Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Good/Bad Core
Warming Good/Bad Core .................................................................................................................................................................... 1
***Warming BAD***
***Top Shelf Impacts*** ................................................................................................................................................................5
Warming Bad- Extinction (Ahmed) ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Warming Bad- Extinction (Sify) ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
Warming Bad- Extinction (Tickell) ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
Warming Bad- Extinction (Brandenberg and Paxson) ......................................................................................................................... 9
Warming Bad- Resource Wars ........................................................................................................................................................... 10
***Warming Real/Anthropogenic*** .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Warming Real- Science ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Warming Real- Consensus ................................................................................................................................................................. 15
CO2 Causes Warming- New Research ............................................................................................................................................... 19
CO2 Causes Warming- A2 Model Indict............................................................................................................................................. 22
A2 Heat Islands/Weather Stations Bad ............................................................................................................................................. 23
A2 Past Tipping Point ......................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Author Indict- Idso ............................................................................................................................................................................. 25
Author Indict- Heartland Institute ..................................................................................................................................................... 26
A2 Skeptics Suppressed ..................................................................................................................................................................... 27
A2 Climate Scientists Paid Off ............................................................................................................................................................ 28
A2 Climate Models Flawed/Manipulated .......................................................................................................................................... 29
A2 Climategate .................................................................................................................................................................................. 30
***Warming Bad Impacts*** ....................................................................................................................................................... 31
Biodiversity Mod................................................................................................................................................................................ 32
Warming Destroys Biodiversity ......................................................................................................................................................... 34
Warming Destroys Biodiversity- A2 Adaptation ................................................................................................................................ 35
Warming Destroys Biodiversity- Indirect Effects ............................................................................................................................... 36
Ocean Acidification Mod ................................................................................................................................................................... 37
1
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Causes Acidification- A2 Not Real/Anthro ......................................................................................................................... 39
Coral Reefs Mod ................................................................................................................................................................................ 40
Warming Destroys Coral Reefs .......................................................................................................................................................... 42
***A2 CO2 Fert*** ....................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Warming Hurts Crops ........................................................................................................................................................................ 44
Warming Hurts Crops- Invasive Species ............................................................................................................................................ 47
A2 CO2 Fert- Maize ............................................................................................................................................................................ 48
A2 CO2 Fert- Soybeans ...................................................................................................................................................................... 49
A2 CO2 Fert- Wheat ........................................................................................................................................................................... 50
A2 CO2 Fert- Cotton .......................................................................................................................................................................... 51
***A2 Ice Age*** ......................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Warming Causes Ice Age ................................................................................................................................................................... 53
No Ice Age- Studies Prove .................................................................................................................................................................. 55
No Ice Age- Already Enough FF .......................................................................................................................................................... 56
***Warming GOOD***
***Warming Not Real/Natural*** ............................................................................................................................................... 58
CO2 Doesn’t Cause Warming- History ............................................................................................................................................... 59
CO2 Doesn’t Cause Warming- Arctic Records ................................................................................................................................... 60
CO2 Doesn’t Cause Warming- Alt Causes .......................................................................................................................................... 61
A2 Runaway Warming- Arctic Data ................................................................................................................................................... 62
Not Anthropogenic ............................................................................................................................................................................ 63
A2 Climate Models ............................................................................................................................................................................ 64
IPCC Indict- Rainfall Models ............................................................................................................................................................... 65
A2 Idso Indicts ................................................................................................................................................................................... 66
Heartland Institute and NIPCC Prodict .............................................................................................................................................. 67
A2 Paid By Oil Companies .................................................................................................................................................................. 68
IPCC Indict- Inconclusive .................................................................................................................................................................... 69
IPCC Indict- Flaws in Peer Review ...................................................................................................................................................... 70
2
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Climate Consensus ....................................................................................................................................................................... 71
Warming Bad People Are Hacks ........................................................................................................................................................ 72
***No Impact/Impact Turns*** ................................................................................................................................................... 73
A2 Warming Causes Extinction- Now Not Unprecedented ............................................................................................................... 74
A2 Warming Causes Extinction- Models Indict .................................................................................................................................. 76
CO2 Good 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................... 77
2NC Biodiversity Impact .................................................................................................................................................................... 80
CO2 Good- Environment.................................................................................................................................................................... 82
CO2 Solves Crops ............................................................................................................................................................................... 83
Warming Solves Biodiversity- Range Expansion ................................................................................................................................ 84
Warming Solves Biodiversity- Adaptation ......................................................................................................................................... 87
Warming Solves Biodiversity- Studies ............................................................................................................................................... 88
A2 Warming Hurts Biodiversity- Flawed Models ............................................................................................................................... 89
Warming Solves Coral Reefs- Adaptation .......................................................................................................................................... 90
A2 Warming Hurts Coral Reefs .......................................................................................................................................................... 91
A2 Ocean Acidification....................................................................................................................................................................... 93
A2 Warming Causes Resource Wars .................................................................................................................................................. 95
***Ice Age*** .............................................................................................................................................................................. 96
Ice Age 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 97
Ice Age Now ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 98
A2 Warming Causes Ice Age .............................................................................................................................................................. 99
Ice Age Will Kill Biodiversity ............................................................................................................................................................. 100
3
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
***Warming BAD***
4
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
***Top Shelf Impacts***
5
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Bad- Extinction (Ahmed)
Warming causes extinction
Ahmed 2010 (Nafeez Ahmed, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development, professor of International
Relations and globalization at Brunel University and the University of Sussex, Spring/Summer 2010, “Globalizing Insecurity: The
Convergence of Interdependent Ecological, Energy, and Economic Crises,” Spotlight on Security, Volume 5, Issue 2, online)
Perhaps the most notorious indicator is anthropogenic global warming. The landmark 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – which warned that at then-current rates of increase of fossil fuel
emissions, the earth’s global average temperature would likely rise by 6°C by the end of the 21st century creating a largely
uninhabitable planet – was a wake-up call to the international community.[v] Despite the pretensions of ‘climate sceptics,’ the
peer-reviewed scientific literature has continued to produce evidence that the IPCC’s original scenarios were wrong – not
because they were too alarmist, but on the contrary, because they were far too conservative. According to a paper in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, current CO2 emissions are worse than all six scenarios contemplated by
the IPCC. This implies that the IPCC’s worst-case six-degree scenario severely underestimates the most probable climate trajectory
under current rates of emissions.[vi] It is often presumed that a 2°C rise in global average temperatures under an atmospheric
concentration of greenhouse gasses at 400 parts per million (ppm) constitutes a safe upper limit – beyond which further global
warming could trigger rapid and abrupt climate changes that, in turn, could tip the whole earth climate system into a
process of irreversible, runaway warming.[vii] Unfortunately, we are already well past this limit, with the level of greenhouse
gasses as of mid-2005 constituting 445 ppm.[viii] Worse still, cutting-edge scientific data suggests that the safe upper limit is in fact
far lower. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, argues that the absolute upper limit for
CO2 emissions is 350 ppm: “If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding
irreversible catastrophic effects.”[ix] A wealth of scientific studies has attempted to explore the role of positive-feedback
mechanisms between different climate sub-systems, the operation of which could intensify the warming process. Emissions
beyond 350 ppm over decades are likely to lead to the total loss of Arctic sea-ice in the summer triggering magnified
absorption of sun radiation, accelerating warming; the melting of Arctic permafrost triggering massive methane injections
into the atmosphere, accelerating warming; the loss of half the Amazon rainforest triggering the momentous release of
billions of tonnes of stored carbon, accelerating warming; and increased microbial activity in the earth’s soil leading to
further huge releases of stored carbon, accelerating warming; to name just a few. Each of these feedback sub-systems alone
is sufficient by itself to lead to irreversible, catastrophic effects that could tip the whole earth climate system over the
edge.[x] Recent studies now estimate that the continuation of business-as-usual would lead to global warming of three to four
degrees Celsius before 2060 with multiple irreversible, catastrophic impacts; and six, even as high as eight, degrees by the end
of the century – a situation endangering the survival of all life on earth.[xi]
6
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Bad- Extinction (Sify)
Extinction
Sify 2010 (Sify, Sydney newspaper citing Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at University of Queensland and Director of the Global
Change Institute, and John Bruno, associate professor of Marine Science at UNC (Sify News, “Could unbridled climate changes lead
to human extinction?”, http://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news-internationalkgtrOhdaahc.html)
The findings of the comprehensive report: 'The impact of climate change on the world's marine ecosystems' emerged from a
synthesis of recent research on the world's oceans, carried out by two of the world's leading marine scientists. One of the
authors of the report is Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at The University of Queensland and the director of its Global Change
Institute (GCI). 'We may see sudden, unexpected changes that have serious ramifications for the overall well-being of
humans, including the capacity of the planet to support people. This is further evidence that we are well on the way to the
next great extinction event,' says Hoegh-Guldberg. 'The findings have enormous implications for mankind, particularly if the trend
continues. The earth's ocean, which produces half of the oxygen we breathe and absorbs 30 per cent of humangenerated carbon dioxide, is equivalent to its heart and lungs. This study shows worrying signs of ill-health. It's as if the earth
has been smoking two packs of cigarettes a day!,' he added. 'We are entering a period in which the ocean services upon which
humanity depends are undergoing massive change and in some cases beginning to fail', he added. The 'fundamental and
comprehensive' changes to marine life identified in the report include rapidly warming and acidifying oceans, changes in
water circulation and expansion of dead zones within the ocean depths. These are driving major changes in marine ecosystems:
less abundant coral reefs, sea grasses and mangroves (important fish nurseries); fewer, smaller fish; a breakdown in food
chains; changes in the distribution of marine life; and more frequent diseases and pests among marine organisms. Study coauthor John F Bruno, associate professor in marine science at The University of North Carolina, says greenhouse gas emissions are
modifying many physical and geochemical aspects of the planet's oceans, in ways 'unprecedented in nearly a million years'.
'This is causing fundamental and comprehensive changes to the way marine ecosystems function,' Bruno warned, according to a GCI
release. These findings were published in Science.
7
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Bad- Extinction (Tickell)
Warming causes extinction
Tickell 2008 (Oliver Tickell, Climate Researcher, The Gaurdian, August 11, 2008, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction”,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like
wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous.
Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably
never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The
collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal
plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive
farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about
120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and
unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be
hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.
8
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Bad- Extinction (Brandenberg and Paxson)
Human caused CO2 emissions cause extinction
Brandenburg and Paxon 1999 (John E. Brandenburg (physicist rocket scientist, Mars expert, investigator on MET project, NASA technical advisor,
former member of space transport subcommittee) Monica Rix Paxon (writer and scientific editor) Dead Mars, Dying Earth, 1999, p.46 - 47
Gradually, incrementally, we are changing Earth’s atmosphere. But are we slowly altering our atmosphere away from
something that supports human life toward something deadly like the atmosphere of Mars? Such an atmosphere would
have been very familiar to Joseph Black, who isolated the very first atmospheric gas. Unitarian minister Joseph Priestley would have
recognized the atmosphere of Mars as well. So would coal miners from the early part of the 20th century and the canary that lay
gasping at the bottom of the cage, for the atmosphere of Mars is made of fixed air. The atmosphere of Mars is made of blackdamp.
The atmosphere of Mars is made of carbonic acid gas. The atmosphere of Mars is made of a substance that has over time had
many names reflecting the toxic side of its nature. While today we call all of them “carbon dioxide” (which we think of as a
benign product of our own bodies and the harmless bubbles in soda pop), this substance has clearly not always been viewed as
a harmless gas. Nor should it be in the future, for it is time once again to inform our opinions about this substance and recognize its
invisible, dark side. As long as a stylus attached to the monitoring equipment in some lonely station on the top of an inactive volcano
in Hawaii continues to etch a line ratcheting upward—showing the increased amounts of carbon dioxide that, year after year, flood
our atmosphere, threatening us—then we too must think of it very differently. It isn’t a matter of speculation. It is a matter of
hard, cold scientific fact supported by numerous studies conducted by many respected scientists.’7~ In the overwhelming
majority they agree: Earth’s atmosphere has far too much of what we now must think of as carbon die-oxide. It is warming
our planet to the point where life, human life, is endangered. We are going to have to do something decisive and effective
about this killer. No matter how successful or enlightened we think ourselves to be, we are not exempt from the need to act—in the
same way that we are not exempt from the need to breathe.
9
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Bad- Resource Wars
It also causes huge resource wars and is a conflict multiplier
Klare 2006 (Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, March 10, 2006, “The Coming
Resource Wars,” http://goo.gl/sPH9D)
It's official: the era of resource wars is upon us. In a major London address, British Defense Secretary John Reid warned that
global climate change and dwindling natural resources are combining to increase the likelihood of violent conflict over land, water
and energy. Climate change, he indicated, "will make scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer" -and this will "make the emergence of violent conflict more rather than less likely." Although not unprecedented, Reid's
prediction of an upsurge in resource conflict is significant both because of his senior rank and the vehemence of his remarks. "The
blunt truth is that the lack of water and agricultural land is a significant contributory factor to the tragic conflict we see unfolding in
Darfur," he declared. "We should see this as a warning sign." Resource conflicts of this type are most likely to arise in the developing
world, Reid indicated, but the more advanced and affluent countries are not likely to be spared the damaging and destabilizing
effects of global climate change. With sea levels rising, water and energy becoming increasingly scarce and prime agricultural lands
turning into deserts, internecine warfare over access to vital resources will become a global phenomenon. Reid's speech, delivered
at the prestigious Chatham House in London (Britain's equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations), is but the most recent
expression of a growing trend in strategic circles to view environmental and resource effects -- rather than political orientation and
ideology -- as the most potent source of armed conflict in the decades to come. With the world population rising, global
consumption rates soaring, energy supplies rapidly disappearing and climate change eradicating valuable farmland, the stage is
being set for persistent and worldwide struggles over vital resources. Religious and political strife will not disappear in this scenario,
but rather will be channeled into contests over valuable sources of water, food and energy. Prior to Reid's address, the most
significant expression of this outlook was a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense by a California-based consulting firm
in October 2003. Entitled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security," the report
warned that global climate change is more likely to result in sudden, cataclysmic environmental events than a gradual (and therefore
manageable) rise in average temperatures. Such events could include a substantial increase in global sea levels, intense storms and
hurricanes and continent-wide "dust bowl" effects. This would trigger pitched battles between the survivors of these effects for
access to food, water, habitable land and energy supplies. " Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by
abrupt changes in the climate pose a different type of threat to national security than we are accustomed to today," the
2003 report noted. "Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food
and water rather than by conflicts over ideology, religion or national honor." Until now, this mode of analysis has failed to
command the attention of top American and British policymakers. For the most part, they insist that ideological and religious
differences -- notably, the clash between values of tolerance and democracy on one hand and extremist forms of Islam on the other
-- remain the main drivers of international conflict. But Reid's speech at Chatham House suggests that a major shift in strategic
thinking may be under way. Environmental perils may soon dominate the world security agenda. This shift is due in part to
the growing weight of evidence pointing to a significant human role in altering the planet's basic climate systems. Recent studies
showing the rapid shrinkage of the polar ice caps, the accelerated melting of North American glaciers, the increased frequency of
severe hurricanes and a number of other such effects all suggest that dramatic and potentially harmful changes to the global climate
have begun to occur. More importantly, they conclude that human behavior -- most importantly, the burning of fossil fuels in
factories, power plants, and motor vehicles -- is the most likely cause of these changes. This assessment may not have yet
penetrated the White House and other bastions of head-in-the-sand thinking, but it is clearly gaining ground among scientists and
thoughtful analysts around the world. For the most part, public discussion of global climate change has tended to describe its effects
as an environmental problem -- as a threat to safe water, arable soil, temperate forests, certain species and so on. And, of course,
climate change is a potent threat to the environment; in fact, the greatest threat imaginable. But viewing climate change as an
10
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
environmental problem fails to do justice to the magnitude of the peril it poses. As Reid's speech and the 2003 Pentagon study make
clear, the greatest danger posed by global climate change is not the degradation of ecosystems per se, but rather the disintegration
of entire human societies, producing wholesale starvation, mass migrations and recurring conflict over resources. "As famine,
disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to abrupt climate change," the Pentagon report notes, "many countries' needs
will exceed their carrying capacity" -- that is, their ability to provide the minimum requirements for human survival. This " will create
a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression" against countries with a greater stock of vital
resources. "Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and
energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply." Similar scenarios
will be replicated all across the planet, as those without the means to survival invade or migrate to those with greater
abundance -- producing endless struggles between resource "haves" and "have-nots." It is this prospect, more than
anything, that worries John Reid. In particular, he expressed concern over the inadequate capacity of poor and unstable countries to
cope with the effects of climate change, and the resulting risk of state collapse, civil war and mass migration. "More than 300 million
people in Africa currently lack access to safe water," he observed, and "climate change will worsen this dire situation" -- provoking
more wars like Darfur. And even if these social disasters will occur primarily in the developing world, the wealthier countries will also
be caught up in them, whether by participating in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations, by fending off unwanted migrants
or by fighting for access to overseas supplies of food, oil, and minerals. When reading of these nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to
conjure up images of desperate, starving people killing one another with knives, staves and clubs -- as was certainly often the case in
the past, and could easily prove to be so again. But these scenarios also envision the use of more deadly weapons. "In this world of
warring states," the 2003 Pentagon report predicted, "nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable." As oil and natural gas
disappears, more and more countries will rely on nuclear power to meet their energy needs -- and this "will accelerate
nuclear proliferation as countries develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national security."
Although speculative, these reports make one thing clear: when thinking about the calamitous effects of global climate change, we
must emphasize its social and political consequences as much as its purely environmental effects. Drought, flooding and storms can
kill us, and surely will -- but so will wars among the survivors of these catastrophes over what remains of food, water and shelter. As
Reid's comments indicate, no society, however affluent, will escape involvement in these forms of conflict.
11
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
***Warming Real/Anthropogenic***
12
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Real- Science
Warming is a fact
Achenbach 2012 (Joel Achenbach, writer and lecturer at Princeton and Georgetown, July 7, 2012, “Climate Change: Global
Warming is a Fact,” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/post/climate-change-global-warming-is-afact/2012/07/09/gJQAAGs6XW_blog.html)
At some point we should stop litigating the basic question of whether climate change is happening. Climate change is a
fact. The spike in atmospheric CO2 is a fact. The dramatic high-latitude warming is a fact. That the trends aren’t uniform
and linear, and that there are anomalies here and there, does not change the long-term pattern. The warming trend has
flattened out in the last decade but probably only because of air pollution from Chinese coal-fired power plants or somesuch
forcing we haven’t fully discovered (smog is hardly the long-term solution we should be seeking). The broader patterns are clear.¶
Models show the greatest warming spike down the road still, decades hence. Thus in a sense, saying that “this is what global
warming is like” whenever we have a heat wave actually understates the problem. Having spent much of my life in Florida, I can tell
you, what kills you in summer is not the temperature but the duration of the season, which lasts basically forever — into November
or even December in South Florida. So, yeah, 100 degrees in July gets my attention here in DC, but so will a stretch of 85-
degree high temperatures in October.
Warming is real- Long-term trends prove
Nordhaus 2012 (William D. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, research for National Science
Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Glaser Foundation, March 22, 2012, “Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong,”
New York Review of Books, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-arewrong/?pagination=false)
The first claim is that the planet is not warming. More precisely, “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global
warming for well over 10 years now.Ӧ It is easy to get lost in the tiniest details here. Most people will benefit from stepping
back and looking at the record of actual temperature measurements. The figure below shows data from 1880 to 2011 on
global mean temperature averaged from three different sources.2 We do not need any complicated statistical analysis to see
that temperatures are rising, and furthermore that they are higher in the last decade than they were in earlier
decades.3¶ One of the reasons that drawing conclusions on temperature trends is tricky is that the historical temperature series
is highly volatile, as can be seen in the figure. The presence of short-term volatility requires looking at long-term trends. A
useful analogy is the stock market. Suppose an analyst says that because real stock prices have declined over the last decade (which
is true), it follows that there is no upward trend. Here again, an examination of the long-term data would quickly show this to be
incorrect. The last decade of temperature and stock market data is not representative of the longer-term trends.¶ The
finding that global temperatures are rising over the last century-plus is one of the most robust findings of climate science
and statistics.
13
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Anthropogenic warming is happening in line with projections
Nordhaus 2012 (William D. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, research for National Science
Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Glaser Foundation, March 22, 2012, “Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong,”
New York Review of Books, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-arewrong/?pagination=false)
A second argument is that warming is smaller than predicted by the models:¶ The lack of warming for more than a
decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2
can cause.¶ What is the evidence on the performance of climate models? Do they predict the historical trend accurately? Statisticians
routinely address this kind of question. The standard approach is to perform an experiment in which (case 1) modelers put
the changes in CO2 concentrations and other climate influences in a climate model and estimate the resulting temperature
path, and then (case 2) modelers calculate what would happen in the counterfactual situation where the only changes
were due to natural sources, for example, the sun and volcanoes, with no human-induced changes. They then compare the
actual temperature increases of the model predictions for all sources (case 1) with the predictions for natural sources alone (case
2).¶ This experiment has been performed many times using climate models. A good example is the analysis described in the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (for the actual figure, see the accompanying online
material4). Several modelers ran both cases 1 and 2 described above—one including human-induced changes and one with only
natural sources. This experiment showed that the projections of climate models are consistent with recorded temperature
trends over recent decades only if human impacts are included. The divergent trend is especially pronounced after 1980. By
2005, calculations using natural sources alone underpredict the actual temperature increases by about 0.7 degrees Centigrade, while
the calculations including human sources track the actual temperature trend very closely.¶ In reviewing the results, the IPCC report
concluded: “No climate model using natural forcings [i.e., natural warming factors] alone has reproduced the observed
global warming trend in the second half of the twentieth century.”5
Warming is a fact- New research solves skeptics concerns
Borenstein 2011 (Seth Borenstein, October 31, 2011, “Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real,” Yahoo,
http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html)
The Muller "results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960," Curry wrote Sunday. She said she
disagreed with Muller's public relations efforts and some public comments from Muller about there no longer being a need for
skepticism.¶ Muller's study found that skeptics' concerns about poor weather station quality didn't skew the results of his
analysis because temperature increases rose similarly in reliable and unreliable weather stations. He also found that
while there is an urban heat island effect making cities warmer, rural areas, which are more abundant, are warming,
too.¶ Among many climate scientists, the reaction was somewhat of a yawn.¶ "After lots of work he found exactly what was already
known and accepted in the climate community," said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who
headed a National Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. "I am hoping their study will have a positive impact. But
some folks will never change."
14
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Real- Consensus
Warming is real and anthropogenic- Prefer scientific consensus to their hack deniers
Lewandowsky and Ashley 2011 (Stephan Lewandowsky, Professor of Cognitive Studies at the University of Western
Australia, and Michael Ashley, Professor of Astrophysics at the University of New South Wales, June 24, 2011, “The false, the
confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change,” http://goo.gl/u3nOC)
But despite these complexities, some aspects of climate science are thoroughly settled. We know that atmospheric CO2 is
increasing due to humans. We know that this CO₂, while being just a small fraction of the atmosphere, has an important
influence on temperature. We can calculate the effect, and predict what is going to happen to the earth’s climate during our
lifetimes, all based on fundamental physics that is as certain as gravity. The consensus opinion of the world’s climate scientists
is that climate change is occurring due to human CO₂ emissions. The changes are rapid and significant, and the implications
for our civilisation may be dire. The chance of these statements being wrong is vanishingly small. Scepticism and denialism Some
people will be understandably sceptical about that last statement. But when they read up on the science, and have their questions
answered by climate scientists, they come around. These people are true sceptics, and a degree of scepticism is healthy. Other
people will disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change, and will challenge the science on internet blogs and
opinion pieces in the media, but no matter how many times they are shown to be wrong, they will never change their
opinions. These people are deniers. The recent articles in The Conversation have put the deniers under the microscope. Some
readers have asked us in the comments to address the scientific questions that the deniers bring up. This has been done. Not once.
Not twice. Not ten times. Probably more like 100 or a 1000 times. Denier arguments have been dealt with by scientists, again
and again and again. But like zombies, the deniers keep coming back with the same long-falsified and nonsensical arguments. The
deniers have seemingly endless enthusiasm to post on blogs, write letters to editors, write opinion pieces for newspapers, and even
publish books. What they rarely do is write coherent scientific papers on their theories and submit them to scientific journals. The
few published papers that have been sceptical about climate change have not withstood the test of time. The phony debate on
climate change So if the evidence is this strong, why is there resistance to action on climate change in Australia? At least two reasons
can be cited. First, as The Conversation has revealed, there are a handful of individuals and organisations who, by avoiding
peer review, have engineered a phony public debate about the science, when in fact that debate is absent from the one
arena where our scientific knowledge is formed. These individuals and organisations have so far largely escaped accountability.
But their free ride has come to an end, as the next few weeks on The Conversation will continue to show. The second reason, alas,
involves systemic failures by the media. Systemic media failures arise from several presumptions about the way science works,
which range from being utterly false to dangerously ill-informed to overtly malicious and mendacious. The false Let’s begin with
what is merely false. A tacit presumption of many in the media and the public is that climate science is a brittle house of cards
that can be brought down by a single new finding or the discovery of a single error. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Climate science is a cumulative enterprise built upon hundreds of years of research. The heat-trapping properties of CO₂
were discovered in the middle of the 19th century, pre-dating even Sherlock Holmes and Queen Victoria.
15
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming is real and anthropogenic- Overwhelming consensus concludes aff
Rahmstorf 2008 (Richard Rahmstorf, physics professor at Potsdam University, “Anthropogenic Climate Change?” Page 42-49)
It is time to turn to statement B: human activities are altering the climate. This can be broken into two parts. The first is as follows: global
climate is
warming. This is by now a generally undisputed point (except by novelist Michael Crichton), so we deal with it only briefly. The two leading
compilations of data measured with thermometers are shown in figure 3-3, that of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and that of the British
Hadley Centre for Climate Change. Although they differ in the details, due to the inclusion of different data sets and use of different spatial averaging and quality
control procedures, they both show a consistent picture, with a global mean warming of 0.8°C since the late nineteenth century. Temperatures over
the
past ten years clearly were the warmest since measured records have been available. The year 1998 sticks out well above the
longterm trend due to the occurrence of a major El Nino event that year (the last El Nino so far and one of the strongest on record). These events are examples of the
largest natural climate variations on multiyear time scales and, by releasing heat from the ocean, generally cause positive anomalies in global mean temperature. It is
remarkable that the year 2005 rivaled the heat of 1998 even though no El Nino event occurred that year. (A bizarre curiosity, perhaps worth mentioning, is that
several prominent "climate skeptics" recently used the extreme year 1998 to claim in the media that global warming had ended. In Lindzen's words, "Indeed, the
absence of any record breakers during the past seven years is statistical evidence that temperatures are not increasing.")33 In addition to the surface measurements,
the more recent portion of the global warming trend (since 1979) is also documented by satellite data. It is not straightforward to derive a reliable surface
temperature trend from satellites, as they measure radiation coming from throughout the atmosphere (not just near the surface), including the stratosphere, which
has strongly cooled, and the records are not homogeneous' due to the short life span of individual satellites, the problem of orbital decay, observations at different
times of day, and drifts in instrument calibration.' Current analyses of these satellite data show trends that are fully consistent with surface measurements and model
simulations." If no reliable temperature measurements existed, could we be sure that the climate is warming? The "canaries in the coal mine" of climate change (as
glaciologist Lonnie Thompson puts it) ~are mountain glaciers. We know, both from old photographs and from the position of the terminal moraines heaped up by the
flowing ice, that mountain glaciers have been in retreat all over the world during the past century. There are precious few exceptions, and they are associated with a
strong increase in precipitation or local cooling.36 I have inspected examples of shrinking glaciers myself in field trips to Switzerland, Norway, and New Zealand. As
glaciers respond sensitively to temperature changes, data on the extent of glaciers have been used to reconstruct a history of Northern Hemisphere temperature
over the past four centuries (see figure 3-4). Cores
drilled in tropical glaciers show signs of recent melting that is unprecedented at
least throughout the Holocene-the past 10,000 years. Another powerful sign of warming, visible clearly from satellites, is the shrinking
Arctic sea ice cover (figure 3-5), which has declined 20 percent since satellite observations began in 1979. While climate clearly became warmer
in the twentieth century, much discussion particularly in the popular media has focused on the question of how "unusual" this warming is in a longer-term context.
While this is an interesting question, it has often been mixed incorrectly with the question of causation. Scientifically, how unusual recent warming is-say, compared
to the past millennium-in itself contains little information about its cause. Even a highly unusual warming could have a natural cause (for example, an exceptional
increase in solar activity). And even a warming within the bounds of past natural variations could have a predominantly anthropogenic cause. I come to the question
of causation shortly, after briefly visiting the evidence for past natural climate variations. Records from the time before systematic temperature measurements were
collected are based on "proxy data," coming from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and other sources. These proxy data are generally linked to local temperatures in some
way, but they may be influenced by other parameters as well (for example, precipitation), they may have a seasonal bias (for example, the growth season for tree
rings), and high-quality long records are difficult to obtain and therefore few in number and geographic coverage. Therefore, there is still substantial uncertainty in
the evolution of past global or hemispheric temperatures. (Comparing only local or regional temperature; as in Europe, is of limited value for our purposes,' as
regional variations can be much larger than global ones and can have many regional causes, unrelated to global-scale forcing and climate change.) The first
quantitative reconstruction for the Northern Hemisphere temperature of the past millennium, including an error estimation, was presented by Mann, Bradley, and
Hughes and rightly highlighted in the 2001 IPCC report as one of the major new findings since its 1995 report; it is shown in figure 3_6.39 The analysis suggests that,
despite the large error bars, twentieth-century warming is indeed highly unusual and probably was unprecedented during the past millennium. This result,
presumably because of its symbolic power, has attracted much criticism, to some extent in scientific journals, but even more so in the popular media. The hockey
stick-shaped curve became a symbol for the IPCC, .and criticizing this particular data analysis became an avenue for some to question the credibility of the IPCC.
Three important things have been overlooked in much of the media coverage. First, even if the scientific critics had been right, this would not have called into
question the very cautious conclusion drawn by the IPCC from the reconstruction by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes: "New analyses of proxy data for the Northern
Hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the twentieth century is likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years." This
conclusion has since been supported further by every single one of close to a dozen new reconstructions (two of which are shown in figure 3-6). Second, by far the
most serious scientific criticism raised against Mann, Hughes, and Bradley was simply based on a mistake. 40 The prominent paper of von Storch and others, which
claimed (based on a model test) that the method of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes systematically underestimated variability, "was [itself] based on incorrect
implementation of the reconstruction procedure."41 With correct implementation, climate field reconstruction procedures such as the one used by Mann, Bradley,
and Hughes have been shown to perform well in similar model tests. Third, whether their reconstruction is accurate or not has no bearing on policy. If their analysis
underestimated past natural climate variability, this would certainly not argue for a smaller climate sensitivity and thus a lesser concern about the consequences of
our emissions. Some have argued that, in contrast, it would point to a larger climate sensitivity. While this is a valid point in principle, it does not apply in practice to
the climate sensitivity estimates discussed herein or to the range given by IPCC, since these did not use the reconstruction of Mann, Hughes, and Bradley or any other
proxy records of the past millennium. Media claims that "a pillar of the Kyoto Protocol" had been called into question were therefore misinformed. As an aside, the
16
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
protocol was agreed in 1997, before the reconstruction in question even existed. The overheated public debate on this topic has, at least, helped to attract more
researchers and funding to this area of paleoclimatology; its methodology has advanced significantly, and a number of new reconstructions have been presented in
recent years. While the science has moved forward, the first seminal reconstruction by Mann, Hughes, and Bradley has held up remarkably well, with its main
features reproduced by more recent work. Further progress probably will require substantial amounts of new proxy data, rather than further refinement of the
statistical techniques pioneered by Mann, Hughes, and Bradley. Developing these data sets will require time and substantial effort. It is time to address the final
statement: most of the observed warming over the past fifty years is anthropogenic. A large number of studies exist that have taken different
approaches to analyze this issue, which is generally called the "attribution problem." I do not discuss the exact share of the anthropogenic contribution (although this
is an interesting question). By "most" I imply mean "more than 50 percent.” The first and crucial piece of evidence is, of course, that the magnitude of the warming is
what is expected from the anthropogenic perturbation of the radiation balance, so anthropogenic forcing is able to explain all of the temperature rise. As discussed
here, the rise in greenhouse gases alone corresponds to 2.6 W/tn2 of forcing. This by itself, after subtraction of the observed 0'.6 W/m2 of ocean heat uptake, would
Cause 1.6°C of warming since preindustrial times for medium climate sensitivity (3"C). With a current "best guess'; aerosol forcing of 1 W/m2, the expected warming
is O.8°c. The point here is not that it is possible to obtain the 'exact observed number-this is fortuitous because the amount of aerosol' forcing is still very' uncertainbut that the expected magnitude is roughly right. There can be little doubt that the anthropogenic forcing is large enough to explain most of the warming. Depending
on aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity, it could explain a large fraction of the warming, or all of it, or even more warming than has been observed (leaving room for
natural processes to counteract some of the warming). The second important piece of evidence is clear: there
is no viable alternative explanation. In
the scientific literature, no serious alternative hypothesis has been proposed to explain the observed global warming. Other
possible causes, such as solar activity, volcanic activity, cosmic rays, or orbital cycles, are well observed, but they do not
show trends capable of explaining the observed warming. Since 1978, solar irradiance has been measured directly from satellites and shows the
well-known eleven-year solar cycle, but no trend. There are various estimates of solar variability before this time, based on sunspot numbers, solar cycle length, the
geomagnetic AA index, neutron monitor data, and, carbon-14 data. These indicate that solar activity probably increased somewhat up to 1940. While there is
disagreement about the variation in previous centuries, different authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase during the last sixty-five years.
Therefore, this cannot explain the warming, and neither can any of the other factors mentioned. Models driven by natural factors only, leaving the anthropogenic
forcing aside, show a cooling in the second half of the twentieth century (for an example, See figure 2-2, panel a, in chapter 2 of this volume). The trend in the sum of
natural forcings is downward. The only way out would be either some as yet undiscovered unknown forcing or a warming trend that arises by chance from an
unforced internal variability in the climate system. The latter cannot be completely ruled out, but has to be considered highly unlikely. No
evidence in the
observed record, proxy data, or current models suggest that such internal variability could cause a sustained trend of global
warming of the observed magnitude. As discussed, twentieth century warming is unprecedented over the past 1,000 years (or even 2,000 years,
as the few longer reconstructions available now suggest), which does not 'support the idea of large internal fluctuations. Also, those past variations correlate well
with past forcing (solar variability, volcanic activity) and thus appear to be largely forced rather than due to unforced internal variability." And indeed, it would be
difficult for a large and sustained unforced variability to satisfy the fundamental physical law of energy conservation. Natural internal variability generally shifts heat
around different parts of the climate system-for example, the large El Nino event of 1998, which warmed, the atmosphere by releasing heat stored in the ocean. This
mechanism implies that the ocean heat content drops as the atmosphere warms. For past decades, as discussed, we observed the atmosphere warming and the
ocean heat content increasing, which rules out heat release from the ocean as a cause of surface warming. The heat content of the whole climate system is
increasing, and there is no plausible source of this heat other than the heat trapped by greenhouse gases. ' A completely different approach to attribution is to
analyze the spatial patterns of climate change. This is done in so-called fingerprint studies, which associate particular patterns or "fingerprints" with different forcings.
It is plausible that the pattern of a solar-forced climate change differs from the pattern of a change caused by greenhouse gases. For example, a characteristic of
greenhouse gases is that heat is trapped closer to the Earth's surface and that, unlike solar variability, greenhouse gases tend to warm more in winter, and at night.
Such studies have used different data sets and have been performed by different groups of researchers with different statistical methods. They consistently conclude
that the observed spatial pattern of warming can only be explained by greenhouse gases.49 Overall, it has to be considered, highly likely' that the observed warming
is indeed predominantly due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases. ' This paper discussed the evidence for the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric
CO2 concentration and the effect of CO2 on climate, finding that this anthropogenic increase is proven beyond reasonable doubt and that a mass of evidence points
to a CO2 effect on climate of 3C ± 1.59C global-warming for a doubling of concentration. (This is, the classic IPCC range; my personal assessment is that, in-the light of
new studies since the IPCC Third Assessment Report, the uncertainty range can now be narrowed somewhat to 3°C ± 1.0C) This is based on consistent results from
theory, models, and data analysis, and, even in the absence-of any computer models, the same result would still hold based on physics and on data from climate
history alone. Considering the plethora of consistent evidence, the chance that these conclusions are wrong has to be considered minute. If the preceding is
accepted, then it follows logically and incontrovertibly that a further increase in CO2 concentration will lead to further warming. The magnitude of our emissions
depends on human behavior, but the climatic response to various emissions scenarios can be computed from the information presented here. The result is the
famous range of future global temperature scenarios shown in figure 3_6.50 Two additional steps are involved in these computations: the consideration of
anthropogenic forcings other than CO2 (for example, other greenhouse gases and aerosols) and the computation of concentrations from the emissions. Other gases
are not discussed here, although they are important to get quantitatively accurate results. CO2 is the largest and most important forcing. Concerning
concentrations, the scenarios shown basically assume that ocean and biosphere take up a similar share of our emitted CO2 as in the past. This could turn out to be an
optimistic assumption; some models indicate the possibility of a positive feedback, with the biosphere turning into a carbon source rather than a sink under growing
climatic stress. It is clear that even in the more optimistic of the shown (non-mitigation) scenarios, global temperature would rise by 2-3°C above its preindustrial level
17
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
by the end of this century. Even for a paleoclimatologist like myself, this is an extraordinarily high temperature, which is very likely unprecedented in at least the past
100,000 years. As far as the data show, we would
have to go back about 3 million years, to the Pliocene, for comparable
temperatures. The rate of this warming (which is important for the ability of ecosystems to cope) is also highly unusual and unprecedented
probably for an even longer time. The last major global warming trend occurred when the last great Ice Age ended between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago: this was a
warming of about 5°C over 5,000 years, that is, a rate of only 0.1 °C per century. 52 The expected magnitude and rate of planetary warming is highly likely to come
with major risk and impacts in terms of sea level rise (Pliocene sea level was 25-35 meters higher than now due to smaller Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets),
extreme events (for example, hurricane activity is expected to increase in a warmer climate), and ecosystem loss. The second part of this paper examined the
evidence for the current warming of the planet and discussed what is known about its causes. This part showed that global warming
is already a
measured and-well-established fact, not a theory. Many different lines of evidence consistently show that most of the
observed warming of the past fifty years was caused by human activity. Above all, this warming is exactly what would be expected given
the anthropogenic rise in greenhouse gases, and no viable alternative explanation for this warming has been proposed in the scientific literature. Taken together., the
very strong evidence accumulated from thousands of independent studies, has over the past decades convinced virtually
every climatologist around the world (many of whom were initially quite skeptical, including myself) that anthropogenic global warming is
a reality with which we need to deal.
18
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
CO2 Causes Warming- New Research
CO2 is causing warming- Groundbreaking new research
Levy 2012 (Dawn Levy, Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, April 4, 2012, “Carbon Dioxide Caused Global Warming at Ice
Age’s End, Pioneering Simulation Shows,” http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/2012/04/04/carbon-dioxide-caused-global-warming-at-ice-agesend-pioneering-simulation-shows/)
Climate science has an equivalent to the “what came first—the chicken or the egg?” question: What came first, greenhouse
gases or global warming? A multi-institutional team led by researchers at Harvard, Oregon State University, and the
University of Wisconsin used a global dataset of paleoclimate records and the Jaguar supercomputer at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) to find the answer (spoiler alert: carbon dioxide drives warming). The results, published in the April 5 issue of
Nature, analyze 15,000 years of climate history. Scientists hope amassing knowledge of the causes of natural global climate
change will aid understanding of human-caused climate change.¶ “We constructed the first-ever record of global temperature
spanning the end of the last ice age based on 80 proxy temperature records from around the world,” said Jeremy Shakun,
a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate and Global Change postdoctoral fellow at Harvard and
Columbia Universities and first author of the paper. “It’s no small task to get at global mean temperature. Even for studies of the
present day you need lots of locations, quality-controlled data, careful statistics. For the past 21,000 years, it’s even harder. But
because the data set is large enough, these proxy data provide a reasonable estimate of global mean temperature.” ¶ Proxy records
from around the world—derived from ice cores and ocean and lake sediments—provide estimates of local surface temperature
throughout history, and carbon-14 dating indicates when those temperatures occurred. For example, water molecules harboring the
oxygen-18 isotope rain out faster than those containing oxygen-16 as an air mass cools, so the ratio of these isotopes in glacial ice
layers tells scientists how cold it was when the snow fell. Likewise, the amount of magnesium incorporated into the shells of marine
plankton depends on the temperature of the water they live in, and these shells get preserved on the seafloor when they die. The
authors combined these local temperature records to produce a reconstruction of global mean temperature. Additionally, samples
of ancient atmosphere are trapped as air bubbles in glaciers, providing a direct measure of carbon dioxide levels through time that
could be compared to the global temperature record.¶ Being the first to reconstruct global mean temperatures throughout
this time interval allowed the researchers to show what many suspected but none could yet prove: “This is the first
paper to definitively show the role carbon dioxide played in helping to end the last ice age,” said Shakun, who co-wrote the
paper with Peter Clark of Oregon State University. “We found that global temperature mirrored and generally lagged behind
rising carbon dioxide during the last deglaciation, which points to carbon dioxide as the major driver of global warming.”
Prior results based on Antarctic ice cores had indicated that local temperatures in Antarctica started warming before carbon dioxide
began rising, which implied that carbon dioxide was a feedback to some other leading driver of warming. The delay of global
temperature behind carbon dioxide found in this study, however, shows that the ice-core perspective does not apply to
the globe as a whole and instead suggests that carbon dioxide was the primary driver of worldwide warming.
19
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Extremely sophisticated computer models prove
Levy 2012 (Dawn Levy, Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, April 4, 2012, “Carbon Dioxide Caused Global Warming at Ice
Age’s End, Pioneering Simulation Shows,” http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/2012/04/04/carbon-dioxide-caused-global-warming-at-ice-agesend-pioneering-simulation-shows/)
While the geologic record showed a remarkable correlation between carbon dioxide and global temperature, the
researchers also turned to state-of-the-art model simulations to further pin down the direction of causation suggested by the
temperature lag. Jaguar recently ran approximately 14 million processor hours to simulate the most recent 21,000 years of
Earth’s climate. Feng He of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, a postdoctoral researcher, plugged the main forcings driving
global climate over this time interval into an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)–class model called the Community
Climate System Model version 3, a global climate model that couples interactions between atmosphere, oceans, lands, and sea ice.
The climate science community developed the model with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of
Energy (DOE), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration and used many codes developed by university researchers. ¶ “Our
model results are the first IPCC-class Coupled General Circulation Model (CGCM) simulation of such a long duration
(15,000 years),” said He, who conducted the modeling with Zhengyu Liu of the University of Wisconsin–Madison and Bette OttoBliesner of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). “This is of particular significance to the climate community
because it shows, for the first time, that at least one of the CGCMs used to predict future climate is capable of
reproducing both the timing and amplitude of climate evolution seen in the past under realistic climate forcing.Ӧ The
group ran simulations that used 4.7 million processor hours in 2009, 6.6. million in 2010, and 2.5 million in 2011. The
Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment program, jointly managed by leadership computing facilities
at Argonne and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, awarded the allocations. ¶ Shaun Marcott and Alan Mix of Oregon State University
analyzed data, and Andreas Schmittner, also of Oregon State, interpreted links between ocean currents and carbon dioxide. Edouard
Bard of Centre Européen de Recherche et d’Enseignement des Géosciences de l’Environnement provided data and expertise about
radiocarbon calibration.¶ NSF supported this research through its Paleoclimate Program for the Paleovar Project and NCAR. The
researchers used resources of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, located in the National Center for Computational
Sciences at ORNL, which is supported by DOE’s Office of Science. The paleoclimate community generated the proxy data sets and
provided unpublished results of the DATED Project on retreat history of the Eurasian ice sheets. The NOAA NGDC and PANGAEA
databases were also essential to this work.
20
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
New models prove CO2 causes warming
Levy 2012 (Dawn Levy, Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, April 4, 2012, “Carbon Dioxide Caused Global Warming at Ice
Age’s End, Pioneering Simulation Shows,” http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/2012/04/04/carbon-dioxide-caused-global-warming-at-ice-agesend-pioneering-simulation-shows/)
As the dominant theory goes, the variation of Earth’s orbit around the sun is responsible for the growth and
deterioration of glaciers because it changes insolation, or solar radiation reaching and warming an area. About 21,000 years ago
the orbit of the Earth was slightly predisposed to warmer summers in the Northern Hemisphere, and the planet experienced a
general warming.¶ Next comes a plot twist. Geologic data show that about 19,000 years ago, Northern Hemisphere glaciers
began to melt, and sea levels rose. Melting glaciers dumped so much freshwater into the ocean that it slowed a system
of currents that transports heat throughout the world. Called the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), this
ocean conveyor belt is particularly important in the Atlantic where it flows northward across the equator, stealing Southern
Hemisphere heat and exporting it to the Northern Hemisphere. The AMOC then sinks in the North Atlantic and returns southward in
the deep ocean. A large pulse of glacial meltwater, however, can place a freshwater lid over the North Atlantic and halt this sinking,
backing up the entire conveyor belt.¶ The simulation showed weakening of the AMOC due to the increase in glacial melt
beginning about 19,000 years ago, which decreased ocean heat transport, keeping heat in the Southern Hemisphere and cooling
the Northern Hemisphere. Other studies suggest this southern warming caused sea ice to retreat and shifted winds around the
Southern Ocean, uncorking carbon dioxide that had previously been stored in the deep ocean and venting it to the atmosphere
around 17,500 years ago. This rise in carbon dioxide then initiated worldwide warming.¶ The seesawing of heat between
the hemispheres due to the AMOC shutdown explains why Southern Hemisphere warming led the rise in carbon dioxide
while Northern Hemisphere temperatures lagged behind and reconciles these patterns with the key role played by
carbon dioxide in driving global mean warming. “Differences in the deglacial temperature evolution of the Northern and
Southern Hemispheres can largely be explained by variations in the strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation,” said
He.¶ Before the team’s groundbreaking efforts, researchers could only simulate single time slices of Earth’s climate. Just
as multiple images are stitched together to make an animation, speedy petascale supercomputers, capable of executing a quadrillion
calculations each second, enable stitching together of multiple time slices to produce a continuous simulation. Liu, Otto-Bliesner,
and He’s group was the first to continuously capture climate from 21,000 years ago to the present day so that scientists could
compare the relationship of carbon dioxide and global mean temperature over time. The Nature article covers events up to about
6,000 years ago. The group has since extended the simulation through the present day. ¶ “Climate model output housed at Oak
Ridge is currently in the hundreds of terabytes [trillion bytes] and will soon exceed a petabyte, so you need a large facility
just to accommodate the large data output,” said He. “Right now the climate model output is a top consumer of data storage in Oak
Ridge. Also, [continuous simulations] definitely cannot be performed at other sites because the system needs to be quite consistent.
This simulation has been run continuously for more than 3 years. Each simulation [step] depends on what happened earlier.”
21
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
CO2 Causes Warming- A2 Model Indict
Newest research validates our models
Levy 2012 (Dawn Levy, Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, April 4, 2012, “Carbon Dioxide Caused Global Warming at Ice
Age’s End, Pioneering Simulation Shows,” http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/2012/04/04/carbon-dioxide-caused-global-warming-at-ice-agesend-pioneering-simulation-shows/)
The work builds on a continuous simulation by Liu and colleagues of Earth’s climate between 21,000 and 14,000 years ago, reported
in a 2009 Science article detailing the first continuous simulation of climate change during Earth’s most recent period of natural
global warming. Using ORNL’s Cray X1E supercomputer named Phoenix and the even faster Cray XT system called Jaguar,
the scientists used nearly a million processor hours in 2008 to run one-third of their simulation, from 21,000 years ago (the
most recent glacial maximum) to 14,000 years ago (the most recent major period of natural global warming). The effort validated
the ability to simulate large climate changes in the past and is critical for assessing future projections of changes, such as
the fate of ocean circulation in the face of continued glacial melting in Greenland and Antarctica.
22
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Heat Islands/Weather Stations Bad
Our models are valid
Borenstein 2011 (Seth Borenstein, October 31, 2011, “Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real,” Yahoo,
http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html)
A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists
were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.¶ The study of the world's
surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued
long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving
hacked emails of scientists.¶ Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from
Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.¶ He said he went even further back, studying readings from
Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is
no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.¶ What's different, and why everyone
from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.¶ One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the
research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch
brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse
gas emissions.¶ Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations
are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.¶ "The skeptics
raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we
have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."¶ Muller said
that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the
fact that there was not enough skepticism" before. ¶ There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing
temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not
address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the
burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to
mankind climate change might be.¶ Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.¶
"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel
Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is. ¶ On Monday, Muller was taking his results — four separate
papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says — to a conference in Santa Fe, N.M., expected to include
many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists. ¶ "Of course he'll be welcome," said Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National
Lab, a noted skeptic and the conference organizer. "The purpose of our conference is to bring people with different views on climate
together, so they can talk and clarify things."¶ Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science
skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic
community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team
now."
23
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Past Tipping Point
Not inevitable – even if temporarily over the tipping point, can be brought back down.
Dyer 2009 (Gwynne Dyer, MA in Military History and PhD in Middle Eastern History former Senior Lecturer in War Studies at
the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, “Climate Wars,”)
There is no need to despair. The slow-feedback effects take a long time to work their way through the climate system,
and if we could manage to get the carbon dioxide concentration back down to a safe level before they have run their
course, they might be stopped in their tracks. As Hansen et al. put it in their paper: A point of no return can be avoided,
even if the tipping level [which puts us on course for an ice-free world] is temporarily exceeded. Ocean and ice-sheet inertia
permit overshoot, provided the [concentration of carbon dioxide] is returned below the tipping level before initiating
irreversible dynamic change .... However, if overshoot is in place for centuries, the thermal perturbation will so penetrate the
ocean that recovery without dramatic effects, such as ice-sheet disintegration, becomes unlikely. The real, long-term target is
350 parts per million or lower, if we want the Holocene to last into the indefinite future, but for the remainder of this book I am
going to revert to the 450 parts per million ceiling that has become common currency among most of those who are involved in
climate change issues. If we manage to stop the rise in the carbon dioxide concentration at or not far beyond that figure,
then we must immediately begin the equally urgent and arduous task of getting it back down to a much lower level that
is safe for the long term, but one step at a time will have to suffice. I suspect that few now alive will see the day when we
seriously start work on bringing the concentration back down to 350, so let us focus here on how to stop it rising past 450.
24
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Author Indict- Idso
Idso is a hack denier paid off by the Heartland institute
Gibson 2012 (C. Gibson, March 30, 2012, “Heartland Institute and ALEC Partner to Pollute Classroom Science,” Polluterwatch,
http://www.polluterwatch.com/category/freetagging/denialgate)
The National Academy of Sciences found that 97% of actual climate researchers understand that global warming is
happening and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. However, most K-12 students don't read the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I certainly didn't--I relied
upon my teachers to teach science with unbiased integrity.¶ Wojick has expertise not in climate science, but the philosophy of science. He has done contract work for the coal industry through the "Greening Earth
the absurd idea that more CO2 in our atmosphere, such as from burning coal and other fossil fuels, is
promoted by other notable non-experts, such as oil billionaire David Koch and junk scientist Craig
Idso, who produced propaganda films for the Greening Earth Society (a coal industry front group). Idso presented "The Many
Society," a fairy tale organization established to promote
unconditionally good for our planet. This fallacy is
Atmospheric Benefits of CO2" to ALEC's Energy and Environment task force at their August, 2011 meeting in New Orleans, where he told ALEC insiders that we
“should let CO2 rise unrestricted, without government intervention” since “CO2 is definitely not a pollutant.”¶ The coal industry clearly wishes this were true, Mr.
Idso.¶ In addition to accepting fossil fuel propaganda money alongside Mr. Wojick at the Greening Earth Society, Craig Idso also consults
for the Heartland
Institute. Idso's $140,000 contract with Heartland this year is to coordinate the anti-scientific "Climate Change Reconsidered"
reports, an admittedly "political" project that includes contracts to two federal workers and multiple university faculty members. These payments US Interior Department (DOI) contractor
Indur Goklany, who is under investigation by the Interior Department's Inspector General's office at the request of US Representative Raul Grijalva of New Mexico.¶ While the Heartland Institute is doing its best to make
this unraveling scandal disappear, mainly by vilifying scientist Peter Gleick for embarrassing the Institute, Greenpeace is pushing for more. We continue to seek answers from federal bodies and universities whose
employees are taking money from the Heartland Institute to attack science and disrupt the democratic process on behalf of tobacco companies, industrial giants and billionaire ideologues like the Koch brothers. Visit
PolluterWatch for ongoing results of Greenpeace's investigation of the Heartland Institute leaked documents.
Leaked documents prove
Pappas 2012 (Stephanie Pappas, February 12, 2012, “Documents reveal Koch-funded group's plot to undermine climate
science,” Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0215/Documents-reveal-Koch-funded-group-s-plotto-undermine-climate-science)
Heartland focuses on free-market issues across the board, including promoting charter schools, lobbying for business-friendly finance, insurance and real estate rules and promoting prescription drug availability
before full Food and Drug Administration testing.¶ In the area of climate change, the leaked documents revealed that the group funds vocal climate skeptics, including Center for
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change founder Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per
month), and New Zealand geologist Robert Carter ($1,667 per month). They've also pledged $90,000 to skeptical meteorologist Anthony Watts, who blogs at
WattsUpWithThat.com.¶ The documents also reveal
a communications strategy aimed at "keep[ing] opposing voices out" of
publications such as Forbes Magazine, where the audience is "reliably anti-climate."¶ On the education front, Wojick would be paid $5,000 per module, or $25,000 per quarter, according to the report's tentative
estimates, to produce the Heartland climate curricula. The Institute's anonymous donor has pledged $100,000 to the project, which the Institute hopes to match from other donors.¶ Each module would inject skepticism
into the scientific consensus on climate change. Example statements in the report include: "Whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy;" "Models are used to explore various hypotheses
about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial;" and "Whether CO2 [carbon dioxide] is a pollutant is controversial." The modules would also teach that the idea of carbon dioxide as a pollutant is "controversial,"
arguing that carbon dioxide is crucial to life on Earth and that natural emissions are 20 times those of human emissions.¶ Creating controversy¶ In fact, while some of these statements may be politically controversial, they
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, which
synthesizes global scientific findings about climate change, states: "Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the
overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds
are not particularly scientifically controversial. For example,
that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions."¶ Likewise, while models cannot represent the climate system
perfectly (thus the uncertainly in how much the Earth will warm for a given amount of emissions), climate
simulations are checked and re-checked
against real-world observations and are an established tool in understanding the atmosphere.¶ And while carbon dioxide is crucial for plant
life, the carbon balance on Earth is a delicate cycle, with oceans and land able to absorb only so much CO2. Humans do emit only a fraction of the 750 gigatons of CO2 that move through the atmosphere each year, but
These
documents are breathtaking, and they reveal what many of us have long suspected: That there is a campaign afoot by groups directly
funded by the fossil fuel industry and right-wing foundations such as Koch Industries to mislead the public about climate
change," Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann wrote in an email to LiveScience.
small changes in the total amount can overwhelm so-called carbon "sinks" such as the ocean, resulting in important, and cumulative, changes in the atmosphere. [10 Ways the Weather Changed History]¶ "
25
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Author Indict- Heartland Institute
Heartland is self-interested and anti-science
Anderson 2010 (Theo Anderson, Ph.D. in American history from Yale University, June 6, 2010, “Free-market fundamentalists
stoke fears of a 'Warmist' conspiracy,” In These Times, Lexis)
In truth, the vast majority of the public is operating on faith when it comes to the science of climate change. It's also true
that both sides have an agenda. For all its talk about doing real science, Heartland is fairly explicit about its agenda, which has
nothing to do with science and everything to do with advocating for "free-market solutions" to every conceivable
problem. According to Heartland, climate "alarmism" is just the entering wedge for socialism. On one side there is Heartland's
promise that future warming will be modest and warmer will be better. On the other side there is a consensus among scientists that
the earth is warming, that human activity is the primary cause, and that the results could be catastrophic. The surreal thing about
being at Heartland's Seventh International Conference on Climate Change was knowing that Heartland has been
exposed as an extremist organization, and might be doomed--yet it's winning. In the United States, at least, Heartland's freemarket fetish has trumped the science. We've heard the warnings of impending catastrophe and have decided, basically, to do
nothing. We've chosen to believe Heartland's comforting "research and reason" rather than hard truths.
26
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Skeptics Suppressed
Skeptics aren’t suppressed
Nordhaus 2012 (William D. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, research for National Science
Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Glaser Foundation, March 22, 2012, “Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong,”
New York Review of Books, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-arewrong/?pagination=false)
The fourth contention by the sixteen scientists is that skeptical climate scientists are living under a reign of terror about
their professional and personal livelihoods. They write:¶ Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many
young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak
up for fear of not being promoted—or worse….¶ This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for
example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that
they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag
and some were condemned to death.¶ While we must always be attentive to a herd instinct, this lurid tale is misleading in the
extreme. Some background on Lysenko will be useful. He was the leader of a group that rejected standard genetics and held that
the acquired characteristics of an organism could be inherited by that organism’s descendants. He exploited the Soviet ideology
about heredity, the need for agricultural production, and the favor of a powerful dictator—Stalin—to attract adherents to his
theories. Under his influence, genetics was officially condemned as unscientific. Once he gained control of Russian biology, genetics
research was prohibited, and thousands of geneticists were fired. Many leading geneticists were exiled to labor camps in Siberia,
poisoned, or shot. His influence began to wane after Stalin’s death, but it took many years for Soviet biology to overcome the
disastrous consequences of the Lysenko affair.8¶ The idea that skeptical climate scientists are being treated like Soviet
geneticists in the Stalinist period has no basis in fact. There are no political or scientific dictators in the US. No climate
scientist has been expelled from the US National Academy of Sciences. No skeptics have been arrested or banished to
gulags or the modern equivalents of Siberia. Indeed, the dissenting authors are at the world’s greatest universities, including
Princeton, MIT, Rockefeller, the University of Cambridge, and the University of Paris. ¶ I can speak personally for the lively debate
about climate change policy. There are controversies about many details of climate science and economics. While some claim
that skeptics cannot get their papers published, working papers and the Internet are open to all. I believe the opposite of what the
sixteen claim to be true: dissident voices and new theories are encouraged because they are critical to sharpening our analysis. The
idea that climate science and economics are being suppressed by a modern Lysenkoism is pure fiction.
27
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Climate Scientists Paid Off
Climate scientists aren’t paid off
Nordhaus 2012 (William D. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, research for National Science
Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Glaser Foundation, March 22, 2012, “Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong,”
New York Review of Books, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-arewrong/?pagination=false)
A fifth argument is that mainstream climate scientists are benefiting from the clamor about climate change:¶ Why is there
so much passion about global warming…? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the
modern update, “Follow the money.”¶ Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for
academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise
taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to
charitable foundations promising to save the planet.¶ This argument is inaccurate as scientific history and unsupported by any
evidence. There is a suggestion that standard theories about global warming have been put together by the scientific equivalent of
Madison Avenue to raise funds from government agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF). The fact is that the first
precise calculations about the impact of increased CO2 concentrations on the earth’s surface temperature were made by
Svante Arrhenius in 1896, more than five decades before the NSF was founded.¶ The skeptics’ account also misunderstands the
incentives in academic research. IPCC authors are not paid. Scientists who serve on panels of the National Academy of
Science do so without monetary compensation for their time and are subject to close scrutiny for conflicts of interest.
Academic advancement occurs primarily from publication of original research and contributions to the advancement of
knowledge, not from supporting “popular” views. Indeed, academics have often been subject to harsh political attacks when
their views clashed with current political or religious teachings. This is the case in economics today, where Keynesian economists are
attacked for their advocacy of “fiscal stimulus” to promote recovery from a deep recession; and in biology, where evolutionary
biologists are attacked as atheists because they are steadfast in their findings that the earth is billions rather than thousands of years
old.¶ In fact, the argument about the venality of the academy is largely a diversion. The big money in climate change involves
firms, industries, and individuals who worry that their economic interests will be harmed by policies to slow climate change.
The attacks on the science of global warming are reminiscent of the well-documented resistance by cigarette companies to scientific
findings on the dangers of smoking. Beginning in 1953, the largest tobacco companies launched a public relations campaign to
convince the public and the government that there was no sound scientific basis for the claim that cigarette smoking was dangerous.
The most devious part of the campaign was the underwriting of researchers who would support the industry’s claim. The approach
was aptly described by one tobacco company executive: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the
‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”9
28
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Climate Models Flawed/Manipulated
Models aren’t manipulated- Latest studies prove
Tollefson 2011 (Jeff Tollefson, October 20, 2011, Nature, “Different method, same result: global warming is real,”
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111020/full/news.2011.607.html)
After generating considerable attention with a preview on Capitol Hill last spring, an independent team of scientists has
formally released their analysis of the land surface temperature record. Led by Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of
California, Berkeley, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study takes a different and more comprehensive approach
than earlier assessments, but reaches the same basic conclusion: global warming is happening. Nature examines how the new
study differs from its predecessors.¶ What is the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study?¶ Until now, instrumental temperature
records dating back to the middle of the nineteenth century have been compiled by three main research groups: NASA's Goddard
Institute for Space Studies in Greenbelt, Maryland; the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Washington DC; and
a collaboration between Britain's Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK. All three
records were developed in different ways, using separate, but overlapping, sets of data. By and large, all three studies line up fairly
well as they document rising temperatures, particularly the sharp spike in recent decades, but that hasn't halted criticism from
climate sceptics regarding the quality of the data and the rigor of the analysis. ¶ What was the research team's goal, and did they
achieve it?¶ Muller says he listened to the sceptics and decided that an independent analysis was in order. He and his team
decided to tackle the temperature record independently, on the basis of first principles. They say their results line up with previously
published studies and suggest that the average global land temperature has risen by roughly 0.9 °C since the 1950s. ¶ Muller says he
is surprised at how well the findings line up with previous analyses, which he takes as evidence that the various scientific
teams working on these data did indeed go about their work "in a truly unbiased manner".¶ What did the team do
differently?¶ The Berkeley researchers developed their own statistical methods so that they could use data from virtually all of the
temperature stations on land — some 39,000 in all — whereas the other research groups relied on subsets of data from several
thousand sites to build their records. This meant that they also had to figure out ways to handle shorter temperature records from
instruments or stations where the record was interrupted.¶ Muller and his team also used a different approach to analysing the data.
Scientists working on the earlier studies adjusted raw data to account for differences in the time of day when readings were made,
for example, or for higher temperatures caused by the urban heat island effect, in which cities tend to be warmer than natural
landscapes. Muller says his team included the raw data in its analysis and then applied standard statistical techniques to remove
outliers.¶ Is there an advantage to tackling the problem this way?¶ The team claims that this method is more transparent than
those used by the other groups. And it may be true that this kind of analysis could make it easier for outside groups to reproduce
and analyse the study.
29
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Climategate
Climategate is a joke- Case closed
Plait 2011 (Phil Plait, astronomer and lecturer, August 24, 2011, “Case closed:
‘Climategate’ was manufactured,” Discover,
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/24/case-closed-climategate-was-manufactured/)
It’s not often you can actually say "case closed", but in this case it’s literally true: climatologist Michael Mann has been cleared
of all wrongdoing by the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation. Did I say "has been cleared"? I meant has
been cleared once again, since there have been several investigations into his research and Dr. Mann has been cleared of
all charges every single time (like here and here). All of this stemmed from the "ClimateGate" nonsense of the past couple of
years, where leaked emails were taken hugely out of context by the press and climate change deniers, and used to smear
scientists. Dr. Mann was at the center of the whole manufactured controversy, being the biggest target of the people who want to
deny the Earth is warming up. This latest, and hopefully last, investigation into Dr. Mann’s research (PDF) again shows he is not
guilty of misconduct. A couple of the report conclusions are worth pointing out: We found no basis to conclude that the
[Climategate] emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence. That’s clear enough, I think.
They also said: There is no specific evidence that [Mann] falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions
amounted to research misconduct. A big claim by the deniers is that researchers were using "tricks" to falsify conclusions about
global warming, but the NSF report is pretty clear that’s not true. The most damning thing the investigators could muster was that
there was "some concern" over the statistical methods used, but that’s not scandalous at all; there’s always some argument in
science over methodology. The vague language of the report there indicates to me this isn’t a big deal, or else they would’ve been
specific. The big point is that the data were not faked. What does this mean for global warming? A lot of these attacks can be traced
back to the famous "hockey stick" diagram, showing how Earth’s temperatures have been increasing rapidly in recent times. This
graph is what really clinches the idea of man-made global warming, and so has been the epicenter of the manufactroversy. The fact
that Dr. Mann has been cleared again, and that his data are good, shows that this graph is even more solid — or at least is not as
weak as so many would lead you to believe. And what does this mean about "ClimateGate"? That’s clear enough: all the
outrage, all the claims of fraud and fakery, were just — haha — hot air. Not that this will stop or even slow down the denial
machine. Politicians from the Virginia State Attorney General to members of the House of Representatives have been on what I
would characterize as witch hunts. Dr. Mann has been vocal in his opposition, and I applaud him. Still, needless to say, the attacks
will continue. Here are the facts: the Earth is warming up. The rate of warming has increased in the past century or so. This
corresponds to the time of the Industrial Revolution, when we started dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Greenhouse
gases warm the planet (hence the name) — if they didn’t we’d have an average temperature below the freezing point of water.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which is dumped into the atmosphere by humans to the tune of 30 billion tons per year, 100
times the amount from volcanoes. And finally, approximately 97% of climatologists who actually study climate agree that
global warming is real, and caused by humans.
30
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
***Warming Bad Impacts***
31
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Biodiversity Mod
Warming collapses biodiversity
Bellard et al 2012 (Ce ́line Bellard, Cleo Bertelsmeier, Paul Leadley, Wilfried Thuiller and Franck Courchamp, “Impacts of
climate change on the future of Biodiversity,” Ecology Letters, 15: 365–377, online)
Ecologists are developing a better understanding of the mechanisms by which species and ecosystems
can be impacted by climate change. The
timing of species life cycle events is expected to be further altered, species distributions will change radically, trophic
networks will be affected and ecosystem functioning may be severely impaired, leading in the worst cases to countless
species extinctions. Over the past decades, some of this understanding has been effectively translated into mathematical models that can be used to forecast
climate change impacts on species distributions, abundance and extinctions. These models are characterised by their high diversity of underlying structures and
assumptions, with predictions differing greatly depending on the models used and species studied. Most of these models indicate
alarming
consequences for Biodiversity with worst-case scenarios leading to extinction rates that would qualify as the sixth mass
extinction in the history of the earth (Barnosky et al. 2011). However, all current approaches have serious weaknesses. An evaluation of known
mechanisms of climate impacts on Biodiversity suggests that the lack of several key mechanisms in models may lead to either very large underestimations or
overestimations of risks for Biodiversity. Improvements in existing models and, in particular, a new generation of models must address the shortcomings of current
models to reduce uncertainties. It is also crucial to improve our understanding of the vulnerability of Biodiversity to climate change, to develop other predictive
approaches and to go beyond predictions.
32
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Extinction
Young 2010 (Dr Ruth Young, PhD specialising in coastal marine ecology. 2-9-2010, “Biodiversity: what it is and why it’s
important”, http://www.talkingnature.com/2010/02/Biodiversity/Biodiversity-what-and-why/)
Different species within ecosystems fill particular roles, they all have a function, they all have a niche. They interact with each other and the physical
environment to provide ecosystem services that are vital for our survival. For example plant species convert carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere
and energy from the sun into useful things such as food, medicines and timber. A bee pollinating a flower (Image: ClearlyAmbiguous Flickr) Pollination carried out by
insects such as bees enables the production of ⅓ of our food crops. Diverse mangrove and coral reef ecosystems provide a wide variety of habitats that are essential
for many fishery species. To make it simpler for economists to comprehend the magnitude of services offered by Biodiversity, a team of researchers estimated their
value – it amounted to $US33 trillion per year. “By protecting Biodiversity we maintain ecosystem services” Certain
species play a “keystone” role in
maintaining ecosystem services. Similar to the removal of a keystone from an arch, the removal of these species can result in the collapse of an
ecosystem and the subsequent removal of ecosystem services. The most well known example of this occurred during the 19th century when
sea otters were almost hunted to extinction by fur traders along the west coast of the USA. This led to a population explosion in the sea otters’ main source of prey,
sea urchins. Because the urchins graze on kelp their booming population decimated the underwater kelp forests. This loss of habitat led to declines in local fish
populations. Sea otters are a keystone species once hunted for their fur (Image: Mike Baird) Eventually a treaty protecting sea otters allowed the numbers of otters to
increase which inturn controlled the urchin population, leading to the recovery of the kelp forests and fish stocks. In other cases, ecosystem services are maintained
by entire functional groups, such as apex predators (See Jeremy Hance’s post at Mongabay). During the last 35 years, over fishing of large shark species along the US
Atlantic coast has led to a population explosion of skates and rays. These skates and rays eat bay scallops and their out of control population has led to the closure of
a century long scallop fishery. These are just two examples demonstrating how Biodiversity can maintain the services that ecosystems provide for us, such as
fisheries. One could argue that to maintain ecosystem services we don’t need to protect Biodiversity but rather, we only need to protect the species and functional
groups that fill the keystone roles. However, there are a couple of problems with this idea. First of all, for
most ecosystems we don’t know which
species are the keystones! Ecosystems are so complex that we are still discovering which species play vital roles in maintaining them. In some cases its
groups of species not just one species that are vital for the ecosystem. Second, even if we did complete the enormous task of identifying and protecting all keystone
species, what back-up plan would we have if an unforseen event (e.g. pollution or disease) led to the demise of these ‘keystone’ species? Would there be another
species to save the day and take over this role? Classifying some species as ‘keystone’ implies that the others are not important. This may lead to the non-keystone
species being considered ecologically worthless and subsequently over-exploited. Sometimes we may not even know which species are likely to fill the keystone roles.
An example of this was discovered on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. This research examined what would happen to a coral reef if it were over-fished. The “overfishing” was simulated by fencing off coral bommies thereby excluding and removing fish from them for three years. By the end of the experiment, the reefs had
changed from a coral to an algae dominated ecosystem – the coral became overgrown with algae. When the time came to remove the fences the researchers
expected herbivorous species of fish like the parrot fish (Scarus spp.) to eat the algae and enable the reef to switch back to a coral dominated ecosystem. But,
surprisingly, the shift back to coral was driven by a supposed ‘unimportant’ species – the bat fish (Platax pinnatus). The bat fish was previously thought to feed on
invertebrates – small crabs and shrimp, but when offered a big patch of algae it turned into a hungry herbivore – a cow of the sea – grazing the algae in no time. So a
fish previously thought to be ‘unimportant’ is actually a keystone species in the recovery of coral reefs overgrown by algae! Who knows how many other species are
out there with unknown ecosystem roles! In some cases it’s easy to see who the keystone species are but in many ecosystems seemingly unimportant or redundant
species are also capable of changing niches and maintaining ecosystems. The more
Biodiversityiverse an ecosystem is, the more likely these species
will be present and the more resilient an ecosystem is to future impacts. Presently we’re only scratching the surface of understanding the full
importance of Biodiversity and how it helps maintain ecosystem function. The scope of this task is immense. In the meantime, a wise insurance policy for maintaining
ecosystem services would be to conserve Biodiversity. In doing so, we increase the chance of maintaining our ecosystem services in the
event of future impacts such as disease, invasive species and of course, climate change. This is the international year of Biodiversity – a time to recognize that
Biodiversity makes our survival on this planet possible and that our protection of Biodiversity maintains this service.
33
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Destroys Biodiversity
Warming collapses Biodiversity
Bellard et al 2012 (Ce ́line Bellard, Cleo Bertelsmeier, Paul Leadley, Wilfried Thuiller and Franck Courchamp, “Impacts of
climate change on the future of Biodiversity,” Ecology Letters, 15: 365–377, online)
The multiple components of climate change are anticipated to affect all the levels of Biodiversity, from organism to
biome levels (Fig. 1, and reviewed in detail in, e.g. Parmesan 2006). They primarily concern various strengths and forms of fitness
decrease, which are expressed at different levels, and have effects on individuals, populations, species, ecological networks and
ecosystems. At the most basic level of Biodiversity, climate change is able to decrease genetic diversity of populations due to
directional selection and rapid migration, which could in turn affect ecosystem functioning and resilience (Botkin et al.
2007 but, see Meyers & Bull 2002). However, most studies are centred on impacts at higher organisational levels, and genetic effects
of climate change have been explored only for a very small number of species. ¶ Beyond this, the various effects on populations
are likely to modify the Ôweb of interactionsÕ at the community level (Gilman et al. 2010; Walther 2010). In essence, the
response of some species to climate change may constitute an indirect impact on the species that depend on them. A
study of 9650 interspecific systems, including pollinators and parasites, suggested that around 6300 species could disappear
following the extinction of their associated species (Koh et al. 2004). In addition, for many species, the primary impact of
climate change may be mediated through effects on synchrony with speciesÕ food and habitat requirements (see below). Climate
change has led to phenological shifts in flowering plants and insect pollinators, causing mismatches between plant and pollinator
populations that lead to the extinctions of both the plant and the pollinator with expected consequences on the structure of plant–
pollinator networks (Kiers et al. 2010; Rafferty & Ives 2010). Other modifications of interspecific relationships (with
competitors, prey⁄predators, host⁄parasites or mutualists) also modify community structure and ecosystem functions (Lafferty
2009; Walther 2010; Yang & Rudolf 2010).¶ At a higher level of Biodiversity, climate can induce changes in vegetation communities
that are predicted to be large enough to affect biome integrity. The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment forecasts shifts for 5–20% of
EarthÕs terrestrial ecosystems, in particular cool conifer forests, tundra, scrubland, savannahs and boreal forest (Sala et al. 2005). Of
particular concern are Ôtipping pointsÕ where ecosystem thresholds can lead to irreversible shifts in biomes (Leadley et
al. 2010).
34
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Destroys Biodiversity- A2 Adaptation
Other factors mean they can’t adapt fast enough
Bellard et al 2012 (Ce ́line Bellard, Cleo Bertelsmeier, Paul Leadley, Wilfried Thuiller and Franck Courchamp, “Impacts of
climate change on the future of Biodiversity,” Ecology Letters, 15: 365–377, online)
Failing to adapt along one or several of these three axes, population or species will go extinct locally or globally. There is thus a
multitude of possible responses for species to cope with climate change, and in fact relatively few taxa went extinct following
climate change during the Quaternary period (Botkin et al. 2007). This should help temper catastrophist predictions regarding the
global effects of the current climate change on Biodiversity. However, the responses of many populations are likely to be
inadequate to counter the speed and magnitude of the current climate change. In addition, unlike in past periods of
climate change, species have now to cope with additional threats, some of which may act in synergy with climate change
(Botkin et al. 2007). As we are already facing an irrefutable Biodiversity crisis, the number of species that may go extinct
following climate change has become a major concern over the last few years.
Direct and indirect effects will outstrip adaptation
Mooney et al 2009 (Harold Mooney, Stanford, Anne Larigauderie, Muse ́ um National d’Histoire Naturelle, Manuel Cesario,
UNIFRAN/ECOFRAN, Thomas Elmquist, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Center for Marine Studies, University of
Queensland, Sandra Lavorel, CNRS, Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, Universite ́ Joseph Fourier, Georgina M Mace, Imperial College
London,¶ Margaret Palmer, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Robert Scholes, CSIR, Department of Natural
Resources and Environment, and Tetsukazu Yahara, Kyushu University, “Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services,”
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:46–54)
What do we envision in the world that is emerging as climate change grabs hold? The drivers of climate change, particularly
changes in the composition of the atmos- phere, such as increasing CO2, affect organisms directly, as does the action of some
of the other greenhouse gases, particularly nitrogenous compounds resulting from com- bustion and crop fertilization.
The primary indirect effect of these drivers is climate warming itself that may have profound direct impacts on the metabolism of
organisms. However, climate warming also has a range of indirect effects through changes in sea level and vegetation
types that impact physical and biological systems. It is the combination of these direct and indirect impacts that are occurring at
rates and extents unprecedented in recent times that make climate change such a complex but potentially hazardous force affecting
ecosystems and their services.¶ Organisms will differ in their response to climate change. Some will cope better with changes than
others as a result of their ecology and evolutionary history. But climate change is a different kind of threat from the major
anthropogenic pressures of the past such as over- exploitation and habitat change. In particular, its differ- ential impacts
on interacting species in a community may have widespread consequences affecting for example pollinator/plant and
plant/herbivore relation- ships [33] as well as more complex features of ecological interaction webs [34]. Also, climate change will be
rapid and may outstrip the potential for many organisms to be able to adapt and evolve [35] or to track suitable climates across the
landscape. The possibilities will depend on the life cycle period of an organism as well as their basic genetic and phylogenetic
characteristics. Not only will different lineages of organisms respond at different rates to climate change but also will habitat
characteristics. For example, soil formation takes place over millennia through the interaction of climate and the biota, thus the
rapid migration of organisms that will be stimulated by climate change will not only result in new combinations of
species but also perhaps mis- matches of the biota with the substrates upon which they evolved. Then there will be new
climate combi- nations that have not been experienced by any of the extant biota [36].
35
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Destroys Biodiversity- Indirect Effects
Climate change will compound all the other negative effects of humans on Biodiversity
Mooney et al 2009 (Harold Mooney, Stanford, Anne Larigauderie, Muse ́ um National d’Histoire Naturelle, Manuel Cesario,
UNIFRAN/ECOFRAN, Thomas Elmquist, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Center for Marine Studies, University of
Queensland, Sandra Lavorel, CNRS, Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, Universite ́ Joseph Fourier, Georgina M Mace, Imperial College
London,¶ Margaret Palmer, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Robert Scholes, CSIR, Department of Natural
Resources and Environment, and Tetsukazu Yahara, Kyushu University, “Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services,”
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:46–54)
The impact of humans on the biotic systems of the earth is dramatic and is accelerating. A global analysis of these changes
revealed that over 60% of the services, or societal benefits, provided by biotic systems has been diminished through human
activities, with the greatest loss occurring just during the past 50 years [1]. The extent of human modification of these biotic
systems has been extraordinary, so much so that new maps of the earth are being drawn of the current boundaries, not
of natural systems, but of the now predominating human-modified ecosys- tems [2]. These enormous impacts by plowing,
grazing, fishing and hunting, timber removal, river diversions, city building, water extractions, polluting fertilizer additions and so
forth are profound and in many cases growing in intensity. It is these activities that have disrupted eco- system processes and
diminished such a large fraction of ecosystem services. At the same time the benefits of enhancing the earth’s systems to provide
food, fuel and fiber for society have been remarkable and have sup- ported burgeoning population growth. This achievement,
however, has been at the expense of other services that benefit society. These tradeoffs have however not been analyzed to their
full extent.¶ Climate warming is gaining momentum and is impacting upon these realities of the past. These changes will
exacerbate many of the already existing adverse con- sequences of human activities on the sustainability of our biotic
resources. In this article we describe the emer- ging climate change impacts on biotic resources and interactions. We look at these
changes through the lens of ecosystem services since they represent an end point of a complex chain of players and interactions that
are the providers of these services and further it is these services that are most relevant to society at large. We examine climate
change impacts all along the chain, from species to ecosystem functioning, as well as looking at the impacts of past degradation
along this chain due to longer term human drivers of change, in order to highlight the nature of the issues and consequences that
society must confront in the near future.
36
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Ocean Acidification Mod
Ocean acidification will cause extinction
Romm 2012 (Joe Romm, Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, March 2, 2012, “Science: Ocean
Acidifying So Fast It Threatens Humanity’s Ability to Feed Itself,” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/436193/scienceocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatens-humanity-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 LamontDoherty 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.”¶ 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
decreasing dissolved oxygen concentration. 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.“
37
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Extinction
Westenskow 2008 (Rosalie Westenskow, UPI Correspodent, June 28, 2008, “Acidic Oceans May Tangle Food Chain,” UPI,
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2008/06/06/Acidic_oceans_may_tangle_food_chain/UPI84651212763771/print/)
Increased carbon levels in ocean water could have devastating impacts on marine life, scientists testified Thursday at a congressional
hearing. Although most of the concern about carbon emissions has focused on the atmosphere and resulting temperature changes,
accumulation of carbon dioxide in the ocean also could have disturbing outcomes, experts said at the hearing, which
examined legislation that would create a program to study how the ocean responds to increased carbon levels. Ocean surface
waters quickly absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so as carbon concentrations rise in the skies, they also skyrocket in the
watery depths that cover almost 70 percent of the planet. As carbon dioxide increases in oceans, the acidity of the water also rises,
and this change could affect a wide variety of organisms, said Scott Doney, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, a non-profit research institute based in Woods Hole, Mass. "Greater acidity slows the growth or even dissolves ocean
plant and animal shells built from calcium carbonate," Doney told representatives in the House Committee on Energy and the
Environment. "Acidification thus threatens a wide range of marine organisms, from microscopic plankton and shellfish to massive
coral reefs." If small organisms, like phytoplankton, are knocked out by acidity, the ripples would be far-reaching, said
David Adamec, head of ocean sciences at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. "If the amount of phytoplankton is
reduced, you reduce the amount of photosynthesis going on in the ocean," Adamec told United Press International. "Those little
guys are responsible for half of the oxygen you're breathing right now." A hit to microscopic organisms can also bring down a
whole food chain. For instance, several years ago, an El Nino event wiped out the phytoplankton near the Galapagos Islands. That
year, juvenile bird and seal populations almost disappeared. If ocean acidity stunted phytoplankton populations like the El Nino
did that year, a similar result would occur -- but it would last for much longer than one year, potentially leading to
extinction for some species, Adamec said.
38
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Causes Acidification- A2 Not Real/Anthro
Warming is causing unprecedented ocean acidification- Convergence of several factors
Johnson 2012 (Scott K. Johnson, Ars Technica, March 2, 2012, “Ocean Acidification to Hit 300-Million-Year Max,” Wired,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/ocean-acidification-peak/)
In the end, the researchers conclude that the PETM, Triassic-Jurassic boundary, and Permian-Triassic boundary are the closest
analogs to the modern day, at least as far as acidification is concerned. Due to the poor ocean chemistry data for the latter
two, the PETM is the best event for us to compare current conditions. It’s still not perfect—the rate of CO2 increase was
slower than today.¶ Perhaps more significantly, the ocean chemistry was actually less sensitive to change then. The ratio of
magnesium to calcium in ocean water changes over time due to differences in volcanic activity along the mid-ocean ridges, among
other things. When magnesium is high (as it is today), a form of calcium carbonate called aragonite becomes dominant.
Aragonite is more soluble than calcite, so “aragonite seas” are more susceptible to the effects of acidification. Even though
the PETM did not feature aragonite seas, it was a tumultuous time for many marine species. ¶ While the authors frequently point out
the difficulty in teasing apart the effects of ocean acidification and climate change, they argue that this is really an academic
exercise. It’s more useful to consider the witches’ brew with all the ingredients—acidification, temperature change, and
changes in dissolved oxygen—since, historically, those have come together. That combination produces unequivocally
bad news.¶ The authors conclude, “[T]he 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 [million years]
of Earth history, raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change.”
Only anthropogenic CO2 can explain it
Johnson 2012 (Scott K. Johnson, Ars Technica, March 2, 2012, “Ocean Acidification to Hit 300-Million-Year Max,” Wired,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/ocean-acidification-peak/)
Some like to point to cycles when dismissing climate change, brushing off warming as simply being the thing that happens
right before cooling. In this view, concern about climate change is akin to the naïve worry that half of schools are performing below
average. This is why we need context. We need to know whether an observed change is more like a world premiere or a familiar rerun.¶ A new paper in Science examines the geologic record for context relating to ocean acidification, a lowering of the pH
driven by the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The research group (twenty-one scientists from nearly
as many different universities) reviewed the evidence from past known or suspected intervals of ocean acidification. The work
provides perspective on the current trend as well as the potential consequences. They find that the current rate of ocean
acidification puts us on a track that, if continued, would likely be unprecedented in last 300 million years.¶ There are
several ways acidification events leave their signature in the rock record. The isotopic composition of carbon changes
with shifts in the carbon cycle, such as the movement of greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Isotopes of boron present in marine shells track ocean water pH. The ratios of other trace elements in marine shells (such as
uranium or zinc) to calcium indicate the availability of carbonate ions. (Ocean acidification is not just about pH, but the reduction of
carbonate mineral saturation that makes it more difficult for calcifiers to build their shells.) In addition to all this, the fossil record
records the extinctions and morphological changes in marine species that occur around catastrophic events in Earth history.
39
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Coral Reefs Mod
CO2 is wrecking coral reefs
Mooney et al 2009 (Harold Mooney, Stanford, Anne Larigauderie, Muse ́ um National d’Histoire Naturelle, Manuel Cesario,
UNIFRAN/ECOFRAN, Thomas Elmquist, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Center for Marine Studies, University of
Queensland, Sandra Lavorel, CNRS, Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, Universite ́ Joseph Fourier, Georgina M Mace, Imperial College
London,¶ Margaret Palmer, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Robert Scholes, CSIR, Department of Natural
Resources and Environment, and Tetsukazu Yahara, Kyushu University, “Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services,”
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:46–54)
There are already indications of dramatic impacts of global warming at the system level, particularly in the arctic and for
coral reef systems. Mass coral bleaching driven by warmer sea temperatures has killed vast num- bers of corals across
the tropics, causing some reefs to lose their ecosystem structure and functions [48]. Six major coral bleaching events have
occurred across the world since 1979, when they first were reported in the scientific literature. These impacts are increasing and
will become annual events by as early as 2030–2050 if sea tempera- tures continue to rise at current rates. Ocean
acidification due to the increased entry of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into the ocean, is adding further stress on reef
building corals by driving down the concentration of carbonate ions that are crucial for coral calcification. Already, coral reefs on
the Great Barrier Reef [49] and in Thailand [50] are calcifying 15% slower than they were in 1980. This reduction in
calcification is unprecedented in the 400 years of coral record examined by [49]. There are large ecosystem service
consequences to these changes. In the Coral Triangle (which spans six South- east Asian countries) over 100 million people face
declin- ing food security and the exposure of their communities and towns to increasing sea level and storm intensity.
40
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Extinction
US Department of State 2000 ( “Coral Reefs: Fertile Gardens of the Sea,” online)
According to the Worldwatch Institute publication, "State of the World 2000," reefs include only 0.3 percent of the ocean area, but "one
out of every four
ocean species thus far identified is a reef-dweller, including at least 65 percent of marine fish species." Historically, coral reefs
have been important to fishermen; increasingly, they stimulate local economies by drawing tourism. They protect coastlines from erosion, and over the eons have
helped create brilliant beaches as their calcium carbonate leached on to the shore. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Reef
systems are
storehouses of immense biological wealth" that provide "sources of food, pharmaceuticals, jobs, and revenues. Reef habitats provide humans with
services worth about $375 billion [thousand million] each year, despite the fact that they cover less than one percent of the earth's surface." The U.S. State
Department estimates that "reefs provide one-quarter of the fish catch in developing countries and employment for millions of fishers." Corals
are also
sensitive indicators of the health of the aquatic environment. They flourish in a fairly narrow range of temperatures, salinity, and water purity.
The die-off of corals going on in many oceans does not bode well for the health of the oceans themselves; and healthy oceans
are essential if life on the planet is to be sustained in its current form. Attempts to restore coral reefs and manage their biological richness
better include efforts being carried out to inventory and protect the structures themselves. Watershed management, including protection and conservation of
wetlands with their mud flats, mangrove forests, and sea grasses, can help the estuarine system, including corals, to remain clean and healthy. Coral reefs have come
to the attention of the public only recently, perhaps because fewer people visit a coral reef than a forest or prairie. Governments and private-sector organizations
have taken note of the deterioration of the world's reefs, and are trying to find solutions. In 1994, the U. S. government helped found the International Coral Reef
Initiative, a partnership designed to address threats to coral reefs. In 1996, the U.S. Coral Reef Initiative was launched to support these efforts and aid them
domestically. And in 1998, the president issued an executive order directing U.S. government agencies to protect coral reefs. This executive order also established the
United States Coral Reef Task Force, co-chaired by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce, including other federal departments. Its duties
include the promotion of reef mapping, scientific research, restoration, and collaboration with other nations. As it begins to operate, the task force has focused in on
illegal trade in corals and associated sea life as one important cause of reef destruction. Even aquaculture of species such as shrimp can harm reef environments, in
part by undermining Biodiversity to produce large amounts of a single species. Efforts are under way in the U.S. Congress to support the task force and improve
mapping and conservation of reef systems under U.S. jurisdiction. One way to help restore reef environments is simply to protect them from undue exploitation.
Writing in Issues in Science and Technology, marine biologist Tundi Agardy observed, "Scientific studies on the effect of notake reserves in East Africa, Australia,
Jamaica, the Lesser Antilles, New Zealand, the Philippines, and elsewhere all suggest that small, strictly protected no-take areas result in increased fish production." In
addition: "Preliminary evidence from a 1997 fishing ban in 23 small coral reef reserves by the Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary, indicates that several important species,
including spiny lobsters and groupers, are already beginning to rebound." Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is often cited as one example of enlightened coral
reef management. Nations as diverse as Guinea Bissau, Spain, and Croatia have established marine and watershed reserves. In many instances, national governments
initiate the conservation measures; in others, local communities initiate conservation efforts, with the assistance of the government. Like all ecosystems, reefs have
sections and areas more crucial to Biodiversity than others. Determining which these are can be an important part of conservation. "Zoned" networks of vital areas of
reef can be easier to protect than an entire system. When the most biologically vital parts of the reef are put off-limits, other areas can be made available for
commercial use and tourism. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary management plan, for example, establishes protective zones, as well as recreational and
commercial zones -- and sets aside areas for scientific research. University of Maryland zoologist Marjorie L. Reaka-Kudla has estimated the number of species living
on coral reefs at 950,000, of which about 10 percent have been studied and described. Mankind is just beginning to perceive the value of coral reefs, with their
known supplies of food and as-yet-unexplored biota that could lead to the development of new medicines. The U.S. State Department estimates "half the potential
pharmaceuticals being explored are from the oceans, many from coral reef ecosystems." In Reef Research, Dr. Patrick Colin, a marine "bioprospector," clearly
described the hopes that had led him to spend the 1990s collecting marine samples in the Pacific for the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI). "Over the past 20 some
years the NCI has been screening terrestrial plants and marine organisms worldwide for bioactivity against cancer and AIDS, and has come up with a number of hot
prospects, a number of which are in clinical trials. We try to collect from all environments possible, from shoreline areas with mangroves, beaches or rocks to deep
offshore reef environments. We do not collect any hard (stony) corals, threatened, endangered or locally protected species. We are mostly interested in soft-bodied
sessile invertebrates which rely on their chemistry, rather than stinging cells, spines, jaws or teeth for their survival." Clearly, conservation of coral, and
oceans in general, is linked to human survival and will continue to be an urgent issue in the 21st century.
41
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Destroys Coral Reefs
CO2 ocean acidification is wrecking coral reefs
Hall 2012 (Carin Hall, July 9, 2012, “Ocean Acidification: Climate Change's ‘Evil Twin’,” Energy Digital,
http://www.energydigital.com/green_technology/ocean-acidification-climate-changes-evil-twin)
The alarmingly high acid levels in the ocean, threatening the world's coral reefs, are quickly becoming climate change's
“equally evil twin,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco told The Associated Press.¶ Excess
carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere has led to particularly high acidity in today's oceans, affecting sea life and
coral reefs. Scientists have compared the deterioration phenomenon of the reefs to osteoporosis.¶ The higher acidity levels are
especially dangerous for marine life such as oysters, because it slows the growth of their shells. In a study that mimicked the level of
acidity scientists expect by the end of the century, clown fish started swimming toward predators rather than away from them,
because their sense of smell had been dulled.¶ "We're just beginning to uncover many of the ways in which the changing chemistry
of oceans affects lots of behaviors," Lubchenco said. "So salmon not being able to find their natal streams because their sense of
smell was impaired, that's a very real possibility."¶ As coral reefs deteriorate, coastlines are at greater risk of threats like tsunamis.
Critical tourism dollars would also be greatly affected and seafood farmers would see a significant decrease in stocks. ¶ Although
some short-term solutions have been put in place to help monitor the changing acid levels, the long-term solution is
obvious: reduce carbon emissions.¶ "The carbon dioxide that we have put in the atmosphere will continue to be absorbed by
oceans for decades," she said. "It is going to be a long time before we can stabilize and turn around the direction of change
simply because it's a big atmosphere and it's a big ocean."
42
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
***A2 CO2 Fert***
43
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Hurts Crops
CO2 fert is temporary and offset by negative climate effects
Hatfield 2011 (J.L. Hatfield, Laboratory Director, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment; K.J. Boote, Agronomy
Department, University of Florida; B.A. Kimball, USDA-ARS, U.S. Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center; L.H. Ziska, USDA Crop
Systems and Global Change Laboratory; R.C. Izaurralde, Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, University of Maryland; D.R. Ort, USDA/ARS, Photosynthesis Research Unit, University of Illinois; A. M. Thomson, Joint
Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, University of Maryland; David W. Wolfe, Department of
Horticulture, Cornell University, 2011, “Climate Impacts on Agriculture: Implications for Crop Production,” Agronomy Journal,
Volume 103, Issue 2)
Climate change, either as increasing trends in temperature, CO2, precipitation (decreasing as well as increasing), and/or O3, will
have impacts on agricultural systems. Production of annual and perennial crops will be affected by changes in the absolute values of
these climatic variables and/or increased variation. Episodic temperature changes exceeding the thresholds during the pollination
stage of development could be quite damaging¶ to crop production because of the sensitivity of crop plants to
temperature extremes during this growth stage. These changes coupled with variable precipitation that places the plant
under conditions of water stress would exacerbate the temperature effects. Warmer temperatures during the night,
especially during the reproductive period, will reduce fruit or grain size because the rapid rate of development and increased
respiration rates. A recent analysis by Ko et al. (2010), using the CERES–Wheat 4.0 module in the RZWQM2 model, evaluated the
interactions of increasing CO2 obtained from a FACE experiment along with temperature, water, and N. They found the effects of
water and N were greater than CO2 effects on biomass and yield and that temperature effects offset the CO2 effects.
These results further confirm the concept that there are counterbalancing effects from different cli- mate variables and that
development of adaptation or mitigation strategies will have to account for the combined effects of climate variables on crop
growth, development, and yield. In an effort to examine potential solutions to low yields in sub-Saharan Africa, Laux et al. (2010)
evaluated planting dates under climate change scenarios to evaluate the effect of increasing CO2 and higher temperature on
groundnut (peanut) and maize. They found the positive effect of CO2 would offset the temperature response in the next 10 to 20
yr but would be overcome by higher temperatures by 2080. Changing planting dates were beneficial for the driest locations
because of the more effective use of precipitation and avoidance of high temperature stresses. Both of these types of analyses will
have to be conducted to evaluate potential adapta- tion strategies for all cropping regions.¶ Increases in CO2 concentrations offer
positive impacts to plant growth and increased WUE. However, these positive impacts may not fully mitigate crop losses
associated with heat stress, increases in evaporative demand, and/or decreases in water availability in some regions. The
episodic variation in extremes may become the larger impact on plant growth and yield. To counteract these effects will require
management systems that offer the largest degree of resilience to climatic stresses as possible. This will include the development of
man- agement systems for rainfed environments that can store the maximum amount of water in the soil profile and reduce water
stress on the plant during critical growth periods.
44
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming bad for ag- Already hurting crop yield
Ainsworth and Ort 2010 (Elizabeth A. Ainsworth and Donald R. Ort, Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, United
States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service, October 2010, “How Do We Improve Crop Production in a Warming
World?,” Plant Physiology, Volume 154, Number 2, online)
Future agricultural production will encounter multifaceted challenges from global climate change. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and
other greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere at unprecedented rates, causing increased radiative forcing (Le
Quéré et al., 2009; Shindell et al., 2009). Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will increase annual temperatures by 2.5°C
to 4.3°C in important crop-growing regions of the world by 2080 to 2099, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) A1B scenario (Christensen et al., 2007). Growing season temperatures are expected to warm more than the annual
averages, with reduced precipitation expected to accompany higher temperatures in some regions. Additionally, heat waves are
expected to increase in frequency, intensity, and duration (Tebaldi et al., 2006; Christensen et al., 2007), and end-of-century
growing season temperatures in the tropics and subtropics may exceed even the most extreme seasonal temperatures measured to
date (Battisti and Naylor, 2009).¶ Despite these dramatic predictions for rising global temperatures and extreme temperature events,
the latest IPCC assessment report predicts that adaptation of agriculture will result in increased yields of cereal crops (maize [Zea
mays], wheat [Triticum spp.], and rice [Oryza sativa]) in mid- to high-latitude regions with modest increases in temperature across a
range of CO2 concentrations and precipitation changes (Easterling et al., 2007). With warming temperatures of 1°C to 3°C, yields at
lower latitudes are predicted to decrease, although global food production is predicted to increase (Easterling et al., 2007). The IPCC
projections assume that yield improvements from the latter half of the 20th century will continue into the future; however,
based on historical temperature-crop yield relationships, potential ceilings to crop yields, and limitations to expansion of
agricultural lands, that assumption may not be sound (Long and Ort, 2010). In fact, the relative rates of yield increase for all
of the major cereal crops are already declining (Fischer and Edmeades, 2010).¶ In a global analysis of crop yields from 1981
to 2002, there was a negative response of wheat, maize, and barley (Hordeum vulgare) yields to rising temperature, costing an
estimated $5 billion per year (Lobell and Field, 2007). An analysis of maize and soybean (Glycine max) production in the northern
Corn Belt region of the United States found that productivity was adversely affected by rising growing season temperatures
from 1976 to 2006 (Kucharik and Serbin, 2008). The response of maize and soybean to temperature is also nonlinear, and the
decline in yields above the temperature optimum is significantly steeper than the incline below it (Schlenker and Roberts, 2009).
Based on the nonlinearity of the temperature response, U.S. maize and soybean yields were predicted to decrease by 30% to
46% before the end of the century under the IPCC scenario with the slowest warming trend (Schlenker and Roberts, 2009).
In addition to these historical trends, record crop yield losses were reported in 2003, when Europe experienced a heat wave
with July temperatures up to 6°C above average and annual precipitation 50% below average (Ciais et al., 2005). Such extreme
events are not well characterized in the IPCC assessment simulations (Easterling et al., 2007). Therefore, increased global
temperatures and more frequent temperature extremes will greatly challenge agriculture in this century. Here, we
identify regional priorities and biological targets for adaptation of agriculture to rising temperature.
45
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Temp increase offsets carbon’s positive effects
Hatfield 2011 (J.L. Hatfield, Laboratory Director, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment; K.J. Boote, Agronomy
Department, University of Florida; B.A. Kimball, USDA-ARS, U.S. Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center; L.H. Ziska, USDA Crop
Systems and Global Change Laboratory; R.C. Izaurralde, Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, University of Maryland; D.R. Ort, USDA/ARS, Photosynthesis Research Unit, University of Illinois; A. M. Thomson, Joint
Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, University of Maryland; David W. Wolfe, Department of
Horticulture, Cornell University, 2011, “Climate Impacts on Agriculture: Implications for Crop Production,” Agronomy Journal,
Volume 103, Issue 2)
Crop species respond differently to temperature throughout their life cycles. Each species has a defined range of maximum and
minimum temperatures within which growth occurs and an opti- mum temperature at which plant growth progresses at its fastest
rate (Table 2). Growth rates slow as temperature increases above the optimum and cease when plants are exposed to
their maximum (ceiling) temperature. Vegetative development (node and leaf appearance rate) hastens as temperatures increase
up to the species optimum temperature. Vegetative development usually has a higher optimum temperature than reproductive
development. Progression of a crop through phenological phases is accelerated by increasing temperatures up to the speciesdependent optimum temperature. There are differences among annual (nonperennial) crop species in their cardinal temperature
values as shown in Table 2. Values reported in Table 2 represent conditions in which temperature is the only limiting variable. It is
important to realize that plant temperatures can be quite different than air temperatures and can be warmer than air
under water stressed conditions or cooler than air under adequate soil water conditions. A recent review by Hatfield et al. (2004)
provides a summary of the current use of plant temperatures to quantify water stress in plants. Plant temperatures are measured
with either attached thermometers to the leaf that are difficult to maintain or with relatively expensive infrared thermometers, and
therefore plant temperatures have been observed much less often than air temperatures. Consequently, evaluations of plant
responses to changes in temperature have been focused on air temperature rather than plant or canopy temperatures,
including the values given in Table 2.¶ Exposure to higher temperatures causes faster development in nonperennial crops,
which does not translate into an optimum for maximum production because the shorter life cycle means smaller plants, a
shortened reproductive phase duration, and reduced yield potential because of reduced cumulative light interception
during the growing season. Observations across species have shown optimum temperatures for yield are generally lower
than the optimum temperature for leaf appearance rate, vegetative growth, or reproductive progression (Table 2). Yield
may be impacted when temperatures fall below or above specific thresholds at critical times during development. The duration of
the crop life cycle is determined by temperature and the location of specific cultivars to given production zones is a reflection of
their specific temperature response. Another factor that has a major role in life cycle progression in many crops, especially for
soybean, is the daylength sensitivity.¶ One of the critical phenological stages for high temperature impacts is the reproductive
stage because of the effect on pollen viability, fertilization, and grain or fruit formation. Yield potential will be affected
by chronic exposures to high tem- peratures during the pollination stage of initial grain or fruit set. Temperature extremes
during the reproductive stage of development can produce some of the largest impacts on crop production. Schlenker and Roberts
(2009) have emphasized¶ the importance of considering the nonlinearity of temperature effects on yield (the slope of the decline in
yields above the optimum temperature is often steeper than the incline below it) in projecting climate change impacts. Temperature
effects on individual species are discussed in the following section.
46
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Hurts Crops- Invasive Species
Warming hurts agriculture – increase in invasive species, long growing seasons, increased pests,
diseases, and decreased water
Garber 2008 (Kent Garber, May 28, 2008, “How Global Warming Will Hurt Crops Lower yields, more pests, faster-growing weeds
will be just some of the effects of climate change,” http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/05/28/how-global-warming-willhurt-crops.html?PageNr=2)
Historically, the damage to food supplies by bad weather has been regarded as fleeting: catastrophic in the short term but ultimately remitting. Droughts ease,
floodwaters recede, and farmers replant their crops. But as a new government report indicates, such views are increasingly narrow and outdated, in that they fail to
acknowledge the creeping reach of global climate change.The report, released Tuesday, offers one of the most comprehensive looks yet at the impact that climate
change is expected to have on U.S. agriculture over the next several decades. Not surprisingly, the prognosis is grim. Temperatures in the United States, scientists say,
will rise on average by about 1.2 degrees Celsius by 2040, with carbon dioxide levels up more than 15 percent. The consequences for American-grown food, the
report finds, will most likely be far-reaching: Some crop
yields are predicted to drop; growing seasons will get longer and use more
water; weeds and shrubs will grow faster and spread into new territory, some of it arable farmland; and insect and crop disease
outbreaks will become more frequent. The new report, which was produced by more than a dozen agencies over multiple years and reflects the
findings of more than 1,000 scientific studies, offers only predictions, but the predictions reflect a high degree of confidence. In a sense, there is a vein of fatalism
among most scientists about what will happen in the next few decades. Government actions, they say, may alter the trajectory of climate change 50 to 100 years
from now, but the fate of climate change in the short term has been largely shaped by past behavior, by carbon already released into the atmosphere. The question
now is the extent of its impact.Some agricultural changes are already observable. In the central Great Plains, in states known for their grassy
prairies and sprawling row crops, there are new neighbors: trees and large shrubs, often clustering in islands in the middle of fields. In the Southwest, perennial
grasses have been largely pushed out by mesquite bushes, those long-rooted staples of the desert. And the invasive kudzu vine, formerly a nuisance only to the
South, has advanced steadily northward, forming a staggered line stretching from Connecticut to Illinois. Human practices in all three cases have abetted the
turnover, but climate change, scientists say, has been a primary driver, as invasive species reproduce more quickly and expand into areas once
deemed too cold for their survival. In turn, high-quality pastureland, once ideal for livestock grazing, has become poor-quality brush, and farmland faces competitors
for space.In the next 30 years these problems will very likely expand and multiply, as an already taxed food system faces threats on
multiple fronts. A rise in temperature—even as little as 1 degree Celsius—could cause many plantings to fail, the report indicates, since pollen and seeds are sensitive
to slight temperature changes. Yields of corn and rice are expected to decline slightly. Heat-sensitive fruits and vegetables, such as tomatoes, will most
likely suffer. Some of the potential damage will be blunted by higher carbon dioxide levels; soybean yields, for instance, will probably improve, because soybeans (and
several other crops) thrive from higher carbon inputs. But if temperatures keep rising, the balance will ultimately tip: At some extreme temperature, cells stop
dividing, and pollen dies.High ozone levels, which have risen sixfold in the United States in the past century and are expected to rise further, will suppress yields as
well. In fact, ozone levels are already extremely high in the eastern and midwestern regions of the country, rivaled globally only by eastern China (no model of air
quality, to be sure) and parts of western Europe. One recent study, for instance, found that high ozone levels significantly suppress yields of soybean, wheat, and
peanuts in the Midwest. Eventually, the
effects of climate change, far from being limited to individual plants, could percolate
throughout entire ecosystems. If springs become warmer, as predicted, the crop-growing season will expand. Insects and pests, thriving in warmer
winters, will reproduce more frequently and spread more rapidly. Many, in fact, are proliferating already, as reflected in reports of abnormally high rates of disease
outbreaks in the western half of the United States. Higher temperatures also are usually accompanied by declining rainfall, threatening to
slowly transform once lush areas into arid expanses. At the same time, droughts and heavy isolated rainfalls could become more numerous.
47
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 CO2 Fert- Maize
Warming hurts maize
Hatfield 2011 (J.L. Hatfield, Laboratory Director, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment; K.J. Boote, Agronomy
Department, University of Florida; B.A. Kimball, USDA-ARS, U.S. Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center; L.H. Ziska, USDA Crop
Systems and Global Change Laboratory; R.C. Izaurralde, Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, University of Maryland; D.R. Ort, USDA/ARS, Photosynthesis Research Unit, University of Illinois; A. M. Thomson, Joint
Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, University of Maryland; David W. Wolfe, Department of
Horticulture, Cornell University, 2011, “Climate Impacts on Agriculture: Implications for Crop Production,” Agronomy Journal,
Volume 103, Issue 2)
One of the most studied crops in terms of temperature response is maize and increasing temperature shortens the life cycle
and duration of the reproductive phase causing a reduction in grain yield (Badu-Apraku et al., 1983; Muchow et al., 1990).
Using both observed and simulated maize yields, Muchow et al. (1990) reported highest grain yields were from locations
with relatively cool growing season mean temperatures (18.0–19.8oC at Grand Junction, CO), compared to warmer sites, for
example, Cham- paign, IL (21.5–24.0oC), or warm tropical sites (26.3–28.9oC). This causes the simulated yields in the central Corn
Belt to decrease 5 to 8% per 2oC temperature increase which leads to the prediction that a temperature rise of 0.8oC over the next
30 yr in the Midwest could decrease grain yields by 2 to 3% (2.5%, Table 3) assuming no complicating effect from soil water
limitations.¶ Their results may have underestimated the potential yield reduc- tion with rising temperature because they
did not incorporate temperature modifications to assimilation rate or respiration nor did they account for failures in
grain-set due to rising temperature (Muchow et al., 1990). Lobell and Field (2007) separated the effects of temperature and
rainfall using records from 1961 to 2002 and found an 8.3% yield reduction per 1oC rise in tem- perature. Runge (1968) observed
maize yields were responsive to interactions of daily maximum temperature and rainfall 25 d prior and 15 d after anthesis. These
interactions revealed when rainfall was low (zero to 44 mm per 8 d), yield was reduced by 1.2 to 3.2% per 1oC rise. Conversely,
when temperatures were warm (Tmax of 35oC), yield was reduced 9% per 25.4 mm decline in rainfall.¶ Temperature effects on
pollination and kernel set may be one of the critical responses related to climate change. Pollen viability decreases when
exposure to temperatures above 35oC occurs (Herrero and Johnson, 1980; Schoper et al., 1987; Dupuis and Dumas, 1990).The
critical duration of pollen viability (before silk reception) is a function of pollen moisture content and¶ is strongly dependent on vapor
pressure deficit (Fonseca and Westgate, 2005). Although there is limited data on sensitivity of kernel set in maize to elevated
temperature, the in vitro evidence suggests that the thermal environment during endosperm cell division phase (8–10 d
postanthesis) is critical (Jones et al., 1984). Temperatures of 35oC compared to 30oC during the endosperm division phase reduced
subsequent kernel growth rate (potential) and final kernel size, even after the plants were returned to 30oC (Jones et al., 1984).
Exposure to temperatures above 30oC damaged cell division and amyloplast replication in maize kernels which reduced the strength
of the grain sink and ultimately yield (Commuri and Jones, 2001). In maize, leaf photosynthesis rate has a high temperature
optimum of 33 to 38oC with no sensitivity of quantum efficiency to elevated temperature (Oberhuber and Edwards, 1993;
Edwards and Baker, 1993), and photosynthesis rate is reduced above 38oC (Crafts-Brandner and Salvucci, 2002). Ben-Asher et al.
(2008) evaluated high tempera- ture effects on sweet corn in controlled environment chambers and found highest photosynthetic
rates occurred at temperatures of 25/20 while at 40/35oC (light/dark) photosynthetic rates were 50 to 60% lower. They also
observed that photosynthetic rate declined for each 1oC increase in temperature above 30oC.
48
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 CO2 Fert- Soybeans
Warming hurts soybeans
Hatfield 2011 (J.L. Hatfield, Laboratory Director, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment; K.J. Boote, Agronomy
Department, University of Florida; B.A. Kimball, USDA-ARS, U.S. Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center; L.H. Ziska, USDA Crop
Systems and Global Change Laboratory; R.C. Izaurralde, Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, University of Maryland; D.R. Ort, USDA/ARS, Photosynthesis Research Unit, University of Illinois; A. M. Thomson, Joint
Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, University of Maryland; David W. Wolfe, Department of
Horticulture, Cornell University, 2011, “Climate Impacts on Agriculture: Implications for Crop Production,” Agronomy Journal,
Volume 103, Issue 2)
Optimium temperatures for the postanthesis phase of soybean has a low optimum temperature of about 23oC which
results in the life cycle being slower and longer when mean daily tempera- tures exceed 23oC (Pan, 1996; Grimm et al.,
1994). Optimum cardinal temperature of 23oC for the postanthesis period is close to the single seed growth rate (23.5oC) optimum
temperature reported by Egli and Wardlaw (1980), and the same as the 23oC optimum temperature for seed size (Egli and Wardlaw,
1980; Baker et al., 1989; Pan, 1996; Thomas, 2001; Boote et al., 2005). Increasing the mean temperature above 23oC causes
seed growth rate, seed size, and intensity of partitioning to grain (seed HI)¶ to decrease until all of the parameters fall to zero
at a mean tem- perature of 39oC (Pan, 1996; Thomas, 2001).¶ The cardinal temperature values for soybean are lower than those of
maize and the values used for preanthesis reproduc- tive development (time to anthesis) have a base of 6 and 26oC optimum as
currently used in CROPGRO–soybean model (Boote et al., 1998). These are similar to the values of 2.5 and 25.3oC reported by
Grimm et al. (1993). Using these tempera- ture relationships for grain development as reported by Egli and Wardlaw (1980) for
temperature effect on seed growth sink strength and the Grimm et al. (1993, 1994) derivation of temperature effects on
reproductive development, the CROP- GRO model predicts the highest grain yield of soybean at 23 to 24oC, with progressive decline
in yield, seed size, and harvest index (HI) with temperature increases above this optimum range and finally showing no yield at 39oC
(Boote et al.,¶ 1997, 1998). An analysis of 829 sites across the United States extracted from regional soybean yield trials (Piper et al.,
1998) revealed that yield produced per day of season relative to mean air temperature showed the highest productivity at 22oC.¶
Exposure to high temperatures during the pollination stage has deleterious effects on pollen growth and survival.
Viability of soybean pollen is reduced by exposure to instantaneous tempera- tures above 30oC (Topt), but show a long gradual
decline until failure at 47oC (Salem et al., 2007). Averages among many culti- vars show cardinal temperatures (Tb, Topt, Tmax) of
13.2, 30.2, and 47.2oC, respectively, for pollen germination and for pollen tube growth of 12.1, 36.1, and 47.0oC, respectively.
Differences in cardinal temperatures and tolerance of elevated temperature among cultivars were not significant. When
soybean growth¶ was compared at 38/30 vs. 30/22oC (day/night) temperatures, exposure to elevated temperatures reduced pollen
production¶ by 34%, pollen germination by 56%, and pollen tube elongation by 33% (Salem et al., 2007). Temperatures above 23oC
show a progressive reduction in seed size (single seed growth rate) with a reduction in fertility above 30oC leading to a reduced seed
HI at temperatures above 23oC (Baker et al., 1989).¶ Potential impacts of climate change through temperature on soybean
are strongly related to mean temperatures during the postanthesis phase of soybean. In the upper Midwest, where mean
soybean growing season temperatures are currently around 22.5oC, soybean yield may increase. However, for the southern United
States with current growing season temperatures of 25¶ to 27oC, soybean yields are expected to decline with increased warming,
2.4% for 0.8oC increase from 26.7oC current mean. This is similar to the observations from Lobell and Field (2007) who
reported a 1.3% decline in soybean yield per 1oC increase in temperature. Temperature impacts on soybean production
cannot be ignored and changes in management systems to limit exposure to high temperatures during pollination would benefit
yield.
49
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 CO2 Fert- Wheat
Warming hurts wheat
Hatfield 2011 (J.L. Hatfield, Laboratory Director, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment; K.J. Boote, Agronomy
Department, University of Florida; B.A. Kimball, USDA-ARS, U.S. Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center; L.H. Ziska, USDA Crop
Systems and Global Change Laboratory; R.C. Izaurralde, Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, University of Maryland; D.R. Ort, USDA/ARS, Photosynthesis Research Unit, University of Illinois; A. M. Thomson, Joint
Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, University of Maryland; David W. Wolfe, Department of
Horticulture, Cornell University, 2011, “Climate Impacts on Agriculture: Implications for Crop Production,” Agronomy Journal,
Volume 103, Issue 2)
Rising temperatures will decrease the length of grain-filling period of wheat and other small grains (Sofield et al., 1974,
1977; Chowdhury and Wardlaw, 1978; Goudriaan and Unsworth, 1990). Shortened grain filling duration was attributed to factors
other than assimilate limitation (Sofield et al., 1974; 1977). If we assume that daily photosynthesis is unchanged, then yield will
decrease in direct proportion to the shortening of grain filling period. Evidence for the temperature effect is already seen in
higher wheat yield potential in northern Europe than in the mid- western United States. Rising temperature effects on photosynthesis are an additional reduction factor on wheat yield, because of the linkage with water deficit effects (Paulsen, 1994). ¶ Optimum
temperature ranges for photosynthetic rate in wheat is 20 to 30oC (Kobza and Edwards, 1987) and is 10oC higher than the optimum
temperature (15oC) for grain yield and single grain growth rate (Chowdhury and Wardlaw, 1978). Pushpalatha et al. (2008) observed
that rubisco activity decreased in wheat plants with a reduction in the photosynthetic rate when wheat plants were exposed to high
temperatures. Increases of tempera- ture above 25 to 35oC, common during grain filling of wheat, will shorten the grain filling
period and reduce wheat yields. Chowdhury and Wardlaw (1978) observed a nonlinear slope of reduction in grain filling period to
the mean temperatures and when this was applied to the wheat growing regions of the Great Plains, the projected reduction in yield
is 7% per 1oC increase¶ in air temperature between 18 and 21oC and 4% per 1oC when air temperatures increase above 21oC. These
projections do not consider any additional reduction caused by temperature effects on photosynthesis or grain-set. A similar set of
responses were found by Lawlor and Mitchell (2000) who observed temperature increases of 1oC rise would shorten reproductive
phase by 6%¶ and grain filling duration by 5% causing a proportion reduction in grain yield and HI. Observations from nine sites in
Europe for spring wheat revealed a 6% decrease in yield per 1oC temperature rise (Bender et al., 1999). When these
temperature increases are extrapolated to the global scale a 5.4% decrease in wheat yield¶ per 1oC increase in
temperature is expected (Lobell and Field, 2007). Exposure to 36/31oC temperatures for only 2 to 3 d before anthesis created
small unfertilized kernels with symptoms of par- thenocarpy, small shrunken kernels with notching, and chalking of kernels (Tashiro
and Wardlaw, 1990). A recent summary by Wheeler et al. (2000) on temperature effects during the grain- filling period of
wheat found a linear decrease in grain yield with increasing mean temperature.¶ One of the observed changes in
temperature is an increase¶ in nighttime temperatures. When temperatures increased above 14oC there was a decreased
photosynthesis after 14 d of stress causing grain yields to decrease linearly with increasing nighttime temperatures from 14 to 23oC
which in turn leads to lower HI’s (Prasad et al., 2008). In their studies, when night- time temperatures increased above 20oC there
was a decrease in spikelet fertility, grains per spike, and grain size.
50
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 CO2 Fert- Cotton
Warming hurts cotton
Hatfield 2011 (J.L. Hatfield, Laboratory Director, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment; K.J. Boote, Agronomy
Department, University of Florida; B.A. Kimball, USDA-ARS, U.S. Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center; L.H. Ziska, USDA Crop
Systems and Global Change Laboratory; R.C. Izaurralde, Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, University of Maryland; D.R. Ort, USDA/ARS, Photosynthesis Research Unit, University of Illinois; A. M. Thomson, Joint
Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, University of Maryland; David W. Wolfe, Department of
Horticulture, Cornell University, 2011, “Climate Impacts on Agriculture: Implications for Crop Production,” Agronomy Journal,
Volume 103, Issue 2)
Cotton is considered to be adapted to high temperature envi- ronments; however, reproductive processes are adversely
affected by elevated temperature (Reddy et al., 1991, 1995b, 2000, 2005). Since cotton is a tropical crop, leaf appearance rate
has a relatively high base temperature of 14oC and a relatively high optimum temperature of 37oC, with both leaf and vegetative
growth toler- ant of elevated temperatures (Reddy et al., 1999, 2005). In con- trast, the reproductive progression (emergence to
square, square to first flower) has a temperature optimum of 28 to 30oC, along with a relatively high base temperature of
14oC (Reddy et al., 1997, 1999). Maximum growth rate per boll occurs at 25 to 26oC, and then declines at higher temperatures. Boll
harvest index was highest at 28oC with further declines with increasing tempera- tures until zero boll harvest index occurs at 33 to
34oC (Reddy et al., 2005). Temperatures <20oC caused the largest boll size and boll size declines progressively with
temperature increases. As temperatures increase up to 35/27oC day/night temperature there was an initial compensation with
increased boll number set; how- ever, exposure to mean temperatures above 30oC caused percent boll set, boll number, boll filling
period, rate of boll growth, boll size, and yield to decrease (Reddy et al., 2005). Exposure to short- term air temperatures above 32oC
decreases pollen viability and temperatures above 29oC reduces pollen tube elongation (Kakani et al., 2005) and progressively
reduces successful boll formation¶ to zero boll yield at 40/32oC day/night (35oC mean) temperature (Reddy et al., 1992a, 1992b).
Failure point temperatures of cotton are below those of soybean and peanut and similar to rice and sorghum. A welldefined cotton yield response to temperature does not exist and development of a quadratic (parabolic) yield response to
temperature from the optimum of 25oC to the failure temperature of 35oC showed a 0.8oC increase from 26.7 to 27.5oC decreased
yield by 3.5%. A 1oC temperature increase on cotton yield was evaluated by Pettigrew (2008) who observed lint yield in
two cultivars was reduced by 10% due to a reduction in boll mass and less seed in the bolls.
51
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
***A2 Ice Age***
52
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Causes Ice Age
Warming causes alterations in the North Atlantic current and stops the ocean conveyor belt causing
an ice age quickly
ABC News 2007 (“New northern ice age could send refugees to Australia”, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/05/2052408.htm)
A NU paleoclimatologist Timothy Barrows and his fellow researchers used a new dating technique that measures the radioactive
elements in some rocks. Dr Barrows explains that Europe is at risk of a new ice age as a result of global warming. "There are some
fears that warming in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly around the Greenland ice sheet, might cause quite a bit of
meltwater to come into the North Atlantic Ocean," he said. "That might change the salinity of the water there and stop
what's called 'the great conveyor belt of the oceans' forming deep water that releases an enormous amount of heat that keeps
Europe out of an ice age, essentially. "So if global warming does stop this circulation from occurring, then we could potentially have
a new ice age in Europe." Dr Barrows says this effect is similar to what happened about 12,900 years ago, when the earth
experienced rapid cooling. "There was a collapse of an ice sheet over North America, which slowed this circulation down,
and caused a mini ice age for 1,500 years in Europe," he said. He says a new ice age in the Northern Hemisphere is not far off.
"You'd begin to feel the effects almost immediately and certainly within a century," he said.
Global warming will cause an ice age in the next five years -gulf stream.
Corunna 2008 (Dr. J.C. Corunna, “Next ice age could be closing in”, SARNIA OBSERVOR, lexis)
Intense global warming has increased temperatures in the Gulf Stream and increased heat transfer into the Arctic Ocean.
Intense global warming has also greatly increased atmospheric heat transfer into the Arctic.Results from new and improved
measurements have shown surprised scientists that enormous amounts of heat are being transferred into the Arctic. The heat is
melting the ice in the Arctic Ocean and this will soon result in several months of open water there. Currently, the Arctic Ocean is covered by ice. There
can be little water evaporation so the lands surrounding the Arctic Ocean are deserts (four to eight inches of precipitation per annum). Arctic winds are like northeast trades blowing from the pole. With open ocean, evaporation
will increase greatly and produce huge snowfalls that will extend far to the south.Currently, insolation (solar heating) on Arctic
land masses is barely sufficient to melt the winter's snowfall.With lake-effect snows (ocean-effect snows), there is no possibility of
being able to melt the accumulated winter snowfall in the Arctic.Instant ice age.With lakes and swamps covered by ice and snow all
year, there is no production of carbon dioxide and methane to effect global warming, so the ice age continues.Glaciations are
probably terminated by the heat-caused release of methane from the methane hydrate beds on the continental slopes when sea
levels drop more than 150 metres because of water locked up in the continental ice sheets.It is known that at least one of the recent
ice ages was generated by an open (ice-free) Arctic Ocean.Because of lag time between generating greenhouse gases and their
effects, we cannot reverse global warming in time to ward off this next ice age.It is estimated now that the Arctic Ocean will be ice
free in September (month for warmest ocean water) by the year 2013.The irony of the recent intense global warming is that it is
accelerating the advent of the next ice age. It could begin in five years; maybe less.
53
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming shuts down conveyor belt – by decreasing ocean salinity, causing an ice age
Pearce 2007 (Fred Pearce, environmental consultant, 2007, With Speed And Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points In
Climate Change, pages 145-147)
But the crux of the public debate on Broecker's ocean conveyor remains a very simple question: Could global warming shut the conveyor down?
Broecker seems rarely to have doubted it. And the claim has in recent years seemed almost to have a life of its own. This struck me most strongly at a conference on
"dangerous" climate change held at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, in Exeter in 2005. There I met Michael Schlesinger, of the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. He is a sharp-suited guy sporting a pastiche of 1950S clothes and hairstyle. But if there were serious doubts in Exeter about whether his style
sense would ever come back into fashion, there was no doubt that his ideas about climate change had found their moment. For more than a decade, Schlesinger has
been making Broecker's case that a shutdown of the ocean conveyor could be closer than mainstream climate modelers think. Some critics feel that he just doesn't
know when to give up and move on. But he has stuck with it, criticizing the IPCC and its models for systematically eliminating a range of quite possible dooms¬day
scenarios from consideration. "The trouble with trying to reach a con¬sensus is that all the interesting ideas get eliminated," he said at the conference. Science by
committee ends up throwing away the good stuff ¬like the idea of the conveyor's shutting down. But in Exeter, Schlesinger was back in vogue. He had been invited to
a global warming of just 3.6°F would melt the Greenland ice sheet fast enough to swamp the
ocean with freshwater and shut down the conveyor. The risk, he said, was "unacceptably large." Although he had been saying
present his model findings that
much the same for a decade, he was now considered mainstream enough to be invited across the Atlantic to ex¬pound his ideas at a conference organized by the
British government. And he was no longer alone. Later in the day, Peter Challenor, of the British Na¬tional Oceanography Centre, in Southampton, said he had
shortened his own odds about the likelihood of a conveyor shutdown from one in thirty to one in three. He guessed that a 3-degree warming of Greenland would do
it. Given how fast Greenland is currently warming, that seems a near certainty. But all this is models. What evidence is there on the ground for the state of the
conveyor? The truth is that dangerous
change is already afoot in the North Atlantic. And, whatever the skepticism about some of Broecker's
grander claims, the conveyor may already be in deep trouble. Since the mid-2000s, says Ruth Curry, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institu¬tion,
the waters of the far North Atlantic off Greenland-where Wad¬hams's chimneys deliver water to the ocean floor and maintain Broecker's conveyor-have become
decidedly fresher. In fact, much of the change happened back in the 1960s, when some 8 billion acre-feet of freshwater gushed out of the Arctic through the Fram
Strait. Oceanographers called the event the Great Salinity Anomaly. To this day, nobody is quite sure why it happened. It could have been ice breaking off the great
Greenland ice sheet, or sea ice caught up in unusual circulation patterns, or increased flow from the great Siberian rivers like the Ob and the Yenisey. Luckily, most of
the freshwater rapidly headed south into the North Atlantic proper. Only 3 billion acre-feet remained. Curry's studies of the phenomenon, published in Science in
June 2005, con¬cluded that 7 billion acre-feet would have been enough to "substantially reduce" the conveyor, and double that "could essentially shut it down." So it
was a close call. With the region's water still substantially fresher than it was at the start of the 1960s, the conveyor remains on the critical list. Another single slug of
freshwater anytime soon could be disastrous. In
the coming decades, some combination of increased rainfall, increased runoff from
the land surrounding the Arctic, and faster rates of ice melting could turn off the conveyor. And there would be no turning back,
because models suggest that it would not easily switch back on. "A shift in the ocean conveyor, once initiated, is essentially irreversible over a
time period of many decades to centuries," as Broecker's colleague Peter deMenocal puts it. "It would per¬manently alter the climatic norms for some of the most
densely populated and highly developed regions of the world." As I prepared to submit this book to the publisher, new research dramat¬ically underlined the risks
and fears for the conveyor. Harry Bryden, of the National Oceanography Centre, had strung measuring buoys in a line across the Atlantic, from the Canary Islands to
the Bahamas, and found that the flow of water north from the Gulf Stream into the North Atlantic had faltered by 30 percent since the mid-I990S. Less warm water
was go¬ing north at the surface, and less cold water was coming back south along the ocean floor. This weakening of two critical features of the conveyor was, so far
as anyone knew, an unprecedented event. Probing further, Bryden found that the "deep water" from the Labrador Sea west of Greenland still seemed to be flowing
south. But the volume of deep water coming south from the Greenland Sea, the site of Wadhams's chimneys, had collapsed to half its former level. The implication
was clear: the disappearing chimneys that Wadhams had watched with such despair were indeed hobbling the ocean circulation. Broecker seemed on the verge of
being proved right that the ocean conveyor was at a threshold because of global warming.
54
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
No Ice Age- Studies Prove
Most studies conclude no natural ice age coming for 10,000 years
Revkin 2008 (Andrew C. Revkenm, Environment reporter, 2008, “Skeptics on human climate impact seize on cold spell, NEW YORK TIMES, Lexis)
Despite the recent trend toward global warming, scientists have long wondered whether the Earth is nearing a new ice age, an end
to the 12,000-year temperate spell in which civilizations arose. Some have said such a transition is overdue, given that each of the
three temperate intervals that immediately preceded this current one lasted only about 10,000 years. But now, in an eagerly
awaited study, a group of climate and ice experts say they have new evidence that Earth is not even halfway through the
current warm era. The evidence comes from the oldest layers of Antarctic ice ever sampled. Some scientists earlier proposed
similar hypotheses, basing them on the configuration of Earth's orbit, which seems to set the metronome that ice ages dance to.
Temperature patterns deciphered in sea sediments in recent years backed the theory. But experts say the new ice data are by far
the strongest corroborating evidence, revealing many similarities between today's atmospheric and temperature
patterns and those of a warm interval, with a duration of 28,000 years, that reached its peak 430,000 years ago. The findings are
described Thursday in the journal Nature in a report by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica. The evidence comes
from a shaft of ice extracted over five grueling years from Antarctica's deep-frozen innards, composed of thousands of
ice layers formed as each year's snowfall was compressed over time. The deepest ice retrieved so far comes from 10,000 feet
deep and dates back 740,000 years. The relative abundance of certain forms of hydrogen in the ice reflects past air temperatures.
Many ice cores have been cut from various glaciers and ice sheets around the world, but until now none have gone back beyond
420,000 years. "It's very exciting to see ice that fell as snow three-quarters of a million years ago," said Dr. Eric Wolff, an author of
the paper and ice core expert with the British Antarctic Survey.
Myth about global cooling has never been substantiated in scientific literature—Their evidence is
based on selective misreading and inaccuracy
Peterson, Connolley and Fleck 2008 (Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck, September 2008, “The Myth of the 1970s
Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico) http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-91325.pdf)
Despite active efforts to answer these questions ,the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate
scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth” sidebar). A
review of the climate science literature from 1965to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective
misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on
greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then. The research enterprise that grew in response to the
questions articulated by Bryson and others, while considering the forces responsible for cooling, quickly converged on the view that
greenhouse warming was likely to dominate on time scales that would be significant to human societies (Charneyet al. 1979).
However, perhaps more important than demonstrating that the global cooling myth is wrong, this review shows the
remarkable way in which the individual threads of climate science of the time—each group of researchers pursuing their
own set of questions—was quickly woven into the integrated tapestry that created the basis for climate science as we
know it today.
55
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
No Ice Age- Already Enough FF
We have already burned enough CO2 to keep us out of an ice age for at least 55,000 years
Newkerala 2009 (Newkerala, 2-11-09, “Controlling man made emissions may delay start of next ice age,”
http://www.newkerala.com/topstory-fullnews-91308.html)
Ice ages start when conditions at high northern latitudes allow winter snowfall to persist over the summer for enough years to
accumulate and build ice sheets. Such conditions depend mainly on summer solar radiation there and atmospheric CO2
concentration. This radiation is modulated on time scales of 20.000, 40.000 and 100.000 years by changes in the Earth's orbit and
orientation. Critical summer solar radiation for initiating ice sheet growth can be significantly lower for higher atmospheric CO2 with
its greenhouse warming effect. Professor Shaffer made long projections over the next 500,000 years with the DCESS Earth System
Model to calculate the evolution of atmospheric CO2 for different fossil fuel emission strategies. He also used results of a
coupled climate-ice sheet model for the dependency on atmospheric CO2 of critical summer solar radiation at high northern
latitudes for an ice age onset. The results show global warming of almost 5 degrees Celsius above present for a "business as
usual" scenario whereby all 5000 billion tons of fossil fuel carbon in accessible reserves are burned within the next few
centuries. According to Professor Shaffer, humanity has already increased atmospheric CO2 enough to keep it out of the next ice
age for at least the next 55,000 years.
56
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
***Warming GOOD***
57
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
***Warming Not Real/Natural***
58
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
CO2 Doesn’t Cause Warming- History
CO2 doesn’t cause warming
Jaworowski 2010 [Zbigniew, Ph.¶ D., M.D., D.Sc., has researched the atmospheric pollution of glaciers and CO2¶ concentrations
in the atmosphere for many years, and is the author of numerous ¶ publications on climate change. He serves as the Polish ¶
representative in the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and is a member ¶ of the
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) January 15, “‘Global Warming’: A Lie Aimed ¶ At Destroying
Civilization” EIR Science and Technology http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Jaworowski_interview.pdf]
As you can see, there is no connection between CO2¶ ,¶ which has been under such fierce attack, and climate¶ change.
Indeed, more than 500 million years ago, according to the geological record, CO2¶ was present at 23¶ times the levels
we now have in the atmosphere, and¶ yet, half a billion years ago, the land was covered by¶ glaciers.¶ Climate change
depends on many factors, and now¶ we are fighting against only one factor, CO2¶ , which happens to be negligible.
CO2 doesn’t cause warming- its colder now with more of it
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
But could the higher temperatures of the past four interglacials have been caused by higher CO2 concentrations due to
some non-human influence? Absolutely not, for atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose
above approximately 290 ppm, whereas the air's CO2 concentration today stands at nearly 390 ppm.¶ Combining these
two observations, we have a situation where, compared with the mean conditions of the preceding four interglacials, there
is currently 100 ppm more CO2 in the air than there was then, and it is currently more than 2°C colder than it was then,
which adds up to one huge discrepancy for the world's climate alarmists and their claim that high atmospheric CO2
concentrations lead to high temperatures. The situation is unprecedented, all right, but not in the way the public is being led to
believe.
59
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
CO2 Doesn’t Cause Warming- Arctic Records
CO2 doesn’t cause warming- arctic records prove
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
Concentrating wholly on directly-measured temperatures, as opposed to the reconstructed temperatures derived by the proxy approach of Overpeck et al.
(1997), Polyakov et al. (2003) derived a surface air temperature history that stretched from 1875 to 2000 based on data obtained at
75 land stations and a number of drifting buoys located poleward of 62°N latitude. This effort allowed the team of eight U.S. and Russian scientists to determine that from 1875 to
about 1917, the surface air temperature of the huge northern region rose hardly at all; but then it took off like a rocket,
climbing 1.7°C in just 20 years to reach a peak in 1937 that has yet to be eclipsed. During this 20-year period of rapidly
rising air temperature, the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rose by a mere 8 ppm. But then, over the next six decades,
when the air's CO2 content rose by approximately 55 ppm, or nearly seven times more than it did throughout the 20-year period of dramatic warming that
preceded it, the surface air temperature of the region poleward of 62°N experienced no net warming and, in fact, may have actually cooled a bit. ¶ In
light of these results, it is difficult to claim much about the strength of the warming power of the approximate 75-ppm
increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration that occurred from 1875 to 2000, other than to say it was miniscule
compared to whatever other forcing factor, or combination of forcing factors, was concurrently having its way with the climate of the
Arctic. One cannot, for example, claim that any of the 1917 to 1937 warming was due to the 8-ppm increase in CO2 that
accompanied it, even if augmented by the 12-ppm increase that occurred between 1875 and 1917; for the subsequent
and much larger 55-ppm increase in CO2 led to no net warming over the remainder of the record, which suggests that
just a partial relaxation of the forces that totally overwhelmed the warming influence of the CO2 increase experienced
between 1937 and 2000 would have been sufficient to account for the temperature increase that occurred between
1917 and 1937. And understood in this light, the air's CO2 content does not even begin to enter the picture.¶ But what
about earth's other polar region: the Antarctic? Here, too, one can conclude nothing about the influence of atmospheric CO2 on
surface air temperature. Why? Because for the continent as a whole (excepting the Antarctic Peninsula), there had been a net cooling over
the pre-1990 period, stretching back to at least 1966 (Comiso, 2000; Doran et al., 2002; Thompson and Solomon, 2002). And when the real-world air
temperature declines when the theoretical climate forcing factor is rising, one cannot even conclude that the forcing has
any positive effect at all, much less determine its magnitude. Hence, there is absolutely no substance to the claim that earth's polar
regions are providing evidence for an impending CO2-induced warming of any magnitude anywhere.
60
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
CO2 Doesn’t Cause Warming- Alt Causes
CO2 doesn’t cause warming- multiple factors offset the greenhouse effect
Idso, Carter and Singer 2011 [Craig D. Ph.D Chairman for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
Robert M. Ph.D Adjunct Research Fellow James Cook University, S. Fred Ph.D President of Science and Environmental Policy Project,
Climate Change¶ Reconsidered¶ 2011 Interim Report” Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
All else being equal, rising levels of atmospheric ¶ CO2 would increase global temperatures through its ¶ thermal radiative
properties. But CO2 promotes¶ plant growth both on land and throughout the ¶ surface waters of the world‘s oceans, and this
vast ¶ assemblage of plant life has the ability to affect ¶ Earth‘s climate in several ways, almost all of them ¶ tending to
source of ¶ atmospheric aerosols, the output of which varies ¶ with temperature and CO2 concentrations. Aerosols ¶ serve as
condensation nuclei for clouds, and clouds ¶ affect Earth‘s energy budget through their ability to ¶ reflect and scatter
light and their propensity to ¶ absorb and radiate thermal radiation. The cooling ¶ effect of increased emissions of
aerosols from ¶ plants and algae is comparable to the warming ¶ effect projected to result from increases in ¶
greenhouse gases.¶
warming-induced increases in the ¶ emission of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) from the ¶ world‘s
oceans would offset much or all of the ¶ effects of anthropogenic warming.
61
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Runaway Warming- Arctic Data
Arctic data supports the claim that warming will not be runaway
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
With respect to the recent rate at which the earth has warmed, we examine the results of a number of studies that have
investigated recent temperature changes in the Arctic, which Meadows (2001) described as "the place to watch for global
warming, the sensitive point, the canary in the coal mine." Here, in comparing the vast array of prior Holocene climate
changes with what climate alarmists claim to be the "unprecedented" anthropogenic-induced warming of the past
several decades, White et al. (2010) recently determined that "the human influence on rate and size of climate change
thus far does not stand out strongly from other causes of climate change."¶ Other scientists preceded White et al. with
similar conclusions. Chylek et al. (2006) studied two century-long temperature records from southern coastal Greenland -Godthab Nuuk on the west and Ammassalik on the east -- both of which are close to 64°N latitude, concentrating on the period
1915-2005. And in doing so, as they describe it, they determined that "two periods of intense warming (1995-2005 and 19201930) are clearly visible in the Godthab Nuuk and Ammassalik temperature records." However, they state that "the average
rate of warming was considerably higher within the 1920-1930 decade than within the 1995-2005 decade." In fact, they
report that the earlier warming rate was 50% greater than the most recent one. And in discussing this fact, they say that "an
important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted
as evidence of man-induced global warming?" In providing their own answer, they noted that " the Greenland warming of 1920
to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary
condition for [a] period of warming to arise," and that "the observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be
within [the] natural variability of Greenland climate."¶ A similar study was conducted two years later by Mernild et al. (2008),
who described "the climate and observed climatic variations and trends in the Mittivakkat Glacier catchment in Low Arctic East
Greenland from 1993 to 2005 ... based on the period of detailed observations (1993-2005) and supported by synoptic
meteorological data from the nearby town of Tasiilaq (Ammassalik) from 1898 to 2004." This work revealed that "the Mittivakkat
Glacier net mass balance has been almost continuously negative, corresponding to an average loss of glacier volume of 0.4% per
year." And during the past century of general mass loss, they found that "periods of warming were observed from 1918
(the end of the Little Ice Age) to 1935 of 0.12°C per year and 1978 to 2004 of 0.07°C per year," with the former rate of
warming being fully 70% greater than the most recent rate of warming.¶ Last of all, Wood et al. (2010) constructed a two-
century (1802-2009) instrumental record of annual surface air temperature within the Atlantic-Arctic boundary region,
using data obtained from recently published (Klingbjer and Moberg, 2003; Vinther et al., 2006) and historical (Wahlen, 1886)
sources that yielded four station-based composite time series that pertain to Southwestern Greenland, Iceland, Tornedalen
(Sweden) and Arkhangel'sk (Russia). This operation added seventy-six years to the previously available record, the
credibility of which result, in Wood et al.'s words, "is supported by ice core records, other temperature proxies, and
historical evidence." And the U.S. and Icelandic researchers determined that their newly extended temperature history and their
analysis of it revealed "an irregular pattern of decadal-scale temperature fluctuations over the past two centuries," of which the
early twentieth-century warming (ETCW) event -- which they say "began about 1920 and persisted until mid-century" -was by far "the most striking historical example."
62
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Not Anthropogenic
Warming is natural- even if it’s the result of the greenhouse effect that is caused by water vapor
Jaworowski 2004 [Professor Zbigniew M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. is the chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for
Radiological Protection in Warsaw. Winter “Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate” 21st Century Science Tech
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf]
In fact, the recent climate developments¶ are not something unusual; they reflect a¶ natural course of planetary events.
From¶ time immemorial, alternate warm and¶ cold cycles have followed each other, with a periodicity ranging from tens of
millions to several years. The cycles were¶ most probably dependent on the extraterrestrial changes¶ occurring in the Sun
and in the Sun’s neighborhood.¶ Short term changes—those occurring in a few years—are¶ caused by terrestrial factors such
as large volcanic explosions,¶ which inject dust into the stratosphere, and the phenomenon¶ of El Niño, which depends
on the variations in oceanic currents. Thermal energy produced by natural radionuclides that¶ are present in the 1-kilometerthick layer of the Earth’s crust,¶ contributed about 117 kilojoules per year per square meter of¶ the primitive Earth. As a result of the
decay of these long-lived¶ radionuclides, their annual contribution is now only 33.4 kilojoules per square meter.10 ¶ This nuclear
heat, however, plays a minor role among the¶ terrestrial factors, in comparison with the “greenhouse effects” ¶ caused by absorption
by some atmospheric gases of the solar¶ radiation reflected from the surface of the Earth. Without the¶ greenhouse effect, the
average near-surface air temperature¶ would be –18°C, and not +15°C, as it is now. The most impor- tant among these
“greenhouse gases” is water vapor, which is¶ responsible for about 96 to 99 percent of the greenhouse¶ effect. Among
the other greenhouse gases (CO2¶ , CH4¶ , CFCs,¶ N2O, and O3¶ ), the most important is CO2¶ , which contributes¶ only 3 percent
to the total greenhouse effect.11, 12¶ The manmade CO2¶ contribution to this effect may be about 0.05 to¶ 0.25
percent.13.
Warming isn’t anthropogenic
Idso, Carter and Singer 2011 [Craig D. Ph.D Chairman for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
Robert M. Ph.D Adjunct Research Fellow James Cook University, S. Fred Ph.D President of Science and Environmental Policy Project,
Climate Change¶ Reconsidered¶ 2011 Interim Report” Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
New evidence points to a larger role for solar ¶ forcing than the IPCC has acknowledged. Likely ¶ mechanisms include
perturbation of ocean currents, ¶ tropospheric zonal mean-winds, and the intensity of ¶ cosmic rays reaching the Earth.¶
The IPCC underestimated the warming effect of ¶ chloroflourocarbons (CFCs) prior to their gradual ¶ removal from the
atmosphere following the ¶ implementation of the Montreal Protocol in 2000. ¶ This could mean CO2 concentrations played a ¶
smaller role in the warming prior to that year, and ¶ could help explain the global cooling trend since ¶ 2000.¶ Other
forcings and feedbacks about which little is ¶ known (or acknowledged by the IPCC) include ¶ stratospheric water vapor,
volcanic and seismic ¶ activity, and enhanced carbon sequestration.
63
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Climate Models
Climate models suck- we cant know all of the things they claim to know
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
As strange as it may seem, these frightening future scenarios are derived from a single source of information: the everevolving computer-driven climate models that presume to reduce the important physical, chemical and biological
processes that combine to determine the state of earth's climate into a set of mathematical equations out of which their
forecasts are produced. But do we really know what all of those complex and interacting processes are? And even if we did
-- which we don't -- could we correctly reduce them into manageable computer code so as to produce reliable forecasts
50 or 100 years into the future?
Climate models suck- there is no way there would be runaway warming
Idso, Carter and Singer 2011 [Craig D. Ph.D Chairman for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
Robert M. Ph.D Adjunct Research Fellow James Cook University, S. Fred Ph.D President of Science and Environmental Policy Project,
Climate Change¶ Reconsidered¶ 2011 Interim Report” Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
Climate models over-estimate the amount of ¶ warming that occurred during the twentieth ¶ century, fail to
incorporate chemical and biological ¶ processes that may be as important as the physical ¶ processes employed in the
models, and often ¶ diverge so greatly in their assumptions and findings ¶ that they cannot be said to validate each
other. Climate models fail to correctly simulate future ¶ precipitation due to inadequate model resolution on ¶ both
vertical and horizontal spatial scales, a ¶ limitation that forces climate modelers to ¶ parameterize the large-scale effects of processes
¶ that occur on smaller scales than their models are ¶ capable of simulating. This is particularly true of ¶ physical processes such
as cloud formation and ¶ cloud-radiation interactions. ¶ The internal variability component of climate ¶ change is strong
enough to overwhelm any ¶ anthropogenic temperature signal and generate ¶ global cooling periods (between 1946 and
1977) ¶ and global warming periods (between 1977 and ¶ 2008), yet models typically underestimate or leave ¶ out entirely
this component, leading to unrealistic ¶ values of climate sensitivity.¶ Climate models fail to predict changes in sea ¶ surface
temperature and El Niño/Southern ¶ Oscillation (ENSO) events, two major drivers of ¶ the global climate. There has been little or
no ¶ improvement to the models in this regard since the ¶ late-1990s. ¶
¶ desiccation of
soil with higher temperatures, but ¶ real-world data show positive soil moisture trends ¶ for regions that have warmed
during the twentieth ¶ century. This is a serious problem since accurate ¶ simulation of land surface states is critical to
the ¶ skill of weather and climate forecasts.¶
¶ climate sensitivity estimates
based on the ¶ assumptions of their builders, estimates based on ¶ real-world measurements find that a doubling of ¶ the
atmosphere‘s CO2 concentration would result in ¶ only a 0.4° or 0.5° C rise in temperature.
64
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
IPCC Indict- Rainfall Models
IPCC wrong- they used flawed rainfall models
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
Other studies have continued to demonstrate the difficulties models have in simulating precipitation properties and
trends. Kiktev et al. (2007), for example, analyzed the abilities of five global coupled climate models that played important
roles in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report to simulate temporal trends over the second half of the 20th century for five
annual indices of precipitation extremes. Their results revealed "low skill" or an "absence" of model skill.
65
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Idso Indicts
Just because the Idsos get paid by Heartland doesn’t mean they are hacks
Plumer 2012 [Brad 02/16 Washington Post “Leaked docs offer insight into how climate-skeptic groups operate”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/leaked-docs-provide-insight-into-how-climate-skeptic-groupsoperate/2012/02/16/gIQAn8BKIR_blog.html]
4) Skeptic money doesn’t necessarily corrupt, but it can amplify marginal viewpoints. It’s sometimes suggested that climate
skeptics are somehow corrupted because they take money from fossil-fuel interests and groups like Heartland. But Craig
Idso, a skeptical scientist who receives $11,600 a month from the Heartland Institute, according to the documents, offers a more
nuanced defense in his interview with Andy Revkin. Idso says that he has long opposed the overwhelming scientific
consensus on climate change — even before he was getting paid by Heartland.¶ That sounds plausible. It’s doubtful that
many skeptics meaningfully alter their views in order to receive money from groups like Heartland. More likely, the effect of all
this money is to increase the visibility and reach of once-marginalized folks who were already inclined to criticize climate
science. (And, yes, a person’s funding sources have very little bearing on the actual merits of his or her views.)
The Idsos are qualified
D’Aleo 2010¶ [Joseph is Executive Director of http://icecap.us, a former professor of meteorology and climatology, the First
Director of Meteorology at the Weather Channel, and a fellow of the American Meteorology Society. February 14 “Climategate:
What Did Phil Jones Actually Admit? Was He Correct?” http://pjmedia.com/blog/climategate-what-did-phil-jones-actually-admitwas-he-correct/]
The Idsos at CO2 Science have done a very thorough job documenting, using the peer review literature, the existence of a
global MWP. They have found data published by 804 individual scientists from 476 separate research institutions in 43
different countries supporting the global Medieval Warm Period.
66
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Heartland Institute and NIPCC Prodict
Heartland Institute and the NIPCC are qualified
Bast and Taylor 2008 [Joseph L. James M. ¶ Heartland Institiute¶ Fri, 19 Dec “Reply to RealClimate's Attacks on the NIPCC
Climate Report” http://www.sott.net/articles/show/171267-Reply-to-RealClimate-s-Attacks-on-the-NIPCC-Climate-Report]
On November 28, the global warming alarmist Web site "RealClimate" posted a ridiculously lame attack by Michael Mann
and Gavin Schmidt against "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate," the summary for policymakers of the 2008 report of
the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). ¶ The NIPCC report was written by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
and an additional 23 contributors, including some of the most accomplished atmospheric scientists in the world. The
paper references approximately 200 published papers and scientific reports in support of its conclusions. It provides
strong evidence that human activity is not causing a global warming crisis. ¶ Mann and Schmidt call the NIPCC report "dishonest" and
"nonsense," a document "served up" by "S. Fred Singer and his merry band of contrarian luminaries (financed by the notorious
'Heartland Institute')." But instead of critiquing the scientific arguments presented in the NIPCC report, Mann and Schmidt simply
dismiss and belittle them and refer readers mostly to their own past blog comments. Time spent following those links reveals a
hodgepodge of opinions and superficial comments, a boatload of rhetoric, and very little science--an entirely unsatisfactory way to
support such serious charges. ¶ The reference to financing seems intended to imply that the authors of the NIPCC report were paid
by The Heartland Institute, which is not true. RealClimate has been informed of this, but hasn't corrected its false claim. To go on
implying it anyway tells you all you need to know about the integrity of the RealClimate authors. ¶ And what about "the notorious
'Heartland Institute'"? It's a 24-year-old national nonprofit organization that gets 95 percent of its funding from nonenergy-related donors and 84 percent of its funding from non-corporate sources (in 2007). It has a long history of publishing
reliable scientific and economic analysis of global warming. Heartland's credibility is certainly less questionable than that of
RealClimate, a front group created specifically to attack global warming skeptics by Fenton Communications, a truly "notorious" PR
agency.
67
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Paid By Oil Companies
Warming good authors aren’t paid for the by the oil companies anymore
Plumer 2012 [Brad 02/16 Washington Post “Leaked docs offer insight into how climate-skeptic groups operate”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/leaked-docs-provide-insight-into-how-climate-skeptic-groupsoperate/2012/02/16/gIQAn8BKIR_blog.html]
2) Big oil companies seem to be increasingly minor players in the skeptic arena. Seven years ago, most climate-skeptic groups
could be linked to money pouring out of ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute — see Chris Mooney’s old
expose from 2005 for details. One notable point about the Heartland documents, however, is that big oil companies don’t seem
to be major donors. The Koch Charitable Foundation — a conservative charity linked to one of the country’s largest private oil
refineries — chipped in $25,000 in 2011, but that was devoted specifically for a health care research program.* Exxon, for its part,
stopped donating back in 2006 after pressure from environmental groups (up to that point, the oil giant had chipped in
$675,000).¶ Indeed, according to the documents, much of the money comes from individual donors, particularly a person
referred to as “the Anonymous Donor,” who gave $14.26 million over the past six years (nearly half of the group’s revenue). That’s
one possible signal that climate skepticism is no longer the sole concern of self-interested fossil-fuel companies trying to
fend off regulations — instead, it’s become a self-sustaining ideological endeavor, with no shortage of committed
backers.
68
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
IPCC Indict- Inconclusive
Even IPCC people think that study proved nothing
Bast, Karnick and Bast 2011 [Joseph L. President of the Heartland Institute, S.T. Research Director The Heartland Institute,
Diane Carol, Executive Editor The Heartland Institute, “Climate Change ¶ Reconsidered¶ 2011 Interim Report: Foreward”
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
Mike Hulme (2009), a professor of climate change in ¶ the School of Environmental Sciences at the ¶ University of East
Anglia and a contributor to the ¶ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ¶ published in 2009 a book that
contained admissions ¶ of uncertainty rarely voiced by insiders of the climate ¶ change research community. Hulme
wrote, ―the three ¶ questions examined above—What is causing climate ¶ change? By how much is warming likely to ¶ accelerate?
What level of warming is dangerous?—¶ represent just three of a number of contested or ¶ uncertain areas of knowledge about
climate change‖¶ (p. 75).¶ Hulme also admitted, ―Uncertainty pervades ¶ scientific predictions about the future performance of ¶
global and regional climates. And uncertainties ¶ multiply when considering all the consequences that ¶ might follow from
such changes in climate‖ (p. 83). ¶ On the subject of the IPCC‘s credibility, he admitted¶ it is ―governed by a Bureau
consisting of selected ¶ governmental representatives, thus ensuring that the ¶ Panel‘s work was clearly seen to be
serving the needs ¶ of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a ¶ self-governing body of independent scientists‖
(p. ¶ 95).¶ These are all basic ―talking points‖ of global ¶ warming realists, which invariably result in charges ¶ of
―denial‖ and ―industry shill‖ when expressed by ¶ someone not in the alarmist camp. To see them ¶ written by Hulme
reveals how the debate has ¶ changed.
69
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
IPCC Indict- Flaws in Peer Review
The IPCC report may as well have not been peer reviewed
Bast, Karnick and Bast 2011 [Joseph L. President of the Heartland Institute, S.T. Research Director The Heartland Institute,
Diane Carol, Executive Editor The Heartland Institute, “Climate Change¶ Reconsidered¶ 2011 Interim Report: Foreward”
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
In 2010, the Amsterdam-based InterAcademy Council ¶ (IAC), a scientific body composed of the heads of ¶ national
science academies around the world, ¶ revealed crippling flaws in the IPCC‘s peer-review ¶ process. The IAC reported
(InterAcademy Council, ¶ 2010) that IPCC lead authors fail to give ―due consideration … to properly documented
alternative ¶ views‖ (p. 20), fail to ―provide detailed written ¶ responses to the most significant review issues ¶ identified by the
Review Editors‖ (p. 21), and are not ¶ ―consider[ing] review comments carefully and ¶ document[ing] their responses‖ (p.
22).¶ The IAC found ―the IPCC has no formal process ¶ or criteria for selecting authors‖ and ―the selection ¶ criteria
seemed arbitrary to many respondents‖ (p. ¶ 18). Government officials appoint scientists from ¶ their countries and ―do not
always nominate the best ¶ scientists from among those who volunteer, either ¶ because they do not know who these scientists are
or ¶ because political considerations are given more ¶ weight than scientific qualifications‖ (p. 18).¶ The rewriting of the
Summary for Policy Makers ¶ by politicians and environmental activists—a problem ¶ called out by global warming realists for many
years, ¶ but with little apparent notice by the media or ¶ policymakers—is plainly admitted, perhaps for the ¶ first time by an
organization in the ―mainstream‖ of ¶ alarmist climate change thinking. ―[M]any were ¶ concerned that reinterpretations of the
assessment‘s ¶ findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be ¶ politically motivated,‖ the auditors wrote, and the ¶ scientists they
interviewed commonly found the¶ Synthesis Report ―too political‖ (p. 25). ¶ Note especially this description by the IAC of ¶
how the ―consensus of scientists‖ is actually obtained ¶ by the IPCC:¶ Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for ¶
Policy Makers last for several days and ¶ commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, ¶ the individuals with the most
endurance or the ¶ countries that have large delegations can end up ¶ having the most influence on the report (p. 25).¶
Another problem documented by the IAC that was ¶ noted in NIPCC-1 is the use of phony ―confidence ¶ intervals‖ and
estimates of ―certainty‖ in the ¶ Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27–34). We knew ¶ this was make-believe, almost to the point of
a joke, ¶ when we first saw it in 2007. Work by J. Scott ¶ Armstrong (2006) on the science of forecasting makes ¶ it clear
scientists cannot simply gather around a table¶ and vote on how confident they are about some ¶ prediction, and then
affix a number to it such as ―80% ¶ confident.‖ Yet this is how the IPCC proceeds. The ¶ IAC authors say it is ―not an
appropriate way to ¶ characterize uncertainty‖ (p. 34), a huge ¶ understatement. Unfortunately, the IAC authors ¶ recommend an
equally fraudulent substitute, called ¶ ―level of understanding scale,‖ which is mush-mouth ¶ for ―consensus.‖¶ The IAC authors
warn, also on p. 34, that ¶ ―conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to ¶ make them impossible to refute, and therefore ¶
statements of ‗very high confidence‘ will have little ¶ substantive value.‖¶ Finally, in a discussion of conflict of interest and ¶
disclosure, the IAC noted, ―the lack of a conflict of ¶ interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and ¶ Lead Authors
was a concern raised by a number of ¶ individuals who were interviewed by the Committee ¶ or provided written input
… about the practice of ¶ scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments ¶ reviewing their own work. The Committee
did not ¶ investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond ¶ the mandate of this review‖ (p. 46). Too bad, because ¶ these are
both big issues and their presence in the¶ report is an admission of more structural problems ¶ with the IPCC.
70
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Climate Consensus
Experts don’t actually think the climate debate is over- their authors manipulate data too
Bast, Karnick and Bast 2011 [Joseph L. President of the Heartland Institute, S.T. Research Director The Heartland Institute,
Diane Carol, Executive Editor The Heartland Institute, “Climate Change ¶ Reconsidered¶ 2011 Interim Report: Foreward”
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
Just months after Hulme‘s book was released, a ¶ large cache of emails was leaked by someone at the ¶ Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East ¶ Anglia. ―Climategate,‖ as it has come to be known, ¶ revealed deliberate efforts by leading scientific ¶
supporters of the IPCC, and of climate alarmism more ¶ generally, to hide flaws in their evidence and analysis, ¶ keep
―skeptics‖ from appearing in peer-reviewed ¶ journals, and avoid sharing their data with colleagues ¶ seeking to
replicate their results (Bell, 2011;¶ Sussman, 2010; Montford, 2010). The emails reveal ¶ that important data underlying
climate policy are ¶ missing or have been manipulated.¶ In February 2010, the BBC‘s environment analyst ¶ Roger Harrabin
posed a series of written questions to ¶ Philip D. Jones, director of the Climatic Research ¶ Unit (CRU) at the University of
East Anglia and the ¶ person responsible for maintaining the IPCC‘s all important climate temperature records (BBC,
2010). ¶
The rates of global warming from 1860–1880, ¶ 1910–1940 and 1975–1998, and 1975–2009 ―are ¶ similar and not
statistically significantly different ¶ from each other.‖
You consensus arguments are no longer true
Bast, Karnick and Bast 2011 [Joseph L. President of the Heartland Institute, S.T. Research Director The Heartland Institute,
Diane Carol, Executive Editor The Heartland Institute, “Climate Change ¶ Reconsidered¶ 2011 Interim Report: Foreward”
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
German scientists Dennis Bray
and Hans von Storch ¶ (2010) released their latest international survey of ¶ climate scientists in
2010. The survey, which was ¶ actually conducted in 2007, consisted of 120 ¶ questions. Typical is question 11a, which asked ¶ scientists to rank
―data availability for climate change ¶ analysis‖ on a scale from 1 (―very inadequate‖) to 7 ¶ (―very adequate‖). More respondents said ―very ¶ inadequate‖ (1 or
2) than ―very adequate‖ (6 or 7), ¶ with most responses ranging between 3 and 5. About ¶ 40 percent scored it a 3 or less. This single question ¶ and its answers
imply that we need to know more ¶ about how climates actually work before we can ¶ predict future climate conditions.¶ The roughly bell-shaped distribution of
answers is ¶ repeated for about a third of the 54 questions ¶ addressing scientific issues (as opposed to opinions ¶ about the IPCC, where journalists get their ¶
information, personal identification with ¶ environmental causes, etc.). Answers to the other ¶ questions about science were divided almost equally ¶ between
distributions that lean toward skepticism and ¶ those that lean toward alarmism. What this means is ¶ that for
approximately two-thirds of the
questions ¶ asked, scientific opinion is deeply divided, and in half ¶ of those cases, most scientists disagree with positions
that are at the foundation of the alarmist case. This ¶ survey certainly shows no consensus on the science ¶ behind the
global warming scare.¶ The questions for which most scientists give ¶ alarmist answers are those that ask for an opinion ¶
about the ―big picture,‖ such as ―How convinced are ¶ you that climate change poses a very serious and ¶ dangerous threat to humanity?‖ These
questions ask ¶ about beliefs and convictions, not discrete scientific ¶ facts or knowledge. When asked questions about ¶ narrower scientific matters, scientists seem
quick to ¶ admit their uncertainty.¶ This survey, like previous ones done by Bray and ¶ von Storch, provided a fascinating look at cognitive ¶ dissonance in the scientific
community. When
asked, ¶ majorities of climate scientists say they do not believe ¶ the scientific claims that underlie the
theory and ¶ predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic climate ¶ change, yet large majorities of those same scientists¶
say they nevertheless believe in the theory and its¶ predictions. This cognitive dissonance gives rise to ¶ and sustains a popular mass delusion.
71
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Bad People Are Hacks
There is plenty of money on the warming bad side too
Jaworowski 2004 [Professor Zbigniew M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. is the chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for
Radiological Protection in Warsaw. Winter “Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate” 21st Century Science Tech
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf]
In 1989, Stephen Schneider advised: “To capture the public¶ imagination . . . we have to . . . make simplified dramatic¶
statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have.¶ . . . Each of us has to decide the right balance between being¶
effective and being honest.”3¶ This turned out to be an “effective” policy: Since 1997, each of approximately 2,000¶
American climate scientists (only 60 of them with Ph.D.¶ degrees) received an average of $1 million annually for¶
research;4, 5¶ on a world scale, the annual budget for climate¶ research runs to $5 billion.6¶ It is interesting that in the
United¶ States, most of this money goes toward discovering the change¶ of global climate and its causes, while Europeans
apparently¶ believe that man-made warming is already on, and spend¶ money mostly on studying the effects of
warming.
Warming bad authors are a product of money and UN mandate
Jaworowski 2010 [Zbigniew, Ph.¶ D., M.D., D.Sc., has researched the atmospheric pollution of glaciers and CO2¶ concentrations
in the atmosphere for many years, and is the author of numerous ¶ publications on climate change. He serves as the Polish ¶
representative in the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and is a member ¶ of the
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) January 15, “‘Global Warming’: A Lie Aimed ¶ At Destroying
Civilization” EIR Science and Technology http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Jaworowski_interview.pdf]
Indeed, these researchers are guilty of¶ brazen fraud, bringing us into a trap, which has dire¶ consequences. For many
years they have been incredibly confident, ignoring any criticism of their arguments.¶ But they had the overwhelming
support of the United¶ Nations, and specifically the IPCC, the United Nations¶ group charged with examining the impact of
human activities on climate change, which takes the lead in all¶ this confusion. The IPCC thesis is based on research¶ from the
CRU. Scientists from the University of East¶ Anglia have at their disposal enormous sums of money¶ and political
support. In practice, they simply obey the¶ dictates of the United Nations, which is promoting the¶ global warming
initiative, in order to suppress the development of industry, which they claim is destroying¶ the Biosphere of the Earth.
72
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
***No Impact/Impact Turns***
73
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Warming Causes Extinction- Now Not Unprecedented
No catastrophic warming and its not human caused- past temperatures were hotter and we didn’t
cause them nor die from them
Idso, Carter and Singer 2011 [Craig D. Ph.D Chairman for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
Robert M. Ph.D Adjunct Research Fellow James Cook University, S. Fred Ph.D President of Science and Environmental Policy Project,
Climate Change¶ Reconsidered¶ 2011 Interim Report” Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
Evidence of a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) ¶ approximately 1,000 years ago, when there was ¶ about 28 percent less
CO2 in the atmosphere than ¶ there is currently, would show there is nothing ¶ unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented
about recent ¶ temperatures. Such evidence is now overwhelming. ¶ New evidence not reported in NIPCC-1 finds the ¶
Medieval Warm Period occurred in North America, ¶ Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Antarctica, ¶ and the Northern
Hemisphere. Despite this ¶ evidence, Mann et al. (2009) continue to understate ¶ the true level of warming during the MWP by ¶ cherry-picking proxy and
instrumental records.¶
¶ significant period of
elevated air temperatures that ¶ immediately preceded the Little
Recent reconstructions of climate history find the ¶
human influence does not stand out relative to ¶ other, natural causes of climate change. While ¶ global warming theory and models
Ice Age, during a ¶ time that has come to be known as the Little ¶ Medieval Warm Period.¶
predict polar ¶ areas would warm most rapidly, the warming of ¶ Greenland was 33 percent greater in magnitude in ¶ 1919–1932 than it was in 1994–2007, and ¶
Antarctica cooled during the second half of the ¶ twentieth century.¶
-long ¶ decline (1998–2007) in globally averaged ¶
temperatures from the record heat of 1998‖ and ¶ noted U.S. temperatures in 2008 ―not only declined ¶ from near-record warmth of prior years, but were in ¶ fact
New research disputes IPCC‘s claim
that it has ¶ ferreted out all significant influences of the world‘s ¶ many and diverse urban heat islands from the ¶
temperature databases they use to portray the ¶ supposedly unprecedented warming of the past few ¶ decades.
colder than the official 30-year reference ¶ climatology … and further were the coldest since at ¶ least 1996.‖¶
Current temperatures are historically low- your evidence is only a shapshot of a broader trend
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
The claim: With respect to air temperature, the
climate-alarmist contention is multifaceted. It is claimed that over the past several decades: (a) earth's
temperature has risen to a level that is unprecedented over the past millennium or more, (b) the world has been warming at a rate that is equally
unprecedented, and (c) both of these dubious achievements have been made possible by the similarly unprecedented magnitude of anthropogenic CO2 emissions,
due to humanity's ever-increasing burning of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil.¶ With respect to the level of warmth the earth has recently attained, it
is
important to see how it compares with prior temperatures experienced by the planet, in order to determine the degree
of "unprecedentedness" of its current warmth.¶ Taking a rather lengthy view of the subject, Petit et al. (1999) found that
peak temperatures experienced during the current interglacial, or Holocene, have been the coldest of the last five
interglacials, with the four interglacials that preceded the Holocene being, on average, more than 2°C warmer (see figure at right). And
in a more recent analysis of the subject, Sime et al. (2009) suggested that the "maximum interglacial temperatures over the
past 340,000 years were between 6.0°C and 10.0°C above present-day values." If anything, therefore, these findings suggest that
temperatures of the Holocene, or current interglacial, were indeed unusual, but not unusually warm. Quite to the contrary, they have been
unusually cool.
74
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming will not cause extinction- the Medieval Warm period was just as bad- models that say
otherwise are wrong
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
Zooming in a little closer to the present, we compare earth's modern temperatures with those of the past 1000 years,
where the IPCC bases its claim for recent heretofore-unreached high temperatures on the infamous "hockey stick"
temperature history of Mann et al. (1998, 1999). There is a problem with this history, however, in that reconstructed
temperatures derived from a variety of proxy data (which make up the bulk of the temperature history) are replaced near its
end with the historical record of directly-measured temperatures, resulting in an "apples vs. oranges" type of
comparison, where the latter cannot be validly compared with the former, because the two types of data are not derived in the
same way and are, therefore, not perfectly compatible with each other. ¶ In addition, subsequent evidence indicated that the
reconstructed temperatures of some regions did not rise as dramatically as their directly-measured values did over the
latter part of the 20th century (Cook et al., 2004), demonstrating the importance of the problem and suggesting that if there
had been any directly-measured temperatures during the earlier part of the past millennium, they may also have been
higher than the reconstructed temperatures of that period. Therefore, due to this divergence problem, as D'Arrigo et al. (2008)
have described it, reconstructions based on tree-ring data from certain regions "cannot be used to directly compare past natural
warm periods (notably, the Medieval Warm Period) with recent 20th century warming, making it more difficult to state
unequivocally that the recent warming is unprecedented."¶ In a much improved method of temperature reconstruction based
on tree-ring analysis, Esper et al. (2002) employed an analytical technique that allows accurate long-term climatic trends
to be derived from individual tree-ring series that are of much shorter duration than the potential climatic oscillation being
studied; and they applied this technique to over 1200 individual tree-ring series derived from fourteen different locations scattered
across the extratropical region of the Northern Hemisphere. This work revealed, as they describe it, that " past comparisons of the
Medieval Warm Period with the 20th-century warming back to the year 1000 have not included all of the Medieval
Warm Period and, perhaps, not even its warmest interval." And in further commenting on this important finding, Briffa and
Osborn (2002) revealed that "an early period of warmth in the late 10th and early 11th centuries is more pronounced than
in previous large-scale reconstructions." In addition, the Esper et al. record made it abundantly clear that the peak
warmth of the Medieval Warm Period was fully equivalent to the warmth of the present.¶ In another important study, von
Storch et al. (2004) demonstrated that past variations in real-world temperature "may have been at least a factor of two
larger than indicated by empirical reconstructions," and in commenting on their findings, Osborn and Briffa (2004) stated that
"if the true natural variability of Northern Hemisphere temperature is indeed greater than is currently accepted," which they
appeared to suggest is likely the case, "the extent to which recent warming can be viewed as 'unusual' would need to be
reassessed." And more recently, Mann et al. (2009) have had to admit that even using the "apples vs. oranges" approach,
the warmth over a large part of the North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America
during the Medieval Warm Period was "comparable to or exceeds that of the past one-to-two decades in some regions."
75
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Warming Causes Extinction- Models Indict
The models that suggest that current warming is unique are the worst- better models that take into
account more comparable variables say now is not unique
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
Ljungqvist also notes that "decadal mean temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere seem to have equaled
or exceeded the AD 1961-1990 mean temperature level during much of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval
Warm Period," and he says that "the second century, during the Roman Warm Period, is the warmest century during the
last two millennia," while adding that "the highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late
tenth century," which was during the Medieval Warm Period. He warns, however, that the temperature of the last two decades
"is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia," but adds that "this is only seen in the
instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself," which is akin to saying that this possibility
only presents itself if one applies Michael Mann's "Nature trick" of comparing "apples and oranges," which is clearly not
valid, as discussed earlier in this report.¶ This new study of Ljungqvist is especially important in that it utilizes, in his words, "a
larger number of proxy records than most previous reconstructions," and because it "substantiates an already established
history of long-term temperature variability." All of these facts, taken together, clearly demonstrate that there is nothing
unusual, nothing unnatural or nothing unprecedented about the planet's current level of warmth, seeing it was just as
warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently during both the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, when the
atmosphere's CO2 concentration was more than 100 ppm less than it is today. And this latter observation, together with the
realization that earth's climate naturally transits back and forth between cooler and warmer conditions on a millennial timescale,
demonstrates that there is absolutely no need to associate the planet's current level of warmth with its current higher atmospheric
CO2 concentration, in clear contradiction of the worn-out climate-alarmist claim that the only way to explain earth's current warmth
is to associate it with the greenhouse effect of CO2. That claim -- for which there is no supporting evidence, other than misplaced
trust in climate models -- is unsound.
76
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
CO2 Good 1NC
CO2 is key to agricultural yields- key to preserve Biodiversity- the alternative is using more land for
crops- no other alternative is sufficient to solve
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
How much land can ten billion people spare for nature? This provocative question was posed by Waggoner (1995) in the title of an essay designed to illuminate the
dynamic tension that exists between the need for land to support the agricultural enterprises that sustain mankind and the need for land to support the natural
ecosystems that sustain all other creatures. As noted by Huang et al. (2002), human
populations "have encroached on almost all of the
world's frontiers, leaving little new land that is cultivatable." And in consequence of humanity's ongoing usurpation of
this most basic of natural resources, Raven (2002) has stated that "species-area relationships, taken worldwide in
relation to habitat destruction, lead to projections of the loss of fully two-thirds of all species on earth by the end of this
century," which problem has been noted and discussed by a number of other scientists as well, including Conway and Toenniessen (1999), Wallace (2000), Pretty
et al. (2003), Foley et al. (2005), Green et al. (2005), Khush (2005), Hanjra and Qureshi (2010), Lele (2010) and Zhu et al. (2010)¶ If one were to pick the
most significant problem currently facing the biosphere, this would probably be it: a single species of life, Homo sapiens,
is on course to completely annihilate fully two-thirds of the ten million or so other species with which we share the
planet within a mere ninety years, simply by taking their land. Global warming, by comparison, pales in significance, as
its impact is nowhere near as severe, likely being nil or even positive. In addition, its root cause is highly debated; and actions to thwart it are much
more difficult, if not impossible, to both define and implement. Furthermore, what many people believe to be the cause of global warming,
i.e., anthropogenic CO2 emissions, may actually be a powerful force for preserving land for nature.¶ So what parts of the world
are likely to be hardest hit by this human land-eating machine? Tilman et al. (2001) stated that developed countries are expected to actually withdraw large areas of
land from farming by the mid-point of this century, leaving developing countries to shoulder essentially all of the increasingly-heavy burden of feeding the stillexpanding human population. In addition, they calculate that the loss of these countries' natural ecosystems to cropland and pasture will amount to about half of all
potentially suitable remaining land, which "could lead to the loss of about a third of remaining tropical and temperate forests, savannas, and grasslands," along with
the many unique species they support.¶ What can be done to alleviate this bleak situation? In another analysis of the problem, Tilman et al. (2002) introduced a few
more facts before suggesting some solutions. They noted, for example, that by
2050 the human population of the globe was projected to be
50% larger than it was in 2000, and that global grain demand could well double, due to expected increases in per capita
real income and dietary shifts toward a higher proportion of meat. Hence, they but stated the obvious when they
concluded that "raising yields on existing farmland is essential for 'saving land for nature'."¶ So how is it to be done? Tilman et al.
(2002) suggested a strategy that was built around three essential tasks: (1) increasing crop yield per unit of land area, (2) increasing crop yield per unit of nutrients
applied, and (3) increasing crop yield per unit of water used.¶ With respect to the first of these requirements, Tilman et al. noted that in
many parts of the
world the historical rate of increase in crop yields was declining, as the genetic ceiling for maximal yield potential was
being approached. This observation, as they put it, "highlights the need for efforts to steadily increase the yield potential
ceiling." With respect to the second requirement, they noted that "without the use of synthetic fertilizers, world food production could not have increased at the
rate it did [in the past], and more natural ecosystems would have been converted to agriculture." Hence, they said that the ultimate solution "will require significant
increases in nutrient use efficiency, that is, in cereal production per unit of added nitrogen, phosphorus," and so forth. Finally, with respect to the third requirement,
Tilman et al. noted that "water
is regionally scarce," and that "many countries in a band from China through India and Pakistan,
and the Middle East to North Africa either currently or will soon fail to have adequate water to maintain per capita food
production from irrigated land." Increasing crop water use efficiency, therefore, is also a must.¶ Although the impending biological
crisis and several important elements of its potential solution are thus well defined, Tilman et al. (2001) reported that "even the best available
technologies, fully deployed, cannot prevent many of the forecasted problems." This was also the conclusion of Idso and Idso (2000),
who -- although acknowledging that "expected advances in agricultural technology and expertise will significantly increase
77
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
the food production potential of many countries and regions" -- noted that these advances "will not increase production
fast enough to meet the demands of the even faster-growing human population of the planet."¶ Fortunately, we have a
powerful ally in the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content that can provide what we can't. Since atmospheric CO2 is the
basic "food" of essentially all plants, the more of it there is in the air, the bigger and better they grow. For a nominal doubling of
the air's CO2 concentration, for example, the productivity of earth's herbaceous plants rises by 30 to 50% (Kimball, 1983; Idso and Idso, 1994), while the productivity
of its woody plants rises by 50 to 75% or more (Saxe et al. 1998; Idso and Kimball, 2001). Hence,
as the air's CO2 content continues to rise, so too
will the land use efficiency of the planet rise right along with it. In addition, atmospheric CO2 enrichment typically
increases plant nutrient use efficiency and plant water use efficiency. Thus, with respect to all three of the major needs
noted by Tilman et al. (2002), increases in the air's CO2 content pay huge dividends, helping to increase agricultural
output without the taking of new lands from nature.¶ In light of these observations, it would appear that the extinction of twothirds of all species of plants and animals on the face of the earth is essentially assured within the current century, if
world agricultural output is not dramatically increased. This unfathomable consequence will occur simply because (1) we
will need more land to produce what is required to sustain us and (2) in the absence of the full productivity increase
required, we will simply take that land from nature to keep ourselves alive. It is also the conclusion of scientists who
have studied this problem in depth that the needed increase in agricultural productivity is not possible to achieve, even
with anticipated improvements in technology and expertise. With the help of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content,
however, Idso and Idso (2000) have shown that we should be able -- but just barely -- to meet our expanding food needs without
"bringing down the curtain" on the world of nature in the process.
Resource conflicts are the most likely to escalate
Heinberg 2004 Richard Heinberg. (Senior Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute, Author of Eight Books and widely regarded as one
the world's foremost Peak Oil Educators). "Book Excerpt: Powerdown: options and actions for a post-carbon world." 2004. Online.
Last One Standing – The path of competition for remaining resources. If the leadership of the US continues with current policies, the next decades will be filled with
war, economic crises, and environmental catastrophe. Resource depletion and population pressure are about to catch up with us, and no one is prepared. The
political elites, especially in the US, are incapable of dealing with the situation. Their preferred “solution” is simply to commandeer other
nations’ resources, using military force. The worst-case scenario would be the general destruction of human civilization
and most of the ecological life-support system of the planet. That is, of course, a breathtakingly alarming prospect. As such, we might prefer
not to contemplate it – except for the fact that considerable evidence attests to its likelihood. The notion that resource scarcity
often leads to increased competition is certainly well founded. This is general true among non-human animals, among
which competition for diminishing resources typically leads to aggressive behaviour. Iraq is actually the nexus of several
different kinds of conflict – between consuming nations (e.g., France and the US); between western industrial nations and “terrorist” groups; and – most
obviously – between a powerful consuming nation and a weaker, troublesome, producing nation. Politicians may find it
easier to persuade their constituents to fight a common enemy than to conserve and share. War is always grim, but as
resources become more scarce and valuable, as societies become more centralized and therefore more vulnerable, and
as weaponry becomes more sophisticated and widely dispersed, warfare could become even more destructive that the case
during the past century.
78
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Biodiversity loss causes extinction
Young 2010 (Dr Ruth Young, PhD specialising in coastal marine ecology. 2-9-2010, “Biodiversity: what it is and why it’s
important”, http://www.talkingnature.com/2010/02/Biodiversity/Biodiversity-what-and-why/)
Different species within ecosystems fill particular roles, they all have a function, they all have a niche. They interact with each other and the physical
environment to provide ecosystem services that are vital for our survival. For example plant species convert carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere
and energy from the sun into useful things such as food, medicines and timber. A bee pollinating a flower (Image: ClearlyAmbiguous Flickr) Pollination carried out by
insects such as bees enables the production of ⅓ of our food crops. Diverse mangrove and coral reef ecosystems provide a wide variety of habitats that are essential
for many fishery species. To make it simpler for economists to comprehend the magnitude of services offered by Biodiversity, a team of researchers estimated their
value – it amounted to $US33 trillion per year. “By protecting Biodiversity we maintain ecosystem services” Certain
species play a “keystone” role in
maintaining ecosystem services. Similar to the removal of a keystone from an arch, the removal of these species can result in the collapse of an
ecosystem and the subsequent removal of ecosystem services. The most well known example of this occurred during the 19th century when
sea otters were almost hunted to extinction by fur traders along the west coast of the USA. This led to a population explosion in the sea otters’ main source of prey,
sea urchins. Because the urchins graze on kelp their booming population decimated the underwater kelp forests. This loss of habitat led to declines in local fish
populations. Sea otters are a keystone species once hunted for their fur (Image: Mike Baird) Eventually a treaty protecting sea otters allowed the numbers of otters to
increase which inturn controlled the urchin population, leading to the recovery of the kelp forests and fish stocks. In other cases, ecosystem services are maintained
by entire functional groups, such as apex predators (See Jeremy Hance’s post at Mongabay). During the last 35 years, over fishing of large shark species along the US
Atlantic coast has led to a population explosion of skates and rays. These skates and rays eat bay scallops and their out of control population has led to the closure of
a century long scallop fishery. These are just two examples demonstrating how Biodiversity can maintain the services that ecosystems provide for us, such as
fisheries. One could argue that to maintain ecosystem services we don’t need to protect Biodiversity but rather, we only need to protect the species and functional
groups that fill the keystone roles. However, there are a couple of problems with this idea. First of all, for
most ecosystems we don’t know which
species are the keystones! Ecosystems are so complex that we are still discovering which species play vital roles in maintaining them. In some cases its
groups of species not just one species that are vital for the ecosystem. Second, even if we did complete the enormous task of identifying and protecting all keystone
species, what back-up plan would we have if an unforseen event (e.g. pollution or disease) led to the demise of these ‘keystone’ species? Would there be another
species to save the day and take over this role? Classifying some species as ‘keystone’ implies that the others are not important. This may lead to the non-keystone
species being considered ecologically worthless and subsequently over-exploited. Sometimes we may not even know which species are likely to fill the keystone roles.
An example of this was discovered on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. This research examined what would happen to a coral reef if it were over-fished. The “overfishing” was simulated by fencing off coral bommies thereby excluding and removing fish from them for three years. By the end of the experiment, the reefs had
changed from a coral to an algae dominated ecosystem – the coral became overgrown with algae. When the time came to remove the fences the researchers
expected herbivorous species of fish like the parrot fish (Scarus spp.) to eat the algae and enable the reef to switch back to a coral dominated ecosystem. But,
surprisingly, the shift back to coral was driven by a supposed ‘unimportant’ species – the bat fish (Platax pinnatus). The bat fish was previously thought to feed on
invertebrates – small crabs and shrimp, but when offered a big patch of algae it turned into a hungry herbivore – a cow of the sea – grazing the algae in no time. So a
fish previously thought to be ‘unimportant’ is actually a keystone species in the recovery of coral reefs overgrown by algae! Who knows how many other species are
out there with unknown ecosystem roles! In some cases it’s easy to see who the keystone species are but in many ecosystems seemingly unimportant or redundant
species are also capable of changing niches and maintaining ecosystems. The more
Biodiversityiverse an ecosystem is, the more likely these species
will be present and the more resilient an ecosystem is to future impacts. Presently we’re only scratching the surface of understanding the full
importance of Biodiversity and how it helps maintain ecosystem function. The scope of this task is immense. In the meantime, a wise insurance policy for maintaining
ecosystem services would be to conserve Biodiversity. In doing so, we increase the chance of maintaining our ecosystem services in the
event of future impacts such as disease, invasive species and of course, climate change. This is the international year of Biodiversity – a time to recognize that
Biodiversity makes our survival on this planet possible and that our protection of Biodiversity maintains this service.
79
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
2NC Biodiversity Impact
A. Impacts previously underestimated
Science Daily 2011 8-19-2011, “Biodiversity Critical for Maintaining Multiple 'Ecosystem Services'“,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110819155422.htm
By combining data from 17 of the largest and longest-running biodiversity experiments, scientists from universities across North
America and Europe have found that previous studies have underestimated the importance of biodiversity for maintaining multiple
ecosystem services across many years and places. "Most previous studies considered only the number of species needed to provide one service under one set of
environmental conditions," says Prof. Michel Loreau from McGill University's biology department who supervised the study. "These studies found that many species
appeared redundant. That is, it appeared that the extinction of many species would not affect the functioning of the ecosystem because other species could
compensate for their loss." Now, by looking at grassland plant species, investigators have found that most of the studied species were important at least once for the
maintenance of ecosystem services, because different sets of species were important during different years, at different places, for different services, and under
different global change (e.g., climate or land-use change) scenarios. Furthermore, the species needed to provide one service during multiple years were not the same
as those needed to provide multiple services during one year. "This means that biodiversity is even more important for maintaining ecosystem services than was
previously thought," says Dr. Forest Isbell, the lead author and investigator of this study. "Our results indicate that many
species are needed to maintain
ecosystem services at multiple times and places in a changing world, and that species are less redundant than was
previously thought." The scientists involved in the study also offer recommendations for using these results to prioritize conservation efforts and predict
consequences of species extinctions. "It is nice to know which groups of species promoted ecosystem functioning under hundreds of sets of environmental
conditions," says Isbell, "because this will allow us to determine whether some species often provide ecosystem services under environmental conditions that are
currently common, or under conditions that will become increasingly common in the future." But Michel Loreau, of McGill, adds au cautionary note: "We should be
careful when making predictions. The uncertainty
over future environmental changes means that conserving as much biodiversity
as possible could be a good precautionary approach."
B. Reversibility
Sunstein 2007 Cass R. Sunstein () 2007 “WORST-CASE SCENARIOS” p. 176-7, Harry Kalven Visitng Professor, Professor of Law at
Harvard Law School but is currently on leave to serve as the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs in the Obama administration, and
In ordinary life, our judgments about worst-case scenarios have everything to do with irreversibility. Of course an action may be hard
but not impossible to undo, and so there may be a continuum of cases, with different degrees of difficulty in reversing. A marriage can be reversed, but divorce is
rarely easy; having a child is very close to irreversible; moving from New York to Paris is reversible, but moving back may be difficult. People
often take steps
to avoid courses of action that are burdensome rather than literally impossible to reverse. In this light,we might identify an
Irreversible Harm Precautionary Principle, applicable to a subset of risks.3 As a rough first approximation, the principle says this: Special
steps should be taken to avoid irreversible harms, through precautions that go well beyond those that would be taken if
irreversibility were not a problem. The general attitude here is “act, then learn,” as opposed to the tempting alternative of “wait and learn.” In the case
of climate change, some people believe that research should be our first line of defense. In their view, we should refuse to commit substantial resources to the
problem until evidence of serious harm is unmistakably clear.4 But even assuming that the evidence is not so clear, research without action allows greenhouse gas
emissions to continue, which might produce risks that are irreversible, or at best difficult and expensive to reverse. For this reason, the
best course of action
might well be to take precautions now as a way of preserving flexibility for future generations. In the environmental context in
general, this principle suggests that regulators should proceed with far more aggressive measures than would otherwise
seem justified.5
80
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
C. Invisible tipping point
Science Daily 2011 , 3-3-2011, “Loss of Plant Diversity Threatens Earth's Life-Support Systems, Experts Say”,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110303153116.htm
Biodiversity loss in the real world Recognizing that their findings mostly rest on analysis of short-term experiments (generally a
few days, weeks, or months) in relatively small settings, the researchers also attempted to determine how diversity effects "scaleup" to longer time scales, bigger areas, or both. The authors note that these are the real-world scales "at which species extinctions
actually matter and at which conservation and management efforts take place." The team's findings suggest that scale does indeed
matter, and that small laboratory and field experiments typically underestimate the effects of biodiversity loss. In the researchers'
own words, "Data are generally consistent with the idea that the strength of diversity effects are stronger in experiments
that run longer, and in experiments performed at larger spatial scales." Duffy is now further testing this scaling issue with a 3-year
grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation. He is using the grant to establish a global experimental network for studying how
nutrient pollution and changes in biodiversity impact seagrass beds. Study co-author Jarrett Byrnes, of the National Center for
Ecological Analyses and Synthesis, says "Species extinction is happening now, and it's happening quickly. And unfortunately,
our resources are limited. This means we're going to have to prioritize our conservation efforts, and to do that, scientists
have to start providing concrete answers about the numbers and types of species that are needed to sustain human life. If we don't
produce these estimates quickly, then we risk crossing a threshold that we can't come back from."
81
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
CO2 Good- Environment
Even if we tripled the amount of CO2 in the air it wouldn’t cause runaway warming- it actually has
created ecological benefits
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
As presently constituted, earth's atmosphere contains just slightly less than 400 ppm of the colorless and odorless gas we call
carbon dioxide or CO2. That's only four-hundredths of one percent. Consequently, even if the air's CO2 concentration was
tripled, carbon dioxide would still comprise only a little over one tenth of one percent of the air we breathe, which is far
less than what wafted through earth's atmosphere eons ago, when the planet was a virtual garden place. Nevertheless, a
small increase in this minuscule amount of CO2 is frequently predicted to produce a suite of dire environmental
consequences, including dangerous global warming, catastrophic sea level rise, reduced agricultural output, and the destruction of
many natural ecosystems, as well as dramatic increases in extreme weather phenomena, such as droughts, floods and hurricanes. ¶
As strange as it may seem, these frightening future scenarios are derived from a single source of information: the ever-evolving
computer-driven climate models that presume to reduce the important physical, chemical and biological processes that combine to
determine the state of earth's climate into a set of mathematical equations out of which their forecasts are produced. But do we
really know what all of those complex and interacting processes are? And even if we did -- which we don't -- could we correctly
reduce them into manageable computer code so as to produce reliable forecasts 50 or 100 years into the future?¶ Some people
answer these questions in the affirmative. However, as may be seen in the body of this report, real-world observations fail to
confirm essentially all of the alarming predictions of significant increases in the frequency and severity of droughts, floods and
hurricanes that climate models suggest should occur in response to a global warming of the magnitude that was
experienced by the earth over the past two centuries as it gradually recovered from the much-lower-than-present
temperatures characteristic of the depths of the Little Ice Age. And other observations have shown that the rising atmospheric
CO2 concentrations associated with the development of the Industrial Revolution have actually been good for the
planet, as they have significantly enhanced the plant productivity and vegetative water use efficiency of earth's natural
and agro-ecosystems, leading to a significant "greening of the earth."
82
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
CO2 Solves Crops
CO2 increases crop yields
Idso, Carter and Singer 2011 [Craig D. Ph.D Chairman for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
Robert M. Ph.D Adjunct Research Fellow James Cook University, S. Fred Ph.D President of Science and Environmental Policy Project,
Climate Change¶ Reconsidered¶ 2011 Interim Report” Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2¶ concentrations, by increasing crop yields, will play ¶ a major role in averting
hunger without the taking ¶ of new land and water from nature. For a nominal ¶ doubling of the air‘s CO2 concentration,
for ¶ example, the productivity of Earth‘s herbaceous ¶ plants rises by 30 to 50 percent and the productivity ¶ of its woody
plants rises by 50 to 80 percent or ¶ more. In addition, atmospheric CO2 enrichment ¶ typically increases plant nutrient and
water use ¶ efficiency.
83
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Solves Biodiversity- Range Expansion
Warming helps Biodiversity- gives plants and animals more places to go
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
With respect to plants and their amazing resilience, we begin with the study of Holzinger et al. (2008), who revisited
areas of twelve mountains
the canton of Grisons, Switzerland, where in 2004 they assembled
complete inventories of vascular plant species that they compared with similar inventories made by other researchers in
1885, 1898, 1912, 1913 and 1958, following the ascension paths of the earlier investigators "as accurately as possible," where mean summer
temperature increased by at least 0.6°C between the time of the first study and their most recent one. This effort revealed
upward migration rates on the order of several meters per decade; and the data suggested that vascular plant species richness had
increased, and by 11% per decade, over the last 120 years on the mountain summits (defined as the upper 15 meters of the
mountains) in the alpine-nival ecotone, where not a single species had been "pushed off the planet." What is more, this finding, in the
words of the four researchers, "agrees well with other investigations from the Alps, where similar changes have been detected
having summits located between elevations of 2844 and 3006 meters in
(Grabherr et al., 1994; Pauli et al., 2001; Camenisch, 2002; Walther, 2003; Walther et al., 2005)."¶ Contemporaneously, Kelly and Goulden (2008) compared two
vegetation surveys (one made in 1977 and the other in 2006-2007) of the Deep Canyon Transect in Southern California's Santa Rosa Mountains, which spans several
plant communities and climates, rising from an elevation of 244 meters to 2560 meters over a distance of 16 km, while "climbing through desert scrub, pinyonjuniper woodland, chaparral shrubland, and conifer forest." This work revealed that "the average elevation of the dominant plant species rose by ~65 meters," when
the 30-year mean temperature measured at seven stations around Deep Canyon rose by 0.41°C between 1947-1976 and 1977-2006, and when the same metric rose
by 0.63°C in the climate regions straddled by the transect, and by 0.77°C at the two weather stations nearest Deep Canyon. In commenting on their observations, the
two researchers said they implied that "surprisingly
rapid shifts in the distribution of plants can be expected with climate change,"
and it should be noted that those rapid shifts appear to be fully capable of coping with even the supposedly
unprecedented rate of warming climate alarmists have long claimed was characteristic of the last decades of the 20th
century.¶ Also publishing in the same year, Le Roux and McGeoch (2008) examined patterns of altitudinal range changes in the
totality of the native vascular flora of sub-Antarctic Marion Island (46°54'S, 37°45'E) in the southern Indian Ocean, which warmed by
1.2°C between 1965 and 2003. The work of these South African researchers revealed that between 1966 and 2006, there was "a rapid
expansion in altitudinal range," with species expanding their upper-elevation boundaries by an average of 70 meters. And
because, as they described it, "the observed upslope expansion was not matched by a similar change in lower range boundaries,"
they emphasized the fact that "the flora of Marion Island has undergone range expansion rather than a range shift." In
addition, they appropriately noted that "the expansion of species distributions along their cooler boundaries in response to rising
temperatures appears to be a consistent biological consequence of recent climate warming," citing references to several
other studies that have observed the same type of response.¶ Another consequence of the stability of lower range
boundaries together with expanding upper range boundaries is that there is now a greater overlapping of ranges,
resulting in greater local species richness or Biodiversity everywhere up and down various altitudinal transects of the island. And
as a further consequence of this fact, le Roux and McGeoch indicated that "the present species composition of communities at higher altitudes is not an analogue of
past community composition at lower altitudes, but rather constitutes a historically unique combination of species," or what we could truly call a "brave new world,"
which is significantly richer than the one of the recent past.
84
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming doesn’t cause habitat fragmentation- temperature changes are only bad for species
survival if it gets colder
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
With respect to animals facing the challenge of global warming, climate alarmists generally characterize the situation as
highly dangerous for them, just as they do for plants, suggesting that rising temperatures will also drive many of them to extinction. However, and once
again as with plants, most research on the subject suggests otherwise.¶ A good place to begin a review of this subject is a study on
butterflies conducted by a group of thirteen researchers in 1999 (Parmesan et al., 1999). These scientists analyzed, over the prior century of global warming, the
distributional changes of non-migratory species whose northern boundaries were in northern Europe (52 species) and whose southern boundaries were in southern
Europe or northern Africa (40 species). This work revealed that the northern boundaries of the first group shifted northward for 65% of them, remained stable for
34%, and shifted southward for 2%, while the southern boundaries of the second group shifted northward for 22% of them, remained stable for 72%, and shifted
southward for 5%, such that "nearly all northward shifts," according to Parmesan et al., "involved extensions at the northern boundary with the southern boundary
remaining stable."¶ This behavior is precisely what we would expect to see if the butterflies were responding to shifts in the ranges of the plants upon which they
depend for their sustenance, because increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration tend to ameliorate the effects of heat stress in plants and induce an upward shift
in the temperature at which they function optimally. These phenomena tend to cancel the impetus for poleward migration at the warm edge of a plant's territorial
range, yet they continue to provide the opportunity for poleward expansion at the cold edge of its range. Hence, it is possible that the observed changes in butterfly
ranges over the past century of concomitant warming and rising atmospheric CO2 concentration are related to matching changes in the ranges of the plants upon
which they feed. Or, this similarity could be due to some more complex phenomenon, possibly even some direct physiological effect of temperature and atmospheric
CO2 concentration on the butterflies themselves. In any event, and in the face of the 0.8°C of "dreaded" global warming that occurred in Europe over the 20th
century, the consequences for European butterflies were primarily beneficial, because, as Parmesan et al. described the situation, "most species effectively expanded
the size of their range when shifting northwards," since "nearly all northward shifts involved extensions at the northern boundary with the southern boundary
remaining stable."¶ A number of other researchers have also studied the relationship between butterflies and temperature. In the British Isles, Thomas et al. (2001)
documented an unusually rapid expansion of the ranges of two butterfly species (the silver-spotted skipper butterfly and the brown argus butterfly) in response to
increasing temperatures. In the United States, Crozier (2004) noted that "Atalopedes campestris, the sachem skipper butterfly, expanded its range from northern
California into western Oregon in 1967, and into southwestern Washington in 1990," where she reports that temperatures rose by 2-4°C over the prior half-century.
And in Canada, White and Kerr (2006) reported butterfly species' range shifts across the country between 1900 and 1990, noting that butterfly species richness
increased as "a result of range expansion among the study species" that was "positively correlated with temperature change."¶ In another intriguing research finding,
Gonzalez-Megias et al. (2008) investigated species turnover in 51 butterfly assemblages in Britain by examining regional extinction and colonization events that
occurred between the two periods 1976-1982 and 1995-2002, over which time interval the world's climate alarmists claim the planet experienced a warming they
contend was unprecedented over the past millennium or more. And in doing so, the five researchers found that regional colonizations exceeded extinctions, as "over
twice as many sites gained species as lost species," such that "the average species richness of communities has increased." And they too found that species
abundances following colonization likewise increased, due to "climate-related increases in the [land's] carrying capacity."¶ In comparing their results with those of a
broader range of animal studies, Gonzalez-Megias et al. found that "analyses of distribution changes for a wide range of other groups of animals in Britain suggest
that southern representatives of most taxa are moving northwards at a rate similar to -- and in some cases faster than -- butterflies (Hickling et al., 2006)," and they
report that "as with butterflies, most of these taxonomic groups have fewer northern than southern representatives, so climate-driven colonisations are likely to
exceed extinctions." Hence, they suggested that "most of these taxa will also be experiencing slight community-level increases in species richness."¶ One additional
means by which butterflies can cope with high temperatures is through the production of heat-shock proteins (HSPs). According to Karl et al. (2008), HSPs "are
thought to play an important ecological and evolutionary role in thermal adaptation," where "the upregulation of stress-inducible HSPs may help organisms to cope
with stress thus enhancing survival (Sorensen et al., 2003; Dahlhoff, 2004; Dahlhoff and Rank, 2007)."¶ Working with Lycaena tityrus, a widespread temperate-zone
butterfly that ranges from western Europe to central Asia, Karl et al. tested this hypothesis by comparing expression patterns of stress-inducible HSPs across
replicated populations originating from different altitudes, as well as across different ambient temperatures. Their observations revealed a significant interaction
between altitude and rearing temperature that indicated that "low-altitude animals showed a strongly increased HSP70 expression at the higher compared with at
the lower rearing temperature," which is exactly where one would expect to see such a response in light of its obvious utility.¶ In discussing their findings, Karl et al.
said their observation that "HSP70 expression increased substantially at the higher rearing temperature in low-altitude butterflies ... might represent an adaptation to
occasionally occurring heat spells," which further suggests that this response should serve these organisms well in the days and years to come, especially if the
dramatic warming and increase in heat spells predicted by the world's climate alarmists ever come to pass, which still further suggests (in light of the similar findings
of others) that more of earth's life forms than many have assumed might be genetically equipped to likewise cope with the future thermal dangers envisioned by
those enamored with the climate modeling enterprise and its imagined ramifications.¶ Birds have also been shown to be capable of dealing with increases in
temperature. Thomas and Lennon (1999), for example, analyzed the geographical distributions of a number of British bird species over a 20-year period of global
warming, looking for climate-induced changes in their breeding ranges between 1970 and 1990. And, as is the case with butterflies, their work revealed that the
northern margins of southerly species' breeding ranges shifted northward by an average of 19 km over their study period; while the mean location of the southern
85
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
margins of northerly species' breeding ranges shifted not at all, which observations are again indicative of expanding ranges and a propensity for birds -- like
butterflies -- to become more resistant to extinction in a warming world.¶ Additional support for this concept was provided by the study of Brommer (2004) of the
birds of Finland, which were categorized as either northerly (34 species) or southerly (116 species). In this analysis the researcher quantified changes in their range
margins and distributions from two atlases of breeding birds, one covering the period 1974-79 and one covering the period 1986-89, in an attempt to determine how
the two groups of species responded to what he called "the period of the earth's most rapid climate warming in the last 10,000 years." Once again, it was determined
that the southerly group of bird species experienced a mean poleward advancement of their northern range boundaries of 18.8 km over the 12-year period of
supposedly unprecedented warming. The southern range boundaries of the northerly species, on the other hand, were essentially unmoved, leading once again to
range expansions that should have rendered the Finnish birds less subject to extinction than they were before the warming.¶ In an equally revealing study, Maclean
et al. (2008) analyzed counts of seven wading bird species -- the Eurasian oystercatcher, grey plover, red knot, dunlin, bar-tailed godwit, Eurasian curlew and common
redshank -- made at approximately 3500 different sites in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom on at least an
annual basis since the late 1970s. This they did in order to determine what range adjustments the waders may have made in response to concomitant regional
warming, calculating the weighted geographical centroids of the bird populations for all sites with complete coverage for every year between 1981 and 2000.¶ This
work revealed, in the words of the seven scientists, that "the weighted geographical centroid of the overwintering population of the majority of species shifted in a
northeasterly direction, perpendicular to winter isotherms," with overall 20-year shifts ranging from 30 to 119 km. In addition, they reported that "when the dataset
for each species was split into 10 parts, according to the mean temperature of the sites, responses are much stronger at the colder extremities of species ranges." In
fact, they found that "at warmer sites, there was no palpable relationship between changes in bird numbers and changes in temperature." Hence, they concluded
that "range expansions rather than shifts are occurring" as the planet warms.¶ In discussing the significance of their findings, the members of the international
research team said that the
commonly used climate-envelope approach to predicting warming-induced species migrations -assumes that as climate alters, changes at one margin of a
species' range are mirrored by those at the other, such that approximately the same 'climate space' is occupied
regardless of actual climate," but that their work suggests "that this may not be the case: climate space can also
change."¶ In further discussing their important finding, Maclean et al. wrote that "it is actually not surprising that responses to temperature
appear only to be occurring at the colder extremities of species ranges," for they note that "it has long been known that
it is common for species to be limited by environmental factors at one extremity, but by biological interactions at the
other," citing the work of Connell (1983) and Begon et al. (2005). Thus, they concluded that it is likely that "the warmer extremities of the
species ranges examined in this study are controlled primarily by biotic interactions, whereas the colder margins are
dependent on temperature."¶ Similarly, and noting that "climate envelopes (or the climatic niche concept) are the current
methods of choice for prediction of species distributions under climate change," Beale et al. (2008) remind us that "climate
envelope methods and assumptions have been criticized as ecologically and statistically naive (Pearson and Dawson, 2003; Hampe,
2004)," and that "there are many reasons why species distributions may not match climate, including biotic interactions
(Davis et al., 1998), adaptive evolution (Thomas et al., 2001), dispersal limitation (Svenning and Skov, 2007), and
historical chance (Cotgreave and Harvey, 1994)." Thus, in an attempt to shed more light on the subject, they evaluated the degree of matchup of
which was the one employed by many climate alarmists -- "essentially
species distributions to environment by generating synthetic distributions that retained the spatial structure of observed distributions but were randomly placed with
respect to climate. More specifically, "using data on the European distribution of 100 bird species, [they] generated 99 synthetic distribution patterns for each
species," and "for each of the 100 species, [they] fitted climate envelope models to both the true distribution and the 99 simulated distributions by using standard
climate variables," after which they determined the goodness-of-fit of the many distribution patterns, because, as they describe it, "there has been no attempt to
quantify how often high goodness-of-fit scores, and hence ostensibly good matches between distribution and climate, can occur by chance alone."
86
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Solves Biodiversity- Adaptation
Warming increases Biodiversity- allows animals to adapt to the other things we do
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
"Given the strong positive correlation between diversity and temperature," the six scientists went on to say that "local
copepod diversity, especially in extra-tropical regions, is likely to increase with climate change as their large-scale
distributions respond to climate warming." This state of affairs is much the same as what has typically been found on
land for birds, butterflies and several other terrestrial lifeforms, as their ranges expand and overlap in response to global
warming. And with more territory thus available to them, their "foothold" on the planet becomes ever stronger,
fortifying them against forces (many of them human-induced) that might otherwise lead to their extinction.
87
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Solves Biodiversity- Studies
Warming solves Biodiversity- studies
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
Last of all (but happening some time ago), Pockley (2001) reported the results of a survey of the plants and animals on Australia's
Heard Island, a little piece of real estate located 4,000 kilometers southwest of Perth. Over the prior fifty years this sub-Antarctic
island had experienced a local warming of approximately 1°C that had resulted in a modest (12%) retreat of its glaciers; and hence,
for the first time in a decade, scientists were attempting to document what this warming and melting had done to the
ecology of the island.¶ Pockley began by stating the scientists' work had unearthed "dramatic evidence of global warming's
ecological impact," which obviously consisted of "rapid increases in flora and fauna." He quoted Dana Bergstrom, an
ecologist at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, as saying that areas that previously had been poorly vegetated had
become "lush with large expanses of plants." And he added that populations of birds, fur seals and insects had also
expanded rapidly. One of the real winners in this regard was the king penguin, which, according to Pockley, had "exploded from
only three breeding pairs in 1947 to 25,000."¶ Eric Woehler of Australia's environment department was listed as a source of other
equally remarkable information, such as the Heard Island cormorant's comeback from "vulnerable" status to a substantial 1,200
pairs, and fur seals emergence from "near extinction" to a population of 28,000 adults and 1,000 pups. ¶ Yes, the regional warming
experienced at Heard Island actually saved these threatened animal populations from the jaws of extinction. So it's time to
celebrate! Responsibility clearly cuts both ways; and if emitters of CO2 are being excoriated, and in advance, for
presumably promoting future hypothetical extinctions, they should surely be thanked, even in retrospect, for preventing
imminent real-world extinctions.
Warming helps Biodiversity- their evidence assumes that animals don’t try to adapt to their
changing environment
Idso, Carter and Singer 2011 [Craig D. Ph.D Chairman for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
Robert M. Ph.D Adjunct Research Fellow James Cook University, S. Fred Ph.D President of Science and Environmental Policy Project,
Climate Change¶ Reconsidered¶ 2011 Interim Report” Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
The basis of the IPCC‘s forecasts of impending ¶ extinctions and range retractions is an assumption ¶ that temperatures
will rise so rapidly that many ¶ animal species will not be able to migrate poleward ¶ in latitude or upward in elevation
rapidly enough to ¶ avoid extinction. New research and observational ¶ data contradict this assumption.¶ The
shortcomings associated with models ¶ predicting the impact of climate on distributions of ¶ species ―are so numerous
and fundamental that ¶ common ecological sense should caution us against ¶ putting much faith in relying on their
findings for ¶ further extrapolations‖ (Dormann, 2007). ¶ Empirical data on amphibians, birds, butterflies, ¶ other insects, lizards,
mammals, and even worms ¶ find global warming and its myriad ecological ¶ effects more often expand than contract
animal ¶ habitats, ranges, and populations. Many species ¶ thrive with warmer temperatures, and while ¶ southern
borders of ranges may remain stable, ¶ northern borders move poleward into previously ¶ uninhabitable regions.
88
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Warming Hurts Biodiversity- Flawed Models
Your Biodiversity studies are flawed- difference between fine and coarse grid scales
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
In discussing their findings, Randin et al. suggested that the vastly different results they obtained when using fine and
coarse grid scales might help to explain what they call the Quaternary Conundrum, i.e. "why fewer species than expected
went extinct during glacial periods when models predict so many extinctions with similar amplitude of climate change (Botkin et al.,
2007)." In addition, they noted that "coarse-resolution predictions based on species distribution models are commonly
used in the preparation of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," which are then used by
"conservation planners, managers, and other decision makers to anticipate Biodiversity losses in alpine and other systems across
local, regional, and larger scales," but which, unfortunately, give a highly-warped and erroneous view of the subject.
89
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Warming Solves Coral Reefs- Adaptation
Warming makes coral reefs more resilient- forces them to create a more dynamic symbiotic system
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
With respect to corals finding salvation via symbiont shuffling, we note that although once considered to be members of the single
species SymBiodiversityinium microadriacticum, the tiny zooxanthellae that reside within membrane-bound vacuoles in the cells of
host corals are highly diverse, comprising perhaps hundreds of species, of which several are typically found in each species of coral
(Trench, 1979; Rowan and Powers, 1991; Rowan et al., 1997). Consequently, a particularly ingenious way by which almost any
adaptive response to any type of environmental stress may be enhanced in the face of the occurrence of that stress
would be for corals to replace the zooxanthellae they expel during a stress-induced bleaching episode by one or more
varieties of zooxanthellae that are more tolerant of the stress that caused the bleaching.¶ Rowan et al. (1997) suggested
that this phenomenon occurs in many of the most successful Caribbean corals that act as hosts to dynamic multi-species
communities of symbionts, and that "coral communities may adjust to climate change by recombining their existing host
and symbiont genetic diversities," thereby reducing the amount of damage that might subsequently be expected from
another occurrence of anomalously high temperatures. In fact, Buddemeier and Fautin (1993) suggested that coral bleaching
is actually an adaptive strategy for "shuffling" symbiont genotypes to create associations better adapted to new
environmental conditions that challenge the status quo of reef communities.¶ Saying essentially the same thing in yet
another way, Kinzie (1999) suggested that coral bleaching "might not be simply a breakdown of a stable relationship that
serves as a symptom of degenerating environmental conditions," but that it "may be part of a mutualistic relationship
on a larger temporal scale, wherein the identity of algal symbionts changes in response to a changing environment." This
process of replacing less-stress-tolerant symbionts by more-stress-tolerant symbionts is also supported by the investigations of
Rowan and Knowlton (1995) and Gates and Edmunds (1999); and the strategy seems to be working, for as Glynn (1996) observed,
"despite recent incidences of severe coral reef bleaching and mortality, no species extinctions have yet been documented."
90
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Warming Hurts Coral Reefs
Coral is resilient to bleaching
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
With respect to corals adapting to greater warmth, Adjeroud et al. (2005) documented -- in a study of 13 islands in four of the five
archipelagoes of French Polynesia -- the effects of natural perturbations on various coral assemblages over the period 1992-2002, during
which time the reefs were subjected to three major coral bleaching events (1994, 1998, 2002). Finding that the impacts of the
bleaching events were variable among the different study locations, and that "an interannual survey of reef communities at Tiahura, Moorea, showed that the
mortality of coral colonies following a bleaching event was decreasing with successive events, even if the latter have the
same intensity (Adjeroud et al., 2002)," they concluded that the "spatial and temporal variability of the impacts observed at
several scales during the present and previous surveys may reflect an acclimation and/or adaptation of local
populations," such that "coral colonies and/or their endosymbiotic zooxanthellae may be phenotypically (acclimation) and possibly
genotypically (adaptation) resistant to bleaching events," citing the work of Rowan et al. (1997), Hoegh-Guldberg (1999), Kinzie et al. (2001) and
Coles and Brown (2003) in support of this conclusion.¶ Other researchers have confirmed the phenomenon of thermal adaptation in coral reefs. Guzman and Cortes
(2007), for example, studied reefs of the eastern Pacific Ocean that "suffered unprecedented mass mortality at a regional scale as a consequence of the anomalous
sea warming during the 1982-1983 El Niño." In a survey of three representative reefs they conducted in 1987 at Cocos Island, for example, they found that remaining
live coral cover was only 3% of what it had been prior to the occurrence of the great El Niño four years earlier (Guzman and Cortes, 1992); and based on this finding
and the similar observations of other scientists at other reefs, they predicted that "the recovery of the reefs' framework would take centuries, and recovery of live
coral cover, decades."¶ In 2002, however, nearly 20 years after the disastrous coral-killing warming, they returned to see just how prescient they might have been
after their initial assessment of the El Niño's horrendous damage, quantifying the live coral cover and species composition of five reefs, including the three they
assessed in 1987. And in doing so, they found that overall mean live coral cover had increased nearly five-fold, from 3% in 1987 to 14.9% in 2002, at the three sites
studied during both periods, while the mean live coral cover of all five sites studied in 2002 was 22.7%. In addition, they found that most new recruits and adults
belonged to the main reef building species of the past, suggesting that a disturbance as outstanding as the 1982-1983 El Niño "was not sufficient to change the role or
composition of the dominant species."¶ The most interesting aspect of their study, however, was the fact that a second major El Niño had occurred between the two
assessment periods; and Guzman and Cortes report that the 1997-1998 warming event around Cocos Island was more intense than all previous El Niño events, noting
that temperature anomalies above 2°C lasted 4 months in 1997-1998 compared to 1 month in 1982-83. Nevertheless, they found that "the coral communities
suffered a lower and more selective mortality in 1997-1998, as was also observed in other areas of the eastern Pacific (Glynn et al., 2001; Cortes and Jimenez, 2003;
Zapata and Vargas-Angel, 2003)," which is indicative of some form of thermal adaptation in the wake of the 1982-83 El Niño.¶ One year later, Maynard et al. (2008)
described how they analyzed the bleaching severity of three genera of corals (Acropora, Pocillopora and Porites) via underwater video surveys of five sites in the
central section of Australia's Great Barrier Reef in late February and March of 1998 and 2002, while contemporary sea surface temperatures were acquired from
satellite-based Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer data that were calibrated to local ship- and drift buoy-obtained measurements, and surface irradiance
data were obtained "using an approach modified from that of Pinker and Laszlo (1991)."¶ With respect to temperature, the four researchers report that "the amount
of accumulated thermal stress (as degree heating days) in 2002 was more than double that in 1998 at four of the five sites," and that "average surface irradiance
during the 2002 thermal anomaly was 15.6-18.9% higher than during the 1998 anomaly." Nevertheless, they found that "in 2002, bleaching severity was 30-100%
lower than predicted from the relationship between severity and thermal stress in 1998, despite higher solar irradiances during the 2002 thermal event." In addition,
they found that the "coral genera most susceptible to thermal stress (Pocillopora and Acropora) showed the greatest increase in tolerance."¶ In discussing their
findings, Maynard et al. wrote that they were "consistent with previous studies documenting an increase in thermal tolerance between bleaching events (1982-1983
vs. 1997-1998) in the Galapagos Islands (Podesta and Glynn, 2001), the Gulf of Chiriqi, the Gulf of Panama (Glynn et al., 2001), and on Costa Rican reefs (Jimenez et
al., 2001)," and they report that "Dunne and Brown (2001) found similar results to [theirs] in the Andaman Sea, in that bleaching severity was far reduced in 1998
compared to 1995 despite sea-temperature and light conditions being more conducive to widespread bleaching in 1998."¶ As for the significance of these and other
observations, the Australian scientists stated that "the range in bleaching tolerances among corals inhabiting different thermal realms suggests that at least some
coral symbioses have the ability to adapt to much higher temperatures than they currently experience in the central Great Barrier Reef," citing in this regard, the
work of Coles and Brown (2003) and Riegl (1999, 2002). In addition, they note that "even within reefs there is a significant variability in bleaching susceptibility for
many species (Edmunds, 1994; Marshall and Baird, 2000), suggesting some potential for a shift in thermal tolerance based on selective mortality (Glynn et al., 2001;
Jimenez et al., 2001) and local population growth alone." Above and beyond that, they said their results suggest "a capacity for acclimatization or adaptation."¶ In
concluding their paper, Maynard et al. wrote "there is emerging evidence of high genetic structure within coral species (Ayre and Hughes, 2004)," which suggests, in
their words, that "the capacity for adaptation could be greater than is currently recognized." Indeed, as stated by Skelly et al. (2007), "on
the basis of the present knowledge of genetic variation in performance traits and species' capacity for evolutionary response, it can be concluded that
91
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
evolutionary change will often occur concomitantly with changes in climate as well as other environmental changes."
Consequently, it can be appreciated that if global warming were to start up again (it has been in abeyance for about the last decade), it
need not spell the end for earth's highly adaptable corals.¶ But how is it done? How do corals adjust to rising temperatures?¶ One adaptive
mechanism that corals have developed to survive the thermal stress of high water temperature is to replace the
zooxanthellae expelled by the coral host during a stress-induced bleaching episode by one or more varieties of
zooxanthellae that are more heat tolerant. Another mechanism is to produce heat shock proteins that help repair heatdamaged constituents of their bodies (Black et al., 1995; Hayes and King, 1995; Fang et al., 1997). Sharp et al. (1997), for example, demonstrated that
sub-tidal specimens of Goniopora djiboutiensis typically have much lower constitutive levels of a 70-kD heat shock protein than do their intertidal con-specifics; and
they have shown that corals transplanted from sub-tidal to intertidal locations (where temperature extremes are greater and more common) typically increase their
expression of this heat shock protein.
Coral bleaching is wrong
Idso, Carter and Singer 2011 [Craig D. Ph.D Chairman for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
Robert M. Ph.D Adjunct Research Fellow James Cook University, S. Fred Ph.D President of Science and Environmental Policy Project,
Climate Change¶ Reconsidered¶ 2011 Interim Report” Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
While some corals exhibit a propensity to bleach ¶ and die when sea temperatures rise, others exhibit a ¶ positive
relationship between calcification, or ¶ growth, and temperature. ―Such variable bleaching ¶ susceptibility implies that
there is a considerable ¶ variation in the extent to which coral species are ¶ adapted to local environmental conditions‖ ¶
(Maynard et al., 2008).¶ The latest research suggests corals have effective ¶ adaptive responses to climate change, such
as ¶ symbiont shuffling, that allow reefs in some areas ¶ to flourish despite or even because of rising ¶ temperatures. Coral reefs
have been able to recover ¶ quickly from bleaching events as well as damage ¶ from cyclones.¶ Bleaching and other signs
of coral distress ¶ attributed to global warming are often due to other ¶ things, including rising levels of nutrients and ¶
toxins in coastal waters caused by runoff from ¶ agricultural activities on land and associated ¶ increases in sediment delivery.
92
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Ocean Acidification
Estimates of ocean acidification are overblown
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
The chemistry aspect of the ocean acidification hypothesis is rather straightforward, but it is not as solid as many make it out to be;
and a number of respected researchers have published papers demonstrating that the drop in oceanic pH will not be nearly as
great as the IPCC and others predict it will be, nor that it will be as harmful as they claim it will be. Consider, for example,
the figure below, which shows historical and projected fossil fuel CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations out to the
year 2500, as calculated by NOAA's Pieter Tans (2009). As can be seen there, his analysis indicates that the air's CO2
concentration will peak well before 2100, and at only 500 ppm compared to the 800 ppm value predicted in one of the
IPCC's scenarios. And it is also worth noting that by the time the year 2500 rolls around, the atmosphere's CO2 concentration
actually drops back down to about what it is today. ¶ When these emissions estimates are transformed into reductions of
oceanic pH, it can readily be seen in the following figure that Tans' projected pH change at 2100 is far less than that of
the IPCC. And Tans' analysis indicates a pH recovery to values near those of today by the year 2500, clearly suggesting
that things are not the way the world's climate alarmists make them out to be, especially when it comes to
anthropogenic CO2 emissions and their effects on the air's CO2 content and oceanic pH values.
The fish will adapt to ocean acidification
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change) Sherwood B. (president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February “Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
Two other phenomena that suggest the predicted decline in oceanic pH will have little to no lasting negative effects on
marine life are the abilities of essentially all forms of life to adapt and evolve. Of those experiments in the database that
report the length of time the organisms were subjected to reduced pH levels, for example, the median value was only
four days. And many of the experiments were conducted over periods of only a few hours, which is much too short a time
for organisms to adapt or evolve to successfully cope with new environmental conditions. And when one allows for such
phenomena -- as oceanic pH declines ever-so-slowly in the real world of nature -- the possibility of marine life
experiencing a negative response to ocean acidification becomes even less likely (Idso, 2009).
93
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
CO2 doesn’t cause acidification and it doesn’t kill everything in the ocean anyways
Idso, Carter and Singer 2011 [Craig D. Ph.D Chairman for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
Robert M. Ph.D Adjunct Research Fellow James Cook University, S. Fred Ph.D President of Science and Environmental Policy Project,
Climate Change¶ Reconsidered¶ 2011 Interim Report” Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
The IPCC expresses concern that rising ¶ atmospheric CO2 concentrations are lowering the ¶ pH values of oceans and
seas, a process called ¶ acidification, and that this could harm aquatic life. ¶ But the drop in pH values that could be
attributed ¶ to CO2 is tiny compared to natural variations ¶ occurring in some ocean basins as a result of ¶ seasonal
variability, and even day-to-day variations ¶ in many areas. Recent estimates also cut in half the ¶ projected pH reduction of ocean
waters by the year ¶ 2100 (Tans, 2009).¶ Real-world data contradict predictions about the ¶ negative effects of rising
temperatures, rising CO2¶ concentrations, and falling pH on aquatic life. ¶ Studies of algae, jellyfish, echinoids, abalone,
sea ¶ urchins, and coral all find no harmful effects ¶ attributable to CO2 or acidification.
94
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Warming Causes Resource Wars
No resource wars from warming
Jaworowski 2004 [Professor Zbigniew M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. is the chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for
Radiological Protection in Warsaw. Winter “Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate” 21st Century Science Tech
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf]
The strongest fears of the population concern the melting of¶ mountain glaciers and parts of the Greenland and Antarctic
continental glaciers, which supposedly would lead to a rise in the¶ oceanic level by 29 centimeters in 2030, and by 71 cm in
2070.¶ Some forecasts predict that this increase of ocean levels could ¶ reach even 367 cm.24¶ In this view, islands, coastal
regions, and¶ large metropolitan cities would be flooded, and whole nations¶ would be forced to migrate. On October 10,
1991, The New¶ York Times announced that as soon as 2000, the rising ocean ¶ level would compel the emigration of a few million
people.¶ Doomsayers preaching the horrors of warming are not troubled by the fact that in the Middle Ages, when for a
few hundred years it was warmer than it is now, neither the Maldive¶ atolls nor the Pacific archipelagos were flooded.
Global¶ oceanic levels have been rising for some hundreds or thousands of years (the causes of this phenomenon are not
clear).¶ In the last 100 years, this increase amounted to 10 cm to 20¶ cm,24¶ but it does not seem to be accelerated by the
20th¶ Century warming. It turns out that in warmer climates, there is¶ more water that evaporates from the ocean (and
subsequently¶ falls as snow on the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps) than ¶ there is water that flows to the seas from melting
glaciers.17
95
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
***Ice Age***
96
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Ice Age 1NC
Fast Ice age is coming and causes extinction- way worse than warming
Jaworowski 2004 [Professor Zbigniew M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. is the chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for
Radiological Protection in Warsaw. Winter “Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate” 21st Century Science Tech
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf]
The climate is constantly changing. Alternate cycles of long¶ cold periods and much shorter interglacial warm periods occur¶ with
some regularity. The typical length of climatic cycles in the¶ last 2 million years was about 100,000 years, divided into¶ 90,000 years
for Ice Age periods and 10,000 years for the warm,¶ interglacial ones. Within a given cycle, the difference in temperature between
the cold and warm phases equals 3°C to 7°C.¶ The present warm phase is probably drawing to an end—the¶ average
duration of such a phase has already been exceeded by¶ 500 years. Transition periods between cold and warm climate¶
phases are dramatically short: They last for only 50, 20, or even¶ 1 to 2 years, and they appear with virtually no warning. It is
difficult to predict the advent of the new Ice Age—the¶ time when continental glaciers will start to cover Scandinavia, ¶ Central and
Northern Europe, Asia, Canada, the United States,¶ Chile, and Argentina with an ice layer hundreds and thou- sands of meters thick;
when mountain glaciers in the¶ Himalayas, Andes, and Alps, in Africa and Indonesia, once¶ again will descend into the valleys. Some
climatologists claim¶ that this will happen in 50 to 150 years.53, 54¶ What fate awaits the Baltic Sea, the lakes, the forests, animals,
cities, nations, and the whole infrastructure of modern¶ civilization? They will be swept away by the advancing ice and¶
then covered by moraine hills. This disaster will be incomparably more calamitous than all the doomsday prophecies of
the¶ proponents of the man-made global warming hypothesis.¶ Similarly, as the study of Friis-Christensen and Lassen50¶
shows, observations in Russia established a very high correlation between the average power of the solar activity cycles (of ¶ 10 years
to 11.5 years duration) and the surface air temperature, and “leave little room for anthropogenic impact on the ¶ Earth’s climate.”55
Bashkirtsev and Mashnich, Russian physicists from the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk,¶ found that between 1882 and
2000, the temperature response¶ of the atmospheric air lagged behind the sunspot cycles by ¶ approximately 3 years in Irkutsk, and
by 2 years over the entire¶ globe.56¶ They found that the lowest temperatures in the early ¶ 1900s corresponded to the lowest solar
activity, and that other¶ temperature variations, until the end of the century, followed ¶ the fluctuations of solar activity.¶ The current
sunspot cycle is weaker than the preceding¶ cycles, and the next two cycles will be even weaker.¶ Bashkirtsev and Mishnich expect
that the minimum of the secular cycle of solar activity will occur between 2021 and 2026, ¶ which will result in the minimum global
temperature of the¶ surface air. The shift from warm to cool climate might have ¶ already started. The average annual air
temperature in Irkutsk,¶ which correlates well with the average annual global temperature of the surface air, reached its maximum
of +2.3°C in¶ 1997, and then began to drop to +1.2°C in 1998, to +0.7°C in¶ 1999, and to +0.4°C in 2000. This prediction is in
agreement¶ with major changes observed currently in biota of Pacific ¶ Ocean, associated with an oscillating climate cycle of about¶
50 years’ periodicity.57¶ The approaching new Ice Age poses a real challenge for¶ mankind, much greater than all the
other challenges in history.¶ Before it comes—let’s enjoy the warming, this benign gift from¶ nature, and let’s vigorously
investigate the physics of clouds. F.¶ Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe58¶ stated recently that “without¶ some artificial means of
giving positive feedback to the climate¶ . . . an eventual drift into Ice Age conditions appears¶ inevitable.” These
conditions “would render a large fraction of¶ the world’s major food-growing areas inoperable, and so¶ would
inevitably lead to the extinction of most of the present¶ human population.” According to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe,¶
“those who have engaged in uncritical scaremongering over an¶ enhanced greenhouse effect raising the Earth’s
temperature by¶ a degree or two should be seen as both misguided and dangerous,” for the problem of the present “is
of a drift back into an¶ Ice Age, not away from an Ice Age.”
97
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Ice Age Now
Newest satellite data says Ice Age is coming
Rose 2012 [David, The Daily Mail, January 29, “Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA
scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-globalwarming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html]
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new
temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.¶ The figures suggest that we could even be
heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.¶ Based on readings from more than 30,000
measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising
trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
98
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
A2 Warming Causes Ice Age
Warming doesn’t cause ice age
Idso, Carter and Singer 2011 [Craig D. Ph.D Chairman for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
Robert M. Ph.D Adjunct Research Fellow James Cook University, S. Fred Ph.D President of Science and Environmental Policy Project,
Climate Change¶ Reconsidered¶ 2011 Interim Report” Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
In setting out to assess this argument, Baehr et al. ¶ (2007) investigated how quickly changes in the North ¶ Atlantic
meridional overturning circulation (MOC) ¶ could be detected by projecting simulated ¶ observations onto a timeindependent spatial pattern ¶ of natural variability, which was derived by ¶ regressing the zonal density gradient along 26°N ¶
against the strength of the MOC at 26°N within a ¶ model-based control climate simulation, which ¶ pattern was compared against
observed anomalies ¶ found between the 1957 and 2004 hydrographic ¶ occupations of this latitudinal section.¶ Looking to the
future, this exercise revealed that ¶ Atlantic MOC changes could likely be detected with ¶ 95 percent reliability after about 30 years,
using ¶ continuous observations of zonal density gradients ¶ that can be obtained from a recently deployed ¶ monitoring array.
Looking to the past, they report, ¶ ―for the five hydrographic occupations of the 26°N ¶ transect, none of the analyzed
depth ranges shows a ¶ significant trend between 1957 and 2004, implying ¶ that there was no MOC trend over the past
50 years.‖¶ The finding is significant because to this point in ¶ time, over which the IPCC claims the Earth has ¶ warmed
at a rate and to a level of warmth that is¶ unprecedented over the past two millennia, there has ¶ been no observable
change in the rate of the North ¶ Atlantic MOC, suggesting either the IPCC is ¶ significantly in error in its characterization of
Earth‘s ¶ current level of warmth or the North Atlantic MOC is ¶ not nearly as sensitive to global warming as many ¶ climate
models employed by the IPCC have ¶ suggested it is.¶ Since Baehr et al. (2007) have used real-world ¶ hydrographic
transect data to demonstrate ―there was ¶ no MOC trend over the past 50 years,‖ we will ¶ probably have more time
to prepare for any ¶ undesirable consequences of a drastic decline in the ¶ Atlantic MOC than did the unfortunate folks
in the ¶ non-award-winning film The Day After Tomorrow.
99
Missouri State Debate
Warming Good/Bad Core
Jeff Bess & Wes Rumbaugh
MSDI 2014
Ice Age Will Kill Biodiversity
Warming is comparatively better for arctic populations- ice age would be way worse for
Biodiversity
Jaworowski 2004 [Professor Zbigniew M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. is the chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for
Radiological Protection in Warsaw. Winter “Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate” 21st Century Science Tech
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf]
Cold periods have always meant human calamities and¶ ¶ ecosystem disasters. For example, the last cold period, the so
called Little Ice Age, brought famine and epidemics to Europe¶ ¶ and in Finland that contributed to the extinction of two
thirds of¶ ¶ the population. On the other hand, during the warm periods,¶ ¶ plants, animals, and human communities
thrived and prospered.¶ ¶ For many years we have been taught that climate warming will¶ ¶ cause a series of disasters: ocean level
rise, Arctic ecological disaster, droughts and floods, agriculture catastrophes, rising numbers and violence of hurricanes, epidemics
of infectious and parasitic diseases, and so on. The impacts of warming, so it seems,¶ ¶ must be always negative, never
positive. But is it really so?¶ ¶ Let’s take a look at the Arctic. At the request of the Norwegian ¶ ¶ government’s Interdepartmental
Climatic Group, together with ¶ ¶ three colleagues from the Norsk Polar Institute, I have studied the¶ ¶ impact of a possible climate
warming on the Arctic flora and¶ ¶ fauna in the region of Svalbard. Special concerns involved possible polar bear extinction. Our
report 23¶ ¶ states that in the period¶ ¶ from 1920 to 1988, the temperature on Spitsbergen and on adjacent Jan Mayen isle dropped
by nearly 2°C, contrary to the predictions by Dr. Schneider and his followers. For the study’s sake, ¶ ¶ however, we made an
assumption that, by¶ ¶ some miracle, the Arctic climate would be¶ ¶ warmed up by a few degrees Celsius, with¶ ¶ a higher carbon
dioxide concentration in¶ ¶ the air. Under this assumption, we investigated the fate of plants, sea plankton, fish, ¶ ¶ bears, reindeer,
seals, and millions of birds¶ ¶ inhabiting this region.¶ ¶ It turned out that at higher CO2¶ ¶ concentration and higher
temperatures, the¶ ¶ productivity of the Arctic ecological system always rises. Historic records and¶ ¶ modern statistics
show that in warmer¶ ¶ periods, more fish have been caught in¶ ¶ the Barents Sea, and the populations of¶ ¶ reindeer,
birds, seals, and bears also¶ ¶ expanded. Over land, the mass of vegetation for reindeer increased, and in the¶ ¶ sea,
plankton became more plentiful.¶ ¶ This allowed the fish population to¶ ¶ increase, expanding food resources for¶ ¶
birds and seals, which, in turn, are eaten¶ ¶ by polar bears. In conclusion: Climate¶ ¶ warming would be beneficial for the¶ ¶
whole system of life in the Arctic, and¶ ¶ polar bears would be more numerous¶ ¶ than today.
100