 percent of their dietary iron
or zinc or both from staple crops like legumes and grains. So we have a major global health problem that's set to get much worse," he
said.¶ Myers and colleagues reported their findings in a research letter published online May 7 in Nature.¶ Carbon dioxide is a gas
that's naturally present in the atmosphere. But, it's also produced as a result of human activities, such as creating electricity and
driving cars, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The majority of CO2 now in the atmosphere comes from
human activities, according to the EPA. CO2 is one of the heat-trapping gases that's contributing to climate change.¶ Currently,
global carbon dioxide levels hover at around 400 parts per million. This compares with the roughly 280 parts per million level seen
during the pre-industrial age, according to Myers.¶ "But most experts believe that the world will see 550 parts per million by 2050,"
he said.¶
Based on that assumption, the study team established seven agricultural sites across
Australia, Japan and the United States. In turn, 41 versions of grains and legumes were planted
in open-air conditions, with CO2 levels set between 546 and 586 parts per million. Nutritional
testing revealed that some crops -- such as sorghum and maize -- fared better than others,
probably due to pre-existing CO2 exposure, the study authors suggested. Some forms of rice also
seemed to hang on to their nutritional content despite elevated CO2 levels.¶ But, many varieties
of rice, wheat, peas and soybeans lost significant amounts of iron and zinc. Zinc levels in wheat,
for example, dropped by more than 9 percent, with iron dropping by 5 percent. Wheat also saw
protein levels fall off by more than 6 percent, the investigators found.¶ In the end, Myers' team
concluded that the nutritional threat posed by carbon dioxide is all too real.¶ "And I think it's
very important not to conflate the CO2 issue with climate change," he said. "Because while
climate change is, for some, a matter of vigorous debate in terms of how it will unfold, there is
no debate about the simple fact that CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. It's rising. And the
nutritional impact we have identified here is entirely dependent on that rise, and nothing else."¶
So is a nutritional calamity inevitable?¶ "There are two possible avenues to address the issue," Myers said. "One is to try to contain
CO2 levels. But the problem is that the CO2 levels that most people believe we'll see by 2050 are expected regardless of any efforts to
mitigate against climate change that might theoretically be taken now, because most of the efforts being discussed are about trying
to reduce even higher levels of CO2 in the future." Myers acknowledged the importance of trying to reduce CO2 levels, but "unless
we develop some completely unanticipated technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in huge amounts, the nutritional impact
we saw will come into play," he said.¶ "The other avenue is to try and reduce vulnerability by developing crop breeds that are less
sensitive to this effect," he suggested. "And there is some grounds for believing that's possible, by, for example, bio-fortifying grains
with additional amounts of iron and zinc. Or, on the other hand, launching aggressive global mineral supplementation programs. All
of this might help."¶ Lona Sandon, a registered dietician and assistant professor of clinical nutrition at the University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, said the situation sounded like "big trouble," given how critical iron and zinc are to health.¶
"Both are essential nutrients," she said. "Without adequate iron we don't effectively produce red blood cells, which are essential for
oxygen delivery to the body's tissues. This can turn into anemia, which causes fatigue and greatly impedes quality of life."¶ And,
"zinc is critical for a functioning immune system. Without it you can't fight off a cold or
infection, or heal wounds," Sandon added. "So clearly what this study is saying is that we have a
big, big problem," she said.
--at: soybeans/c3
Increased CO2 levels fail to catalyze C3 and soybean growth—experiments and
models show that higher temperatures lead to lower yields
Minorsky 13, Writes and features editor for Plant Physiology; Professor of Biology at Mercy
College (Peter, “Global Warming Projected to Decrease Soybean Production,” American Society
of Plant Biologists, 2013,
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/162/1/1.full.pdf+html)//ADravid
Global Warming Projected to Decrease Soybean Production The global atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentration ([CO 2 ]) is predicted to increase 2- to 3-fold by 2100. This increase in [CO 2 ], coupled
with the continued accumulation of other greenhouses gases in the atmosphere, is predicted to
increase the global average temperatures between 2.4˚C to 6.4˚C by the end of the century. The combined changes in
the atmospheric composition and climate are likely to impart significant effects on terrestrial
ecosystems because both CO 2 and temperature are critical determinants of photosynthetic
rates. Extensive evidence shows that increasing [CO 2 ] stimulates, and increasing temperature decreases, both net photosynthetic carbon assimilation and biomass
production in C 3 plants. The interactive effects of the two major global change factors, rising [CO 2 ] and warming, have not been investigated by a direct manipulative
. The Soybean Free Air CO 2 Enrichment research facility was
developed to address the molecular, physiological, and growth responses of soybean (Glycine max) and
maize (Zea mays) to global change through the use of the Free Air CO 2 Enrichment technology. This
technology provides in-field fumigation of carbon dioxide to simulate future atmospheric
conditions while growing crops under otherwise natural field conditions using current
agronomic practices. Ruiz-Vera et al. (pp. 410–423) have now studied the interactive effect of both elevated [CO 2 ]
(approximately 585 mmol mol 21 ) and temperature (13.5˚C) on soybean, and the news is not good. They measured carbon
assimilation, bio- mass, and yield over two growing seasons in the Soybean Free Air CO 2 Enrichment facility. Elevated temperatures caused
lower carbon assimilation, which was largely attributable to declines in stomatal conductance
and intercellular carbon dioxide and led in turn to lower yields. In 2011, the warmer of the two
years, there were no observed increases in yield in the elevated temperature plots regardless of
whether [CO 2 ] was elevated. These results provide a better under- standing of the physiological responses of soybean to future climate change
conditions and suggest that the potential is limited for elevated [CO 2 ] to mitigate the influence of rising
temperatures on photosynthesis, growth, and yields of C3 crops.
experiment under field conditions for any crop
--warming turns ag
Regression models mathematically prove warming would have devastating effects
on agriculture – prefer robust data
Schlenker 02(Wolfram Schlenker, Associate Professor School of International and Public Affairs , Columbia, W. Michael
Hanemann. Chancellor's Professor Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics University of California, and Anthony C.
Fisher. Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 207 Giannini Hall. University of California. Berkeley,”Will U.S.
Agriculture Really Benefit from Global Warming?¶ Accounting for Irrigation in the Hedonic Approach.”
2003, RLA)
We turn next to the estimates of the impact of global warming on agriculture in the¶ dryland,
non-urban counties, using only these counties to estimate the hedonic farmland¶ value
regression equation. The truncated impact estimates for these counties are displayed¶ in Table 4
and Figure 2. When the data used in estimation are confined to dryland, non-urban counties, the
impact estimates under the different weighting models converge dramatically,¶ as do the OLS
and bootstrap distributions. This robustness with respect to alternative¶ weighting schemes is
consistent with our surmise that separating observations on dryland¶ from irrigated counties
eliminates a specification error that arises when they are pooled.21¶ For dryland, non-urban counties, under
all models, agriculture is predicted to suffer¶ from the benchmark climate change scenario
associated with a doubling of greenhouse gas¶ concentrations.22 The estimated loss in annual profit comes
to about $5.3-5.4 billion; this¶ result is significant at the 1 percent level.23The estimates of climate change impacts in Table 4 and
Figure 2 account only for dryland,¶ non-urban counties. Climate change will also affect irrigated and urban counties but, because¶ of
the data problems discussed above, our present analysis cannot quantify this impact.¶ Instead, we offer a few general observations.
As noted in Table 3, both the cropland and the¶ crop revenue models estimated by MNS using
all counties combined lead to the conclusion¶ that climate change will harm counties with
irrigated agriculture. Although we believe these¶ estimates are not reliable, the direction of the impact, at least, is plausible.
This is because¶ it appears that climate change will cause an increased water shortage in a number of
these¶ counties. On the one hand, higher temperatures significantly raise crop ET, which has two¶ effects. First, it is likely to
lead to a switch to irrigated farming in some dryland areas if¶ the increase in ET cannot be met by natural rainfall. Second, it will
increase the amount of¶ water applied per acre in irrigated areas. On the other hand,
hydrological studies suggest¶ that
climate change will lead to a reduction in the effective supply of surface water in some¶ of these
areas, including the Columbia River Basin and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River¶ Basin.24
Thus, the overall effect is likely to be increased water shortage. This could be met¶ in various
ways - by developing new surface water storage and conveyance facilities, through¶ water rights
reallocation and water marketing, through increased conservation, or throughland retirement. However, these solutions are
likely to entail economic costs that are not¶ fully reflected in the hedonic farmland value
regression equation estimated by MNS. Some of the costs will be borne by urban water users and, because of the way
surface water is¶ priced in most of the U.S. West, the full cost of supplying agricultural users is generally not¶ completely capitalized
The bottom line is that the economic¶ cost of climate change in irrigated
areas could be substantial . A region-specific analysis¶ accounting for the relevant hydrology and institutional framework
in current farmland values.
of water deliveries will be¶ required to evaluate these costs in more detail.
Climate change decimates food supply
Gillis, 13 --- Editor at NYT (Justin, “Climate Change Seen Posing Risk to Food Supplies”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/science/earth/science-panel-warns-of-risks-to-foodsupply-from-climate-change.html?_r=0, RE)
Climate change will pose sharp risks to the world’s food supply in coming decades, potentially
undermining crop production and driving up prices at a time when the demand for food is
expected to soar, scientists have found. In a departure from an earlier assessment, the scientists concluded that rising
temperatures will have some beneficial effects on crops in some places, but that globally they will make it harder for
crops to thrive — perhaps reducing production over all by as much as 2 percent each decade for
the rest of this century, compared with what it would be without climate change. And, the scientists
say, they are already seeing the harmful effects in some regions. The warnings come in a leaked draft of a
report under development by a United Nations panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The document is not final
and could change before it is released in March. The
report also finds other sweeping impacts from climate
change already occurring across the planet, and warns that these are likely to intensify as human
emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise. The scientists describe a natural world in turmoil
as plants and animals colonize new areas to escape rising temperatures, and warn that many could
become extinct. The warning on the food supply is the sharpest in tone the panel has issued. Its
previous report, in 2007, was more hopeful. While it did warn of risks and potential losses in output,
particularly in the tropics, that report found that gains in production at higher latitudes would most likely
offset the losses and ensure an adequate global supply. The new tone reflects a large body of research in recent
years that has shown how sensitive crops appear to be to heat waves. The recent work also challenges
previous assumptions about how much food production could increase in coming decades because of higher carbon dioxide levels in
the atmosphere. The gas, though it is the main reason for global warming, also acts as a kind of fertilizer for plants. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the principal scientific body charged with reviewing and assessing climate science,
then issuing reports about the risks to the world’s governments. Its main reports come out every five to six years. The group won the
Nobel Peace Prize, along with Al Gore, in 2007 for its efforts. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent every year to reduce
emissions in response to past findings from the group, though many analysts have said these efforts are so far inadequate to head off
drastic climatic changes later in the century. On
the food supply, the new report finds that benefits from
global warming may be seen in some areas, like northern lands that are now marginal for food
production. But it adds that over all, global warming could reduce agricultural production by as
much as 2 percent each decade for the rest of this century. During that period, demand is expected to
rise as much as 14 percent each decade, the report found, as the world population is projected to grow to 9.6 billion in
2050, from 7.2 billion today, according to the United Nations, and as many of those people in developing countries acquire the
money to eat richer diets. Any
shortfall would lead to rising food prices that would hit the world’s poor
hardest, as has already occurred from price increases of recent years. Research has found that
climate change, particularly severe heat waves, was a factor in those price spikes. The
agricultural risks “are greatest for tropical countries, given projected impacts that exceed
adaptive capacity and higher poverty rates compared with temperate regions,” the draft report
finds. \