CDL Core Files 2014/2015
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage
Index
NEG
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage Negative
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage Negative ................................................................... 1
1NC NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage [1/5] ................................................................................. 2
1NC NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage [2/5] ................................................................................ 3
1NC NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage [3/5] ................................................................................ 4
1NC NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage [4/5] ................................................................................ 5
1NC NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage [5/5] ................................................................................ 6
2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #1 – “No Funding Now” [1/1] .................................................... 8
2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #2 – “No Tradeoff” [1/2] ........................................................... 9
2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #2 – “No Tradeoff” [2/2] ..........................................................10
2NC / 1NR Extension: A/T #3 – “Not Key to Climate Change” [1/1] .................................... 11
2NC / 1NR Extension: A/T #4 – “No Impact” [1/1] ............................................................... 12
Answers follow in the same file.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage
1NC Shell
NEG
1NC NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage [1/5]
A. Uniqueness – The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Assocation’s funding for
weather satellites is stable in the status quo
Leone 6-12
[Daniel. Staff Writer for Space News. “House and Senate Find Common Ground on NOAA Budget” Space News,
6/12/14 Available via Lexis-Nexis]
The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on June 5 approved a budget bill that would give the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration about $5.4 billion in 2015, including some $2.1 billion for its
major weather satellite programs — a small increase over 2014 that is about even with the White House’s
2015 request and what House appropriators included in a competing bill approved in May.¶ Senate and
House appropriators now seem to be more or less on the same page when it comes to the weather agency’s
2015 budget, even if they do not agree fully with the White House — or each other — on every detail.¶
Senate appropriators, like their counterparts in the House, agreed to give NOAA’s two major weather
satellite programs the roughly $130 million boost the White House requested in March. That comes out to
about $916 million for the Joint Polar Satellite System, some $95 million more than 2014, and about $981
million for the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R, roughly $39 million more than
2014. The second Joint Polar Satellite System spacecraft is slated to launch in 2017 — a testbed satellite
launched in 2011 was pressed into service as the program’s first — while the next geostationary satellite
would lift off in 2016.¶ Likewise, both Senate and House appropriators have now directed NASA to take
over full development responsibility for the Jason-3 ocean altimetry satellite and the Deep Space Climate
Observatory (DSCOVR), stripping NOAA management of their role in the development process, but
keeping the weather agency in charge of on-orbit operations.¶ The House and Senate bills, however, differ
on funding levels for these two projects. Senate appropriators included $25.6 million for Jason-3, a little
less than the $25.7 million the White House wanted but $10 million more than the House bill includes.
The Deep Space Climate Observatory would get $24.8 million under the Senate bill — $4.8 million more
than the House approved and $3.5 million more than the White House requested.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage
1NC Shell
NEG
1NC NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage [2/5]
B. Link – the plan introduces a budgetary tradeoff that undermines funding for
weather satellites
Showstack 2012
[Randy. Staff Writer for the Transactions American Geophysical Union. “NOAA Budget Would Boost Satellite
Funding but Cut some Key Areas” Transactions American Geophysical Union, 3/6/12 Available via Wiley Online.]
The White House’s proposed fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), announced on 13 February, looks favorable at first glance. The administration’s
request calls for $5.1 billion, an increase of $153 million (3.1%) above the FY 2012 estimated budget.
However, the increase for NOAA satellites is $163 million, which means that other areas within the agency
would be slated for decreased funding, including programs within the National Ocean Service (NOS),
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Weather Service (NWS), and some NOAA education
programs.¶ The proposed overall budget for the agency “reflects the overarching importance of weather
satellites to public safety, to national security, and to the economy,” NOAA director Jane Lubchenco said
at a 16 February briefing, noting that difficult choices were made regarding the budget. “Due to significant
resources required for our weather satellites and the economic conditions in the country, other parts of
our budget have been reduced, in some cases quite significantly,” she said. She added that the imperative
to fund both the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and geostationary satellites in FY 2013 “imposes
serious constraints on the rest of NOAA’s budget.”¶ The budget for the National Environmental Satellite,
Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) would increase 8.7% to $2.041 billion. This includes full funding
for the JPSS ($916.4 million, down from $924 million). In addition, funding for the Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellite–R Series (GOES-R) would increase to $802 million, up from $615.6
million. Environmental satellite observing systems would receive $123.2 million, up from $112.5 million.
However, NOAA’s Climate Database Modernization Program to preserve and enhance the availability of
climate and environmental data would be terminated.¶ Cuts Proposed for NOAA’s “Wet” Side¶ The NOS
budget of $478.1 million (down 2.4% from FY 2012) would include $149.6 million for navigation services
(trimmed from $148 million), $166.1 million for ocean resources conservation and assessment (down
from $163.3 million), and $142.8 mil - lion for ocean and coastal management (a dip from $148.2
million). Lubchenco said the budget would maintain core mission functions, including funding for
navigation services and marine sanctuary and coastal zone management programs. She highlighted the
$24.3-million request for response and restoration capabilities, $29.5 million for the Integrated Ocean
Observing System, and $11 million for NOAA competitive research. However, she said targeted losses
would include the termination of navigation response teams and the coastal and estuarine land
conservation pro - gram and a funding cut for mapping and charting.¶ Compared to FY 2012, NMFS
funding would drop to $880.3 million (down 1.6%). Some areas would receive boosts, including funding
for fisheries research and management ($430.1 million, up $4 million) and for improving enforcement
and observer programs ($110.3 million, up $4.9 million). However, programs on the short end would
include Habitat Conservation and Restoration ($36 million, down $11.3 million) and NOAA’s regional
councils and fisheries com - missions ($27.3 million, down $5.1 million). Lubchenco said it is unclear
what the reduction will mean for the councils. The bud - get also calls for closing the James J. Howard
Marine Sciences Laboratory at Sandy Hook, N. J., a move strongly opposed by several members of the
state’s congressional delegation.¶ The budget “is troubling due to the continued underfunding of NOAA
and its ocean program,” said Jeff Watters, senior manager of government relations for the nonprofit
Ocean Conservancy. “Adding to the burden of overall budget reductions, NOAA is tasked with paying for
new, multibillion- dollar weather satellites, as well as managing our coasts and fisheries. As costs of the
weather- related program continue to rise, there are fewer resources for NOAA’s core ocean programs.
Americans shouldn’t have to choose between forecasting the weather and protecting our ocean. We need
both.Ӧ Matt Tinning, executive director of the nonprofit Marine Fish Conservation Network, applauded
targeted fisheries investments in NOAA’s FY 2013 budget proposal, including additional funding for
fisheries science, surveys, stock assessments, and monitoring. However, he said, “For NOAA to be forced
to reallocate funds from core ocean and science programs to avoid crippling gaps in our nation’s satellite
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage
1NC Shell
NEG
capacity is unsustainable, and we urge Congress and the White House to urgently seek a new approach to
satellite funding.”
1NC NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage [3/5]
C. Internal Link – Sufficient funding is the vital factor for effective weather
satellite functionality
Kicza 2013
[Mary. Asst Administrator of National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service at NOAA. “HEARING
TITLED DYSFUNCTION IN MANAGEMENT OF WEATHER AND CLIMATE SATELLITES BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEES ON ENVIRONMENT AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND
TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,”
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY21-WState-MKicza20130919.pdf]
NOAA was provided an opportunity to review the draft GAO recommendations and NOAA concurs with
the five GAO recommendations for the JPSS Program reflected in that document. We will review the final
report and the recommendations contained therein and will work to address them.¶ The
recommendations include direction to:¶ ● track the extent to which groups of satellite data users are using
Suomi NPP and JPSS products and obtain feedback on these products;¶ ● establish a complete JPSS
Program integrated master schedule that includes a logically linked sequence of activities;¶ ● address the
shortfalls in the ground system and spacecraft component schedules outlined in the report;¶ ● update the
joint cost and schedule confidence level for JPSS-1, if warranted and justified after completing the
integrated master schedule and addressing shortfalls in component schedules; and¶ ● establish a
comprehensive contingency plan for potential satellite data gaps in the polar orbit that is consistent with
the contingency planning best practices identified in this report. The plan should include, for example,
specific contingency actions with defined roles and responsibilities, timelines, and triggers; analysis of the
impact of lost data from the morning orbits, and identification of opportunities to accelerate the
calibration and validation phases of JPSS-1.¶ Refocusing the JPSS Program to a weather mission and
moving content to other programs has improved our confidence on meeting the second quarter FY 2017
launch readiness date for the JPSS-1 satellite, thereby minimizing the possibility of gaps in data coverage
noted in the GAO’s “High Risk” report. While there is still a risk of a gap in coverage, recent analyses and
assessments have increased our confidence that we will launch JPSS-1 in the second quarter of FY 2017.
This, coupled with a rigorous management regime for the Suomi NPP satellite to preserve operating life,
gives us confidence that if the satellite continues to perform as expected, we will significantly reduce risk
of a gap of coverage in the afternoon orbit. However, sufficient funding is required to ensure that we
maintain the current acquisition schedule.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage
1NC Shell
NEG
1NC NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage [4/5]
D. The alternative is runaway, unmitigated climate change
Davis 2011
[Gary. Director of Satellite Operations at NOAA. “History of the NOAA Satellite Program” 2011.
http://www.osd.noaa.gov/download/JRS012504-GD.pdf]
JPSS will ensure continuity of crucial climate observations and weather data in the future. Data and
imagery obtained from the JPSS will increase timeliness and accuracy of public warnings and forecasts of
climate and weather events reducing the potential loss of human life and property damage. The data
collected by JPSS will contribute to the unified and coherent long-term environmental observations and
products that are critical to climate modelers and decision makers concerned with advancing climate
change understanding, prediction, mitigation and adaptation strategies, policies, and science. JPSS, with
its global view, will play a vital role in continuing these climate data records for the US and the
international community.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage
1NC Shell
NEG
1NC NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage [5/5]
E. Impact: Climate change threatens species extinction, which would lead to a
breakdown in ecological balance, threatening all life
Roberts 2013
[Staff Writer for Grist, citing the World Bank Review’s compilation of climate studies – “4 degree projected warming,
can’t adapt - heat wave related deaths, forest fires, crop production, water wars, ocean acidity, sea level rise, climate
migrants, biodiversity loss.” "If you aren’t alarmed about climate, you aren’t paying attention", January 10, 2013,
http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-alarmism-the-idea-is-surreal]
We know we’ve raised global average temperatures around 0.8 degrees C so far. We know that 2 degrees C
is where most scientists predict catastrophic and irreversible impacts. And we know that we are currently
on a trajectory that will push temperatures up 4 degrees or more by the end of the century. What would 4
degrees look like? A recent World Bank review of the science reminds us. First, it’ll get hot: Projections for
a 4°C world show a dramatic increase in the intensity and frequency of high-temperature extremes.
Recent extreme heat waves such as in Russia in 2010 are likely to become the new normal summer in a
4°C world. Tropical South America, central Africa, and all tropical islands in the Pacific are likely to regularly
experience heat waves of unprecedented magnitude and duration. In this new high-temperature climate regime, the
coolest months are likely to be substantially warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th century. In
regions such as the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East, and the Tibetan plateau, almost all summer
months are likely to be warmer than the most extreme heat waves presently experienced. For example, the warmest
July in the Mediterranean region could be 9°C warmer than today’s warmest July. Extreme heat waves in recent years
have had severe impacts, causing heat-related deaths, forest fires, and harvest losses. The impacts of the extreme heat
waves projected for a 4°C world have not been evaluated, but they could be expected to vastly exceed the
consequences experienced to date and potentially exceed the adaptive capacities of many societies and
natural systems. [my emphasis] Warming to 4 degrees would also lead to “an increase of about 150
percent in acidity of the ocean,” leading to levels of acidity “unparalleled in Earth’s history.” That’s bad
news for, say, coral reefs: The combination of thermally induced bleaching events, ocean acidification, and
sea-level rise threatens large fractions of coral reefs even at 1.5°C global warming. The regional extinction
of entire coral reef ecosystems, which could occur well before 4°C is reached, would have profound
consequences for their dependent species and for the people who depend on them for food, income, tourism,
and shoreline protection. It will also “likely lead to a sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter, and possibly more, by 2100, with
several meters more to be realized in the coming centuries.” That rise won’t be spread evenly, even within regions and
countries — regions close to the equator will see even higher seas. There are also indications that it would
“significantly exacerbate existing water scarcity in many regions, particularly northern and eastern Africa, the Middle
East, and South Asia, while additional countries in Africa would be newly confronted with water scarcity on a national
scale due to population growth.” Also, more extreme weather events: Ecosystems will be affected by more frequent
extreme weather events, such as forest loss due to droughts and wildfire exacerbated by land use and agricultural
expansion. In Amazonia, forest fires could as much as double by 2050 with warming of approximately 1.5°C to 2°C
above preindustrial levels. Changes would be expected to be even more severe in a 4°C world. Also loss of biodiversity
and ecosystem services: In a 4°C world, climate change seems likely to become the dominant driver of
ecosystem shifts, surpassing habitat destruction as the greatest threat to biodiversity. Recent research
suggests that large-scale loss of biodiversity is likely to occur in a 4°C world, with climate change and high
CO2 concentration driving a transition of the Earth’s ecosystems into a state unknown in human
experience. Ecosystem damage would be expected to dramatically reduce the provision of ecosystem
services on which society depends (for example, fisheries and protection of coastline afforded by coral reefs
and mangroves.) New research also indicates a “rapidly rising risk of crop yield reductions as the world warms.” So
food will be tough. All this will add up to “large-scale displacement of populations and have adverse consequences for
human security and economic and trade systems.” Given the uncertainties and long-tail risks involved, “there is no
certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible.” There’s a small but non-trivial chance of advanced civilization
breaking down entirely. Now ponder the fact that some scenarios show us going up to 6degrees by the end of the
century, a level of devastation we have not studied and barely know how to conceive. Ponder the fact that somewhere
along the line, though we don’t know exactly where, enough self-reinforcing feedback loops will be running to
make climate change unstoppable and irreversible for centuries to come. That would mean handing our
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage
1NC Shell
NEG
grandchildren and their grandchildren not only a burned, chaotic, denuded world, but a world that is
inexorably more inhospitable with every passing decade.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage
2NC / 1NR Extensions
NEG
2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #1 – “No Funding Now” [1/1]
1. NOAA weather satellites are sufficiently funded in the status quo – NOAA’s
budget was recently re-allocated and included $2.1Billion for weather satellites.
But having enough money is not a guarantee – the budget is stretched thin and
there are competing priorities – that’s our 1NC Leone evidence.
2. NOAA weather satellites are FULLY FUNDED now
Leone 2014
[Daniel. Staff Writer for Space News. “Profile | Mary Kicza, Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information
Services, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration” 4/28/14
http://www.spacenews.com/article/features/40378profile-mary-kicza-assistant-administrator-for-satellite-andinformation]
Thus NOAA’s two main weather satellite development programs — the Geostationary Operational
Environmental Satellite (GOES)-R and Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) — were fully funded in the
omnibus spending bill that passed in December and covers federal activities for the remainder of 2014.
What’s more, Congress tried to shield these efforts from sequestration, the across-the-board spending
cuts that affected virtually all other federal activities beginning in March 2013.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage
2NC / 1NR Extensions
NEG
2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #2 – “No Tradeoff” [1/2]
1. The plan forces a tradeoff. Weather satellites are funded in the status quo as a
result of the NOAA’s de-prioritizing other areas of the budget. The plan prioritizes
ocean policy over weather satellite monitoring, which forces a tradeoff with
weather satellite effectiveness – that’s our 1NC Showstack evidence.
2. Budget is zero-sum --- new programs require cuts in others
Leopold 2013
[George. Washington-based science and technology writer who is now working with the Policy Program here at the
American Meteorological Society. “Budget Squeeze Spurs U.S. Weather Collaboration,” 4/9/13
http://blog.ametsoc.org/columnists/budget-squeeze-spurs-u-s-weather-collaboration/]
The zero-sum budget process faced by federal agencies means that “if you want something, you have to
give up something else,” says Robbie Hood, director of NOAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems program.
“Our job is to look at all these new technologies” and identify the best option.
3. Ocean exploration in particular trades off with existing NOAA priorities
Adams 2014
[Alex. Oceans Advocate at the National Resource Defense Council. “A Blue Budget Beyond Sequester: Taking Care of
Our Oceans” 3/25/14 http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aadams/a_blue_budget_beyond_sequester.html]
This past year was a tough year - from deep sequester cuts to a government shutdown. Our oceans
definitely felt the budget crunch. After much excruciating negotiation, Congress finally passed a budget
and now we are on the road to what we hope will be a saner way to govern and plan.¶ The President has
just released his budget for Fiscal Year 2015. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) budget can mean the difference between thriving oceans and coastal communities, or the decline
in this invaluable public resource. This year’s budget signals that we will invest in protecting that
resource, but by no means provides all that will be needed for the big job ahead. With half of Americans
living in coastal areas, NOAA’s work means protecting our citizens and our natural resources. Moreover,
with a national ocean economy that is larger than the entire U.S. farm sector in terms of jobs and
economic output, keeping this economic powerhouse functioning matters to us all.¶ For fiscal year 2015,
NOAA has proposed a budget of approximately $5.5 billion, an increase of 3.2% above the 2014 enacted
funding levels, which took steps to mitigate the worst effects of sequestration but did not fund programs
at the levels to which they ultimately need to be supported. This is a very modest increase, given the
enormity of the agency’s task. Based on this request, there is every reason why Congress should fund the
President’s Budget. Even the small increases this year recognize the agency’s critical role in feeding our
nation, protecting our coastal economies and preserving our precious ocean resources.¶ NOAA has dual
responsiblilities ranging from mapping the ocean floor to maintaining orbiting satellites for weather
forecasting. And if we want to see investments in protecting coastal economies and ocean health, in
addition to accurate weather data, we need to ensure that NOAA’s budget is able to support both its “wet”,
ocean side, as well as the “dry” weather forecasting activities. This means funding both effective ocean,
coastal, and fisheries programs, in addition to weather forecasts, warnings and satellites. The National
Ocean Service (NOS), which helps us understand and protect our oceans and coasts, will need
investments to continue its work. In FY 2015, NOAA requests a small increase of $20.6 million for NOS
over the 2014 enacted levels.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage
2NC / 1NR Extensions
NEG
2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #2 – “No Tradeoff” [2/2]
Adams evidence continues, no text deleted…
With renewed commitment from both the Administration and communities around our nation to prepare
for the impacts of a changing climate, NOAA’s budget includes programs to help our nation adapt to these
changes. Some of our nation’s fishermen are on the front lines of climate impacts, as they watch more
acidic waters decimate oyster harvests while fish populations shift away from their classic geographic
range. Because ocean acidification is changing the very chemistry of our waters and threatening
productive coastal economies, the President’s Budget has committed $15 million in funding for ocean
acidification research and monitoring. Just ask any shellfish farmer and you will hear that this investment
is long overdue and will help make the difference between abundant harvests and seasons without oysters
to sell.¶ NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is tasked with managing our ocean’s fisheries.
In years past we have seen our fish stocks crash, but thanks to Congressional action in 1996 and 2006 on
the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management Act, stocks around the nation are now rebounding.
Implementing this highly successful Act requires funding to gather accurate data on the status of our fish
stocks and fishery managers to help implement programs. Funding these programs will help ensure our
nations fisheries can continue to support coastal economies while filling our dinner plates for years to
come. This year, NOAA is requesting nearly flat funding for NMFS compared to the FY14 enacted levels,
as those provided funds for fisheries disaster assistance which are not reoccurring. ¶ Unfortunately, some
critical programs won’t get what they need this year. This year’s budget cuts funding for Ocean
Exploration and Research by $7 million. This funding has supported exploration by the research vessel
Okeanos of deep sea corals and other marine life in the submarine canyons and seamounts off the MidAtlantic and New England coasts that fisheries managers and ocean conservation groups, including
NRDC, are working to protect. Even though funds are stretched, shortchanging exploration and research
will lead to weaker protections for species and resources that are already under stress.¶ While we often
think about all of the cutting edge science and data NOAA provides us, we often forget that it takes experts
and assets to bring us those benefits. To address this, the budget includes an increase for NOAA’s
corporate functions and agency management. From forecasting the days’ weather, to protecting our
nation’s fish stocks and helping vulnerable areas prepare for climate change, NOAA can only provide us
these services if it has the capacity and support it needs to fulfill its vital missions.¶
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage
2NC / 1NR Extensions
NEG
2NC / 1NR Extension: A/T #3 – “Not Key to Climate Change” [1/1]
1. Effective funding of weather satellites is key to combat and adapt to climate
change. Weather satellites provide data that allow policymakers to predict climate
change trends and mitigate the damage.
2. Weather satellites are key to understand the complexity of climate change – only
way to resolve the problem.
Sutter 2011
[John. Staff Writer for CNN. “NOAA: Weather Satellites are in Jeopardy” CNN News, 8/24/11 Available via LexisNexis]
The Washington Post reports that meteorologists and officials who coordinate disaster response support
additional funding, too:¶ "Bill Hooke, a senior fellow at the American Meteorological Society, compared
what forecasters would experience when a polar-orbiting satellite is lost to waking up after having a small
stroke," Andrew Freedman writes in the newspaper. "'The world that you're looking at wouldn't seem
quite right to you, and you wouldn't be able to function quite as well,' he said."¶ Scientific American says
the fact that these satellites are used to track climate change as well as weather could make the budget
request unpopular with legislators, some of whom see climate change as a sticky issue.¶ "The information
those satellites collect is also key to understanding climate change -- an unpopular topic on Capitol Hill -but the agency has downplayed that aspect as it presses lawmakers for more cash," that magazine writes.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage
2NC / 1NR Extensions
NEG
2NC / 1NR Extension: A/T #4 – “No Impact” [1/1]
1. Climate change is an existential risk. We are approaching the tipping point in the
status quo, and 4 degrees Celsius makes the damage irreversible. Existing
ecosystems cannot adapt and self-reinforcing feedback loops that exacerbate the
damage – that’s our 1NC Roberts evidence.
2. Climate change causes extinction as a result of environmental damage and
resource scarcity.
Tickell 2008
[Oliver. Climate Researcher. “On a Planet 4C Hotter, All We Can Prepare for is Extinction” The Guardian, 8/11/8. ln]
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. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific
adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would
begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already
experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice
melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms,
the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over
20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go,
look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C
coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as
methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels
rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming
processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming
caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage
Index
AFF
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage Affirmative
NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage Affirmative............................................................. 13
2AC Frontline: NOAA Tradeoff DA [1/4] ............................................................................... 14
2AC Frontline: NOAA Tradeoff DA [2/4] .............................................................................. 15
2AC Frontline: NOAA Tradeoff DA [3/4] .............................................................................. 16
2AC Frontline: NOAA Tradeoff DA [4/4] .............................................................................. 17
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Topicality
AFF
2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs Affirmative
AFF
2AC Frontline: NOAA Tradeoff DA [1/4]
1. Non-unique – weather satellite funding is insufficient in the status quo
Clark 6-11
[Stephen. “Critical anomaly ends long-lived NOAA satellite mission” 6/11/14
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1406/11noaa16/#.U6-WJLE7fyI]
NOAA retired an aging polar-orbiting weather satellite this week that functioned a decade longer than
planned, leaving three spacecraft to bridge a gap before the agency's next-generation weather observatory
launches in 2017. ¶ Ground controllers decommissioned the spacecraft Monday after it completed 70,655
successful orbits of the globe and traveled 2.1 billion miles since its launch on a Titan 2 rocket in
September 2000, according to a NOAA press release.¶ A status update posted on NOAA's website said the
NOAA 16 satellite experienced a "critical anomaly" on June 5. "No data recovery and no command
verification possible at this time," the update said.¶ No other details were provided. ¶ NOAA 16 carried
weather sensors to measure atmospheric temperature and moisture profiles, collect visible and infrared
imagery of clouds and storms, and gather sea surface temperature data.¶ Built by Lockheed Martin Corp.,
the satellite was designed for a lifetime of three-to-five years. Two identical satellites launched in 2005
and 2009 are still operating with NOAA's Suomi NPP mission launched in 2011, which uses an upgraded
spacecraft bus to host more instruments and last longer in orbit.¶ Weather satellites in polar orbit fly in
three groups, each passing over the equator in the early morning, mid-morning and in the afternoon local
time. NOAA is responsible for satellites in the afternoon orbit in a data-sharing arrangement with
Eumetsat, operator of Europe's weather satellites, which has spacecraft providing mid-morning
coverage.¶ The U.S. Air Force has weather satellites in the early morning orbit to supply data to civilian
forecasters and meet the military's own weather data requirements. ¶ Suomi NPP assumed the role as the
primary meteorological satellite flying in the afternoon orbit May 1. Its predecessors, NOAA 18 and NOAA
19, provide other services and act as backups to Suomi NPP.¶ NOAA hopes the trio will live long enough to
ensure no data gap before the first weather platform in the next-generation Joint Polar Satellite System
launches in March 2017.¶ Experts are concerned that weather forecasts will degrade if the older satellites
do not make it until the launch of JPSS 1.¶ NOAA has asked for funding from Congress to build spare
instruments for a potential gap-filler satellite in case JPSS 1 suffers a launch failure or delays.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Topicality
AFF
2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs Affirmative
AFF
2AC Frontline: NOAA Tradeoff DA [2/4]
2. No link – the plan does not trade off with weather satellite functionality
Kicza 2013
[Mary. Asst Administrator of National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service at NOAA. “HEARING
TITLED DYSFUNCTION IN MANAGEMENT OF WEATHER AND CLIMATE SATELLITES BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEES ON ENVIRONMENT AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND
TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,”
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY21-WState-MKicza20130919.pdf]
With funds provided by the Public Law 113-2, “Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013,” NOAA is
implementing a number of strategic actions designed to make its weather forecasting enterprise more
robust in the face of the possibility of a gap in polar-orbiting weather data. These activities seek to make
better use of existing data, take advantage of new data sources planned in the future, improve operational
high performance computing capacity, and improve the assimilation of data into weather prediction
models, including hurricane models. The goal is to minimize the impact of a gap in coverage should it
become a reality. While none of these activities, individually or collectively, can totally replace a lack of
JPSS data, they represent the positive actions NOAA can take to mitigate the loss of these data. Should a
data gap not occur, these investments will nonetheless improve NOAA’s ability to use existing data, thus
improving weather forecasts. These actions are being taken in addition to the steps NOAA is taking to
ensure that JPSS and GOES-R Series satellite development continue as planned.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Topicality
AFF
2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs Affirmative
AFF
2AC Frontline: NOAA Tradeoff DA [3/4]
3. Weather satellites are ineffective at resolving climate change
Hotz 2013
[Robert. Climate Reporter for the Wall Street Journal. “For Weather Satellites, Forecast is Cloudy; Failures of Aging
Devices Threaten to Leave Gap in Key Data” The Wall Street Journal, 6/21/13, available via Lexis-Nexis]
The main U.S. weather satellite watching the eastern seaboard malfunctioned last month for the second
time in a year, underscoring the hazards of aging satellites that monitor the planet as a threatening
hurricane season gets under way.¶ Engineers got it running again. But the difficulties with the seven-yearold weather satellite, called GOES-13, are a symptom of a broader problem, federal, congressional and
university analysts say. Scientists are losing one by one their orbital eyes on Earth, at a time when spacebased sensors have become indispensable for monitoring weather, natural disasters and the atmosphere.¶
Weather forecasters soon will lose key satellite images and atmospheric measurements for a year or
substantially more, because GOES-13 and another spacecraft are expected to fail before replacements can
be launched, federal and congressional auditors said. About 500 federal projects and private contractors—
including commercial firms that use the images for TV weather forecasts—rely on data from the satellites
operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.¶ "NOAA is having a real crisis with
regard to the weather satellites," said atmospheric scientist Dennis Hartmann at the University of
Washington in Seattle, who heads a National Research Council committee that monitors Earthobservation satellite programs.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Topicality
AFF
2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs Affirmative
AFF
2AC Frontline: NOAA Tradeoff DA [4/4]
4. Climate change doesn’t cause extinction
Carter 14
[Robert, PhD, Adjuct Research Fellow, James Cook University, Craig Idso, PhD, Chairman at the Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change, Fred Singer, PhD, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, , Sherwood Idso,
President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Research Physicist with the US Department of
Agriculture, Adjunct Professor in the Departments of Geology, Botany, and Microbiology at Arizona State University, Bachelor of
Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy, all from the University of Minnesota, Madhav Khandekar, former research
scientist from Environment Canada and is an expert reviewer for the IPCC 2007 Climate Change Panel, The following is a list of
contributing authors: David J. Barnes (Australia), Daniel B. Botkin (USA), Raymond A. Cloyd (USA), Susan Crockford (Canada),
Weihong Cui (China), Kees DeGroot (The Netherlands), Robert G. Dillon (USA), John Dale Dunn (USA), Ole Henrik Ellestad
(Norway), Fred Goldberg (Sweden), Barry Goldman (Australia), H. Dickson Hoese (USA), Morten Jødal (Norway), Madhav
Khandekar (Canada), Miroslav Kutilek (Czech Republic), Steven W. Leavitt (USA), Howard Maccabee (USA), Jennifer Marohasy
(Australia), Cliff Ollier (Australia), Jim Petch (United Kingdom), Robert J. Reginato (USA), Paul Reiter (France), Tom Segalstad
(Norway), Gary Sharp (USA), Walter Starck (Australia), David Stockwell (Australia), Mitchell Taylor (Canada), Gerd Weber
(Germany), Bastow Wilson (New Zealand), Raphael Wust (Australia), “Climate Change Reconsidered II,” March 2014, Climate
Change Reconsidered, nipccreport.org]
Carbon dioxide (CO2) does not seriously affect human health until the CO2 content of the air reaches
approximately 15,000 ppm (Luft et al., 1974; Schaefer, 1982), more than 37 times greater than the current
concentration of atmospheric CO2. There is no reason to be concerned about any direct adverse human health
consequences of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content now or in the future, as even extreme model
projections do not indicate anthropogenic activities will raise the air’s CO2 concentration above 1,000 to 2,000
ppm. Nevertheless, IPCC contends rising CO2 concentrations are causing several indirect threats to human
health, which they project will worsen as the air’s CO2 concentration rises in the future. According to a draft
from the Working Group II contribution to IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, The most important effect of
climate change is that it will exacerbate current risks to health [very high confidence]. In recent decades,
climate change has contributed to levels of ill-health (likely). If climate change continues as projected in
scenarios in the next few decades, the major increases of ill-health compared to no climate change will occur
through: Greater incidence of injury, disease, and death due to more intense heat waves, storms, floods, and
fires. [very high confidence] Increased risk of under-nutrition resulting from diminished food production in
poor regions. [high confidence] Increased risks of food- and water-borne diseases and vector-borne infections.
[high confidence] … positive effects will be out-weighed, worldwide, by the magnitude and severity of the
negative effects of climate change. [high confidence] ((IPCC-II, 2013a, Chapter 11, Human Health, p. 3; italics
in original, bold removed and formatting changed). We should note before going on that IPCC’s assignment of
“confidence” levels to each of these claims is purely a rhetorical device and not based on any statistical tests.
(Idso et al., 2013) Placing these expressions of opinion in italics and brackets doesn’t make any of these dubious
or untrue statements any more credible or true. In a draft Technical Summary of the same document, Working
Group II claims, “The health of human populations is sensitive to shifts in weather patterns and other aspects
of climate change [very high confidence] and “There is emerging evidence of non-linearities in response (such
as greater-thanexpected mortality due to heat waves) as climates become more extreme” (IPCC-II, 2013b,
Technical Summary, p. 16; italics in original, bold removed). As shown in the material presented in this chapter,
however, IPCC’s view of the impacts of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 on human health is simply
wrong. Numerous peer-reviewed studies demonstrate a warmer planet is beneficial to humanity, as warmer
temperatures in all parts of the world lead to decreases in temperature-related mortality. The medical literature
shows warmer temperatures and a smaller difference between daily high and low temperatures, as occurred
during the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, reduce mortality rates due to cardiovascular and
respiratory disease and stroke occurrence. Similarly, the research is quite clear that climate has exerted only a
minimal influence on recent trends in vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and tick-borne
diseases. Other factors, many of them related to economic and technological setbacks or progress and not to
weather, are far more important factors determining the transmission and prevalence of such diseases. Finally,
IPCC entirely overlooks several positive effects of rising levels of atmospheric CO2 on human health. Carbon
dioxide fertilization, for example, has been shown to enhance certain health-promoting substances in plants,
such as antioxidants, vitamin C, and fatty acids, and promote the growth of plants such as St. John’s wort used
for the treatment of a variety of illnesses. In this way, global warming portends great health benefits for
humans. IPCC makes no mention of these benefits.